EVE: DID SHE OR DIDN’T SHE?
The Seedline Hypothesis Under Scrutiny

Printable version.

Part 2


Available for a suggested donation of $8.00.

The previous installment of this treatise exposed some of the serious obstacles that the seedliners face with their doctrine. Yet, those that were previously uncovered are just the tip of the iceberg. Let us continue in our analysis of the seedline hypothesis by returning to the scene of the crime, the Genesis 3 account of Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 3 Under Scrutiny

Genesis 3:14

And YHWH God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

Verse 14 is a difficult verse to explain no matter what theological position one approaches it from. Seldom is this verse taken at face value, that is, that a literal, erect, articulate snake was condemned to slither on its belly throughout eternity. Some people interpret the serpent in this chapter to be a fallen angel or a demon of darkness. Others proclaim that it was a humanoid, probably one of Adam and Eve's servants. And still others declare that it simply represented Eve's sinful nature. Without getting into them, there are difficulties that could be presented from this verse for each of those interpretations. No one can emphatically demand that their interpretation for the serpent is how it must be understood since the Bible simply does not tell us how to interpret all of the symbolism in verse 14 and others in this chapter. On the other hand, that does not mean that, with the Bible, some interpretations can not be ruled out.

At this point, someone will certainly direct our attention to Revelation 12, which declares:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world…. (Revelation 12:9)

The serpent is identified in this passage as "the Devil and Satan." That can not be denied, however most people have never been taught that the Bible speaks of a number of different devils and satans. This is easily proven with the use of one's Bible, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and an Englishman's Concordance. Consequently, one can not just automatically claim that the serpent or the satan in Genesis 3 was whatever they think that it was. The context and the balance of the Scriptures must be used to determine what is meant by the terms employed by God in the Bible.1

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and [Eve] the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the verse of Scripture that the seedliners hang their hat on more than any other. But just how valid is their argument, especially in light of the problems with their doctrine already pointed out, along with those that will yet be exposed?

Seedliners declare that since one seed line, the woman's, is physical in verse 15, then the other seed line, the serpent's, must also be physical. However, is that necessarily true? The New Testament often pits the flesh against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. For example, Matthew 26:41 speaks of the willingness of the spirit versus the weakness of the flesh. Romans 8:1 addresses walking after the flesh versus walking after the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 5:5 speaks of the destruction of the flesh to the salvation of the Spirit. And Galatians 5 is especially interesting:

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)

Note first the words: "lust" and "lusteth." If we did not know better, it could be concluded that the Apostle Paul was writing about something sexual here. The point being that we must be careful not to read something unintended into this passage or any other passage, such as Genesis 3. One must be especially cautious so as to not read twentieth century English applications into ancient Hebrew or Greek words or phrases.

It should also be noted from Galatians 5:17 that the flesh and the Spirit are spoken of as being contrary to one another. The word "contrary" comes from the Greek word "antikeimai," and is also translated in the New Testament as "adversary" and "opposeth." In other words, the flesh and the Spirit are adversarial, antagonistic, hostile, that is, at enmity with one another.

Verse 19 of Galatians 5 then speaks of the works of the flesh, and verse 22 addresses the fruit of the Spirit. Since Yeshua in Matthew 7:16-17 spoke of both good and evil fruit, God could have inspired the Apostle Paul to have employed the word "fruit" in both verse 19 and verse 22 of Galatians 5 without forfeiting too much in the contrast being made between the two. The Greek word translated "fruit" in Galatians 5:22 is the same word used for the fruit of the womb in Luke 1:42, and the fruit of the loins in Acts 2:30. Nevertheless, no one in their right mind will attempt to make the fruit in Galatians 5 physical offspring from sexual relations.

Also, Galatians 6:8 speaks of sowing to the flesh versus sowing to the Spirit. The word "sowing" comes from the Greek word "speiro," from which the Greek word "sperma" comes, from which our English word "sperm" is derived.

The point in all of this is that the Bible often employs physical terms that have spiritual implications. In Galatians 5 the seed, the offspring, the fruit of the flesh is opposed, wars with, is at enmity with the seed, the offspring, the fruit of the Spirit, often within the same person.

This could not be better illustrated then with the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:13-23. In verses 17-19, Yeshua lauds Peter and tells him that he was to be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Then just four verses later, Yeshua calls Peter, "Satan," that is, a satan, that is, an adversary to the will of God. What was going on? A battle, if you will, between the two seeds: the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit, the same battle that takes place within every one of us, unless the Spirit has been quenched. This demonstrates that there indeed not only can be, but that there is a conflict between flesh and spirit. That battle takes place on a personal level and is often expanded to a societal level as well.

Seedliners declare that consistency demands that in Genesis 3:15 that both seed lines must be the same; that is, that they must both be physical. However, the previous New Testament passages demonstrate that this is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, I agree with the seedliners; albeit, that does not mean that I accept that a fallen angel/demon of darkness was the father of Cain in contradiction to the plain teaching of Genesis 4:1. Instead, consider the option that Genesis 3:15 is referring to two spiritual seed lines within one physical seed line or group of people. Or to put it another way, one physical seed line with two spiritual outlooks on life: spiritual followers of evil and spiritual followers of good. Yeshua even warned of enemies from within one's own household or family - Matthew 10:36.

That is exactly what we find to be the case with Isaac and Rebekah's twin sons, Esau and Jacob - Genesis 25:21-23; Malachi 1:1-4; Romans 9:10-13. So why should it be so difficult to believe that the same is what transpired between Cain and Abel? According to Genesis 4:1-2, both Cain and Abel were fathered by Adam. Later in chapter 4 (verses 3-7), we are told that one brother chose good and one chose evil. The seedliners insist that the evil in Cain was genetic, but Genesis 4:7 affirms that he had a choice:

If thou [Cain] doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

The New American Standard Bible renders this same verse:

If you [Cain] do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.

If Cain was indeed Satan's son, the seedliners must then accept that Yahweh would have accepted what would have been a hybrid, half-breed son of Satan, if he had only made the appropriate sacrifice.

Aside from today's Khazar Jews 2, it is nearly universally accepted that within Genesis 3:15 is the initial promise or prophecy concerning Yeshua 3 - the only man born solely from the seed of a woman - who specifically came to this planet to make it possible for a remnant of Israelites to overcome the fruit or seed of the flesh. Since doing so, there has been and continues to be two spiritual seed lines within that one physical seed line of people. Those Israelites who are "begotten … through the gospel"4 and "born again … of incorruptible [seed],"5 are reckoned "sons of God." Whereas, those Israelites who refuse to acknowledge Yeshua as Lord, King and Savior are reckoned "sons of the devil." Thus, two spiritual seed lines within one physical group of people. This is established by the Apostle John in his first epistle; an epistle written not to Israelites and Cainites, but merely to Israelites. In fact, John identifies the two groups of people to whom he was writing as being brethren:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he [Yeshua] was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever [whatever Israelite] abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever [whatever Israelite] sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he [any Israelite] that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He [any Israelite] that [habitually] committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever [whatever Israelite] is born of God doth not [habitually] commit sin; for his [God's] seed [sperma, i.e., God's word, 1 Peter 1:23] remaineth in him: and he cannot [habitually] sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever [whatever Israelite] doeth not righteousness is not of God [but is of the devil], neither he that loveth not his [Israelite] brother. (1 John 3:4-10)

In other words, non-born again, habitually sinning Israelites are deemed "children of the devil," whereas born again Israelites who through the Spirit have put to death the deeds of the flesh are reckoned "sons of God."

Seedliners take such passages as 1 John 3 and such phrases as "children of the devil," and then declare that the two seed lines of Genesis 3:15 must be physical. Whereas, non-seedliners take such passages as 1 John 3 and such phrases as "sons of God," and then proclaim that Genesis 3:15 refers to two spiritual seed lines within one physical group of people.

Which is the more Scriptural and consistent interpretation? Consider the inconsistency of the seedliners. They loudly demand that both seed lines must be physical in Genesis 3:15, but when they get to the New Testament, only the sons of the Devil are interpreted as being literal and physical. However, consistency demands that if "children of the devil" or "generation of vipers," etc., are terms that are to be taken literally, meaning a literal physical seed line from Satan and Eve, then the term "sons of God" must also be taken just as literally. Consequently, the seedliners are forced to admit that to whomever the term "sons of God" is applied, it is referring to physical children begotten by God, having had an untold number of sexual relationships with a considerable number of women down through the centuries! Another consequence of the seedline hypothesis that the seedline champions are not telling their disciples.

Genesis 3:16-21

Unto the woman [Eve] he [Yahweh] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return….

Most, if not all, seedliners make a lot of noise about the judgments upon Eve. One seedliner, after quoting Genesis 3:16, wrote:

"…the penalties doled out to Eve related to her sexuality and sexual relations with her husband. It is not unreasonable then to assume that whatever Eve did, it had to do with sexuality."6

Note that this author used the word "assume." He did so because it has to be assumed, since nowhere in God's word are we told that the judgments upon Eve mean what the seedliners declare that they do.

Another prominent seedline minister put it in the following manner:

"In the divine punishment inflicted upon the woman Eve in Genesis 3:16 why did Almighty God employ the pain of childbirth? What is the purpose of the use of the word conception? How about the use of the word desire? The truth is: God made the punishment to fit the crime."7

If that is true for Eve, then it must also be true for Adam. Consistency then demands that the punishment for Adam's sin also fit the crime, and thus the seedliners must interpret Adam's judgment to really mean that he and his male progeny were to be punished with pain and sorrow in sexual intercourse. After all, according to the seedliners, Adam's sin was also sexual in nature.

In addition, since seedliners interpret Adam's eating of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, in verse 17, as being sexual relations with either Eve or the Devil, then they have no choice but to interpret the judgment against Adam of eating the herb of the field, in verse 18, as having sex with other women or demons. Thus, they must also confess that God's punishment upon Adam was essentially the same thing for which God condemned him in the first place!

Genesis 3:22-24

And YHWH God said, Behold, the man [Adam] is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore YHWH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man….

Verse 22 presents two of the most grievous consequences to the seedline doctrine. According to verse 22, when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil it caused them to become like Yahweh God. Consequently, if the partaking of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to sexual immorality with Satan or one of his minions, then the seedliners must also admit that Yahweh himself is a sexual deviate! The seedliners can not have it both ways. They can not declare on one hand that the knowledge of good and evil is sexual perversion without also declaring that God is a sexual pervert!

In addition, look at the last half of verse 22:

and now, lest he [Adam] put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Seedliners correctly maintain that the tree of life was Yeshua the Messiah:

"Now, we know from Revelation 2:7 that the 'tree of life' that the overcomers will be allowed to eat from is JESUS CHRIST, so it only follows that this other tree [of the knowledge of good and evil] must be Satan."8

"The Tree of Life is identified as Jesus Christ. What personage was represented by the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? Please be consistent!"9

Okay, let us do just that! If the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was sex with Satan, then consistency demands that the seedliners must also admit that, in Genesis 3 and verse 22, Yahweh was concerned that Adam and Eve (forgive me for having to say so) were going to have sex with Yeshua, the tree of life! That is what consistency demands!

Additionally, the seedliners must also confess that under the New Covenant the overcomers will be permitted to have sexual relations with Christ in the paradise of God, since in Revelation 2 we are informed:

to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Revelation 2:7)

And then the seedliners will have to admit that with Christ, his disciples will be provided twelve manners of sexual pleasures since Revelation 22:2 declares that the tree of life will "bare twelve manner of fruits."

I apologize for having to even suggest such things, but this is the baggage that comes with the seedline teaching. It is time that the seedline hypothesis is exposed for the perverted doctrine that it really is.

What Really Did Happen In the Garden?

Now that I have demonstrated the seedline doctrine as being a spurious, fallacious hypothesis with no Scriptural basis from Genesis 3 whatsoever, let us discuss what the partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil really was. There are no scriptures that specifically tell us what this tree was; however, the Bible does provide us with clues so that it's identity can be ascertained.

To begin with, consider the term: "the knowledge of good and evil." Who provides us with that kind of knowledge? The seedliners have no alternative but to declare that it is Satan that provides us with such knowledge. Worse yet, their doctrine dictates that it was actually sex with Satan that furnished Adam and Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. What utter nonsense! Of course, there are no scriptures whatsoever that corroborate such an absurd hypothesis. Instead Genesis 3:22 clearly reveals that the knowledge of good and evil resides not with some demon of darkness, but rather with our omniscient God - Yahweh.

Through what means is the knowledge of good and evil transferred to man? Man's cognizance of good and evil comes from God's law:

Wherefore the law isholy, and just, and good. (Romans 7:12)

God's law itself is good and thus it is the vehicle through which the knowledge of good is commuted to man. The same is true concerning the knowledge of evil:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin [evil]. (Romans 3:20)

In addition to those passages, consider that Genesis 3:6 describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as being able "to make one wise," "pleasant to the eyes" and "good for food," all of which also describe the law of God:

The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)

At this point someone will probably inquire, "If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the law of God, would that not have made God's law evil since God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of it?" The Apostle Paul essentially asks and then answers this same question:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (Romans 7:7-8)

I can imagine that some people, especially those who understand the vital goodness and importance of God's law for us today 10, will have difficulty reconciling in their minds that Yahweh would ban his law from Adam and Eve. That, once again, would seem to imply that God's law was itself evil. Not necessarily. The prohibition delivered to Adam and Eve against partaking of the tree of life in Genesis 3 certainly did not make the tree of life evil.

So why would Yahweh want to keep Adam and Eve from his law? Consider again the latter part of the Apostle Paul's answer in Romans 7:

…For without the law sin was dead. (Romans 7:8)

Consider also the Apostle Paul's declaration in Romans 5:

sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)

Possibly God initially forbade Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil, that is, his law because he simply did not want them to sin and did not want to have to hold them accountable to it.

In the Genesis account Adam was warned:

Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 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. (Genesis 2:16-17)

What else results in death?

For the wages of sin is death…. (Romans 6:23)

And what is sin?

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

The law itself is not sin, but the choice made possible by the law can lead to sin and eventually death (i.e., separation from God), unless one partakes of Yeshua the Christ in the meantime:

For the wages of sin [through transgression of the law] is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Yeshua [the] Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

Or this scripture might be rendered:

The wages of improperly partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through the tree of life. (Romans 6:23 paraphrased)

Hopefully, it can be seen how beautifully God's word harmonizes and how utterly ridiculous the seedline hypothesis really is. If the partaking of the knowledge of good and evil was sex with Satan, and it was that perversion that resulted in death in the progenitors of Adamkind, then it would stand to reason that only when we would do the same should we likewise be condemned to die. In other words, there is no connection between a "sexual relationship with Satan" and other sin. On the other hand, if the eating of the knowledge of good and evil was the wrongful partaking of God's law, then there is a connection between Adam and Eve's sin and all other sin.

The Death Blow to the Seedline Hypothesis

Genesis 4:1-2

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from YHWH….

There is absolutely no way that the seedliners can accept Genesis 4:1 for what it literally says since it very clearly teaches that Cain, rather than being a literal son of a Satan, was instead the son of Adam. It is extremely interesting to see how this verse is "explained away" by the seedliners:

"Eve actually was deceived into BELIEVING that Cain was gotten (not begotten) of GOD ...when in truth Cain was fathered by Satan...."11

Nowhere in the Bible are we told that Eve was deceived into believing this. Do not miss what this seedline minister is really saying, that is, that we should believe who he says Cain's father was over whom Yahweh said Cain's father was.

Another seedliner wrote:

"Gen. 4:1 tells us that Adam 'knew' his wife and she 'conceived'. True, she did conceive Abel … but she had already conceived, by Satan, and was carrying his seed, as well."12

Does your Bible say that? Who was more fertile: Eve, or the imaginations of some of these seedliners?

Another prominent seedliner had a rather unique approach to Genesis 4:1:

"Genesis 4:1: 'And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.' Now you notice, what is not said is more significant than what is said. The Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain."13

What an ingenious way to manipulate the Bible into saying anything you want it to. Just declare that what a verse does not say is more important than what it does say, and then, by some mysterious inside source, inform your audience as to what is meant by what is not stated! That is what is known as eisegesis rather than exegesis, that is, the reading of something into a passage, rather than taking out of it it's intended meaning. Be not mistaken, what this verse does say is much more important than what it does not say!

It is true that Genesis 4:1 does not say that Adam begat Cain. However, if that rules out Cain as Adam's son then for the same reason Seth must be ruled out as Adam's son as well. Consequently it should be concluded that Seth, too, was a son of Satan. Compare Genesis 4:1 with Genesis 4:25:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; she conceived, and bare Cain.... (Genesis 4:1)

And Adam knew his wife [Eve] … and she bare a son, and called his name Seth…. (Genesis 4:25)

In both instances Adam knew, that is, had sexual relations with Eve and she respectively bore Cain and Seth. The language is nearly identical in both cases. Yet the seedliners do not dare declare that Seth was a son of Satan since they know that Adam knowing his wife resulting in a birth means that Adam begat whatever it was that was born of that relationship. This is proven in Genesis 5:4 where we are informed that Seth was begotten by Adam. Seth, of course, was not a son of Satan; he was begotten of Adam, just as was Cain.

One of the previous seedliners also wrote:

"Original sin must be imputed to Satan, the father of lies. He appeared as a fallen angel, clothed in false light, he appeared to Eve as if he were God, in fact Eve apparently thought that the Serpent was God, for she thought that Cain was from God. (Genesis 4:1)"14

Another seedline author, who believed that the perpetrator of the dirty deed was a humanoid of another race, wrote:

"Nachash, regrettably translated Serpent, was a specific Chay [the Hebrew word for beast]….

"There are several opinions regarding the actual nature of this seduction which can not be clearly decided by the text alone. One was that it was Nachash himself who provided the Wicked Seed as a surrogate of Satan and thus the off-spring Cain was an Adam-Chay cross…. The other concept, which I feel is more clearly borne out by Christ's words as in St. John 8:42-45, and St John's words in 1 John 3:12, is that this Nachash merely performed as a pimp setting up the Event so that Satan could plant his own seed in the woman. Eve knew that nachash [the Hebrew word for serpent] was not The Lord, but just a nice looking Chay who worked for her husband. Why then did she say that her first child, Cain, was from The Lord? (Genesis 4:1) I think it was because she had been deceived by Satan into believing that he was God and wanted her to thus perform for him. No question but what Eve was thoroughly deceived."15

When what one believes is Biblically unsupportable, then one has no alternative but to speculate in an attempt to somehow try to make plausible what one believes. Thus, these two seedliners first speculate that Eve was deceived, not only into having sexual relations with Satan or a non-racially alike humanoid, but that she was also deceived into believing that, which ever it was, it was actually Yahweh.

According to these seedliners, the serpent - in Genesis 4:1 - convinced Eve that he was actually Yahweh, in spite of the fact that - in Genesis 3:1-5 - the serpent represents himself as being a totally distinct entity from Yahweh. When one teaches unsupportable speculation as fact, soon or later, fact knocks the "supports" from underneath the speculation.

Also, do not miss that the statement, "I have gotten a man from Yahweh," is the only portion of Genesis 4:1 that Eve is credited as saying. The statement, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…." is what Yahweh himself declared as fact. Yahweh did not say, as the seedliners do, that Eve had conceived Cain by Satan and then Adam knew her. Instead Yahweh announced that Adam knew Eve and then she conceived and bore Cain. Consequently, the seedliners must not only proclaim that Eve was deceived when she declared that Cain was from Yahweh; they must also accuse Yahweh of likewise being confused and/or deluded about what actually took place in the garden.

Although there are many points that the seedliners do not agree upon amongst themselves 16, there is one thing that they do have somewhat of a consensus upon; that being that in Genesis 4:1, Eve either lied, was deceived or did not know that it was Satan with whom she had sexual relations. In other words, the seedliners would have us believe that, in Genesis 4:1, Eve was mistaken or was deceived about Cain's father. Yet, in Genesis 3:13, Eve understood and confessed that the serpent beguiled her and that she had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; interpreted by the seedliners to mean that Eve understood and confessed that she had committed adultery with Satan. So which was it? She either knew or she did not know; the seedliners can not have it both ways!

The last seedliner quoted, declared: "No question but what Eve was thoroughly deceived." However, was it Eve who was thoroughly deceived in the manner the seedliners declare? Or is it the seedliners who are thoroughly deceived about Eve?

Genesis 4:3-5

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto YHWH. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And YHWH had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect….

Why did Yahweh not respect Cain's offering? The seedliners would have us believe that it was because he was Satan's seed. However, the author of Hebrews tells us otherwise:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain…. (Hebrews 11:4)

In other words, Cain's sacrifice was deficient, not his genes.

Genesis 4:6-7

And YHWH said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Once again, if the seedliners are correct and Cain was the son of Satan, they are forced to admit that had Cain done well, Yahweh would have welcomed and embraced this "half-breed, hybrid son of God's arch-enemy."

Genesis 4:8-10

Andit came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And YHWH said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he [Yahweh] said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Had God identified Cain as Abel's half-brother, that one statement alone could have verified the seedline hypothesis. However, note that Cain was never identified as Abel's half-brother, but instead as his brother.

Genesis 4:11-15

And now art thou [Cain] cursed from the earth … when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto YHWH, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And YHWH said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And YHWH set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Observe how the seedliners blantantly speculate about this mark upon Cain:

"Cain was marked with a swarthy skin. He was marked with a [big] nose that would always be his trademark."17

What gives this minister the right to make such a statement? Who does he think that he is? He has the audacity to proclaim, as if empowered with some favored insight, what even Yahweh did not declare himself.

Genesis 5

Another favorite argument of the seedliners that supposedly proves that Cain could not have been the son of Adam, is that Cain is "suspiciously" missing from Adam's genealogy:

"Cain is NOT listed anywhere in Adam's Geneology [sic]. Why is Cain missing from Adam's Geneology [sic]? Because Cain is not Adam's son."18

Note, once again, how brazen this seedliner is. He does not say that this is a possible reason why Cain is missing from Adam's genealogy, he declares this as reality, in spite of the fact that God never declared that anywhere in his inspired word. Is it special insight, or just a prolific imagination?

There is a difference between one's genealogy that is all-inclusive, and a genealogical table which may not be exhaustive, depending on it's purpose. It can not be said that Cain is missing from Adam's genealogy, whereas it can be said that Cain is missing from Adam's genealogical tables as provided in the Bible.

This same seedliner also declared:

"The first manifested seed of the serpent upon this earth was Cain. Cain is missing from Adam's geneaology [sic] not because he sinned but because he was not of Adam's seed."19

If this is true, then any of Adam's sons and daughters not listed in Adam's genealogical tables can not be Adam's children and consequently must also be the literal children of Satan. This would then also mean that Eve repeated her sin with Satan many times, which would then also mean that the serpent repeatedly deceived Eve into believing that he was actually Yahweh and not Satan. In fact, it would also mean that Yahweh was deceived multiple times about the true progenitors of Adam's so-called children as well. What am I talking about? Most people are unaware that the Bible tells us that Adam had other sons and daughters in addition to Cain, Abel and Seth:

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat [other] sons and daughters. (Genesis 5:4)

Why are not any of those sons and daughters mentioned in Adam's genealogical tables? Of course, like Cain, they must all be Satan's children rather than Adam's! This is what one must believe if the previous seedliner's reasoning is correct.

The Bible does not tell us why Cain and those other sons and daughters are not specifically mentioned in Adam's genealogical tables provided to us in the Bible. However, it may be for the reason that neither Cain's nor any of those other lines produced the Messiah and thus, for this reason or for some other reason that only God knows, they were not pertinent enough to be mentioned.

The previous seedliner also proclaimed:

"Note that Cain is never listed as Adam's son in any of the chronology Tables of the Bible. Take note that in all other cases where Adamic Seed had corrupted itself in sin, their name still appears in the Chronology Tables."20

If that is true, then we have no choice but to conclude that all those other unmentioned sons and daughters of Genesis 5:4 never sinned, in spite of the fact they also must have been the brood of Satan. When one's doctrine is predominately speculation, the hole that one digs for one's self just gets deeper and deeper. Regrettably, there will be those who will refuse to abandon their seedline heroes and who will follow them into the same hole or ditch in fulfillment of Yeshua's proclamation in Matthew 15:14: "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Genesis 6

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. … There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:1-4)

This passage is often employed by the seedliners in an attempt to somehow prove their hypothesis about what happened in Genesis 3. Over the last two thousand years there has been little agreement among theologians as to who the sons of God and the daughters of men represent in this passage. Some have proclaimed that the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain are represented here. Others declare that the sons of God represent fallen angels, and the daughters of men represent the daughters of Adam or Seth.

The latter, of course, is the choice of the seedliners. However, even if the seedliners' interpretation of this passage is the correct interpretation, that does not prove that Satan had sexual relations with Eve, producing Cain, in Genesis 3. In fact, this passage and the seedliners' interpretation of it generates additional problems for the seedliners;' explanation of Genesis 3.

For example, since the union of the sons of God (representing fallen angels to the seedliners) with the daughters of men (representing daughters of Adam to the seedliners) produced giants, then certainly Cain as the progeny of Lucifer, the head fallen archangel, and Eve (according to the seedliners) should also have been a giant. And, then Cain would have himself been the progenitor of a whole line of giants, not normal size men such as are found in today's Jews.

Some seedliners quote Justin Martyr wherein he declared that the offspring of this union described in Genesis 6 were demons. However, that also creates a problem for the seedliners. If Genesis 6 is supposed to prove that Satan fathered Cain by Eve, then Cain and his seedline could not be represented in today's Jews, but would instead have to be demons as well. Jews, giants or demons; the seedliners can not have it all three ways!

In addition, if Genesis 6 proves the seedliners' interpretation of Genesis 3, then they will also have to admit that there are many Satanic or demonic seedlines which, of course, they never identify.

The Supposed Cain-Cainite-Canaanite Connection

Before leaving the Old Testament, it needs to be pointed out that it is imperative to the seedliners that they "make" a connection between not only Satan and Cain, but also between the Cainites (the descendants of Cain) and the Canaanites (the descendants of Canaan, the grandson of Noah). The reason being, because without such a connection there is no link between a "Satanic seed line" and today's Jews.

Today's Jews can be linked with the Canaanites through Esau/Edom and his marriage with Canaanite women. 21 However, there is nothing in the Bible, no matter how far it is stretched by the seedliners, that links Cain with today's Jews.

As usual the seedliners can not agree among themselves as to how this supposed connection was made. According to some seedliners, this gene link between Cain and the Canaanites came about in the following manner:

"In Genesis 9:18 we are told that Canaan was the son of Ham. It is also very plain that this Canaan was not a blessed seed of the woman, but apparently was mothered by a Canaanite [Cainite] woman of the Satanic Seed Line." 22

"…I believe that Ham had sex with his father Noah's concubine. This relationship produced Canaan. … I believe that Noah's concubine was a Cainite…." 23

No question that this would unite Cain's line with Canaan's line. However, do not miss the fact that this supposed union is accomplished through some mystery concubine who is never mentioned in the Bible, and who was thus created in the fertile imaginations of the seedliners.

Other seedliners attempt to make the Cain/Canaan link at a later time through the people in the Old Testament known as Kenites. I will not waste the reader's time by expounding upon how this supposedly happened. However, I will point out what the seedliners, who twist the Scriptures in this fashion, must admit if this hypothesis is true.

One well-known seedline teacher proclaimed:

"It means simply, when you say Kenite - sons of Cain, that's all you are talking about."24

Part of the reason that this is maintained by some seedliners is because the Hebrew word "qeyniy" translated "Kenite" comes from the Hebrew word "Qayin" from which Adam's eldest son's name "Cain" is derived. However, that does not necessarily mean that it can then be deduced that the Kenites are descendants of Adam's son, Cain. That is essentially the same mistake that is made by those who jump to the unmerited conclusion that the Rahab in Yeshua's genealogy is the Canaanite Rahab in the book of Judges. 25

There might be a connection between Cain and the Kenites, but that can not automatically be deduced from the similarities of the two words. Even if such an association is accurate, Cain is not proven to be the son of Satan by such an affiliation.

Additionally, but if Cain is Satan's seed and if the Kenite line is a continuation of that Satanic seed line, then the seedliners will have to admit that Moses' children were of the same Satanic seed line since his wife Zipporah was a daughter of Jethro whom the Bible identifies as a Kenite:

And the children of [Jethro] the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went upwith the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judahand they dwelt among the people. (Judges 1:16)

It is also worth noting that Yahweh declared that Jacob/Israel's line would have everlasting enmity not with the supposed Cain/Kenite line, but rather with Esau/Edom's line -Genesis 25:21-23, Ezekiel 35:1-5 and Amos 1:11. Thus Yahweh commanded King Saul to exterminate the Amalekites of the first born line of Esau, but said nothing regarding the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites at the time, and who were subsequently spared -1 Samuel 15:6. Once again, the seedliners' arguments, rather than providing proof for their hypothesis, have only created them more problems.

In this and the previous installment, not only have I addressed all of the major seedline arguments employed from the Old Testament, but I have also demonstrated them to be spurious, with absolutely no scriptural validity whatsoever. Lord willing, in the coming installment of this series the same will be done with the seedliners' arguments employed from the New Testament.


Part 1  |  Part 3



Endnotes

1. It is not the point of this treatise to get into the author's perspective on Satan(s), however anyone wanting a more comprehensive presentation on the subject of Satan and demons can write Mission to Israel Ministries, P.O. Box 248, Scottsbluff, NE 69363 and request Spooks, Are They For Real? on six 60 minute cassette tapes. These messages can be obtained on a listen-and-return basis or are available for a $20.00 donation.

2. For a fully documented discussion regarding the Khazar Jews consult the 4th Chapter - "Are Today's Jews True Israelites?" - of God's Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever, a 465-page book written by Evangelist Ted R. Weiland.

3. Genesis 3:15 is known as the Protevangelium or the first gospel.

4. 1 Corinthians 4:15.

5. 1 Peter 1:23.

6. Dr. Everett Ramsey, "The Bible - The Book of Adam - God's Message of Hope to the World," America Today (Houston, Missouri: Faith Baptist Church & Ministries, February, 1996) p. 7.

7. Charles Lee Mange aka Dan Gayman, The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15 (1982) p. 16.

8. Norman Moody Rogers, "Was It Really an Apple?," The Grape Press (Frederick, Oklahoma: Grape Press, October, 1982) p. 1.

9. Gayman, p. 45.

10. For anyone wanting more information regarding God's law as it applies to today, write Mission to Israel Ministries and request a free tape list from which the following tapes can be ordered: T 006 - Deliverance From Christian Anarchists, T 065 - Harmonizing the New Testament Scriptures on the Law of God, T 143 - Law or Grace?, T 222 - Love: A New, Old Commandment and T 235 - The Mosaic Law: Added & Abolished. Or these messages can be obtained by simply sending a $4.00 donation for each tape ordered, or they can be borrowed on a listen-and-return basis.

11. Gayman, p. 9.

12. B. J. Dryburgh, Christianity or Religious Tradition?? (Newhall, California: The American Institute of Theology) p. 5.

13. Bertrand L. Comparet, The Cain-Satanic Seed Line (San Diego, California: Your Heritage) p. 6.

14. Gayman, p. 64-65.

15. Nord W. Davis, Jr., Star Wars (Topton, North Carolina: The Northpoint Teams) pp. 11-12.

16. That is because when things are based upon speculation, one man's postulation is as good as another man's assumption.

17. Gayman, p. 28.

18. Gayman, p. 9.

19. Gayman, p. 26.

20. Gayman, p. 19.

21. "Edom," Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Vol. 6, p. 378. "Edom, Idumea," The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Vol. V, p. 41. "Edom (Idumea)," The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589. Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1960) Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279.

22. Gayman, p. 29.

23. Dr. Everett Ramsey, "The Bible - The Book of Adam - God's Message of Hope to the World," America Today (Houston, Missouri: Faith Baptist Church & Ministries, March, 1996) p. 2.

24. Dr. Arnold Murray, "Kenite" (Gravette, Arkansas) Cassette tape #436.

25. For a discussion concerning Rahab, write Mission to Israel Ministries and order T 311 - Radio Interview re. Ruth and Rahab. This sixty minute cassette tape is available on a listen-and-return basis or it can be obtained for a $4.00 donation.





















Most Recent Article

An Open Response to Martin Selbrede and Archie Jones’ ‘Book Review’ of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective


Most Recent Message


Important Books




Visit us on:



Visit us on:



Mission to Israel · P.O. Box 248 · Scottsbluff, NE 69363 · Email