Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1
Once again, and right from the beginning, there were many digressions and topics discussed which did not make it into these notes. But I did add a few things we discussed extemporaneously which were related more directly to Weisman’s arguments.
In my opinion we have already destroyed Charles Weisman’s supposed refutation of Two-Seedline in several different and significant ways. But we are not even halfway through his book, and to be fair we must finish presenting all of Weisman’s arguments, and answer them all with the appropriate evidence wherever we believe they are wrong.
In our last presentation, I think we exposed three major failures in Weisman’s arguments at the end of chapter 3 where he had insisted that the giants of Genesis chapter 6 and later Scriptures were only the offspring of the unions between the sons of Cain and the daughters of Seth.
First, he failed to read the text of Genesis 6:4 properly, as it explains that giants were in the earth both before and after that event, so if the verse is read correctly, Weisman must answer how giants were already in the earth “in those days”, as Yahweh did not create any giants in Genesis chapter 1.
Secondly, he failed to explain, that if the “sons of God” were the sons of Cain, as he insisted, and if he believes that Cain was a son of Adam, as he also insisted, and if the sons of Cain were in the image of God, as he had further insisted, why that would be a sin so grievous as to cause God to destroy all the descendants of Seth for race-mixing, since Seth was also in the image of God, being in the image of Adam his father? Weisman never explained how this was a sin, but we have on many occasions explained precisely how it was a sin.
Thirdly, but not finally because there were other errors as well, Weisman lied about the definition of the word nephilim, which certainly can mean fallen ones. By presenting Gesenius’ admitted preference as if it were the only authoritative definition, Weisman purposely lied by not citing Gesenius’ entire definition. Presenting Gesenius’ entire definition of nephil, we saw that Gesenius himself explained that it could mean fallen one, or at least, faller, and that it was often interpreted in that manner, as Gesenius also admitted, but Gesenius himself chose to follow the Jews, whom he mistakenly called “Hebrews”, who insisted that it meant fellers instead, and we believe that helped to obfuscate the truth.
Last week I promised to provide a scan of page 556 of Gesenius’ lexicon which contains the definition for nephil, and apologize for adding it late, as I did not do that until Tuesday morning.