3,880
edits
The Serpent's Seed: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
!Text | !Text | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 3:1 | ||
||The serpent was the most intelligent of all the beasts and could talk which lends support for the contention that the serpent was the 'missing link' in the creation, between apes and man. | ||The serpent was the most intelligent of all the beasts and could talk which lends support for the contention that the serpent was the 'missing link' in the creation, between apes and man. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 3:6-7 | ||
||The result of partaking of the 'fruit' was a knowledge that they were naked, a reference to the sexual nature of the sin. | ||The result of partaking of the 'fruit' was a knowledge that they were naked, a reference to the sexual nature of the sin. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 3:13 | ||
||Eve’s claim that the serpent had 'seduced' her. The term ‘beguiled’ in the King James Version means 'sexually seduced’ or ‘defiled’ rather than ‘deceived’ (which most contemporary translations give). The original Hebrew word is ‘nasha’ ("naw-shaw") which literally means to lead astray, mentally delude, or morally deceive. Genesis 3:13 is the only place where it is translated ‘beguiled’. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word is usually translated ‘deceive’ or ‘deceived’. | ||Eve’s claim that the serpent had 'seduced' her. The term ‘beguiled’ in the King James Version means 'sexually seduced’ or ‘defiled’ rather than ‘deceived’ (which most contemporary translations give). The original Hebrew word is ‘nasha’ ("naw-shaw") which literally means to lead astray, mentally delude, or morally deceive. Genesis 3:13 is the only place where it is translated ‘beguiled’. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the word is usually translated ‘deceive’ or ‘deceived’. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 3:14 | ||
||The serpent was previously an upright being and only became a 'snake' after it was cursed by God. | ||The serpent was previously an upright being and only became a 'snake' after it was cursed by God. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 3:16 | ||
||The woman was cursed in childbearing; a punishment befitting the 'crime' (being sexual in nature). | ||The woman was cursed in childbearing; a punishment befitting the 'crime' (being sexual in nature). | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 4:1-2 | ||
||The failure of the Bible to refer to Adam 'knowing' his wife again before the birth of Abel meant that Cain and Abel were twins. This was made possible through the process of [[heteropaternal superfecundation]] where the mother ovulates more than one egg and has more than one partner during her fertile period. One egg is fertilized with sperm from one partner, and the other egg from sperm of the second partner. Hence, Rev. Branham contended that Cain was the son (or seed) of the serpent and Abel was the son of Adam. | ||The failure of the Bible to refer to Adam 'knowing' his wife again before the birth of Abel meant that Cain and Abel were twins. This was made possible through the process of [[heteropaternal superfecundation]] where the mother ovulates more than one egg and has more than one partner during her fertile period. One egg is fertilized with sperm from one partner, and the other egg from sperm of the second partner. Hence, Rev. Branham contended that Cain was the son (or seed) of the serpent and Abel was the son of Adam. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 4:25 | ||
||Eve does not credit Adam with the fatherhood of Cain. She does not say God had given her another seed; that would have been Christ, for He was given. This son, Seth, was appointed instead of Abel. She recognizes her son that came by Adam; she does not recognize Cain for he came by the serpent. When she says “another seed instead of Abel”, she is saying that Cain was different from Abel, for if they were of the same father she would have had to say, "I have been given some more seed." | ||Eve does not credit Adam with the fatherhood of Cain. She does not say God had given her another seed; that would have been Christ, for He was given. This son, Seth, was appointed instead of Abel. She recognizes her son that came by Adam; she does not recognize Cain for he came by the serpent. When she says “another seed instead of Abel”, she is saying that Cain was different from Abel, for if they were of the same father she would have had to say, "I have been given some more seed." | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Proverbs 30:20 | ||
||An unrelated Biblical comparison of the act of sexual intercourse to the act of eating. This provides support for the partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil as an allegory for sexual intercourse. | ||An unrelated Biblical comparison of the act of sexual intercourse to the act of eating. This provides support for the partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil as an allegory for sexual intercourse. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |John 1:13 | ||
||Rev. Branham asserted that Cain and his descendants showed the characteristics of Satan, which were not shown by Abel, Seth and his descendants. | ||Rev. Branham asserted that Cain and his descendants showed the characteristics of Satan, which were not shown by Abel, Seth and his descendants. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |II Corinthians 11:2-3 | ||
||St. Paul is referring to the church and Eve in terms of chastity. A woman could be a thief, shoplifter, liar, or any one of many things and still be a virgin; but a loss of virginity can only come through sexual intercourse. Rev. Branham held that just as Satan, through the serpent, used perverted seed to create a perverted life (Cain); so Satan now seeks to pervert the Word of God to destroy the virginity of the Bride of Christ (the Church). | ||St. Paul is referring to the church and Eve in terms of chastity. A woman could be a thief, shoplifter, liar, or any one of many things and still be a virgin; but a loss of virginity can only come through sexual intercourse. Rev. Branham held that just as Satan, through the serpent, used perverted seed to create a perverted life (Cain); so Satan now seeks to pervert the Word of God to destroy the virginity of the Bride of Christ (the Church). | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Genesis 2:9 | ||
||Rev. Branham held that there is no Biblical indication that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a physical tree or that its fruit was physical fruit. Similarly, the tree of life was not a physical tree but rather is an allegory of Christ both in the three times in Genesis ( | ||Rev. Branham held that there is no Biblical indication that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a physical tree or that its fruit was physical fruit. Similarly, the tree of life was not a physical tree but rather is an allegory of Christ both in the three times in Genesis (Genesis 2:9, Genesis 3:22, Genesis 3:24) and in the three times it is referred to in the book of Revelation ( '''Revelation 2:7''', Revelation 22:2Revelation 22:14). This assertion was also referenced to '''John 6:53-57''' where Christ invited his disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood. | ||
|- valign="top" | |- valign="top" | ||
| | |Jude 1:14 | ||
||Rev. Branham noted that Cain was excluded from Adam's physical lineage, inferring that Cain was not of that lineage. | ||Rev. Branham noted that Cain was excluded from Adam's physical lineage, inferring that Cain was not of that lineage. | ||
|- | |- | ||