11,158
edits
The Serpent's Seed: Difference between revisions
→Logic Problems
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
There are quite a few logical problems when it comes to accepting the the Serpent’s Seed doctrine teachings. There are no rules when it comes to interpreting scripture, so they interpret whatever they want, however they want. | There are quite a few logical problems when it comes to accepting the the Serpent’s Seed doctrine teachings. There are no rules when it comes to interpreting scripture, so they interpret whatever they want, however they want. | ||
==Why is only the tree symbolic== | |||
Why is the fruit and the tree symbolic and everything else in Genesis is real? | |||
Why don't message followers see the story of Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Noah, Enoch, or Moses as allegories? Are they not all stories, which Genesis holds as a reliable accurate testimony, of real literal events of the history of the world, mankind and it's fall and beginning stages of redemption? Why not see Joseph's coat of many colors as not a real coat, but merely a symbol? How about Abraham as he walked up that proverberial mountain to sacrifice his son on that 'altar'? | |||
Do you see the folly in adding or subtracting from God's revelation by a novel interpretation that allows for many other novel doctrines to slip into the Bible? There is no consistency of interpretation within the Christian faith when you allow for any chapter of Genesis, which is literal history, to be interpreted as an allegory. Why? Because it damages the literal meaning of the text. God's revelation is on the pages of scripture, not between the lines. God's revelation to us is His written Word. | |||
If don't believe God's Word when it states that Adam and Eve ate a literal fruit, then you effectively doubt the Word of God. You are effectively asking, ''"Did God really say?"'' | |||
One problem with accepting the serpent seed doctrine stems from how we view 'symbols' and their covenantal relationship between God and man. | |||
The 'serpent seed doctrine' is inconsistent with the redemptive framework of scripture. Was it not the ark of the covenant, a literal ark, which when touched outside of the limits of God's commands killed the man who touched it? Is not the actual rainbow in the sky a covenant promise to humanity? There are numerous examples of real physical 'relics' or 'symbols' which are not concealed forms of truth. Rather they are carriers of very real blessings or curses. | |||
When God makes vows to mankind in the Old Testament, there were very real physical objects involved. So why is it so problematic that God chose to use literal trees and fruits to carry covenantal blessings or curses which carried very real physical and spiritual consequences? | |||
Are you going to question whether or not Samson's hair really had anything to do with the loss of his supernatural strength? We must realize that, as Christians, we need to be consistent in our defense of scripture and we should never make arguments from the grounds of plausibility. | |||
So if you stand upon an allegorical interpretation, then why not be consistent and interpret the rest of Genesis the same way? Whose standard are you using to interpret Genesis 3 to 5? If the Bible itself does not guide us to interpret Genesis that way, but you claim your authority comes from William Branham, then you are standing on the same foundation as Catholics do - namely, that they need an external authority to truly know how to understand the scriptures. | |||
==Nothing's real?== | ==Nothing's real?== | ||