Did Eve have sex with Lucifer in the Garden of Eden?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

No Eve didn't have sex with Lucifer.

She just wasn't his cup of tea.

She tried everything..her best fig leaf, apple blossom in her hair, talking to snakes, flirting with Adam and nothing worked, he just didn't fancy her.

The serpent is one of the beasts that Lord God formed in the garden eastward in Eden. But the sperpent beast is not a serpent. Its just that the beast's attitude is depicted as being subtle and conning.

The serpent was formed at the same time Lord God formed all the other beasts of the garden.

Adam was set to name all the beasts that Lord God had formed. But the name of the breast that is depicted as a serpent is never mentioned in scripture? Neither is this beast described in detail in shape and form.

It is not mentioned that Adam or the woman could speak With all the beasts that Lord God formed?

But the serpent was not like all the other beasts that Lord God had formed eastward in Eden. So this beast was different and probably much like Adam and the woman, since they could speak With the beast.


Keep in mind People. That Eve was not Eve until Adam was cast out of the garden of Eden. When Adam was cast out Adam called the woman for Eve. And said that she was the mother of all life.

But Eve could not have been the mother of all life. Because she was the last living thing Lord God formed eastward in eden.


The other thing you should pay attention to is that The woman (Eve) was not cast out from the garden. Only Adam was cast out.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DeathSlayer
I think the intention of the story is that the snake's offspring are other snakes.
"The man shall bruise your head, you shall bruise his heel" is precisely what men and snakes do to each other; that element in the story is there to explain why.

is not Lucifer known as the serpent?

Well yes...But before he was known as the Serpent, God created Lucifer to be a mighty, exceeding good looking person...Lucifer wasn't condemned to his 'serpenthood' til after he bequiled Eve in the garden...And from that point on he was known as the Serpent...

When Moses wrote about the events in the Genesis, it was 1500 years after the event took place...So Lucifer had been the Serpent for a good long time by then...

It wasn't an apple in the tree, it was a pair on the ground...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: windword

Oh yeah I forgot! Satan is such a busy bee. I wonder why God never steps up to counter any these tricks of Satan's? For a god that supposedly hates the guy, he sure lets him run roughshod over his favorite creations. Sounds like a conspiracy to me!

Maybe the apple was a false flag that God planted to BLAME Lucifer because God was always just a dick.

How can you argue the Bible when you don't even know the Bible...We are currently living in Satan's Kingdom...

a reply to: Iscool

the people who dont know the bible verse by verse always seem to be the ones who KNOW the bible the best bc they dont play into it. They take it for what it is...a book that has been rewritten over and over again with interjections of propaganda to control the masses.

The bible is amazing and worthless both at the same time.

It is amazing as in it is the only account of these people existing and preaching and telling the stories. However, it is worthless bc it has been rewritten, misconstrued and translated over the years.

I look at the book as a story book based off factual information. Its still fascinating to me.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DeathSlayer
I think the intention of the story is that the snake's offspring are other snakes.
"The man shall bruise your head, you shall bruise his heel" is precisely what men and snakes do to each other; that element in the story is there to explain why.

is not Lucifer known as the serpent?

Well yes...But before he was known as the Serpent, God created Lucifer to be a mighty, exceeding good looking person...Lucifer wasn't condemned to his 'serpenthood' til after he bequiled Eve in the garden...And from that point on he was known as the Serpent...

When Moses wrote about the events in the Genesis, it was 1500 years after the event took place...So Lucifer had been the Serpent for a good long time by then...

It wasn't an apple in the tree, it was a pair on the ground...

Where do you get this from?


The serpent was formed at the same time as all the other beasts Eastwards in the garden of Eden.

The only difference between the serpent and the other beasts was that the serpent was more subtle then all the other beasts Lord God had formed.

The serpent is never mentioned by name. Adam must have named the serpent, because Adam gave each beast its own name when they were brought before him. Who and what this serpent is.... is not described in genesis.

The serpent cant be Lucifer. But Lord God could be Lucifer.

originally posted by: DeathSlayer

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: DeathSlayer
I think the intention of the story is that the snake's offspring are other snakes.
"The man shall bruise your head, you shall bruise his heel" is precisely what men and snakes do to each other; that element in the story is there to explain why.

is not Lucifer known as the serpent?

No where in Genesis is the serpent identified as Lucifer/Satan.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You do realize that both Jesus and Lucifer are described as the same entity in the bible don't you?

It depends upon which MSS interpretations you are embracing. Most bibles have not the Hebrew to English rendition. In fact the only correct Hebrew to English translation is not in marketed bibles but found in scholarly renditions. The reason is that the MSS which were used were not understood and till this day they are not understood.

Source
Eth Cepher – YESHA’ YAHU –

Isaiah Isa 14:12-15
(12) How art you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (13) For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of El.: I will sit also upon the mount of the assembly, in the sides of the north: (14) I will sascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like El.Elyon. (15) Yet you shall be brought down to She’ol, to the sides of the pit.

Jerome did not know what the meaning of "Heylel" nor "son of the howling morning" truly meant and replaced Heylel with a name called, by him, as "Lucifer"----------- The interpreters thereafter followed that same word play as they knew no more that did Jerome.

Now in the NT literature it is plainly stated that Jesus preexisted and returned to the celestial realm as The Creator who is subjected to His Father "The Most High". How then could the Creator be subjected to hell or the ethereal fire of eternal punishment?

Another thought is that the Isaiah narrative was written as past tense literature at the time the author wrote this narrative. How then can you tie this together with the celestial Jesus? If the Word (Jesus) came only once to this earth, how could He then be an entity of this terrestrial earth at the time of this writing? You realize that the Heylel of Isaiah predated the birth of Jesus by many years and what you are postulating is that the "Word of God" was cast down from heaven and became Jesus?

Then you must also consider the rest of what this author is saying. This Heylel is the son of the howling morning. So here we have an uncertain entity called Heylel who is the son of the howling morning. Are you then saying that Heylel is the son of God (howling morning?) Did Heylel's father cast his own son from heaven to the terrestrial Sheol? Is Jesus (Heylel) now in Sheol (hell)? Would you please explain more of this? Very interesting.

The serpent is your GOD. GOD and Lucifer are one in the same.

that is not to say what you have been worshpping is evil. The words of Jesus Christ our savior are true but unfortunately misconstrued over the years.

If you study other religions, they are all very similar. They are about an enlightened somebody who has clarity and can see there is more to life than living on earth.

they differ when they try to personify this "magic/god" and that is how things get WHACK. That is why religion is not healthy, its like believing in Santa Claus except you dont grow out of it. (heck, i believe there could be some truth to santa)

That is not to say having faith and spirituality is not good. There IS something out there. Jesus knew it and preached it. His words and the bible are the closest thing we have to it, however, we should not rely entirely on it bc it has been rewritten many times.

God is not a person, never was. God is the universe or we really just dont have a good term for it yet. "God" was just a very fitting term in Jesus's time. Jesus was brought back to this earth (he was "enlightened" and did not have to come back but did anyway through reincarnation) to help "enlighten" us. He never intended his teachings to become a religion. he was on a mission to help us. What is evil and what is good is one in the same.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
You do realize that both Jesus and Lucifer are described as the same entity in the bible don't you?

Isaiah 14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

In other versions it has "morning star" replacing Lucifer. It is widely held that Lucifer is who Isaiah was speaking of.

Revelation 22
16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."

Jesus then refers to himself as the morning star.

Lucifer means "light bringing". What did Jesus claim to bring?

John 12
46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.

He claimed to bring light to the world.

Lucifer and Jesus represent the same thing except Lucifer has been given a bad rap so that people will reject the light in my opinion while believing in a false light that they cannot personally see.

Interesting concept and upon reading this post, I immediately wondered on whether the holy spirit could not then be connected with the fruit and tree of knowledge? Especially, since most of Jesus' teachings /sayings were simply re-phrasing of the old testament doctrines. That is why they could not find fault and were amazed at his words. So, where is the actual workings of the holy spirit written in the old testament? A spirit that seemingly will guide and assist you in knowing good vs evil?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Iscool

the people who dont know the bible verse by verse always seem to be the ones who KNOW the bible the best bc they dont play into it. They take it for what it is...a book that has been rewritten over and over again with interjections of propaganda to control the masses.

The bible is amazing and worthless both at the same time.

It is amazing as in it is the only account of these people existing and preaching and telling the stories. However, it is worthless bc it has been rewritten, misconstrued and translated over the years.

I look at the book as a story book based off factual information. Its still fascinating to me.

Well, our bible actually is almost word for word the same as the scripture found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which are a couple thousand years old...

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

It's one thing to know the bible...It's another thing to believe...Those of us who believe it are confident that God could and did preserve his words for all generations...

a reply to: Iscool

NO,

Believing in "God" and being practical that the bible has been re-written and manipulated over time can happen. You do not have to be a blind follower believing "GOD preserved his words in the bible, everything is 100% accurate"

You can believe and also know that the bible is what it is...a book of scriptures that have been re-written and translated over many years to control masses.

Do not be part of the blind mass.

With that said, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been preserved over most of that time and can be taken more literally, in my opinion.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I am drawing the line by looking for the interpretation that makes the most sense, and leaves the whole thing least tangled.
…
A metaphorical snake is introduced for the purpose.
…
…

Ok, but how does making the snake that tempted Eve Metaphorical ease the interpretation…What’s the big problem with making that part literal as well, considering that the snake becomes literal anyway, during the bruising part, further on in the story…?

If the snake is literal in one place, then it’s quite natural to make it literal in the other…unless there’s some major problem…


- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft
Ok, but how does making the snake that tempted Eve Metaphorical ease the interpretation…What’s the big problem with making that part literal as well

I think it's obvious enough how a literal talking snake is a problem in interpretation. Do you find it easy to believe? Genuinely?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

it doesn't say a snake but a serpent, and it doesn't say it was hanging off a tree. It seems there is so much addition to the word of God in your OP that you probably know was added by men.

But the rest of your idea could well be plausible.

Seeing she had two sons Cain and Able but only one conception. These boys were not identical twins but maternal twins, meaning the mother could have had sex or even raped by Lucifer, and later that day with Adam having two eggs fertilized so they were born at the same time.

We do know they were twins by this verse that has one conception and she bares twice.

Ge 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

There s much debate and this is about the fourth thread written about this subject already in the last year and a quarter.

Perhaps Adam and Eve were sociopaths. If they had no knowledge of good or evil, then they had no conscience. They were in a state of bliss because their world was devoid of consequences. That is until a literal or metaphorical or whatever snake shows up, strikes up a conversation and reveals to Eve that the bliss she enjoyed was an illusion. The snake awakened Eve to the reality of the garden.

As the saying goes: ignorance is bliss.

We have no way of knowing if Adam and Eve were sociopaths, the snake was really a snake or if Eve was raped and pillaged. They closest we can come is if someone is psychic and can see past lives.

But first you have to believe that someone can have these powers and in reincarnation.

Edgar Cayce touches on the subject. Adam and Eve may not have even been in human form as we know today. He talks of these "thought bubbles" that came out from time to time to enjoy sin such as sex. Came out...what is that? I do not know. There is so much we do not know.

Thought bubbles? WTF are those? Are they Orbs like what we know today? The movie Fantastic Planet sort of touches on this thought. (That is also what my sig pic is) Its weird.

anyways, these thought bubbles were the closest the "God", they lived in bliss. What if Adam and Eve were these thought bubbles and Eve left her safe blissful thought bubble to take a bite out of the apple / have sex with Lucifer/God...whatever. From then on she had to live her life as a human. A human that experiences sickness and death, evil, pain. A human much like today.

Perhaps that is the jump from this blissful garden of Eve to evil...or...Earth as it is today.

Perhaps Earth is "hell" and we can only hope to one day, through many lives achieve "enlightenment" (for lack of a better term) to stay in "heaven" and not have to be reincarnated back onto this hell.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Bramley [3] has noted that, “We therefore find Ea [Enki] as the reputed culprit who tried to teach early man (Adam) the way to spiritual freedom. This suggests that Ea intended his creation, Homo sapiens, to be suited for Earth labor, but at some point he changed his mind about using spiritual enslavement as a means.”

From a Biblical perspective, it was Enki who (with the critical assistance of his half-sister, Ninki, aka Nin-khursag) created Adam and Eve. It was Enlil, on the other hand, who created “Edin”. Enki was the serpent in the garden, who urged Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which was infinitely beneficial to their spiritual growth). It was Enlil, who drove them out of Edin, while Enki was there to clothe them. It is worth noting that Zecharia Sitchin [2] claims that the biblical word for “snake” is nahash, which comes from the root word NHSH, and which means “to decipher, to find out.” In other words, Enki, the God of Wisdom.

www.halexandria.org...

No, 1 does not think EVADU mated with the Serpent...
ADAMU it seems was meant to procreate with LILITH,
before the creation of EVE.

I wasnt going to mention this in my last post bc its way out there but since you posted a pic of a women with bird feet...

It was also common to have human/animal features. This would mean that centaurs, mermaids, sphinx...all of them once existed. Perhaps jumping from thought bubble to fish / goat / horse prompted this.

How could these "monstrosities" existed without proof? Well, there IS a whole continent that is rumored to have existed...with no set proof...Atlantis.

With all this to be possible, Atlantis would have to be real. Edgar Cayce believed it to be real...he saw it.

Science is awesome but we are constantly learning. Just bc there is no hard set proof does not mean it is not real. There are some artifacts in the basements of museums that are not displayed bc no one knows WTF they are? There's a huge void / question about where things came from and how and Atlantis being real puts everything in perspective.

To 1, it is basically genetics. The first human ancestors could/should of carried animalistic features too. But with more genetic modifications the missing link between ancient man and future man has been made to carry less recognizable animal features. Although the animal mind may still remain more with some humans.