The fall... fruit or ..sex?

[who me?]

Has anyone heard this one before? I was talking to a friend the other day and she said she believes that when eve sinned, she didn't eat a piece of fruit, it actually meant that she had sex with the serpent and \cain was the serpents son.

That one completly blew me away. I'd never heard that before. So I went and looked it up in a few different versions but it definately was fruit, and Cain was Adam's son.

Any thoughts?

[enemy anemone]

wow. I hadn't heard of this before and my first reaction was "that sounds stupid and disturbing". apparently it is called the the serpent seed doctrine and white supremacists hold to it. my reaction still holds.

[Vlad!]

That makes no sense. If Eve had sex with the snake (how would that even work?), what did Adam do? He fell too, right? Was he sodomized by the snake?

I might be at least partially sympathetic towards this viewpoint if it had any sort of Biblical, traditional, or even anecdotal backing whatsoever. As it doesn't appear to, it seems to me that someone with far too much time on his/her hands (probably a liberal arts major) pulled it straight out of the air (or elsewhere).

[leinad]

I just re-read Genesis 3 and 4, and at first my thought was, it says plainly that Cain was Adam's son.  But these two links make an excellent point: 
http://www.satansrapture.com/satanseed.htm
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb940516.htm

Genesis 4:1-2 (KJV)

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
And she again bare his brother Abel.

This does not say "And Adam knew his wife again" in between, as it does in verse 25 when she bore Seth (more on that below.)  Thus, it is argued, Cain and Abel were twins.  It is now known for sure that fraternal twins can and occasionally do have different fathers.  Okay, but where is the evidence that Cain wasn't Adam's offspring?  Genesis 4:25

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

  Does this indicate some special need for a "seed" to replace Abel? 
Genesis 5:3

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:

  No such statement is ever made of Cain, despite his genealogy having been given in Genesis 4. 

As for how it could have happened, the serpent would have been very different before the fall; first, it could talk, and secondly, it seems to be implied that it could walk.  When punishing the serpent,  God pronounced in Genesis 3:14 that "upon thy belly shalt thou go" among other things.  So perhaps it was capable of impregnating a woman.  And what did it hope to gain by tempting Eve, anyway?  Did it just want the satisfaction of seeing her disobey God?

That Cain was the serpent's son certainly isn't stated outright (unless something has been obscured in translation), and I don't think it's necessarily implied, but I can see how that conclusion can be arrived at.

[Vlad!]

Genesis 4:25   Does this indicate some special need for a "seed" to replace Abel? 

Maybe, or maybe it's just flowery language. One possibility: since Adam and Eve were so long-lived, it's possible that Eve (or Adam) was much less fertile than normal to prevent them from producing more offspring than the budding infrastructure could support. Thus, besides their three sons (and presumably daughters), perhaps conception was a rare event.

Genesis 5:3   No such statement is ever made of Cain, despite his genealogy having been given in Genesis 4. 

This is possibly because the plan to populate the earth with Adam's offspring was through Seth, not through Cain. Note that no such statement is also made of Abel.

As for how it could have happened, the serpent would have been very different before the fall; first, it could talk, and secondly, it seems to be implied that it could walk.  When punishing the serpent,  God pronounced in Genesis 3:14 that "upon thy belly shalt thou go" among other things.  So perhaps it was capable of impregnating a woman.  And what did it hope to gain by tempting Eve, anyway?  Did it just want the satisfaction of seeing her disobey God?

That Cain was the serpent's son certainly isn't stated outright (unless something has been obscured in translation), and I don't think it's necessarily implied, but I can see how that conclusion can be arrived at.

I believe I have expressed this before (and saw little popular support), but I find the Genesis story to be much more satisfying when considered as an allegory rather than as an actual sequence of events. However, I think this interpretation is too convoluted. For one thing, God says "you may eat of any tree in the garden, but do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or you will surely die". How does this translate for the serpent seed folks? "You may have sex with any animal in the garden, but don't have sex with the serpent"? And why would he tell it to Adam anyway (recall that Eve never explicitly heard God's instruction to not eat from the tree; she must have gotten it secondhand from Adam)?

IMO, there are far too many holes in this story (no double entendre intended) to be something more than a flight of fancy.

[leinad]

This is possibly because the plan to populate the earth with Adam's offspring was through Seth, not through Cain.

But could the reason for that be that Cain wasn't Adam's offspring?

Note that no such statement is also made of Abel.

Genesis 5:3 is the beginning of a genealogy.  Abel apparently didn't live long enough to find a mate and reproduce, but Cain did; yet we never read of him having been begotten by Adam, even in his own genealogy in Genesis 4.  And I find the wording of Genesis 5:3 rather striking.

I believe I have expressed this before (and saw little popular support), but I find the Genesis story to be much more satisfying when considered as an allegory rather than as an actual sequence of events.

I agree with you there, but either way the questions about what meaning was intended are the same.

However, I think this interpretation is too convoluted. For one thing, God says "you may eat of any tree in the garden, but do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or you will surely die". How does this translate for the serpent seed folks? "You may have sex with any animal in the garden, but don't have sex with the serpent"? And why would he tell it to Adam anyway (recall that Eve never explicitly heard God's instruction to not eat from the tree; she must have gotten it secondhand from Adam)?

Well, the links I gave above certainly believe there was literal forbidden fruit involved, but they argue, from the references to nakedness and birth pains, that it had the effect of making one sexually aware, and this was the reason the serpent wanted Eve to eat it.  No motive is given in the text for what the serpent told Eve, yet it says he was the craftiest of all creatures (Genesis 3:1).       

[Vlad!]

But could the reason for that be that Cain wasn't Adam's offspring?

Well sure. You know, it also never mentions in the Bible that many of the prophets were human beings. Maybe they were actually telepathic aliens.

My point is that you can't always (or even usually) infer the intent of scripture by what is not said.

Genesis 5:3 is the beginning of a genealogy.  Abel apparently didn't live long enough to find a mate and reproduce, but Cain did; yet we never read of him having been begotten by Adam, even in his own genealogy in Genesis 4.  And I find the wording of Genesis 5:3 rather striking.

Cain was an outcast. The reason Seth is given prominence is that, with Adam having zero remaining sons (that we know of) who aren't cursed, Seth represented the plans of God and the future of the human race. In fact, as I recall, we don't really hear about Cain again after that bit about his ancestors. Does this mean that he's some sort of dragon/serpent + human hybrid? Well, I guess possibly, but I think it's just because he was persona non grata at the family reunions. The reason he's not mentioned in Genesis 5, of course, is because it gives the direct line between Adam and Noah.

Well, the links I gave above certainly believe there was literal forbidden fruit involved, but they argue, from the references to nakedness and birth pains, that it had the effect of making one sexually aware, and this was the reason the serpent wanted Eve to eat it.  No motive is given in the text for what the serpent told Eve, yet it says he was the craftiest of all creatures (Genesis 3:1).

Those lnks you gave seem to mostly be a load of bollocks. They infer a lot about Adam and Eve and their beliefs from just a couple lines of ambiguous text. I fail to see how this is anything but a doctrine stemming from Biblical omission. The Bible never mentions that Cain went to the bathroom; therefore, he must be some sort of hybrid. Not going to work.

I feel like the wording of Genesis is so unclear, so shrouded in antiquity, and so myth-like that it's impossible (or nearly so) to infer anything about the creation of man that isn't clearly stated. As I said before, I think that Genesis is more of an allegorical tale. If this is the case, it is completely fruitless (no pun intended) to assume anything about the actual story-behind-the-story, as the veracity of any hypotheses cannot be validated.

[who me?]

I must say, I found it interesting that Vlad! came up with the question of the other fruit in the garden. That was what my mum (mom?) said when she heard about it. I didn't include that just to see if anyone else noticed. They did

This is apparently one of the teachings of William Branham, whom I had never heard of before this, but who was suppossed to have been a prophet in America in the 1930-1950s. I don't know enough about him to say whether he was or wasn't a prophet, but it does worry me that when I ask where his teachings are based in the Bible, I get told it isn't there, that it was a revelation to the Prophet. It also worries me that he is simply referred to as the Prophet.

Does anyone have any knowledge or insights about this man? I need to find out more, as the people we are staying with are tvery much into his teachings and we keep ending up in odd situations.

[Vlad!]

Well, if you want to know something, the usual suspects (Google and Wikipedia) are a good first step. The Wikipedia article appears to have been written by those who are at least favorably inclined towards his ministry as it paints him in a pretty positive light, so I suggest you start there. It does give Bible references for some of his beliefs and teachings.

The problem with interpreting the Bible metaphorically is that there is no good way to prove (or disprove!) the claims you're making[1]. Once you depart from the literal meaning of the text and start trying to read into the subtext, the game shifts from "what does the Bible say" to "what can I make up that fits the formula". This is especially dodgy when you try to do it in a translated language. When you're trying to read symbolic and/or unspoken meaning into the text that some scholar or scholars have translated from the original, you become two degrees removed from the source and, at that point, are practically defining your own doctrine rather than performing true exegesis.

[1] Although as previously stated I believe that there are a couple sections of the Old Testament which make more sense as a parable or allegory, I don't attempt to divine what these things are an allegory for, only what we are intended to learn from them.

[leinad]

Sometimes in stories things are written between the lines, never explicitly stated but most likely intended.  Sometimes you hear a story as a child and just accept it as it is, but then read it again when you're older and see sexual or drug undertones which are not likely accidents.  At least that has been my experience.  Maybe the author of Genesis (at least of the early chapters) didn't like to explicitly reference highly illicit sexual acts.  There is at least one other example of an incident many believe to be such.