Seedline: What Are We Talking About?
Available for a suggested donation of $8.00.
In certain Christian circles "seedline" is a doctrine derived from one passage in the Old Testament and a handful of passages in the New Testament. From these limited number of passages, it is concluded that the sin committed by Eve in the Garden of Eden was physical sexual adultery with Satan himself or with some humanoid from another race of people commissioned by Satan. It is then deduced that from this sexual union between Satan and Eve, Cain was begotten, who in turn, became the progenitor of a wicked seedline of people who exist down to this present day.
Why Bring Attention to Such a Doctrine?
The seedline belief may appear to the average Christian so outlandish, so tasteless, and even vulgar that they may wonder why bring any attention to it at all? First, if the seedliners' assessment of what actually took place in the Garden of Eden can be proven Scripturally correct, then no matter how unpopular it may be, no matter how the media may use it against us, we are duty bound as Christians, as adherents to the word of God, to accept and teach it. On the other hand, if the seedline belief can be proven to be Scripturally spurious, then it ought to be exposed rather than ignored. Spiritual leaders are admonished by the Scriptures to address false doctrine, especially doctrine injurious to the gospel of Yeshua the Christ - Titus 1:7-14.
Fact, Theory or Hypothesis?
It will be Scripturally demonstrated that this seedline doctrine is a distortion of what the Scriptures teach. However, I can see how well meaning (and in some cases, some not so well meaning) people have arrived at such a conclusion from certain passages. That is, I can see how they have arrived at such conclusions from a superficial reading of those scriptures. Until one digs deeper into those passages, and as long as the clear textual intent and the principles of Hebrew and Greek idioms and rules of consistency are ignored, and if literalness is read into clearly non-literal statements - I can see how people can believe in the seedline hypothesis.
My use of "hypothesis" instead of "theory" in the title of this treatise has been intentional. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language quotes a D. Olmsted who provided the following contrast between the two words "theory" and "hypothesis":
"Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena."1
As will be proven, the seedline doctrine is certainly not fact, and does not even qualify as a theory. The seedline hypotheses have been made to sound somewhat plausible, but that in itself does not make it so. By ignoring the rules of honest and sound interpretation, the Bible can be made to say anything, and that is exactly what has transpired with the seedline doctrine.
As will be demonstrated, the infrastructure of the seedline doctrine is nothing more than speculation which, of course, is why it qualifies as a hypothesis rather than fact or a theory. Highlight the statements that are nothing more than speculation in the primary publications used by those who teach the seedline doctrine and it will become quite evident that most of this doctrine is based on assumption. The circular reason involved in this doctrine should then also become apparent.
Remove some of the foundational speculations and the whole seedline house of cards caves in. For example, following is a partial list of assumptions that must be true in order for the seedline hypothesis to also be viable:
- Satan was able to incarnate himself.
- The tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden was either Satan or a humanoid of another race.
- The beguiling of Eve was sexual in nature.
- Satan had sexual relations with Eve.
- The terms nakedness and sorrow in childbirth are evidence of sin that was sexual in nature.
- Eve either did not know, was deceived or lied about Cain having been a blessing from Yahweh.
- The omission of Cain from Adam's genealogy proves that Cain was not a son of Adam, but instead a son of Satan.
If the seedline doctrine is true, one would think that at least one of these major premises for this doctrine would be found stated somewhere in the Bible. However, there are no Scriptures that expressly teach any of those postulations. And keep in mind that if those (and in some cases, just one or two of those) pillars of the seedline doctrine can be Scripturally removed, the whole seedline doctrine must be abandoned as false and spurious.
The Rest of the Story
As difficult as the idea of an incarnate, fallen angel, demon of darkness having sexual relations with Eve and fathering Cain is for the average person to accept, it is nothing compared to what else must be embraced if that doctrine is true. Following is a list that tells the rest of the story that the seedline proponents will never tell you. That is, what else must be accepted when the basic premises of the seedline doctrine are taken to their logical conclusions: For example, it must also be sanctioned that:
- Yahweh, himself, is a sexual deviant.
- Yahweh had sexual relations with humans and fathered children.
- Yahweh is a liar.
- The Bible is untrustworthy.
- Satan can manifest himself both spiritually and physically.
- The knowledge of good and evil originates with Satan not Yahweh.
- Adam and Eve, the progenitors of the Adamic people, were respectively a homosexual and an adulteress.
- Both Adam and Eve were abominations in the eyes of Yahweh.
- Adam and Eve were permitted by God to have sexual relations with several partners who were other satans, demons or humanoids of another race of people.
- Yahweh was the originator of and even promoted spouse swapping for both heterosexual and homosexual purposes.
- Eve committed adultery with Satan or a humanoid of another race several times and mothered more than one Satanic seedline.
- All unmentioned sons of Adam were the consequence of Satan's and Eve's multiple sexual rendezvous.
- Yahweh was willing to accept a hybrid, half-breed son of Satan if he would have made the
- Adam's curse for his sin was that he would have sorrow instead of pleasure in sex.
- Seth carried the genes of Satan or of a non-racially alike humanoid.
- Yeshua carried the genes of Satan or a non-racially alike humanoid.
- All white men who do not follow Yeshua are the seed of Satan.
- All Israelites are the seed of Satan.
- Today's Jews are actually today's Israelites.
- Only the seed of Satan sin or all sinners are the seed of Satan.
- All non-seedline converts to Judaism are twice the sons of hell that "Satan's actual children" are.
- Satan could have and possibly did have sex with some of the Corinthian Christians, both men and women alike.
- Yeshua the Christ has sexual relations with His followers.
Are those difficult to believe? Continue to read and it will be proven that if the basic seedline hypothesis is true then these tenets must be embraced as well.
The Seedliners’ Supposition
Following are the passages of Scripture upon which the seedliners hang their proverbial hat: Genesis 3:1-21; Matthew 3:7; 13:24-30, 36-43; Matthew 23:33; John 8:38-44; Acts 13:6-10; 2 Corinthians 11:1-3; and 1 John 3:12. When those passages are considered by themselves it can be seen how well-meaning people can find themselves believing in a literal, physical seedline of Satan, especially when those same people have only been exposed to the seedliners' analysis of those passages. With those Scriptures in hand, and in many cases wielding them with much dexterity, the champions of the seedline doctrine can be quite convincing. "However, let us not forget Solomon's admonition: The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17, NASV)
Not only do the seedliners weave a pretty good story with those passages, but they are also quite skilled at putting the average person on a guilt trip if they do not accept how those Scriptures are presented to them. For example, in what is probably the most popular book of the seedliners, on an average of one out of every seven pages, the author makes a statement for the sole purpose of putting pressure on the reader to accept his premises. Consider carefully his tactics in the following examples:
"Until we are ready to examine the awesome fact that Almighty God, in the consequence of sin's entry into the world, placed hatred (enmity) between two opposing seedlines of literal people in this earth, we can never come to the knowledge of the truth."2
This is an interesting claim since many people have come to the knowledge of the truth that Yeshua is the Son of God, God incarnate, the redeemer of Israel, our only hope who shed His blood and died on the cross and who three days later resurrected from the grave. Many others have also come to the knowledge of the true identity of God's Israel people, that God's laws apply to us today, along with a host of other important theological issues, too many to mention, without understanding or accepting the seedline hypothesis. Also, it was in Yeshua, not Satan having sexual relations with Eve, "...in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:2-3)
"If you seek to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if you are concerned with understanding the Holy Bible, if you are ever to proceed from the milk to the meat state of understanding Holy Scripture, then you cannot fail to do business [as this seedline author interprets it] with Genesis 3:15. ... Your foundation of Kingdom Identity Bible Truth will stand or fall in relationship to what you do with Genesis 3:15. Failure to understand and divide this subject could ultimately exclude you from membership in the ecclesia [the saved] of Jesus Christ."3
"You by the grace of God now have the key to unlock the Bible...you have the understanding as to the meaning of Genesis 3:15. May you use this KNOWLEDGE to the GLORY of JESUS CHRIST and His kingdom...or God will curse you in your sin!"
If this is true, certainly God would have had one of the inspired authors of the Holy Writ tell us that somewhere in the Bible!
"Without the proper understanding and placement of this [seedline] truth into the total Cannon [sic] of Divine Truth there will be very little, if any, progress made in lifting the veil of darkness from our people now in bondage in the churches now making up the Protestant and Catholic church world."4
Just the opposite is true. It is the absurdity and vulgarity of the seedline doctrine that keeps many people in our modern churches from accepting other Biblical truths that we offer them.
"The understanding of these two seed lines is truly one of the most critical theological questions of our time. To deny the seed lines of the Bible is to deny the testimony of the Prophets, Apostles, and the very words of Jesus Christ himself. Indeed the two seed lines established in Genesis 3:15 is the central issue at stake in the Gospel of the Kingdom."5
"Only the ecclesia, the very elect, can perceive and understand the truth of the two seeds of Genesis 3:15."6
Maybe it is just the opposite. Maybe the elect are those who have discerned that the seedline teaching is a bunch of hooey! Such statements are pointless, superfluous and uncalled for.
"...you are without spiritual discernment if you have not already been convinced that the serpent had seed."7
It is the Holy Spirit, not the Seedline doctrine that gives spiritual discernment - Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2.
Not one of those previous assertions can be found anywhere in Scripture; they are just the author's opinion. Do not allow yourself to be coerced by such strong-arm techniques. God's word alone must determine the truth of the matter, not such tactics of intimidation. Let us now proceed and discover what the Scriptures teach and do not teach on this controversial subject.
Seedliner Speculation vs. Scriptural Facts
The seedliners assume much while at the same time rejecting what the Scriptures clearly declare. Whereas the seedliners assume that Cain was a curse and the offspring resulting from a physical sexual relationship between Satan and Eve, it is a fact of Scripture that Cain was a blessing from Yahweh and the first born son of Adam and Eve. Point in fact:
And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man [child] from YHWH. (Genesis 4:1)
That could hardly be stated more plainly. Genesis 4:1 alone refutes the seedline hypothesis. However, I am committed to deal with all of the seedliners' major arguments so that there will be no doubts about any of them. Following are three interpretations by seedliners regarding what took place in Genesis 3:
"One day Nachash [the Hebrew word for 'serpent'], a beautiful shining creature, seduced the woman [Eve] by lying to her, telling her she would not die if she partook of carnal knowledge, but would become a God, as they were, by the creative power of reproduction.... Their [Satan and Eve's] first child, Cain, 'was of that evil one' (John 3:12).... Cain was sent from face of the Earth and the Cannanite [sic] line has carried down the seed of the Evil one to this day."8
"...Eve says, 'The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof.' Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning enchanter, but instead of 'beguiled' the Hebrew word nawshaw means 'seduced.' ... And YHWH God said unto the woman, 'What is this (that) thou hast done?' And the woman said, 'The enchanter seduced me.' That is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof."9
"Satan, realizing that it was in God's PLAN to bring forth a SEED OF ADAM'S RACE, by the Grace of JESUS CHRIST, through the ATONEMENT, sought to bring forth a COUNTERFEIT SEEDLINE (a spurious bastard seedline) into the earth and then seek to Identify His Counterfeit Bastard Seed as being the TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD. After being totally unsuccessful in his assault against the BEING OF THE UNCREATED GOD, Satan (the Arch-Angel) sought to make his intrusion into the BEING OF ADAM KIND by cohabiting with EVE and incarnating himself into a physical Seed Line, hence the SEED OF THE SERPENT (Gen. 3:15)."10
Those are interesting explanations, yet even the seedliners agree that those interpretations are hypothetical. For example, two prominent seedliners admitted:
"While the evidence is circumstantial, we are led to believe that Satan seduced Eve...."11
"There are several opinions regarding the actual nature of this seduction which can not be clearly decided by the text [of Genesis 3] alone."12
In other words, from Genesis 3 alone, the seedline position that the sin committed in the Garden of Eden was a sexual encounter between Satan and Eve is nothing more than a hypothesis. The seedliners must rely upon other passages to prop up their postulation. Other Old Testament passages? No! There is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament a passage of Scripture that substantiates their interpretation of Genesis 3.
This one fact alone should, at the very least, seem curious. If the seedline hypothesis is true, we are talking about a major significant event. The seedliners themselves overemphasize the importance of this supposed event:
"No subject in Divine Scripture carries more weight and deserves our attention with greater emphasis than does the two seeds spoken of in Genesis 3:15. ... It is the seed plot of all scripture. The proper understanding of this scripture is vital to the total pattern of discerning all scripture.13
If the seedline position is accurate, does it not seem a bit odd that such a consequential event is never mentioned again in the Old Testament?
Genesis 3 Under Scrutiny
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which YHWH God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree [of the knowledge of good and evil] which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die….
The seedliners declare that the eating of the tree in the midst of the garden (identified in Genesis 2:17 as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil") was Eve's mating with Satan or some humanoid of another race of people (depending on what persuasion of seedliner you are talking to). However, there are some profound problems with that interpretation. For example, consider Genesis 2:16-17:
(verse16) And YHWH God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (verse 17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
If the Hebrew word translated "eat" in verse 17 is equivalent to sexual intercourse, then the same Hebrew word translated "eat" in verse 16 would have to represent the same thing. If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan or some humanoid of another race, then the trees in verse 16 would also have to represent the same thing. In other words, if the seedliner's interpretation of Genesis 3 and Genesis 2:17 is correct, then consistency demands that the seedliners admit that Adam and Eve were permitted by God to eat, that is, sexually cohabit with the other trees, that is, other satans, demons or humanoids living in the garden at the same time. Consequently, the seedliners must also admit that God was the originator of and even promoted spouse swapping for both heterosexual and homosexual activities. This is just one of those insignificant details that the seedline proponents fail to tell their prospective converts.
The word "fruit," as used in Genesis 3:2-3 is also manipulated for the seedliners' purposes:
"The word Fruit is Periy #6529 in the original Hebrew from #6509 Parah. … The word fruit conveys the idea of offspring or progeny. Bear fruit, be fruitful involves offspring."14
From that explanation, one can only conclude that the Hebrew word "periy" means physical literal offspring from a sexual relationship. However, this author failed to inform his readership that periy also just means fruit, such as literal fruit from a literal tree as in Genesis 1:29. Further note the illogical inconsistency in what this same author stated next:
"What type of fruit did the woman partake of in Genesis 3:6? This fruit was the seed of Satan. It was sexual involvement with Satan and resulted in fruit or offspring, as evidenced in Genesis 3:15."15
At best that can be described as linguistic gymnastics. Which was it? Was the fruit in Genesis 3 the sperm of Satan, or was it Cain? This author can not have it both ways, and has thus backed himself into an inescapable corner, unless of course, he abandons the seedline heresy altogether.
Although the reasoning of this seedliner is flawed, it is not near as bad as the tactics of another equally prominent seedline teacher:
"Now let us see what it actually says in the Hebrew: 'Fruit' is the Hebrew word 'pirchach' meaning progeny, brood, children, descendants."16
The former seedliner at least correctly identified the Hebrew word from which the word "fruit" in Genesis 3 is derived, that is, "periy." This latter seedliner deceived who knows how many people into believing that the fruit in Genesis 3 comes from the Hebrew word "'pirchach' meaning progeny, brood, children, descendants." I do not know how this author could have made such a statement except by design since not only is pirchach not used in Genesis 3, it is not found anywhere in the book of Genesis. In fact, pirchach is only used one time in the entire Old Testament, Job 30:12. It appears that this seedline teacher searched for a Hebrew word that had a definition that best fit his purpose, knowing that the average reader would not bother to check him out on it.
This same seedliner, based upon that erroneous word and faulty premise, then wrote:
" Now of the pirchach, of the descendants, of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it.'"17
Which was it? Was the descendant Cain, or was it the fruit that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat? It is evident, at least to those who are willing to put their theology to the test, that the seedliners, no matter how they exploit or abuse the word "fruit," once again, have some serious problems with their theology.
The word "touch" is another word from Genesis 3 that the seedliners provide a distorted, or at least an incomplete picture of. The same two seedliners provided the following commentary on the word "touch":
"TOUCH: The word touch is used in Genesis 3:3 by the woman Eve. What did Eve mean when she said that she could not touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Let us look at the original Hebrew and define the word Touch. See #5060 (Nawgah) naga, meaning to lie with a woman. See Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Holy Bible. The Hebrew meaning of the word touch has wide and profound implications. It is directly related to the lie of Satan, that pro-creation, would make Eve as a god."18
"And that word 'touch' is the Hebrew word naga, which is a more polite expression meaning, 'to have sexual intercourse with.'"19
Both of those definitions, once again, leave the reader thinking that there is only one way to interpret the word "touch," that is, that it means exclusively "to have sexual intercourse with." However, following is the complete definition from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for the Hebrew word "naga" that both seedliners conveniently failed to provide to their readers:
"5060. … naga', naw-gah'; a prim. Root; prop. to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman); by impl. to reach (fig. to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.)."20
True, naga is used euphemistically for lying with or for having sexual relations with a woman. However, that certainly is not the only way that that Hebrew word is employed. It is predominately used for simply touching something. In fact, in the 155 times that naga is used, I could only conclusively determine two instances, and possibly two others, where it was employed as a euphemism for sexual relations. At the best, naga is used in this fashion in the scriptures only 4 out of 155 times. For someone to even imply that naga exclusively means to have sexual intercourse is inexcusable.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Whatever it was that Eve did, as described in this verse, she persuaded Adam into doing the same thing. If the eating of the tree in the midst of the garden represented having sexual relations with Satan then that is also what Adam did. However, to avoid having to admit that Adam was a homosexual, the seedliners declare that Adam and Eve had never participated in sex prior to this incident, and that Eve having enjoyed her sexual escapade with Satan persuaded Adam to do the same with her. As a result, the seedliners declare that it never was God's idea for man to procreate through a sexual relationship, in spite of the fact that God had created them with all of the physical facilities to do so. The following quotation provides this theology straight from the proverbial horse's mouth:
"The knowledge (or Fruit) of Good and Evil was that of Pro-Creation. When Eve was beguiled. [sic] Satan told her of Pro-Creation. She was first beguiled and then she did eat or participate with Satan in the act of Pro-Creation. Their eyes (Adam and Eve) were opened because of sin, original sin, which is the transgression of the Law. Pro-Creation was the Fruit of that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was the Fruit which this evil tree did bear and Satan gave Eve of that fruit."21
Once again, the seedliners face insurmountable obstacles with such theology. First, as a result of such a position, the proponents of the seedline doctrine have to admit that what was initially sinful is still sinful and consequently must take a vow of celibacy themselves. Since it is highly unlikely that many, if any, seedliners will take such a vow then they have no choice but to declare that what was once sinful is no longer sinful and that Yahweh and his moral standards change in contradiction to Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8.
Secondly, the seedliners must admit that if procreation was introduced by Satan then Yahweh's command to Adam/Man in Genesis 1:26-28 to "multiply and replenish the earth" was to somehow be accomplished in some fashion other then how reproduction takes place today. In fact, one seedliner hypothesizes this very thing:
"It would seem that God (El) the Father, had intended to bring forth children from both His son, Adam, (Luke 3:38) and Eve; perhaps in the manner that Eve was brought from Adam. ... Whatever the method, it would not have been physical. Physical reproduction was a curse (Gen. 3:16), pronounced on Eve, as a direct result of her disobedience. Because she had sinned, she was reduced to a purely physical plane of reproduction."22
That, of course, is nothing but conjecture, and the facts of the Scripture prove it to be ridiculous:
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she [Eve] shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)
Adam declared this prior to the incident in Genesis 3, and the Apostle Paul explains the phrase "shall be one flesh" as being accomplished, at least in part, through sexual intercourse:
What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For [the] two, saith he, shall be one flesh. (1 Corinthians 6:16)
Also if "physical reproduction was a curse" then Adam, not Satan, was the originator of this perversity.
In addition, there is another problem with the seedliner's interpretation of Genesis 3:6 in that Adam was commanded by God not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil prior to Eve's creation. Thus, Adam's sin could not have been having sexual intercourse with Eve since He was commanded against partaking of a tree that was already in the garden before Eve was even created.
As a consequence, the seedliners must admit that the progenitors of the Adamic people were a homosexual and a whore. They must also admit that since Adam took Eve back after Satan had defiled her that (according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4) Adam and Eve were also an abomination in the sight of Yahweh, and should have both been put to death immediately for adultery.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. … And YHWH God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he [Adam] said, … I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he [Yahweh] said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
The seedliners maintain that since Adam and Eve were unaware of their nakedness prior to their sin reported on in Genesis 3, and that since they became aware of their nakedness subsequent to their sin, that sin of a sexual nature is indicated in these verses:
"NAKED: What does the use of the word naked mean? First: Note the use of this word in Genesis 2:25. Both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed prior to the act of original sin in Genesis Three. What made them ashamed in Genesis 3:8-11? What did Eve and then Adam do that made them ashamed of their nakedness? Why did they hide themselves? What was the sin that they had committed? What did they do to suddenly become ashamed of their naked bodies? Why did they make themselves aprons of fig leaves? What part of their body did the apron cover? Why did they hide or cover this portion of their nakedness? When you examine the word naked in the original Hebrew and its usage in scriptures you will understand why.
"The word naked as used in Genesis 2:25 comes from a different word than does the word naked as used in Genesis 3:7-11. Why the difference in the original Hebrew meaning of this word? Here is your answer. In Genesis 2:25 the word naked [in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible] is from #6174 arown meaning nude, either partially or totally: naked. There was nothing wrong with the state of nakedness before the original sin of Genesis Chapter three. The word naked as used in Genesis 2:25 from 6174 had no evil or bad implications. Now, how about the use of the word naked in Genesis 3:7-11. It comes from #5903 'eyrom' coming from the root word #6191 meaning aram, which is a prim. root; prop. to be (or make) bare; but used only in the Derogatory sense...to be cunning...deal subtilly [sic], the use of the word naked in Genesis 3:7-11 implies something derogatory. What had Adam and Eve done that made them ashamed of their nakedness? The use of this word naked is directly involved with the lie of the serpent to the woman Eve, that pro-creation, sexual involvement with the serpent would make her as a god." 23
This is, once again, nothing but speculation since nowhere in the Bible are we told that Adam and Eve's consciousness of nakedness means that they had indulged in forbidden sexual pleasures. Although this seedline author does present his argument in a convincing manner, that does not automatically mean that his interpretation of this event is correct. Making something sound plausible does not make it Scriptural. Many good sounding arguments have been predicated on error, which is exactly what this argument (as well as most seedline arguments) is based upon.
This author essentially declared that #6174 arown used in Genesis 2 prior to Adam and Eve's sin the Garden is a good and positive word. Whereas, #5903 eyrom, used in Genesis 3 following the evil deed, has evil or bad implications since the root word #6191 aram, from which eyrom comes, has evil or bad implications. However, if in fact the root word aram has evil connotations, what this author (intentionally - ?) failed to point out is that just as eyrom in Genesis 3 comes from aram, so does arown in Genesis 2. They both come from the same root word aram.
In addition, #6191 aram - translated "prudent" and "will beware" - is employed in a positive rather than a negative fashion in Proverbs 15:5 and 19:25 respectively.
This author's first mistake was not only in failing to set off his quotation from Strong's Concordance in quotation marks, but also in quoting Mr. Strong incorrectly. Speculating that "der." in Strong's definition for #6191 aram meant "derogatory," he spelled it out as such rather than leaving it abbreviated. This would not be such a serious infraction if "der." stood for "derogatory." Instead, as Strong's explanation for that abbreviation proves, it stands for "derivative."24
This author also later inferred that the words "naked" and nakedness" as used in Exodus 32:25, Leviticus 18 and 20, and Ezekiel 16:36-37 are examples of how #5903 eyrom is used. In fact, the words "naked" and "nakedness" in those three locations are translated from two totally different Hebrew words. In Exodus 32:25, #6544 para is used. And in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, and Ezekiel 16:36-37, #6172 ervah is used.
For all these reasons, this seedliner's point about the word "naked" as used in Genesis 3, is not only proven to be flawed, but invalid as well. In addition, if the word "naked" is indicative of sin that was sexual in nature, then the Apostle Peter's nakedness and the fact that he clothed himself before going into the presence of Yeshua is indicative of the same thing:
There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas ... and Nathanael ... and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. ... They went forth [to go fishing] ... and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Yeshua stood on the shore.... Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea. (John 21: 2-7)
From this account it can be deduced that Peter, James, John, Thomas, Nathanael and the two other unnamed disciples were, in addition to fishing in the boat, involved in some illicit sexual activity! Is that difficult to accept? There is just as much reason to believe that, as there is to believe that Adam and Eve's nakedness in Genesis 3 implies a sexual escapade with Satan or some humanoid of another race. Instead, perhaps God provided us with Peter's incident as a commentary of sorts on what was going on in the minds of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. One usually de-robes when one goes swimming. However, in Peter's case, he put his robe on prior to diving into the water. He covered himself, not because of some sexual perversion on his part, but rather because he was going into the presence of Yeshua his Lord and God. In our mortal sinful state it is indecent for anyone (Adam and Eve included) to be unclothed - either physically or spiritually - in the presence of our holy God.
And the man [Adam] said, The woman [Eve] whom thou [Yahweh] gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And YHWH God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Eve declared that the serpent beguiled her. Concerning the word "beguiled," one seedliner wrote:
"...Eve says, 'The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof.' Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning enchanter, but instead of 'beguiled' the Hebrew word nawshaw means 'seduced.' ... And YHWH God said unto the woman, 'What is this (that) thou has done?' And the woman said, 'The enchanter seduced me.' That is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof."25
That statement leads one to believe that nawshaw means (sexually) seduced and only (sexually) seduced. Yet, consider James Strong's definition of the Hebrew word "nawshaw":
"5377... nasha, naw-shaw: a prim. root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce...."26
Nawshaw cuts a much wider path then what this particular, and most other seedliners, would have their readers believe. Another seedline author provided the following explanation for the word "beguiled":
"When Eve was cross-examined, she is quoted as admitting: 'Nachash beguiled (Strong's word #5377, nasha, sexually seduced) me and I did eat.' Genesis 3:13."27
For this author to insert the word "sexually" into Strong's definition is bordering on dishonesty and is certainly misleading. Strong's does not say "sexually seduced."
Another seedliner made the following fallacious claim regarding the word "beguiled":
"What is the real meaning in [Genesis] 3:13 when Eve answered God by saying, 'The Serpent deceived me, and I ate?' [sic] The King James Version uses the word 'beguiled' instead of 'deceived.' A look at Strong's concordance shows the Hebrew word 'nasha' is used here, the only time this Hebrew word is used in scripture.28
It is true that Genesis 3:13 is the only Old Testament Scripture wherein nawshaw is translated in English as "beguiled." However, the Hebrew word "nawshaw" is employed sixteen times in the Old Testament. In the King James Bible it is translated beguiled once, utterly once, seize once, and deceive or deceived thirteen times. Of greater importance, in the fifteen other Old Testament passages where nawshaw is used; not once is it used with sexual connotations.
If the Hebrew word "nawshaw" means to sexually seduce as all seedline teachers claim, then in 2 Kings 18:29, Rabshakeh was warning the inhabitants of Jerusalem not to let King Hezekiah sexually seduce them! And in 2 Kings 19:10, Rabshakeh was warning Hezekiah lest he be sexually seduced by Yahweh! And in Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah was accusing Yahweh of sexually seducing the descendants of the House of Judah! And in Jeremiah 29:8, Yahweh was warning the remnant of Judah about sexual seduction of false prophets! And in Jeremiah 37:9, Yahweh was warning King Zedekiah and the remnant of Judah not to sexually seduce themselves! Sound ridiculous? That is because that is exactly what it is!
When one is wanting to ascertain the meaning or proper use of a Biblical word, although the Hebrew and Greek definitions are important, the lexicographer's characterization should not be the primary means of determining God's intent for any particular word. Instead, next to the immediate context, the primary means of exposition should come from a survey of how God employs the same word throughout the Old or New Testaments.
In this particular instance, do not overlook the fact that in the fifteen other locations where the word "nawshaw" is employed in the Old Testament not once is sexual seduction implied in any sense.
God himself provides us with an explanation as to what the nature of the beguiling was that took place in the Garden of Eden. It was neither physical nor sexual:
...I [the Apostle Paul] am jealous over you [the Corinthian Christians] 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. (2 Corinthians 11:1-3)
Following is how one seedliner explained this commentary on Genesis 3:
"In II Corinthians 11:2 and 3, Paul is writing to those converts that he had led ... to Jesus Christ. To them he writes, '...I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.' Paul is here speaking in terms of chastity. A woman could be a thief, shoplifter, liar, or any one of many things and still be a virgin; for there is but one way for a woman to lose her virginity."
This is true. Nevertheless, the Apostle Paul was not discussing individual women, but the collective body of Christ comprised of both women and men. This same author continues:
"Paul, while admonishing this Church in Corinth about chastity, remembered an episode that occured [sic] in the Garden of Eden ... he wrote: 'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility [sic]...'. The word beguiled means the same as does the word seduced and possibly should have been so translated here."29
This author representing most, if not all seedliners, interprets 2 Corinthians 11:3 in the same fashion that he does Genesis 3:13. The Greek word translated "beguiled" is construed, as is it's Hebrew counterpart, to mean sexual seduction. However, the word translated "beguiled" in 2 Corinthians 11:3 is the Greek word "exapataho." It is found six times in the New Testament. It is translated beguiled once, and five times as deceive or deceived. As was the case with the Hebrew word "nawshaw," the Greek word "exapataho" is not once used with sexual connotations.
If exapataho means to sexually seduce as seedline proponents declare that it does then in Romans 7:11, the Apostle Paul was declaring that sin sexually seduced him! And in Romans 16:17-18, Paul was warning the Roman church lest they be sexually seduced by divisive false teachers! And in 1 Corinthians 3:18, Paul was warning the Corinthian Christians not to sexually seduce themselves! Again, how absurd! There is nothing in the Biblical use of either nawshaw or exapataho to corroborate, justify or validate the seedliners' interpretation of those two words.
Another problem that the seedliners must face is that if - in Genesis 3 and 2 Corinthians 11 - the serpent corresponds to Satan and the beguiling was sexual in nature, then it must be admitted that the Apostle Paul was concerned about and warning the Corinthian Christians against Satan's intention to come down and fornicate with them. I don't think so! If that was the case, then why did not Yeshua or any of the other New Testament writers warn their readership of this possibility? Why? Because that was neither what happened in Genesis 3, nor is that what Paul was warning the Corinthian Church about:
...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. (2 Corinthians 11:3)
The Bible is always its own best commentary, and it clearly attests to the fact that Eve was mentally deceived, not sexually seduced.
1 Timothy 2:14, a verse that comments upon the Genesis 3 account of Adam and Eve's sin, and where the same Greek word "exapataho" is employed, exposes another serious problem for the seedliners:
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (1 Timothy 2:14)
Considering this from the seedliners' perspective, if Adam was not deceived or beguiled or sexually seduced (as the seedliners would have it) then what was he? If exapataho means to sexually seduce someone as the seedliners assert, and Adam's sin was sex with Eve as the seedliners also maintain, then that is exactly how Adam was convinced to sin. He was sexually seduced by Eve. Consequently, God (since it was God who inspired the Apostle Paul) did not know what he was talking about in 1 Timothy 2. Either God was wrong or the seedliners are!
It should already be apparent that the seedliners have some insurmountable obstacles regarding their interpretation of Genesis 3, and we have only just begun.
1. D. Olmsted, quoted by Noah Webster, "Theory," American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (San Francisco, California: The Foundation for American Christian Education, reprinted 1967).
2. "Charles Lee Mange," aka Dan Gayman, "Foreword," The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15 (1982) p. i.
3. Gayman, p. 12.
4. Gayman, p. 13.
5. Gayman, p. 18.
6. Gayman, p. 26.
7. Gayman, p. 27.
8. Gladys M. Demaree, The Divine Design, pp. 11-12, quoted by Jeffrey A. Weakley, The Satanic Seedline: Its Doctrine and History (Boring, Oregon: CPA Books, 1994) p. 1.
9. Bertrand L. Comparet, The Cain-Satanic Seed Line (San Diego, California: Your Heritage) pp. 5-6.
10. Gayman, p. 6.
11. Jarah B. Crawford, Last Battle Cry: Christianity's Final Conflict with Evil (Knoxville, Tennessee: Jann Publishing, 1986) p. 334.
12. Nord W. Davis, Jr., Star Wars (Topton, North Carolina: The Northpoint Teams) p. 11.
13. Gayman, p. 12.
14. Gayman, p. 46.
15. Gayman, p. 46.
16. Comparet, p. 4.
17. Comparet, p. 4.
18. Gayman, p. 48.
19. Comparet, pp. 4-5.
20. Strong, "Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible," p. 76.
21. Gayman, p. 53.
22. B. J. Dryburgh, Christianity or Religious Tradition?? (Newhall, California: The American Institute of Theology) p. 5.
23. Gayman, pp. 48-49.
24. James Strong, "Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible," The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 6.
25. Comparet, pp. 5-6.
26. Strong, "Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible," p. 80.
27. Davis, p. 11.
28. Crawford, p. 333.
29. James E. Wise, The Seed of the Serpent (Englewood, Colorado: Pilgrim Torch) p. 4.