Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

Seems that Adam and Eve were pure humans direct created by God and Abel was their fruit of thier humanity after their image, but only Cain was not a pure human because he had the breeding of the serpent. Prior to the fall of Eve and before the curse the serpent was an ape form or more than just the highest level of an intelligent ape because serpent was a very perfect animal created by God almost liken to human, proof that the serpent was liken to human because he had an ability to talk with Eve and standing like a man before he crawled.

The serpent beguiled(sexually tempted) Eve, and their fruit of their actions was Cain the firsborn(the fruit of the first sex).

Now, after all the generations of Adam and Eve there were already an inter-marriage between pure humans and the bloodlines of the serpent(an ape-form), so all of us have the bloodlines of the serpent(Evolution calls it an ape origin) that needs to be cut-off by the precious blood of Jesus.

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

I'm certainly glad to see that you've included the word "theory" in your title of this thread, for that is precisely what it is, a "theory," although certainly ranking among the most absurd and ridiculous I've ever read!

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

This "theory" is held by Arnold Murray, and I remember from his lectures that he traces the origin of people to the "eighth day creation," and the Adamic race, "eth ha Adam," to the sixth day. I find it compelling; you'll note that Cain is not in Adam's geneology in the Bible, and other apparent inconsistencies in the Bible become clearer with this.

Could you provide a link for where you heard this? It isn't exactly new, but I'd appreciate another viewpoint here, ty. Sure beats "Lillith."

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

It clearly is garbage. And the proof is in what it clearly says written about who his father was written in Gen. 4:
1: AND ADAM KNEW EVE HIS WIFE; AND SHE CONCEIVED AND BARE CAIN AND SAID, I HAVE GOTTEN A MAN FROM THE LORD.
2: AND SHE AGAIN BARE HIS BROTHER, ABEL. AND ABEL WAS A KEEPER OF SHEEP, BUT CAIN WAS A TILLER OF THE GROUND.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they immediately took on sinfulness within the heart and or soul as I see it.

But Cain and Abel had the same father who was Adam. So both also inherited sinfulness within themselves too. Just as we all do. Which is why it says what it does about it in Rm. 3:23. We are born in bondage to sin within. And that bondage that dwells within all of us, is the reason for the body or fleshly sins to exist too. Needing to be put under once the bondage has been crucified and buried in HIM. That is for all that do begin in HIM according to what is written in Rm. 63-6 of course. Which is why that baptism is a baptism of death. Or as Bro. Blume says. A baptism of emtpying out of the old man that brought forth sin within us to begin with, so that the NEW Man, who is Christ Jesus can begin within not only our spirits, but also taking over our hearts or what I see as souls also.

And both boys had this residing within them. As do we when we are born, until it is time for God to crucify and bury this as well. So that then Christ within us rules and reigns finally within, so that he then can proceed to also destroy the fleshly or bodily sins as well. Doing so as we walk in and after the spirit and not the flesh anymore.

Therefore this idea of serpent seed within some and not others is a fairy tale. Probably in order for some to think they are born better than others, possibly ending up being one of the children that God does describe written in Job. 41:34 possibly.

We are dependent on Christ totally for anything good that we will do, as well as ever do. Plus it was mainly for this deliverance to take place that the cross was necessary in the first place. Jesus telling us this in LK. 4:18-19. As we already had forgiveness sins thru the blood of animals. But not deliverance of the bondage to sin until after Jesus came to provide us with the way He speaks of that few find written in Mt. 7:14.

So you can have the idea that some are of the serpent and others not. We is all in the same boat in the beginning. And from then on dependent upon our obedience to God and His Word as to what boat we do end up in before the end. Hopefully it will be the Ark, the Ark of the Covenant that Christ cut finally, and not the other one.

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

Hmm, well, honestly it just isn't that central to my beliefs, either way; but I found that Adam wasn't in Cain's geneology compelling, what do you say there? And you must have some position on the symbology of Eve's "fruit?"

Plus I have to say that Murray doesn't seem to be using it for the purpose you imagine; and points to instances in the Bible of "Kenites," which seem to be used with his meaning?

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

"you can have the idea that some are of the serpent and others not."

Murray would not say this, but rather develops the theme that one is a Kenite or not in their actions, as opposed to being "of the sea" or "of the chosen.". He would agree that "all have sinned," and doesn't use this to divide people, but ideologies.

Cain representing deliberate sin here. I'm swayed.
But I would have the same problem, if differentiating people was the aim here-it isn't.
If you keep an open mind here, it just becomes a different interpretation of the "eating of the fruit," which you must admit is pretty allegorical; I don't think it has really changed my theology much. Sin entered the world; this has not changed.

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

BIG AMEN BROTHER:yourock

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

Ha, I understand your position here; and it seems that there are actually quite a few variations of this doctrine (I've personally never heard it mixed with "apes").

I would suggest that rather than suspect it as an attempt to change ones basic theology or to outline any system of determinism for humans, it be viewed as an expansion of an obviously allegorical story, and possibly the most obvious one.

That unavoidable "radical" offshoots should read too much into a doctrine is surely unavoidable, but that should not prevent you from an honest look at any actual scriptural argument to this effect--the facts should then obtain from the fiction, yes?

I repeat, while there are surely a bunch of sideways views of this, it was not presented to me in the manner described, and did not offend as you are offended, so you might seek other interpretations here.

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

Sign of the times, End Times! I am not offened at all I've seen and heard it all and still expect more from those who may have come from the serpent sometime after Adam and Eve..

Re: Serpent seed doctrine & Evolution theory.
 

I can only believe it is the fringe stuff about this that has sent you there. I saw it as just a possible explanation for the "fruit" episode, "sin entered the world," and Adam's absence from Cain's geneology. "...those who may have come from the serpent sometime after Adam and Eve..." to quote you.

Could you outline what you don't like about this doctrine? I have a feeling I will dislike the same, unbiblical things
And it seems pertinent to ask if you believe Gen 1:2 "and the earth became void..." or are you sticking with God creating confusion? Ty