11,141
edits
The Serpent's Seed: Difference between revisions
→The problem with sinful genes
| (7 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 213: | 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 348: | Line 360: | ||
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.” | 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” ( | 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 360: | Line 372: | ||
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> | 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 | '''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?= | ||