Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Not a Serpent but a Nachash

"Nachash, the snake within man, is the radical egotism which causes an individual being to make of itself a center and to relate everything else to it." - Sacred Texts

"Eve was not talking to a snake. She was speaking to a bright, shining, upright being who was serpentine in appearance, and who was trying to bewitch her with lies." - Sound Doctrine Ministries

I've known for years it wasn't a snake or serpent in the story of the Garden of Eden. It was a nachash, which means "shining one" and to "hiss or whisper" like a snake (and as in the whispering of soothsayers - those who claim they can tell the future). For that matter, "Lucifer," which appears only once in the Bible, also means "shining one." (Not surprisingly one of the negative aspects of the word "Lucifer" means "to boast.")

A "shining one" would appear to be good but in reality is bad. Isn't that the way it always is? And who does the nachash first target? The woman.

Women oftentimes look at the surface of things. Being run by their feelings and lacking analytical ability (not all but a lot) of course they'll fall for something that looks good on the surface.

The nachash is also described as "subtle," as in "crafty and cunning."

So then, all you have to do to con most woman is to shine, to boast, to be crafty and cunning and deceive them. To tell them, like a soothsayer, that things will get better for them if they listen to liars. After all, women are the daughters of Eve, just as men are the sons of Adam.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?


Anonymous said...

I think this may explain why some women may be so enamored with and attracted to deviant men (women writing love letters and marriage proposals to murderers and serial killers in prison).

Men definitely civilize women.

Women psychologically need men, more than men need women in my opinion.

sth_txs said...

It is too bad most of us do not have the time to study ancient Aramaic or Greek so we could find out what those early scribes were really writing. Of course, some words have a cultural context that a dictionary definition can not convey, so there is always that limitation that has been carried into the translations.

Anonymous said...

Men can be easily enamored with and deceived by women.

“It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.”
― Leo Tolstoy, The Kreutzer Sonata

Anonymous said...

“Tie yourself up with a woman, and like a chained convict, you lose all freedom . . . If you
only know what women in general are! Egotism, vanity, silliness, triviality in everything.
That’s what women are when they show themselves as they really are…No, don’t marry, my dear
friend. Don’t marry!”
— Leo Tolstoy, “War and Peace”

“Women are generally stupid, but the devil lends her brains when she works for him. Then she
accomplishes miracles of thinking, farsightedness, constancy, in order to do something
— Leo Tolstoy 1898

Anonymous said...

Women are far crueler than men when given power.

Violence Against Women

The common claim that males are universally more aggressive is not very accurate because men and women aggress in different ways. While male aggression almost always involves direct—often physical—confrontations, female aggression is typically indirect (also called “relational aggression” or “social aggression”) and usually involves attacking the physical appearance of one’s rivals, spreading rumours about her sexual infidelity and exclusionary tactics.[64][65][66][67]

However, this form of aggression can escalate into cruel and violent crimes. This is what is seen in acid attacks, which were common female crimes in the United States and in Europe: acid served as the ultimate weapon to destroy the beauty of one’s sexual rivals.[68] There are also many cases known of women who killed wives in order to marry the husbands.[69] As previously mentioned in the first section of this article, the extreme cruelty towards domestic servants and slaves by women mistresses is a common theme throughout history. Here are some excerpts from an article from the 19th century discussing women’s violence against other women:

“Woman sometimes displays the same amount of ingenuity in tormenting the helpless creatures who may be in her power. I do not know, says Bourgeval, any one more perfidious, immoral or perverse than the New Caledonian woman. In certain portions of Australia women are mortal foes to each other. When the men wish to punish any one of them, they turn her over to her companions, who indict upon her horrible tortures. Sitting on her body, they cut her flesh with sharpened stones.


Anonymous said...

Violence by proxy plays a key role in female–female violence as well. In most cases, their proxies are husbands or other male relatives and members of the community. At other times, they are daughters, other female relatives or acquaintances.[70] By accusing their rivals of violating social conduct, women instigate others to take action. Extreme examples can be found in the witch-hunts of the Middle Ages. Alleged witches were accused mainly by other women—often their sexual rivals.[71][72][73][74][75] The first Englishwoman tried under the Elizabethan statute was Elizabeth Lowys who was accused mainly by women.[76] The last witch to stand trial was Jane Wenham who was accused by another woman and herself implicated three other women.[77][78]

DV research into LGBT populations can also offer us insight into female–female aggression. Women who identify themselves as homosexual constitute around 2% of the population[79] and so early researchers assumed that DV was not a significant problem among them. However, recent research has found that lesbian couples have the highest rates of DV—two-fold to three-fold higher compared to heterosexual couples.[80][81] The incidence of sexual abuse—especially violent sexual assault—is also substantially higher among lesbian couples.[82]

Unfortunately, violence by women against other women is the most overlooked category in research.


dienw said...

Cain, the son of Eve, but not Adam, is the result of this beguiling.

Unknown said...

"I think this may explain why some women may be so enamored with and attracted to deviant men (women writing love letters and marriage proposals to murderers and serial killers in prison)."

My unstated point of the article.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Hey, Bob, did you hear that the taxi driver, Tarek Girgis, who killed John Nash was a middle eastern immigrant who'd only been driving a taxi for a few weeks?

Unknown said...

Only Americans should be hired as cab drivers.

Unknown said...

What men don't get...(or maybe some do after experience)...is that while women are certainly physically weaker appearance wise to men, they are certainly stronger when it comes to their inner being over men. Which is why God gave husbands rule over them, and men in general kept their sphere of influence to her family and the home.

Anonymous said...

Men are hard on the outside (having physical strength and endurance), but soft in the inside (more emotional, empathetic, sympathetic, romantic). Women are soft on the outside, but hard in the inside (cold, no feelings and emotionless, calculating, manipulative).

Never trust what a woman is telling you and always block out the emotional pleading and you will always see women in exactly the light that they should be viewed.

Men in earlier history had a better understanding of the true nature of women, which most modern men today do not understand.

Anonymous said...

"Women are soft on the outside, but hard in the inside (cold, no feelings and emotionless, calculating, manipulative)."

Regarding women, I think they are more prone greater degrees of envy, jealousy, greed and spite and vindictiveness, than men. Women also act out their aggression by proxy, that is indirectly oftentimes, using and manipulating men, in their aggression.

Men manipulate the world to achieve their goals, and women manipulate men to get what they want.

marlon said...


Eve conceived once and bore 2 sons - Cain and Abel.
They were twins -fraternal or identical, I don't know.
So if you are implying Cain was the Adversary's kid, what does that make Abel?

Unknown said...

"Regarding women, I think they are more prone greater degrees of envy, jealousy, greed and spite and vindictiveness"

That is why the nachash, which is a symbol of envy and hate, targeted Eve, because those are the flaws of women.

Unknown said...

"So if you are implying Cain was the Adversary's kid, what does that make Abel?"

There is a very small and almost unknown Christian splinter group that believes Cain was the offspring of the nachash and Eve. After all, he was the first murderer, and of all things, murdered his own brother.

Unknown said...

Whether Cain was a 'cuckold' of Eve and the serpent or a twin to Abel...that point in the story to me is irrelevant. The point is when it came Cain's turn to be envious...his reaction was to become angry and to murder physically. Envy for men can lead to this result and that is why it is pointed out in the NT why unresolved anger is a bad road for men to go down.


dienw said...

@ marlon May 26, 2015 at 9:51 PM

So if you are implying Cain was the Adversary's kid, what does that make Abel?

1. The reasoning that Cain is of the Serpent is a long tradition: not only does it start with Cain; but it continues with God's use of the word "seed" for both Eve's seed and Satan's:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
a. Cain is said to have become Sargon the Magnificent. (note: the link I gave also asserts that Adam ans Eve went east out of Eden and settled in the " the Atrium Basin, in what is today called Sinkiang, in the extreme southwestern part of China."
b. Cain would have had descendents. The genetic/spiritual material would have continued in the wives of Noah's sons: got Ham?

(Note: we have come up against the reasoning from the text that the creation of Adam was the second creation of humans: White race anyone?)

2. Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
The word "beguiled" has a sexual connotation as does the word "eat."

Also, if you do a word study of the meaning of the names "Cain" and "Abel," one can come to the conclusion that Eve knew who was whose: she considered Abel to be worthless: I wonder if one can draw the conclusion that women naturally prefer those sons of their hypergamous preference over the sons of for whom they settled.

Unknown said...

'I wonder if one can draw the conclusion that women naturally prefer those sons of their hypergamous preference over the sons of for whom they settled.'

If you take hypergamous and make it more about 'woman's power'...I think the natural tendency is for a woman to love a child that was conceived under her own power as opposed to when a man (or ultimately God) decides. However the woman that really loves 'her child' usually means disastrous results for the kid.

Which gets back to birth control. If you think cuckolding, abortion, adultery, and such all came out of the woodwork...they've always been there. We just gave women the ammunition they needed to unleash it easier.

Unknown said...

If you take it farther into Genesis...Jacob was the twin son Rebekah loved and she used deception for him to get his brother's birthright.


Unknown said...

People would be better off reading accurate translations of the Bible.

dienw said...

To put on your laptop. All the bible, commentaries, and dictionaries - some free - you could want.

Anonymous said...

What is the best translation of the Bible? King James version?

dienw said...

Any version that is a true translation of the received texts. The KJV is one of he best; there is also the Literal Translation,The Weymouth New Testament,and Young's Literal Translation: you need to determine which bibles are corrupted by liberalism and Romanism (Babylon): mostly dating from the mid 19th century to now.

You also need a good Hebrew to English and Greek to English dictionary; also some solid commentaries.

The e-Sword basic app gives you a King James Version with Hebrew/Greek numbering of the text's words: a valuable tool in order to get a solid understanding and to overcome social/political/churchian pressures on the translators.

The KJV with it's complex sentences: you must learn to carry a thought across long sentences and actually read the punctuation; and the fact that it represents the zenith of the English language make it the best option.

This is why I recommend the e-Sword product. And it is free. Did I say free?

Anonymous said...

The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness:


marlon said...


Seed can mean spiritual - in the sense that Jesus called the Pharisees sons of the Adversary. They weren't literally sons of the Adversary - some could trace their descent from Aaron!

Notice this: you cannot find scriptural support for your view.
"Beguiled" also means plain old beguiled, and "eat" means plain old eat.
When Jesus told his followers that His flesh was meat indeed, was the meaning literal, sexual or spiritual? Or all three!?

Since Adam was near enough to eat the fruit, if you take the view that this speaks of sex, then what are you saying? Sex, even, between married people is a sin?
And the Adversary screwed Eve in the presence of Adam, and then Adam watching, figured out what to do, and screwed Eve after? So this is how Eve gets pregnant once, and bears 2 kids? Too much reading into the text, methinks.

"Also, if you do a word study of the meaning of the names "Cain" and "Abel," one can come to the conclusion that Eve knew who was whose..."

You can only come to this conclusion if you already believe Cain was literally the Adversary's seed. It can simply mean she preferred Cain; something which happens quite often in families.

God kills even babies directly in the OT; look what He did to Judah's newborn sons in Genesis. Why would God not kill Cain, yet send the flood, plus the other killing He does, or orders in the OT?

God reasons with Cain to bring him to repentance; not how one would deal Satan's seed.

As for the races of man, I simply take Gen 1:28 to mean what it says - God created the races of man - white, black, yellow, and then creates Adam specially.

I have no problem with Cain being Sargon; I took a look at the book; the authoress doesn't lend any support to Cain being "the seed of the devil".

little dynamo said...

Envy/jealously is the ruling demon of our time, and certainly of the U.S.

We see this clearly in leftism and feminism, which are built on group-resentment and the totalitarian urges of cowards, hypocrites and bullies. The more victimized they can portray themselves, the more power can be taken away from their betters. I can't top you, so I'll shut you up, disenfranchise you, scapegoat and criminalize you. If they did it to Jesus, they'll try it on anybody. I can't acknowledge that you may have something to offer, because..... that'd take attention away from ME!


We also see envy every day on the net. Young guys want authority w/o paying dues. They think it can be done by bragging and networking. The planet teems with people, male and female, who do not want to wait their turn at authority or power, do not want to please God to get influence, but instead choose to sneak around with allies and plot. Then become enraged when challenged.

As if this planet were nothing more than another episode on Survivor Island, and the snake that is most cunning at gathering backers wins. By no means is Envy limited to leftists. And indeed many people publically identifying as "Christians" play these sad games. Everything to them is a macho contest, and only one Macho Alpha can triumph! Always concerned about how they appear to their crew, as if receiving authority (of any kind) from the Lord is about who schemes the best.

Anonymous said...

There is no more delusive power on the face of the earth than sex. Or as a Turkish proverb has it, "Erkegin sheytani kadindir," "Man's devil is woman."