It was prophesied that the seed of a woman would crush the head of the evil one (Genesis 3:15), after the evil one will have bruised the Savior's heel, so who was this "seed of the woman," has He come yet, was He Dumuzid (Tammuz), Adonis, Horus, Hercules, Jesus Christ, or somebody else, or has He yet to appear on Earth, and from where/whom did the ancients get this idea about a incarnate conqueror of the evil one?

from where/whom did the ancients get this idea about a incarnate conqueror of the evil one?

they watched the sky:

darkness/night comes,
then light defeats darkness.
and when winter comes,
the summer light defeats the winter darkness.
and so on.

it's like that everywhere, also in ourself:
the eternal battle between good and evil.

we (the savior) will defeat darkness/ignorance/unconsciousness.

The implication of "seed of the woman" is a miraculous conception, which is what Semiramis claimed for Dumuzid (Tammuz), it was ancient knowledge of an incarnation of a specific conqueror of the evil one, so that cannot be all of us, obviously.

It was prophesied that the seed of a woman would crush the head of the evil one (Genesis 3:15), after the evil one will have bruised the Savior's heel, so who was this "seed of the woman," has He come yet, was He Dumuzid (Tammuz), Adonis, Horus, Hercules, Jesus Christ, or somebody else, or has He yet to appear on Earth, and from where/whom did the ancients get this idea about a incarnate conqueror of the evil one?

Assuming Moses wrote Genesis, why wouldn't he just come out and say that a savior or messiah will eventually come to earth. Through all of Moses's writings, he never refers directly to a messiah or son of God. He doesn't even hint at it.

Gen 3:14-15
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
KJV

If he really was reffering to a Savior, why the vague statements which make no sense. You could interpret " it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" any way you'd like, depending on your beliefs.

Why did other ancient cultures have this concept of an incarnated conqueror of the evil one?

The concepts of good and evil are independent of a God. Someone can be moral, or good, and not worship a God. Someone can be evil, such as Hitler, simply because he wanted to rule the world and would kill anyone who got in his way. Not because he didn't do what God wanted.

It just baffles me why Moses never mentioned a Messiah or Savior of Men anywhere in the Old Testament. He never even came close to it. If Moses was truly inspired to write about it, he would have. If Isaiah could prophesize a messiah, then Moses should have been able to.

But still, why the vague language. If your going to prophesize a Messiah, come out and say it. What's so hard about writing: "In the future, a Messiah will come to this world to redeem the world of Satan." Done. No controversy. No interpretation. It all would have been right there.

Apparantly we have to play some kind of decoding game with everything in the Bible because everything's a symbol. The parting of the red sea: symbol. Adam and Eve: symbol. Is any part of the Bible real, or is it all just symbolic?

The prophets, such as Isaiah and Zechariah, as well as King David, would give the predicted details about the incarnation of Jesus, and Moses knew the story of Abraham and Isaac, how God told Abraham to kill his innocent son as an act of obedience, which presaged what the Father would do to His Son, willingly accepted by the Son, just like Issac seems to have accepted his apparent fate at the hand of his father, so the concept of the sacrificed son, in relationship to the lamb sacrifice (which God provided in lieu of Issac), was probably quite real to the ancient Hebrews.

It was prophesied that the seed of a woman would crush the head of the evil one (Genesis 3:15), after the evil one will have bruised the Savior's heel, so who was this "seed of the woman," has He come yet, was He Dumuzid (Tammuz), Adonis, Horus, Hercules, Jesus Christ, or somebody else, or has He yet to appear on Earth, and from where/whom did the ancients get this idea about a incarnate conqueror of the evil one?

The story is basically a reference to Marduk and his slaying of Tiamat, (the serpent). He crushed her head with his heel, chopped her up and turned the pieces into the earth. The 'seed of a woman' was Marduk, (Tiamat was the mother god). The biblical writers got their "idea" from older Babylonian stories.

There you go.

No, it's about a human woman and her son.

Is any part of the Bible real, or is it all just symbolic?

Many parts are at the same time both symbolic and real.

The biblical writers got their "idea" from older Babylonian stories.

But where did the Babylonians get the idea?

From Ukush (Cush), who learned it from his father Ham.

The story is basically a reference to Marduk and his slaying of Tiamat, (the serpent). He crushed her head with his heel, chopped her up and turned the pieces into the earth. The 'seed of a woman' was Marduk, (Tiamat was the mother god). The biblical writers got their "idea" from older Babylonian stories.

There you go.

The evil seed of the "serpent"......
It's descendants came through Cain.
The "older" stories are lies that are straightened out by the Scriptures, through prophetic revelation.

The "seed" of the woman is Jesus Christ.....the "good" seed in the field.
Marduk was a false Babylonian god.
He was the chief deity of the Babylonians in the time of Nebuchadnezzar.

"They" didn't slay anything, they invented the false Gods they worshiped and spread this belief around the world like a virus.
They were the first to use false religious belief in God as a motivational tool for war.

The virgin birth of a Saviour predates the Bible because it is the most important event to transpire for the entire history of the Earth.
Every prophet of God saw His coming in visions and wrote of it....since the days of Abel in the garden of Eden.
The Babylonians were of the evil seed of the Serpent and were the enemies of God, creating lies close enough to the truth to deceive all mankind by.
It is the ancient seat of the devil.

It was Babylon that first turned men from belief in the one God, the God of Noah, and Abraham, into a belief in many gods....Paganism.

In Egypt there was the same combination of mother and son called Isis and Osiris.
In India it was Isi and Iswara. (Note the similarity of names even.)
In Asia it was Cybele and Deoius.
In Rome and in Greece it followed suit.
And in China. Well, imagine the surprise of some Roman Catholic missionaries as they entered China and found there a Madonna and Child with rays of light emanating from the head of the babe. The image could well have been exchanged for one in the Vatican except for the difference of certain facial features.
It now behooves us to discover the original mother and child.

The original goddess-mother of Babylon was Semiramis who was called Rhea in the eastern countries. In her arms she held a son, who though a babe, was described as tall, strong, handsome and especially captivating to the women.
In Ezekiel 8:14 he was called Tammuz.
Amongst classical writers he was called Bacchus.
To the Babylonians he was Ninus.
What accounts for the fact that he is represented as a babe in arms and yet described as a great and mighty man is that he is known as the "Husband-Son".
One of his titles was "Husband of the Mother", and in India where the two are known as Iswara and Isi, he (the husband) is represented as the babe at the breast of his own wife.

That this Ninus is the Nimrod of the Bible we can affirm by comparing history with the Genesis account.

Pompeius said, "Ninus, king of Assyria, changed the ancient moderate ways of life by the desire for conquest.

HE WAS THE FIRST WHO CARRIED WAR AGAINST HIS NEIGHBORS.


Here is the two seeds.

MATTHEW 13:24-43

Hyginus says this about that god who was known variously as Bel, Hermes, Mercury etc, "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove (not the Roman Jove, but Jehovah of the Hebrews who predates Roman history) without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language.

But after that Mercury (Bel, Cush) interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes) the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began.
It is seen from this that Bel or Cush, the father of Nimrod, originally was the ring leader that led the people away from the true God and encouraged the people as the "interpreter of the gods" to take another form of religion.

He encouraged them to go ahead with the tower which his son actually built. This encouragement is what brought the confusion and the division of men, so that he was both, "interpreter and confuser".

Cush, then, was the father of the polytheistic system and when men were deified by men, he of course, became the father of the gods.

Now Cush was called Bel. And Bel in Roman mythology was Janus.
He is pictured as having two faces and he carried a club by which he confounded and "scattered" the people.

Ovid writes that Janus said concerning himself, "the ancients called me Chaos".

Thus we find that the Cush of the Bible, the original rebel against monotheism was called Bel, Belus, Hermes, Janus, etc. amongst the ancient peoples.
He purported to bring revelations and interpretations from the gods to the people.
In so doing he caused the wrath of God to scatter the people, bringing division and confusion.

Now up to this point we have seen whence polytheism or the worship of many gods came.
But did you notice that we also found a mention of a man named Cush who was given a title of "the father of the gods."?
Did you notice here the old theme of ancient mythologies, that gods identify themselves with men?
That is where ancestor worship comes from.

So we might just examine history to find out about ancestor worship.
Cush introduced a three god worship of father, son and spirit.
Three gods who were all equal.

But he knew about the seed of the woman coming, so there would have to be a woman and her seed come into the picture.
This was brought to pass when Nimrod died.
His wife, Semiramis deified him, and thus made herself the mother of the son and also the mother of the gods.
Just exactly as the Roman church has deified Mary.
The modern Babylon in the book of Revelation.

They claim she was without sin and was the Mother of God.
She (Semiramis) called Nimrod "Zeroashta" which means, "the woman's promised seed".

But it wasn't too long until the woman began to attract more attention than the son, and soon she was the one who was depicted as trampling underfoot the serpent.

They called her "the queen of the heaven" and made her divine.
How like today wherein Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been elevated to immortality and as of September 1964 the Vatican council is attempting to give a quality to Mary she does not possess, for they would like to call her, "Mary the Mediatrix," "Mary the Mother of All Believers," or "Mother of the Church."

If there was ever Babylonish ancestor worship in a religion, it is the religion of the Church of Rome.

Not only was ancestor worship originated in Babylon but so also was the worship of nature.
It was in Babylon the gods were identified with the sun and moon, etc.
The chief object in nature was the sun which has light giving and heat giving properties and appears to man as a ball of fire in the heavens.
Thus the chief god would be the sun god whom they called Baal.
Often the sun was depicted as a circle of flame and soon around that flame there appeared a serpent.

It wasn't long until the serpent became a symbol of the sun and consequently worshipped.
Thus the desire of Satan's heart became full-fledged.
He was worshipped as God.
His throne was established.
His slaves bowed to him.

There in Pergamos in the form of a living serpent he was worshipped.
The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, now symbolized in the form of a living serpent had not only seduced Eve but the majority of mankind.
But how did Pergamos become the seat of Satan if Babylon was the seat?
The answer again is in history.
When Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians, the priest-king, Attalus fled the city and went to Pergamos with his priests and sacred mysteries.
There he set up his kingdom outside the Roman empire, and thrived under the care of the devil.

So Here's what the scriptures say about this "Seat".

Revelation 2:12-17
And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith He Which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast My Name, and hast not denied My faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

But that the church and state would come together was truly fore-known of the Lord.
The very name Pergamos means "thoroughly married".
And indeed state and church were married; politics and religion were united.
The offspring of that union have been consistently the most horrible hybrids the world has ever seen.
The truth is not in them, but all the evil ways of Cain (the first hybrid) is.

Not only was state and church wedded in this age, but the Babylonian religion was officially joined to the First Church.
Satan now had access to the Name of Christ and he was enthroned as God in worship.

With the help of federal aid the churches fell heir to beautiful buildings which were lined with altars of white marble and images of the departed saints.
And right in this age is when the "beast" of Revelation 13:3 that was wounded to death: (the pagan Roman Empire) came back to life and power as the "Holy Roman Empire."

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


Could it not be that the so called snake was the incubator female who give birth to Eva, Since God have take a part of Adam , and possible planted the seed into that so called snake and it delivered Eva.:confused:

The isn't what was written about Adam and Eve.

No, it's about a human woman and her son.

Then you will have to show something to support that.

But where did the Babylonians get the idea?

Their heads?

Not in the slightest.

There is a big big problem here. Let's look at the facts:

1) You have no ability to look at history objectively. You will not hear one word against the god you believe in, would not entertain the idea that other cultures came up with stories that are present in your 'god book' before they did or anything else. You are purely bias and therefore anything you say is of no worth whatsoever. You make my point with your next statement: "Marduk was a false Babylonian god". As an atheist I would tend to agree with you, but this isn't about which god is real or not it's about history Visitor. Both Iceage and yourself have too much bias to be able to discuss the matter. You have no interest in history, just interest in asking a question that you then answer to yourself. "who's the coolest god?" "why, my god is". What's the point in that? Does that need to be done on a forum?

2) You said: "
"They" didn't slay anything, they invented the false Gods they worshiped and spread this belief around the world like a virus."

Spread their belief around the world like a virus heh? I'll agree with that in some ways. Your own statement reflect exactly why their stories would be in the bible - and which is why I showed where the snake crush/heel event came from.

Kindly drop the bias at the door. I don't care about your god - and I wont dispute it's existence here.. if you want it to be true, fine, it is.. That's not the point. A question was asked - I answered it from the perspective of history. Your god kicks all other gods asses, he's the bomb, the coolest dude in the universe.. Happy?

The prophets, such as Isaiah and Zechariah, as well as King David, would give the predicted details about the incarnation of Jesus, and Moses knew the story of Abraham and Isaac, how God told Abraham to kill his innocent son as an act of obedience, which presaged what the Father would do to His Son, willingly accepted by the Son, just like Issac seems to have accepted his apparent fate at the hand of his father, so the concept of the sacrificed son, in relationship to the lamb sacrifice (which God provided in lieu of Issac), was probably quite real to the ancient Hebrews.
Wow! Great theological analysis...! :eek:
I challenge you to do a psychological analysis on the same subject! ;)

TheVisitor,

Why are women "evil"?

How do you know which gods are true and which ones are not?

It was prophesied that the seed of a woman would crush the head of the evil one (Genesis 3:15), after the evil one will have bruised the Savior's heel, so who was this "seed of the woman," has He come yet, was He Dumuzid (Tammuz), Adonis, Horus, Hercules, Jesus Christ, or somebody else, or has He yet to appear on Earth, and from where/whom did the ancients get this idea about a incarnate conqueror of the evil one?
Saviour's hee? Could that be Achiles!?!?!? :eek: :confused:

What if it is actually Jesus? When was his heel bruised by the evil one? :confused:

That the Messiah would not have a human father is revealed in saying "seed of the woman," and the head wound signifies death (eternal torment) for the evil one, while the heal wound (Jesus' crucificiction) did not count Him out, just a speed bump 'til He resurrected three days later.

The prophets, such as Isaiah and Zechariah, as well as King David, would give the predicted details about the incarnation of Jesus, and Moses knew the story of Abraham and Isaac, how God told Abraham to kill his innocent son as an act of obedience, which presaged what the Father would do to His Son, willingly accepted by the Son, just like Issac seems to have accepted his apparent fate at the hand of his father, so the concept of the sacrificed son, in relationship to the lamb sacrifice (which God provided in lieu of Issac), was probably quite real to the ancient Hebrews.


Could not then have Moses been talking about Abraham in that verse then?

The point is, if Isaiah, Zechariah, and King David could find it in themselves to be clear with their prophesies about Jesus, then why couldn't Moses.

One other thing. Is the "heel crush/seed enmity" verse posted above the only writing of Moses which could possibly prophesize the coming of Jesus? Surely Moses would have written more about it if he believed in a Messiah.

Abraham lived 600 years before Moses, and the prophecies became very specific over time, down through the prophets after David, as the time for the Incarnation neared. And Daniel 9 reveals that the Messiah would be "cut off" 483 years after the command by the Persians to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem.

That the Messiah would not have a human father is revealed in saying "seed of the woman," and the head wound signifies death (eternal torment) for the evil one, while the heal wound (Jesus' crucificiction) did not count Him out, just a speed bump 'til He resurrected three days later.
How does a heel wound translate into crucifition? :confused:

The prophets, such as Isaiah and Zechariah, as well as King David, would give the predicted details about the incarnation of Jesus, and Moses knew the story of Abraham and Isaac, how God told Abraham to kill his innocent son as an act of obedience, which presaged what the Father would do to His Son, willingly accepted by the Son, just like Issac seems to have accepted his apparent fate at the hand of his father, so the concept of the sacrificed son, in relationship to the lamb sacrifice (which God provided in lieu of Issac), was probably quite real to the ancient Hebrews.The Bible is full of stories and characters that were known and retold throughout the early civilisations - all showing similar plots, lineage, ideas, fables etc, with names and places altered.
It is not therefore surprising that the same basic story (father obediently kills son at command of higher power) is retold over again as this reinforces the idea within the reader.

If a God continually tells someone to obey them unfalteringly (e.g. kill their own son), and then kills his own son by way of example, but that through obeisance they will achieve greatness - this reinforces in the populace that obeying the almighty power - whether that be God or a ruler that claims himself a god - is a good thing to do.

There is still nothing in here that suggests the OT Bible is anything more a collection of well-known stories and fables. There is some accuracy of place names - but then there is in vast amounts of fictional accounts of history.

"Vast amounts of fictional accounts of history," care to name several of the "vast amounts?"

Historical fiction, IceAgeCivilizations?

Let's take a look at the novel Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott.

Premise 1: The setting of Ivanhoe is England, while the Crusades continue in the Holy Land.

Premise 2: The Crusades occurred

Conclusion: Ivanhoe exists.

Do you see the flaw in this logic?

"Vast amounts of fictional accounts of history," care to name several of the "vast amounts?"Where to start:

David Gemmell:
"Stones of Power" series (Ghost King, Lost Sword of Power) that deal with ancient Britain. (These even have MAGIC in them... or should I call them MIRACLES.)
"Troy" series - that unsurprisingly deals with Troy.
"Lion of Macedon" and "Dark Prince" that deal with Alexander the Great.

Stephen Lawhead
Pendragon cycle - that again deals with ancient Britain - and more accurately with the legend of Arthur.

Thomas Mallory
Le Mort D'Arthur - the quintessential stories of Arthurian legend (and a pain in the arse to read!)

Bernard Cornwell
Sharpe's anything really - there are so many of them.

C.S.Forrester
Hornblower series.

These are just some of the ones I have read, but I can start providing you with a list of others, if you really want.
I suggest you look up "Historical Fiction" in something like Wikipedia, or "Alternate History" - some such.

All these books I've mentioned - and this barely scratches the surface of what is out there - can give accurate dates for some event or other, can give accurate place names. But they mix it up with fiction.

The only difference between these other books and the Bible might well be that noone has yet found the front page of the Bible that says "All events portrayed in this novel are fictional and any resemblence to persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

Notice that you didn't cite any supposed examples of incorrect history in the Bible.

You mean other than the world being created in 7 days?
Or there being a world-wide flood?

Or do you want me to be more specific?

The history and geography of the book of Judith appear to be inaccurate.

"The historical setting of the book of Judith does not square with recorded history; this is an indication of the literary form. The author is not writing history as we understand it. The book has been called a 'historical romance.' The situation is the following: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria, decides to invade Israel. He sends his general Holofernes with an army of 120,000 soldiers and 12,000 cavalry to the West. They camp near Bethulia in Israel (there is no record of a city by that name)."

International Catholic University http://www.catholicity.com/school/icu/c03005.htm

"The historical authenticity of the book is open to question, for it contains serious errors relating to historical and geographical details, but the story is often considered a symbolic representation and celebration of chastity."

B. M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan (eds.), The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford, 1993), pp. 399-402. for starters...?

I am not saying that the Bible IS historically inaccurate in terms of all places or the major events - but then neither are many historical fiction - with only the central characters and maybe the odd event here and there being fictitious.
But if you wish to hold to the Bible being word-for-word accurate about all things then feel free.