Serpent Seed and Sons of God...

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If they couldn't call themselves by the name of the Lord, by the same token, how could they call on the name of the Lord if you claim it was not revealed yet?
Genesis 4:26 KJV And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Calling on the NAME...

There are two definitions for the word "call" just as there are two definitions
for the word "born" (but "born" is another matter). The first definition, found
in Gen 4, is "to ask for; to inquire after; to seek".

In looking at the context for that scripture, we see that man was named
Adam after God had given him authority (we assume that God named the man,
seeing there was no one else to name him): and Adam (by God's delegated
authority) named all the animals, and finally named the woman. Seeing that
everyone and everything either had names or were to be named, Adam must
have assumed that God had a NAME, but was content to call Him the El-ohim,
meaning:the ONE who has all power and all authority (the ALMIGHTY).

To Moses was first revealed God's NAME: it is YAH (meaning Savior). "And I
appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty, (El-ohim) but by my name JE-HOVAH (YAH-weh) was I not
known to them."

It is accepted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Moses wrote it in the same
manner that the Church has believed and received "...the NAME that is
above every name that is named..."; that is, by REVELATION! Therefore,
the NAME was known to Moses, but NOT to the generation to whom and of
whom, Moses wrote!

The second definition of the word "call" needs no interpretation today, for
it is readily known to all men. It means to "invoke (over); to pronounce; to
proclaim", etc.

Follow the context

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Adam went the way of sin. Cain went further. Seth's line recouped back to Gods ways. They became people who follow God. Sons of God. Those known merely as sons and daughters of men did not follow God. Seth's line after Enos made themselves known to be people of God. Just like today, yet all are humans.

Amen. We are of the same lineage as Seth.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

Calling on the NAME...

There are two definitions for the word "call" just as there are two definitions
for the word "born" (but "born" is another matter). The first definition, found
in Gen 4, is "to ask for; to inquire after; to seek".

In looking at the context for that scripture, we see that man was named
Adam after God had given him authority (we assume that God named the man,
seeing there was no one else to name him): and Adam (by God's delegated
authority) named all the animals, and finally named the woman. Seeing that
everyone and everything either had names or were to be named, Adam must
have assumed that God had a NAME, but was content to call Him the El-ohim,
meaning:the ONE who has all power and all authority (the ALMIGHTY).

To Moses was first revealed God's NAME: it is YAH (meaning Savior). "And I
appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty, (El-ohim) but by my name JE-HOVAH (YAH-weh) was I not
known to them."

It is accepted that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Moses wrote it in the same
manner that the Church has believed and received "...the NAME that is
above every name that is named..."; that is, by REVELATION! Therefore,
the NAME was known to Moses, but NOT to the generation to whom and of
whom, Moses wrote!

The second definition of the word "call" needs no interpretation today, for
it is readily known to all men. It means to "invoke (over); to pronounce; to
proclaim", etc.

Follow the context

I will research what you've stated, but that's not a matter of context but definitions.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Saying they had no navel is not necessarily related to angels having sex with humans, as ridiculous as that sex issue sounds. lol A navel, of course, is formed from the umbilical cord of the child connected to the mother while the child is in the womb. Adam and Eve were in no mother's womb. They had not mothers! So why would they have navels?

What does having a navel have to do with whether or not Eve had sex with the serpent?????? OR with whether or not angels had sex with humans?????

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does having a navel have to do with whether or not Eve had sex with the serpent?????? OR with whether or not angels had sex with humans?????

I never said it did. thephnxman questioned why they would not have navels. I responded to that.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never said it did. thephnxman questioned why they would not have navels. I responded to that.

Oh I know that, I'm just wondering what Eve's belly button (or lack thereof) has to do with the topic???

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

No navel ? ? ?

The "no navel" teaching comes from the same crowd that teaches that
angels had sex with humans. They have gotten away from the Spirit
because they try to understand scripture by their own logic.

When God created man, he had procreation in mind. "And the LORD God
said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help
meet for him...And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of
the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found
an help meet for him."

"HELP MEET"??? For what??? To till the garden? To help Adam "preach"
(as some modern preachers like to teach)? Of course not! It was to help
Adam begin to produce seed for the kingdom! What? He should have sex
with animals? Foolishness: God made the different species to be naturally
incompatible.
But what about the animals created by man's genetics, Brother?
I said NATURALLY incompatible.

Try reading the scriptures contextually.

ya ok, ty. I am just forwarding other opinions, that may agree with the text better. I think the argument goes that the myth is somewhat irrreverent of timeline, else why weren't A&E procreating until after the Fall. Otherwise you are left with Mike's explanation--decent though it is--of how ha Adam becomes reckoned through Cain, although Scripture specifically separates them.

So either Cain is both ha Adam and not ha Adam at the same time that Enos, "mortal man," is both ha Adam and ha Elohim, or there is a better explanation. It doesn't have to be sex with animals; i'm arguing that it isn't, actually, in both cases. Despite Jude, who i don't think is wrong. So maybe you should go talk to Jude about his herman thing?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Saying they had no navel is not necessarily related to angels having sex with humans, as ridiculous as that sex issue sounds. lol A navel, of course, is formed from the umbilical cord of the child connected to the mother while the child is in the womb. Adam and Eve were in no mother's womb. They had not mothers! So why would they have navels?

well, the argument goes that they did have mothers, and the Creation story is just picking up at the dawn of human self consciousness. Self consciousness is a very weird thing; most animals never have it, and humans don't even have it until they are toddlers. You can even access the memory of coming to self consciousness.

Anyway, so A&E are still formed of the Dust, just not instantaneously as we assume; Eve is formed from Adam's "curve," which we translate "rib," but is DNA in this scenario. This understanding also has issues, chiefly being that if it was hybridization with Neanderthal that produced our forebrains, thus evolving humans from "the dust," then why is Eve doxxed with eating the "forbidden fruit" that created her; the explanation being once again that the myth just takes liberties with the timeline.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What does having a navel have to do with whether or not Eve had sex with the serpent?????? OR with whether or not angels had sex with humans?????

sorry, maybe i didn't explain that so well. By "A&E having a navel" i meant the Biblical evolutionary interpretation, which allows that these things happened as a matter of course, because sin was allowed into the world, but not as physical serpent seed per se.

The point being God creating unique beings with self consciousness, which creates free will, and then allowing "sin" as a choice, to be overcome. Exactly what we have, iow.

human believers have a time-honored history of literal translation while denying truth before their eyes, and even killing "heretics" who brought truth (the RCC being the obvious goto there). This is where SS and Sons of God physically procreating come from, this too-literal reading of text where it is not warranted, perhaps.

But by all means take the Creation story as literally as you like; these are thought experiments, and that is all they will ever be. No one knows, or can know, based upon the text.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

sorry, maybe i didn't explain that so well. By "A&E having a navel" i meant the Biblical evolutionary interpretation, which allows that these things happened as a matter of course, because sin was allowed into the world, but not as physical serpent seed per se.

The point being God creating unique beings with self consciousness, which creates free will, and then allowing "sin" as a choice, to be overcome. Exactly what we have, iow.

human believers have a time-honored history of literal translation while denying truth before their eyes, and even killing "heretics" who brought truth (the RCC being the obvious goto there). This is where SS and Sons of God physically procreating come from, this too-literal reading of text where it is not warranted, perhaps.

But by all means take the Creation story as literally as you like; these are thought experiments, and that is all they will ever be. No one knows, or can know, based upon the text.

Either the Bible is right, or the Bible is wrong. Everything flows from the answer to that dilemma.

I believe the Bible. Many don't, but want to keep it around as a source book of useful ideas. (shrug)

Evolution of humans from non-humans is modern mythology.