The Lie: Serpent seed Doctrine

[2tim_215]

As Moses was married to an Ethiopian---she was black.

So was Solomon Song 1:5.

 

[mmksparbud]

So was Solomon Song 1:5.

That one is questionable as she supposedly was black from being outside in the sun---

Son_1:6 Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

Could have been very dark to begin with and the sun made her darker. Doesn't matter--God doesn't have a problem with mixed races---just believer with unbeliever.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Good info. Wasn't aware that he preached against interracial marriage which is actually Biblical in a sense which was for Jews of the Old Testament to not intermingle with non-Jews which might be considered to be racist to some although it wasn't. You could also consider that same in the New Testament when we are told as believers to not be "unequally yoked".

The purpose behind this was that God did not want His people to be corrupted by the ways of the non-believer by intermingling with them or even marrying them. Twisting these scriptures was just a way to justify their Serpent Seed doctrine and their racist ideas.

Ruth is an example of intermarriage.

King David married the daughter of the king of Geshur.
Bathsheba married Uriah the Hittite.
King Solomon got in trouble when he married foreign wives and served their false gods.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
3 Don’t marry any of them, and don’t let your sons or daughters marry any of the people from those other nations. 4 If you do, they will turn your children away from following me. Then your children will serve other gods, and the Lord will be very angry with you. He will quickly destroy you!

I think Tim's Mom was Jewish and Father not.

I guess if one converts to Judaism, it may have been allowed -- I do not remember.

 

[2tim_215]

Short answer: no.
William Branham, one of those who taught serpent's seed doctrine explained it this way:

Now I know in answering one question another one is apt to come up, and people ask me, “If Eve fell that way, what did Adam do, for God lays the blame on Adam?” That is simple. The Word of God is forever settled in heaven. Before one speck of stardust was made, that Word (God’s law) was there exactly as it is written in our Bible. Now the Word teaches us that if a woman leaves her husband and goes with another man she is an adulteress and is no longer married and the husband is not to take her back. That Word was true in Eden as it was true when Moses wrote it in the law. The Word can’t change. Adam took her back. He knew exactly what he was doing, but he did it anyway. She was a part of him, and he was willing to take her responsibility upon himself. He would not let her go. So Eve conceived by him. He knew she would. He knew exactly what would happen to the human race, and he sold the human race into sin that he might have Eve, for he loved her.
(An Exposition Of The Seven Church Ages, p104)
​

By his action, Adam typed Jesus Christ who took our sin on Himself for His love of His bride, the Church ( 2 Corinthians 5:21)

What about Hosea? You still didn't answer my question. If Eve had sex with the serpent (ate the fruit of the tree) and Adam followed suit, it stands to reason that Adam had sex with the serpent as well (if Branham and Murray claim that "eat" means sex which is absolutely false).
I agree that Adam "ate" also because of his love for Eve (more than he loved God unfortunately for us) which is why God held him responsible even though Eve was the one who initially transgressed although we are told that it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam who knew exactly what he was doing.

According to Jesus and Paul, see 1 Cor 7 (and the example given in Hosea) adultery is not good enough cause to divorce. There is nothing biblical to support the serpent seed doctrine. I don't think that Adam even considered the impact that their acts would have on future generations.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Why is there not two genealogies given in Scripture?

Genesis 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.

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

Galatians 4:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

"In Isaiah 53, there is a vivid portrait of Jehovah’s abused servant, the Christ (cf. Lk. 22:37; Acts 8:32-35). Twice the prophet speaks of the promised Messiah being “bruised” (daka) and wounded as an offering for sin (53:5, 10)."
Crushing the Serpent's Head: The Meaning of Genesis 3:15

Galatians 3:16 (NKJV)
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

Isaiah 53:10 (NKJV)
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;

He has put Him to grief.

When You make His soul an offering for sin,

He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,

And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

"Pulpit Commentary
Verse 15. - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman. Referring -

1. To the fixed and inveterate antipathy between the serpent and the human race (Bush, Lange); to that alone (Knobel).

2. To the antagonism henceforth to be established between the tempter and mankind (Murphy); to that alone (Calvin, Bonar, Wordsworth, Macdonald). And between thy seed and her seed. Here the curse manifestly outgrows the literal serpent, and refers almost exclusively to the invisible tempter. The hostility commenced between the woman and her destroyer was to be continued by their descendants - the seed of the serpent being those of Eve's posterity who should imbibe the devil's spirit and obey the devil's rule (cf. Matthew 23:33; 1 John 3:10); and the seed of the woman signifying those whose character and life should be of an opposite description, and in particular the Lord Jesus Christ, who is styled by preeminence "the Seed" (Galatians 3:16, 19), and who came "to destroy the works of the devil" (Hebrews 2:4; 1 John 3:8). This we learn from the words which follow, and which, not obscurely, point to a seed which should be individual and personal. It - or he; αὐτος (LXX.); not ipsa (Vulgate, Augustine, Ambrose, Gregory the Great; later Romish interpreters understanding the Virgin) - shall bruise.

1. Shall crush, trample down - rendering שׁוּפ by torero or conterere (Vulgate, Syriac, Samaritan, Tuch, Baumgarten, Keil, Kalisch).

2. Shall pierce, wound, bite - taking the verb as - שָׁפַפ, to bite (Furst, Calvin).
...
Genesis 3:15 Commentaries: And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I like to see how they will answer Adam eating argument, question.

 

[2tim_215]

Spiritual seed.Those who are "driven" by Satan and those who are driven by Jesus and who are at enmity with one another.

 

[2tim_215]

I like to see how they will answer Adam eating argument, question.

I don't think they can. Have asked several times.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I don't think they can. Have asked several times.

I think you are right.

 

[creslaw]

What about Hosea? You still didn't answer my question. If Eve had sex with the serpent (ate the fruit of the tree) and Adam followed suit, it stands to reason that Adam had sex with the serpent as well (if Branham and Murray claim that "eat" means sex which is absolutely false).
I agree that Adam "ate" also because of his love for Eve (more than he loved God unfortunately for us) which is why God held him responsible even though Eve was the one who initially transgressed although we are told that it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam who knew exactly what he was doing.

According to Jesus and Paul, see 1 Cor 7 (and the example given in Hosea) adultery is not good enough cause to divorce. There is nothing biblical to support the serpent seed doctrine. I don't think that Adam even considered the impact that their acts would have on future generations.

I did not say "eat means sex", I said the words "eat" & "fruit" can be used in a metaphorical sense, and that eating the fruit in Eden was sexual because of the context (nature of the 2 "trees", becoming "wise" , nakedness, birth pains, serpent's seed, one conception with Adam but 2 children born, etc)
Hosea is presented as an exception for a specific reason, not a pattern to follow.

 

[2tim_215]

I did not say "eat means sex", I said the words "eat" & "fruit" can be used in a metaphorical sense, and that eating the fruit in Eden was sexual because of the context (nature of the 2 "trees", becoming "wise" , nakedness, birth pains, serpent's seed, one conception with Adam but 2 children born, etc)
Hosea is presented as an exception for a specific reason, not a pattern to follow.

Just because something "can" be used in a metaphorical sense, doesn't mean it is. I didn't know that sex made one "wise" (although knowledge does). Birth pains come from conception and came as a result of the fall. Trees were a symbol used for sex in the Pagan world (represent the phalanx symbol) not the biblical world. Nakedness was Adam and Eve's natural birth and wasn't a problem till the fall when their guilt became evident. Yes, Hosea may be an exception, but perhaps by showing to us that we shouldn't divorce under any circumstances although we're likely yo to do so. Serpent seed is spiritual, not natural. We battle the devil by the Holy Spirit, not through the flesh, just as Satan attacks us through his spirit. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in high places . . . ", Eph 6:12.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Those who accept serpent's seed doctrine use the Bible ... big difference.

Every heretic, false teacher, false prophet, and wackadoodle has used the Bible. Even the devil himself quoted Scripture at the Lord.

Using the Bible and understanding Scripture properly are entirely different things.

Serpent Seed doctrine is rank heresy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I did not say "eat means sex", I said the words "eat" & "fruit" can be used in a metaphorical sense, and that eating the fruit in Eden was sexual because of the context (nature of the 2 "trees", becoming "wise" , nakedness, birth pains, serpent's seed, one conception with Adam but 2 children born, etc)
Hosea is presented as an exception for a specific reason, not a pattern to follow.

sex·u·al
/ˈsekSH(o͞o)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
   "she had felt the thrill of a sexual attraction"
   synonyms: carnal, erotic;
   formalvenereal;
   technicalcoital
   "sexual activity"
2. 2.
   relating to the two sexes or to gender.
   "sensitivity about sexual stereotypes"

Please explain the difference, since he is not the only one who misunderstands your meaning.

thanks
daniel

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here

 

[creslaw]

Using the Bible and understanding Scripture properly are entirely different things.
-CryptoLutheran

That is most certainly true because we see strong differences on things such as the meaning of "day in Genesis 1 and "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2

 

[creslaw]

sex·u·al
/ˈsekSH(o͞o)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
   "she had felt the thrill of a sexual attraction"
   synonyms: carnal, erotic;
   formalvenereal;
   technicalcoital
   "sexual activity"
2. 2.
   relating to the two sexes or to gender.
   "sensitivity about sexual stereotypes"

Please explain the difference, since he is not the only one who misunderstands your meaning.

thanks
daniel

Eating the fruit was the original sin committed by Adam & Eve. Just what that sin was could be eating a literal fruit like an apple ... or it could be a metaphor for some other kind of disobedience. I believe it is the latter, which is a view shared by many other Christians. Where I part company with most of them is that I believe the context in Genesis allows us to determine what that act of disobedience was.

Eating does not mean sexual intercourse in a semantic sense but it is used in a metaphorical sense in Genesis and elsewhere (Proverbs 30:20, Song of Solomon 4:16) to express that idea.

In 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 Paul makes reference to the Church as a "chaste virgin" unlike Eve who was deceived by the serpent. The usual reading of this passage is that Eve was persuaded mentally by the serpent to disobey, and I agree ... yet there is the intriguing reference to virginity in verse 2.

With reference to this subject, John 8:41 may give some insight also.

Anyhow, I think we should speak up when we believe something but also know when to shut up ... it is balancing 1 Peter 3:15 with Matthew 7:6 *. So this is my last post on the subject ... in this thread at least.

* a concept, not an insult

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Eating the fruit was the original sin committed by Adam & Eve. Just what that sin was could be eating a literal fruit like an apple ... or it could be a metaphor for some other kind of disobedience. I believe it is the latter, which is a view shared by many other Christians. Where I part company with most of them is that I believe the context in Genesis allows us to determine what that act of disobedience was.

Eating does not mean sexual intercourse in a semantic sense but it is used in a metaphorical sense in Genesis and elsewhere (Proverbs 30:20, Song of Solomon 4:16) to express that idea.

In 2 Corinthians 11:2-3 Paul makes reference to the Church as a "chaste virgin" unlike Eve who was deceived by the serpent. The usual reading of this passage is that Eve was persuaded mentally by the serpent to disobey, and I agree ... yet there is the intriguing reference to virginity in verse 2.

With reference to this subject, John 8:41 may give some insight also.

Anyhow, I think we should speak up when we believe something but also know when to shut up ... it is balancing 1 Peter 3:15 with Matthew 7:6 *. So this is my last post on the subject ... in this thread at least.

* a concept, not an insult

The part highlighted represents a well known word study fallacy.


John 17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

John 17:21-23 American Standard Version (ASV)
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me. 22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one; 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

The word one in context of the above texts does not have the same meaning. To take the meaning from another text and reading that meaning into the text one is reading is the word study fallacy.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=YT...i131i20i264j0i131i67j0i20i264j0i3.uvN17MXQTzs

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Ok, then stay with that if feels right for you.
I am not able to accept that eating a literal fruit could make one live forever (Genesis 3:22).
I am also persuaded by all the consequences of the 'eating' that it was not a literal tree either (Genesis 3:7, Genesis 3:16)

I also think Genesis 3:15 needs to be explained in way that sensibly relates to what happened in Eden and for the world in general.

This is not a salvation issue from my perspective so I am not too critical of other people's pov's.

The bible doesn't shy away from listing beastiality, sodomy or incest as sins, and includes rituals and poetry that describe certain intimate details of human anatomy. To believe that it would shy away from outright stating that Eve mated with a devil (if she did), is kind of silly, given the former fact.

Where (wo)men did mate with angels, the bible is quite plain. Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."

Revelation 22:2 talks about the tree of life, with leaves "for the healing of the nations". "through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

To me, it doesn't seem strange that God would make a tree whereby one could eat it's fruit and live forever - like a fountain of youth, but in fruit form. Revelation hints at similar trees in the end.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That is most certainly true because we see strong differences on things such as the meaning of "day in Genesis 1 and "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2

I'm not a literalist so I don't read Genesis 1 literally--but I see no reason to think that "day" in Genesis 1 is intended to mean something other than day. The use of days is part of the poetic refrain, "it was evening and it was morning the Nth day". Just as I have no reason to believe that the fruit of the forbidden tree was anything other than fruit, or the eating of the fruit anything other than the eating of it. I don't take the story literally, but I do take the words chosen by the writer of the texts as meaning what they seem to mean. The difference is that I don't believe there was a literal place called Eden, and I don't believe that Adam and Eve were necessarily literal historical people, and I don't believe that the tree, fruit, and serpent are literal either--the story isn't literal, that is, it is not describing an historical event. The story is a kind of mythology, like say Pandora and her infamous box. Myths are stories intended to explain aspects of the world that we may not fully understand, Pandora's Box was the way ancient Greeks sought to understand the problem of evil and suffering in the world; likewise the story of Eden and the eating of the forbidden fruit is the ancient Hebrew way of trying to explain the same. In the context of the story the tree is a tree, the fruit is a fruit, and the eating of the fruit means exactly what it means--eating fruit. That's how myths work. But behind the myth is the desire to understand something deep about our experiences in the world. After all, in Genesis 1 we see that God made all things exceedingly good, so if the good Creator God who made all things made them good, why is there suffering, death, evil, pain, injustice (etc) in the world: and the answer to that question is that there's something deeply wrong with God's creation, there's something rogue. God isn't the cause of the problem, He didn't make any mistakes when He made the universe, but yet there's something deeply wrong in our world, there's something deeply wrong in ourselves, we experience it every day, we see it all around us, it is the universal observation and experience of every thinking creature. There is a deep wrong in God's good creation--that is what Genesis 3 is getting at.

And it's not because a woman had sex with a talking snake to produce some kind of demi-human population of demonic halfbreeds, which is heretical and preposterous. But there is the human element of waywardness and sin, we are the agents of our own downfall, we are the ones out of alignment with God, and all of creation likewise suffers and labors under the problem of sin and death--and that is precisely why we need a Savior, why we need One to come and rescue us. And indeed, to rescue, redeem, and heal the entirety, all, of creation. Which is why we confess Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. Who rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, with everlasting kingdom. We look forward to the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting in the Age to Come, when God makes all things new, and God will be all in all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The bible doesn't shy away from listing beastiality, sodomy or incest as sins, and includes rituals and poetry that describe certain intimate details of human anatomy. To believe that it would shy away from outright stating that Eve mated with a devil (if she did), is kind of silly, given the former fact.

Where (wo)men did mate with angels, the bible is quite plain. Genesis 6:2 "the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose."

Revelation 22:2 talks about the tree of life, with leaves "for the healing of the nations". "through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

To me, it doesn't seem strange that God would make a tree whereby one could eat it's fruit and live forever - like a fountain of youth, but in fruit form. Revelation hints at similar trees in the end.

I think we can agree God can do anything he chooses.