11,141
edits
The Serpent's Seed: Difference between revisions
→The problem with sinful genes
| (12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
==William Branham's KKK connection== | ==William Branham's KKK connection== | ||
[http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/Roy_Davis#Roy_Davis_and_the_KKK Roy E. Davis] was William Branham's first pastor. He was also a member of the KKK. One of the doctrines of the KKK is Serpent Seed. It justified racial hatred and abuse, as well as the oppression of women. William Branham learned this doctrine from Roy Davis, and it was enforced in his family by his mother-in-law. | [http://en.believethesign.com/index.php/Roy_Davis#Roy_Davis_and_the_KKK Roy E. Davis] was William Branham's first pastor. He was also a member of the KKK. One of the doctrines of the KKK is Serpent Seed. It justified racial hatred and abuse, as well as the oppression of women. William Branham learned this doctrine from Roy Davis, and it was enforced in his family by his mother-in-law. | ||
==How did the seed of the serpent get through the flood?== | |||
William Branham taught that Ham was of the seed of the serpent: | |||
:''For instance, many of them, like how that formal religion began in Cain. How it come on out and '''come down through the sons of Noah, Ham.''' Out of Ham, he had Nimrod. Nimrod built the tower of Babel. Babel comes on down through King Nebuchadnezzar’s time, and on out into Revelation, Babylon. '''How that little seed started way back there at the east side of the gates of Eden''', coming on down, winding out. All kinds of cults and everything started back there, winding themselves out to the end.<ref>William Branham, 53-0328 - Israel And The Church #4, para. 24</ref> | |||
:''Now, the church, the—the nominal believers like Lot, he’s going through the tribulation period (see?) and be saved as if it was by fire. Noah went through the tribulation period, carried above it, come out with '''Ham who polluted the earth again.''' See? Lot came out, his own daughters slept with him, and had children by his own daughters. See? But Abraham brought forth the Royal Seed, brought forth the Seed of the promise. Enoch went to glory in the rapture, just took a walk and went home. He never went through the tribulation period. You see?<ref>William Branham, 64-0823E - Questions And Answers #2, para. 230</ref> | |||
But this makes no sense! If Shem, Ham and Jspheth were brothers of the same mother and father, how could Ham be of the wicked one? | |||
=Logic Problems= | =Logic Problems= | ||
| Line 153: | Line 163: | ||
==The problem with sinful genes== | ==The problem with sinful genes== | ||
The Serpent’s Seed doctrine teaches that the serpent passed his sinful genes down to Cain, which is why he murdered Abel. But the Bible states: | The Serpent’s Seed doctrine teaches that the serpent passed his sinful genes down to Cain, which is why he murdered Abel. But the Bible states in Romans 5:19: | ||
:''For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.<ref>Romans 5:19 (ESV)</ref> | :''For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.<ref>Romans 5:19 (ESV)</ref> | ||
| Line 190: | Line 200: | ||
:::''She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Pr 31:27.</ref> | :::''She looks well to the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Pr 31:27.</ref> | ||
Based on the above, using Proverbs 30:20 to justify Serpent's Seed is eisegesis (which is a common method of interpreting scripture in message circles) and not exegesis<ref>[[Eisigisis]] is the act of reading an understanding, or an opinion into a biblical text, which may or may not be supported or evident by the text itself - in accordance with the person’s own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases. This is the opposite of exegesis, which means to derive the meaning ‘out of’ the text.</ref>. | Based on the above, using Proverbs 30:20 to justify Serpent's Seed is [[Eisegesis|eisegesis]] (which is a common method of interpreting scripture in message circles) and not exegesis<ref>[[Eisigisis]] is the act of reading an understanding, or an opinion into a biblical text, which may or may not be supported or evident by the text itself - in accordance with the person’s own presuppositions, agendas, and/or biases. This is the opposite of exegesis, which means to derive the meaning ‘out of’ the text.</ref>. | ||
==How could the fruit of the tree be sex with Eve when the tree preceded her?== | ==How could the fruit of the tree be sex with Eve when the tree preceded her?== | ||
| Line 198: | Line 207: | ||
:''Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”<ref>Genesis 2:15-16 (KJV)</ref> | :''Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”<ref>Genesis 2:15-16 (KJV)</ref> | ||
==Why wasn't Jesus born of sex?== | |||
A message follower asked the following question: '''Why wasn't Jesus born of sex?''' | |||
The reason for asking this question is that message followers think it gives validity to the arguments for the doctrine of the serpent's seed. But this simply isn't true. | |||
The best response to this question, when posed by a message follower, is simply the following question: '''Who was the father of Jesus?''' | |||
Since God the Father does not have a body, how could he have possibly had sex with a woman? It seems logical that if an infinite spiritual being wanted to come to earth as a baby he would simply create a body in the womb of a woman. It is significant that qualities such as those attributed to the Greek gods (like sexuality) are not ascribed to God in the Bible.<ref>Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1010.</ref> | |||
=Eve was an after-thought?= | =Eve was an after-thought?= | ||
| Line 204: | Line 223: | ||
=Was the tree of knowledge a fruit tree or something else?= | =Was the tree of knowledge a fruit tree or something else?= | ||
Genesis 3:6 states | |||
:''So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food...<ref>Genesis 3:6 (ESV)</ref> | :''So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food...<ref>Genesis 3:6 (ESV)</ref> | ||
| Line 214: | Line 235: | ||
:''The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her.<ref>Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Gen 3:6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).</ref> | :''The woman was convinced. She saw that the tree was beautiful and its fruit looked delicious, and she wanted the wisdom it would give her.<ref>Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Gen 3:6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).</ref> | ||
==Why was the ground cursed?== | |||
We are asked by message followers the following question: '''If adultery wasn't the original sin, why do you believe God cursed Eve in childbearing specifically?''' | |||
But a similar question could be asked with respect to Adam which is equally as relevant: '''If eating a literal fruit was not the original sin, why was the ground cursed for Adam's sake and why did the ground bear thorns and thistles for him, making it difficult to till the soil?''' | |||
:''To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ | |||
::“Cursed is the ground because of you; | |||
::through painful toil you will eat food from it | |||
::all the days of your life. | |||
::It will produce thorns and thistles for you, | |||
::and you will eat the plants of the field. | |||
::By the sweat of your brow | |||
::you will eat your food | |||
::until you return to the ground, | |||
::since from it you were taken; | |||
::for dust you are | |||
::and to dust you will return.”''<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ge 3:17–19.</ref> | |||
=Cain was of the wicked one?= | =Cain was of the wicked one?= | ||
| Line 302: | Line 343: | ||
:''There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'' (Galatians 3: 28) | :''There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.'' (Galatians 3: 28) | ||
=What about Eve being the mother of all living?= | |||
Message followers often point to Genesis 3:20 in support of the Serpent's Seed doctrine: | |||
:''And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 3:20.</ref> | |||
The argument is that Eve is called the mother of all living but Adam is not called the father of all living, thereby allowing for the existence of the seed of the serpent in humanity. '''Is this what the passage is really saying?''' | |||
The place to begin in attempting to understand this verse is with the fact that “Eve” was Adam’s name for his wife and not God’s name for Adam’s wife. We are so used to speaking of Adam and Eve that we generally fail to notice that not once in the story of the creation and the fall, up to this point, has Adam’s wife been called Eve. She has been called a “female” (Gen. 1:27), a “helper suitable” for Adam (Gen. 2:18), a “woman” (Gen. 2:22, 23), a “wife” (Gen. 2:24, 25; 3:8). But those are all descriptive or generic terms, not names. We do not find the name “Eve.” | |||
This does not mean that God did not name the woman, however. He did. | |||
But the name God gave her is not found in these chapters. It is found in Genesis chapter 5. There, in verses 1 and 2, we read, “When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them ‘man’ [or ‘Adam,’ because ‘Adam’ means man].” In other words, the name that God gave the woman was “man” or “Adam,” which was the name of her husband. | |||
God called the woman “Adam.” But that immediately raises the question, “Why, if God called Eve ‘Adam,’ did Adam call Eve ‘Eve’?” The answer is not that Adam was contradicting God or changing the name of his wife on his own authority. Her name remained “Adam.” What Adam was actually doing was giving Eve a title. For “Eve” is a title; it means “life” in the sense of being a “life-giver.” We would say “mother.” The text says, “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” | |||
It is sometimes the case in studying the Bible that the solution to one problem introduces another—that is what makes the study of the Bible so fascinating—and that is precisely what happens here. Yet it is at this point that we really come to the heart of the text. The problem is that, although Adam called his wife’s name Eve, meaning “life-giver” or “mother,” Eve was not a mother. In fact, if we read this and the next chapter closely, we have reason to believe that she had not even conceived. Her first child was Cain, and we are told not only of the birth but also the conception of Cain in Genesis chapter 4: “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” (Gen. 4:1). '''So we ask: Why did Adam name his wife “mother” when she was not yet a mother and, in fact, had not even become pregnant?''' | |||
There is only one answer to that question, and it comes from the context. Five verses before this Adam and Eve had heard the judgment of God against Satan in which God said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15). This verse mentioned the woman’s offspring and said flatly that her seed would crush the head of Satan. | |||
God had said that the punishment for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was death. Adam and Eve had seen the judgment of God against Satan. Satan had appeared to them in the guise of the serpent, which was most assuredly not the slithering, lowly creature we know as a snake today. The Hebrew word translated “serpent” in Genesis 3:1 is nachash, which in its early and primary use probably meant “a shining one” (Gesenius). The serpent stood upright and was perhaps the most glorious of all God’s creatures. Suddenly, however, Adam and Eve heard God’s judgment on Satan and saw this beautiful animal turn into a snake and slide away into the bushes. They must have been paralyzed with fear. They had seen the serpent’s judgment, and they were next. What would God do to them? Would they become snakes also? Would they die? | |||
As they thought about this and heard the greatly reduced words of the judgment of God on themselves, the deliberately hopeful words contained in God’s reference to the woman’s offspring must have gotten through. The fact that Eve would have offspring was itself significant. Since she had not yet given birth it meant that she would not die physically, at least not then. Since she had not yet conceived it meant that Adam would not die either (the conception of Cain comes in Genesis 4:1). Moreover, there was the nature of the one to come. He would be a deliverer. He would crush the head of Satan. This was their hope. God had said that Eve would give birth to one who in some manner would be the deliverer. So when Adam named his wife Eve, mother, she not even being pregnant, it was an act of faith, by which he testified to his belief that God would keep his promise and that the deliverer would come. | |||
Genesis 3:20 is not the only place in Genesis that would lead us to think this way. When Eve finally conceived (Gen. 4:1) and brought forth Cain, both she and Adam thought that he was the deliverer. They thought Cain was Jesus, which is why they named him “Cain,” meaning “brought forth” or “acquired.” In colloquial language we would say, “I’ve got him” or “Here he is.” Indeed, when we get to chapter 4, I am going to show that Eve’s words were even stronger than this. For she did not merely say, “I have brought forth [there is the meaning of ‘Cain’] a man,” that is, the man who was promised. She said (so I believe), “I have brought forth a man, even Jehovah [the ‘Redeemer’].” | |||
We know, of course, that Eve and Adam were mistaken. They thought they had brought forth the deliverer when actually they had brought forth a murderer, for Cain killed his brother Abel. But up to this point their perceptions were right. God had promised a deliverer, and they believed him, showing their belief by the naming of Eve by Adam and Cain by Eve. By this they showed that they were staking their hope on the word of God.<ref>James Montgomery Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 228–233.</ref> | |||
'''So the argument of message followers is false.''' Genesis 3:20 does not support the argument that there is special significant in Eve being called the mother of all living but Adam not being called the father of all living, They miss the true meaning of the passage because they read it with a presupposed meaning in view and not the actual words of the passage. | |||
=Who was the seed of the woman?= | =Who was the seed of the woman?= | ||