• 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

Ahhh, one of MANY mysteries the inspired Book of Jubilees answers for many of those questions that come up about the Bible. According to Genesis 5:4, Adam and Eve (Huah in Hebrew- the mother of all the living) went on to have other sons and daughters (I believe Jubilees 4 says 2 daughters - being Awan and Azura - and 9 sons), other than Cain, Abel, and Seth...let's see what the Bible has to say about Cain and his wife:

And Cain went out from the presence of YHUH, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. Genesis 4:16-17

What does the Book of Jubilees say about Cain and who he married?

And Cain took Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. And in the first year of the first week of the fifth jubilee, houses were built on the earth, and Cain built a city, and called its name after the name of his son Enoch. Jubilees 4:9

It says Seth married his sister Azura in Jubilees 4:10

I believe what Jubilees says. It is an additional witness to the Bible that is in complete agreement with the Bible throughout, no contradictions if you read it in the right spirit. I only recommend people read Jubilees who already believe Genesis - Revelation in its entirety, and see how all the Scriptures support and confirm each other without contradiction, because if you don't believe the Bible, you won't believe Jubilees.
 
Well this thread is bringing all the crazy out. It's like BF's version of Woodstock. I'm all for a healthy daily dose of weird but I never let it bleed over in to inspired scripture. The seedline foolishness is in direct conflict with the Genesis account and the Genesis account is not in conflict or in need of reconciliation at all. It simply contains a chronological account and a recap. I can't wait to look into Jubilees but I can almost guarantee you it will have extravagantly flagrant errors.
 
Rockfox said:
“@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.[/QUOTE]”

I thought @FollowingHim gave a thoughtful and well reasoned response, I, however, did reject it on its face. Words do have meaning, and there is a reason it has been consistently translated the way it has been. “Bara” can also be translated “make fat”. Maybe God only made skinny people before Adam? The context helps to identify how a word is translated. “Created” is a perfectly appropriate and most likely the most accurate way to translate bara in that verse.

If Adam was created from the “dust of the Earth” and that really means he was choosen from some other group of people that God never told us about, what do other verses in scripture refer to when they say that we came from dust and to dust we shall return? Do we become a part of the other people group again? It’s absurd and it is totally reading into the text.
 
However on this particular topic Jubilees illustrates an important point: Cain's wife has never been a mystery to ancient Christian or Jewish scholars. The consensus is simply that he married his sister, there is no need to think otherwise. Even if Jubilees is just uninspired commentary it illustrates that point.

Josephus stated that Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters. Also uninspired commentary, but useful. If correct (and these numbers are entirely reasonable) he had plenty of sisters to choose from. And the 9 sons unable to marry sisters (Abel died) would have had no shortage of nieces to choose from.
 
On the cherub documents Jolene posted: I have read both, and they are very interesting. They raise many good points about the cherubim specifically, which are useful to ponder. And I thoroughly agree with them that the church and state have influenced Christianity as we have received it, possibly in various ways we do not realise.

However they go too far in interpreting historical accounts as metaphorical. Genesis 1 and 2 are clearly written in the style of history, and flow into subsequent chapters of history with no break, and with a consistency of style illustrated by the "these are the generations of" statements that appear throughout the book. They are not allegory. If they are to be taken allegorically, then where exactly does Genesis switch from allegory to history? Can we know? Can we just read it to mean whatever we like?

One minor illustration of this: We are told Adam was created from the dust, and Eve from his rib. If literal, the meaning is plain. But if allegory, and "dust" means "other people" Adam was selected from, then where did Eve come from? Was she made from Adam? If so, why, given there were already plenty of women God could have chosen for him? And how - is the rib literal or symbolic? On the other hand, if she was just chosen too, why are we told this crazy story about a rib?

The meaning is clear and has always been clearly understood.
 
This article/find does suggest there were at least two classes of humans that existed and intermingled blood lines.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/08/22/mom-was-neanderthal-fossil-shows-mix-humankinds-cousins.html

If you do a search on who/what are the Denisovans then the statement in Gen 6:1-4 takes on a whole new understanding. And the idea of the seedline doctrine is an interesting one at least to consider.

http://readicon.com/giants-once-walked-the-earth-and-your-own-dna-can-prove-it/

Genesis 6:1-4


The Wickedness of Humankind

6 When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abidea]">[a] in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.
 
Cap said:
This article/find does suggest there were at least two classes of humans that existed and intermingled blood lines.
Click to expand...
Not at all. No evolutionist would even teach that. Rather, they believe exactly the opposite.

They think there was ONE class of humans (the ancestory "homo sapiens") that then SPLIT into "neanderthalensis", "denisova" and "sapiens". This is the exact OPPOSITE of the idea that there were multiple lines - in the evolutionary model these are diverging branches of the SAME line.

On this particular fossil find:

The facts are that people have found fossil humans (homo sapiens) that have DNA that is both similar to and different to modern human groups. And here's a fossil that has DNA with intermediate characteristics to two groups. That's the basic evidence that everyone looks at.

The evolutionists look at this and call each group a different "subspecies". One group of these humans is labelled "homo sapiens neanderthalensis" (the Neanderthals), another "homo sapiens denisova", and another "homo sapiens sapiens". And here there's a fossil that is intermediary between two of the "subspecies", so indicates crossbreeding between the groups. Which is to be expected, as in the evolutionary model they were already related groups anyway that came from a common ancestor, and are considered the same "species" so by definition can be expected to interbreed.

Standard young-earth Creationists look at this and call all three groups "homo sapiens", and see the differences as simply different tribal / ethnic groups. And here is a fossil that appears to be the offspring of people from two different tribes breeding together. Which is not the slightest bit unexpected.

Really, it's all a matter of what glasses you wear when you look at it. You can interpret it to fit either above ideology. And either way it's really not a big deal, you'd expect to find this within either viewpoint.

Again, it's just a person with characteristics of different people groups. It's like spotting a child with Asian eyes and a European nose. It's really no big deal at all - unless you have a pre-existing belief that it is a big deal, and choose to make it such.
 
FollowingHim said:
Not at all. No evolutionist would even teach that. Rather, they believe exactly the opposite.

They think there was ONE class of humans (the ancestory "homo sapiens") that then SPLIT into "neanderthalensis", "denisova" and "sapiens". This is the exact OPPOSITE of the idea that there were multiple lines - in the evolutionary model these are diverging branches of the SAME line.

On this particular fossil find:

The facts are that people have found fossil humans (homo sapiens) that have DNA that is both similar to and different to modern human groups. And here's a fossil that has DNA with intermediate characteristics to two groups. That's the basic evidence that everyone looks at.

The evolutionists look at this and call each group a different "subspecies". One group of these humans is labelled "homo sapiens neanderthalensis" (the Neanderthals), another "homo sapiens denisova", and another "homo sapiens sapiens". And here there's a fossil that is intermediary between two of the "subspecies", so indicates crossbreeding between the groups. Which is to be expected, as in the evolutionary model they were already related groups anyway that came from a common ancestor, and are considered the same "species" so by definition can be expected to interbreed.

Standard young-earth Creationists look at this and call all three groups "homo sapiens", and see the differences as simply different tribal / ethnic groups. And here is a fossil that appears to be the offspring of people from two different tribes breeding together. Which is not the slightest bit unexpected.

Really, it's all a matter of what glasses you wear when you look at it. You can interpret it to fit either above ideology. And either way it's really not a big deal, you'd expect to find this within either viewpoint.

Again, it's just a person with characteristics of different people groups. It's like spotting a child with Asian eyes and a European nose. It's really no big deal at all - unless you have a pre-existing belief that it is a big deal, and choose to make it such.
Click to expand...

Evolution is a theory, and a bad one at that. To dismiss an idea because of that theory is just as harmful as the theory itself. Take away the theory of evolution and you have two, and maybe more, separate groups of human like seedlines. The creation thought you stated is from the narrow minded concept taught in Sunday school and basically follows the evolution thought but disquises it as creation. It's to complicated for some minds to consider the possibility that there is another way and one that somehow supports the wording in the Word of God which better supports True Creation. Following that line of reasoning would have kept people from disproving the theory that the Earth was flat. Suppressing the mind is of fearful and faithless people.
 
Cap said:
Evolution is a theory, and a bad one at that. To dismiss an idea because of that theory is just as harmful as the theory itself. Take away the theory of evolution and you have two, and maybe more, separate groups of human like seedlines. The creation thought you stated is from the narrow minded concept taught in Sunday school and basically follows the evolution thought but disquises it as creation. It's to complicated for some minds to consider the possibility that there is another way and one that somehow supports the wording in the Word of God which better supports True Creation. Following that line of reasoning would have kept people from disproving the theory that the Earth was flat. Suppressing the mind is of fearful and faithless people.
Click to expand...

There is just no way to read two seedlines in to the creation story. There was Adam and all men descended from Adam. They have to because all have sinned and sin came in to the world through Adam. I admit that the Nephilim and all that are fascinating and mysterious and I would love to know all of the explanations but they're just not a large part of our theology. And this seedline stuff goes to very dark, ugly places very quickly.
 
ZecAustin said:
I admit that the Nephilim and all that are fascinating and mysterious and I would love to know all of the explanations but they're just not a large part of our theology. And this seedline stuff goes to very dark, ugly places very quickly.
Click to expand...

For you, not for me. I find it interesting. And what is OUR theology?
 
While I have no interest or thoughts on the subject, and don’t really care where this thread goes, I was reminded about this verse in Genesis 3:15. Seems like two seed lines to me. I can see the facts, the interpretation may be a little fuzzier and how it finds application may be worlds apart from anything that we could dream of.


And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
While I have no interest or thoughts on the subject, and don’t really care where this thread goes, I was reminded about this verse in Genesis 3:15. Seems like two seed lines to me. I can see the facts, the interpretation may be a little fuzzier and how it finds application may be worlds apart from anything that we could dream of.


And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
Click to expand...

The seed of the woman is a direct reference to Jesus the Christ and Jesus Christ referred to the pharisees as sons of the devil. That would be the “thy seed” He is refering to. Those are the two lines.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
The seed of the woman is a direct reference to Jesus the Christ and Jesus Christ referred to the pharisees as sons of the devil. That would be the “thy seed” He is refering to. Those are the two lines.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting but hardly conclusive. I do agree that Christ was the fulfillment of the seed promised to both Eve and Abraham. In His case a physical manifestation of a seedline. Is it unrealistic to hypothesize that the other seedline could also have a physical manifestation?
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
The seed of the woman is a direct reference to Jesus the Christ and Jesus Christ referred to the pharisees as sons of the devil. That would be the “thy seed” He is refering to. Those are the two lines.
Click to expand...

So let's think about that.

Genesis 3:13-15

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”

There is a difference in this verse about comparing Satan to the animals mentioned here, and the ones of doves, lions, lambs, and the concept of spiritual beings being applied to a physical world. (I also know that there is a Jewish mystical thought that says that the physical world was created by broken shards of light and as a result of the fall of man) But, nevertheless, what could very easily describe a physical world of two different seed classes, further defined as, one an evil one, and the other good. And from that point, all references to those who oppose Go(o)d are of the bad seed, including the Pharisees, and even us when we are against God's purpose.

Trying to nail down exactly what happened in the physical world to bring this all about is not as important to try and understand what all this means spiritually. And I think it could be an agreement that what one is spiritually, is what one would be physically, good seed or bad seed. And with that, the idea that being born again, baptism, can change all that spiritually and physically.

The verse that is really interesting in all this is Romans 9:2 2 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? "Prepared for destruction" means to me that there are 'objects of his wrath', vessels, that have not been destroyed yet. And either the flood is a physical reality or it is just a spiritual one, but some group of people were destroyed. Why? They never had the chance to be different. Because something about that seed couldn't change. The seed that became the enmity of the seed of Eve. It doesn't appear to me that God intends to have mercy on this seed. Why? Understanding if the flood was spiritual or physical, and why the people who were destroyed in it, would do a lot to explain if there really were two classes of seed. And who are the Nephilim? How can angels mate with humans, unless what is being described here were really physical beings of a bad seed.
 
I have no dog in this fight and it's only ever been a minor interest if mine, but aren't there numerous tribes or groups of people God warned the Israelites about, or told them to destroy, or never be involved in the worship at the temple? Could this "seed" just be referring to those who are the "unredeemable" , the lost causes, so to speak. God judged many tribes to be so, and warned about interacting or marrying them. They weren't otherworldly, non human creatures.
 
Nephilim. The giants. Fallen angels mating with women. Ya, multiple seed lines involved there. However the temptation in the garden implies this goes back farther than Gen 6.

Best available theory suggests that the worshipers of Satan organize themselves along 13 bloodline families among whom power and wealth are shared and passed down. Needless to say a lot of that is hard to tell from conjecture, Satan isn't exactly open about his activities. But my point is, so far as we can tell they believe there is a war between seed lines.
 
Mojo said:
I have no dog in this fight and it's only ever been a minor interest if mine, but aren't there numerous tribes or groups of people God warned the Israelites about, or told them to destroy, or never be involved in the worship at the temple? Could this "seed" just be referring to those who are the "unredeemable" , the lost causes, so to speak. God judged many tribes to be so, and warned about interacting or marrying them. They weren't otherworldly, non human creatures.
Click to expand...

Understand what you are saying and agree. There does appear to be a seed that does not fit Romans 14:11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'" Somehow something is wrong with this seed, It doesn't seem to fit that God would require submission, and then destroy them.

On a side note, reading Romans 14 is a good reference point as to how we are to treat each other when it comes to the different levels of faith God may give individuals.

Romans 14

The Weak and the Strong

1Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10You, then, why do you judge your brother or sistera ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written:

“ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;

every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ”b

12So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.c
 
rockfox said:
Nephilim. The giants. Fallen angels mating with women. Ya, multiple seed lines involved there. However the temptation in the garden implies this goes back farther than Gen 6.

Best available theory suggests that the worshipers of Satan organize themselves along 13 bloodline families among whom power and wealth are shared and passed down. Needless to say a lot of that is hard to tell from conjecture, Satan isn't exactly open about his activities. But my point is, so far as we can tell they believe there is a war between seed lines.
Click to expand...

Delving into the Da Vinci Code, now that's some twisted stuff.
 
The scriptural use of the word "Satan" is an interesting study. James R. Breyshaw has written some well researched volumes on the subject.
As far as seedlines go reading in Romans Paul made some interesting comparisons between the descendants of Ishmael, Esau, and Jacob/Israel. One verse pointing out that YHWH before Isaac's twins were born had chosen, (because He knew their respective natures?) one over the other. Esau was not Satan, or Satan's seed literally, but he chose like Cain did to fight against YHWH, His will, plan, and people. Cain was Adam's son. Esau was Isaac's son. The Pharisees were probably Edomites (descendants of Esau) and inherited Esau's values and nature. They are a different manner of people and the separation will always exist between those who choose YHWH, and those who choose to fight against Him.

I really believe the "seedline" is not exclusively literal, but rather is partly related to choice. But some choices are passed onto (inherited by) posterity.

Some are called sons of God, some sons of Satan, but neither is necessarily because they were physically 'begotten' as such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top