The Journal of History     Fall 2007    TABLE OF CONTENTS


What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?

By Wesley Swift

THE MESSAGE:- Most people are under the assumption that the Fall of white Adamic man in the Garden of Eden was brought on by Eve listening to the manipulative and deceitful words of a literal talking snake and Eve's eating of a literal piece of fruit that she took from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.' In this message, I will show you that the Fall in the Garden was not brought on by what I just mentioned. Rather, using only the Scriptures, I will show you that the Fall was brought on by an unholy sexual union between Satan and Eve. In Gen. 3:1, we read of a 'serpent' appearing to Eve in the Garden of Eden. It's important to realize that the 'serpent' spoken of here was not a literal snake, but rather Satan in human form. The word 'serpent' here means 'Magician or enchanter. A spellbinder.' Check your 'Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible' for definition verification here. Now, in Rev. 12:7-9, we read about a war in Heaven, when Lucifer and the angels who followed him into rebellion against God were defeated by Michael and the angels who remained loyal to the Almighty. Lucifer became 'that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan' (Rev. 12:9 - KJV). Now we know that when Satan is referred to as a 'serpent' here that it's not talking about him being manifest in the form of a literal snake. The same thing applies to the use of the word 'serpent' in Gen. chapter three. We also see in Rev. 12:9 that Lucifer and the rebellious angels lost their place in Heaven and were cast down to the earth. Back in Gen. 3:1, we read that the 'serpent' was 'more subtil (subtle) than any beast of the field' (KJV). The word 'subtil (subtle)' here means 'cunning or crafty (usually in a bad sense).' Again, consult Strong's for definition verification. So we see that a crafty 'serpent' had appeared to Eve in the Garden. It's important now to point out that the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' was not a literal tree! The 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', first spoken of in Gen. 2:9, was representative in a figurative sense of the Pre-Adamic (black & yellow) races and nations which surrounded the Garden in which Adam and Eve lived. (For the origins of the races, please request read the article titled 'Can Anyone Achieve Salvation?' This article explains the origins of the Pre-Adamic races and the Adamic race.)

For good examples of how trees are used in a figurative sense to describe people, races, and nations please read: Ezek. 31:3-9 (Assyrian Empire); Jer. 11:19 (about Jeremiah) and Matt. 3:10 (people standing judgement). We see in Gen. 3:3 that the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' was the 'tree' that Adam and Eve weren't supposed to 'touch.' We know that literal trees possess no knowledge of good and evil. In Ezek. 31:9 it says (in reference to the vast Assyrian Empire) that 'all the trees of Eden, that were in the Garden of God, envied him' (KJV). Literal trees can't 'envy' anything. This Scripture is clearly showing us that the 'trees' spoken of here are merely figurative representations of races and nations that envied the Assyrian Empire. In Gen. 3:4-7, we see that Satan (the 'serpent') leads Eve astray and she in turn leads Adam astray as well. But, was the leading astray the simple eating of a literal piece of fruit from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil'? The answer to that question is no.

First of all, we see in Gen. 2:25 that Adam and Eve were not ashamed of their nakedness. They obviously had the perfect bodies that God had intended for them when they were created. Now, notice after the Fall, in Gen. 3:7 & 10, that Adam and Eve were suddenly ashamed of their bodies. Why would you be ashamed of your body if all you had done was eat a piece of fruit? Now, back in Gen. 3:3, Eve tells Satan that neither she nor Adam can 'touch' the 'fruit' of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' because if they do, they'll die. The word 'touch' here means 'to lay hands upon, to lie with.' See Strong's again. When you 'lie' with someone in this capacity, it's obviously sexual in nature. The words 'eat' or 'ate' when used in these passages do not mean the literal consumption of food. The words 'eat' or 'ate' when used in the first 15 verses of Genesis chapter three means '(lit. or fig.) to consume, devour (partake).' Consult Strong's one more time. When you partake in something, that means you are engaging in an activity. And Eve certainly did partake here! She engaged in sex with Satan (the 'serpent') who appeared to her in human form and sexually seduced her. In Gen. 3:13, we read that Eve, called in front of God to account for her misdeed said, 'The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (partake)' (KJV). The word 'beguiled' here means to 'morally seduce.' IT'S NOT A MORAL SEDUCTION TO EAT A LITERAL PIECE OF FRUIT! This further confirms that the grand sin that led to the Fall in the Garden was sexual in nature. In Gen. 3:6 & 12, we see that Eve led Adam into this debauchery by coaxing him into having sex with a member of one of the Pre-Adamic races. Gen. 3:15 then tells us that two literal, biological seedlines are to come forth from Eve. They are the seedline of Satan and the seedline of the woman (through Adam). Verse 15 also tells us that the two seedlines would be in direct conflict with one another and in the end the Satantic seed will be crushed. And there is to be a major 'enmity (hatred)' between the two seedlines. Also, the 'fruit' spoken of in these passages is not literal fruit like an apple or an orange.

The 'fruit' spoken of here is offspring, descendants. Hit Strong's once more. We know that a literal piece of fruit isn't the product of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. More people are the product of those types of relations. Let's briefly re-cap the Fall in the Garden as spoken of in Gen. chapter three. We now that the 'serpent' was not a literal snake, but rather Satan in human form. We also know that that the grand sin that led to the Fall was not the consumption of literal fruit, but rather improper sexual relations. Eve was 'touched' (engaged in sexual relations with) Satan after he 'beguiled' (morally seduced) her. (Satan probably appeared to Eve as a handsome white god. Ps. 82:6 says the white race is a race of gods.) We also see that Eve led Adam astray as well by enticing him into having sexual relations with a member of one of the Pre-Adamic races. She gave him 'fruit' from the "Tree of KNowledge of Good and Evil' and Adam did 'eat (partake, engage in an activity).'

Finally, Eve was to have two literal seedlines come forth from her womb. One being the 'serpents' (Satan in human form) and the other being hers through Adam. And these two seedlines are to be in direct conflict and have a deep-seated hatred of one another until the end times. Gen. 3:15 alone should point out the utter absurdity of the whole being deceived by a literal snake and eating a piece of fruit led to the Fall in the Garden story. Are we to believe that Eve had sex with a literal snake? Is our enmity and conflict with an army of scaly creatures that move along the ground? Of course not! How ridiculous would that be!? In Gen. 4:1 & 2, we read that Eve gave birth to Cain and Abel. Now Abel was Adam's son. But Cain was not! Cain is found nowhere in any geneaology in the Bible that traces back to Adam. Read Gen. 5:3-5; 1 Chron. 1:1 and Luke 3:38. In Luke 3:38, it states that the unpolluted descendants of Adam are the sons of God (this of course is a verse tracing the geneaology of Jesus on Mary's (His blood's) side). Why is Cain not mentioned here if he was an unpolluted descendant of Adam? In Gen. 4:8-12, we read about the first major enmity between the two seedlines that was promised by God in Gen. 3:15. Here, Cain murders murders Abel. Now, in Gen. 4:25 and 5:3, we read that Adam and Eve had a son named Seth. The name 'Seth' means 'substitute.' Go to Strong's one more time! Seth was the 'substitute' for who? ABEL! Remember, Cain was driven away from Adam and Eve. So why couldn't Seth have been a 'substitute' for Cain if he was Adam and Eve's son as well? After all, he no longer lived with them. The answer is simple. Cain was NOT Adam's son! In 1 John 3:12, we read who Cain's literal, biological father is. It's Satan!

Cain's descendants are mentioned prominently in the New Testament. In Matt. 23:35, Jesus (who was not a Jew but rather of the white Adamic race) tells the Jewish heirarchy that their people are responsible for the deaths of all the righteous that have been murdered on the earth and he begins the list of the righteous with Abel. Who killed Abel? CAIN KILLED ABEL! Remember, the black and yellow races were on the earth long before Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. But Jesus clearly traces the bloodline of the righteous only through the white Adamic race. In Matt. 23:33, Jesus calls the Jews 'serpents.' This is an obvious reference to their literal, biological father as spoken of in Genesis chapter three. He also says that they are a Hell-bound race of people and their fate is sealed at the end of verse 33. In John 8:44, Jesus proclaims Satan as being the Jews literal, biological father. In Matt. 23:15, we see that Jesus states that Judaism (then known as the 'Tradition of the Elders' and later evolving into Babylonain Talmudic Judaism) is a religion of Hell! Finally, in Rev. 2:9 & 3:9, Jesus tells us that there will be impostor Israelites (the Jews) who are, in reality a 'synagogue of Satan.' (The word 'Jew' is a mistranslation here. The correct word is 'Judahite.' And true racial 'Judahites' are Aryan Israelites!) Thank you for reading. I welcome an open dialogue on this and other key Bible issues!


The Journal of History - Fall 2007 Copyright © 2007 by News Source, Inc.