Jump to content

The Serpent's Seed: Difference between revisions

The Serpent's Seed (view source)

Revision as of 17:46, 3 February 2024

20,533 bytes added ,  3 months ago
→‎A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed
 
(46 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:SSicon.jpg|thumb|right]]
[[File:SSicon.jpg|thumb|right]]


William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"'''  doctrine.
=A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed=
William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"'''  doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text.  William Branham's first pastor was [[Roy Davis]], who was a high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).  The Serpent's Seed doctrine has clear racist origins. 


This doctrine is comprised of the following related beliefs:
This doctrine is comprised of the following related beliefs:
Line 12: Line 13:
##Abel was the son of Eve and Adam.
##Abel was the son of Eve and Adam.


The serpent's seed doctrine is based on a few scriptures that can be used in isolation to support a position that is not supportable when viewed in the context of ALL scripture.<br>
The serpent's seed doctrine is based on a few scriptures that can be used in isolation to support a position that is not supportable when viewed in the context of ALL scripture. This doctrine also requires that you accept a number of beliefs as outlined below that you may not be aware are part of this doctrine.  In our view, these beliefs eventually lead to the rejection of the Bible as the true, inspired, word of God.
 
:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref><br>
<br>
<br>
=Which scriptures do you reject?=


If you believe the Serpent's seed doctrine then you are going against some basic scriptures.
=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=


==The Serpent's Seed rejects Acts 17:26==
The New Testament does not support William Branham's doctrine of the Serpent's Seed for the following reasons:
 
#The New Testament contains no explicit reference to the serpent having sex with Eve.
#Acts 17:26 states that all men sprang from one man, Adam, and not two (Adam and the Serpent).
#2 Cor. 11:2-3 does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.  While it is possible to read that into the text, that is not what the text says.
#Rom. 5:12 tells us that sin entered into the world through Adam, not through Eve.
 
==2 Corinthians 11:2-3==
 
The KJV states:
 
:''For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.  But I fear, lest by any means, '''as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty''', so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Co 11:2–3.</ref>
 
From the wording, message followers argue that this demonstrates that while Christians need to avoid having their minds corrupted, Eve experienced a physical corruption.  But is that what the passage actually states?
 
Let us look at a couple of other translations:
 
:NASB - ''For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.  But I am afraid that, '''as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness''', your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.<ref>New American Standard Bible, 1995 Edition: Paragraph Version (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 2 Co 11:2–3.</ref>
 
:NIV -''I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.  But I am afraid that '''just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning''', your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.<ref>The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 2 Co 11:2–3.</ref>
 
:CEB - ''I’m deeply concerned about you with the same concern that God has. As your father, I promised you in marriage to one husband. I promised to present you as an innocent virgin to Christ himself.  But I’m afraid that '''your minds might be seduced in the same way as the snake deceived Eve with his devious tricks'''. You might be unable to focus completely on a genuine and innocent commitment to Christ.<ref>Common English Bible (Nashville, TN: Common English Bible, 2011), 2 Co 11:2–3.</ref>
 
Does this passage state that the relationship between Eve and Satan was physical?  Such an interpretation reads into the text more than it actually says.  A common way that scripture is misinterpreted is when we draw wrong conclusions from the text by reading into the text what isn’t there.  What we need to do is draw out from the text only what is there.<ref>James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 366.</ref>
 
The sole characteristic of the serpent mentioned by Paul is his deviousness.  It was by his words that the serpent deceived her in the Genesis account, a point Paul implies in that it is by what the enemies of the Gospel preach that the Corinthians are led astray.  This viewpoint is supported in a closely parallel passage where Paul writes of “those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned … By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people … The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom 16:17–18, 20). The references in 2 Cor 11:3 and Rom 16:18, 20 to
 
:(1) “the serpent” (i.e., Satan—v. 14),
 
:(2) “crush Satan,” and
 
:(3) “deceive” tie both passages back to Genesis 2–3 and to each other.
 
Paul sees words — erroneous in content but smooth of delivery — as Satan’s instrument to seduce the church from her loyalty to Christ.<ref>Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 501–502. </ref>
 
==Acts 17:26==


The KJV states that God ''"hath made of '''one blood''' all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."''<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Acts 17:26</ref>
The KJV states that God ''"hath made of '''one blood''' all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."''<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Acts 17:26</ref>
Line 28: Line 65:
:''And '''He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men''' to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes)... <ref> Acts 17:26 (Amplified Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation</ref>
:''And '''He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men''' to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes)... <ref> Acts 17:26 (Amplified Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation</ref>


:'''''From one man''' he made '''every nation living on the entire surface of the eart'''h, and he fixed the limits of their territories and the periods when they would flourish.<ref>David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament), 1st ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), Ac 17:26.</ref>
:'''''From one man''' he made '''every nation living on the entire surface of the earth''', and he fixed the limits of their territories and the periods when they would flourish.<ref>David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament), 1st ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), Ac 17:26.</ref>


The Serpent seed doctrine requires that a person reject Acts 17:26 because it requires the belief that the serpent injected his blood into the human race.  That's 2 bloods, not one.  That's two origins not one, and two sources, not one.
The Serpent seed doctrine requires that a person reject Acts 17:26 because it requires the belief that the serpent injected his blood into the human race.  That's 2 bloods, not one.  That's two origins not one, and two sources, not one.
Line 42: Line 79:
The problem is that anyone plagued by [[Cognitive Dissonance]] can't see this.
The problem is that anyone plagued by [[Cognitive Dissonance]] can't see this.


==Romans 5:12 is also ignored==
==Romans 5:12==


Paul said that "as by '''one man''' sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Rom 5:12.</ref>
William Branham stated:
 
:That’s what You give Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden, to defeat the enemy. And when Eve reasoned with It, and projected reasons with the Word, it fell apart, and sin entered.<ref>William Branham, 63-0123 - Identification, para. 276</ref>
 
But Paul said that "as by '''one man''' sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Rom 5:12.</ref>


That one man was Adam, not Cain.  Not one woman, not one serpent.  One man - Adam.
That one man was Adam, not Cain.  Not one woman, not one serpent.  One man - Adam.
Line 54: Line 95:
If you believe the Serpent's seed is physical, you deny the truth of Romans 5:12
If you believe the Serpent's seed is physical, you deny the truth of Romans 5:12


=You believe Serpent Seed? Watch out for the traps!=
=Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=


The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires that you accept the following beliefs that you may not be aware are part of this doctrine.  In our view, these beliefs eventually lead to the rejection of the Bible as the true, inspired, word of God.
The Old Testament does not support William Branham's doctrine of the Serpent's Seed for the following reasons:


:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref>
#The Old Testament does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.
#The doctrine of the Serpent's Seed requires you to believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually Satan's tree or Satan himself.  The Bible does not teach this.
#The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires you to believe that the Bible is incorrect when it states in Gen 3:6 that "the tree was good for food."
#The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires you to believe that Eve committed adultery and sinned against her husband.  The Bible does not teach this.
#This teaching requires you to believe that Adam watched his wife have sex with the serpent.
#Gen. 4:1 indicates that Adam did not have sex with his wife until after they were out of the garden.
#The Bible does not state that Cain and Abel were twins with different fathers.
#If Adam's since was also sexual, why was the ground cursed for his sake and not his body?


Here are a few of the traps:
==Was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil really Satan's Tree?==


==Whose was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?==
William Branham stated:


:''Notice, the children of obedience, and disobedience, has nothing in common. The disobedience worship their god. "Oh," they say, "we believe the Bible." Yes, it's a mixed tree. See, they add the world and knowledge to It. '''Satan's tree''', mixed; see, '''she took from Satan's tree''', good and evil. "Oh, we believe the Word." Sure, but not all of It. Eve believed the Word, too, but let--'''let Satan take his tree''' and pervert It a little bit. That's what it is.<ref>THE.GOD.OF.THIS.EVIL.AGE_  JEFF.IN  V-4 N-9  SUNDAY_  65-0801M</ref>
:''Notice, the children of obedience, and disobedience, has nothing in common. The disobedience worship their god. "Oh," they say, "we believe the Bible." Yes, it's a mixed tree. See, they add the world and knowledge to It. '''Satan's tree''', mixed; see, '''she took from Satan's tree''', good and evil. "Oh, we believe the Word." Sure, but not all of It. Eve believed the Word, too, but let--'''let Satan take his tree''' and pervert It a little bit. That's what it is.<ref>THE.GOD.OF.THIS.EVIL.AGE_  JEFF.IN  V-4 N-9  SUNDAY_  65-0801M</ref>


How could the tree be Satan's tree when God created it?  
How could the tree be Satan's tree when God created it?


==Then it leads you into real hot water==
==Or is the tree Satan himself?==


William Branham taught that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan or the serpent:
William Branham taught that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan or the serpent:
Line 76: Line 124:
:''Now that we have come this far, let me try to crystallize your thinking on this subject so you can see the necessity of our going into the 'serpent seed doctrine' as I have. We start with the fact that there were TWO trees in the midst of the garden. The Tree of Life was Jesus. '''The other tree is definitely Satan''' because of what came forth of the fruit of that tree. Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there. <ref>EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.3</ref>
:''Now that we have come this far, let me try to crystallize your thinking on this subject so you can see the necessity of our going into the 'serpent seed doctrine' as I have. We start with the fact that there were TWO trees in the midst of the garden. The Tree of Life was Jesus. '''The other tree is definitely Satan''' because of what came forth of the fruit of that tree. Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there. <ref>EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.3</ref>


According to 1 Timothy 2:14, Adam was not deceived. Serpent seed theology interprets Eve eating the fruit as actually having sex with the serpent, a male.  Since Adam also ate of this fruit, accepting this theory is to make the claim that Adam purposely committed a homosexual act with the serpent.  William Branham's followers suggest that Adam eating of the fruit was a sex act with Eve.  But if the tree was Satan or the serpent, wouldn't the fruit have to be the same thing that Eve participated in?  Sex with the serpent?   
According to 1 Timothy 2:14, Adam was not deceived. Serpent seed theology interprets Eve eating the fruit as actually having sex with the serpent, a male.  Since Adam also ate of this fruit, accepting this theory is to make the claim that '''Adam purposely committed a homosexual act with the serpent'''.  William Branham's followers suggest that Adam eating of the fruit was a sex act with Eve.  But if the tree was Satan or the serpent, wouldn't the fruit have to be the same thing that Eve participated in?  Sex with the serpent?   


If Eve was the one who the serpent had sex with, was it not Eve who offered Adam the fruit? Note the same fruit and the same tree.  If the fruit is sex with the serpent, then the fruit stays sex with the serpent.
If Eve was the one who the serpent had sex with, was it not Eve who offered Adam the fruit? Note the same fruit and the same tree.  If the fruit is sex with the serpent, then the fruit stays sex with the serpent.
Line 82: Line 130:
How could a man having sex with his own wife be sin?  Does that make any sense?
How could a man having sex with his own wife be sin?  Does that make any sense?


Obviously, this is assine fatuity - which is why message believers are quick to reject this obvious conclusion, and why serpent seed is clearly a false doctrine.
Obviously, this is nonsense - which is why message believers are quick to reject this obvious conclusion, and why serpent seed is clearly a false doctrine.


If Serpent's Seed is wrong, accepting it means you are bearing false witness against Adam in that he had sex with the serpent.
If Serpent's Seed is wrong, accepting it means you are bearing false witness against Adam in that he had sex with the serpent.


==And Eve committed adultery?==
==Did Eve commit adultery?==


As mentioned above, Serpent's Seed teaches that Eve had sex with the serpent.  Since she was married, it would mean that she committed adultery. The Bible does not teach that.
As mentioned above, Serpent's Seed teaches that Eve had sex with the serpent.  Since she was married, it would mean that she committed adultery. The Bible does not teach that.
Line 96: Line 144:
==What about the other trees?==
==What about the other trees?==


The Bible states:
The Bible states in Genesis 2:15-17 and Genesis 3:1-7:
 
:'' The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, '''but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat''', for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
 
:''He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”  And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”  But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”  So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.  Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ge 2:15–17, 3:1–7</ref>


:'' The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
What are we supposed to think about the conversation with the serpent in which he asked Eve whether all the trees were off-limits and she replied that they were all allowed to be eaten from except That one?


:''He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), Ge 2:15–17, 3:1–7</ref>
If eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually a sex act with the serpent, what was eating of the other trees?


What are we supposed to think about the conversation with the serpent in which he asked Eve whether all the trees were off limits and she replied that they were all allowed to be eaten from except That one?  
Could Adam and Eve have sex with every tree (other animals?) except the serpent?


That they could have sex with every animal except the serpent? Or touch every part of the body except the sex organs?  Really?
Really?


==And Adam watched his wife and the serpent have sex?==
==Did Adam watch his wife have sex with the serpent?==


The KJV states that:
The KJV states in Genesis 3:6 that:


:''...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband '''with her'''; and he did eat. <ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Genesis 3:6</ref>
:''...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband '''with her'''; and he did eat. <ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Genesis 3:6</ref>
Line 122: Line 174:
:''Then she gave some to her husband, '''who was with her''', and he ate it, too.<ref>Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Genesis 3:6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).</ref>
:''Then she gave some to her husband, '''who was with her''', and he ate it, too.<ref>Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation, 3rd ed., Genesis 3:6 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007).</ref>


Are we to believe that Adam watch his wife and the serpent get it on while he watched?  That is effectively what William Branham taught if you read the Bible as it is written.  Of course, if the serpent seed doctrine is wrong, then this passage makes a lot more sense.
Are we to believe that Adam watched his wife and the serpent get it on while he watched?  That is effectively what William Branham taught if you read the Bible as it is written.  Of course, if the serpent seed doctrine is wrong, then this passage makes a lot more sense.
 
==Was Cain Was The Son of the Serpent?==
 
Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam is Cain’s father:
 
:KJV - ''And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 4:1–2.</ref>
 
:ESV - ''Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”<ref>The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Ge 4:1.</ref>


==Cain Was The Son of the Serpent==
:NET - ''Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created a man just as the LORD did!”<ref>Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Ge 4:1.</ref>


Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam is Cain’s father.  The Serpent’s Seed doctrine completely ignores or dismisses this verse as false in order to uphold their theory. William Branham said that this was proved by the fact that the Bible says that [[Enoch and Noah#The Seventh from Adam|Enoch was the seventh from Adam]].  But if you [[Enoch and Noah#The Seventh from Adam|read our article on the subject]], you will realize that William Branham again twisted the scripture to his own ends.
The Serpent’s Seed doctrine completely ignores or dismisses this verse as false in order to uphold their theory. William Branham said that this was proved by the fact that the Bible says that [[Enoch and Noah#The Seventh from Adam|Enoch was the seventh from Adam]].  But if you [[Enoch and Noah#The Seventh from Adam|read our article on the subject]], you will realize that William Branham again twisted scripture to his own ends.


The Serpent’s Seed doctrine says this is 100% false, forcing you to deny another portion of scripture and call the Holy Spirit a liar.
The Serpent’s Seed doctrine says this verse is 100% false, forcing you to deny another portion of scripture and call God a liar.


==Cain Was Conceived Inside of The Garden==
==Cain Was Conceived Inside of The Garden==


According to the Serpent’s Seed doctrine, Cain was conceived inside of the Garden when Adam and Eve had sex with the Serpent.  However, Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam and Eve were outside of the garden when Cain was conceived. The Serpent’s Seed doctrine says this is 100% false, forcing you to deny another portion of scripture and call the Holy Spirit a liar.
According to the Serpent’s Seed doctrine, Cain was conceived inside of the Garden when Adam and Eve had sex with the Serpent.  However, as we read above, Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam and Eve were outside of the garden when Cain was conceived. The Serpent’s Seed doctrine says this is 100% false, forcing you to deny another portion of scripture and call the Holy Spirit a liar.


==Cain Is Not In Adam’s Genealogy==
==Cain Is Not In Adam’s Genealogy==
Line 139: Line 199:


==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 Klu Klux Klan (KKK).  One of the doctrines of the KKK is Serpent Seed.  It justifies racial hatred and abuse, as well as the oppression of women.  William Branham learned this doctrine from Roy Davis, and it was reinforced 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 Japheth were brothers of the same mother and father, how could Ham be of the wicked one, genetically different from his brothers?
'''


=Logic Problems=
=Logic Problems=


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.
==Only some things are 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?==
Line 153: Line 244:
==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 281:
:::''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 288:


:''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 304:


=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 316:


:''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 257: Line 379:
'''He's been doing it from the beginning.'''
'''He's been doing it from the beginning.'''


=The Jews taught the Serpent's Seed doctrine=
=Did first-century Jews believe the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=


Message believers are quick to point to the fact that there is some Jewish fiction and rabbinical speculation that regarded the fall of Eve as a sexual sin.  The suggestion that they cast light on Paul’s reference to Eve and that Paul might at least have had them in mind, since he pictures the Corinthians as a pure virgin who may not be found pure at her presentation to her bridegroom, is a distortion of the text.  There is nothing sexy in Paul’s words. Eve was a married woman and not a virgin. The notion of the devil and of devils and evil angels having sexual intercourse with women is monstrous and found its ugliest form in the fiction of the incubus and the succubus in the days of the witchcraft craze.  We mention this aberration only because it still appears in books.<ref>R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), 1239.</ref>
Message believers are quick to point to the fact that there is some Jewish fiction and rabbinical speculation that regarded the fall of Eve as a sexual sin.  The suggestion that they cast light on Paul’s reference to Eve and that Paul might at least have had them in mind, since he pictures the Corinthians as a pure virgin who may not be found pure at her presentation to her bridegroom, is a distortion of the text.  There is nothing sexy in Paul’s words. Eve was a married woman and not a virgin. The notion of the devil and of devils and evil angels having sexual intercourse with women is monstrous and found its ugliest form in the fiction of the incubus and the succubus in the days of the witchcraft craze.  We mention this aberration only because it still appears in books.<ref>R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), 1239.</ref>
Line 287: Line 409:
Second, William Branham mentioned a number of times that Eve was the Tree of Death.  This means that the serpent was simply the "can opener" that Satan used to loose his perverted creation, Eve the tree, on innocent Adam.   
Second, William Branham mentioned a number of times that Eve was the Tree of Death.  This means that the serpent was simply the "can opener" that Satan used to loose his perverted creation, Eve the tree, on innocent Adam.   


:''If Life come by Man, death come by the woman. All right, she was the tree of death.’’ <ref> William Branham, December 5, 1960, The Ephesian Church Age </ref>
:''If Life come by Man, death come by the woman. All right, s'''he was the tree of death'''.’’ <ref> William Branham, December 5, 1960, The Ephesian Church Age </ref>


:''Now you can probably well understand what I've been hitting at. By her beauty and her sex control, her shape that was given to her by Satan, the by-product that Satan did, she is sent to deceive sons of God. And she can sway more of them to hell than any other instrument Satan has got. That's exactly right.'' <ref> William Branham, February, 21, 1965, Marriage and Divorce </ref>
:''Now you can probably well understand what I've been hitting at. By her beauty and her sex control, '''her shape that was given to her by Satan''', the by-product that Satan did, she is sent to deceive sons of God. And she can sway more of them to hell than any other instrument Satan has got. That's exactly right.'' <ref> William Branham, February, 21, 1965, Marriage and Divorce </ref>


:''"Oh," you say, "she was a tree?" Sure. "Well, they said, 'Thou shall not take of this tree.' God said, in Genesis back there, 'Thou shall not take of this tree.'" Well the woman is the tree. She is the  fruit  tree. You're the  fruit  of your mother. The  fruit  of the womb is you. That's right. And then the  fruit  of the Tree of Life, that was in the garden of Eden, is Christ. Through the woman come death;'' <ref> William Branham, February, 21, 1965, Marriage and Divorce </ref>  
:''"Oh," you say, "she was a tree?" Sure. "Well, they said, ''''Thou shall not take of this tree'''.' God said, in Genesis back there, 'Thou shall not take of this tree.'" Well '''the woman is the tree.''' She is the  fruit  tree. You're the  fruit  of your mother. The  fruit  of the womb is you. That's right. And then the  fruit  of the Tree of Life, that was in the garden of Eden, is Christ. Through the woman come death;'' <ref> William Branham, February, 21, 1965, Marriage and Divorce </ref>  


:''Eve, is Satan's queen. See, Satan, the serpent, got to Eve before Adam got to her. See? That's right. So he beguiled her, see; so Satan, the serpent, was the husband of Eve before Adam ever knew.  <ref> William Branham, August 29, 1965, Satan’s Eden </ref>
:''Eve, is Satan's queen. See, Satan, the serpent, got to Eve before Adam got to her. See? That's right. So he beguiled her, see; so '''Satan, the serpent, was the husband of Eve''' before Adam ever knew.  <ref> William Branham, August 29, 1965, Satan’s Eden </ref>


:''The other tree is definitely Satan because of what came forth of the fruit of that tree  . Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there.’’ <ref> The Ephesian Church Age Book, William Branham </ref>
:'''''The other tree is definitely Satan''' because of what came forth of the fruit of that tree. Now then, we know that both of those trees had a relationship to man or they would never have been placed there.’’ <ref> The Ephesian Church Age Book, William Branham </ref>


So if you are a woman, and you believe William Branham, you are a tree of death.  
So if you are a woman, and you believe William Branham, you are a tree of death.  
Line 302: Line 424:


:''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?=
Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/22305...27044"