What Really Happened Between Eve And The Serpent In The Garden Of Eden? By for Christians For Truth
Recently this issue came up among our regular readers, so we would like to offer Sheldon Emry’s sermon “Eve And The Serpent In The Garden Of Eden: What Actually Happened?” for your consideration.
The main thrust of Emry’s thesis is that the contention that Eve and the Serpent engaged in actual sexual intercourse and created a child — Cain — whose seedline literally comes from the Serpent — has its origins in the occult mystery religions of Babylon — and that this doctrine has now worked its way even into some Christian circles.
The claim is that Satan — a fallen angel — literally impregnated Eve and created Cain, whose bloodline can literally be traced down through history to the modern day so-called “Jews”.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
Those who ascribe to this theory often point out that the Hebrew Masoretic text supports the sexual connotation of Eve’s “eating” the apple — whereas the Septuigent does not. We must seriously consider the probability, however, that when the Jews went to translate this passage in Genesis from the Greek into “Hebrew,” they were under the influence of their long-held Babylonian belief that this encounter between the serpent and eve was a sexual seduction, so they naturally would use words to convey that idea and inserted them into their translation.
There is also a dispute over Genesis 4:1, which Biblical scholars agree is a gloss — a scribal error — but because it is an error, we do not know what the original was, and to speculate that the original text supported the idea that Cain is not Adam and Eve’s natural-born son is simply opportunistic and misleading.
That said, it is doubtful that any Christian who believes that the Serpent and Eve engaged in an actual sex act is aware that they are repeating an ancient occult Babylonian myth — and at the very least, it should give them pause to consider that perhaps they themselves have been “beguiled”.
We are not presenting Emry’s thesis as “the truth” on this issue, but merely as a well-supported argument to the contrary which should be given due consideration.
