Darkness to Light Home Page

Books and eBooks by the Director

Satan the Father of Cain?

In the following e-mail exchange, the e-mailer's comments are in black and enclosed in "greater than" and "lesser than" signs. My comments are in red.


Exchange One

>Saw your site and wanted to pose a question or two.

Before I ask my questions, I will warn you that my mind is clear on the correct answer. I merely wanted to see if you share the same views as I. If so, I would like to study with you from time to time.

Here are my questions:

1) Who is the father of Cain?<

Adam

> 2) What are Gods feelings about Easter?<

I assume you're referring to the celebration of the holiday of Easter. Since the Bible doesn't specifically mention Easter, then I would say Paul's words in Rom 14:5-6a apply, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord."

> 3) What does the Bible really say concerning the Rapture?<

I disagree with a "pre-trib" rapture viewpoint. Beyond that, I really do not have a "fixed" position on eschatology. See my Scripture study on the subject: Eternity.

> Please answer as truthfully as you can. If you aren't able to answer, I will understand. Ignorance is a first step towards wisdom.

Afterwards, I will gladly explain my answers to the above questions. Your agreement is not necessary, for not everyone sees the scriptures the same way.

An example of this is the claim the Noah's son, Ham is the father to the black race. There's a clear misunderstanding of God in that belief. But some people will believe it anyway.

It's an extreme example, I know, but it's the first one that came to mind. Also, it's so stupid, I doubted that you'd be offended by my not agreeing with it.

I await your reply.....<

You have it.

> G.W.
Never hit a man with glasses.
Use a baseball bat, instead.
1/11/2000<

Exchange Two

> Thank you for replying. Sadly, I am disappointed with the answers given. I was hoping to find someone who knew a bit about the Bible to understand the "hidden" secret that lay within.<

There are no "hidden secrets" in the Bible. All has been clearly through in the NT revelation.

> On your site, you said that there were no significant differences between the various texts today and the texts from long ago.

You were wrong. There is one important difference. The people. Yesterday's people were familiar with the many references in the Bible because they stemmed from their culture.<

My comments are in regards to the texts themselves, a completely different issue than what you are discussing.

> Today's culture is markedly different and many statements made in the Bible have lost much of their intended meaning because of our cultural differences.<

That is why there are Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and study Bibles. All describe the cultural background to the Bible.

> Even the English has changed drastically in a short 400 years.<

True. That is why the KJV is not the most reliable Bible translation today, and why I use the NKJV and similar versions.

> For example, Proverbs uses the word "gift" many times, often as a bad thing. What's bad about a gift? Well, in the olde englishe, "gift" meant bribe.<

Which is how it is translated in the NKJV, if you are referring to Prov 17:23; 21:14.

> Go back into the Hebrew, and you'll be hit by even more arcane differences.<

Which is what every modern translation of the Bible does, and which I will be doing with the ALT when I get to the OT, and am already doing with the Greek and the NT.

> Thanks to good record keeping and the sciences such as archeology, we can still research the correct intended meaning.<

Very good. That is my point above. So I really don't understand what your point is, unless you think the KJV is the only Bible version in existence.

> Now, as promised, I will give the answers I expected.

1) Who is the father of Cain?

Satan. Look up "tree" in Hebrew. In significant prime is not unlike the body of a human.<

Your English is so bad here I have no idea what you are referring to.

> Also, Eve replied to Satan, "that we may not touch." Touch is from the word that literally means to lie with, as in sex.<

What a word is from (as in it's root word) is irrelevant. What matters is how the word is used in everyday language.

> Satan is the opposite of Christ, and since Christ is called the Tree of Life,<

Where? Not in the Bible.

> Satan could only be the Tree of Knowledge.<

Again, not so stated in the Bible.

[Gen 4:1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

How much clear do you want God to be? He tells us in no uncertain terms that Adam and Eve were the parents of Cain. There is no reason to try to use some linguistical gymnastics when the answer is stated so plainly.

> 2) What are Gods feelings about Easter?

Read Jeremiah 7:17-19. The Queen of Heaven has many names, Ishtar among them. After comparing the description of Ishtar in several sources to that of Satan, I personally believe that Ishtar is a disguise Satan wore to deceive the Assyrians, who by no small coincidence were close neighbors of Israel.<

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the celebration of Easter.

> 3) What does the Bible really say concerning the Rapture?

God hates this teaching very much (yes, he hates).<

I disagree with the teaching, but I see no reason to use such inflammatory language.

>Go to Ezekiel 13:20<

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Rapture, the Second Coming or anything closely related to it. The verse is referring to people's souls being "captured" by witchcraft (v. 18).

> God was well aware of Satan's plan to spread the "Rapture Doctrine" even in the days of the Old Testament. In fact, the Rapture will play a significant part in Satan's plan to deceive when he returns.

Perhaps you may have wondered why Satan continues to battle with God if the deck is so clearly stacked against him? Simple, because he can win.<

Satan can defeat God and His plans? You really need to do some study of the sovereignty of God. Start with Psalm 115:3 - "But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases."

> The question is then what could Satan possibly hope to win? You're correct in assuming that God is far more powerful than Satan, so in a straight battle, Satan would lose. The key here is what Satan is in great need of. The answer is eternal life.

You see, one of Satan's names is "Son of Perdition" or "Death". Many years ago, Satan was sentenced to die. Being wise, Satan said to God, "all these people have also followed me. Kill me, and you must kill them."<

When did he say this? The Bible records no such thing.

> Satan was daring God to kill nearly a third of us! God knew that many were repentant.

So God gave us flesh bodies, to live out one lifetime in.<

Are you a Mormon? If so, see my articles on Mormonism where I deal discuss the whole "pre-existence" idea.

> In all this, Satan has been involving himself in one scheme after another to secure his own salvation. Cain was one of those schemes. If Cain could somehow insert his own bloodline into the bloodline of Christ, Satan would be able to gain salvation.

Fortunately, as wise as Satan is, God is wiser. Every attempt by Satan has failed. As I said earlier, Satan can win. But not against God. Right plan, wrong opponent. Until Christ returns, though, Satan will continue to use us as pawns in his game to win his salvation.

May that day come quickly.

G.W.<

You have some interesting ideas; unfortunately, they have no basis in the Bible.

> Never hit a man with glasses.
Use a baseball bat, instead.
1/12/2000<

I know; this signature line is supposed to be funny. But for a Christian it seems in rather poor taste.

Exchange Three

Before getting to your most recent letter, let me respond in a little more detail to a couple of claims you made in your previous e-mail. Since I was using handheld PC to respond to your e-mail, I was away from my desktop PC and my BibleWorks programs with its reference works, so I couldn't actually check the Hebrew text. But I just took the time to do so.

You stated:

>Satan. Look up "tree" in Hebrew. In significant prime is not unlike the body of a human.<

The Hebrew word translated "tree" in Genesis 2:17 means "tree, trees, wood" according to Brown, Driver and Briggs' lexicon. The Theological Workbook of the OT gives the meanings of "tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows." IOW, anything made of wood. There is no indication whatsoever in either of these resources that the word has anything to do with "the body of a human."

You then stated,

>Also, Eve replied to Satan, "that we may not touch". Touch is from the word that literally means to lie with, as in sex."<

The word translated "touch" in Genesis 3:3 means "touch, reach, strike" (BDB). The TWOT also has "touch, reach, strike" (see Gen 28:12; Joshua 8:15; 1Sam 6:9; 2Sam 5:8; 2Kings 15:5; Ps 73:5,14; Amos 9:5, etc.).

Now the word can have the connotation of "touching" in the sense of touching someone sexually (Gen 20:6; Prov 6:29; Ruth 2:9). But the most basic and common meanings are simply "to touch, reach, or strike." And there is nothing in the context of Genesis 3:3 that suggest sexual "touching" is in view. And since what is being touched is a "tree" according to the Hebrew text, then it is impossible for sexual touching to be in view in this verse.

Now for your current e-mail:

>You continued throughout your reply to claim that none of my statements had any relevance to the scriptures in the Bible. Sadly, I think that you are mistaken.

I will not go into the letter itself, but will make a reply to your final statement.

Violence, for its own sake is not an option. I am against wanton violence. However, as a Christian (not a Mormon), I am unafraid to consider violence if the situation arose. It would not be a hasty decision, and would only be used if good cause is presented. Good, solid Christians do not "turn the other cheek." They come out swinging without hesitation when they have considered their options and the consequences.

Still, they never do this alone. God is always there to give them strength and support. Again, I do not speak of wanton violence. Also, this applies to any form of action a Christian might take. Never hesitate once the decision to act is made, just remember that all Christian actions need the support of God.<

I would tend to agree with you that there is a time and place for self-defense. But there is nothing in your signature line to indicate this is what you are referring to. As it is, it comes across as a very "in your face" type of attitude. Completely out of line for someone claiming to represent the "Prince of Peace."

> As a final thought, I give you another place to look concerning the parentage of Cain. Many Ob's would agree that it is possible to have twins each fathered by a separate man.

John 8:39 - 45 emphasis on verse 44.<

They would? I find that highly unlikely. If I remember my biology, once a woman's ovum is impregnated by a sperm, it "closes" itself off to any further impregnation. Multi-births happen when more than one sperm penetrates the ovum at the same time, or, in the case of identical twins, the cells separate after conception. But I am assuming your whole point here is that Cain and Abel were twins.

The relevant verses read:
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground (Genesis 4:1,2).

I guess since the words "knew Eve his wife, and she conceived" are not repeated in the case of Abel, one could take this as saying they were conceived at the same time. However, I have always taken this as indicating Abel was conceived later, with these words left out simply to avoid repetition.

But even if they were twins, still the text specifically says that it was as a result of Adam "knowing" Eve that she conceived Cain. I still cannot understand how you cannot see this very clear statement. This is a historical statement, occurring in a historical book. As such, I see no to take this verse other than in its clear and literal sense. Adam fathered Cain.

Looking at the verse you cite:
[John 8:44] "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

I assume you are taking this verse as Jesus saying that Satan is literally the father of the Pharisees, as in Satan having literal, sexual intercourse with the mothers of the Pharisees. If you are, then you are making the same mistake Nicodemus made in John 3:4, taking a statement that is meant to be taken figuratively in a literal sense.

When Jesus said, "you must be born again" He was talking about a spiritual re-birth, not a physical birth. Christians have been spiritual reborn by God. As such, we are the adoptive children of God. It is in this sense that we can cry out to Him "Abba; Father." The point being, God did not have sexual relations with my mother or anyone else. He is not physically my father. Similarly, the Pharisees are "children of the Devil" because they are spiritually his children.

In any case, I don't see what any of this has to do with Cain. If you are trying to say the Pharisees are children of Satan because they are descendents of Cain, Satan's supposed child, then this is impossible. ALL of Cain's descendents died in the Flood. All humans alive today are descendents of Noah and his wife. And since Noah was "righteous" there is no way he was a descendent of Satan, nor would a righteous man such as he have married a woman who was a descendent of Satan.

> Of course, there is a cult that would agree with me. Unfortunately, they don't stop there. They also claim that this same Cain is the father of the black race. sigh.<

Not sure what group this is. But again, it is impossible as all of Cain's descendents died in the Flood.

>? Well, I've taken you as far as I can. I am at least happy ton know that you are investigating your beliefs. If I am right about God on only one thing, let it be this:

Search the truth diligently and fearlessly. Challenge long-held beliefs, and question the church. Once you've done this, decide what you believe to be true. If you have sought with sincerity and an open mind, whatever you have concluded, even if it is not the truth, will be enough in the eyes of the Lord.

But, continue to seek answers. Never assume you know everything. God loves those who make an honest effort even if their results are wrong. He loves those who continue to learn.<

Yes, continue to search the Scriptures diligently. That is good advice for both of us, and for everyone else.

> One thing does bother me from your last reply:

>> but I see no reason to use such inflammatory language. <<

What did I say that was so inflammatory. That God can hate? Why not? God does not like evil. God will not tolerate it. Sounds like hate to me. Hate is not evil.

God hates evil, and I will endeavor to hate all evil myself. You see, God loves. But he hates anything that would strive to interrupt that love.

You're not one of those Christians that believe that we should love everyone? I will never love my enemies. However, if my "enemy" comes to me asking forgiveness, I would like to think that I will forgive.

If they continue to offend me, I will continue to forgive if they ask for it. But it won't be long before I put a great distance or a barrier between us.

I have a few enemies. Satan is top on that list. So are his followers. I will never love them. They started this mess. They have refused to repent. They have gone past the point of no return.

I will probably celebrate the day they are put to death. I don't think that I'll be alone.<

The context of this statement is in reference to people who believe in the pre-trib rapture. So I am assuming you are saying that because someone disagrees with you on such a secondary, non-essential doctrine, you therefore "hate" that person and consider him to be "an enemy."

So I can only assume that for someone not to be on your "hate" list they would have to agree with you one every point of doctrine, no matter how minor. If that is the case I doubt you have very many friends. And most of all, it is such squabbling and name calling among Christians over non-essential matters that turns people off of the Christian faith.

>God be with you (and me) in the study of his word.<

Amen!

>G.W.
1/13/2000<

For a follow-up to this e-mail exchange see Shepherd's Chapel.

Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla, the Director of Darkness to Light

Note: All Scripture references from: The New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, unless otherwise indicated.

Various Religious Groups     Cults and Aberrant Groups

Text Search     Alphabetical List of Pages     Subject Index
General Information on Articles     Contact Information

Darkness to Light Home Page
www.dtl.org/

Click Here for Books and eBooks by Gary F. Zeolla