-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Seedline doctrine examined
- Thread starter Joleneakamama
- Start date
Here is another interesting study that touches on Adam and the Genesis account in part two.
So let's assume that this story is true. God created Adam and Lilith and the rest of mankind in genisis 1. Then Lilith rebeled and became Isaiah 14;12, or something like that. God then placed Adam in the Garden in Genisis 2 and created Eve from Adam.
This part I totally accept as a Biblicaly possibility.
The second part I reject as complete fantasy. I didn’t bother to read enough to see how they would have explained the “seedline” surviving the flood, but no, it’s just conjecture that does nothing to help us walk the walk.
This part I totally accept as a Biblicaly possibility.
The second part I reject as complete fantasy. I didn’t bother to read enough to see how they would have explained the “seedline” surviving the flood, but no, it’s just conjecture that does nothing to help us walk the walk.
C
Cap
Guest
There is some understanding that the Cain bloodline came through the flood though Ham. Which is all interesting because it was Ham son that was cursed and not Ham himself. It's the bloodlines that matters.
Other than that I do agree that its all speculation, but very interesting speculation, I think something very interesting to ponder.
However, if it is true, then it would explain a tremendous amount of where we are today.
C
Cap
Guest
I'm not sure I get the first link. The article seems to dispel the myth of the seedline on the same lines as a basic Christian would do against Polygamy. It raised more questions for me than trying to prove it false.
Yet another article making good points.
https://ensignmessage.com/articles/the-two-seedline-teaching-examined/
https://ensignmessage.com/articles/the-two-seedline-teaching-examined/
C
Cap
Guest
If one does a search on the idea of 'seedline' there are many articles on the subject. There are really good arguments that are for it being a real thing that do make one wonder beyond the articles presented here that are against.
This appears to be a really big rabbit hole.
This appears to be a really big rabbit hole.
C
Cap
Guest
I don't exactly remember were I learned that from but it did focus on Ham's wife who bore Canaan. Just so you know I don't actually buy into all this I just think it's interesting. The people who have information supporting it do have some valid points but at the same time some of the information seems to come from the Christian Identity movement.
The interesting thing for me about Christian identity is that I have yet to see any article against it that was even half as compelling as the evidence (including much scripture and history) for it.
Seedline however is not really needed to understand (edited to clarify that I see no way seedline doctrine helps anyone understand anything) scripture, or truth. People from every family of the earth can obviously choose evil, and some do. There is a lot of prophetic/symbolic verbiage in the Scripture that some people take literally, and literal facts that some folks try to spiritualize and both are detrimental to understanding.
And if people won't believe the truth God sends strong delusion ... that is a sobering thought.
Last edited:
I think the articles you cite @Joleneakamama show very clearly that this is completely unscriptural nonsense, and not worth time discussing further.
Well I looked it up. I wish I hadn't. This is definitely unscriptural nonsense. I didn't have to go farther than Wikipedia to realize it wasn't worth my time. We talked about this stuff before here. I didn't realize it had a name. Hopefully we never have to talk about it again.
As far as seedline doctrine goes we are of that same opinion.
The articles uploaded about the Cherub unmasked are not about seedline, but only touched in part two on another point mentioned....that there could have been other people contemporary with Adam and Eve. I highly reccomend looking at the study on the Cherub, as it is a sound look at scriptural terms as they are used....and connects a lot of interesting verses.
I think the fact that Eve is the mother of all living, pretty much rules out other people not of the line of Adam and Eve. It also gets into the territory of heresy, because sin and death came by one man, Adam. There is no other line eluded to in scripture, therefore I see no need to delve into it.
That really depends on what was meant by the words spoken. Examples that come readily to mind were the people that didn't understand what was meant by being "Born Again." Or perhaps some would have thought "Let the dead bury their dead" made no sense.
Being the mother of all living obviously didn't mean Adam.
The contrast between life and death, blessing and cursing in Deut. 28. Or the way Paul likens the receiving of those cut off from unbelief to "life from the dead."
Those verses make me look, and consider.
....and look forward to being able to communicate perfectly without misunderstandings and "Jumping to confusions" as we like to say here. I sure hope it is easier to understand, and be understood after people are raised up!
Do you think that the verses I referred to are being taken out of context, and that I am jumping to confusions? The scriptures are not random words on a page, although a lot of people treat them that way. That is why we need the three C’s of hermeneutics.
Gen 5:1 this is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
That Hebrew word Bara translated created is a prime root that also means selected, and chosen.
Adam was "Created" from the 'dust of the earth', a phrase that sometimes means multitudes of people.
Maybe God intended to raise some men to a higher standard, and gave the first law to the first he chose? "Don't eat fruit from that tree" the fact that is says it is the book of the generations of Adam is almost a tacit acknowledgement that other lines existed.
My willingness to think and consider other information doesn't mean I just believe everything, or that I think you are wrong if you don't think it's worth looking at. It's a part of my nature that contributed to me being here. I do think the Cherub unmasked is very worth reading. As is "Was Jesus God" by the same author. Food for thought and study.
That Hebrew word Bara translated created is a prime root that also means selected, and chosen.
Adam was "Created" from the 'dust of the earth', a phrase that sometimes means multitudes of people.
Maybe God intended to raise some men to a higher standard, and gave the first law to the first he chose? "Don't eat fruit from that tree" the fact that is says it is the book of the generations of Adam is almost a tacit acknowledgement that other lines existed.
My willingness to think and consider other information doesn't mean I just believe everything, or that I think you are wrong if you don't think it's worth looking at. It's a part of my nature that contributed to me being here. I do think the Cherub unmasked is very worth reading. As is "Was Jesus God" by the same author. Food for thought and study.
With all do respect, that is one of the most eisegetical readings of that portion of scripture that I have ever heard.
The idea that Adam may have been simply chosen from pre-existing men is a modern idea invented to shoehorn evolutionary theory into scripture. Or rather, to accept evolutionary theory verbatim, but apply a veneer of spiritual language to it to make it palatable to the church. Nobody would ever come to this conclusion from simply reading scripture. But when someone has already accepted that the words of man are more accurate than the plain words of God, they will go looking for ways to "re-interpret" God's words to make them fit with the words of man.
Having done so, they then write long treatises on it, drenched in spiritual-sounding language and Bible references, in an effort to convince God's people. Because Satan knows scripture better than any human. He even tempted Yeshua using scripture.
But the biblical paint job on the surface does not change the root. The root is humanism. The root is idolatry - thinking that something else (man) is more authoritative than God. The tree is rotten from the core.
I am not saying that everyone who believes this is unsaved or anything like that. All of us are wrong on some matters, and that's fine, there's not much we have to agree upon to be saved. There is certainly a role for disagreement and discussion, and that is healthy.
And in that spirit of healthy debate, I'm just bluntly stating what I see the fundamental issue to be, going straight to the root of the tree rather than being distracted by the leaves.
Having done so, they then write long treatises on it, drenched in spiritual-sounding language and Bible references, in an effort to convince God's people. Because Satan knows scripture better than any human. He even tempted Yeshua using scripture.
But the biblical paint job on the surface does not change the root. The root is humanism. The root is idolatry - thinking that something else (man) is more authoritative than God. The tree is rotten from the core.
I am not saying that everyone who believes this is unsaved or anything like that. All of us are wrong on some matters, and that's fine, there's not much we have to agree upon to be saved. There is certainly a role for disagreement and discussion, and that is healthy.
And in that spirit of healthy debate, I'm just bluntly stating what I see the fundamental issue to be, going straight to the root of the tree rather than being distracted by the leaves.
Through the wife of Ham?
@Asforme&myhouse @FollowingHim Rejections out of hand are not an argument. Can you show she wrong about the language?
I don't care about evolutionary theory. It's laughably wrong. One only need look at DNA machines or the scientific method to see that. But her line of thinking combined with the the archaeological, geologic and folk record sheds light on some difficult theological questions and helps make sense of history.