Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three, Revisited

Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three, Revisited

The essay which I am going to present this evening is an update of a paper which I first wrote some time in 2006 or 2007. At first, Clifton Emahiser had published it in December of 2007, in his Watchman's Teaching Letter #116, and although I never hesitated to send copies of my essays, translations, or other writings to him as soon as I had completed them, sometimes he needed awhile to verify them and get around to publishing them, if he was going to publish them at all. Later, this paper was presented here in a podcast on Saturday, January 7th, 2012, and I probably elaborated somewhat doing that. But I never updated the text to the original paper, and I did not keep a copy of any notes or other statements I may have added. Since the original text is nearly 5,400 words, and since that podcast was only an hour and twelve minutes, I probably did not add very much.

Doing this, I also want to speak somewhat about development, and by that, I mean the development of one’s Biblical understanding, and the worldview which may result from that understanding. Each of us may think that we know something about a subject, because we heard some teacher or read some article and maybe even did a little studying on our own which seemed agreeable, so we adopt what we learned and we incorporate it into our belief system, and our worldview. But when contradictory facts arise, we must be willing to examine them, and face a decision. It might be easier to continue in something which is not true, living with a more comfortable lie. But if we return to the subject and study more, then perhaps we can sort out what is the truth, and as the apostles themselves had explained in reference to the men of Berea, that is the more noble Christian approach to the Scriptures. Doing this, we must even be willing to challenge our teachers, if we have facts contrary to anything they may have taught.

Going back to 1997, when I was introduced to the Christian Identity perspective on Scripture, for the first time in my life I found a King James Version of the Bible and read it cover to cover. Having done that, I thought I knew it well enough so that I could at least understand the things which I had been reading. So throughout 1997 and 1998, where I had read a plethora of material written from the various Christian Identity and British Israel perspectives, after a couple of years of study I found Bertrand Comparet most agreeable, and Wesley Swift quite close to him, except perhaps for Swift’s fascination with what I might refer to as New Age occultism. Then some time during the late summer of 1998 I began receiving Clifton’s teaching letters, and he was even closer than Comparet to the things which I had been learning from my own studies, or at least much more detailed. However our friendship did not take root and begin to bear fruit until the end of 1999, which is when I had began proofreading and editing for him.

So that being said, we are all influenced by our teachers. Sometimes that influence is a good foundation upon we which may stand, and sometimes it is a stepping stone, but at other times we may realize that it had only been an obstacle, or that aspects of it had been an obstacle, when we find that our teachers themselves need correction. However that is also acceptable, because there is only One Teacher who is above correction, and that is Yahshua Christ. Then, if one is able to continue to study as a lifelong pursuit, eventually one may progress beyond the level of knowledge of the earthly teachers of the past, and hopefully overcome some of the obstacles which arose in one’s path along the way, things which one may not even perceived as obstacles until there is an encounter some greater revelation, or some contrary fact. Often, we do not even recognize those obstacles until we trip over one of them, and the resulting stumble brings us a new awakening in a perspective which we had not yet considered.

I say this, because this was my own direct experience with a work that I had ignored when I first wrote this paper, Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three, and now I contemplate how much better it may have been from the start, if when I first wrote the paper I had only considered the Song of Songs, or Canticles, which is sometimes also called the Song of Solomon, to be as valuable as I do today. So in the opinion I hold today, a significant portion of the the language in the Song of Songs proves beyond doubt everything that we assert concerning Genesis chapter 3, and the allegories there which describe the touching and eating of the fruit of a particular tree. In hindsight, perhaps I ignored this aspect of the Song of Songs because those men whom I had considered to be my teachers had also neglected this work. While, to his credit, Clifton never really rejected it so far as I know, he nevertheless never mentioned it much. But Bertrand Comparet and Wesley Swift both rejected it outright, as being a love poem which had no place in Scripture. While I would not blame them for my own shortcomings, we are all influenced by our teachers, even if they are only our parents, and that is an aspect of life which may hardly be avoided.

However even in 2007, I did not go as far as Swift and Comparet, who had both rejected the Song of Songs completely. For example, in a November, 1962 sermon titled Snake Nest, Wesley Swift had said that “The Song of Solomon and the book of Esther are fraudulent books and they should not be in your Bible. They are not of ‘thus saith the LORD.’ And they have a propaganda value for those who sought to insert them at that time.” Swift made many other similar remarks in his papers and Bible Studies. That same year, 2007, Clifton had transcribed all of Bertrand Comparet’s sermons, and the PDF copies he created are still on his website today, for both Comparet’s Revelation sermons and the Your Heritage series of sermons. But the text I had moved to the Bertrand Comparet website when I created it, with Clifton’s approval. When Clifton made those transcriptions, I proofread them, or at least, all of them, and often when I proofread, I made notes, sometimes many notes, and Clifton often included my notes in his finished product.

So in Part 4 of his Revelation sermons, Bertrand Comparet had said that “The Song of Songs of Solomon is a beautiful book of ancient poetry, very true. A great deal of poetry has been written by a great many people, yet has no religious significance whatsoever. And that is true of Song of Songs of Solomon, which doesn’t belong in there (in the Bible) because there is no religious significance to it.” When I proofread that sermon for Clifton, I had sent him nearly two dozen notes, which Clifton included, and the last of them reads: “While the Canticles (Song of Solomon, Song of Songs) has no ‘religious significance’, what does that matter? The book would not have survived if it weren’t part of ‘Scripture’, and fortunately it did survive, because it is of great anthropological interest: it proves beyond doubt that Solomon and his wife were white people! Comparet should have spent as much time studying it as he spent criticizing it!”

Some time after Clifton finished transcribing Comparet’s Revelation series, he began to work on the Your Heritage sermons. I don’t think I proofread them all, but only just a portion of them. However I did proofread the sermon on The Book of Esther, and made several notes for Clifton while doing that. In that sermon, as it ended, Comparet had a criticism of the Song of Songs which was nearly four hundred words, which he began by saying: “There is one other book in the Bible that, likewise, I don't believe belongs there either, but it is not harmful; at least it is not like the Book of Esther - and that is the Song of Songs of Solomon.”

So by then, when I sent my editing and notes to Clifton, I had an additional defense of the Song, where I wrote in response in my first note that “The Song of Solomon certainly does belong in Scripture, but Comparet did not realize that it was not actually about Solomon and his wife. Rather, the Song of Solomon is an allegorical love poem illustrating the husband-wife relationship between Yahweh and the children of Israel as His nation-bride.” Much later, I found this same sentiment had been expressed in a paper by William Potter Gale, so the sentiment was extant in the time of Swift and Comparet, but I never had access to any of Gale’s writing until long after that time. Then, in a second note, I had said that: “If we could have shown Comparet the allegories in the Song of Solomon which cannot pertain to any sitting queen, but certainly described the Israelites as a nation, we are certain we could have changed his mind about the poem which represents the greatest love story ever told: that of Yahweh's love for Israel His bride.” Perhaps that planted a seed for Clifton, because in his Watchman’s Teaching Letter #137 for September, 2009, he began a long series titled The Greatest Love Story Ever Told. Even later, in the summer of 2014, Clifton would write a series of pamphlets titled It is Biblical to be Caucasian, which were based on the Song of Songs.

Now of course, I stand by those words found in my notes today, and they are still found in the relevant places at Christogenea, in the Emahiser and Comparet archives. But if I had that later argument when I proofread the Revelation sermon, I am certain that I would have included it then. So I do not know what was the source of the inspiration, but somehow I acquired it along the way, back in 2007. Then much later, in a presentation given here in August, 2016 titled The Importance of the Song of Solomon to Biblical Anthropology, I had elaborated on both of those sentiments which I had expressed in those notes back in 2007. But even then, I had said nothing about the allegories in the Song of Solomon which support our views of the allegories in Genesis chapter 3. Now, looking back at that presentation, even if at times I had seemed to be quite close to realizing the connections, I never quite got there until I had actually set out to do a commentary on the work in October of 2021! So while I had defended the Song of Songs contrary to my own early teachers in 2007, I still had not come to realize the full value of the work for another 14 years.

This has probably also happened to me in many other areas of history or Scripture, and we may all share in the phenomenon. So all we have to do is recognize it, and when it happens, we have to be willing to learn and change our views, if necessary, or if the material stands in agreement with our views, we incorporate it so that it edifies our knowledge base. This is where, in my opinion, most Identity Christians often fail, because they do not want to imagine that their teachers of the past had some incomplete understanding, and taught something wrong for that reason. The truth is that throughout our entire lives, we should remain humble, continue to study, and be willing to learn, and that is how we grow, but it is also how we can better edify others in our faith.

So this is how we should learn. We start out with a little truth, and if we remain humble and willing to learn, we might learn more and more. However we should also never deny that there may be more to learn than what we may ever even be able to know. In the end, we can only know what Yahweh wants us to know, because only He can open our eyes. But that should never be an excuse not to study. A lack of humility will never get one over the obstacles in the way, and if one’s teachers have humility they too should desire to see the rough paths made smooth. For that reason I thought this introduction might be edifying. We are all learning, and any supposed teacher or student of Scripture who cannot admit that he still has things to learn, that he is not still learning, is only deceiving himself. Likewise, there is only One Teacher who already knows everything, and cannot be taught, and that is Yahshua Christ.

So with this we hope to present and augment our 2007 paper, and will endeavor to change the original language only where it is necessary. What follows will take the place of the original essay found on the website, but this entire text including the introduction will be found with the podcast itself:

Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three

The Bible, a collection of very ancient books written in languages which have not been spoken in their original forms for many, many centuries, contains many enigmas for the average reader of modern times. If one does not understand the allegories and idioms expressed in the original language, they may even be lost in translation, if not in reading. This is especially true since many parts of the Bible – and it is the Old Testament being discussed here as well as the New – were written in parables and in the poetic language of prophetic visions. While it is certainly a sound practice to interpret Scripture within the context of Scripture, with the concept in mind that the Word of Yahweh our God very often clarifies and explains itself, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or 73 for the Catholics, or even 80 for the original King James Version compilers of 1611, are not by themselves a complete revelation of the history of Adam-kind (which is the White race). Neither should one be so arrogant as to believe that these books which we now have were the only inspired Scriptures transmitted in antiquity: for not all of the books excluded from canon by early churchmen deserved such a fate, and not all of the books of antiquity survived until the Christian era. Neither can these books be completely understood all by themselves in any language, because of their incomplete state and the antiquity of the languages in which they were written.

In reference to the incomplete state of the Biblical books if they were isolated one from another: as an example, one cannot understand Isaiah, or Jeremiah, without first understanding the history of Israel and Judah in the books of Judges through Kings and Chronicles. But neither will one fully comprehend those, without also having access to and having read the books of Moses, Joshua and Samuel. Then in addition to these, with sound, thorough studies in ancient history and archaeology, many facets of a complete Bible are even much better understood. Not only the historical books of the Bible, but the utterances of the prophets also come to life with studies in these fields, and the certainty of the Word of Yahweh our God is surely made manifest. Furthermore, with studies of the ancient languages in which the Bible was first written, a more certain understanding of that Word is acquired.

Then, unless one looks outside of the Bible, to other ancient writings produced by kindred cultures during the Biblical age, a proper and full understanding of many of the metaphors, idioms and allegories of the Biblical languages shall never be acquired, and the intended meaning of many Biblical passages shall forever remain concealed. So true learning is found in many layers of learning in various disciplines. A reader of Scripture who is not studying these related subjects is only scratching the surface of a very dim reflection.

As we are informed in his own accounts, Moses, the author of Genesis according to Christ Himself, had been raised up in the household of a pharaoh, and therefore he must have been educated in all of the learning of ancient Egypt. Having been adopted by the pharaoh’s daughter, he would naturally have been trained to assume some position in the administration of government, or in diplomacy or the military, all of which are common functions for the men of a ruler’s house. Therefore we cannot imagine that Moses wrote Genesis without drawing on the language, allegories and idioms which he had acquired in his advanced learning, and which were extant throughout the wider world of the time. As we have established in our recent Genesis commentary, the Hebrew language was a dialect of Akkadian, which was the common language for 1,500 years from before the time of Abraham and down to the time of the Babylonians and Persians, and it was also the language of Abraham and his sons. [1] So Moses must have used expressions which were widely understood, or the allegories and idioms in his writings would not have been understood. But Moses must also have been able to speak and write in Egyptian, and he must have been familiar with all of the common Egyptian myths and legends, and the allegories and idioms which they also contain.

The idioms and allegories which we shall concern ourselves with here are found in Genesis chapter 3 in the following verses:

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Those allegories with which we are most concerned are the ones mentioning trees, fruit, and the eating of fruit, and acquiring of wisdom and to be as gods, because for many reasons, this Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil must be something much greater than a mere fruit tree, and the fruit which the serpent had offered the woman must be something much more extraordinary than a mere apple, as it is often depicted. In Genesis chapter 1, when Yahweh God had first made man, we read “27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” If Yahweh God had given Adam “every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed” for food, then we cannot imagine that He contradicted Himself just a few verses later, in Genesis chapter 2, where some time later He had said to Adam “17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Rather, we must know that this tree is simply not a literal tree, just as the tree of Life is not a literal tree. While the other trees of Genesis all grow out of the ground, these trees were simply “in the midst of the garden”.

In an ancient Egyptian hymn titled Amon as the Sole God, our copy of which is dated to as early as the late 14th century BC, we read the following, in part, where it is speaking of that Egyptian god:

Fate and Fortune are with him for everybody. His wife is the fertile field; he impregnates her, for his seed is the fruit tree, and his fluid is the grain … The faces of everybody are on him among men and gods. He is Perception. He who dissolves evils and dispels ailments; a physician who heals the eye without having remedies, opening the eyes and driving away the squint; … Amon. [2]

Here, in Egyptian literature found in documents dated to only about a hundred or so years after the time of Moses, we see sexual activity described in allegories of trees and fruit, and to an Egyptian god is attributed the ability to open one’s eyes. But this and other myths contained in the documents must have dated to a far earlier time.

In another document, attributed to an Egyptian sage who was contemporary to the Judges period, or no later than the 12th century BC, in a work titled The Instruction of Amen-em-opet we read the following:

As for the heated man of a temple,

He is like a tree growing in the open.

In the completion of a moment (comes) its loss of foliage,

And its end is reached in the shipyards;

(Or) it is floated far from its place,

And the flame is its burial shroud.

(But) the truly silent man holds himself apart.

He is like a tree growing in a garden.

It flourishes and doubles its yield;

It (stands) before its lord.

Its fruit is sweet; its shade is pleasant;

And its end is reached in the garden[3]

In that allegory, we see men likened to trees having fruit, and therefore such allegories are found in multiple examples of Egyptian literature from a period which is shortly after the time of Moses. Of course, the allegories may have been in use long before the time of Moses, and as we turn to Akkadian literature, it is certain that they were. So now we shall look at portions of an ancient Mesopotamian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and see that it does indeed help us understand certain of those obscure and often-debated passages which are found in that 3rd chapter of Genesis.

The version of The Epic of Gilgamesh cited here, and some of the information concerning the poem, is from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, and published at Princeton University Press in 1969. In that volume a translation of an Akkadian version of the epic poem is found, but the Akkadian version of the epic is known to have been based upon a much older Sumerian version, parts of which have also been discovered. With all confidence, the Sumerian epic was popular long before the time of Abraham.

Most of the Akkadian tablets containing the epic were uncovered by archaeologists who excavated the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. The Assyrians were Shemites, so they were cousins of the Israelites, who had descended from Asshur the son of Shem who is mentioned at Genesis 10:22. Their language, Akkadian, was the lingua franca (the language of commerce and diplomacy) throughout the ancient world for well over a thousand years up to the Persian period, where after the fall of Nineveh at the end of the seventh century B.C. it was eclipsed by Aramaic, which, along with Hebrew, was a language related to Akkadian. Other fragments of this Akkadian version of the epic have been found elsewhere, some of which are dated to the first half of the second millennium BC, and it is clearly evident that the poem existed in Akkadian even before Moses wrote the Pentateuch. The poem is known to have existed in Sumerian even before the time of Abraham. It is in Sumer, in the Chaldaean city of Ur, where Abraham is first introduced to us in Scripture (Genesis 11:27-32).

The creation of epic poetry as a method of communicating myth and history was a pastime of Adamic cultures throughout ancient times. Unknown to many, the Exodus account as it was written in Hebrew was originally an epic poem, and there are other shorter examples of the genre in Scripture. Reading The Epic of Gilgamesh, the poem surely seems to set the precedent for the later Greek epics about Odysseus, Heracles and Jason and the Argonauts, since they are all elaborate tales of mighty men performing heroic deeds coupled with long journeys to strange places. The character Gilgamesh, like so many early Greek heroes, was said to have been formed by the gods, and to be himself two-thirds god and one-third human. [4] If this brings Genesis chapter 6 to mind, it is surely not an accident.

Gilgamesh is also mentioned several times in the Book of Giants found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, for which see the scrolls designated 4Q530 and 4Q531. The Book of Giants is an elaboration of the Genesis 6 account associated with the apocryphal Enoch literature, a collection of ancient Hebrew stories and prophecies which should not be ignored by serious Bible scholars. If nothing else, this certainly shows us that the Hebrews of Biblical times did not exist in a vacuum: that elements of literary tradition, myth, culture and language were indeed shared with their kindred, neighboring nations.

In this Akkadian epic, Gilgamesh is a mighty man “endowed with super-human size”, who rules as king over the Mesopotamian city Uruk, which is the Erech mentioned at Genesis 10:10 in the Bible. Gilgamesh is portrayed as a greedy, rapacious character, and a harsh ruler who cannot be challenged, having neither rival nor equal. Therefore the people of the land appealed to the god Anu for assistance. With this, the goddess Aruru is beckoned to create another mighty giant, and she complies, creating Enkidu to be a rival to Gilgamesh. Enkidu, created in the wilderness of the steppe, out of the way of civilization and any contact with humans, becomes a great friend and protector of wildlife: a sort of Tarzan-cum-Dr. Doolittle of the ancient world. Soon Enkidu puts animal hunters and trappers in fear, protecting the animals from them and putting them out of their means of living. Seeking relief, a hunter then goes to Uruk, and appeals to Gilgamesh to lend assistance against the mighty savage Enkidu [5].

Rather than leave the city to confront Enkidu, Gilgamesh advises the hunter to subdue the savage giant by quite another method. From Tablet I, part iii, lines 40-45 of the epic:

‘Go, my hunter, take with thee a harlot-lass.

When he waters the beasts at the watering-place,

She shall pull off her clothing, laying bare her ripeness.

As soon as he sees her, he will draw near to her.

Reject him will his beasts that grew up on his steppe!’ [6]

The hunter does as Gilgamesh instructs him to do, and by carrying out the plot he is quite successful. From part iv, lines 16-39 of the same tablet:

The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom,

And he possessed her ripeness.

She was not bashful as she welcomed his ardor.

She laid aside her cloth and he rested upon her.

She treated him, the savage, to a woman’s task,

As his love was drawn unto her.

For six days and seven nights Enkidu comes forth,

Mating with the lass.

After he had (his) fill of her charms,

He set his face toward his wild beasts.

On seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles ran off,

The wild beasts of the steppe drew away from his body.

Startled was Enkidu, as his body became taut,

His knees were motionless – for his wild beasts had gone.

Enkidu had to slacken his pace – it was not as before;

But now he had [wi]sdom, [br]oader understanding. (29)

Returning, he sits at the feet of the harlot.

He looks up at the face of the harlot,

His ears attentive, as the harlot speaks;

[The harlot] says to him, to Enkidu:

‘Thou art [wi]se, Enkidu, art become like a god! (34)

Why with the wild creatures dost thou roam over the

steppe?

Come, let me lead thee [to] ramparted Uruk,

To the holy temple, abode of Anu and Ishtar,

Where lives Gilgamesh, accomplished in strength,

And like a wild ox lords it over the folk.’ [6]

In the subsequent portions of the epic, Enkidu goes on to confront and to challenge Gilgamesh, but he loses the struggle, after which he instead becomes his close companion and fellow adventurer in later exploits.

In lines 29 and 34 of the original tablet recording this portion of the epic which we have just cited, after Enkidu had sexual relations with the harlot we read “now he had wisdom, broader understanding”, and then she is portrayed as having exclaimed to him that “Thou art wise, Enkidu, art become like a god!” On that same page in Ancient Near Eastern Texts a footnote at line 29 reads: “The general parallel to Genesis 3:7 is highly suggestive.” This parallel is, in fact, much more than merely “highly suggestive”, and while there is no similar note for line 34, that is certainly also comparable to Genesis 3:5. The serpent of Genesis chapter 3 lied to Eve and said:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

When Enkidu engaged in sexual intercourse for the first time, it is said that he “art become like a god”. Then once Eve had become seduced by the lie of the serpent and she accepted his offer we read:

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened…

But Adam and Eve did not become as gods, and rather they found death. So evidently, the serpent was lying, and the harlot was also lying, because Enkidu was defeated by Gilgamesh when they had their initial confrontation.

Now indeed, to the rational mind, it should be perfectly evident that the ancient Assyrians, and the Sumerians before them, had related one’s sexual awakening to the attainment of wisdom and understanding (line 29 above, cf. Genesis 3:6-7), and that by attaining such understanding, one was perceived as becoming like a god. Those expressions must have been ingrained into the culture of the time, and that is why they appear in The Epic of Gilgamesh. In the epic, the giant Enkidu had only recently been created on the steppe by the gods so that he would be a rival to Gilgamesh, and he surely had no knowledge of sexual intercourse before he had met the harlot. Likewise, it cannot be assumed that Eve had any knowledge of sexual intercourse before Moses described her as having encountered the serpent. This Akkadian story was being copied and recited during the very time when Moses was writing the books of the Pentateuch, and therefore the idioms of the language are clearly contemporary with Moses, and they were used by a kindred people speaking a closely related dialect!

In a later section of the Epic of Gilgamesh we read the following, where the goddess Ishtar is described as having become enamored with the giant, from Tablet VI of the epic, in part:

When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara,

Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beauty of Gilgamesh:

"Come, Gilgamesh, be thou (my) lover!

Do but grant me of thy fruit.

Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife. [7]

Here we see that when one partakes of the fruit of another, then the two become married, husband and wife. So the granting of fruit represented the act of sexual intercourse which consummates a marriage, so long as it is lawful.

Is the Genesis chapter 3 account also about sexual seduction and awakening? Of course it is, and so we read in verse 7 that “... the eyes of them both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” At “aprons”, a footnote in The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, ©1988, says girding coverings. Similarly, Gesenius’ lexicon defines the Hebrew word for aprons, חגור or chagowr (# 2290) as a belt, girdle or apron [8]. Brown, Driver Briggs agrees, but omits apron [9].

Adam and Eve, ashamed of themselves after their sexual awakening, attempted to conceal their nudity by covering their bodies, specifically their loins – as that type of garment alone is sufficient enough to inform us – that thereby hiding the “scene of the crime”, they sought to hide the source of their feelings of guilt! Note that Adam and Eve were naked before their seduction, “and were not ashamed”, as we are informed in Genesis chapter 2 (2:25). The Genesis chapter 3 account is all about sexual seduction, written in a parable containing ancient Shemitic idioms, which the Shemitic Epic of Gilgamesh certainly helps us to understand, and as we have also seen here, so do certain Egyptian allegories. Now the next questions to be answered must be: Who is the serpent? Or did Adam and Eve have sex with a snake? Or a tree?

The “serpent” is introduced to us at Genesis 3:1: “Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made ...” Many critics assert that this statement somehow proves that the serpent was part of the original creation (Genesis 1:20-25; 2:19-20), and therefore it must be a literal snake. Yet this statement is merely comparing the serpent to the beasts of that original creation. Consider a similar statement: “Now the Jaguar was more luxurious than any automobile Chevrolet had made.” The Jaguar is, of course, not manufactured by Chevrolet. One may protest that Yahweh God had created all things, as Scripture reminds us in so many places, and of course it is true that He did. Yet while the Genesis 3 serpent may have been created by Yahweh, or it may have been a corruption of Yahweh’s original creation – which we witness men doing today in many places – it was not necessarily a part of the original creation here on earth, as it is described in the first two chapters of Genesis.

The Genesis account of creation found in the first two chapters of the book is neither a technically scientific nor a historically complete record. Rather, it is a prophetic vision of the stages of creation given from an earth-bound perspective, and organized in the way which would then serve to facilitate the organization of a society. For that reason it is quite geocentric, and the sun, moon and stars are described as mere lights in the sky, when now through scientific observation we know with certainty that they are much more than that. The days of Genesis chapter 1 are better understood to be ages, a meaning which the original Hebrew word which is used there certainly bears. As our own history and science tells us, the planet is certainly much older than 6000 or so years. Once these Genesis chapters are properly understood, it is realized that there is no conflict between the Bible and science (true science, not evolution, which is in fact a godless religion, and not NASA, which is an apostle of evolution). The earth is surely many ages, or millions – even billions – of years old, and many things happened here before the beginning of history as it is recorded by our White Adamic race over the past 5,000 or so years. The fossil and geological records offer much proof of this, in spite of the insane objections presented by evangelical fundamentalists.

So with this background to consider, perhaps a foundation is now laid for an understanding of the origin of the serpent, with the idea in mind that, once the language is understood, the Word of Yahweh our God clarifies and explains itself. So in Revelation chapter 12 (12:7-9) we read: “ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

Then in another prophecy in Revelation chapter 20 (20:2), we once again see a reference to “the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan”, where it is certainly evident that the “old serpent” is a persistent entity, and not just some snake in the grass. Both of those passages in the Revelation make reference to “that old serpent”, to a specific entity described as a serpent, and not to some common snake. That old serpent has the uncanny ability to cause rebellion, to lead others off into war, to deceive the whole world, and even to seduce a woman found alone in Eden.

That serpent, and those whom he took after him, are “the angels which kept not their first estate” described by the apostle Jude in his epistle (v. 6). We also find in Luke chapter 10, that Yahshua Christ had exclaimed: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”, and here this Satan is again associated with “serpents and scorpions” – surely figurative human “serpents” and figurative human “scorpions” – in the accompanying remarks (10:18-19). There Christ said “I beheld”, as if it happened in the past, and not merely as a vision. Since Yahshua Christ, being one with the Father from the beginning (i.e. John 1:1-5, 14), surely was able to witness the things which had happened before He was born here on earth as a man.

So it is evident that the serpent – and the phrase “that old serpent” certainly must refer to the serpent of Genesis – and that the serpent is one and the same with Satan, the Devil, and other epithets given to him and to his kind throughout Scripture. The “serpent” of Genesis 3 is a member of that race of angels which revolted from Yahweh God, and were cast out into the earth, as described in Revelation chapter 12. We are not told when this happened, but can only imagine that it must have happened some time before Adam, but during the latter ages of creation. The fossil record shows that there were many races of humans here before Adam, the first Aryan White man, such as Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man, and others, any or all of which may have been of that race of angels. Throughout Scripture angels appear as men, and are often even indistinguishable from men, such as the angels who had visited Abraham in Hebron, and then walked to Sodom once they had departed (Genesis 18:1-33; 19:1-14).

If the serpent was a man (although he was certainly not not an Adamic man), what is the “tree which is in the midst of the garden” (Genesis 3:3) which Adam and Eve ate from in the temptation? In Genesis chapter 2 (2:9) we read “9 And out of the ground made Yahweh God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Here it was not said that the “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” had grown out of the ground, and neither was it said that they are they good for food, but only that they are “in the midst of the garden”. Genesis chapter 2 is not an historic record. Rather, it is a prophetic vision representing past events, written in the form of a parable. The “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” are not literal, but figurative trees. Literal trees have knowledge only in fairy tales and in Hollywood.

Four times in Proverbs, once each in chapters 3, 11, 13 and 15 (3:18; 11:30; 13:12; and 15:4), the phrase “tree of life” appears as an idiom, where it indeed seems to signify a means of sustenance or a way of salvation or preservation. So for example, we read in chapter 3, speaking of wisdom, that “17 Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. 18 She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.” In Genesis chapter 3 (3:22) Yahweh had said to Adam that he must “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”, thereby recovering from his fall from grace. In Revelation chapter 22 (22:14) the “tree of life” is mentioned again, and it is reserved for those who shall be permitted entry into the new Jerusalem, the city which descends from heaven.

In John chapter 15 (15:1-7) Yahshua Christ had explained to His disciples that He is the “true vine”, and that those who abide in Him are the branches. In John chapter 6 (6:31-51) Yahshua explained that He is the “bread of life”, and that those who eat such bread shall live forever. So the only viable conclusion is that Yahshua Christ is the figurative tree of life, and that those descendants of Adam who abide in and keep the ways and commandments of Yahshua are given to remain a part of that tree, thereby bringing forth righteous fruit (John 15:5-8). The purpose of fruit is to produce more trees of the same kind! Even today, families are seen as “trees”, and as they grow (or “branch out”) their various elements are called “roots”, “stems”, or “branches”. Obeying the Biblical commandments to remain a separate people, and not to commit fornication (race-mixing), “righteous fruit” can only be pure-blooded, Adamic offspring of the children of Israel!

Therefore we read in the Wisdom of Solomon, in chapter 3: “15 For glorious is the fruit of good labors, and infallible is the root of understanding. 16 But the children of adulterers shall be for no purpose, and the seed of an unlawful marriage bed shall be destroyed. 17 For even if they become long-lived they shall be accounted for nothing and without honor at the ends of their old age. 18 Then if they die quickly, they shall have no hope, nor consolation in the day of decision. 19 For grievous are the ends of an unrighteous race.” In that passage there were two idioms from trees, where fruit and root are mentioned in verse 15.

Then, there are even more, where Solomon continued in chapter 4: “3 But the many-breeding multitude of the impious shall not be useful, and from bastard seedlings it shall not give a deep root, nor shall it establish a firm foundation. 4 For even if it sprouts up in branches for a time, standing unsafely it is shaken by the wind and by the force of the winds it is uprooted. 5 The imperfected branches shall be broken off and their fruit useless, unseasonable for food and suitable for nothing.” In the next verse, Solomon defined his use of the term bastard seedlings and wrote: “6 For children begotten from of lawless slumber are witnesses of wickedness against their parents at their examination.” In other words, there existence is a testimony to the sin of their parents.

The “tree of life” being a figurative tree, it only makes sense that the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is also a figurative tree. From these do men commit fornication, and produce bastard seed. Men are often portrayed as trees in the Bible, for instance in Ezekiel chapter 31, and in Matthew chapters 3, 7 and 12, (3:10; 7:17-19; 12:33); in Luke chapters 3 and 6 (3:9 and 6:43-44). If the children of Yahweh can be branches upon the “true vine”, the tree of life, then those angels who rebelled against Yahweh and who were cast out into the earth, with their descendants can surely be the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, from which Adam and Eve had eaten.

The act of eating is also an idiom for sexual relations, which is evident not only in Ishtar’s words to Gilgamesh, but in Scripture in Proverbs chapters 9 and 30 (9:17 and 30:20). In chapter 9 we read: “17 Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” In the greater context of that clause, the subject is an adulterous woman, and those who turn aside to her, so the words were clearly written in reference to sexual relations. So it is in Proverbs chapter 30 where we read: “20 Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” Here we must also notice that in the passages from Gilgamesh which we have cited above, the harlot was twice described with a noun usually used in reference to fruit, which is ripeness.

As for the word meaning touch, it too is used as a euphemism for sexual relations. In Genesis chapter 20, Abilmelech the king of Gerar wanted to take Sarah to wife, whom he thought was only Abraham’s sister, so he took her from Abraham and had her brought into his house. But before he could touch her, he had a vision in a dream warning him, and we read “6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.” Another example is found in Proverbs chapter 6: “29 So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.”

Now here it may be fitting to turn to the Song of Songs, because it contains may references to sexual intercourse expressed in idioms using fruit, gardens, and trees, which indubitably assist any honest interpretation of Genesis chapter 3.

In Song chapter 2 the bride is portrayed as swooning over her husband, and we read the following: “1 I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys. 2 As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters. 3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. 4 He brought me to the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love. 5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. 6 His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me. 7 I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.” So the bride describes herself as a beautiful flower, but the other women as thorns. Then she describes her husband as an apple tree among the common trees, whose fruit is especially sweet. The “banquet house” must be a metaphor for the bed in which they had sexual intercourse, because he fell asleep as she lie in his embrace after she tasted of his fruit.

At the end of the chapter, the bride is portrayed as using fruit in allegories once again, as she beckons her husband to her love: “13 The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell. Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away. 14 O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance, let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.” Then, as she continues, she beckons him again: “15 Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes. 16 My beloved is mine, and I am his: he feedeth among the lilies. 17 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved, and be thou like a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether.” There she portrays her husband as feeding among the lilies until daybreak, as a stag would, which is also an allegory for love-making.

In Song chapter 3, the bride has a long dream where she expresses her desire for her lover, and then in chapter 4, Solomon responds to her longing, and we read, in part: “1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks…” then after a long description in which he had further likened her to the beauty of certain animals, he says to her “3 Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks….” Then after comparing her neck to a strong tower, he says: “5 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. 6 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.” Here is a promise that he will make love to her all night once again. Then, after further poetic descriptions, he says: “10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices! 11 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.”

Then following that, he turns to botanical allegories which also evoke the events of Genesis chapter 3: “12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. 13 Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, 14 Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: 15 A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon. 16 Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out.” Now that does not end the chapter. In the final clause of that last verse Song chapter 4, the bride responds and says: “Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.” She is the garden, as he had described her. So eating fruit is indeed a Biblical allegory for sexual intercourse, and in the Song, in many more ways than one.

Much later in the Song, in chapter 6 where the Husband had been away but has once again come to his Bride, she describes his arrival and says: “2 My beloved is gone down into his garden, to the beds of spices, to feed in the gardens, and to gather lilies. 3 I am my beloved's, and my beloved is mine: he feedeth among the lilies.” Here she is describing herself as she was once again in bed with her husband, and then the husband is portrayed as having described her beauty, which runs into chapter 7, and he is still speaking of her where we read: “6 How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights! 7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes [or dates]. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs [or fruit-stalks] thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples…” So the fruit is used to describe her body parts, and the tree itself is her stature. The Song actually borders on being pornographic, once it is properly understood.

Where the Bride responds, she once again describes herself as fruits laid up in reserve for her husband where she says: “10 I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me. 11 Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages. 12 Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine flourish, whether the tender grape appear, and the pomegranates bud forth: there will I give thee my loves. 13 The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved.”

This is a love story, but there is no explicit language describing the love-making, because it is all couched in metaphors and allegories describing gardens with pleasant and sweet fruits, the wonderful aromas of fruit, and the vines or trees on which they are found. The Song of Songs employed trees and the eating of fruit as allegories to represent people and sexual activities, and so did Moses when he wrote those words in Genesis chapter 3. The language is more explicit in many other passages of the work, where for example we read in chapter 8, in the words of the bride: “2 … I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate. 3 His left hand should be under my head, and his right hand should embrace me.”

Verification for this interpretation is found throughout the New Testament, such as in the parable of the wheat and the tares and its explanation, in the thirteenth chapter of Matthew. From Matthew 13:24-25: “24... The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” And from Matthew 13:37-39: “37... He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil ….” When could Satan – the Adversary – have sowed tares in among the wheat? Genesis chapter 3 is not a historical record. Rather, it is a parable representing events which occurred early in the history of the Adamic race. By seducing Eve, the enemies of Yahweh were able to sow tares among the wheat. In Genesis chapter 6, they once again sowed tares among the wheat. There have been many other women – and men – like Eve down to this very day sowing tares among the wheat.

After her seduction was discovered, as a result of her sin Eve was warned that “… I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children …”, which is a natural result of her sexual foray, and “… thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). Both the serpent and Eve had already been told that they would have seed on account of their transgression, in the verse which had preceded (3:15). Then we read a little further on: “20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” So there in Genesis chapter 3, there are three witnesses to the fact that Eve had sexual relations with someone other than Adam, and as a result, she had become pregnant, in verses 15, 16 and 20. Therefore it must be acknowledged, that Eve had conceived Cain even before the opening verse of Genesis chapter 4. So she was also told by Yahweh, that in spite of her incontinence and her desire for the “fruit” which the serpent had offered her (3:6), that “thy desire shall be to thy husband”.

Genesis chapter 3 is indeed a parable about sexual seduction, and an understanding of Shemitic idioms as they appear elsewhere in the Bible, such as the Song of Songs, and also in contemporary writings such as The Epic of Gilgamesh, and also in slightly later Egyptian inscriptions, surely helps us to comprehend as much. Another result of Eve’s seduction was that her “seed”, or offspring, would have perpetual enmity with the “seed”, or offspring, of the serpent, who are also the Adversary, or Satan (Genesis 3:15). Once these two parties, or groups of people or races, are properly identified, it is wholly evident that there has indeed been perpetual enmity between them. This enmity has manifested itself at many intervals throughout history and is recorded not only in the Old and New Testaments, but in the annals of history down to this very day.

As it stands in Hebrew, Genesis 4:1 is a demonstrably corrupt verse, there is no second witness to its contents, and therefore it cannot be relied upon as a Scriptural authority. Scholarly sources have attested that the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1 is corrupted, and for that reason it can hardly be properly translated [10]. Cain was certainly not the son of Adam, and this can be discerned in several other places. First, the genealogies provided in Genesis chapters 4 and 5 (4:16-24, 5:1-7) do not associate Cain with Adam. Secondly, Cain was driven out of Eden by Yahweh God after he killed Abel, so Adam and Eve had lost both of their sons. Usually another son would replace the elder, and not the lesser, but Seth was a replacement for Abel, rather than Cain, where in Genesis chapter 4 (4:235), Eve is portrayed as having exclaimed that God “hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”

Furthermore, statements found in the New Testament show that Cain was the son of the serpent, the devil, or Satan, such as those found in Luke chapter 11 (11:46-51), John chapter 8 (8:31-47), and 1 John chapter 3 (3:12). In that last passage John plainly stated that Cain was “of that wicked one”, although there is no Biblical evidence that Cain ever spoke to the “serpent”, who must have been his natural father. But it also must be noted that there is no word for “half-brother” in either Hebrew or Greek, and the term never appears in the Bible, although many half-brothers and half-sisters appear elsewhere in Scripture.

In both Luke chapter 11 and Matthew chapter 23 it is recorded that Christ had blamed His adversaries for the blood of all the prophets, beginning with Abel. But only Cain could be responsible for the blood of Abel, and therefore His adversaries must have been children of Cain. Then in John chapter 8 (8:44) He stated that certain Judaeans were of their father the devil. These Judaeans claimed to be Abraham’s seed, but they denied having ever been in bondage (8:33), as Israel had been in bondage, and He denied them that claim that they were Abraham’s children. In Romans chapter 9 (9:1-13) the reason for His denial begins to become manifest. There Paul had explained that not all Judaeans were Israelites, and made an analogy which informs us that some had descended from Jacob, but some from Esau. The Edomites, the descendants of Esau, could indeed claim to be Abraham’s seed, but Esau was rejected for the inheritance because he took Canaanite wives (Genesis 27:46 to 29:4).

The Edomites had become a part of the kingdom of Judaea and converted to Judaism about 130 years before the birth of Christ. This circumstance is described by the Greek writer Strabo of Cappadocia in Book 16 of his Geography, which was written before 25 AD. And then it was explained in detail by the Judaean historian, Flavius Josephus, who wrote after 70 AD, in Book 13 of his Antiquities.

Because Esau married Canaanite women (Genesis chapters 26 and 36), and because the Canaanites had previously intermixed with the Kenites, who were the descendants of Cain (see Strong’s #’s 7014 & 7017), along with the Rephaim, who were descendants from the “giants” or Nephilim, some of whom are mentioned in the Genesis 6 account, along with several other non-Adamic peoples (i.e. Genesis 15:19-21), the descendants of Esau were also descendants of Cain.

Because we are told that those who belong to Yahshua Christ hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:27), it can be safely inferred that the disbelieving Judaeans who contended with Him were not Israelites, but were Edomites, and Yahshua told them that they were not His sheep, and that was why they did not believe Him (John 10:26). These are those who claimed to be Judaeans, but were truly of the synagogue (assembly) of Satan (Revelation 2:9; 3:9), along with their lineal descendants today.

Seeing that the disbelieving Judaeans were descended from Cain – and therefore ultimately from the serpent (Matthew 13:39 and 23:35, Luke 11:51, John 8:44, 1 John 3:12) – it is then understandable how Yahshua could hold them responsible for the blood of all the prophets beginning with Abel, whom Cain slew, which is recorded in Luke chapter 11 (11:47-51). It would have been criminal on the part of Christ to have made such a charge if it had not been literally true. There we read “50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” The Greek word which the King James Version renders “as generation” in that passage is properly and much more appropriately translated as race, because it is speaking of fathers and sons both near and remote, which is over many generations.

The Canaanites had also infiltrated ancient Israel – and especially the tribe of Judah – in the earliest times, perpetrating much evil. This is especially evident in the person of the descendants of Judah’s son Shelah, the surviving son which he had of the Canaanite woman of his youth (Genesis 38:1-5). But there must have been further infiltration, as we read in Ezekiel chapter 16: “1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, 3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.” One recorded example of a descendant of Cain slaying the priests of Yahweh is found in the story of Saul and the murderous Doeg the Edomite, in 1 Samuel chapters 21 and 22 (21:7; 22:6-19). It is those disbelieving Judaeans, the Edomites and other Kenites and Canaanites who long before had adopted Judaism, who caused the persecutions of the followers of Christ in the early centuries of the Christian era, and who are persecuting Christians once again today, with the support of derelict clergymen and ignorant, dishonest politicians.

After the return to Jerusalem from Babylon in the late 6th century BC, the original Hebrew dialect fell into disuse among the Judaeans in favor of the closely related Aramaic, which was the common language of trade and diplomacy throughout the Persian Empire at that time. Therefore, in order for people to properly understand the Scriptures at Sabbath services, religious leaders had to translate them from the Hebrew into the vernacular Aramaic. That this practice was indeed extant can be determined in the text of Nehemiah chapter 8 (8:7-8), where the practice is actually described. While the apostles called their language Hebrew, it is difficult to determine if they meant Hebrew, or perhaps their own peculiar form of Aramaic. While they were closely related languages, they nevertheless had notable differences.

Later, while Greek became widely known and commonly used throughout the east after the 4th century BC, having supplanted Aramaic as the lingua franca of the region, Aramaic continued to be spoken locally by many of the native peoples. While it is certain that many quotes, even a majority of quotes from the Old Testament which are found in the New Testament were taken directly from the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of Scripture, it is just as certain that Aramaic translations of Scripture were also in use at the time in which the gospels were written. For example, in Ephesians chapter 4 (4:8) there is one quote from the Old Testament which agrees with an Aramaic version of Scripture, but with neither the Masoretic nor Septuagint texts. So without the Aramaic targums, one may be inadvertently led to believe that Paul of Tarsus had misquoted the 68th Psalm in Ephesians 4:8!

But here we must note that the Aramaic Targums, as they exist today, should not be counted as Scripture. Rather, they are early Judaean, and possibly jewish translations of Scripture which often contain commentary as much as they contain translation. They are a sort of editorialized translation of the text. But how they are useful, is to help us understand how early Judaeans had thought of certain passages of Scripture. So the Aramaic targum called pseudo-Jonathan has Genesis 4:1 to read: “And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the Lord’.” Another targum, the Palestinian Targum, says it differently: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ….”

While it is evident that neither of these targums may perfectly represent whatever it was that the original text of Genesis 4:1 may have said, it is also evident that something is missing from the Hebrew of Genesis 4:1 as we have it today, and subsequently from the Greek translation of it found in the Septuagint. It is further evident that early Aramaic interpretations of Scripture attempted to compensate for what they believed was missing from Genesis 4:1. Surely it is obvious that those who wrote the targums didn’t see a snake and apple story in the text of Genesis chapter 3!

But aside from the Aramaic targums and the passages from the New Testament which we have discussed above, other “apocryphal” Hebrew writings support the assertion that the Genesis chapter 3 account represents sexual seduction, such as 4 Maccabees 18:7-8 and the Protevangelion of James in chapter 10, among others. These writings do not have their source in the Talmud of Judaism. Rather, like most of the Hebrew Scriptures, they were later taken in, expounded upon, and then perverted by the Talmudists of Judaism.

So in 4 Maccabees chapter 18 we read, in part: “ 7 And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father's house; but I took care of the built-up rib [a reference to Eve]. 8 No destroyer of the desert, or ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful snake [the serpent of Genesis], make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.” While this work is not canonical, it was preserved by early Christians and seems to have had a Christian, but not a jewish, origination. It is esteemed to have been written in the 1st or early 2nd centuries AD. Therefore it gives us insight into what certain early Christians thought about Genesis chapter 3.

Likewise, the Protevangelion of James is certainly not canonical, and it is even spurious. For various reasons found in its contents, I consider this book to be an early but spurious Roman Catholic work, or more properly, a proto-Roman Catholic work, and not authentic Scripture. However since it is mentioned by Origen in the early 3rd century, and it was condemned by a bishop of Rome in the very early 5th century, it must have originated in the 2nd century AD. But although it is basically a novel, once again, it reflects what at least some early Christians, who lived before the start of the 3rd century AD, had thought about Genesis chapters 3 and 4. There, speaking of Joseph after he realized that Mary, a virgin whom he betrothed, was with child, it reads in chapter 10:

1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God, and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me.

In other words, the writer of the Protevangelion of James understood that someone had sexual relations with Eve, and she became pregnant, before Adam had ever had such a relationship with her, just as Yahweh God had impregnated Mary before Joseph had ever slept with her. We may reject the book, but we must acknowledge the manner in which its author had interpreted Genesis chapter 3.

A proper understanding of Genesis chapter 3 is of great importance in acquiring a proper understanding of not only all the rest of the Bible, but of history also. In the context of the Bible, childish tales about snakes and apples are outright deceptions, and are the very reason why the White Adamic race is in such trouble today. For at this very moment, the jews, arabs and their kindred races are all leading the world down a path of destruction. These people, if we should call them people, are indeed descended from the ancient Canaanites, Edomites, Kenites, Nephilim and related tribes, and so they are the descendants of the serpent, the devil, the Satan of Genesis 3 and Revelation 12, “which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). They ARE the antichrist (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7)! They are currently gathering with others of the heathen nations for battle, hoping to finally destroy the White Adamic race, the remnant which are indeed, for the most part, the true descendants of the Old Testament children of Israel (cf. Revelation 16:13-16; 20:7-9; Ezek. 38:1-39:29). Those who insist upon promoting snake and apple stories are themselves among the number of the deceivers.

From the King James Version, Revelation 20:1-3 reads thusly: “1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.” And Revelation 20:7-8: “7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations ...”.

There are several periods with which this thousand years has been identified. One is from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the admission of the jews into Britain after the Norman conquest of 1066. Another period which is much more likely is from the time that the jews had begun to be publicly removed and separated from the general Christian Society. This process began under the emperor Constantinus, a son of Constantine “the Great”, who ruled in the 4th century, and it lasted until the feudal system had begun to be replaced with jewish capitalism after the 15th century, and even until the jews began to attain their emancipation at the end of the 18th century. It is jewish capitalism which has been the power behind all of our wars of the past few centuries, and it is the power behind globalism, multiculturalism, and the dangers which we face today. There are no ghosts or goblins who have the world deceived today, and neither can a single man survive a thousand years and do such things. However a race of people certainly can do as much, and indeed they have!

Here we have given an interpretation of Genesis chapter 3 which is fully supported with linguistic evidence from ancient Egyptian inscriptions which date to the time of Joshua and the early Judges period, and from ancient Assyria which dates to before the time of Abraham. Then we added evidence from Proverbs, the Song of Songs, and the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and John as well as the epistles of John and Paul and the Revelation. Then to that we added evidence from both Judaean targums and several early Christian writings. How could all of this be refuted, or even denied? The sin of Eden was sexual in nature, and that sexual sin has caused all of the woes of this world.

So I pray it was worth revisiting this subject, as it gave me an opportunity to expand on the proofs of our interpretation, and also to rectify a few small errors along the way.

“The sin against blood and race is the hereditary sin in this world and it brings disaster on every nation that commits it.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 10: Why the Second Reich Collapsed

Footnotes

1 On Genesis, Part 18: The Hebrews, Christogenea.org, https://christogenea.org/podcasts/genesis-part-18-hebrews, accessed August 16th, 2024.

2 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 3rd edition, James Pritchard, editor, 1969, Harvard University Press, pp. 368-369.

3 ibid., pp. 421-422.

4 ibid., p. 73.

5 ibid., pp. 73-74.

6 ibid., p. 75.

7 ibid., p. 109.

8 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 260.

9 The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers, 2021, p. 292.

10 The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, p. 517.