Christian Churches of God
The Doctrine of Original Sin
The Garden of Eden
(Edition 1.0 19980422-19980422)
This work is concerned with the question of the Garden of Eden, the fall of Adam and Eve and the Doctrine of Original Sin.
The Doctrine of Original Sin Part I
The Garden of Eden
Genesis 1:1-2 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)
Here we see the original creation of The Heaven and The Earth. This is the world that then was (2Pet. 3:5-6) to which all fossils and remains belong before it became Tohu and Bohu or without form and void. It was destroyed again in the days of Noah by flood. It was desolate here from another cause (cf. n verse 1 and 2 of the Companion Bible).
The heavens and the earth were created by the elohim who said let us make man in our image and both male and female were made in the image of elohim. They were commanded to go forth and replenish (or fill) the earth (Gen. 1:28; cf. Ps. 8 and Heb. 2:6-8).
We see in Chapter 2:1 ff. that the activities regarding the generations of the heavens and the earth as plural stem from chapter 2 and the creation of Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:1-17 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God [Yahovah elohim] made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD 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. 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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. (KJV)
From this we see the geography was not the same as we have it today and the rivers flowed quite differently. The garden is clearly identified as being the area from Syria to Egypt encompassing what is now Israel.
The Garden of Eden, as a topographical area dealing with the Four Rivers of Paradise has been examined in the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39). The four Rivers of Paradise embodied in the Enclosed Sun Cross are examined in that work.
“The enclosed sun cross appears to represent the four rivers of paradise. The Bible refers to this as the river, which went out from Eden and parted into four heads. Tradition has it that the four rivers flowed in opposite directions. The tradition is found among the Navaho Indian narration of the Age of Beginnings. This tradition is also found in the story of the Chinese Paradise of Kwen-lun. The four rivers also appear in the Hindu Rig Veda, and the Vishnu Purana identifies the four streams as the paradise of Brahma at the world summit. They, too, flow in four directions (Talbot, ibid.). This story is found among the Iranian myths concerning the central font of Ardi Sura, and is the Sea of Life of the Siberian Kalmuks. The Mandaeans of Iraq maintain the same tradition as Genesis; as the Babylonians also spoke of the Land of the Four Rivers.
The home of the Greek goddess Calypso, in the navel of the sea, also had the central fountain from which four streams emanated in opposite directions.
The Scandinavian Edda speaks of the origin of the world’s waters in the spring Hvergelmir in the land of the gods. The Slavs had them originate from the magic stone Alatuir in the island paradise of Bonyan. Talbot notes that Brinton finds the four mystic rivers among the Sioux, Aztecs and Maya as Fornander discovered them in Polynesian myth (Talbot, p. 121).
Few, if any, of the nations possessing the memory can point to any geographical source of the imagery. Thus, when the Babylonians invoke Ishtar as Lady, Queen of the land of the Four Rivers of Erech, or when the Egyptian text at Dendera celebrate the four Niles at Elephantine, the imagery is of an ancient mythology with no actual reality in the geography surrounding them. Talbot holds that the reason for the disparity between the mythical and terrestrial landscapes is that the four rivers flowed, not on our earth, but through the four quarters of the polar “homeland” (Talbot, p. 121). Talbot (ibid.) holds that for every dominant myth there are corresponding signs. The sign of the four rivers is the sun cross and the enclosed sun cross,
the latter sign illuminating the former by showing that the four streams belong to the primeval enclosure. Issuing from the polar center (i.e., the central sun), the four rivers flow to the four corners of Saturn’s Earth (emphasis added).
Thus, the concept embodied in the Genesis story (Gen. 2:10), whilst having a specific geography attributed to the four rivers, also represents a basic theme of the rivers of living water which flowed from the central source which was God through His morning star which at that time was Satan.
Thus, the central source, which supplied the lands of Africa as well as the Tigris and Euphrates, had a spiritual significance which has been attributed to the Babylonian religious system down to Ishtar and on to the Egyptians, as well as throughout the world via shamanism as it was developed from the central system. The Babylonian system was, in essence, Animism (see Budge Babylonian Life and History, 2nd ed., London, 1925).
Thus to the ancients, the four corners of the world had a specific cosmological meaning, which referred not to geography but to the map of the celestial kingdom. Talbot quotes O’Neill as one of the few scholars to recognise this quality of the mythical “four corners”.
It results from any full study of the myths symbolism and nomenclature of the Four Quarters that these directions were viewed in the strict orthodoxy of heavens mythology, not as the NSEW of every spot whatever, but four heaven-divisions spread out around the “pole”.
The sun-cross ... as the symbol of the four quarters, belongs to the central sun. In sacred cosmography the central position of the sun god often becomes the “fifth” direction. To understand such language, it is convenient to think of the mythical “directions” (or arms of the cross) as motions or flows of energy. From the great god the elements of life flow in four directions. The god himself, who embodies all the elements, is “firm,” “steadfast,” or “resting”; his fifth motion is that of rotation while standing in one place.
The “directions” can also be conceived as regions: the central (fifth) region and the four quarters spaced around it.
This is why the Pythagoreans regarded the number five as a representative of the fixed world axis. The Pythagorean idea clearly corresponds with the older Hindu symbolism of the directions. In addition to the standard four directions, Hindu doctrine knows a fifth, called the “fixed direction” the polar center (Talbot, pp. 122-123).
Talbot also identifies this idea with China and also in Mexican Nahuatl symbolism with five as the number of the centre (ibid.) “ (as quoted from the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39) CCG, 1997, pp. 4-5).
This theme is common to most peoples and forms a core of their ancient religious experience. The four rivers form the basis of the primeval enclosure we know as the Sun Cross. The paper on the Cross is essential to understanding what is happening in this Genesis Structure and the subsequent Satan inspired mythology of the Sun cults as they are now endemic to Christian symbolism.
The structure of the story of the Genesis account is central to most mythology, no matter from what side of the narrative the mythology is based. We see from the enclosed sun cross that the central cross is dropped to below the circle to represent the symbol of Venus as carnal desire and the symbol of the female. This is another reflection of the story we find in the OT from Genesis and throughout the Bible to the NT accounts of the fall and the relationship of woman under the law.
This view is fundamental to the story of human existence. The same struggle is being narrated by the myths of the nations and within the Bible accounts. They are not different stories. They are the same account told from different perspectives of Good and Evil as told by two spiritual forces in conflict.
One river gives rise to four rivers and this five-fold nexus is the message behind the Sun Cross. What is in issue in the narratives is the entity or deity that controls or is represented by the symbolism and in essence, who is true God. The Sun Cross is indicative of the rebellion and the claims made by Lucifer as controller or ‘adon.
We return now to the Genesis account.
Positive Examples of the Commandments
In this section of Genesis in the Garden we see that God is establishing, by positive example, the Commandments and the first four commandments come out here in the act of the creation and the sanctification of the Sabbath Day as a day of rest and one that was holy.
Thus we see also from here the ordinance established as a responsibility with Adam directly of the prohibitions regarding the trees.
From this time the animals were created. In chapter 1 they are listed ahead of the creation of man on the sixth day. Here they are behind that creation but ahead of woman.
Genesis 2:18-25 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (KJV)
Here we see the structure of dominion given to Adam who gave names to everything. This process of naming a thing symbolised power over that thing in the ancient times. Names indicate authority and delegation of the power of the name carried.
The creation of Eve from a rib of Adam is similar to the genetic processes we now understand. In this act also, the institution of marriage is set up from the moment of the creation of Eve. The terms man and woman are the Hebrew ish and ishah the feminine of ish. Ishi means my husband (lit. my man).
Adam means ruddy (SHD 120) and comes from the word SHD ’adam meaning to show blood (in the face) to flush or turn rosy and to be dyed or made red. Thus Adam was a red man in complexion.
The word ish is the Hebrew for man in the general sense. Berithish means a man of the covenant or confederacy as a compact made by passing between pieces of flesh (cf. SHD 1285). This is the sense and derivation of the word British. From Genesis 1:26 up until Genesis 2:23 the word SHD 120 adam is used. The word ish is used here in Genesis 2:23 and 2:24 for the first time.
This distinction is made because this act of union is applicable to all humans in God’s creation. This has significance for what is about to follow in the subsequent chapter.
Here we see the next series of commandments established. The responsibilities to parents were established here, as were the Seventh and Eighth Commandments. God reserved ownership to himself by command. Thus thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is the same in effect as thou shalt not steal. The Tenth Commandment regarding coveting another’s goods is also here established. Truth in acknowledging these institutions also entrenches Truth and False witness.
In Genesis chapter 3 we come across the most powerful allegory used in the Bible. The word in verse 1 refers to the Nachash or shining one and is rendered as serpent in the English. This shining one is the Covering Cherub; the Angel of Light or Light Bearer or Lucifer of Isaiah chapter 14 and Ezekiel 28:13-17.
The same sense is used of the fiery serpents in Numbers 21:6,9. They are referred to as nachashim saraphim. The fiery serpents were so called because of the burning sensations from the bites but also probably because they were directed by angels when Israel spoke against God and Moses for bringing them to the wilderness. The term saraph means to burn. The seraphim of Isaiah 6:2 were called burning ones. Thus the angelic host were of a fiery or shining bronzed countenance.
The old serpent (in 2Cor. 11:3) is transformed as an angel of light (2Cor. 11:14). Thus the serpent is used as an allegory for Satan who spoke with the woman and deceived her. There is a great deal going on in this section about trees.
Genesis 3:1-5 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. (KJV)
Elohim here is the same plural word. This plurality extends to more than one and in fact more than two but rather to an extended elohim. Abraham spoke with three of the elohim, or angels, according to Genesis 18:2 where he and Lot addressed them all as Yahovah (Gen 18:27: 19:18). This was changed to Adonai by the Sopherim from Yahovah to cover the plural usage (cf. also Companion Bible notes to these verses and also Gen. 18:2 which attempts to confine elohim here to one entity but admits Yahovah is used of all three).
The word ‘arum rendered subtil used here actually means wise or cunning or prudent (cf. Job 5:12; 15:5; Prov. 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12 and in relation to Ezek. 28:12, 13, 17). The word ‘arum is also used for naked in the previous chapter in verse 25. They were both naked and knowing only good from the injunction in verse 17. They were not ashamed being before elohim. The use of the term beast in 3:1 is the same sense of the word zoon used for the four living creatures in Revelation 4:6-9 and 5:6, 8, 14 etc. Thus it is used of the Host in the highest levels as they all had one Father who created them all (cf. Mal. 2:10; Heb. 2:11). We can get the sense of this now by looking at Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 28:12-17 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. (KJV)
So we see here that the covering cherub was placed in the garden of Eden and was full of wisdom. Thus we have two beings here in the Garden, Christ and Satan. Satan became corrupted by reason of his brightness. Thus his knowledge became the cause of his destruction.
We see here an unspecified number of trees only one of which could not be used for food.
The tree of life could be accessed with the other trees from this view. This tree that could not be eaten was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All other trees produced only good. This tree produced a knowledge of both good and evil. Evil is in effect sin, which is the transgression of God’s law. Thus we see the laws of God proceeded from his very nature and were extant from the beginning of the creation (see the papers The Government of God (No. 174) and Love and the Structure of the Law (No. 200)).
Thus the suggestion that God’s laws were not given until Sinai and only to Israel is contrary to the statements and intent of the Torah itself.
Rabbinical Judaism tries to assert that there was such a thing as a Noahide law, which we will examine next (see the paper The Tradition of the Noahide Laws). This assertion that Noah did not have the laws of God and the Gentiles had a basic law contrary to the Torah or less than the Torah is rabbinical fiction designed to introduce Gentiles to Rabbinical or Pharisaic Judaism by stealth in contradiction of Scripture.
Trees of the Garden as Beings
The concept that we need to examine also is that of the term tree. Tree is used as a term for a spirit being of the host. This tree of the knowledge of good and evil also stands for Satan and the system that he wished to implement and with which he corrupted the host. We will examine this concept in more detail later.
Ezekiel 31:3-18 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. 4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. 5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. 6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. 8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. 9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him. 10 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart is lifted up in his height; 11 I have therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness. 12 And strangers, the terrible of the nations, have cut him off, and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches are fallen, and his boughs are broken by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him. 13 Upon his ruin shall all the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the beasts of the field shall be upon his branches:
The text here shows that we are speaking of the fallen host and particularly the cherub of Ezekiel chapter 28 and Isaiah chapter 14, Lucifer who became Satan and was cast down to the sides of the pit.
14 To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death, to the nether parts of the earth, in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit.
They were delivered to the midst of the children of men with them that go down to the pit. This tells us of the fate of the host in the last days. His fall in this process was mighty.
15 Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day when he went down to the grave I caused a mourning: I covered the deep for him, and I restrained the floods thereof, and the great waters were stayed: and I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees of the field fainted for him. 16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to hell with them that descend into the pit: and all the trees of Eden, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted in the nether parts of the earth. 17 They also went down into hell with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen.
Here we see he is identified in and with Eden.
18 To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord GOD. (KJV)
The being referred to here in Ezekiel was both the Assyrian and Pharaoh and was in the Garden of Eden as a Cedar of Lebanon and none was as wise or as beautiful as he or could be matched for beauty and perfection. Egypt and Assyria were still in Adam’s loins and the other side of the flood at the time of the Garden of Eden. This being can only be the covering cherub who was cast out and the demons or trees that rebelled with him.
Thus the elohim in the Garden were multiple and under direction of God as to what they could or could not teach and do. The meat of the trees was not simply for physical food and fruit but also as teaching and guidance.
We note the comment of Satan in Genesis 3:1. He said: Can it be that elohim has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden! This was not really a question but an assertion of inequity. The woman then repeats the injunction with the punishment stated as: Ye shall not eat of it neither shall ye touch it lest ye die.
The Nachash or shining one then said, “you will not surely die. For elohim knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes shall be opened and you shall be as elohim knowing good and evil.”
Thus the plural concept is involved here. Once you eat your eyes are opened and you will be as elohim. The plurality of the elohim is evident here. The term Yahovah elohim is used in specific sense from Genesis 2:4. The Nachash does not however use that term which implies some equality of the beings in this sense.
The Trinitarian usage of the term elohim and confining it to a three fold aspect obscures the meaning here. We know that the destiny of all mankind is to be as elohim but in stages. We know this from Zechariah 12:8 and also Psalm 82:6 which was repeated by Christ in John 10:34-35 and included by him as part of the law contrary to the usual division into the Law, the Psalms and the writings (cf. Lk. 24:44). Christ referred to the Psalms as law on at least two occasions.
This distinction may be deliberate and refer back to the first concept of the promise, which emerges here in its first form. Satan was thus not telling Eve a complete lie; he was merely producing a fabrication, which did not disclose the profound changes and consequences that would ensue from this act of disobedience.
The earth became cursed because of this action of Eve.
To compound the problem Satan has developed the Doctrine of the Immortal Soul so that immortality or aionian life, which is granted by God through obedience, is presented as an intrinsic attribute of the individual. Thus the lie You shall not surely die is now endemic to world theology (see the papers The Soul (No. 92) and On Immortality (No. 165)).
Satan was giving Eve a choice here, and there are a number of aspects to the problem. These people were created and placed under Messiah as the Angel of Yahovah. They were given a system, which was enough for their perfect sustenance.
The essence of the dispute here is that the knowledge of good and evil was seen by Satan as the way of making error; allowing freedom to err or freedom to experiment with the system under whichever one was governed.
Two Trees or More?
The confinement of the story here has been made to that of two trees. One tree was the knowledge of only good and reliance on the delegated authority of God through the Holy Spirit. The other tree was that of the knowledge of Good and Evil and that these two trees were literal trees with literal fruit of an unspecified type. The two trees are listed as the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. However there were more trees partaken of than one, namely, the Tree of Life.
The forbidden fruit thus conferred a type of thinking or knowledge of and by itself. This is a rather simplistic explanation of the parable or allegory and fails to address a number of very serious philosophical issues, which deserve to receive some acknowledgment.
We see here in this chapter that there were more than two trees and all of the other trees could be used for food. Only one tree could not. Thus the entire food system was set up and not one tree only.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to them and Satan knew that it was so forbidden. He led Eve in entrapment and then Adam allowed himself to be likewise entrapped. This itself is a breach of the law in Exodus 23:2.
The punishment for eating of this fruit was death. That means that if Adam had not so eaten of the fruit it is axiomatic that he would not have died. Otherwise the punishment is meaningless and he would have died at any rate. Thus we are speaking of death in a complex terminology.
When Satan said, You shall not surely die he was looking at the long term effects of the plan of God where it was not God’s will that any flesh should perish (2Pet. 3:9). So technically this was essentially true. These people even in sin would have the resurrection extended to them. But God said they would surely die.
Thus we see here that there were two aspects to the plan of salvation. If Adam and Eve had obeyed then they would not have died. However, the plan was that they should become elohim and so they had to become spirit beings. Thus there must have been a fundamental change in the plan concerning the first resurrection.
We are left with two choices:
1. Adam and Eve and the obedient would not have died and they would have then become spirit beings. This would have been by translation either:
A. At the beginning of the millennial system;
B. At some time in the sequence as we see with Enoch who was righteous and he walked with God. He was not because God took him (Genesis 5:24).
The disappearance of Enoch as well as that of Elijah has been examined in the paper The Witnesses (No. 135).
2. If the descendants were disobedient they sinned and would have died and thus the first resurrection would have been redundant and they all would have gone to the second resurrection or they would have been allowed the first resurrection on repentance and thus three effective systems would have been in place. The 144,000 thus might have been another group with only the great multitude in the first resurrection.
This however strikes at the omniscience of God who knew the outcome and knew the elect, having written them in the book of life of the Lamb, before the foundation of the world. The lamb was slain also before the foundation of the world and thus we are seeing a known event.
If Satan and the Host had not tempted Eve then their position in the Host could not have been tested. Thus the fall in Genesis chapter 3 was as much a test or more on Satan than it was on Adam and Eve.
We lose sight of this fact and that from this point Satan set up an ancient religious system and power.
Apples in Rome
We know that the fruit is often symbolised as an apple but there is no direct evidence for that conjecture in the Bible. The concept of the apple comes from Greek and Roman mythology. Known as the Apple of discord it was thrown by Eris, who was the personification of discord, into the assembly of the gods (theoi or elohim). The golden apple was contended for by Juno, Minerva and Venus (cf. Oxford Universal Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1964, p. 86). The Golden apple is also another term for the coronation orb of the United Kingdom (ibid.).
Thus the idea of this central structure of Discord being sown by a piece of fruit, which centres around an apple, is ancient and is common to non-Hebrew systems as well. The contention for the structure by Venus as Morning Star or Evening Star is perhaps of more significance than we might at first think. The significance of Venus is examined in the papers The Golden Calf (No. 222) and also The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235).
We see in the legends of Juno from ancient times the idea that the serpent was identified with the chastity of the woman. This idea was carried from ancient into more modern times.
The Romans viewed this idea of religious chastity as important in approaching the gods.
This was central to the ideal of the temple of Vesta. It was with Juno Sospita at Lanuvium that we see the primitive idea carried into historical times (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ERE) article Chastity, 3, pp. 496-497)
Once a young girl was chosen she offered a cake to the Temple Snake. If the cake was accepted it proved the virginity of the girl and assured well for the year. If the snake refused the cake the reverse was thought to be true (ibid.).
Here we have the direct reverse of the concept where the meat offering of a cake was offered to the snake as a token of the chastity of the girl. In other words the concept here was that the serpent was the one who was guardian of and the object for the chastity of the female. This gives us an idea of what the idea is behind the parable here in Genesis chapter 3.
At the very least the connection was made in the minds of the Greco-Romans that there was a relationship with the serpent and the chastity of the ancient system.
Jupiter, Juno and Minerva were the great trias or Trinity of Capitoline worship in Rome. W. Warde Fowler is of the opinion that Roman religion was daemonistic rather than polytheistic (ERE Roman Religion, vol. 10, p. 823 ff.). Thus the concept was that the daemon was the essence of the being and thus an individual could become a god through the immortality of the daemon or essence of the individual or formerly the later individual. The original form of this was as Jupiter Feretrius whose numen or spirit was said to have resided in a sacred oak tree on the Capitoline Hill. Romulus is said to have fixed the first trophy (spolia opima) of a conquered enemy. This view was held by the Germanic Suevi (cf. ERE ibid.) and thus was common to the Teutons as well as the Latins. We know also it was endemic among the Celts and all of the Aryans (cf. the paper The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235)). Thus the Assyro-Babylonian system seems to have this view where the tree was representative of the being or deity and thus there is a meaning behind the use of the terms here in the Hebrew text.
The name of the deity Jupiter was derived from the term Diovis pater (which is derived from the root div. “Shining”). Thus the shining father was known as the deity of the sun and of light and of storms and the heavens under whatever form. This understanding is important to an understanding of ancient thought and religious symbolism generally. When the Bible is speaking of Trees it is through the prophets dealing with the religious systems of the Ancients generally. These spirit beings are represented as trees as we see above. The ancient primitive religion of the Latins as with the Teutons and all Aryans, including the Celts, took place in groves and usually groves of Oak or the other trees mentioned in the paper The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235) and the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39). The cult of the oak formed the Celtic image of Zeus (Max. Tyr. Diss., viii) and had a sacrosanct character (Pliny HN, xvi. 44 cf. ERE. Celts, p. 295 cf. The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39)).
The ash and the yew in Ireland were venerated more than the oak but each tree represented an aspect of the deities of the Sun system (The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39), ibid., pp. 9 ff.). The trees were of special significance to the deities for specific purposes. The central cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, of Juno and Minerva on the Capitoline was actually of Etruscan origin and the temple there shows unmistakable evidence of Etruscan design. The triune cult was held not to be original to Rome but was common among the Greeks, and in Etruria it was represented by the names Tinia, Thalna and Minerva (ERE, 10, p. 830). This idealised form of the triune system was placed on the Capitoline in Rome to show the overpowering form of the Roman State in the mind of its people and to overpower the old cults thus uniting the state.
The Etruscans were not anciently native to Etruria and had origins in Asia Minor. The Greek deities were introduced from the fifth century BCE. In 493 BCE a temple was built to the Greek trias of Demeter, Dionysius and Persephone under the Roman names Ceres Liber and Libera. Apollo and the oracles of the Sibyl followed in 431 BCE. We see then Artemis as Diana and Aphrodite as Venus. Venus was anciently an old Roman deity of the garden. The Greek and Roman rites were both declared lawful and we see an amazing degree of syncretism and identification in the Roman system. What is evident from the entire group and the religious systems generally is that we have common ancient views, which attribute reality to the setting we see portrayed in the Garden of Eden, not only by the Hebrews but also by the entire ancient world.
The ancient Roman God Sylvanus, deity of the field, woods and boundaries was placated as a goblin or nightmare being during childbirth by women (cf. ERE, art. Birth, 2, p. 649).
In the ancient Roman system the religion was based upon the old idea that there were only two classes of intermediary beings between men and the Divine Deity. These two classes were firstly souls of the dead which ties in to the concept of the soul after death or the thou shalt not surely die argument and the second class was that of certain spirits who attend on the lives of individual human beings (ERE art. Demons and Spirits, 4, p. 620 ff.)
This is the original ancient idea that allocated no fixed boundaries to the spirit beings in that they could act as spirits on and through humans without specific division. Hence we see multiple demon possession. Polytheism was not the original system. These spirit beings were given identities among the Greeks and this idea was adopted by the Romans, and that became what we understand as polytheism. This was not so anciently. The ancient idea was that the All-Father had created all of the theoi or gods and that each nation or city or state had been allocated to a spirit being. There was however, no clear division of the entities. The entities could also represent a collective group.
These spirit beings were identified with and as trees in which their spirit and essence resided. They could nevertheless act on and through humans as a form of Daemonia.
The Spirit as a Separate Being
We are now in a position to understand the allegory and the context in which it was set when it was written and before that when it was told as a story to generations of ancient men, both before and after the period of the flood. There are innumerable examples of this view of a notion of an invisible personality separate from yet closely allied to the life of the individual visible man. The Persians called it the fravashi, The Egyptians the ka, the Greeks the psyche. The Roman division of it will show us how it was understood and what is happening in the division. The term applied to the spirit in the individuals is the genius from which our term derives. The ancient Babylonian symbol of the Genii was an eagle-headed being. The ancient Italians attributed a separate entity to this ancient Genius isolated from the man himself and to which was attributed the power of propagating the race. The marriage bed, placed in the Atrium of an old Roman House was most clearly termed lectus genialis and we see from this a concept related to marriage and the joint union depicted in Genesis. From this concept we derive the terms to do one’s genius a pleasure.
The Matron of the house termed this power her juno and the later goddess Juno is merely a generalisation and a glorification of the separate junones of the women. Now we are getting down to the concept of the Triune system. We have Jupiter as the physical manifestation of the structure and the deity and the male capacity of the Genii. The Juno is the collective manifestation of the female’s spiritual capacity of the people. These elements came into existence with the individuals and went out of existence with them yet were able to exert strong influence on them and determine their “fortune” as it were (ERE, 4, p. 621).
The relationship to the doctrine of transmigration of the soul can be seen where the being then did not go out of existence with the body.
In time the logical absurdity occurred of inventing Genii of the great gods when they were in fact the genii themselves and representative of the collective structure. This became the corrupted polytheism of that system. In effect the original triune system of Rome and with all of the Aryans was as a giant fertility cult of which the Trinity stood supreme as a symbol of the collective interaction of the serpent and the pair here at Eden. The serpent was identified as the symbol of both the genius and the juno.
Horace declares the genius a god but declares he is subject to death (Ep. II, ii, 188 cf. ERE 4, p. 621). The Greeks represented the genius by tuche but occasionally daemon is viewed exactly in the light of the Roman genius. We are thus dealing with the common view that the genius (or daemon) is a god who is subject to death but has influence over the life of men and women and is represented by a tree.
One of the gods caused dissension among the divine realm by throwing the divine apple of discord and caused dissension being the source of the struggle between the male and female symbols of collective fertility which was exactly how we perceive Adam and Eve where Eve is the mother of all.
Sun, Moon and Stars Among the Ancient Religions
The Greek Zeus in his most ancient epithet of Wide Eye is the bearer of the light of day hence light bearer and sun god. In this respect Jupiter and Zeus are the same. The relationship with the Celts is continued not only with the oak or Duir as Zeus/Jupiter but also with the other trees in their sacred characters relating to the deities of the Mysteries including Apollo. The Druids (i.e. of the oak) even used Greek characters for public acts (cf. the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39)).
The Celts seemed to have the ninefold system of the ancient shamans tied into their system of worship and reincarnation.
It appears that an aspect of the archaeological excavations of 1978-79, by Jorg Biel and his team, of the Hochdorf Chieftain of Baden Wurttemburg may have been overlooked. The tomb contained a complete funerary site not looted. Consequently we can draw conclusions from this tomb that might not otherwise be open to us.
The tomb contained a large Italian bronze cauldron dated ca 530 BCE and a set of nine bronze sets of dishes to meet the needs of nine people. There were also nine drinking horns with the ninth larger than the others. This was taken to be indicative of the Greek ideal symposium and the large cauldron of wine again indicative that the feasting or symposium in the after-life was in accordance with the expectations of the Celt in being transmigrated to another body in another place on death.
The other funerary items including wagons and his wardrobe will not be examined other than to say it was of fine attire and not of a military nature. This explanation can be taken much further. The explanation of the Greek symposium was not far from the mark but a trivialisation of the religious views being expressed here in the tomb.
In the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39) (3rd ed. CCG, 1994, 1997, p. 10) reference was made to the images of the sun symbols of swastikas, triskele and circles and crosses etched into bronze images of the god Dispater. The S symbol occurs on coins. Nine of these S symbols hang from a ring carried by the God with the wheel. The ERE (art. Celts, pp. 301-302) says
Various explanations of this figure have been given: the most probable is that which recognises it as a thunderbolt.
Now this is only a part explanation; and it appears that the explanations in these matters to date are entirely too trivial.
The S is exactly what it purports to be in standard mythology namely a serpent. This serpent is associated with the Mystery cults and is found in exactly the nine sequence we see with Dispater. The nine links of the serpent can be found with the nine serpents which guard the corridors in the kingdom of the god Seker. The first, third and ninth serpents are symbolised by an ankh which is included in their names (see Budge, The Book of the Dead, Arkana, London, xcv f. cf. Cox; The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39) ibid., The Ankh Cross, p. 6)
We thus see what is happening in the so-called Symposium of the Greeks and the feast preparations of the nine places in the Celtic Hochdorf Chieftain.
The Wheel of Dispater is the Wheel of Rebirth of the Hyperborean Celts. This religious system, centred on Apollo among the Hyperborean Celts living on the Danube was the reason Philosophy was formed as a religion in the first place (cf. Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy, 4th ed. Black, London, 1958, pp. 81 ff.).
What is happening is that the nine serpents of the Egyptian system and the nine serpents of the Celts are dealing with the reincarnation of the soul system set up also among the ancient Greeks. These cults spread in Thrace as the Dionysian form of the mysteries. Dionysius was associated with the drinking revels there. Among the Romans it was as Bacchanalian revels from Bacchus. It is also as Orphic rituals and so on. It was Pythagoras who took the Delian school to Italy (Burnet ibid.).
The nine serpents or demons are placated at each level of ascent to the ninth and last level. This ninth level is the final entry to the seat of the god and hence of control over life and rebirth.
The ankh is based on the same concept as the Venus symbol and derives again as a form of the Enclosed Sun Cross with the cross re-located below the circle.
Ankh-em-beu-mit is the ninth serpent in the Egyptian system. It is too much to have a distinct similarity of systems with a tradition of common origin of priesthood and then to ignore the obvious inferences that must be drawn from the types of systems. The serpent is representative of the host in the language of the ancients. Hebrew is exemplary and the forms of Celtic, especially P Brythonic, are associated with Punic and Hebrew.
The Druids among the Celts came from Egypt with the Gadelians and were picked up by the Milesians in Spain or Iberia among the Gadelians (MacGeohagen and Mitchell, History of Ireland, Sadlier, New York, 1868, p. 42). The Greeks having contact with them were the ancient Graeci Vetustissimi. The more modern Greeks and Romans were not aquainted with Britain (ibid.).
It can logically be concluded that the ancient Hochdorf Chieftain was in fact prepared for the initiatory rites of the ascent through the nine levels of the afterlife. Each level was guarded by a spirit being, symbolised by the serpent at each level. In the same way the seven levels of the Hekkalot in Merkabah Mysticism among Kabbalistic Judaism are guarded by an angel. Remember the Hebrew word for Seraphim is associated with the term for fiery serpent as a shining one. This system was the same from Egypt to India and on into Asia and beyond.
The ninth level was indicated by the size of the ninth drinking horn and the relative size and power of the deity. The symposium model was thus, in some ways, a participatory rite of passage and hence, ideally, only involved males (cf. Smiths Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities art Symposium, London 1851, pp. 1082 ff.).
The conclusions regarding commonality are not made by modern scholarship because the paradigm of modern European archaeology excludes such commonality of view-point and requires an aboriginal ethno-cultural genesis of the Celts which is being continually manufactured.
As we will see the legends are the same and point back to this biblical text regarding the Garden of Eden. The ancient religious systems carry a similar context.
The sun, moon and the morning and evening stars are shown to be objects of common worship among the Aryans among the tribes from the Baltic and to the Teutons to the Persians. All of these have the related phenomena of the sky connected with light. This goes back to the most ancient religious concepts common to all the Aryans before their dispersal (cf. ERE, The Aryan Religion, 2, p. 34 ff.)
It appears that (from information from among the West Teutons) there was an ancient female deity also of Sunna, which was in the Old German Sunnen-aband or originally meaning evening before Sunday
From this concept, fire comes as a sacred object, coming to the earth by fire as lightning and thus the cults of Vesta in Rome ‘Estin in Greece and Fistia in the Arcadian as Hearth or Hearth mother are all related concepts of this ancient Aryan structure. It is tied to the oak as the tree symbolising the god who gave fertility to the collective state in the individual through the spirits that control men.
The other trees symbolise different aspects of the deity, later conveyed under a different name (cf. The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235)). They were all originally understood as sons of God.
These gods had been anciently given no distinct names other than as this system of Sun, Moon and Morning star and the fertility system it portrayed. It was secondary that the Aryans produced names and personifications for these deities or identities. Thus we find in the ancient story of Genesis the allegory of the serpent as Shining one and the tree of Eden.
By his action we derive the dissension among the host and the explanation of the golden apple in Roman times as we see above.
The third element in that story is the Minerva, the goddess who struggled with Jupiter and Juno. The name is derived from an old root which is entirely extinct in the old Italian languages and Schreader considers this must be very old (ERE 4, p. 35). The name (Menese ova has the Greek forms menos and menes os). It appears to be related to the concept of the original goddess of the morning which in the Teutonic was called Ostara who was also the goddess of the spring and related as we have seen to the Ishtar system of the Assyro-Babylonians (see the paper The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235)).
Here Minerva competes with Venus as Morning and Evening Star. Thus we have the collective male as Jupiter, the collective female as Juno and the Morning Star or light bearer as Minerva and Lucifer.
Thus we are back at the ancient system explained in Genesis and understood but twisted by the Aryans and the entire system based on the anima or the spirits, which inhabited humans and influenced the conduct of the creation. The Aryans borrowed this system from the Semites and the Sumerians as early as the Indo-Iranian period (ERE, 4, p. 36). This twisted explanation of the system among the Assyro-Babylonians became Animism and entered the entire world religious system as Shamanism among the nomads and developed higher orders of mysticism among the more sedentary peoples.
Mysticism develops this structure of ascent to these beings through contemplation.
The explanation of what is happening in Genesis chapter 3 is far from a trivial allegory. It forms the basis of the explanation of the religious systems of the world and the sharp division between the Bible and the entire system based on the heathen cults symbolised by the systems based on Christmas and Easter and the entire solstice systems.
The religious systems show this anciently. Stonehenge was built over a period of 5,000 years ago down to 3,500 years ago. Stonehenge has all the characteristics of the winter solstice system. The trenches of ash indicate sacred fires. The orientation is on the solstice. The stone is grey indicating stone for kindling sacred oak fires. The time scale is both before and after that usually attributed to the flood. This solstice system is the ancient religion of the host.
This is the distinction between the ancient system of the Assyro-Babylonians and the Bible. We see this exemplified where Hermes and Apollo develop also into the concepts found in the Bible. Apollo means “He of the fold.” Hermes means “He of the stones” or He of the Stone-heap” (see ERE, Aryan Religion, 4, p. 36).
This title of the stones gradually came to represent the Messenger of the gods and the protector of travellers and hence cairns were erected on roads (cf. The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39), pp. 12-15).
He of the fold or the sheep fold became also he of the cattle-pen.
From the earliest times Apollo was linked with Phoibos or the Shining one as a sun deity (ERE ibid.).
The Sun-god Phoebus opened the cattle pens in the morning and drove the cattle to the pasture. The deity of the boundaries of the woods as Sylvanus seems to be the boundary marker stones and we develop these concepts anciently into many faceted personalities, which they were not understood to be originally.
What we have are the same concepts here referred to in the Bible and lost in understanding through the primitive cults.
The Phobos or the Lucifer (Isa. 14:12), the Light bearer was the anointed covering cherub that walked up and down among the stones of fire (Ezek. 28:14).
The messenger of the elohim was the Memra or Angel of Yahovah. The title of Morning star and Light bearer rested with Satan and is being transferred to Messiah. The functions of Messiah were usurped by Satan and he became teacher of humanity. This function of teaching is as we see from the Book of Enoch the common understanding of the ancient Hebrews in regard to the fall of the Host.
What we appear to be viewing is an ancient common concept that was collapsed into triviality by later misinterpretation of what was happening in the stories of the nations. Not the least responsible was the faulty theology of the early church theologians of the fourth and fifth century. God had set up the nations according to the number of the sons of God (cf. Deut. 32:8 RSV, cf. also the LXX; 1 Clement and the DSS on this text). He placed humanity under these beings.
Israel, was placed under Yahovah as his portion (Deut. 32:9). The other nations were under the other members of the Host. This is why the text of Deuteronomy 32:8 was changed by Rabbinical Judaism after the fall of the temple in the Masoretic text (cf. the paper The Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ (No. 243)).
Two Roads; Two Systems
We now see that the trees represent the systems of order and experience. God had set a system in place in which mankind could have produced a system without death and sin and by that system could have come to the knowledge of the truth and eternal life.
That was essentially the way the Host was created. All beings were products of God the Father and were subject to His will for retention of the Holy Spirit. He was Eloah as the singular one true God from the beginning who, as the Christ and the apostles and the church writers such a Irenaeus said, had nothing coeval with himself (cf. John 17:3; 1Jn 5:20 etc and cf. Irenaeus in Against Heresies as quoted in the paper The Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127)). In other words there were not two or three gods, in the beginning there was only true God.
The structure was dependent upon and acted within the will of the Father. The system set up on the earth was for Adam to be placed with the Angel of Yahovah or Yahovah elohim. This being was Elohim and Yahovah, and Jacob wrestled with him and prevailed as we see in Hosea 12:3-5. Yahovah of the Hosts is the memorial of this elohim. In other words he takes his name and authority from Yahovah of Hosts (cf. the paper The Angel of YHVH (No. 24)).
Thus Adam was placed under Messiah who bore the title Yahovah elohim. Satan tried to persuade them to follow another system and do it his way. In this sense it was also a test of Azazel who became Satan. Satan wished to sift mankind and accuse them before God. Essentially the adequacy of the Adamic creation is at issue.
We now come to the issue of the temptation and the fall. Did Eve eat a literal piece of fruit? How did this eating open her eyes. How did it involve Satan and Adam? The obvious question asked over the centuries is: Was this a sexual act? The answers are in two forms. Basically they are time dependent.
In ancient times up to Augustine of Hippo (writing ca 405 CE), the unanimous answer was yes, fornication was involved. The Angels committed fornication with women. The Bible contains a number of clear references to that fact. Ancient non-biblical writings also have similar if not the same references or interpretations and these ideas are not confined to ancient Israel. In his Antiquities of the Jews (Bk, 1, 3, 1), Josephus says that some angels:
Made God to be their enemy; for many angels of God accompanied with women and begat sons that proved unjust.
William Whiston in the footnote to this verse says that:
This notion that the fallen angels were in some sense the fathers of the old giants, was the constant opinion of antiquity (Complete Works Kregel, 1981, p. 28).
The notion was not simply that some other lineage had done so as this was directly imported into the NT in Corinthians by Paul where he says:
1Corinthians 11:9-10 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. (KJV)
We know also from Jude the brother of Jesus Christ that this was the case in his view.
Jude 6-7 6 And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day; 7 just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (RSV)
The KJV says fornication (SGD 1608 ekporneusasai from ekporneuo to be utterly unchaste) rather than unnatural lust and this was the opinion of the other texts also such as the Book of Enoch.
Thus the sense of the texts derive from the concept of the creation of woman and the fact that women were unchaste with the angels.
This was the opinion of antiquity and is the sense of Genesis 6:4 when children were born to them and the offspring of the giants were not allotted to the resurrection (cf. the papers The Nephilim (No. 154) and also The Resurrection of the Dead (No. 143)). These were known as the Rephaim and they had no resurrection (cf. Isaiah 26:13). These were the other lords that ruled over men.
Isaiah 26:13-14 O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. 14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish. (KJV)The term other lords is SHD 113 ‘adon or sovereign or controller as human or divine but it is this word that is used in Psalm 136:3 and we see it used in Genesis in 19:2 and Deuteronomy 10:17.
At the very least in this context we see that some form of sexual awareness was involved between Eve and Satan.
The view of the other ancient religious systems from the flood seems to convey this concept in every facet of their symbolism. The triune or Trinity as it was understood anciently was the symbol of the Sun and the Moon and the Morning Star acting together in fertility. The two-fold aspect of it in the Babylonian and Ishtar system (extant we saw from the paper The Golden Calf (No. 222)) relates to Heaven and Earth. Thus the anima (which can only be a false spirit) enters men by virtue of the activities of Satan as Morning Star in concert with the aspects of male and female.
Thus the entire symbolism is corrupted from the Sun of Righteousness and the Moon the Church and the Holy Spirit acting in concert to three beings distinct from the elect as the church.
Augustine of Hippo
The second scenario was introduced by Augustine of Hippo at the beginning of the fifth century. He countered the idea that Seth had been of the true Adamic line and that Cain had intermarried with the offspring of the fallen host and that his offspring were not pure in their generations as Noah was pure or perfect in his generations (Gen. 6:9) (cf. The Genesis Apochryphon, DSS, cf. Vermes, The Dead Sea scrolls in English, 2nd. ed., Pelican 1975, pp. 215 ff.).
Augustine, in his work the City of God (Bk. XV, XXIII, NPNF 1st. series, vol. 2, pp. 303 ff.) decreed that the angels had not cohabited with human females and that the sons of God were the pure line from Seth and the sons of men were the offspring of Cain and the giants that had to be destroyed were the descendants of Cain.
Now this nice tidy little scenario suited every person who could not reason the truth of the Bible as a literal inspired text. It gave the Christian church operating under the umbrella of the empire a clear pat answer that would satisfy curiosity and leave no questions dangling. That is, it served the purpose of an uninformed clergy up until the scientific discoveries of the industrial revolution.
People broke free of a mindless church and they began to dig up the past and with it they found the earth was old and there were other animals older than man and there were other older types of man that had nothing whatsoever to do with them. Then the whole story of Augustine began to fall apart.
Strangely enough it was abandoned earliest within the very church that had advanced it namely the Catholic Church. The Roman branch of it has recently accepted the theory of evolution rather than accept the literal truth of the Bible.
The greatest advocates of Augustinian line breeding theory as we will term it were in fact the fundamentalist sects that opposed the Roman Catholic Church yet were most like them in organisation. This view made it very difficult to understand any deep allegory or meaning in the texts in Genesis.
There is no doubt that the fallen host are held by the Bible to have committed fornication with human females. Whether the first instance of it involved a sexual act or not, we cannot say. There seems to have been some form of understanding that was attendant upon the acts of the women acting at the behest of the serpent or Nachash, and that this act caused him to be cast down to the ground and be less than upright, as we see from the punishment inflicted upon him.
Whether this first act involved a sexual act or not it certainly was held to have led to that act in the woman’s offspring. To deny that fact is to deny the plain words of the Bible text.
The sense of marriage and offspring is the clear intent of Genesis 1:28. Adam was given the woman to be his helpmate and they were joined as one flesh and they were told to replenish the earth. This is the same command given to Noah after the flood.
So the view was one of established marital relations and they were not ashamed. However, we see later that when Adam and Eve committed sin they were ashamed and made aprons of leaves for themselves to hide their nakedness. The first acts did not involve shame the second acts obviously did involve shame and they were prompted by Satan in this matter.
God had given Adam clear instruction to obey him and not to eat of this fruit. This woman had disobeyed her husband and her elohim at the behest of another being. Adam had a responsibility to his wife here to lead and to be strong and he was not. He allowed her to sin and she was no longer sinless before God.
In the same way the second Adam is responsible for his bride the church and he is responsible for placing her spotless before God. In this aspect the marriage relationship was set before the fall and is holy.
The aim of the adversary was to interfere with the plan of God and this interference struck at the very purpose of the creation and caused the flood. He had interfered with the creation to such an extent that by the time of the flood they were unfit and had to be destroyed leaving only people of perfect generations alive.
Thus the structure of this rebellion was inherently sexual as it attempted to strike at the genetic capacity of the creation. This appears to have been stopped. But the genetic problems continued in reducing the capacity of the creation.
What is not examined in this matter is that the government of the planet was placed under Satan as Morning Star or Light bearer. The Government was not placed under Jesus Christ. Thus the system that God had set in place from at least as early as the fall had to have been given to Satan.
The Original Sin therefore had the immediate effect of removing the human creation from the Garden of Eden and its relationship with God. In the Garden the Ruach of God moved and Adam and Eve had the capacity to converse with God.
Genesis 3:8-12 And they heard the voice of the LORD God [Yahovah elohim] walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God [Yahovah elohim] amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the LORD God [Yahovah elohim] called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (KJV)
Here they had cut themselves off from the Holy Spirit or Ruach of God. They heard the sound of Yahovah elohim. This was the breeze (SHD 7307) of the Garden or the cool or ruach of the day. The Spirit of the day was the Ruach.
They had sinned and they hid themselves from God in the middle of the trees of the Garden. The first question of the Old Testament is the question of God to the hiding sinner (Gen. 3:9). Yahovah elohim says to Adam and Eve “Where are you?”
This is in total contrast to the first question in the NT in Mat 2:2) of the sinner who says: ‘where are you?’
Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (KJV)
Here we have Magi or wise men seeking the Son of God and the redemption they had lost when Adam sinned. Thus the being who sought them in the Garden was sought by the wise men when he came to redeem them. This wisdom did not come of men but of the Heavens.
Adam heard the sound and hid himself because he was naked. This knowledge he did not possess previously and this knowledge came from knowing both good and evil. The argument put forward that only the knowledge of good was the way of God is not true.
Moreover, we know that the being was the Angel of Yahovah or Yahovah Elohim, because we know that no man has seen God or heard his voice ever on the testimony of this being as Jesus Christ (Jn. 5:37).
John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (KJV)
So this Yahovah elohim on the testimony of Jesus Christ (and the apostles) was not the one true God.
We see further down that what Satan had said was in fact true and that the knowledge of good and evil, was necessary to elohim status.
What did the Yahovah elohim say to the others.
Genesis 3:21-24 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God [Yahovah elohim] make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (KJV)
All these beings had the knowledge of good and evil. And Yahovah Elohim said, behold the man has become as one of us to know good and evil. Now lest he take of the tree of life and eat and live forever he had to be banished from the garden
In the same way the demons were also denied access to the tree of life on an ongoing basis. In this sense they were no longer “immortal” in the sense of having aionion life, but were confined in times and space as we see in the texts here and in the NT gospels generally. Thus the knowledge of good and evil, combined with the tree of life made them as elohim.
Satan was correct in what he said to Eve. He as covering Cherub had this knowledge and so did the Yahovah elohim or the delegated commander who ruled in the name of Yahovah of Hosts, which is what this being was.
So it is nonsense to assert that one tree necessarily led to death. The tree was forbidden because God did have a plan, which would have enabled humans to progress to elohim status within a structure different from that which we now experience.
Having brought this about Satan was then given responsibility for taking the creation through to the end and for that he would be judged. The way he decided to deal with humans dictated the way he and Messiah would themselves have to experience the creation.
There is a very serious argument in Determinism here. If God knew and placed both beings here in charge of the creation and he knew that Satan would interfere he has a responsibility in the events. Being omniscient he must have known and otherwise Messiah could not have been the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
God either did not instruct Yahovah elohim correctly or he wished to allow these two beings to determine by their own actions the methodology of the plan of salvation over the period of the trial. By non-interference God could also test the Host in their responsibilities at every level.
Christ as Yahovah elohim acting under delegation and not being omniscient as we see from later texts must have either not been told or participated in the fall by not acting.
In either case the transfer of control was affected from Yahovah elohim to the Nachash who was cast to the ground. This Nachash as Morning Star still had access to the throne of God on a repetitive basis as we see from Job 1:6; 2:1.
The earth was then cursed because of the transgression of Adam and Eve. This is the entire concept behind Deuteronomy 32:8. The law thus had effect from then and the curses came into effect.
If the Yahovah elohim did not act to protect, he is culpable in the same way parents are culpable, if they fail to protect their child from dangers which will induce death.
The entire structure appears to have been initiated by God to test the elohim first and then having given them the structure and alternatives let them take the creation through to the end.
The Spirits here are of two kinds. The first is of obedience and the second is of a desire to be outside the will of God. This format is essentially what was induced here. That it induced a sense of awareness of their condition in relation to the elohim was beyond doubt.
Thus we are not speaking of an awareness of their nakedness to each other. We are speaking of the awareness of the nakedness of each other before the elohim which knowledge they gained after their exposure.
That God the Father knew this would happen is beyond doubt. The participation of Christ as Yahovah elohim in this does not imply omniscience at the same level as that of Yahovah of Hosts.
The Plan of God thus encompassed much more than any other being including Christ knew. That is why Christ was also tested in obedience and faith for with omniscience comes the necessary absence of faith. For where certain knowledge is, there faith is unnecessary.
The prelude to this argument is often taken to state God as One Being in two or three hypostases. An example of this view is the statement of the Worldwide Church of God in their booklet In the Beginning: Answers to Questions from Genesis (WCG 1980, p. 2.)
Consider John 1:1: “In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.”
That is the very earliest prehistoric record. It could have been millions or thousands of millions of years ago. The two eternally living Spirit Personages, who together constituted the ONE God, were ALONE in empty space. There was no physical universe-YET.
The article then goes on to speak of God in the singular.
But even as man thinks, and designs and plans before making- so did God conceive the plan and design to create angels- immortal spirit beings, composed wholly of spirit. God created angels before creating the earth. We know that they had been created prior to the earth because they sang together and shouted for joy at the earth’s creation (Job 38:4-7.) (emphasis retained).
This is straight heathen theology. It derives directly from the worship of the god Attis from which the Modalism of the Roman system was developed. This is examined in the paper The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235). In that system God was two modes of existence as Father and Son. This was later taken to the Trinitarian stage by adding the Holy Spirit at the Council of Constantinople in 381. This Binitarian system which tried to make a distinction in the two entities was developed from the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE.
The system is however heathen and contrary to Scripture and the start of the Trinitarian rot in the churches of God. That commences from its application here at Genesis.
Look at the simple statements here in Genesis. Yahovah elohim spoke with Adam and Eve. Yahovah elohim spoke in the plural to the elohim there and said and man has become like one of us. These are multiple beings. Satan is a Morning Star and these are mentioned in Job 38:4-7. Messiah is also a Morning Star.
There were three elohim beings termed angels and also Yahovah, which is the name of the elohim who spoke to Abraham and Lot as we see above.
Christ said no man has seen God or heard him speak ever. Yet Adam and Eve spoke with Yahovah elohim face to face as did Moses. Jacob wrestled with him. Clearly Yahovah elohim is not the Father, the one true God Christ spoke of in John 5:37. Moreover there are at least three beings in the OT bearing the name of Yahovah none of whom is God the Father and three of which are identified as angels.
Thus the distinction is incorrect as it is made by these Binitarians. Later the same people could write that God and Christ as these two beings could have had a discussion as to who could have come down to be sacrificed. The reasoning is bizarre and jumps from Ditheism to Binitarianism incoherently without cognisance of the words of Messiah himself.
God Most High was not here at Eden except through the Holy Spirit. The two beings that were in a position of authority and control were the two senior beings there.
They set the system in place for the next phase. The senior being here as Yahovah elohim is the same being referred to in Hosea 12:3-4.
Thus the plan was set for the test of the elohim in control of the planet. They had rebelled and they were going to be tested in accordance with the reasons for their rebellion.
The system Satan had argued for was put into place and he was placed in command of it. The nation of Israel was however left out and given to Yahovah elohim in order to bring the entire world to salvation through that lineage and system which would be set aside under the laws of God. Thus the entire system was extant from the beginning.