The Lines of Seth

A Brief History of Heresy

Minister Dante Fortson

The Lines of Seth

A Brief History of Heresy
Copyright 2012 by Minister Dante Fortson
Website: www.ministerfortson.com
ISBN 10: 1470008505
ISBN 13: 978-1470008505
All scripture quotations in this book are taken from the King
James Version of the Bible except where noted. Words
appearing in bold are the authors own emphasis.
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an
information storage and retrieval system, without the written
permission of the author.
First Edition. Printed in the United States of America
Published by: Impact Agenda Media

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments
Introduction

Chapter 1: The Lines of Seth Theory

o
o
o

Chapter 2: The History of The Theory

o
o
o
o

Step 1: Consulting The Strongs

Step 2: Locating The Verses
Step 3: Reading For Context
Step 4: Comparing The Text
The Breakdown

Chapter 4: The Daughters of Men

o
o
o
o
o

The Origin of The Theory

A History of Rejection
A History of Acceptance
The Breakdown

Chapter 3: The Sons of God

o
o
o
o
o

An Explanation of The Theory

Elements of The Theory
The Breakdown

Step 1: Consulting The Strongs

Step 2: Locating The Verses
Step 3: Reading For Context
Step 4: Comparing The Text
The Breakdown

Chapter 5: The Traditions of Men

o
o
o
o
o
o

The Sons of God

The Daughters of Men
The Line of Righteousness
The Line of Evil
Basis For Interpretation
The Breakdown

Acknowledgements
First and foremost I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus
(Yeshua) for allowing me to complete this, my fourth book.
Next I want to thank my wife Jenelle and my mom Pastor
Perryetta Lacy for listening to endless hours of new research,
discoveries, and strange theories. I appreciate it. Finally I
would like to thank the following people for all the love and
support that I have received over the years: Brian Lacy,
Derrius, Taneka Dickson, Stanford Greenlee, Kareem Muller,
Sis. Mary, Sis. Norma, J Rich, Xavier Jackson, Kwon, Dori Lynn,
King Wells, Keith Well, Doug Riggs, Connie Huft, Jim
Wilhelmsen, Rob Roselli, Proof Negative, Steve Quayle, Chuck
Missler, Grant Jeffrey, Marvin Bittinger, L.A. Marzulli, all of my
Omega Hour guests, all of my readers, and the entire Ignited
Praise Fellowship family. If I missed anyone by name, please
believe it was not intentional. May God continue to bless and
keep you all.

Introduction
The Lines of Seth Theory is one of the most important
theories that appears in the Bible. It is so important because
much of our understanding of the Bible, starting at Genesis 6,
is dependent upon whether or not this theory is true.

My Inspiration
This book originally appeared as Chapter 3 in my book, As
The Days of Noah Were, but it soon became apparent that
there was much more to the theory that I failed to address.
Over the past couple of years I have received quite a few
emails asking me to approach the issue from a more in depth
perspective that would be easier to discuss with pastors, other
researchers, and church goers. This book is a response to those
requests.

The Purpose
The purpose of this book is to thoroughly explore The Lines of
Seth Theory, its origin, and how it ties into the Biblical
narrative. My goal is to take the reader on a step by step
Biblical process which will help them better understand the
events that occurred in Genesis 6:1-4. By the time we reach
the end of the book, the interpretation of the Genesis 6 events
will be very clear to all of those that read until they reach the
end.

Setting Aside Christian Bias

Often times it is hard to set aside our long held beliefs and
look at things from an objective perspective. Honest research is
about finding truth and not pushing a preconceived agenda.
Simply put, this book is about discovering the truth according
to what the Bible says. Those that are familiar with my work
know that I believe in changing my beliefs to fit the Bible and
not changing the Bible to fit my beliefs. Studying with that in
mind allows us to stick to the truth of Gods word regardless of

how it may make us look to other Christians that prefer to

adhere to tradition over scripture. It is in that spirit that I ask
the readers of this book to set aside any preconceived notions
and let the word of God guide you to the truth about this
fascinating topic.

The Literal Interpretation

I am a literalist when it comes to scripture. I do not
allegorize, spiritualize, or strip the text of meaning in order to
fabricate a meaning that fits my preconceived notions. If
scripture does not indicate that the subject is a dream, vision,
parable, etc. I take a literal approach to interpretation. In this
book, that is exactly what you will find.

The Strongs Concordance

I refer to the Strongs Concordance a lot because more times
than not, it clarifies the majority of speculation on what the
original authors may have meant. It is my opinion that anyone
that is serious about studying scripture needs a Strongs
Concordance to use in their studies.

In Closing
I would like to encourage all of my readers to adhere to Acts
17:11 and check everything that I write and compare it with
scripture. If you are not checking behind me, you are not doing
what you are supposed to be doing when it comes to studying
the word of God. Always check behind anyone claiming to
teach the word of God. It is the only way to ensure that you are
not being conditioned to accept false doctrine. With that said, I
pray that you enjoy this book and it helps you in your quest for
truth.
God bless,

Minister Dante Fortson

6

Chapter 1: The Lines of Seth Theory

There are several theories that are based around
foundational points in scripture, that without which, much of
the Bible does not make sense. The Lines of Seth Theory is one
of these theories. Unfortunately, many churches will not
approach the subject even in an in depth Bible study, but if
asked, many will admit to holding a belief in The Lines of Seth
Theory. The reason for this is because the alternative view is a
highly controversial and highly disputed theory which has
caused a rift between many mainstream churches and what are
considered fringe Christians. So what is The Lines of Seth
Theory all about?

An Explanation of The Theory

Within the Bible there are stories, and it is within the
contents of these stories that we sometimes find oddities.
When these oddities are found, there is usually an attempt
made to make it make sense. Sometimes these explanations
are Biblical and sometimes they are based on nothing more
than personal opinion and belief. The Lines of Seth theory is an
attempt to explain an oddity within the story of Noahs flood
(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. And
the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for
that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and
twenty years. 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

The entire theory is encompassed within these four verses.

The purpose of the theory is to explain three key groups of
people that appear within the story of Noahs flood:

The sons of God.

The daughters of men.

The giants on the earth.

The Lines of Seth Theory is not just another theory of mild

importance that we can overlook. The events in Genesis 6:1-4
are referenced over and over again throughout the Bible, which
is why the contents of the story are so controversial, divisional,
yet important.

A Summary of Events
To those that hold a belief in this theory, there is no question
that there is a spiritual separation between the descendants of
Cain and Seth. After the slaying of Abel, Cain was cursed, and
left his home to dwell in the land of Nod. During this time Cain
took a wife and began to produce offspring that many believe
were also ungodly like their father.
According to Genesis 4:25, Seth was a replacement for the
slain Abel. Because Seths son Enos began to call upon the
name of the Lord and Noahs family was spared from the flood,
it is believed that Seths line followed a righteous path like
their father.
When we read Genesis 6:1-4, we find that the sons of God
and the daughters of men have begun mixing, which according
to the theory was forbidden by God. It is because of this
indiscriminant mixing that the entire earth becomes corrupted
and is ultimately wiped out by the flood in Noahs time.

Elements of The Theory

The first item that this theory seeks to address is who the
sons of God really are. According to the Lines of Seth Theory,
the phrase sons of God refers directly to the male
descendants of Seth. According to the story in Genesis, it was
the sons of God that began taking the daughters of men and
producing offspring with them.
The next element of the story that the theory seeks to
address is the phrase daughters of men. The Lines of Seth

interpretation is that the phrase daughters of men refers to

the female descendants of Cain. According to the theory, it
was these women that gave birth to the giants.
The final element that this theory seeks to explain is the
existence of giants. Proponents of this theory usually believe
that that God forbid Seths line from marrying those in Cains
line, and that the unpermitted mixing caused genetic giants to
be born. Throughout this book we are going to discover how
this interpretation came about, why it is so important, and why
the alternate theory is considered heresy.

The Alternative Theory

The Angel Theory is considered by the mainstream church to
be heresy. This theory teaches that the sons of God were
actually angels and the phrase daughters of men refers to
mankind in general. Tradition teaches that angels are not
capable of reproduction, and as a result the text in Genesis 6
cannot be a reference to angels. There are several very
important men that were opposed to this theory:

Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine
Sextus Julius Africanus
Simeon Bar Yochai
Thomas Aquinas

In the next chapter we will look at some of these men and

find out why they took the position that they did concerning
the events in Genesis 6.

The Breakdown
Now that the foundation for the Lines of Seth Theory has
been laid and we know what the theory seeks to explain, we
need to look into the history of the theory to understand why it
was even necessary to begin with.

Chapter 2: The History of The Theory

In life it is very rare that a theory will go unchallenged and
The Lines of Seth is no exception. The opposing theory is known
as The Angel Theory, which states that the sons of God were
really angels, the daughters of men are human women in
general, and the giants were genetic hybrids known as the
nephilim. Of the two theories, one of them is fully backed by
the Bible and one is not. One of them was commonly accepted
as strong Biblical doctrine and the other was not. One of them
is supported by historical testimony and one is not. One of
them is considered to be heresy and the other is not. It is up to
us to determine which one of these theories fits into which
category.

The Origin of The Theory

Simeon Bar Yochai, also known as Rashbi was a 1 st Century
A.D. tannaic sage that rose to importance after the year 70
A.D. The Hebrew word tanna means, to repeat what one was
taught, which is the origin of the word tannaic. The actual
tannaic doctrine was not written down until 70-200 A.D. in
their holy book know as the Mishnah. According to tannaic
belief, Moses received the written law on Sinai as well as the
oral law, which until the writing of the Mishnah, was only
passed on orally through tradition. Unfortunately, the Tanakh
(Old Testament) has no record of such an event.
Simon Bar Yochai was a disciple of Rabbi Akiva and is
believed to have authored the Zohar, which is the main portion
of the Kabbalah. The Zohar is a group of books that which
provide commentary on the mysticism of the Torah (Genesis 1
Deuteronomy). In a nutshell, the Zohar is considered to be an
elaboration on the Torah. From the very beginning, many
Jewish scholars were skeptical of the Zohar because it was
discovered by only one person and only makes references to

Scholem, Gershom and Melila Hellner-Eshed. "Zohar." Encyclopaedia Judaica.

Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 21. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan
Reference USA, 2007. 647-664. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale.

10

historical events that occur after the period in which it is

2
claimed to have been written.
A story tells that after the death of Moses de Leon, a rich
man of Avila named Joseph offered Moses' widow (who had
been left without any means of supporting herself) a large
sum of money for the original from which her husband had
made the copy. She confessed that her husband himself was
the author of the work. She had asked him several times, she
said, why he had chosen to credit his own teachings to
another, and he had always answered that doctrines put into
the mouth of the miracle-working Shimon bar Yochai would
be a rich source of profit. The story indicates that shortly
after its appearance the work was believed by some to have
3
been written by Moses de Leon.

The same Simeon Bar Yochai was believed to be a miracle

worker and an exorcist, and it is also believed that it was he
that first pronounced a curse on any Jew teaching The Angel
Theory of Genesis 6. Simeon Bar Yochai believed that the sons
of God referred to the Godly line of Seth and not to angels.

A History of Rejection
Almost right from the beginning The Lines of Seth Theory was
challenged and rejected. The first person believed to
completely reject the Lines of Seth teaching was Trypho the
Jew.It is Justin Martyr (103-165 A.D.) that wrote of Trypho in
his work, Dialogue With Trypho. Justin Martyr also rejected the
Lines of Seth interpretation as an explanation of the events in
Genesis 6. The next major rejection of The Lines of Seth
Theory came from Rashi (1040 1105 A.D.). Rashi is considered
to be the father of all commentaries that followed his
comprehensive commentaries on both the Talmud and the
Tanakh. His works are considered to be the centerpiece of
contemporary Jewish study.

Jacobs, Joseph; Broyd, Isaac. "Zohar". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls
Company.
3
Jacobs, Joseph; Broyd, Isaac. "Zohar". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls
Company.

11

Another explanation of bnai ha elohim : They are the

angels who go as messengers of G-d; they, too, intermingled
with them. Rashi, Commentary: Bereishis 6:2 (Genesis 6:2)

In addition to the above section of text, Rashi also described

the giants as the men that devastated the world. He directly
links the corruption of all flesh and the wrath of God to these
giants that walked the earth in the time of Enosh and Cain.
Nahmanides (1194 1270) was a leading Jewish scholar, rabbi,
philosopher, physician, Kabbalist, and commentator. In his
work, Torat ha Adam, he mocks those philosophers that
pretend to have knowledge of the essence of God and angels,
but do not fully understand their own bodies, which as we will
see later, is one of the arguments put forth by The Lines of
Seth Theory. There are several other notable names that have
rejected The Lines of Seth Theory:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Pseudo-Clementine
Martin Luther
Athenagoras
Clement of Alexandria
Commondianus
Flavius Josephus
Tertullian
Philo Judaeus
John Wycliffe
Iranaeus
Lactantius

Even though the theory was widely rejected by many who

were considered to be important scholars and philosophers, it
was also embraced by many influential people as well.

A History of Acceptance
Shortly after the death of Simon Bar Yochai, a man by the
name of Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 c.240 A.D.) started
teaching the Lines of Seth view of Genesis Chapter 6, and it
was he that helped it gain popularity within the Church. In the
early history of the Catholic Church, it was considered heresy
to challenge any accepted doctrine of the Catholic Church, so
the Angel Theory slowly began to move underground. Although
it was Africanus that popularized the theory, there were others
that helped push it as the new accepted Church doctrine.

12

Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine

In his attempt to explain the events being reported in his

time, St. Augustine (354 430 A.D.) drew from his belief in The
Lines of Seth and made the following statement:
There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have
verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy
persons who have heard the experience of others
corroborate, that sylvans and fauns, who are commonly
called incubi, had often made wicked assaults upon women.
St. Augustine, The City of God

Almost 1,000 years after the death of Africanus, The Lines of

Seth Theory was once again reinforced by an important
Catholic priest. Thomas Aquinas (1225 1274 A.D.) was a
Catholic priest from the Dominican Order. Many theologians
consider him to be a very important part of Church history, and
he whole heartedly supported The Lines of Seth Theory. One of
the lesser known facts about Aquinas is that he was a bit of an
extremist in his beliefs. He believed in trying to convert people
to Christianity through peace, but if that was ineffective, the
use of violent coercion was acceptable. Then there were his
views on heresy:
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one,
on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On
their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only
to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but
also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much
graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul,
than to forge money, which supports temporal life.
Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are
forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much
more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are
convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even
put to death. On the part of the Church, however, there is
mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer,
wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and
second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is
yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion,
looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and
separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers

13

him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from

4
the world by death. Thomas Aquinas

As far as Aquinas was concerned, heresy was punishable by

death, but what exactly is heresy? In short, heresy is any belief
that goes against Church tradition. Thomas considered the
Angel view of Genesis 6 to be heresy. Although Aquinas
maintained an extremist position on heresy, he actually walked
a fine line in an attempt to make sense of something that was
being widely reported during his life.
Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not
from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed
bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as
when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and
afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other
5
things for other generating purposes. Thomas Aquinas

Although he was clearly a supporter of the Lines of Seth

Theory, he did not completely dismiss the idea of hybrid
offspring. He simply found another way to explain the events in
Genesis 6 and his time by finding a way around the issue of
sexual intercourse between human women and fallen angels.

The Breakdown
As we dig into the history of the Lines of Seth Theory, we
find that the interpretation of Noahs flood is a very important
issue, because every important person linked to the Church has
chosen a position on the Genesis 6 controversy. The reason for
this is because the interpretation of the events in Noahs time
will set the foundation for most of the Old Testament, portions
of the New Testament, and it is the key to understanding much
of end time Bible prophecy. The position that someone chooses
to take will ultimately affect how they view God, the Bible,
and prophecy in general.

4
5

Summa, IIII, Q.11, art.3

Aquinus, Thomas (12651274), Summa Theologica

14

Chapter 3: The Sons of God

As we learned previously, it is the position of The Lines of
Seth Theory that the sons of God refer to the Godly line of
Seth. This reference in the Bible is of such vast importance
that it even extends beyond a Church issue into the modern
secular world. There are generally three interpretations given
to Genesis 6:1-4 concerning the sons of God:
1.
2.
3.

The Lines of Seth: Sons of God = Seths Line

The Angels View: Sons of God = Fallen Angels
The Secular View: Sons of God = Aliens

These are the three contending views that are embraced by

every person that gives any credibility to the Biblical narrative.
When we are faced with opposing interpretations of scripture,
it is important to let scripture guide us toward the truth by
putting away bias and tradition, and begin by stripping
everything down to the core elements. There is a very easy way
of doing this.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Consult the Strongs Concordance for the original

language and definition.
Use the Bible to locate verses where the same word or
phrase is used.
Read the verses in context.
Compare the context of all verses involved.

By following the above process we can safely separate what

is true from what is false. What we will do in this chapter is
follow this four part process in an effort to piece together what
the Bible is actually referring to when it mentions the sons of
God.

Step 1: Consulting The Strongs

When we use the Strongs Concordance to find the original
wording of the text, we discover that the Hebrew phrase is
bnai ha elohim. It is important to note that certain
manuscripts and authors will render the spelling different, but
it refers to the same sons of God. The most common renderings
are the following:

15

ben elohim
bnai ha elohim
bene haelohim
bar elohim

There may be other variations, but the exact spelling is of

less importance than the actual interpretation. Lets start by
addressing the first part of the phrase, which is the Hebrew
word ben or bnai. The word has several meaning and can refer
to any of the following:

Son
Grandson
Male Descendant

The next word we need to deal with is the Hebrew word

elohim. This is the word which has caused so much division
over the interpretation of the passage. It is commonly taught
that the word elohim means God, but that is not always the
case. It is actually used in two different ways in the Bible. One
is to refer to God, the creator of the universe, and the other is
to refer to the gods as a way of referencing fallen angels. After
completing step one, it is still unclear as to which position is
correct and Biblical.

Step 2: Locating The Verses

In this step we need to locate all of the places in the Bible
where the phrase sons of God is used. Once we find those
verses, we need to repeat Step 1 to make sure we are indeed
viewing the phrase bnai ha elohim. Once we establish that
we are indeed looking at the same exact phrase, we need to
list the verses in which that phrase occurs. If it is a Hebrew
phrase, it will be limited to the Old Testament, as far as
wording is concerned. After doing a little bit of searching, we
find that the exact phrase bnai ha elohim appears only five
times in the Old Testament:

Genesis 6:2
Genesis 6:4
Job 1:6
Job 2:1

16

Job 38:7
Daniel 3:25*

The reason we need to do this is because Hebrew is a much

more precise language than English. Many of the verses that are
taken out of context in English cannot be taken out of context
when referring to the original Hebrew. While that is not always
the case, it is usually a safe way of hunting down the true
intention behind the scriptures. Now that Step 2 is complete,
we can move on to the next step in the process.

Step 3: Reading For Context

When reading, it is important to read the entire chapter for
the complete context. It is unwise to build an entire doctrine
based on a single verse that may be taken out of context. For
the purposes of space in this book, only the verses in question
will be quoted. Because it is Genesis 6:2 and 4 that are in
question, we will be referring to the context of the other
verses to determine what the Bible is referring to.
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among
them. Job 1:6

By examining the above verse in detail we will be able to

make several very important leaps in our progress. There are
several things we need to take into account when reading this
verse in Job.
1.
2.
3.

This event is taking place after the flood.

The sons of God are presenting themselves before the
Lord.
Satan comes with them.

Once again, we are going to consult the Strongs to

understand what the sons of God are actually doing. The
Hebrew word for present is yatsab, which means to stand or to
take a stand. This was not just a presentation of some kind, the
sons of God were coming to stand before the Lord and Satan is
among them.

17

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among
them to present himself before the LORD. Job 2:1

Again, we encounter the same wording and the same event,

during which, Satan comes with them again. Because this event
occurs twice, there are several possibilities as to what is going
on.
1.
2.
3.

Satan is not one of the sons of God, but is timing his

appearance to coincide with their presentation.
The sons of God have an appointed time to stand before
God.
Satan is counted as one of the sons of God and his
presence is used to connect them to the fallen angel.

While this is still inconclusive, it does connect the fallen

adversary of God to the sons of God in some way. There is one
more verse that we need to examine before we can begin to
form a Biblical position on the matter.
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
God shouted for joy? Job 38:7

By reading the above chapter in context, we find that God is

questioning Job about the creation of the earth. In the first six
verses, God is addressing the events preceding the creation of
the earth, but more specifically the laying of the cornerstone.
For those that are not familiar with construction, the laying of
a cornerstone usually represents the starting place of the
building to be constructed. In the verse above, God is informing
Job that the sons of God shouted for Joy during this event.
There are several more conclusions that we can make based on
the context of these verses.

The sons of God existed before earth was created.

The sons of God saw the creation of earth.
The sons of God are not humans.

Finally, there is an Aramaic phrase in the book of Daniel that

is equivalent to the Hebrew phrase bnai ha elohim. In Daniel
3:25, the phrase used is bar elah, which is translated as son
of God.

18

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in

the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of
the fourth is like the Son of God. Daniel 3:25

Depending on which version you choose to read, it is

sometimes translated as a son of God, but it is the
terminology used in the Aramaic that is important. If we read
this entire story in the book of Daniel and keep it in context,
we know that only three humans were thrown into the furnace
by Nebuchadnezzar. It is the gentile king Nebuchadnezzar that
recognizes the fourth as someone that is not human. In fact, it
is he that reveals the nature of the fourth person in the fire.
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God
of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his
angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and
have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that
they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own
God. Daniel 3:28

In the above verse, we clearly read that Nebuchadnezzar

calls this fourth person an angel. Now that we have completed
this step, we can move on to the fourth and final step in the
process.

Step 4: Comparing The Text

Now that we have taken the necessary steps to isolate the
verses and wording in question, we need to make a comparison
of the texts to determine how the terminology is used. When
we compare Job 1, 2, 38, and Daniel 3, we find that the
phrases bnai ha elohim (Hebrew) and bar elah (Aramaic) are
all associated with angels. Because four out of six references
are crystal clear references to angels, the law of interpretation
dictates that we remain consistent when we encounter the
same phrase elsewhere in the text.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. Matthew 18:16

19

If the words in Genesis 6 are not enough to establish the

identity of the sons of God, then we also have the witness of
Job and Daniel who use the phrase in the same manner, using
two different languages (Hebrew and Aramaic). This is why
comparing the text is so important. Without the comparison it
is easy to fall victim to misinterpretation and misapplication of
scripture.

The Breakdown
When we compare the verses that deal with the specific
phrase, the sons of God, we find that they consistently refer
to as angels. If we let the Bible change our beliefs, we do not
need to change the Bible to fit our beliefs. Without any
evidence to the contrary, the only way the sons of God can be
interpreted are as angels. By avoiding this interpretation we
are in fact ignoring the evidence found in the word of God in
favor of our own interpretation. That line of thinking is
prideful, arrogant, and non-Biblical.
It is at this point the The Lines of Seth Theory begins to fall
apart and one must choose whether or not they want to stick to
the Biblical narrative or to rely on the traditional
misinterpretation of events. However, The Lines of Seth Theory
may still have a leg to stand on. In the next chapter we will
investigate the phrase daughters of men and its relation to
non-believers in scripture.

20

Chapter 4: The Daughters of Men

Now that we have examined how the phrase sons of God is
used in the Old Testament, we need to find out what the
phrase, daughters of men refers to. According to The Lines of
Seth Theory, the phrase is a way to refer to the unbelieving
line of Cain, and in some cases, unbelievers in general. In this
chapter we will be following the same process that we used in
the last chapter.

Step 1: Consulting The Strongs

In the Strongs Concordance, the phrase daughters of men
is the Hebrew phrase, benoth Adam. First we will deal with
the Hebrew word benoth, which can mean the following:

Daughter
Granddaughter
Female Descendant

The next word we need to define is Adam. It is commonly

taught that the word Adam just means man, but it can also
be defined as follows:

Man
Mankind
Mortal

It is also important to understand that the Hebrew word

Adam is also a proper noun that can be used as a name. When
we consider it as a proper noun, we are faced with two possible
translations of the Hebrew phrase benoth adam:
1.
2.

Daughters of Men
Daughters of Adam

Now that we have used the Strongs Concordance to

determine howthe phrase was interpreted, our next step is to
locate the Bible verses that use the phrase daughters of men
so that we can compare them for context.

21

Step 2: Locating The Verses

After running a quick search for the phrase daughters of
men, we find that it only occurs three times in scripture. Two
of the three times it appears in the verses that we are
attempting to interpret.

Genesis 6:2
Genesis 6:4
Genesis 24:13

In both Genesis 6:2 and Genesis 6:4, the Hebrew phrase is

benoth Adam. However, in Genesis 24:13, the Hebrew phrase
is benoth ish. Both Adam and ish are used throughout the
Bible to refer to men or mankind in a general sense. We will
see why this is important as we make our way through the rest
of this book.

Step 3: Reading For Context

When we read the above verses for context we find that
Genesis 24:13 definitely refers to mankind in general, and
Genesis 6:2 and 4 possibly refer to mankind in general or Adam
specifically. It is important that we understand the context of
these verses because they will play a vital role in figuring out
what is actually going on in Genesis 6.

Step 4: Comparing The Text

Now that we have the context of all of the verses in
question, we can compare them. When we do we find that the
usage of the words Adam and ish exclude them from referring
to anyone or anything other than mankind in general or in the
case of Adam, Adam specifically. There is also another problem
we run into if we apply The Lines of Seth interpretation to the
word Adam.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the
face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them
Genesis 6:1

22

In this verse we again encounter the word Adam (men),

which according to The Lines of Seth Theory is really a
reference to Cain. The verse literally reads, when Adam began
to multiply on the face of the earth. Moses, inspired by the
Holy Spirit, chose to use the word Adam instead of the word ish
to tell this story, which means there is a reason behind it being
told in such a manner. Our job as students of the Bible is to
figure exactly why Genesis 6 continues to reference Adam and
not Cain or Seth.

The Sons of Men

Because the phrase benoth adam only appears once in
scripture, it is necessary for us to look at a similar Hebrew
phrase. The phrase sons of men that occurs twenty one times
in the Old Testament and two times in the New Testament.
Ben Ish (sons of men) - Hebrew
1.

Psalm 4:2

Ben Adam (sons of men) - Hebrew

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Psalm 31:19
Psalm 33:13
Psalm 57:4
Psalm 58:1
Psalm 145:12
Proverbs 8:31
Ecclesiastes 2:3
Ecclesiastes 2:8
Ecclesiastes 3:10
Ecclesiastes 3:18
Ecclesiastes 3:19
Ecclesiastes 8:11
Ecclesiastes 9:3
Ecclesiastes 9:12
Isaiah 52:14
Jeremiah 32:19
Daniel 10:16
Joel 1:12
Micah 5:7

Ben Enash (sons of men) Aramaic

23

21. Daniel 5:21

Huios Anthropos (sons of men) - Greek

22. Mark 3:28
23. Ephesians 3:5

The reason that all twenty three references are grouped

based on terminology is so that we can isolate the language
closest to that found in Genesis 6. Once we separate these
verses, we see that nineteen out of twenty three uses of the
phrase are a close match, based on their use of the word
Adam.
If the belief that unbelievers were referred to as sons of
men has any merit to it, we also have to call into question two
major Biblical figures. Both Ezekiel and Jesus were referred to
as son of man, and according to The Lines of Seth Theory,
that phrase is used to designate non-believers from believers.
Were Ezekiel and Jesus unbelievers? We know from scripture
that they were clearly believers, one of whom was God in the
flesh, so the teaching that this phrase is a designation for
unbelievers is proven to be false when we use scripture as our
guide.

The Dilemma of Seth

If The Lines of Seth Theory is to be given any merit at all, we
would need to be able to locate at least one verse that refers
to Seth or his lineage as the sons of God. Seth is only
mentioned eight times in the Bible, but not a single verse
refers to him as godly or the son of God.

Genesis 4:25
Genesis 4:26
Genesis 5:3
Genesis 5:4
Genesis 5:6
Genesis 5:7
Genesis 5:8
Luke 3:38

In fact, once we begin digging into scripture, we find that the

only mention of Seth outside of Genesis chapters 4 and 5 occurs
in Luke, in which he is referred to as the son of Adam.

24

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which
was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:38

Here we see Luke refer to Adam as the son of God, but why
not Seth, if Genesis 6 is really referring to the Sethites? The
answer seems to be that neither Seth nor his descendants were
referred to as the sons of God.

The Breakdown
Once again, by following a proven method for correctly
interpreting scripture, we find that everything is not how it is
presented to be when it comes to The Lines of Seth teaching.
In order to accept the theory, one must completely ignore all
of the example provided in scripture and choose to interpret
the text however they see fit. Private interpretation is the
cause for many of the false doctrines that we see floating
around within the church, and simply put, The Lines of Seth
Theory is one of those false doctrines that should be considered
heresy.

25

Chapter 5: The Traditions of Men

Now that we have done our research into this traditional
teaching, we need to understand why it is false, and
considered by many to be heresy. When we can adequately
explain why it is not true, we are better able to share with
others in an intelligent and coherent manner.
Making the word of God of none effect through your
tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things
do ye. Mark 7:13

According to the word of God, it is the traditions of men that

make His word ineffective. Throughout this book we have
looked at what the scriptures say in English, Hebrew, and
Greek. What we have found is that The Lines of Seth Theory
has no scriptural backing whatsoever, which lands it in the
category of being just another tradition of men that is making
the word of God ineffective. The reason that this particular
doctrine is so vital is because it is the key to understanding
much of the Old Testament and several prophecies concerning
the end of the age in the New Testament.

The Sons of God

As we have learned, the Hebrew phrase bnai ha elohim is
only used in the Old Testament to refer to angels. According to
those that hold to The Lines of Seth teaching, this same phrase
refers to the sons of Seth. There are a few problems with
this interpretation:
1.
2.
3.

Seth is never referred to as elohim.

Elohim is never referred to as Seth.
Elohim is only translated as God/gods.

Because of these facts, we cannot interpret the phrase sons

of God as a reference to the sons of Seth. In addition to the
above fact, Genesis 6 contains no references at all to the name
Seth in any part of the text. In order to hold the belief that the
sons of God were actually the sons of Seth, we have to
disregard scripture and add the reference to Seth in for
ourselves.

26

The Daughters of Men

When we breakdown the phrase benoth Adam we find that
the word Adam is only used as a proper noun or translated as
the plural for mankind. When we examine The Lines of Seth
interpretation, we find similar problems to those found with
the translation sons of God.
1.
2.
3.

Cain is never referred to as Adam.

Adam is never referred to as Cain.
Adam is only translated as Adam/men/mankind.

Once again, the facts prove that we cannot interpret Adam

to mean Cain. If we are to accept The Lines of Seth theory, we
will have to add Cain to Genesis 6, because it does not appear
in the text.

The Line of Righteousness

According to The Lines of Seth doctrine, Seths entire line
was righteous, even though this cannot be found in scripture.
There are also several Biblical facts that point to this being a
false interpretation of scripture:
The Salvation of Noah With the exception of Noah and his
family, the entire lineage of Seth was wiped out in the flood.
If the entire lineage of Seth was righteous, that would mean
that God destroys both the righteous and the wicked without
prejudice. This action is contrary to what we know from
scripture, and that is God will not destroy the righteous with
the wicked.
The Daughters of God According to Genesis 6 it was the
sons of God that began taking the daughters of men, and
making wives of them. There is no mention of the daughters
of God taking part in these events.
The Sons of Men Much like the above stated problem, the
sons of men are not mentioned as taking part in these events.

According to the Lines of Seth theory, it was the sons of God

(Seths Line) that began taking wives of the daughters of men
(Cains Line). The theory teaches that this mixing was
forbidden by God, but if that is true, then it is the line of Seth

27

that is responsible for initiating rebellion against Gods law.

Rebellion against God is not an action we would expect from a
righteous line of people.
There are those that put forth the argument that all
believers are considered to be the sons of God, and so
Genesis 6 simply refers to believers. Once again, when we
apply the lens of scripture, we find a completely different
story.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name: John 1:12

There are only two ways to become a son of God. One way is
by being a direct creation of God, and the other way is
receiving Christ. If Seth was not a direct creation by God and
Christ had not yet been resurrected, how did Seths line come
to be called the sons of God? Something else that is worthy of
pointing out is that if the phrase referred to the sons of Seth, it
means that they initiated the disobedience to God, not Cains
line. The scripture indicates that the sons of God took wives of
all that they chose. There are also two more questions that
arise from this theory:

Why did Seths entire lineage except for Noahs family

die in the flood?
Why were they in the company of Satan in Job Chapters 1
and 2?

We can clearly see that the evidence so far argues against

the sons of God actually being the sons of Seth. Another major
stumbling block for the theory is lack of scriptural support.
Seth may have been the replacement for Abels death, but
nowhere does it say that his entire line was godly. Another
verse that adds a nail to this coffin is found in Hebrews:
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he
took on him the seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2:16

Here the Bible refers to the seed of Abraham, but we do not

assume that the Bible really means someone other than
Abraham, so why do some people make the same assumption
about Genesis 6? We know the Bible is talking about the Nation

28

of Israel specifically. Why do some try to change the Word of

God to fit their own personal beliefs? The Bible says what it
means and means what it says. When it refers to the sons of
Elohim (God), it is not referring to anyone other than God.
When it says daughters of Adam, it is not referring to anyone
other than Adam. When it says Abraham, it is not referring to
anyone other than Abraham.
Gods Word
Sons of God
Daughters of Adam

Mans Word
Sons of Seth
Daughters of Cain

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou
be found a liar. Proverbs 30:6

Genealogy of Seth
Seth is the son that God blessed Adam and Eve with after
Cain killed Abel. There is no scriptural reference to Seths line
being godly, but it seems to be an invention of man to twist the
scripture to fit their beliefs instead of twisting their beliefs to
fit scripture. Lets take a look at Seths line starting with Adam
and concluding with Noah.

Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enos Mortal
Cainan Sorrow
Mahalaleel Blessed God
Jared Come Down
Enoch Teaching, Educated, or Dedicated
Methuselah His Death Shall Bring
Lamech Despairing, Poor, or Made Low
Noah Rest or Comfort

We know that Seths line is continued through Noah, Shem,

Ham, and Japheth, but what we do not know is where their
wives came from. It is possible that the sons of Noah married
the daughters of Cain, but that would make the flood pointless
to all that hold this belief. If Gods intentions were to wipe out
the earth because of this mixing, that means He would have
failed by only saving a group of people in mixed marriages.
There is no Biblical evidence to support the theory that Seths

29

line could not mix with the line of Cain. It is entirely possible
that Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth had wives that came from
the line of Cain, but again, the Bible is completely silent on the
issue. Genesis 4:26 also offers us an interesting insight to
something else about Seths line.
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. Genesis 4:26

Supporters of the Lines of Seth view use this verse to support

the theory that Seths line was godly because Enos began
calling upon the name of the Lord. If that is true, who did
Adam, Cain, Abel, and Seth call upon?
The traditional Jewish interpretation of this verse, though,
implies that it marked the beginning of idolatry, i.e. that
men started dubbing "Lord" things that were mere creatures.
This is because the previous generations, notably Adam, had
already "begun calling upon the name of the Lord", which
forces us to interpret huchal not as "began" but as the
homonym "profaned". In this light, Enos suggests the notion of
a humanity (Enoshut) thinking of itself as an absolute rather
6
than in relation to God.

As we start to unravel the myth of Seths line being

righteous, we begin to see that this was not the traditional
Jewish belief. Seths son Enos is viewed as the first idolater
and the rest of Seths sons initiate disobedience to God by
making wives of Cains daughters, if we hold to that view. Are
these the actions that we would expect from a godly line?

The Line of Evil

According to the Bible the sons of God took women of their
own choosing. This implies, and is backed by cultural tradition,
that the women had no say in the matter. If this is true, then it
is not the women from the line of Cain that are disobeying, and
there is no mention of the sons of Cain taking part in these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enos_(Bible)

30

forbidden marriages. In addition to these facts, the Bible gives

us a unique look into Cains relationship with God.
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare
Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1

The reason that this verse is so important is because there

are people that twist scripture and make the claim that Cain is
the son of Eve and Satan, which is not supported by the Bible
at all. That theory is known as Serpent Seed and is covered in
depth in my book The Serpent Seed: Debunked. There is a clear
order of events listed in the above verse:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Adam has sex with his wife.

Cain is conceived.
Cain is born.
Cain is a man.
Cain is from the Lord.

According to the Bible, Cain

Satan, but a fully human male,
sinful nature. Because all men
overcome by jealousy when his
God.

is not the evil hybrid son of

which makes him subject to a
are capable of sin, Cain was
sacrifice was not accepted by

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And
Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. Genesis 4:5

The phrase very wroth is the Hebrew word charah, which

means: to burn with anger. There are all kinds of reasons that
people will offer as to why Cains offering was not accepted,
but the only thing the Bible tells us is that it was not right for
some reason or another.
And the LORD 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. Genesis 4:6-7

The above verse is important because God is speaking

directly to Cain in an attempt to comfort him even after
rejecting his offering. This shows that there is a relationship

31

with God in which they are on speaking terms. Many times this
fact is neglected when the story of Cain and Able is taught.
Even after this talk with God, Cain is still made and kills his
brother.
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass,
when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel
his brother, and slew him. Genesis 4:8

The above verse is pretty straight forward in that Cain killed

Abel. Contrary to popular belief, there is no mention of a rock
or the method that Cain used to kill Abel, as is commonly
taught and depicted. This is Cains only recorded sin in the
Bible. As we continue reading, we encounter Cains punishment
for his sin.
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened
her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
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. Genesis 4:11-12

The curse that God placed on Cain directly affected his

livelihood. In Genesis 4:2 we learn that Cain was a tiller of the
ground, and because of this curse he could no longer do what
he was good at. In addition to him not being able to grow crops
as he once did, he was cursed to be a fugitive and a vagabond,
meaning he would constantly be on the run and not able to
settle down. However, Cain spoke up and plead for a sentence
that was less harsh.
And Cain said unto the LORD, 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.
Genesis 4:13-14

In our culture, repentance involves an apology or saying, I

repent, but that was not always the case in the past. All
through the Bible we find that repentance was not the same as
it is now, but involved the following actions as well:

Dressing in sackcloth.
Putting ashes on the head.

32

Tearing of the clothes.

Based on the context and series of events, the above verses

do indeed indicate that Cain was repenting for his actions.
Notice that being hidden from Gods face was never part of the
curse. The hiding of the face was an acknowledgment of shame
for wrongdoing. Once Cain says his part, God has compassion on
him and does something unique that only occurs three times in
all of scripture.
And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth
Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the
LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill
him. Genesis 4:15

Once again, we encounter a verse that has garnered all kinds

of speculation from those that do not use the Strongs
Concordance to verify the meaning of the Hebrew words used
in this verse. There are those that believe that this mark was a
curse and some go even further and say that this curse involved
Cains skin becoming black in order to promote racism.
As we examine the verse, we find that many of the false
teachings involving the mark of Cain fall apart when compared
to scripture. The first part of the verse reveals that God is
promising to take sevenfold vengeance on anyone that kills
Cain. The second half of the verse confirms that the mark of
Cain was a positive thing because it only occurs three times in
scripture:
1.
2.
3.

Genesis 4:15
Ezekiel 9:4
Revelation 7:3

When we look at the examples in Ezekiel and Revelation, it is

clear that Gods mark was a visible sign of protection from
death placed on the forehead. According to the Strongs
Concordance, the word for mark used in Genesis 4:15 is as
follows:

Oth: a sign, pledge, promise, miracle, token

The Hebrew word oth in Genesis 4:15 is likely the origin of

the English word oath, which has the same definition. If can

33

was as evil as he is made out to be, why would God place a

protective mark on him? Cains crime was an emotionally
charged crime of passion, and even in our modern society we
have laws concerning crimes of passion:
A defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden
anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of
"premeditation. This usually arises in murder or attempted
murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her
"beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots
7
or stabs one or both of the coupled pair."

As we previously learned, Cain burned with anger because his

offering was rejected by God. If the feeling of being betrayed
by a spouse or lover can lead to a crime of passion, it is
entirely reasonable to conclude that a face to face rejection by
the Creator of the universe would definitely lead to a similar
emotional reaction.
Cains response was definitely based on emotion, but it was
still a punishable action. Because Cain was the first person to
murder another person, his actions presented the opportunity
for him to be the very first example of Gods grace and mercy.
As we continue reading, we find more evidence that the mark
was not a curse.
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and
dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew
his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded
a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his
son, Enoch. 4:16-17

In Genesis 4:11-12, part of Cains curse was to be a fugitive

and a vagabond. Before we continue, lets define those two
words and see what insights can be gained when we compare
them to scripture.
Fugitive: A person who is fleeing, from prosecution,
8
intolerable circumstances, etc.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fugitive

34

Vagabond: Wandering from place to place without any

settled home; nomadic.

Now that we have defined these two words, we can clearly

see that Genesis 4:16-17 does not reflect these two portions of
the original curse. God placing His mark on Cain allowed him to
settle down, take a wife, have a son, and build a city. None of
which would have been possible if these parts of the curse had
not been lifted. When we look at the entire context of the
story we see Gods grace, mercy, and compassion on Cain, just
as He has on all of us when we sin and repent.

What Is Repentance?
In order to make the argument that Cain repented, we need
to once again look at the Biblical text for evidence. We briefly
touched on the subject previously, but what exactly is
repentance?
Repent: To feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past
conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past
9
action, attitude, etc.

Contrary to popular belief, repenting has nothing to do with

the uttering of words, but with how someone feels emotionally
about past actions. As previously touched upon, Cain hid his
face from the Lord, which indicates the feeling of shame for his
actions, which fits the definition for repentance.

The Mark of Cain

In order to make this theory to fit, those that hold this view
need to make their own changes to words in the actual Biblical
text. Cain killed Abel, so it is assumed that his entire line is
ungodly, but God forgave Cain and placed a mark of protection
on him. Contrary to popular belief, this mark was not the result
of a curse (Genesis Chapter 4), but a sign of Gods grace and
mercy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repent

35

Cain seems to get a bad rap for his actions, but God forgave
him. Not only did God forgive him, but also He placed a mark
on Cain and promised to avenge him sevenfold (Genesis 4:15) if
anyone killed him. This mark does not sound like the mark of a
curse, but the mark of Gods blessing. It is true that Cain made
a mistake, but that does not make his entire line ungodly, as
some would have us believe. Cain is a perfect example of Gods
grace and mercy. Lets look at what the Bible says about the
people in Cains lineage.

Cain Possession or Spear

Enoch Teaching, Educated, or Dedicated
Irad Donkey, City of Witness, or Fugitive
Mehujael Struck by God
Methusael Man Who Asked God
Lamech Despairing, Poor, or Made Low
Jubal Ram
*Naamah (daughter) Pleasant
Tubal-Cain Worldly Possession

This is the last mention of Cains genealogy in the Bible,

which becomes important in refuting the many false doctrines
surrounding Cains bloodline. Some scholars would have us
believe that because Cain killed Abel, his entire line is cursed,
but that simply is not true. The Bible does not make any
reference to Cains line being cursed or any commandment for
them not to mix with Seths line.

Logical Problems With The Theory

For The Lines of Seth Theory to hold up, one needs to add
their personal opinion to the text and dismiss actual scripture.
The following questions need to be answered if we are to
accept the view that Cains line was ungodly:

Why were Seths sons taking wives of their own

choosing from the daughters of Cain?
Why were Seths sons disobeying a direct command
of God if they were godly?
Why not just say the sons of Seth and daughters of Cain,
if that is what the text is referring to?

36

Seths line is the one that seems to be acting against the will
of God if we actually read the story. It seems as though the
daughters of Cain had no say in the matter according to the
text, and the sons of Cain did not participate in this event.
Everyone in Cains line seems to be completely innocent as far
as the text of Genesis 6:1-4 is concerned. The facts seem to
support the exact opposite of what the Lines of Seth Theory
teaches. According to scripture, Cains line seems to be neutral
in these events and Seths sons seem to initiate the defiance of
God. The fact that innocent people die in the flood seems
contrary to Gods nature and the revelation that He will not
destroy the good along with the evil when it comes to
judgment (Genesis 18:25). According to Genesis 4:16 Cain went
to the land of Nod to the east of Eden. Either Cains daughters
returned to Cains original home or Seths sons journeyed to
Nod to seek out the daughters of Cain. The Bible seems to
specifically point out the fact that Cain separated himself from
the rest of his family before getting married and having
children, further complicating the possibility that this event
was just two groups of people mixing without permission.
Another problem with this theory is that Genesis 5:4 states
that Adam had other sons and daughters. Why exactly would
the sons of Seth specifically seek out the daughters of Cain and
ignore the other women around them? Again, there are too
many problems that arise when we try to manipulate the text
in order to fit our view. If we hold to this particular view we
are no long relying on scripture to shape our belief, but are
actually preaching our own gospel. While we are on the subject
of Cain, lets explore a few other false teachings about this
man of God.

The Serpent Seed Theory

There is another belief that Eve had sex with Lucifer in the
garden, and as a result conceived Cain. This is an extremely
dangerous view because it requires you to put your word and
belief above the Word of God. God knows in advance what
people are going to say and do, so one only needs to look at the
scripture to determine if what they are being taught is the
truth.

37

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his
brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works
were evil, and his brother's righteous. 1 John 3:12

When we take one verse alone without comparing it to the

rest of the Bible, we run the risk of taking things out of
context. This is a perfect example of how someone can take a
verse out of context and add their own story behind it. Cain
being of that wicked one does not mean that the union of
Eve and Lucifer conceived him. This is not consistent with
scripture for three reasons:

God has a history of destroying the half-breed

angels/humans.
God specifically puts a mark on Cain so that nobody
would kill him.
God promises to take sevenfold vengeance on anyone
that does kill Cain.

All three of these are inconsistent with all of Gods other

commands concerning the offspring of fallen angels and
humans. In order to clear up the confusion, we can turn to the
words of Jesus concerning the Pharisees:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father
ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode
not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he
speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and
the father of it. John 8:44

Jesus calls the Pharisees sons of the devil, but He is not

talking in a physical sense. In order to understand the context,
we need to understand that this is an insult and not a
genealogy.
But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by
interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the
deputy from the faith. Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,)
filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. And said, O
full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil,
thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to
pervert the right ways of the Lord. Acts 13:8-10

Here again, Paul calls Elymas the child of the devil, but does
Paul think the devil is literally Elymas father? It is highly

38

unlikely. Again, it is an insult for Jews who consider themselves

to be people of God, to be called children of the devil.
Thankfully Jesus puts this entire issue in plain language for us:
He that 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. 1
John 3:8

As we can clearly see, whoever sins is considered to be of

the devil. In the same context, this is what John is saying
about Cain in 1 John 3:12, but what proof do we have that Cain
was not the son of Lucifer?
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that
they received the word with all readiness of mind, and
searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11

Lets search our Bibles and see if these things are so. If Cain
is the son of Lucifer our Bible should agree 100% with what is
being taught, but if this view is wrong, the Bible will disagree
with it 100%.
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare
Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Genesis 4:1

This single verse seems to slap the entire theory in the face.
The verse gives us four elements that rule out Cain being the
son of Lucifer:

Adam and Eve are no longer in Eden.

Adam has sex with Eve.
Eve conceives after having sex with Adam.
Eve declares that she received her son from the Lord.

The idea that Cain is the son of Lucifer is in direct conflict

with the Word of God. Usually when something is in direct
conflict with the Word of God, it is not of God. Mans theory
says the following:

Eve was in the Garden when she had sex with Lucifer.
Eve conceived Cain as a result of this act.

39

Eves son is from Lucifer and not God.

Everything is in opposition to what the scripture tells us. Also

make note that Eve specifically says that she received Cain
from the Lord, but no such statement is made about Abel or
Seth. It seems as though these exact words were put there for
the purpose of refuting the belief that Cain was the son of the
devil. This theory is arrogant and prideful because it puts the
word of man above the Word of God. Be careful of anyone
teaching this false view, and question everything else they
teach from that point on.
Gods Word
Adam + Eve = Cain
Cain conceived outside garden
Received a man from the Lord

Mans Word
Lucifer + Eve = Cain
Cain conceived inside garden.
Received a man from Lucifer

When we break down the differences between Gods Word

and mans word, we can clearly see if it lines up with scripture
or not. If the words do not appear in the original Hebrew or
Greek, the English translation does not make reference to it,
and the Bible contradicts the idea, we can be assured that man
is preaching his own gospel and not the Word of God.
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out
into the world. 1 John 4:1

For a more in depth study on The Serpent Seed Theory, its

origin, anti Semitic nature, and why it is false according to the
Bible, please read The Serpent Seed: Debunked.

Men of God And Murder

Does murder negate us from becoming a man or woman of
God? Those that view Cain as ungodly because he committed
murder have not dug deep enough into scripture yet. Several of
the men that God chooses to do His will, have murder in their
background.

Abraham - He took his trained servants and killed an

army of men to get his nephew back. (Genesis 14:14-16)

40

Simeon and Levi - They killed every single man in a city

and took the women and children as slaves because the
king raped their sister. The Levites eventually become
the priests. (Genesis 34:25-29)
Moses - He murdered an Egyptian and buried him in the
sand so no one would know. (Exodus 2:12)
David - He got another mans wife pregnant, and then
murdered the man so no one would find out. (2 Samuel
11)

All of these men were still used by God even after they
committed these sins. The lesson with Cains sin is not that God
will curse us forever, but that God is forgiving to the point that
He will personally place His protection over us. The second
lesson is that murder does not disqualify us from being a man
or woman of God.

Does The Antichrist Come From Cain?

This is another one of those views that puts the pride of man
above the Word of God. There are some that say the Antichrist
can be traced through Cains line, further adding to the false
theory that Cains line is ungodly. In order to believe that the
Antichrist emerges from Cains line, we have to take up the
position that our own word is truth regardless of what the Bible
says.
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the
longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the
ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were
saved by water. 1 Peter 3:20

Peter specifically states that only eight souls were saved. If

we count, we know that they were Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth,
and all of their wives. Animals are never referred to as having
souls. Furthermore, we have the following scripture to support
what Peter said:
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon
the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the
creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were
destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and
they that were with him in the ark. Genesis 7:23

41

The Bible specifically says that only Noah and those in the ark
with him remained alive. If Cains genealogy ends with the
Great Flood, how is it then possible to trace the Antichrist
through his lineage? If we are to buy into the Antichrist coming
from the line of Cain, the following questions need to be
answered:

Is the Bible lying when it states that only eight people

survived the flood?
Are we willing to call Gods Word a lie in order to make
mans word correct?

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou
be found a liar. Proverbs 30:6

Are The Kenites Descendants of Cain?

The more we explore these false teachings about Cain, the
stranger the ideas get. One such false idea is that Cain is the
father of the Kenites and as such, the Kenites are cursed.
Racist groups and individuals that propose the idea that the
Kenites are either African or Jewish, depending on who is
teaching this theory, usually hold this view. Genesis Chapter 4
is the only scriptural reference to Cains genealogy. The flood
in Genesis Chapter 6 wipes out all of mankind except Noahs
family, as we have already discovered using the Bible. How is it
possible that Cain fathered the Kenites if the Kenites are not
mentioned until after the flood? According to the Bible, there is
absolutely no truth to this belief.
The Kenites as a nation are mentioned exactly seven times in
the Bible and not a single reference mentions them being the
descendants of Cain. Associating them with Cain is mans doing
in order to encourage racism and self-interest. When we look
into the words of the Bible, we can actually trace the true
origin of the Kenites.
Moses father in law Jethro was a Midianite and so was his
other father in law Hobab. Hobab was referred to as the son
of Raguel the Midianite (Numbers 10:29). In Judges 4:1 we
find that Heber is of the children of Hobab, but he is referred
to as a Kenite. If this is true, the Kenite line started with
someone from the line of Hobab and not the line of Cain, as

42

some would have us believe. Understanding the terminology of

the time is very important when tracing genealogy. The words
grandfather, grandmother, grandson, and granddaughter are
never used in the Bible. Everyone is referred to as a father,
mother, son, or daughter regardless of how many generations
apart they are. Heber may have been Hobabs great grandson,
great great grandson, or even farther in the generational line
for all we know, but the Bible is 100% clear that the Kenites
started with someone in the line of Hobab.

Gods Grace and Mercy

Because Cain committed the first murder, many Christians
view him and his entire lineage as evil and somehow
disqualified from grace and mercy. Unfortunately, this
tradition has been passed on as if is scripture, even though
scripture says the opposite. According to scripture:
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. Matthew 12:31

If God does not change, then this New Testament verse

would also apply to Cain. After thoroughly examining the text
we find that there is absolutely no basis in assuming that Cains
entire line was evil or that the women in his line were referred
to as the daughters of men. The entire Lines of Seth Theory
is a completely fabricated story that was created in an attempt
to explain away what is known as the Angel Theory, which
suggests that fallen angels had offspring with human women.
Those that oppose the Angel Theory do not base their beliefs
on actual scripture, but rely on tradition to make their case.

The Breakdown
After conducting a thorough examination of the scriptures in
conjunction with a Strongs Concordance, one has to wonder
how such a non-Biblical theory became so popular among so
many Christians. In reality it is likely a combination of
accepting tradition as scripture and failure to challenge a
preacher about the doctrine that they are teaching. Often in
church there is a herd mentality that encourages all attendees

43

to follow all of the teaching without question. This is a

tradition that needs to be broken within the body of Christ
because it is not Biblical and it leads to non-Biblical doctrine
being passed down.

44

Beyond Flesh and Blood

The Ultimate Guide To Angels and Demons

Beyond Flesh and Blood: The Ultimate

Guide To Angels and Demons goes far
beyond the average Sunday School
teaching on spiritual warfare. Minister
Fortson takes an in depth look at the
origin of both angels and demons, and
attempts to answer the tough questions
on the minds of many Christians.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

When were angels created?

When did Lucifer rebel against God?
Where do angels fit into human history?
Are fallen angels and demons the same thing?
Were the gods of mythology really fallen angels?
What do angels have to do with modern UFO sightings?
Is our current scientific pursuit of transhumanism a
spiritual issue?

These questions are just the beginning of the journey. As the

book progresses, Minister Fortson tackles many other areas of
the supernatural, such as the origin of ghosts, vampires, and
our modern obsession with UFOs and aliens. You will also
discover what our modern pursuit of creating hybrids has in
common with various ancient mythologies from around the
world, and the possible origin of these pursuits.
Throughout the book, Minister Fortson explores historical text
from many different cultures and belief systems in order to
find out if the Hebrews were the only culture to encounter
both angels and demons. The Bible tells us that our war is not
with flesh and blood, but what does that statement really
mean? Is the spiritual war crossing over into the physical realm?
One thing is for sure, after you read this book, you will never
look at the world we live in the same again.

45

As The Days of Noah Were

The Sons of God and The Coming Apocalypse

What does the Bible really say about the

last days on earth? Who were the sons of
God? What were the strange beings
known as the Nephilim? Did God really
hide everything we need to know about
the last days in the book of Genesis? Step
by step we will journey through the days
of Noah and piece together our coming
future. We will explore stories from
Sumer, Greece, and various other cultures to fill in the missing
pieces to one of the biggest mysteries on our planet. Who were
the sons of God and will they return?
I recommend reading: 'As The Days of Noah Were', by Minister
Dante Fortson. 'As The Days' is a well researched text,
wonderfully fascinating. I've read a number of books on
supernatural phenomenon - how such phenomenon manifests
within our more understood physical reality - this book is
among the best. C. Heidt
One thing I appreciate about this book (and Dante's ministry in
general) is how he challenges believers to read the Scripture
for themselves to verify what they're being taught and not just
believe what they are taught because they're told it's true,
when the teaching is nothing more than the traditions of men.
L. Holmes
This book is amazing in its premise and conclusions. Very well
researched and documented by the author. Literally, my view
of the world and the Bible changed due to this book. Stacey
Harper
After hundreds of hours of podcast listening to Dante and
many other well educated hard working researchers, I found his
book to be very well organized, full of vital information, and
easy to read and understand. I learned a great deal more than I
had previously digested from all the various podcasts and books
which I'd poured through after my introduction to this
"alternative" thinking which I know was brought to me by the
Holy Spirit of God. Christopher Moffitt

46