 Does the Sethite worldview imply that one can be children of God by natural lineage? If so, is that the same error the Jews fell into when they boasted that they have Abraham as their father? Whereas a negative example, Seth being the good seed and Cain being the bad seed, could we liken that to the extreme fundamentalist idea that a certain ethnic group having the mark of Cain are unredeemable. Yeah, it's kind of akin to all that. The Jews in the Gospels are basically claiming election by virtue of Abraham. And if you believed that Genesis 6 was another manifestation of an elect line back to Adam, if you take the Sethite view, the human view only, and if you believe that this is about an elect line back to Adam, then you'd fall into the same kind of thinking. Of course, nothing says that any line was elect prior to God's creation of Israel by virtue of Abraham and Sarah. That's when you get this election language in the Torah. It's always about Abraham and Sarah's descendants, you know, Israel. So that kind of thinking, though, can get transferred to other passages. And of course, it does. Those who would say that the Jews descended from Cain to track on the negative example for a moment here, people who are going to say that kind of stuff, that Jews are descended from Cain and they're Satan's spawn. You know, those kinds of people who are just, you know, whacked, they're going to be saying things like the line of Cain is unredeemable because, you know, they're linking it to this satanic idea, this sort of, you know, satanic genesis of in their case, specifically Jews. And I don't know any fundamentalism. This isn't to say that there isn't one, but I haven't run into one that would have said blacks were unredeemable. I have certainly run into a few people where the mark of Cain was interpreted as skin color. I mean, that you'll see. And of course, you'll read a lot about that. But even even people who thought that they you couldn't say that all of those people thought that like the Negro race or, you know, again, to use our modern terminology, African Americans, that they were unredeemable, some did, some did. But it really depended on whether those people thought. And this is actually, you know, 19th century kind of stuff, even, even earlier seven, it just let's just say 18th, 19th century kind of dialogue, wondering if the black race descended from Adam or from some other co-edamic or pre-edamic human. This kind of, again, biblical nonsense and of course, biological nonsense arises from this crisis in these centuries of having to explain from the Bible. And that's in air quotes, explain from the Bible where these other races, these other humans that explorers are encountering, where they come from. And the things like skin color get get drawn into this conversation. Obviously, you know, people could visually observe differences in skin color and other physiological differences. But it all of that gets sort of drawn into the same odd and in some cases repugnant conversation in these centuries. And there were certain who would have said, who would have landed on this idea that, oh, this race bears the mark of Cain and then they're unredeemable or, oh, this race bears the mark of Cain, but who cares? You know, we're not going to evangelize them or whatever. We're not either, well, they might be redeemable. We're not going to waste our time. And they weren't all like that, though. Some came up with really goofy explanations for race, but they still were viewed ultimately as descending from Adam in some way. And so it didn't deter evangelistic efforts. So it really depended on whether you're quote, unquote, biblical racial theory, unquote, whether it had, you know, these alternate people groups linked to Adam in some way or not. If you thought they were not of the Adamic line, then by definition there would be groups that would say, oh, they're non-elect. They're just going to go to hell. They're unredeemable, or we shouldn't give her up. You had that. You had that kind of thinking. I want to read, this question prompts me. I have this in digital here, so it's real convenient. A little part of Adam's ancestors that this question just reminded me of. And I've referenced this book before on the podcast. If any of you are interested in the harm that bad thinking about the Bible can do, this is a must read. I mean, in my library, I've collected most of the scholarly books on bad exegesis that led to racial theory. And this is one of the more important books. It's informative, but obviously when you think about the content, it can be tragic too. This is from page 65 of Adam's ancestors. And it's on the section of that particular chapter that's labeled or sub-headed human origins and the politics of slavery. So here's a short excerpt. As early as 1680, the Church of England, clergyman and missionary first to Virginia and later Barbados, Morgan Godwin, wrote at length in support of the right of African slaves and Native Americans to be admitted to church membership in a tract for the times addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, rather sanguine about the practice of slavery itself. He vigorously argued their case in his lengthy 1680 plea entitled the Negroes and Indians advocate suing for their admission into the church. It's the end of the title. Godwin was fully aware that what he called the quote pre-Adamites whimsy, unquote, was being deployed first to, quote, derive our Negroes from a stock different from Adams, unquote. And then to, quote, unquote, brutify them. His intention, by contrast, was to, again, quoting from the tract to prove the Negroes humanity, unquote. It was a strategy diametrically opposed to those Spaniards. And he seems to have had Sepulveda in mind who had concluded that certain races were not human in order to justify their murdering the Americans, i.e. the Native Americans. For all that, he acknowledged that fantastic and false. These are all in quotes, empty and silly. And again, in other words, Godwin's not buying it. He acknowledged that fantastic, false, empty and silly, all of that. Though the foul heresy of pre-Adamism was its original author himself had never used it to dehumanize any racial group, but rather had acknowledged the full humanity of the pre-Adamites. And that's the end of the selection. So here you have Godwin, the guy who wrote this, who acknowledged that, OK, there's this view out here of pre-Adamic races. And he was determined not to use it to dehumanize any group. You know, Negroes and in his terms, Negroes and the Americans, which we by we need, you know, the Native Americans, the latter reference there. So this is the kind of thinking. This is 17th century are going to get at 18th century. It's going to live into the 19th century. And really, you know, frankly, for those of us who are old enough, 20th century. But the use of the Bible to classify certain races in a certain way as being less than Adam or peripheral to Adam. And one of the strategies for doing that was this Mark of Cain idea. And that does go pretty well hand in hand with the Sethite theory. Now, of course, people who take the Sethite interpretation of Genesis 6, they're they're not doing it so that they can go here. They can go to these wacky racial theories. And even back then, they weren't necessarily doing it. But but you could take the Sethite view and once you took the Sethite view of Genesis 6, you would go backward and then you would quite literally demonize the Cainite line and you would insert the Sethite and canot canite dichotomy into Genesis 6. Again, this is part of the Sethite thinking, Sethite view thinking. And all of that became fodder. It was and it became fodder for racial theory. You could you could get there from the Sethite view. But let's let's be clear. People who take the Sethite view over against the the supernaturalist view of Genesis 6, they're not doing it to 99.9 percent of the time to justify racism. But in the old days, you know, centuries ago, this is where a lot of that that groundwork was laid. And so I think this is a this is a it's an interesting observation, you know, that the the questioner has here, Daniel. And yeah, you know, it's a kin. It's a kin, you know, to these other things. But we don't want to necessarily see a cause and effect link to some of this awful stuff that can really be laid at the feet of bad Bible interpretation.