The Lines of Seth aka Sethite Theory Destroyed

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
For those that don't know, the Lines of Seth aka Sethite Theory is the false and un Biblical theory that teaches Noah's flood happened because Seth's righteous line began mixing with Cain's unrighteous line. There are several questions that need to be answered.

1. Where in the Bible does it refer to Seth's line as "sons of God"?
2. Where in the Bible does it refer to Cain's line as "daughters of men"?
3. Where in the Bible does it say Seth's line was righteous?
4. Where in the Bible does it say Cain's line is evil?

If anyone here believes the Sethite lie, can you please answer the above 4 questions using scripture only so I can read it for myself?



The reason this theory is so dangerous is because it is taught in most churches in an attempt to cover up the Angel view of the Bible, which teaches that angels had sex with human women and created hybrids... similar to what people believe "aliens" are doing in our modern times. There has been a conspiracy to hide this view since around 70AD and its time that this false Sethite view was brought to light.
edit on 7-5-2012 by ancientaliendeception because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 


I have a similar theory on this. The Alphabet of Ben Sirach, which was a widely read holy document til about the 3rd century when Constantine took it out, states that Adam had a wife before eve. Her name was Lilith and she was the first woman to have sex with the "watchers" and give birth to nephalim. Now I believe that the Nephalim Giants were the Male offspring of her having sex with the watchers. I also believe that she also had female offspring and this explains how Cain was able to find a wife after he was banned from Adam and Eve and their ilk.

Here is a thread I authored about my theory. Feel free to tell me what you think. I also don't believe that the flood killed all of the nephalim as moses and aaron had seen them later on: "‘And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim); and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.' Then all the congregation raised a loud cry; and the people wept that night." (Numbers Chapter 13 verse 33)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 7-5-2012 by supermanning because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 
I'm unable to disagree with your views here.

The only other instances of b'nai Elohim/'the sons of God" being used in the bible (Job and Psalms, I believe) are indisputably referring to the angelic host.

Many mental and semantic gymnastics required to try to read it the other way - and even these disagree with the ancient historical interpretations also assuming this as a reference to angels or the like. The shoe just doesn't fit a human foot, either in looking at the term itself, or the accounts and lessons of the subject directly.

Star for you.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by supermanning
 


I've heard the Lilith story before, still undecided if I believe it or not. However, the flood did kill all of the Nephilim. Genesis tells us that the Nephilim appeared after that as well "whenever" the sons of God would take women. The angels did this more than once and after the flood, it was in much smaller number. Every "mythology" on the planet talks about it.

As far as Cain, I don't believe he took a Nephilim wife. Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. We don't know how long Cain lived before taking a wife. We also don't know how far the land of Nod was from Eden or if he went back. Lots of things the story doesn't tell us. Just my opinion though.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 


Iam a bit confused here so I have a question ...are the Angels or Nephilim only male or can they be female as well?
Cos I want to meet a female one



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 


The text itself destroys the Sethite theory. It was only invented because of the mockery by skeptics. Fallen angels took wives of the daughters of men and the Nephilim were the result.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 




which teaches that angels had sex with human women and created hybrids...

For those who might be interested, you might want to share how you concluded from the text, that the "sons of god" were angels. Just saying it is no different than the theory you are "debunking".



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 




which teaches that angels had sex with human women and created hybrids...

For those who might be interested, you might want to share how you concluded from the text, that the "sons of god" were angels. Just saying it is no different than the theory you are "debunking".



"Bene Ha'Elohyim" in Hebrew is "sons of God" = Angels.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I have an understanding of where you get this, but many reading the thread won't. I understand the insinuation in Job 1,2, and 38 that sons of god, and angel, appear to be synonymous.

My point is, without some expounding, the reader has nothing to relate the OP to. Nor has he explained there are three outstanding theories on this topic.

That's all I was trying to get across.

ETA: FWIW OP. I do agree that the text does not support the Sethite theory. From the christian perspective, the angel theory is the most logical. But from a secular perspective, the "human theory" is more logical.

edit on 5/7/2012 by Klassified because: eta



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


The Sethite theory was invented because people were being mocked for the angel view of Genesis 6. They never should have invented something. Also, in non-canonical writings "Bene Ha'Elohyim" is used for angels, like the Book of Enoch. It's not scripture, however it gives insight into the language usage of the day.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Also, in non-canonical writings "Bene Ha'Elohyim" is used for angels, like the Book of Enoch. It's not scripture, however it gives insight into the language usage of the day.

Thank you for mentioning the Book of Enoch, as I was almost horrified to realize I forgot to earlier.

Regarding the book's status as scripture - I would personally have to say it comes closer than some of Paul's writings (my opinion only, but I see Paul as too divisive, at odds, and opinionated as compared to some of the other apostles), has vast parallels with a good bit of teaching and direct wording with the words of Christ himself, and is directly quoted in the new testament as well - emphasizing a status at least NEAR to scripture in the view of those in the first century.

To our friend Klassified, I would have to point to the context of the section itself, the other usages of the word, and the bulk/earliest interpretations reflected in Second Temple judaism as well as the majority view of the early christian church itself - when those closest to the writing share a specific view, I'm very inclined to think we should pay attention to their thoughts.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ancientaliendeception
 
I also wanted to add that Mysterious Universe recently had a good interview with Scott Roberts, discussing his new book on this same topic.

You can listen to their episode 716 with the interview here. Pretty good stuff, although I haven't got around to finishing the book as of yet.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Regarding the book's status as scripture - I would personally have to say it comes closer than some of Paul's writings (my opinion only, but I see Paul as too divisive, at odds, and opinionated as compared to some of the other apostles), has vast parallels with a good bit of teaching and direct wording with the words of Christ himself, and is directly quoted in the new testament as well - emphasizing a status at least NEAR to scripture in the view of those in the first century.

I would add that the book of Jasher should also be seen as scripture considering it is twice referred to in the old testament. They must have considered it a reliable source of history and chronology. But it doesn't quite fit into the paradigm many have built for themselves. Just as Enoch doesn't.



To our friend Klassified, I would have to point to the context of the section itself, the other usages of the word, and the bulk/earliest interpretations reflected in Second Temple judaism as well as the majority view of the early christian church itself - when those closest to the writing share a specific view, I'm very inclined to think we should pay attention to their thoughts.

Agreed. And from the christian perspective. It is the only viable option.
edit on 5/7/2012 by Klassified because: add



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


You have never learned of the heptadic structure underlying the text of the Bible then. If you follow only the TR manuscript all Paul's letters align with the 7-fold structure also. Paul isn't in contradiction at all, in fact, Christianity or the Church (Ekklesia) wasn't born until Pentecost and there wouldn't be pastoral epistles for it until then anyways.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Praetorius
 
You have never learned of the heptadic structure underlying the text of the Bible then.

Granted. I believe I've seen mention of it here on ATS once or twice, but never got around to looking into it (although was aware of the amazing incidence of 7s in the genealogy of Christ)


If you follow only the TR manuscript all Paul's letters align with the 7-fold structure also. Paul isn't in contradiction at all, in fact, Christianity or the Church (Ekklesia) wasn't born until Pentecost and there wouldn't be pastoral epistles for it until then anyways.

I will definitely have to check up on it - pulling up some pages now - and you might be right about Paul, as EliYah does have some good studies on properly understanding Paul's writings and intent by digging into them and studying the greek and context more deeply than normal - just a long-standing gripe I may need to research further and grow out of, from when I really started getting back into the faith some years ago.

I will turn my eyes back to this, and see if my mind can be changed or opened further...I do WANT to like Paul, but he basically rocks my spiritual boat at least superficially when I try to balance him out with everything else.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Klassified
 


The Sethite theory was invented because people were being mocked for the angel view of Genesis 6. They never should have invented something. Also, in non-canonical writings "Bene Ha'Elohyim" is used for angels, like the Book of Enoch. It's not scripture, however it gives insight into the language usage of the day.


is that you dr missler? im a big fan


seriously tho i agree 100%



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Regarding the 2 bloodlines intermarrying, the Genesis Rabba states that Na'amah, who is listed as a descendent of Cain, was Noah's wife.

There seems to be a disagreement in ancient sources as to the meaning of "Bene Ha'Elohim" The Targum Onkelos and the Genesis Rabba translate the phrase as "sons of the rulers/nobles". These sources see them as human. As the term Elohim is also used to refer to kings, priests, and judges. See Exodus chapters 4 and 7 where Moses is called Elohim.

But then the Targum Yonathan and Josephus understand it to refer to fallen angels. So even in ancient sources there seems to be a difference of opinion.

I don't see this as an invented story. I see this as simply 2 different interpretations, and either one could be just as valid.

In my opinion it doesn't really matter which one is correct because after the flood, God promised that, "I will never again strike down all life as I have just done." Gen. 8. So it is really a moot point as to which one is correct.





top topics
 
2

log in

join