I wrote a critique of Brett T.’s claims and he was kind enough to reply. Now, in turn I will reply to his reply as we are both clearly interested in engaging in reasoned and graceful discourse—you can find my initial critique here.
Below is the entirety of his reply interspersed with my critiques (I have only removed his initial email pleasantries, etc.).
…I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Ken’s critique of my work…Let’s look at some of Ken’s comments on my work: first off, is it not a correct assumption that “…nowhere in the Bible does it say that either Cain nor Abel were Adam’s son…”? No matter what angle Ken may be heading towards, here, by placing the above quote as the header of his critique, the truth of the manner still stands. If they weren’t listed as Adam’s sons in the Bible, then logic dictates that we cannot assume they were Adam’s offspring, either… right? Show me, Ken, where the Bible absolutely states that, and I’ll change the above quote! [the first two ellipses are mine, the rest within this whole section are Brett’s]
I would never solely argue that majority rules yet I will point out the fact that (granting an extremely statistically insignificant minority) 5,000 years-worth of Jews and 2,000 years-worth of Christians have accepted that Cain and Abel were sons of Adam and have done so because the Bible states as much.
So, the claim is that “they weren’t listed as Adam’s sons” yet, Genesis 4 states, “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel.” The only reason to think that this cannot be stating what it means and not meaning what it states is that someone came along centuries after it was written and decided to weave a bit of folklore with it.
For technicalities, such as how Genesis 4 has been translated through the centuries, see “Serpent Seed of Satan theorist on the original text of Genesis 4:1,” part I and part II.
The other issue is that neither appear in Adam’s genealogy. However, the cultural and grammatical context informs us that biblical genealogies are not as we think of genealogies today: they are not a list of every single person but rather, they are meant to highlight certain personages and, as the Bible’s ultimate goal, to point us to the Messiah Jesus.
Thus, Abel is not listed as he had no offspring and Cain is not listed because he absconded from Adam and Eve and thus, began his own family lineage. Moreover, we have biblical context for concluding that he may also have been left out due to his sin. For example, 1 Chronicles 5:1 states, “Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.”
Also, in regards to the other quote you put up there (“Those who have blood of this Serpent (and, possibly, other fallen angels) would go on to form ‘mixed’ multitudes of people…”): this, obviously, relates to the fallen angels of old – those who “lost their previous estate.” The same, then, were made to be terrestrial upon the earth, and mated with mortal women (as stated in the book of Jude, and in Genesis 6). So, since this is all in the Bible, what’s so speculative about it? It’s right there. I’m not making this all up.
Well, my reason for quoting his statement as such was to allow his greater context. So, “what’s so speculative about it?” nothing. I did not take issue with his and, setting aside some technicalities, generally agree that “fallen angels…lost their previous estate…mated with mortal women,” etc. and I would add 2 Peter as a supporting reference as well. See my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God for evidence that the angel view is the most ancient and the majority view amongst both Jews and Christians (you can find it at Amazon and CreateSpace).
Also, in regards to the theory of Eve having sex with the Serpent, we really need to ask ourselves here, Ken: what isn’t really speculation in our Bible, in this day and age? No one was alive back then (including you); so both you and I will have to agree that neither of us could have it perfectly right. Agree? All we have, for sure, are the written words of old.
Well, I may feel that old but no, I was not alive back then and neither was Brett however, God was and He told us that which occurred within “the written words of old.”
Perhaps I could turn the tables and state that nowhere in the Bible does it say that Eve had sex with the Serpent, show me, Brett, where the Bible absolutely states that, and I’ll change my mind. Now, it has to be a major premise of Brett’s serpent seed theory that Eve did, in fact, have sex with the Serpent but he is admitting that there is no proof of this necessary starting point.
So, the Bible never states that Eve had sex with the serpent which is reason enough to conclude that Eve never had sex with the serpent.
Now, the Bible is extremely explicit about all sorts of sexual liaisons, sexual sins, etc. so it is at least fair to think that if she had done so then it would be crystal clear stated in the Bible. Now, this is not Brett’s argument but I will note it just in case: the Bible is not required to tell us that “Adam knew Eve his wife and, oh yeah by the way, the serpent did not know her, the beasts of the field did not know her and when her offspring were of age they likewise did not know her neither did anyone except for Adam as long as they both lived.”
This is another case of taking something simple and uncontroversial and making it appear as if it is because someone decided to weave a folkloric tall tale centuries after Genesis was written.
As far as your comment about Adam and Eve (after their fall), rushing in to cover their “nether regions,” you state “how easy it would be to isolate this and allow the serpent seedline of Satan theorists to (mis)interpret it for you.”
How, Sir, am I isolating this, as a means to misinterpret it to anybody? I am not trying to deceive or misinterpret anything, here. If anything, it all seems fairly strait forward: Adam and Eve disobeyed God. After they sinned, one of the first things they did was to hurry up and try to cover their genital areas. How much more strait forward could one’s train of logic be, in this case? Why did they go for that area?
They didn’t try to cover their mouths (because they ate of a forbidden fruit); they didn’t try to cover their hands (because they held the forbidden fruit in their hands). As most would assume, they tried to hide the pivotal point their shame. Agree? Why these nether regions? You don’t seem to want to address this train of logic. And, to avoid the task of addressing this, it seems you would rather want to go off on a tangent, and give the typical interpretation I often hear: (paraphrasing) “it’s only a story with moral implications. Nothing physical to see here.” Isn’t that your only angle, here, Ken?
Firstly, I want to ensure that we do not, at least not in the case of my writing about Brett, that correlating “to (mis)interpret” with to purposefully “deceive” as one can (mis)interpret for many reasons only one of which could be to set out to deceive. Thus, as a just in case statement I will state that I never accused Brett of purposeful deception but only of (mis)interpretation.
As far as your comment about Adam and Eve (after their fall), rushing in to cover their “nether regions,” you state “how easy it would be to isolate this and allow the serpent seedline of Satan theorists to (mis)interpret it for you.”
What I got from Brett’s reply is that he is isolating this by taking it out of its clear context and surrounding it with the serpent seed theory. An oft employed tactic of such theorists is to post supposed gotcha! questions for which the only answer is claimed to be their theory. Thus, Brett makes the (good actually) point that they “try to cover their genital areas…didn’t try to cover their mouths” nor to “cover their hands,” etc. so “Why these nether regions?” because of a theory which is utterly foreign to the text, the Bible’s greater context and also to millennia’s worth of Jews and Christians.
My point about isolation is that even if in one case the theory seems the best fit, it is appealing to an enormous, unnecessary and unbiblical theory to attempt to deal with one issue (actually, an essentially non-issue that was made into an issue when support was sought for the theory).
Brett notes that I “don’t seem to want to address this train of logic…avoid the task of addressing this…want to go off on a tangent” but he such is not the case and he actually does note that I did offer that which he claims is a “typical interpretation” but what I wrote in my original article actually followed the Bible’s train of logic:
Well, you can see how easy it would be to isolate this and allow the serpent seedline of Satan theorists to (mis)interpret it for you.
However, it seems that the reason they covered their nakedness is that in Genesis 2 it was pointed out they were naked and not shamed. The theorists could easily claim that they were not ashamed and ashamed of that which they had done with their nether regions.
However, since the Bible knows nothing of that theory then the focus is shame. They were ashamed of having broken God’s commandment and the story does become, or so it seems, symbolic of attempting to cover their sin with works, having God reject their works based salvation and providing a covering which required the shedding of blood. One does not need to deny any and all symbolism simply because such theorists are going amiss and appealing to symbolism.
My overall point might be that even if (and that is a big IF) you grant this one point to the theorists, the score is still one to well, however many points are racked up by the rest of the Bible.
I come across this type of narrative quite a bit, in regards to stories of the Bible. Of course, you may feel what I write is misinterpreted in your mind because you seem to validate the possibility of the Bible being filled with, for the most part, good moral lessons, and good information for us to live our lives. But, with that mindset, it’s easy for one to look at the Bible just for its moral implications, and proves harder take the Bible as anything more. But, what about things in the Bible which aren’t as “easy to swallow?” What about the possibility of the Bible being true, in regards to dates, actions, history, physical occurrences, etc.; and the need for it to being taken more literally?
When these situations come up, the foundations of belief – to many people – become lost. In other words: couldn’t the Bible be used for something other than just its moral implications? Thinking about it, practically, in only one way, at best, limits the Bible to a book of cautionary tales. Sorry, but I also take the Bible as history, and try to take it as literally as it portrays itself.
In the case of the above, the rush of Adam and Eve to cover their genitals was not just a Hebrewism, or figure of speech, but a description of their actions (after their sin). Simple. Many Christians in today’s world, however, have been so conditioned to take the Bible as reliable for its morality, but not history – turning the Bible into “just another book;” not something special, not something of God. This can be dangerous to the Christian who really wants to contemplate some of the “harder to swallow” realities in it.
This is a non-issue as it is based on Brett’s presupposition about what my point of view might be and yet, it is not: I also take the Bible as history, and try to take it as literally as it portrays itself—period.
Yes, Adam and Eve, as you stated, were “ashamed of having broken God’s commandment”… but does that solidify the perception that there can’t be any more to the story? Why does it all have to stop here? I don’t think we “are going amiss” by allowing people to take a deeper look at all the possible elements to a Biblical story, beyond just the moral!
I am not even attempting to not allow people to “take a deeper look at all the possible elements to a Biblical story, beyond just the moral” and in fact, I encourage it. Yet, what solidifies “the perception that there can’t be any more to the story” is that the Bible knows nothing of it and neither did the overwhelming majority of all Jews and Christians who have ever lived.
When theologizing it is of the utmost to systematize whereby we ensure that our theology does not consists of disjointed bits and pieces but fits together like a jigsaw puzzle. Thus, my point again is that even if we think that we have one serpent seed piece, we should know that we are mistaken as it does not fit into the rest of biblical theology.
At this point, I would like to point out something to those who are not familiar with my many articles on this theory: I accept that there are two seedlines but these are not genetic, they consist of those who perform godly actions versus those who perform satanic actions and this is the biblical model, this is supported by the Bible’s greater context. For a shortcut to this, I have written it most succinctly within my article that was published in a Christian apologetics journal.
You also said something about Cain and Abel being the sons of Adam: “Just because a ‘common term’ is not used does not mean that Adam did not beget Cain and Abel…” Yes, but you have to admit that this doesn’t mean that Adam begat them, either. Right? The rationale for what you say seems to be that: “Cain was not listed because he absconded from Adam and Eve and started his own family.” Okay, I totally agree with that. But, so what? Can you say definitely say that this was the reason the Bible didn’t list him as such? That would be a “no.” That, Sir, is speculation. I also agree that there, quite probably, were many other sons and daughters born of Adam and Eve; but wouldn’t someone of such importance, such as Cain, be mentioned a lot more in the Bible (as most Christians know of the story of Cain and Abel)? Either way, we cannot definitively say why Cain was not listed. Agree?
This seems another case of much ado about nothing: in other words, looking for trouble so as to appear to have found a gap and seeking to fill it with the theory.
Now, of course, the text means that Adam begat them because that is the point, that is what it states and: it does note state anything different than that.
I covered this above but am keeping Brett within his own context and he brought it up at this point. Now, “so what?” well, I offered two biblically sound and buttressed reasons versus one unbiblical theory.
As there “quite probably” being “many other sons and daughters” there is no quite probably about it, “Adam…begat sons and daughters” (Genesis 5:4). Yet, Brett’s reasons for thinking that Cain is “of such importance” seems to be the anachronistic reason that he is a key player within the theory. Biblically, Cain is as important as he is and is mentioned as many times as he is mentioned and for the reasons that he is mentioned—there is nothing more into which to read. Indeed, if he was the literal son of the serpent, carried within his body serpent/satanic genetics, was the forefather of an entire bloodline of hybrids then perhaps I should ask, wouldn’t someone of such importance be mentioned a lot more in the Bible?
You also commented on Cain being “of the wicked one”; saying that: Cain “was ‘of the wicked one’ but this is merely a partial quotation which is pulled out of its context.” Really, now. Was it? When you say I pull things “out of its context,” that statement somewhat disturbs me. I go out of my way to not to take anything in my work out of context. But, again, it seems you have already made your conclusion. It seems your take on the stories of the Bible as being filled with, for the most part, moral, cautionary, tales, and really not a lot else.
I totally agree the context of the above verses possesses a moral element.
Most do. But, are we, again, to ignore everything else which might be in the verses; ignore anything else that might, possibly, shed light on something different? Just because the moral of the story is about “works” doesn’t mean the possibility can’t exist for something else to be in there.
These verses are basically telling us to “love one another.” Yeah, okay.
It mentions Cain, and how he killed his brother; mainly because his works were evil and the works of his brother were righteous. So, how does that automatically disqualify the possibility of Cain being “of” (or an offspring of) the wicked one? It doesn’t. Was he only a “moral”
offspring of the wicked one, here, Ken? Again, sorry to say, this is your speculation.
Unfortunately, this is unnecessarily verbose due to Brett touching upon the (non) issue of his (erroneous) perception of my take on the Bible.
Now, Brett and I have something in common, we both go out of our way to not to take anything in our work out of context: however, this does not mean that we succeed in every case—try as we may. Thus, this is not a personal affront against him on my part but my conclusion that he did, in fact, in this case, provide “merely a partial quotation which is pulled out of its context.”
Now, my point was not some vague sidestepping comment about “a moral element.” And I will note that Brett is focused on what “everything else which might be in the verses…something else.” I will be glad to be directed to what else is in there but it must keep with the immediate and greater context or else it is merely fanciful speculation and not well grounded speculation.
Now, Brett specifies that “It mentions Cain, and how he killed his brother; mainly because his works were evil and the works of his brother were righteous” but note that the verse is telling us to be “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:12). Thus, it was not mainly because but exclusively because. To add to this that well, it was mainly because his works were evil and the works of his brother were righteous and also because Eve had sex with the serpent and that Cain is a hybrid who was composed partly of serpentine/satanic genetics is clearly contextual to the verse, paragraph, the chapter, the book and the Bible as a whole.
Besides, what if he was the son of the serpent: what would that have to do with murdering Abel? After all, Adam and Eve sinned and they were direct creations by God Himself.
Thus, to ask “how does that” the actual statement of the text within its context “automatically disqualify the possibility of Cain being “of” (or an offspring of) the wicked one?” By adhering to hermeneutics and so deriving meaning from a text’s plain statements is not speculation—also see what Jesus stated about the “children of the wicked one.”
It’s sad, but a vast number of today’s Christians quickly seem feel the need to discount any of the possible literal and historic elements of the Bible; mainly because it might not fit within the boundaries of today’s “politically correct” thought, or within today’s laws of science. It seems that many Christians desire to go down this same “P.C.” road – making it the qualifier for one’s ability to believe the Bible’s words as true or not. So many seem afraid to think about anything which might make them feel they are infringing on these “P.C.” values.
They say that “6” is the number of man. Bullinger personifies “666” as “man perfected.” Could the true enemy of the Bible – “666” – be a number of these P.C. thoughts of mankind… “perfected?” Political correctness does seem to come from secular humanism, which, assuredly, is not of God. It’s all “man.” So many people in Christianity, now, have bowed to the will of political correctness. As a result, any talk about Cain’s Serpent-seed bloodline is quickly withered away, due to the typical Christian’s fear of being portrayed as bigoted, racist, mean, what have you. It doesn’t pass that P.C. “smell test.” But, does it really have to, Ken? Shouldn’t we look at all of what the Bible has to say? It’s not Cain’s fault because he was born that way; so we can’t discuss this possibility… right? That’s the route so many of us, now, feel we have to follow.
Well, okay, Brett was venting. And yet, not against me as but against a generic “vast number of today’s Christians.”
The only thing to note is that while there may be instances of a vast number of today’s Christians discounting something because it is un-P.C. this does not mean that everything that is discounted by a vast number of today’s Christians must therefore be true.
Ironically, I am taking the Bible very literally and Brett is the one urging me to consider the what ifs that he reads between the lines.
Now, I will let the generic vast numbers of Christians speak for themselves. For my part I do not quickly withered away any talk about Cain’s Serpent-seed bloodline but have read and considered that which very many of its theorists have claimed: from academics to preachers and from Rabbis to blog/website posters such as myself. I reject the theory based on a careful examination and refutation and not because it is not P.C. or anything of the sort. Brett must accept that some people who reject it have done so on as solid a ground as one could build upon such a topic. I “look at all of what the Bible has to say” and it says nothing about this theory.
It is also extremely odd that he states that as per my view “we can’t discuss this possibility” when I have discussed it with various theorists—as anyone can see.
Yet, I, personally, try to concentrate on things a person can change (such as their attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors), rather than something they can’t (such as their bloodlines). Unlike a number of Serpent Seed writers, I don’t subscribe to one’s genetics, or bloodlines, as being their “end all;” hopelessly affecting the actions they take (as you seem to have implied). The light we have at the end of the ideological tunnel is this: the Bible, and God, always seems to give us a way out. Since God gives us free-will, we have the ultimate choice in whom or what we will eventually follow, or do. We all have a choice, just as Abel did (in the story of his sacrifice). Abel, I theorize, was probably a son of the Serpent, as well; but he chose to obey God. His free will trumped everything (even his bloodline); and that’s what’s important, here. But, that said and done, it, still, doesn’t mean we can’t take a look at all of the elements of a particular situation, and contemplate them, in these verses.
Well, every serpent seed theorists has their own take on aspects of the theory and so, indeed, I have encountered the claim, time and again, that being composed of serpentine/satanic genetics most certainly hopelessly affected Cain’s actions.
But fine, Brett does not hold to his (at least not completely) and so he can “theorize” that even Abel “was probably a son of the Serpent.” Clearly, “theorize” is a manner in which to say “No, I have no evidence” since, of course, Genesis 4:1 states that “Adam knew Eve his wife” so that it was Adam and Eve and not the serpent and as a result of this “she conceived” by Adam and not the serpent and who did she conceive? She “bare Cain” and if that is not enough, she “said, I have gotten a man from the LORD” and not the serpent. But wait, there’s more as this follows directly by that “she again bare” with again directing us to the context of that which was just stated, “his brother Abel.
Thus, we are all free to “take a look at all of the elements of a particular situation, and contemplate them, in these verses” and I, at least, never even imagined stating that we could not: I simply reject the theory because it is false.
Political correctness will tell us to not waste any energy contemplating genetics, or blood lines, as factors behind a person’s thought or morals; yet, I don’t think it’s an entirely correct way to look at our world. For example: if we know that 8 year old Johnny is the son of a mentally deranged father, and also the son of a mother who’s an ax killer, P.C. tells us we are not allowed to even raise an eyebrow to these facts – if we see him acting aggressively, hurting other classmates, or being abusive to animals.
It’s a fact of life, though, in the world God fashioned. Agree?
Again, I am not going to play generic P.C. advocate so speaking for myself, I have personally waste very much energy contemplating genetics, or blood lines, etc. and actually I will not say “wasted” but “invested.”
Contextually, the metaphor about 8 year old Johnny is faulty due to what I noted above as it is not a case of “we are not allowed to even raise an eyebrow to these facts” but that even Adam and Eve sinned without having a sinner (or the serpent/Satan) as their dad.
Ken stated that: “this is about actions and not genetics”. Yes, I totally agree that there’s a lesson to be learned, here, in regards to actions.
But, sorry, that absolutely doesn’t discount the possibility of Cain being more than just a moral descendant “of the wicked one.” If we really look at the context of these verses (I John 3:11-12 KJV) – the way Ken seems to believe we should – the context might be comparable to the Bible stating (hypothetically): “we have Moses, the son of Amram, following God in a whole number of ways; as compared to Pharaoh, who didn’t. And, Moses was blessed for it. Pharaoh wasn’t.” Of course, the context of these hypothetical verses, again, is about works, and who was righteous. But, it also gives us a piece of unrelated information: Moses was the actual son of Amram. Just because the context of these verses do have a moral outcome, do we automatically have to discredit, or disqualify, everything else in the verse… such as he being the “son of Amram?” Of course not! So, why do we have to focus on only one idea, Ken, in these verses about Cain? Of course, P.C. raises its ugly head, here, and tries to tell us what we can and cannot think about. But, I don’t want to have the political correctness of man as being above the authority, or word, of my God, in any way.
So we agree again, “this is about actions and not genetics.” But, does this really not absolutely discount the possibility of Cain being more than just a moral descendant “of the wicked one”? I never claimed that “this” as is one singular point discounts it: reading Genesis all the way through to Revelation discounts it.
Well, I am just as uninterested in arguing again generic foes (such as vast P.C. Christian) as I am in arguing against that which “might be comparable to” an actual argument and “hypothetical verses.” I do not based my counterarguments upon automatically discrediting or disqualifying everything else in the verse but upon accrediting and qualifying that which it clearly states and its context.
Now, as to “why do we have to focus on only one idea…in these verses about Cain?” we do not and I will state it this way: Cain sinned, he did so because his own works were evil, Abel’s were righteous and Cain’s dad Adam was also a sinner as was his mom Eve. I am unsure as to where that got us but such as the facts.
Ken, next, states that “Brett will claim that his (Cain’s) actions were motivated by his genetics”… well, not quite, here. That’s not entirely true, Ken. That seems to be an assumption, or another point of speculation on your part. It may be there, but it does not have the final say. As well, it doesn’t mean that this cannot, and should not, be examined. If we cross paths with a snake, the typical person with P.C. values will probably say that “all snakes aren’t poisonous; and we are prejudiced and mean if we raise an eyebrow to the possibility of our being bitten, at this time.” So, if we follow man’s authority, here, we might look good and worthy to others (if that’s our objective). But, if the snake does bite us, and it’s poisonous, then will these politically correct adherents be there for us after we’re bit? Probably not. That outcome doesn’t fit their narrative, or their end-goals. This is just one example of why we must, at least, utilize all of what we know about this world – even seemingly “unsettling” things – rather than intentionally overlook elements for the sake of some political “fuzzy” feeling. This attempt to please others may get us “bit” a lot more than we may ever want.
Well, I already touched upon this as Brett had already mentioned it and he can argue against them on his own.
I never stated that Cain’s actions were entirely “motivated by his genetics”. Sorry, you’re incorrect in that assumption (if that’s what you meant). I am simply pointing out where the Bible might connect Cain with the Serpent… even on a genetic, blood level; and that may be noteworthy to some! We may be able to learn a lot about Cain – his attitudes, his beliefs, and his morality – by understanding all of elements that make him up. I never said, nor implied, that he was solely motivated, or acted, in accordance to his bloodline, or anything else of this manner. Even Cain could do what’s right, if he really wanted to. Abel did. That’s why the story of Cain and Abel is so important, in my opinion – we see that even a son of the devil could choose to follow God.
But bringing political correctness, or fear mongering, into so much of our Christian thought can be very negative to our understanding of the Bible, and what it may really be saying. P.C. has really entrenched itself into our Christian values, today… for the worse!
If I pushed Brett implications to far then I certainly did not mean to mischaracterize his views. Now, of course there is a way to “connect Cain with the Serpent” in that, as noted above, the seedlines are as per actions and his were Satanic actions, at least in his dealing with Abel.
Now, it is fascinating that Brett, Zen Garcia and perhaps other serpent seed theorists end up, in essence at au fond, telling us that the theory is a theory about nothing really since “even a son of the devil could choose to follow God.” One wonders what the point is in such a case.
Ken also said that “Brett gets it right in nothing [FYI: I had misspelled noting but have now fixed it in the post] that the difference with Seth is that he “resembled Adam.” Yes, but Ken: isn’t that the most important element of this whole argument, you think? You act like I only got one minor part of the story right! Sir, you seem to want to bring to forefront things which are very minor, into the overall discussion: such as how you don’t think Seth was the third son of Eve. Is the exact numbering of children from Eve’s womb the focus of importance, here, or is it the fact that Seth was the first “son” of Adam who actually looked like him?
What about that fact, Ken? Isn’t that’s very important? And what can say you about this? That’s what I want to hear… your critique on that! I just don’t hear want to hear people rationalizing things away, by whisking the reader off onto some minor topic. If you want to get all technical about whether Seth was the third born son of Eve or no, it all sounds like a “smoke screen” to me, an attempt to dodge the real points of discussion.
If you believe your hair-splitting technicality means so much to the reader, I’d be glad to switch the word. Yet, Seth was indeed the third son of Eve – as mentioned in the Bible. That was what helped to prompt me to write things the way I did, in the first place.
No, that Seth “resembled Adam” is not the most important element since, for example, only one of my own children resemble me noticeably more than the others and yet, I am each one’s dad and my wife is each one’s mom.
Also, I did not state that Seth was not the third but rather:
The Bible never says that the third-born son of Eve was Seth. This is an assumption. Now, it may actually be an accurate one but he is not stated to be the third. Between Abel and Seth many daughters could have been born and, for that matter, many sons. Brett gets it right in noting that the difference with Seth is that he “resembled Adam.”
I know that Brett read this since he quoted from it but then he ignores it and claims, twice, that I was asserting that “Seth was the third born son of Eve” and so the “smoke screen” appears to be Brett’s and is blown away by my quoting myself fully and accurately. If Seth is the third that is a non-issue to me any more than that if he is not: my point is to note that which the Bible itself emphasizes about him.
You see, in part, I also speculate as much because I know that, as noted above, biblically genealogies are not a list of each and every person but a list of notable or otherwise person who lead us to something of which we are to take notice.
So no, it is not “the exact numbering of children from Eve’s womb” but it is not I but it is the Bible which emphasizes, “Adam…begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” (Genesis 5:3).
Brett concludes with:
Again, a lot of what Ken seems to write about my work comes off as deflections, deflecting what should be the real focuses of argument. Why not spend time on the elements which actually might point Christians towards learning something other than that all which could easily be put into some “politically-correct” box? Let’s not be intimidated, in these ways, in our quests to find the real truth Ken. Thank you for your time.
And I thank Brett for his time but some of it was ill spent (or, wasted). In the end, Brett seems to mostly agree with my points about that which the Bible actually states and merely urges us to consider what ifs. Also, he seems very adamant about protecting a theory to which he only seems to hold tentatively as it is based on speculations. And, his theory is apparently of no use in the end as those are serpentine/satanic hybrids can chose to follow God just as much as those who are 100% human.
I appreciate such interactions and will be glad to continue interacting but only based on what I claim and not based on what some generic vast number of P.C. Christians may claim.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.
Continue reading →