The Serpent's Seed - Revision history

Admin: /* Ancient DNA Evidence from the “Pre-Flood” Window */

2026-03-24T15:07:42Z

Ancient DNA Evidence from the “Pre-Flood” Window

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:07, 24 March 2026
Line 520:		Line 520:
	Every single one fits perfectly into the single, continuous human phylogenetic tree we see today. There is zero trace of a second, highly divergent paternal lineage that a literal serpent-beast fathering Cain would have introduced. No “beast-of-the-field” Y-DNA, no hybrid markers, no genetic cluster that looks non-human or even slightly outside normal Homo sapiens variation.Why This Directly Contradicts Serpent Seed		Every single one fits perfectly into the single, continuous human phylogenetic tree we see today. There is zero trace of a second, highly divergent paternal lineage that a literal serpent-beast fathering Cain would have introduced. No “beast-of-the-field” Y-DNA, no hybrid markers, no genetic cluster that looks non-human or even slightly outside normal Homo sapiens variation.Why This Directly Contradicts Serpent Seed

	Expected signature is missing.		===Expected signature is missing===
	If even a small fraction of the pre-Flood population were literal serpent-seed hybrids (as the doctrine claims), their Y-chromosomes would form a completely separate branch — just as Neanderthal or Denisovan admixture is still detectable today as distinct segments in non-African genomes. We have sequenced enough pre-Flood-era individuals that we should have sampled both bloodlines. We have not.		If even a small fraction of the pre-Flood population were literal serpent-seed hybrids (as the doctrine claims), their Y-chromosomes would form a completely separate branch — just as Neanderthal or Denisovan admixture is still detectable today as distinct segments in non-African genomes. We have sequenced enough pre-Flood-era individuals that we should have sampled both bloodlines. We have not.

Admin: /* Genetic arguments */

2026-03-24T15:06:44Z

Genetic arguments

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 24 March 2026
Line 495:		Line 495:
	William Branham and followers of the message are "young earth" proponents, that is, the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Therefore, the biblical timeline they use is approximately as follows:		William Branham and followers of the message are "young earth" proponents, that is, the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Therefore, the biblical timeline they use is approximately as follows:

	Creation: ~4004 BC (Ussher chronology, standard with youn earth theology).		*Creation: ~4004 BC (Ussher chronology, standard with youn earth theology).
	Flood: ~2348 BC.		*Flood: ~2348 BC.
	Pre-Flood period: roughly the first 1,656 years of human history.		*Pre-Flood period: roughly the first 1,656 years of human history.

	Message followers believe the pre-Flood earth was populated with two distinct bloodlines:		Message followers believe the pre-Flood earth was populated with two distinct bloodlines:

Admin at 15:05, 24 March 2026

2026-03-24T15:05:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 24 March 2026
Line 490:		Line 490:

	Would this individual, or these individuals, be among the kings of Israel and Judah who are the “offspring” of their father (2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 89:4), who “crush” their enemies (Ps. 89:23) “under their feet” (2 Sam. 22:39), so that these enemies “lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9)? Later revelations will state that it is Jesus who reigns until he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).<ref>Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 198–200.</ref>		Would this individual, or these individuals, be among the kings of Israel and Judah who are the “offspring” of their father (2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 89:4), who “crush” their enemies (Ps. 89:23) “under their feet” (2 Sam. 22:39), so that these enemies “lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9)? Later revelations will state that it is Jesus who reigns until he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).<ref>Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 198–200.</ref>

			=Genetic arguments=

			William Branham and followers of the message are "young earth" proponents, that is, the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Therefore, the biblical timeline they use is approximately as follows:

			Creation: ~4004 BC (Ussher chronology, standard with youn earth theology).
			Flood: ~2348 BC.
			Pre-Flood period: roughly the first 1,656 years of human history.

			Message followers believe the pre-Flood earth was populated with two distinct bloodlines:

			*Godly Sethites (“sons of God,” carrying the divine seed).
			*Vast numbers of serpent-seed Cainites (“daughters of men,” literal hybrid offspring of the serpent-beast + Eve).

			These Cainites allegedly built cities, invented metallurgy, music, etc., and were numerous enough that their intermarriage with Sethites provoked the Flood.

			==Ancient DNA Evidence from the “Pre-Flood” Window==
			We now have thousands of high-quality ancient human genomes sequenced from periods that fall squarely before 2348 BC on the biblical timeline:

			*Neolithic and Chalcolithic samples from the Levant, Anatolia, and Europe (~10,000–4000 BC).
			*Early Bronze Age samples from the ancient Near East (~3500–2500 BC).
			*Specific examples include genomes from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, Pottery Neolithic, and Intermediate Bronze Age in the very region where Cain’s descendants supposedly lived and built cities (Mesopotamia/Levant).

			All of these pre-“Flood” individuals carry:

			*Y-chromosome haplogroups that are direct ancestors of modern human Y-DNA (e.g., E, J, G branches).
			*mtDNA haplogroups that are direct ancestors of modern human mtDNA (e.g., H, U, K, etc.).

			Every single one fits perfectly into the single, continuous human phylogenetic tree we see today. There is zero trace of a second, highly divergent paternal lineage that a literal serpent-beast fathering Cain would have introduced. No “beast-of-the-field” Y-DNA, no hybrid markers, no genetic cluster that looks non-human or even slightly outside normal Homo sapiens variation.Why This Directly Contradicts Serpent Seed

			Expected signature is missing.
			If even a small fraction of the pre-Flood population were literal serpent-seed hybrids (as the doctrine claims), their Y-chromosomes would form a completely separate branch — just as Neanderthal or Denisovan admixture is still detectable today as distinct segments in non-African genomes. We have sequenced enough pre-Flood-era individuals that we should have sampled both bloodlines. We have not.

			==Genetic continuity across the Flood date==

			Ancient DNA from the Levant shows smooth genetic continuity through ~2500–2000 BC. There is no sudden population replacement or extreme bottleneck that would match “only Noah’s eight people survived.” The data simply do not support a global wipe-out followed by repopulation from one family.
			No second bloodline anywhere in the record.

			The entire ancient DNA dataset (now >10,000 genomes worldwide) shows one single origin for all modern and ancient humans — exactly as predicted by standard genetics, and exactly as your earlier point about Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve already established. Serpent seed requires a second root; the data show only one.

			'''Bottom Line:''' Even if we grant the strict young-earth timeline that Branham used, the ancient DNA record from the pre-Flood era is genetically identical in structure to modern humans. All sequenced individuals belong to the same unbroken paternal and maternal lines we carry today. There is no room left for a literal serpent-seed bloodline that was supposedly numerous, city-building, and intermarrying right up until the Flood.

			The serpent-seed doctrine is not only incompatible with living human genetics — it is incompatible with the ancient DNA that was actually alive “in the days of Noah.”

	=Where did William Branham get this doctrine?=		=Where did William Branham get this doctrine?=

Admin: /* A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed */

2024-02-03T17:46:10Z

A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 3 February 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	=A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed=		=A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed=
	William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"''' doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text. William Branham's first pastor was ~~Ray~~ Davis, who was a high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The Serpent's Seed doctrine has clear racist origins.		William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"''' doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text. William Branham's first pastor was [[Roy Davis]], who was a high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The Serpent's Seed doctrine has clear racist origins.

	This doctrine is comprised of the following related beliefs:		This doctrine is comprised of the following related beliefs:
Line 17:		Line 17:
	:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref><br>		:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref><br>
	<br>		<br>

	=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=		=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=

Admin: /* Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine? */

2023-02-25T21:36:00Z

Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 25 February 2023
Line 105:		Line 105:
	#Gen. 4:1 indicates that Adam did not have sex with his wife until after they were out of the garden.		#Gen. 4:1 indicates that Adam did not have sex with his wife until after they were out of the garden.
	#The Bible does not state that Cain and Abel were twins with different fathers.		#The Bible does not state that Cain and Abel were twins with different fathers.
			#If Adam's since was also sexual, why was the ground cursed for his sake and not his body?

	==Was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil really Satan's Tree?==		==Was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil really Satan's Tree?==

Admin: /* Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine? */

2023-02-25T21:33:27Z

Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 25 February 2023
Line 100:		Line 100:
	#The Old Testament does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.		#The Old Testament does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.
	#The doctrine of the Serpent's Seed requires you to believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually Satan's tree or Satan himself. The Bible does not teach this.		#The doctrine of the Serpent's Seed requires you to believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually Satan's tree or Satan himself. The Bible does not teach this.
			#The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires you to believe that the Bible is incorrect when it states in Gen 3:6 that "the tree was good for food."
	#The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires you to believe that Eve committed adultery and sinned against her husband. The Bible does not teach this.		#The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires you to believe that Eve committed adultery and sinned against her husband. The Bible does not teach this.
	#This teaching requires you to believe that Adam watched his wife have sex with the serpent.		#This teaching requires you to believe that Adam watched his wife have sex with the serpent.

Admin at 21:29, 25 February 2023

2023-02-25T21:29:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 25 February 2023
Line 2:		Line 2:

	=A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed=		=A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed=
	William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"''' doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text.		William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"''' doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text. William Branham's first pastor was Ray Davis, who was a high ranking member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). The Serpent's Seed doctrine has clear racist origins.

	This doctrine is comprised of the following related beliefs:		This doctrine is comprised of the following related beliefs:
Line 13:		Line 13:
	##Abel was the son of Eve and Adam.		##Abel was the son of Eve and Adam.

	The serpent's seed doctrine is based on a few scriptures that can be used in isolation to support a position that is not supportable when viewed in the context of ALL scripture.<br>		The serpent's seed doctrine is based on a few scriptures that can be used in isolation to support a position that is not supportable when viewed in the context of ALL scripture. This doctrine also requires that you accept a number of beliefs as outlined below that you may not be aware are part of this doctrine. In our view, these beliefs eventually lead to the rejection of the Bible as the true, inspired, word of God.

			:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref><br>
	<br>		<br>
	=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=		=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=
Line 97:		Line 99:

	#The Old Testament does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.		#The Old Testament does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.
	#		#The doctrine of the Serpent's Seed requires you to believe that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was actually Satan's tree or Satan himself. The Bible does not teach this.
			#The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires you to believe that Eve committed adultery and sinned against her husband. The Bible does not teach this.
	~~=If~~ you believe the ~~Serpent Seed doctrine, ask yourself~~ the ~~following questions=~~		#This teaching requires you to believe that Adam watched his wife have sex with the serpent.
			#Gen. 4:1 indicates that Adam did not have sex with his wife until after they were out of the garden.
	The Serpent's Seed doctrine requires ~~that~~ you ~~accept the following beliefs~~ that ~~you may~~ not ~~be aware are part of~~ this ~~doctrine~~. ~~In our view, these beliefs eventually lead~~ to the ~~rejection~~ of the ~~Bible as the true, inspired, word of God~~.		#The Bible does not state that Cain and Abel were twins with different fathers.

	~~:''“All Scripture is breathed out by God~~ and ~~profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness~~.~~..”<ref>2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)</ref>~~

	~~Here are a few of the traps:~~

	==Was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil really Satan's Tree?==		==Was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil really Satan's Tree?==
Line 175:		Line 173:
	Are we to believe that Adam watched his wife and the serpent get it on while he watched? That is effectively what William Branham taught if you read the Bible as it is written. Of course, if the serpent seed doctrine is wrong, then this passage makes a lot more sense.		Are we to believe that Adam watched his wife and the serpent get it on while he watched? That is effectively what William Branham taught if you read the Bible as it is written. Of course, if the serpent seed doctrine is wrong, then this passage makes a lot more sense.

	= Was Cain Was The Son of the Serpent?=		==Was Cain Was The Son of the Serpent?==

	Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam is Cain’s father:		Genesis 4:1 is clear that Adam is Cain’s father:

Admin at 21:12, 25 February 2023

2023-02-25T21:12:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 25 February 2023
Line 94:		Line 94:
	=Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=		=Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=

			The Old Testament does not support William Branham's doctrine of the Serpent's Seed for the following reasons:

			#The Old Testament does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve.
			#

	=If you believe the Serpent Seed doctrine, ask yourself the following questions=		=If you believe the Serpent Seed doctrine, ask yourself the following questions=

Admin at 21:01, 25 February 2023

2023-02-25T21:01:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 25 February 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:
	=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=		=Does the New Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=

			The New Testament does not support William Branham's doctrine of the Serpent's Seed for the following reasons:

			#The New Testament contains no explicit reference to the serpent having sex with Eve.
			#Acts 17:26 states that all men sprang from one man, Adam, and not two (Adam and the Serpent).
			#2 Cor. 11:2-3 does not state that the serpent had sex with Eve. While it is possible to read that into the text, that is not what the text says.
			#Rom. 5:12 tells us that sin entered into the world through Adam, not through Eve.

	==2 Corinthians 11:2-3==		==2 Corinthians 11:2-3==
Line 34:		Line 40:
	:CEB - ''I’m deeply concerned about you with the same concern that God has. As your father, I promised you in marriage to one husband. I promised to present you as an innocent virgin to Christ himself. But I’m afraid that '''your minds might be seduced in the same way as the snake deceived Eve with his devious tricks'''. You might be unable to focus completely on a genuine and innocent commitment to Christ.<ref>Common English Bible (Nashville, TN: Common English Bible, 2011), 2 Co 11:2–3.</ref>		:CEB - ''I’m deeply concerned about you with the same concern that God has. As your father, I promised you in marriage to one husband. I promised to present you as an innocent virgin to Christ himself. But I’m afraid that '''your minds might be seduced in the same way as the snake deceived Eve with his devious tricks'''. You might be unable to focus completely on a genuine and innocent commitment to Christ.<ref>Common English Bible (Nashville, TN: Common English Bible, 2011), 2 Co 11:2–3.</ref>

	Does this passage state that the relationship between Eve and Satan was physical? Such an interpretation reads into the text more than it actually says. A common way that scripture is misinterpreted is when we draw wrong conclusions from the text by reading into the text what isn’t there. ~~what~~ we need to do is draw out from the text only what is there.<ref>James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 366.</ref>		Does this passage state that the relationship between Eve and Satan was physical? Such an interpretation reads into the text more than it actually says. A common way that scripture is misinterpreted is when we draw wrong conclusions from the text by reading into the text what isn’t there. What we need to do is draw out from the text only what is there.<ref>James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds., God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003), 366.</ref>

	The sole characteristic of the serpent mentioned by Paul is his deviousness. It was by his words that the serpent deceived her in the Genesis account, a point Paul implies in that it is by what the enemies of the Gospel preach that the Corinthians are led astray. This viewpoint is supported in a closely parallel passage where Paul writes of “those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned … By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people … The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom 16:17–18, 20). The references in 2 Cor 11:3 and Rom 16:18, 20 to		The sole characteristic of the serpent mentioned by Paul is his deviousness. It was by his words that the serpent deceived her in the Genesis account, a point Paul implies in that it is by what the enemies of the Gospel preach that the Corinthians are led astray. This viewpoint is supported in a closely parallel passage where Paul writes of “those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned … By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people … The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet” (Rom 16:17–18, 20). The references in 2 Cor 11:3 and Rom 16:18, 20 to
Line 44:		Line 50:
	:(3) “deceive” tie both passages back to Genesis 2–3 and to each other.		:(3) “deceive” tie both passages back to Genesis 2–3 and to each other.

	Paul sees ~~words—erroneous~~ in content but smooth of ~~delivery—as~~ Satan’s instrument to seduce the church from her loyalty to Christ.<ref>Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 501–502. </ref>		Paul sees words — erroneous in content but smooth of delivery — as Satan’s instrument to seduce the church from her loyalty to Christ.<ref>Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 501–502. </ref>

	==Acts 17:26==		==Acts 17:26==
Line 56:		Line 62:
	:''And '''He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men''' to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes)... <ref> Acts 17:26 (Amplified Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation</ref>		:''And '''He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men''' to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes)... <ref> Acts 17:26 (Amplified Bible, Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation</ref>

	:'''''From one man''' he made '''every nation living on the entire surface of the ~~eart~~'''h, and he fixed the limits of their territories and the periods when they would flourish.<ref>David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament), 1st ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), Ac 17:26.</ref>		:'''''From one man''' he made '''every nation living on the entire surface of the earth''', and he fixed the limits of their territories and the periods when they would flourish.<ref>David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible: An English Version of the Tanakh (Old Testament) and B’rit Hadashah (New Testament), 1st ed. (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998), Ac 17:26.</ref>

	The Serpent seed doctrine requires that a person reject Acts 17:26 because it requires the belief that the serpent injected his blood into the human race. That's 2 bloods, not one. That's two origins not one, and two sources, not one.		The Serpent seed doctrine requires that a person reject Acts 17:26 because it requires the belief that the serpent injected his blood into the human race. That's 2 bloods, not one. That's two origins not one, and two sources, not one.
Line 72:		Line 78:
	==Romans 5:12==		==Romans 5:12==

	Paul said that "as by '''one man''' sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Rom 5:12.</ref>		William Branham stated:

			:That’s what You give Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden, to defeat the enemy. And when Eve reasoned with It, and projected reasons with the Word, it fell apart, and sin entered.<ref>William Branham, 63-0123 - Identification, para. 276</ref>

			But Paul said that "as by '''one man''' sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men..."<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Rom 5:12.</ref>

	That one man was Adam, not Cain. Not one woman, not one serpent. One man - Adam.		That one man was Adam, not Cain. Not one woman, not one serpent. One man - Adam.
Line 81:		Line 91:

	If you believe the Serpent's seed is physical, you deny the truth of Romans 5:12		If you believe the Serpent's seed is physical, you deny the truth of Romans 5:12

			=Does the Old Testament Teach the Serpent's Seed doctrine?=



	=If you believe the Serpent Seed doctrine, ask yourself the following questions=		=If you believe the Serpent Seed doctrine, ask yourself the following questions=

Admin: /* A summary of William Branham view of the Serpent's Seed */

2022-04-18T17:30:28Z

A summary of William Branham view of the Serpent's Seed

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 18 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:SSicon.jpg\|thumb\|right]]		[[File:SSicon.jpg\|thumb\|right]]

	=A summary of William Branham view of the Serpent's Seed=		=A summary of William Branham's view of the Serpent's Seed=
	William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"''' doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text.		William Branham taught a version of the original sin that was highly unorthodox, and which is referred to by his followers as the '''"serpent's seed"''' or '''"serpent seed"''' doctrine. It requires reading into the scripture something that is not evident in a plain reading of the text.