Serpent seed doctrine.

[Shadowprophet]

There may be people here who know what it is, i will not discuss what it is, i believe it to be wrong, and possibly racist aswell.

But to those people that do know what it is. I must ask, do people truly believe the serpent seed doctrine? Is it even a real thing? Or was some insane crazy person just twisting the Bible to justify his racism?

 

[Euler]

There may be people here who know what it is, i will not discuss what it is, i believe it to be wrong, and possibly racist aswell.

But to those people that do know what it is. I must ask, do people truly believe the serpent seed doctrine? Is it even a real thing? Or was some insane crazy person just twisting the Bible to justify his racism?

There's already plenty of racism in the Bible, so who knows?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There may be people here who know what it is, i will not discuss what it is, i believe it to be wrong, and possibly racist aswell.

But to those people that do know what it is. I must ask, do people truly believe the serpent seed doctrine? Is it even a real thing? Or was some insane crazy person just twisting the Bible to justify his racism?

Would you salt on that pretzel?

 

[ViaCrucis]

There may be people here who know what it is, i will not discuss what it is, i believe it to be wrong, and possibly racist aswell.

But to those people that do know what it is. I must ask, do people truly believe the serpent seed doctrine? Is it even a real thing? Or was some insane crazy person just twisting the Bible to justify his racism?

Since the 19th century there have been several sects and cults who have subscribed to it, usually also in addition to another stupid idea: British Israelism.

And yes, it is racist.

It's never been an acceptable position within mainstream Christianity, and no historically orthodox Christian church or denomination would permit it to be taught in its walls.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Autumnleaf]

There may be people here who know what it is, i will not discuss what it is, i believe it to be wrong, and possibly racist aswell.

But to those people that do know what it is. I must ask, do people truly believe the serpent seed doctrine? Is it even a real thing? Or was some insane crazy person just twisting the Bible to justify his racism?

Never heard of it. Heard demons consorted with human women and bred giants. Not too hard to take another step with the serpent and Eve. Could be.

 

[Strathos]

I've known people to believe crazier things

 

[Inkachu]

I think it's ridiculous.

 

[watchman007]

It's not racist. God created the races on the 6th day and they were good, so there isn't anything racist about the theory.

I actually think it's Biblical and believe it. There are some things that need really support it.

Cain is not in Adam's genealogy.
"I will put enmity between thy seed and the woman" - Seed is sperm.
When they sinned the first thing they did was cover their genitals, why?

It all makes sense really, much of the old testament was a battle of the blood lines, as we see in Gen 6:6, much of the killing including the flood was done to kill these blood lines, except some of the Nephilium survived the flood.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not racist. God created the races on the 6th day and they were good, so there isn't anything racist about the theory.

I actually think it's Biblical and believe it. There are some things that need really support it.

Cain is not in Adam's genealogy.
"I will put enmity between thy seed and the woman" - Seed is sperm.
When they sinned the first thing they did was cover their genitals, why?

It all makes sense really, much of the old testament was a battle of the blood lines, as we see in Gen 6:6, much of the killing including the flood was done to kill these blood lines, except some of the Nephilium survived the flood.

So what if Cain is not in Adam's genealogy in chapter 5? All this indicates is that Cain was stricken from the record because of his sin, not that he was of some 'other' blood species. Chapter 5 doesn't somehow magically erase Chapter 4.

 

[watchman007]

So what if Cain is not in Adam's genealogy in chapter 5? All this indicates is that Cain was stricken from the record because of his sin, not that he was of some 'other' blood species. Chapter 5 doesn't somehow magically erase Chapter 4.

There is more to it than that, it doesn't erase chapter 4, it can expand on it.

"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. "

I'm not trying to defend myself on this matter, because I'm not trying to push this story on any of you. I don't want you to believe it because it's not in the mainstream, it can actually cause arguments.

If you don't believe it fine, if you do fine, but overall it's not going to effect your love and faith of Christ if you believe. I know both stories equally, I just chose to believe one over the other, meaning taking one literally and taking one metaphorically is the only difference. you don't have to chose, just take it literally like most.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

...except some of the Nephilium survived the flood.

Watchman,

While I'm open to the possibility that these passages in Genesis were metaphorical, from where are you drawing the above conclusion? That's a new one to me. We're not bringing in Enoch are we?

 

[watchman007]

I get it from Numbers 13:33 and well, Goliath

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight

Even the NIV says We saw the Nephilim there

But the reason I think it's metaphorical is, because we know the trees are. Do you know what the tree of life is, or who?

It's like a family tree, the bloodline in which Jesus came. We all know Jesus came through the blood line of Adam, then Abraham, then King David. He didn't come through Caine's blood line.

We know it wasn't a literal serpent, like I was told my entire life. Most of my friends believe it was a snake.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, rev 20:2

again Luke 10:19
Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.

This verse isn't talking about snakes and bugs, ask the families of the snake handling preachers who are dead now. the scorpions are also mentioned in Rev 9

The serpent was metaphorical for Satan, the tree of life is metaphorical for Jesus Christ, then is it fair to assume the fruit was metaphorical for sex?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I get it from Numbers 13:33 and well, Goliath

And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight

Even the NIV says We saw the Nephilim there

But the reason I think it's metaphorical is, because we know the trees are. Do you know what the tree of life is, or who?

It's like a family tree, the bloodline in which Jesus came. We all know Jesus came through the blood line of Adam, then Abraham, then King David. He didn't come through Caine's blood line.

We know it wasn't a literal serpent, like I was told my entire life. Most of my friends believe it was a snake.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, rev 20:2

again Luke 10:19
Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.

This verse isn't talking about snakes and bugs, ask the families of the snake handling preachers who are dead now. the scorpions are also mentioned in Rev 9

The serpent was metaphorical for Satan, the tree of life is metaphorical for Jesus Christ, then is it fair to assume the fruit was metaphorical for sex?

So, according to your hermeneutic approach, is every element in the Eden Story a metaphor, or just selected items?

Sorry, no--I don't think 'fruit' implies sex. The story already has a term for the sex act, and it isn't 'fruit.'

While I can accept that the ENTIRE story is itself a metaphor made up of a variety of constituent entities, I think we should expect the narrative to be consistent in its representations and meanings.

Think about it, if the fruit represents 'sex,' and that between the Serpent and Eve, then what does the fruit represent with Adam--he at it too. So, did the Serpent have sex with Adam too? I don't think that makes for consistent exegesis.

Now, with the Nephilim, if you want to theorize that these guys were perpetuated for one reason or another through and after the flood, fine, be my guest. These guys are somewhat obscure figures in Scripture; perhaps demons came down at other times and did the same kinds of things as before the flood...or whatever.

 

[watchman007]

So, according to your hermeneutic approach, is every element in the Eden Story a metaphor, or just selected items?

Sorry, no--I don't think 'fruit' implies sex. The story already has a term for the sex act, and it isn't 'fruit.'

While I can accept that the ENTIRE story is itself a metaphor made up of a variety of constituent entities, I think we should expect the narrative to be consistent in its representations and meanings.

Think about it, if the fruit represents 'sex,' and that between the Serpent and Eve, then what does the fruit represent with Adam--he at it too. So, did the Serpent have sex with Adam too? I don't think that makes for consistent exegesis.

Now, with the Nephilim, if you want to theorize that these guys were perpetuated for one reason or another through and after the flood, fine, be my guest. These guys are somewhat obscure figures in Scripture; perhaps demons came down at other times and did the same kinds of things as before the flood...or whatever.

Of course Adam didn't have sex with the serpent, that's not how superfecundation works, which is the entire basis of this theory.

But I'm not going to expand anymore, like I said I'm not going to dare try to debate because I would only do that if I was trying to convince someone this is the truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course Adam didn't have sex with the serpent, that's not how superfecundation works, which is the entire basis of this theory.

But I'm not going to expand anymore, like I said I'm not going to dare try to debate because I would only do that if I was trying to convince someone this is the truth.

Superfecundation? Really.......

So, is this why Cain was conceived within Eve's womb AFTER she "knew" Adam? And "with the help of the Lord?"

That doesn't sound like the Serpent got to play the part of Tricky [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

 

[watchman007]

Superfecundation? Really.......

So, is this why Cain was conceived within Eve's womb AFTER she "knew" Adam? And "with the help of the Lord?"

That doesn't sound like the Serpent got to play the part of Tricky [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Yacaph is the original word...

I already know about all this. I told you I'm not trying to convince you, so you don't have to get defensive.

This isn't something I saw on the history channel and just believe because I heard it on TV.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's not racist. God created the races on the 6th day and they were good, so there isn't anything racist about the theory.

Outdated pseudo-scientific concepts of "race" have no place in any sort of biblical exegesis. God didn't create "races", the text says God created mankind.

Theologically the Church understands here that all human beings, regardless of skin color, language, etc share a common ancestry in the figure of Adam; which is the meaning where St. Paul says that from one man came all ethnoi (nations, peoples).

Scientifically it is completely and absolutely evident that each and every human person on this planet shares a common ancestor, that anatomically modern human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) came out of Africa approximately 200,000 years ago. All modern human diversity is a result of mutation and adaptation within the last two hundred millennia. People-groups further from the equator developed fairer skin due to the fact that the skin pigment melanin is a natural protection against UV radiation, important for equatorial people who spend far more time exposed to direct sun than people further away from the equator. Likewise divergence in hair and eye coloration is the result of similar mutations in certain populations, again a result of less pigmentation (blonde and red hair are varying degrees of lesser melanin in the hair, blue and green eyes less melanin in the iris). Other features of diverse people groups involve proximity and shared characteristics--people closer to one another produce offspring together and retain like characteristics.

There simply is no such thing as a "black race" or a "white race", European "whiteness" and sub-Saharan African "blackness" are merely differences in melanin levels resulting from populations living in areas with greater or lesser exposure to UV radiation. As a "white person" my ancestors in Africa were, of course, dark or "black", as is every other person on the planet since we are all related, and our most distant ancestor is the ancestor of everyone else. We are all related.

Both scientifically from an evolutionary and biological perspective as well as a Christian theological perspective.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[watchman007]

Outdated pseudo-scientific concepts of "race" have no place in any sort of biblical exegesis. God didn't create "races", the text says God created mankind.

Theologically the Church understands here that all human beings, regardless of skin color, language, etc share a common ancestry in the figure of Adam; which is the meaning where St. Paul says that from one man came all ethnoi (nations, peoples).

Scientifically it is completely and absolutely evident that each and every human person on this planet shares a common ancestor, that anatomically modern human beings (Homo sapiens sapiens) came out of Africa approximately 200,000 years ago. All modern human diversity is a result of mutation and adaptation within the last two hundred millennia. People-groups further from the equator developed fairer skin due to the fact that the skin pigment melanin is a natural protection against UV radiation, important for equatorial people who spend far more time exposed to direct sun than people further away from the equator. Likewise divergence in hair and eye coloration is the result of similar mutations in certain populations, again a result of less pigmentation (blonde and red hair are varying degrees of lesser melanin in the hair, blue and green eyes less melanin in the iris). Other features of diverse people groups involve proximity and shared characteristics--people closer to one another produce offspring together and retain like characteristics.

There simply is no such thing as a "black race" or a "white race", European "whiteness" and sub-Saharan African "blackness" are merely differences in melanin levels resulting from populations living in areas with greater or lesser exposure to UV radiation. As a "white person" my ancestors in Africa were, of course, dark or "black", as is every other person on the planet since we are all related, and our most distant ancestor is the ancestor of everyone else. We are all related.

Both scientifically from an evolutionary and biological perspective as well as a Christian theological perspective.

-CryptoLutheran

right, because your level of melanin is inherited from your parents exact levels at that moment, right? So for this theory to be correct man kind would have to be over hundreds of thousands of years old, because a genetic change like that wouldn't happen over many generations.

If you believe that, you believe in evolution. Which is all modern science trash.

Mankind includes all men regardless of race.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yacaph is the original word...

I already know about all this. I told you I'm not trying to convince you, so you don't have to get defensive.

This isn't something I saw on the history channel and just believe because I heard it on TV.

I'm not defensive; I'm just challenging your point of view. What might help is if you cite your academic sources on this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

right, because your level of melanin is inherited from your parents exact levels at that moment, right? So for this theory to be correct man kind would have to be over hundreds of thousands of years old, because a genetic change like that wouldn't happen over many generations.

If you believe that, you believe in evolution. Which is all modern science trash.

Mankind includes all men regardless of race.

I accept evolutionary theory because it is scientific fact backed up by enormous amounts of evidence.

It is a demonstrable fact that all human beings share a common ancestor through repeated studies of the human genome. It is a demonstrable fact that we observe changes within alleles within the human genome; it is very easy to see how people groups in dairy cultures have a mutation in their genome that allows the production of the lactase enzyme. A mutation which has developed in certain populations only within the last 10,000 years with the advent of animal husbandry. That's evolution.

If one chooses to look upon a triangle and declare it has four sides they are more than welcome to do so. But reality remains as it is--a triangle has three sides, and it is most certainly evident.

-CryptoLutheran