The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

Well, let's take all three verses one by one:
Genesis 3:14-5: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, ...  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." Notice that, while it does say the serpent does have a seed (it doesn't actually say that this seed existed yet; it is still consistent with the idea of a future seed), the verse takes pains to separate the Serpent's seed and Eve's seed, essentially saying that they are two separate things. There is no reason to assume from this verse that they shared seed.

You do realize that women don't have seed right? That that scripture is referring to Jesus who was born independent of a man, hence "woman's seed". Since there was to be enmity between the serpent seed and the woman's seed, are you saying that this enmity was Jesus between Jesus and snakes?

It is also worth noting that, in the verse before it, Eve's words heavily imply that it the temptation was not, in fact, sexual in nature: "And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Wrong, it doesn't imply that at all.

beguile

To beguile is defined as to deceive someone in a cunning way or to enchant someone and make him become attracted to you.

An example of beguile is when a politician uses clever words to trick people.
An example of beguile is a stunning woman wearing a slinky dress.

 Besides beguile and seduce are synonymous.

Genesis 5:1-5: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Where, exactly, does it say that these geneologies must be of the firstborn son like you say so? Bloodlines do not have to follow the firstborn son. Granted, they are usually given preferential treatment, but this isn't usually an iron law in cases like this. Even if things were as you say, why couldn't, after Cain spent his life walking the earth, Adam have considered Seth a de facto firstborn son, since Abel was dead, and Cain was elsewhere?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso...06494.html

In biblical Hebrew usage the term bekhor, "firstborn [male]," and its derivatives, are somewhat ambiguous. The characterization of the human bekhor as reshit on, "the first fruit of vigor" (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; cf. Ps. 78:51; 105:36), stresses the relation to the father and adumbrates the first-born's status of principal heir and successor of his father as head of the family. At the same time, the specification that the bekhor be "the first issue of the womb" (peter reḥem; Ex. 13:2, 12, 15, etc.; cf. Num. 8:16), which reflects the religious significance of the first products of the procreative process in human and animal life, stresses the biological link to the mother. Whereas it was usually possible to ascertain the paternity of human beings, this clearly did not hold true of animals, and there was never any attempt to base animal cultic regulations on considerations of specific paternity.

Two rather distinct conceptions can be made out: a socio-legal one, which assigned exceptional status to the first male in the paternal line; and a cultic one which assigned special status to the first male issue of the maternal line. The socio-legal conception was preserved in legislation governing inheritance. In cultic legislation, the bekhor of the legal tradition was required – in order for the cultic regulations to apply – to be also the first issue of his mother's womb.

According to Deuteronomy 21:15–17, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son as his principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance. (Pishenayim means "two-thirds" [see Zech. 13:8], but the intention of the text is that the firstborn shall get whatever fraction a double portion may come to; in the case posited in the text, where there are only two sons, it is two-thirds, but where there are three sons, it is one-half, and so on; cf. the correct inference drawn in BB 123a from I Chron. 5:1ff., which expressly terms Joseph's status as "firstborn" – Joseph received twice the portion of any of his brothers [Gen. 48:5, 22; ef. Rashbam to BB 123a].) This obligation was to apply irrespective of the status of the son's mother in a polygamous family. This inheritance right is termed mishpat ha-bekhorah, "the rule of the birthright" (Deut. 21:17), and the legal process by which the first-born son was so designated is expressed by the verb yakkir "he shall acknowledge." Undoubtedly the acknowledgment involved certain formal, legal acts which are not indicated in biblical literature. In a different context, God acknowledged Israel as his firstborn (Ex. 4:22; ef. Jer. 31:8). A son, addressing his father, might also refer to his own status as firstborn son (Gen. 27:19, 32).

It is evident from the composition of biblical genealogies that the status of bekhor was a pervasive feature of Israelite life. In many such lists there is a formula which specifies the status of the first-listed son. For example, Numbers 1:20: "The sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, were…" (cf. e.g., Gen. 35:23; 36:15; Ex. 6:14, and frequently in the genealogies of I Chron.). Even in genealogies which do not specifically indicate the status of the first son listed, it is clear that he is the firstborn. There are suggestions in the Bible that primogeniture carried certain duties and privileges in addition to the estate rights (see Gen. 27; 48:13; Judg. 8:20; I Chron. 26:10, etc.). The second in line was termed ha-mishneh (I Sam. 17:13; II Sam. 3:3; I Chron. 5:12).

1 John 3:12: "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." Why can this not be a metaphor? It's pretty well established that the Hebrews in those days would call any sufficiently righteous man "a Son of God," without actually implying any real divine parentage. Indeed, it was fairly common to use 'Sons of God' as shorthand for the offspring of Seth. Why is it so impossible to believe that saying Cain was 'of that wicked one' is a similar metaphor? I've asked this question before and have not received an answer.
Also, note that, in any mentions of Cain in the Bible, none imply any other parentage. One would expect that Cain and Abel having separate fathers would be mentioned at some point; it would certainly give Cain a more interesting motivation. But, of course, you just said God is willing to hide crucial so they can only be found using insane troll logic like yours. In this case, I may ask: what would be the point of even bothering to make claims like this that require some really wonky ways of looking at things just to understand what the evidence is meant to be? A wise man once said 'The invisible and non-existent look very alike.'

Insane troll logic? Just remember you're arguing in favor of there being a talking snake...

The bible is not using a metaphor when it refers to the descendants of Adam as "sons of God", Adam was created by God. Christians are sons and daughters of God through adoption... again, no metaphor.

Ephesians 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

So again, where did these daughters of man come from?

You see, Huggy Bear, there's a reason I didn't bother talking about the other two verses. It's very difficult for me to see how they could square with your interpretation. I have read writings by people who claim that governments are corporations, people are legally equivalent to boats, and you can get a 'get out of the Rule of Law free card' with semantics and putting random punctuation in your name, and they still make more sense than your arguments.

*emphasis mine*

Not sure what point your trying to make but the U.S. IS a corporation... that's a fact.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

(15) “United States” means—
      (A) a Federal corporation;
      (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
      © an instrumentality of the United States.