RESEARCH PAPERS PROVING
TWO SEEDLINE SEDUCTION OF EVE
RETYPED, REFORMATTED, REEDITED REVISED &
By: Clifton A. Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
following paragraph was written in 1995 with my article entitled The
Problem With Genesis 4:1.) In the following articles you will encounter some
of the most problematic materials probably anywhere. It is not claimed here that
these articles are 100% perfect. It is believed, though, a substantial part of
these treatises are correct by the law of reasoning. Like all matters, the
reader is requested to use good judgment while approaching these subjects, for
they are very serious. Actually, you owe it to yourself to read and study these
articles even though you may not ultimately agree with them. It is possible,
after you have read this material, you may want to do further detailed studies
of these subjects. It is, therefore, desirable that a greater personal insight
might be obtained by what is written here. It is understood that this may cause
fear in some people because it is going contrary to established traditional
thought. One might even be left with an empty feeling, wondering whether the
entire Bible can be trusted. Your very faith may be tested. It is believed,
though, once one has overcome this shock, in the end, it will only lead to a
higher respect for Holy Writ. Once the true theme of the Bible is understood, it
should create a greater foundation than ever before.
(May 1, 2000) Little did I
know when I wrote my first article five years ago that I would find myself in
the middle of a war on this subject. The only reason I wrote the first article
five years ago, was that I had hear of a young man who was hung-up on the
meaning of Genesis 4:1. Realizing that Genesis 4:1 did not harmonize with the
rest of Scripture, I did my best to discover the reason why. As it turned out, I
found there wasn’t anything wrong with the translation of this passage, it was
a matter of how we read it. I will not explain that part of it here, for I have
adequately spelled it all out later on. In 1997, I discovered there was a man by
the name of Ted R. Weiland teaching exactly the opposite to what I had written
in 1995. Upon hearing his 10 cassette tape series, Eve, Did She? Or Didn’t She?, I resolved to search into the matter
to a greater degree than I had ever done before. I have to admit, the more I
listened to Weiland’s presentation, the more disturbed I became. I wrote
Weiland and notified him I considered his presentation as a declaration of war
in no uncertain terms. Later I was to learn that Weiland was only parroting
Stephen E Jones from his book entitled The
Babylonian Connection” which was a thesis refuting Two Seedline doctrine.
In that book, Stephen E. Jones prefabricated some of his documentation. I will
present it here, and you can decided for yourself to what extent he may have
lied. Weiland is aware that Stephen fabricated some of his documentation,
because I sent him the information concerning it. If you have a copy of Jones’
book, you can find it on page 154. I am taking this evidence from my booklet: Book
Review Of Stephen Jones’ “The Babylonian Connections”, with some
“We have one more thing
about Jones. This item will really show Jones up for what he really is. If a man
is untruthful, he should be exposed for that untruthfulness! It is my own
personal opinion that Jones
is a untruthful, and as such, he cannot be trusted with “Identity” teaching.
I will offer the following evidence as proof of these charges. If a man is
deliberately untruthful once, he will be untruthful again. I am going to show
you where, in my opinion, Jones told a downright falsehood and he used
subliminal suggestion in doing it. We will find it in his book The
Babylonian connection on page 154, and it reads as follows:
“Liberty under God’s Law is our God-given
inheritance. When Protestant reformers of 400 years ago discovered this liberty,
they forsook the Papal dictatorship. God opened their eyes to the truth of His
Word, and they rejected the serpent’s lies taught by the Catholic Church. Martin
hope is built on nothing less
Jesus’ blood and righteousness;
dare not trust the serpent’s lie,
Christ the solid Rock I stand,
other ground is sinking sand.”
When I read this over, the
words seemed familiar — they just kept going through my mind. I kept asking
myself, Where Have I heard them before? Well, I kept going over and over them
and then some familiar music began to come to me. It took me about 10 minutes to
begin to recognize the melody that went with the words, but I couldn’t think
of the name of the song. I proceeded to go and find some old hymnbooks and
started to see if I could find the song that matched the words. I probably was
the better part of an hour doing this after I found my songbooks, and I was
probably at least an hour in just finding the books. I didn’t seem to have
much luck in the indexes of the hymnals, so I just leafed through the pages one
at a time. While I was searching, the words that seem to come to me were: “I
dare not trust the sweetest (something), but (something something) Jesus’
name.” Finally I found it; the name of the song was “The Solid Rock.” and
in some songbooks it is just “Solid Rock.” But the words “the
serpent’s lie, Concerning immortality” were not there! Apparently Jones
changed these words in order to prove his thesis.
Not only that, but I found
that “Martin Luther” never wrote
these words! I have an old hymnal entitled The
Evangelical Hymnal, published by “Board Of Publication of the Evangelical
Church”, Cleveland, Oh. & Harrisburg, Pa., Copyrighted 1921. For the song
“Solid Rock”, page 150, it has “Edward Mote” as the author and
“William B. Bradbury” as the composer. From pages xxxiv to xxxvi is found a
list of authors. Rev. Edward Mote is listed on page xxxv as the author and
flourished from 1797 till 1874. From pages xxxvii to xxxix are listed composers.
William B. Bradbury is listed on page xxxvii as the composer and flourished from
1816 till 1868 and composed 21 melodies including “Solid Rock.” Now you can judge from this evidence for yourself whether or not you
think Jones is being honest or not when he says that “Martin Luther” wrote
these words, (and Jones changed the words to his own use to boot). Now if
“Martin Luther” wrote these words, then Edward Mote is a plagiarist.
In this hymnal the words, “Used by
permission of The Biglow & Main Company, Owners”, is used. This indicates
that this company had a copyright against this song and only could be used by
their permission. Question: How could “Edward Mote”, “William B.
Bradbury” and “The Biglow & Main Company” get a copyright on something
“Martin Luther” wrote hundreds of years before? Under copyright law, it
would be unethical and illegal for Mote to claim authorship if it were Martin
Luther’s work! IS THIS GOOD A EXAMPLE
OF JONES’ CHARACTER? AND DOES IT PROVE, AS A WRITER AND RESEARCHER, HE CANNOT
BE TRUSTED? AND THIS IS THE BOY THE “ONE SEEDLINERS” ARE PARROTING!!!
Well, anyway, now we know more about Stephen Jones!
Lets’ take a look, now, at
the true words to this line of the stanza of Mote’s poem which was later put
to Bradbury’s melody:
“I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But
wholly lean on Jesus’ name.”
“I dare not
trust the serpent’s lie, Concerning immortality.”
By suggesting these words,
Jones was using “subliminal suggestion” in his deceitful tactics to get you
to buy his argument. The average person would say in his/her mind, “Oh yes, I
know those words, so Jones has a good point here.” “Subliminal suggestion”
is a science, and is practiced much by the “Jews.” The question here is:
“Who might be the Jew behind Jones doing this?”
For the record, let’s
observe what the true words of
the song, “The Solid Rock” are:
My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’
blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on
When darkness seems to hide His face, I rest on His
unchanging grace. In every high and stormy gale, My anchor holds within the
His oath, His covenant, His blood Support me in the
whelming flood. When all around my soul gives way, He then is all my Hope and
the way, the “whelming flood” is all of these “strange” aliens coming
into Israel countries today.)
When He shall come with trumpet sound, Oh may I
then in Him be found; Dressed in His righteousness alone, Faultless to stand
before the throne.
On Christ, the solid Rock, I stand; All other
ground is sinking sand. All other ground is sinking sand.
Notice, here, again, no words
about “the serpent’s lie, Concerning
immortality.” They were added by Jones who misrepresented the true author
and thought you would never notice! So much for this story, but for anyone who
does not believe that Weiland is parroting Jones, I suggest you read the book by
Stephen E. Jones The Babylonian
Connection, published by America’s Promise, and Ted R. Weiland’s new
book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? And compare the two.
R. WEILAND GOOFS IN HIS BOOK, “GOD’S
Today and Forever”
R. Weiland, Stephen E. Jones, James Bruggeman and Charles Weisman are doing
their best (or maybe their worst) to make Esau-Edom the only enemy of Israel,
and prove that the Ashkenazim Jews are just converts to the Jewish religion, and
therefore not of the Satanic race of Cain. They, in doing this, make our present
day problems seem like a quarrel between two brothers, Jacob and Esau. Weiland
speaks of Esau-Edom on pages 309-311 making it seem like a quarrel between two
brothers, Jacob and Esau as I said before. Weiland speaks of the Ashkenazi
Khazar Jews on pages 59-74; 93-94; 126; 140 and 327 making it appear like a race
of people who just happened to accept the Jewish religion. By doing this,
Weiland completely avoids the “Satanic Seed-line” doctrine. Weiland has very
little to say of the Sephardic Jews, and what he does say is completely in
error. Weiland quotes, (page 68), a Jewish source, James Gaffe in his book “The
American Jews” which says this:
“... the early Sephardic settlers for example,
left practically no descendants who are still Jewish.... they disappeared not because they intermarried but
because they refused to intermarry - and so, without sufficient choice among
their own, they remained unmarried and died
out. ...choosing extinction rather than assimilation.”
I will back up to a note by Weiland: “Note
that he (Gaffe) considers the Sephardic Jew extinct”
could make long quotes from the 7 volume History
of the Jews by Graetz, The Story of
the Jew by Levinger, the 2 volume History
of the Jews by Henry H. Milman, History
and Destiny of the Jews by Josef Kastein and A History of the Jews by Abram Leon Sachar that the Sephardic Jews
still exist. I will be quoting from a book Our
Crowd by Stephen Birmingham, but before I do, you have to know that the
Khazar kingdom accepted the religion of Judaism under king Bulan in 740 A.D.
Upon doing so, they brought in Rabbis from Babylon and the race-mixing began
between the Cain Satanic Jews and the Khazars infusing them with the Satanic
bloodline, if they didn’t already have it. In 960 A.D. the Khazar Jews made
contact with the Sephardic Jews in Spain and more race mixing between the two
branches of Jewry ensued further spreading the satanic bloodline. From 720 A.D.
until today has given the “Jews” of Ashkenazim and Sephardim 1,278 years to
completely mix the Cain Satanic blood among them.
SEPHARDIM ARE STILL AROUND!
the book OUR CROWD, ‘The Great
Jewish Families of New York’, pages 29-30, and I will have to paraphrase the
story: Sometime in the 1650s a ship (“bark”, 3 masted sailing ship, St.
Charles) dubbed the “Jewish
Mayflower” brought twenty-three Sephardic Jews from the culture of
medieval Spain and some of the great Sephardic families of New York descended
from the “St. Charles” arrivals which included the Hendrickses, Cardozos,
Baruchs, Lazaruses, Nathans, Solises, Gomezes, Lopezes, Lindos, Lombrosos &
Seixases. Just check out these names and you will know the Sephardic Jews are
still around. On page 31, it tells how the Sephardic and German (Ashkenazi) Jews
of New York began to “intermarry.” It was the Sephardic that were the old
Canaanite Jews that came from Palestine. They had the blood of Cain, Esau and of
the race of Rephiam (fallen angels). If
the Sephardic Jews are extinct, as Ted R. Weiland implies, there is no longer an
Esau-Edom!!!!! Why, then, even make an issue of Esau-Edom if this is the
case????? This is just one example of the many spurious statements Weiland,
Jones, Bruggeman and Weisman make in their presentations to mislead and confuse
the issues. Anything but anything to destroy the ministries of Bertrand L.
Comparet and Wesley A. Swift!
R. WEILAND WRITES NEW BOOK REFUTING TWO SEEDLINE
he wrote this recent (Spring, 2000) book, Weiland had his material on a ten
cassette tape series entitled Eve, Did
She? or Didn’t She? Weiland also had written an article (11 pages) in the Kingdom
Journal, Spring, 1998, a publication under the auspices of James W.
Bruggeman. Again, the title of that article was Eve,
Did She? or Didn’t She? His latest book seems to be an expansion with
refinement of his former work on the topic. I understand he also has this same
book available on Internet. Weiland,
in his new book on the subject, names very respectable teachers like the late
Bertrand L. Comparet, the late Nord W. Davis, Jarah B. Crawford, James E. Wise
and many others in his “source notes.” As Ted R. Weiland had mentioned my
name in his work, he sent me a complementary copy. I don’t have the room here
to give a long rebuttal, I will only make some short comments about his new
R. WEILAND EXPOSES HIS TRUE MOTIVES
analyzing a book, it is necessary to skip over all the small talk and get to the
heart of what is being said, and thereby, understand the motives of the author.
I am sure, once I point out some of these subtle hardly noticeable passages,
your evaluation, as well as mine, will be changed to a large degree. No matter
how well an author of a book, like his, tries to cover up his hidden agendas,
certain passages will reveal the innermost secret passages of his thinking. And
reveal himself, Ted R. Weiland did!
Weiland does not say it in terms of a “law tree”, he highly suggest that
this is what the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was that Eve
partook of in the garden. I will quote some excerpts from his book, pages 40-44,
and I am sure you will have to agree with my analysis of what he, in essence, is
are no scriptures that categorically tell us what the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil was ... Genesis 3:22 clearly reveals that the knowledge of good
and evil resides not with some demon of darkness, but rather with our omniscient
God, Yahweh ... God’s law itself is good because it reflects Yahweh’s
nature. Consequently, Yahweh uses it as the vehicle through which the knowledge
of good is commuted to man. The knowledge of evil is imparted by means of the
law as well ... Furthermore, Genesis 3:6 describes the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil as being able to
make one wise,
being pleasant to the eyes and good
These qualities also describe the law of God ... At this point someone is likely
to inquire “If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the law of
God, would not that have made God’s law evil because God did not want Adam
and Eve to partake of it?” ... There may be Christians, especially those who
understand the vital goodness and importance of God’s law for us today, who
may still have difficulty reconciling in their minds that Yahweh would ban
His law from Adam and Eve. Such Christians should consider that when God
prohibited Adam and Eve form partaking of the tree of life, that prohibition did
not make the tree of life evil ... So why would Yahweh want to keep Adam and
Eve from His law? ... Perhaps God initially forbade Adam and Eve the
knowledge of good and evil by way of His law because He knew He would have
to hold them accountable to use it, and He knew the heartache and death that
would ensue as a result ... On the other hand, if the eating of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil was an unlawful partaking of God’s law, then
there is a connection between Adam and Eve’s sin and all other sin.
now sort out all this gibberish. What are the consequences of what Weiland, in
essence, is saying? Weiland is inferring that Yahweh deliberately withheld His
Law from Adam and Eve so they wouldn’t be condemned by their sin — that as
long as they didn’t know the Law, they were innocent — that by partaking of
the law, it brought about death. If Weiland is correct (and Yahweh forbid), and
Adam and Eve would have never partook of (as Stephen E. Jones calls it) the
“law-tree”, we would be living in innocence today partaking in every kind of
immorality and it would not be considered by Yahweh as sin because we never ate
of the so-called “law-tree.” Wouldn’t all the homosexuals of today love
OF EATING OF THE LAW NOT ORIGINAL WITH WEILAND
idea is not original with Weiland. Stephen E. Jones in his book The
Babylonian Connection, pages 60-61 says this in part:
tree of life (Grace) and the tree of knowledge (Law) both were planted in the
same garden by God. They grew together. The Law-tree provided the righteous
standard; the Grace-tree provided the means by which the standard could be met
... First they disobeyed God by eating from the Law-tree, and for that act they
were made mortal. Then their eyes were opened to know both good and evil, and
they recognized their mortality in contrast to God’s immortality
... Because they had broken His Law, they stood naked (mortal) and without
BELIEVES THE “JEWS” ARE GOD’S CHOSEN PEOPLE
I am reading Wieland’s statement incorrectly concerning Weiland believing the
“Jews” are among God’s Chosen. All I can do is present to you Weiland’s
own words, and you will have to decide for yourself what his position on the
“Jews” is. We find it on page 94 of his new book Eve,
Did she Or Didn’t She?:
seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites
of the seed line of Satan,
whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and
7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of
what Weiland states here is true, then, how does he explain Revelation 2:9 and
3:9?, which says:
the blasphemy of them, which say they are Jews, and are not, but are
the synagogue of Satan ... Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,
which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie.
TO TWO SEEDLINE
was written sometime in 1997 when I put together my article Research
Papers Proving Two-Seedline Seduction Of Eve. At the time, I considered
rewriting and reformatting all my work on the subject. The message seemed too
important, though, to take time to do that, so I renumbered the pages I already
had using numbers and letters to keep track of the pages. What I had already
done seemed to be quite effective, so I decided to go with what I had. The
following is what I wrote as an introduction for this booklet.) — I will start
my story with the genealogy chart of Esau on the last page of this booklet. (I
am not including that chart with this up-dated article) I made this chart in the
late 70s, and at the time, I had no idea of what Israel Identity was all about.
I can’t even give you a good reason why I made this chart in the first place.
All I know is, that this chart was going to have a very dramatic affect upon me
from that time until now. In the late 70s, I knew there was something wrong, but
I couldn’t put my finger on it. I had made a very serious study into the
eastern religions along with witchcraft thinking that this might be where the
problem was. Well this was part of the problem, but later, I would find how it
fits into the scheme of things. Then a Catholic priest, a customer at my place
of business, introduced me to the story of the Illuminati and a character by the
name of John Todd, and I thought I had found the answer. As I would find out
later, John Todd only knew about half of what he was talking about. I acquired
about 50 of his cassette tapes and started to copy them and pass them around. No
sooner than I had gotten involved with John Todd and his version of witchcraft
and the Illuminati, than another customer brought in a copy of Billions For The Bankers And Debt For The People by Sheldon Emry.
Then another customer brought me a copy of The
United States and Britain In Prophecy by Herbert W. Armstrong. And yet
another customer brought me four cassette tapes by Jim Shaw on Freemasonry.
Along with the tapes by Jim Shaw was a small book list with a book entitled Fourth
Reich of the Rich by Des Griffin, which John Todd had talked about on one of
his cassette tapes. I immediately ordered this book from Shaw. When I got it, in
the back of the book was advertised about 200 more books, and I was on my way.
Now I didn’t trust Armstrong, so I sent to Sheldon Emry for more information
on Israel Identity. Now Emry only understood the Edomite connection with Jewry
and you can begin to see how the chart I had previously made started to affect
me — I knew all about those Edomites and who they were, so I thought. Anyway,
I was headed in the right direction. Well, again, I felt I had found the final
answer and I informed everybody I knew about those Edomite-Jews. Since the early
1980s I have spent 35,000 to 40,000 hours of study on Israel Identity and the
great “Jewish” conspiracy.
in my study, I continued to read about Cain and all of the Bible references
concerning him. I knew it was there — I understood it in general — I
accepted it but didn’t totally understand the importance of it and didn’t
make an issue out of it. About four years ago, I was guided by an acquaintance I
had made to Bertrand L. Comparet’s and Wesley A. Swift’s cassette tapes. I
had purchased some of Comparet’s tapes before that time, but they were so poor
in sound quality, I didn’t order any more. My acquaintance loaned me four of
Comparet’s tapes, and I liked them so well I copied them and ordered
everything I could get by Comparet and Swift. Out of these tapes I ordered,
about 5% to 10% were not intelligible. I did end up with about 225 tapes by
these two men that were from good to fair in sound quality. I would hate to
estimate how many times I have repeatedly listened to these cassette tapes over
and over again.
two or three years ago, I decided to write an article on Genesis 4:1 as this
seemed to be the hang-up with some people. I remember one young man in
particular. This is where we are with this booklet. You will have to understand
that as I was writing and speaking on this subject, I was going through a
learning process as I researched it. You will notice this as you go through my
presentations. You will find herein The
Problem With Genesis 4:1; Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis (my notes) ;
Postscript To Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis; Postscript #2, To
Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis; What Was It That Eve ‘Did Eat’? and
What Did Eve ‘Touch’?; Postscript #3, To The Presentation On The Trees Of
Genesis; and Esau’s Genealogy. In my research here, I have turned some new
ground that no one else has touched yet. The Postscript #3 is the best one I
have done yet. If you want to read that one first, go right ahead, but be sure
to read the others.
really got into this about two months ago (1997) when a friend gave me a ten
tape series, Eve, Did
She? or Didn’t She? By Ted R. Weiland. I wrote a letter to Weiland and
told him he was “a liar” and a “damn fool.” Then a friend sent me a
cassette tape by Charles Wiseman discrediting Two Seedline doctrine. I took this
60-minute tape and put it on a 90-minute tape, breaking in at times to point out
his errors making a debate out of it. Much of the material herein was used in
biggest breakthrough I made on Two Seedline doctrine was in Genesis 15:19-21
where I identified the Kenites as descendants of Cain; the Kenizzites as
descendants of Esau; the Rephaims as mutated giants from fallen angels and that
all of these race-mixed together with seven other nations to form the Canaanites
from which the Jews are extracted. Although this is commonly taught by some
Identity teachers, to my knowledge, no one else in Identity has ever identified
this from this particular passage.
would like to dedicate the following materials to the memory of Bertrand L.
Comparet, Dr. Wesley A. Swift and William P. Gale. These were real pillars and
great men in Israel not to be compared with the likes of Charles Weisman or Ted
R. Weiland who can’t even hold the door for them. I would like to quote Isaiah
54:17: No weapon that is formed against
thee shall prosper; and every tongue that
shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage
of the servants of Yahweh, and their righteousness is of me, saith Yahweh. Note:
The contents of this booklet may be freely copied and the copying cost
PROBLEM WITH GENESIS 4:1
Genesis 4:1 is probably one of
the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. This is really an understatement of
fact to say the least. On the understanding of this verse, lies the entire theme
of the Bible. Actually Genesis 3:15 is the main theme of the Bible, but without
a correct understanding of Genesis 4:1, the theme becomes muddled and confused!
Therefore it is of the utmost importance that one gain an understanding of this
verse or the entire Bible will remain a mystery! It is with this thought, that
the object of this Bible study is to completely master this passage so that the
story of the Bible can be opened up to us in all of its splendor and brilliance.
It is sadly unfortunate that
the many translations of the Bible do not do this verse justice! It will
therefore be necessary, in light of all this, to go to the Strong's Concordance and check and compare each and every word in
this verse. Upon checking out the original Hebrew, then, we shall attempt to
untangle and make a sensible rendering as to just what this passage is saying.
Before going any further, let
us see how the King James Version of the Bible shows it:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have
gotten a man from the Lord.
It would appear, if this were
the only verse in the Bible that had anything to say about this matter of the
birth of Cain, and if the King James version of the Bible were the only version
of the Bible we had, that we would have to accept the fact that Adam was the
father of Cain. You see, here is the problem, Adam was not the father of Cain!
Not only are the “Jews” of today not of Adam, but they know themselves they
are descended from Cain. Let’s see who the “Jews” admits himself to be. In
the “Jewish” publication Liberal
Judaism, January, 1949, there is an article entitled, “Liberal Judaism and
Israel” written by one of their greatest and most renowned Rabbis, Dr. Abba
Hillel Silver. Dr. Silver, writing about the then new State of Israel says:
... the third commonwealth of the Jewish
Nation is thus an accomplished fact. The State of Israel exists.
“As a result the concept of the wandering Jew is bound eventually to disappear along with
the term (galut) exile. All nations send forth immigrants to all parts of the
world. People are continually moving from one country to another, and change
their citizenship, but they are not regarded as exiles.
“This fact alone — the end of national exile
for the Jewish people, as such —is destined to affect favorably the psyche of
the Jew throughout the world. It will endow the Jew, wherever he lives, with a
self-respect and a sense of security, a normal tone, long-wanting in Jewish
experience. For the curse of Cain, the
curse of being an outcast and a ‘wanderer’
over the face of the earth has been removed ...”
Incidentally, Yahweh’s curse
upon Cain can be found in Genesis 3:14 which says:
And Yahweh El 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
Now let's go on to the
Strong's Concordance and check out this verse:
by the translators, and has no
Hebrew foundation.) #2532 Greek; and, also, even, so, then, too, both,
but, even, for, if, indeed, likewise, moreover, or, so, that, then, therefore,
when, yea, yet. Adam #120 Hebrew; from 119 Hebrew;
to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy: — be (dyed, made) red
(ruddy); a human being (an individual or the species, mankind etc.). Knew #3045 Hebrew; to know (ascertain by
seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, or literally,
euphemism and inference (including observation, care, recognition and
causatively: instruction, designation, punishment etc.) [as follow]:
-acknowledge, acquaintance, be aware, [un] awares [-not], certainly, for a
certainty, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be familiar,
friend, famous, feel , can have, be ig [norant, instruct, kinfolk, kinsman,
(cause to let, make) known, (come to give, have, take) knowledge ... be learned,
+ lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have, respect,
skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell,
understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot. Eve #2332, Hebrew, causatively from
#2331; life-giver; Châvvâh (or Eve), the first woman: — Eve. His #848 Greek (Added by the
translators, and has no Hebrew
foundation.), her (own), (of) him (-self), his (own), of it, thee, their (own),
them (-selves), they. Wife
#802 Hebrew, female of 376 or 582 ... a woman, [adulter] ess, each,
every, female, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in
English. And #2532, (Same as the and above, added by the
translators, and has no Hebrew
#1931 Hebrew, hûw, hoo; of which the
feminine (beyond the Penatateuch) is... hîy’, he; a primitive word, the third
personal pronoun, sing, he (she or it); only expressed when emphatic or a verb;
also (intensive) self, or (especially
with the article) the same; sometimes (as demonstrative) this or that; occasionally (instead of copula) as or are; he, as for her,
him (-self), it, the same, she (herself), such that (...it), these, they, this,
those, which (is), who. Conceived
#2029 Hebrew, to be (or become) pregnant, conceive (literally or
figuratively): — been, be with child, conceive, progenitor. And
#2532, Greek (Same as the and above, added by the translators, and has no
Hebrew foundation.) Bare #3205 Hebrew, to bear young;
causative to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage:
— bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young),
bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery,
gender, hatch, labor, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be
the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman). Cain #7014 Hebrew; Qayin, kah'-yin;
the same as 7013; Ka’-jin, the name of the first child, also of a place in
Palestine and of an Oriental tribe: -Cain, Kenite (-s).
And #2532, Greek
(Same as the and above, added by the translators, and has no
Hebrew foundation). Said #559 Hebrew; to say (used with
great latitude):— answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boast self, call, certify,
challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command (meet), commune, consider, declare,
demand, X desire, determine, X expressly, X indeed, X intend, name, X plainly
promise, publish, report, require, say, speak (against, of), X still, X suppose,
talk, tell, term, X that is, X think, use [speech], utter, X verily, X yet. I
#589 Hebrew; ’anîy, an-ee'; contraction from 595; I: — I, (as for) me, mine, myself, we, X which, X who. Have (This word is in the Addenda of the
Strong’s Concordance. Evidently added by the translators, and has no
Hebrew foundation.) Gotten #7069 Hebrew; (only time used in
the Bible with this word); qânâh, kaw-naw'; a primitive root; to erect; by
extension to procure, especially by purchase (causatively sell): by implication
to own; -attain, buy (-er), teach to keep cattle, get, provoke to jealousy,
possess (-or), purchase, recover, redeem, X surely, X verily. A
(a) is listed in the appendix of Strong's Concordance but there is no
dictionary number for either the Hebrew or the Greek. (This indicates that
there is no indefinite article in either the Hebrew or the Greek so the
indefinite English articles are added by translators to make the English
grammatical structure correct in translations. Hebrew also has no
definite article. Strong’s shows no reference number for any definite
article in English translation of Hebrew. Hebrew has no article. All used
in translation at discretion of the translators.) Man
#376 Hebrew; ’îysh; contraction for 582 [or perhaps rather from an
unused root meaning to be extant]; a man as an individual or a male person;
often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently
not expressed in translation): — also another, any (man), a certain, +
champion, consent each, every (one), fellow, [foot-, husband-] man, (good-,
great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man [-kind], +
none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy.
Compare 802. From 575 Greek; apo; a primary
particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near) in various senses (of
place, time, or relation; literally or figuratively): — (X here) after, ago,
at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in (out) of, off,
(up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation,
departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc. The
3588 Greek; ... in all their inflections; the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted in English idiom):
-the, this, that, one, he, she, it etc. Lord
#3068 Hebrew; yeh-ho-vaw’; from 1961; (the) self - Existent or Eternal;
Jehovah (correctly Yahweh), Jewish (correctly Hebrew) national name of God: —
Jehovah the Lord (correctly Yahweh), Compare 3050, 3069.
From reviewing the breakdown
of the Hebrew, word-for-word, in this verse, a problem here should immediately
jump out at you. Do you notice that all of the words here are not in Hebrew, but
some of them are in Greek? But you were always told that the Old Testament was
written in Hebrew and Chaldee. Then, Why do we find some Greek words in the Old
Testament? (Actually, we do not.
The Hebrew manuscripts have no
Greek words ... I thought you would never ask. Now in the original writings the
Old Testament it was entirely in Hebrew and Chaldee. In the third century B.C.
somewhere between 280 to 130 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt on the island of Pharos,
because of the expansion of the influence of Hellenism and the Greek language,
it was decided by some Alexanderian “Jews” that they wanted the Scriptures
of the Old Testament in a Greek version. The story goes that they appointed 72
scholars in Hebrew (six from each tribe) to come up with a Greek version of the
Old Parchments (kind of like a Sanhedrin). When they had finished their task
they called it, or later on it was referred to as the Septuagint (LXX). The
question that should be asked here is: Where did they find the six from each
tribe since the ten northern tribes had gone into Assyrian captivity in 720 B.C.
and were nowhere close to be found in Alexandria, Egypt? They might have found
some from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin or maybe even some of the tribe of
Levi. Well it makes a good story anyway. Then the story goes that the 72
scholars (each one working separately) completed their task in 72 days. Because
the old Hebrew language was a very abbreviated type of language (it didn't take
very many words to say a lot), that these “Jews” felt that they must add
some Greek words to make the text more understandable. God needed their help you
know! Now the biggest question of all: How do we know that they picked the
correct Greek words to fill in with? With any translation you never know.
It would have been proper, in principal, for the translators to have added
definite articles where indicated, but the problem is in determining just where
a definite article is indicated since the Hebrew has none. It is entirely
discretionary with the translators.
At this point, in this
discussion, you will probably wonder where this information about the Septuagint
is coming from. Well it is coming from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth
Edition, 1894 and the Dictionary Of The New Testament by Hastings. At this point
let's take some excerpts from the Dictionary Of The New Testament by Hastings: "Septuagint.
— The Version 'according to the Seventy.' 1. This name for the Greek
translation of the Old Testament has its origin in the legend that Ptolemy II.
Philadelphus was advised by his librarian Demetrius Phalereus to procure, from
Jerusalem, copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, and men learned in the Hebrew and
Greek languages to translate them. (Bingo,
now we know, at least in part, where the Greek came from.)
Ptolemy accordingly sent ambassadors to Eleazar the high priest, who sent back
to Alexandria seventy-two elders, six from each tribe, with magnificent copies
of the Hebrew Scriptures. They were treated with the highest honour; they were
assigned a quiet and convenient building on the island of Pharos, removed from
the distraction of the city; and there in seventy-two days, they translated the
Hebrew Bible into Greek. ... And the early Fathers of the Christian Church from
the 2nd century onwards received the story without suspicion, and amplified it.
... Being entirely dependent on it, and unable to appeal to or form comparisons
with any other version, they adopted it without suspicion and with tenacity into
least defensible renderings, and pressed them into the service of controversy,
dogma, and devotion. ‘It was argued that the errors of the Greek text were due
to accidents of transmission, or that they were not actual errors, but Divine
adaptations of the original to the use of the future Church' ... It is difficult
to gauge the extent to which religious conceptions were affected by the results
which ensued from the wedding of the Greek language to Hebrew though.” Now
let us take some excerpts from the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1894:
"The king consented and sent an embassy, of which the author of the letter
was a member, to the high priest Eleazar at Jerusalem asking him to send six
ancient, worthy, and learned men from each of the twelve tribes to translate the
law for him at Alexandria. ... the whole translation was finished in seventy-two
days. ... The chief thing in the Letter
is the description of a seven days' symposium of the seventy translators at the
Alexandrian court, during which each of them has a question to answer, and
raises the admiration of the king for the wisdom produced among the Jews by
their knowledge of the law. Further, very great weight is laid on the point that
the LXX. is the official and authoritative Bible of the Hellenistic Jews ... But
it has been thought much more likely that the Septuagint was written down to
satisfy the religious needs of the Jews by a translated Torah, since in fact the
version is fitted for Jews ... In some books the translators took the liberty
to make considerable additions to the original ... The same Greek word is
forced to assume the whole range of senses which belongs in Semitic speech to
the derivation of a single root ... At the same time, many passages are freely
rendered and turned where there is no need to do so ... The literalness of the
version is due not to scrupulousness but to want of skill, and probably, in
part, also to accommodation to a kind of “Jewish” jargon ...
version is the work of many hands, it is naturally not of uniform character
throughout all its parts, — indeed considerable varieties of character sometimes
appear in one and the same book. The older constituents of the canon have an unmistakable family
likeness as contrasted with the later books; thus one may see by comparing Kings
with Chronicles or Isaiah and Jeremiah with Daniel. The Pentateuch is considered
to be particularly well done and Isaiah to be particularly unhappy. Some of the
Hagiographa (Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Chronicles) are reproduced with verbal
closeness; others on the contrary (Job, Esdras, Esther, Daniel) are marked by a
very free treatment of the text, or even by considerable additions. It
is not, however, always easy to tell whether a Septuagint addition is entirely
due to the translator or belongs to the original text, which lay before him
in recension divergent from the Massoretic.
... But long usage had made it impossible for the Jews to do without a Greek
Bible, and to meet this want a new version was prepared corresponding accurately
with the canon and text of the Pharisees. This was the version of Aquila, which
took the place of the Septuagint in the synagogs ... But that it should be so
appears to have been the design of providence, which has permitted the Old
Testament text to reach us in a form that is often so corrupt as to sin against
both the laws of logic and grammar of rhetorical and poetical form."
We are now forced to ask the
question: Can we trust these 72 so-called scholars (“Jewish” scholars) who
translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek??? It would appear that the only way
to eliminate any error that the Greek might have added to the text in any way is
to read Genesis 4:1 using the Hebrew only. It would read thus: Adam
knew Eve wife she conceived bare Cain said I gotten man Yahweh. The
problem here is the word, knew. The Bible uses the word knew, #3045, 80 times.
Out of the 80 times there are only 8 times (9 if you count this verse) where
this word has sexual connotations. This word, knew, is the key to understanding
the entire verse. If the word
does not have sexual
connotations, the verse might read something like this: And
Adam observed that Eve, his wife, was pregnant, that she had conceived, And from
this pregnancy, she gave birth to Cain, And she answered, and asked, From where
have I created this male person? Even Yahweh?
By this time it should be
obvious that the present Bibles and translations cannot be trusted. That the
scribes, down through the ages, have done a poor job of translation and many
times for religious, political and economic reasons have actually changed the
Scriptures so that they back up some of their petty doctrines. Also some of
these scribes have been, and are, the very enemies of the Almighty! When we come
to realize how the Scriptures have been manipulated in this way, then we can
better adjust our study habits so we can discern the truth! But these
manipulations by the scribes are only part of the problem.
Not only do we have to adjust
for error, but there is the matter of
idioms and parables. The dictionary says an idiom is: A speech that is peculiar to itself within the usage of a given language.
Inasmuch as we have taken up the matter of error, let's next take up the problem
of idioms. Let's take a couple of examples of modern day idioms. We might say
that we had a good time over the weekend; we went out and painted the town red.
We really didn't take a bucket of red paint along with a paintbrush and try to
paint the houses or whatever around town. It is just a modern day idiom saying,
we had a good time. Then sometimes when we know a person that seems to have
prospered all of their life, we say, they were born with a silver spoon in their
mouth. Now when they were born and came out of the womb, they really didn't have
a silver spoon in their mouth.
Now let us consider a couple
of the idioms of the Bible. Numbers 14:9 says: They
are bread for us, which means, We can
easily conquer them with little effort. Matthew 8:21 says: Bury
my father, which means, Take care of
my father until he dies. Now the Bible is just loaded with idioms in all of
its languages. It is obvious, then that an extended study needs to be made to
understand the meanings of these idioms. Many times what you are reading is not
what it really meant!
Now that we understand how the
various translations can be in, or lead to, error, and how the idioms can be misleading, let's take up the matter of parables.
A Bible parable is like an allegory or symbolism, a story or narrative in which
a moral principle or abstract truth is presented. Parable in Greek means a
proverb, adage, similitude, or to throw along side. In Hebrew, and probably more
correctly, it means a metaphor or simile, a figure of speech in which one object
is likened to another by speaking of it as if it were the other. Now let's see
how the Bible uses the word, parable. In Matthew 13:34 it says, "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and
without parables spake he not unto them." It was a fulfillment of Psalm
78:2 which says, "I will open my
mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old." It is
interesting to notice why the Redeemer spoke in parables. Matthew 13:13,14 says,
"Therefore speak I to them in
parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophesy of Esaias, which saith,
By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and
shall not perceive." Also Mark 4:11,12 says, ’11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of
the kingdom of Yahweh: but unto them that are without, all these
things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and
hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest
at any time they should be converted, and their
sins should be forgiven them." Well so much for John 3:16, the Golden Text of the
Bible as it is generally mistakenly
understood to mean everybody. Many may not be aware of it, but John 3:16 was
never in the original text. It was originally a side note, and was later added
to the text. But that is entirely another story. From Mark 4:12 it is apparent that Yahshua didn't want everyone!
Here, too, it is important to know to whom Yahshua was addressing this message
because it has everything to do with Genesis 4:1! Actually the Bible is written
in parables on purpose as it is not intended for everyone to understand. It is
as though it were written in a secret code. If we are to understand the Bible, it is going to be necessary to
research to find out what these parables, allegories, symbols, proverbs, adages,
similitudes and metaphors mean!!! If you are having a hard time
understanding the Bible, the Bible says, "ask". It needs be that the
Spirit guides us, and I am not talking about the Charismatics either. It is
hoped, at this point, that we can see what it is going to take to understand
Yahweh's word! Now we shall go on to further develop Genesis 4:1.
Now that we see that, in order
to understand the Bible, we must take error,
idioms and parables into account so we can approach our subject objectively
(treating facts without distortion). Probably the most important thing we have
to do is look at the Bible as a whole. If we look at the big picture, and we see
something out of place (like water running uphill), we know something is wrong.
So, too, when we take the whole story of the Bible into account, and we read
something that doesn't fit, chances are it doesn't. There are many who get hung
up on one verse in the Bible and don't seem to be able to get around it. Genesis
4:1 is one of those verses that doesn't seem to fit. So we are going to have to
avoid having a myopic view of the Bible! We are going to have to evade the
tunnel vision syndrome! Basically what we have is a verse in Genesis 4:1 that
doesn't appear to fit with Genesis 3:15.
Inasmuch as Genesis 3:15 is
the main theme of the Bible, let's establish that story next. In the King James
Version of the Bible, it reads like this: "And
I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;
and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal." The
entire Bible revolves around this verse! This fact cannot be emphasized enough.
There is a literal war being waged between the seed of the woman and the seed of
the serpent and it has been going on for a long time. It is important, here, to
realize that the serpent has just as literal seed (children) as the woman. Let's
check in the Strong's Concordance and see what this word, seed, means. It is
important to note that the word seed applies the same for the serpent as it does
for the woman. In the Strong's Concordance the word seed is #2233 in the Hebrew,
zera, zer'-rah; from 2232;
seed; figuratively fruit,
plant, sowing-time, posterity: — X carnally, child, fruitful, seed
(-time), sowing-time. The one seedliners usually try to promote that the seed
mentioned in this verse is in the singular and means “Jesus Christ” only.
One source, which suggests such a definition, is An
Expository Dictionary Of The New Testament Words by W. E. Vine, pages
338-339. He got such an idea from reading the Septuagint. Again, can the
Septuagint be trusted in all cases? After all, the word in Greek means SPERMA.
Would we be so foolish as to consider sperma to mean one individual seed?
Scripture says one seed out of many, Galatians 3:16. Again, the one seedliners
promote that the woman didn’t have any seed. If they understood genetics they
wouldn’t say such a thing. Science knows today that each single cell of the
human body has two sets of 23 chromosomes, or a total of 46. I will now quote The
World Book Encyclopedia, volume 9, page 192d: “Every
human body cell contains two sets of 23 chromosomes. These two sets look very
much alike. Each chromosome in one set can be matched with a particular
chromosome in the other set. Egg cells and sperm cells have only
one set of 23 chromosomes. These cells are formed in a special way, and end up
with only half the number of chromosomes found in body cells. As a result, when an
egg and a sperm come together, the fertilized egg cell will contain
the 46 chromosomes of a normal body cell. Half of the chromosomes come from
the mother, and half from the father”. It is absurd, then, to
say the woman doesn’t have any seed. The woman, then, contributes just as much
genetic makeup to the offspring as the man!
The question, at this point, if the serpent has seed or (children); Who
fathered and mothered them??? For this, it is imperative that we go first to
Genesis 3:13, which says: "And the
Yahweh said unto the woman, what is this that thou hast done? And the woman
said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." You will notice that Eve
told Yahweh, "The serpent beguiled
me." Let's see what this word "beguiled"
means in the Strong's Concordance in Hebrew. It is #5377; nâshâ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude,
or (morally) to seduce:
beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly. Here the word beguile can mean seduce,
which in turn means, to induce (a woman) to surrender her chastity ... entice to
unlawful sexual intercourse. It can also mean to be mentally seduced. We have to
be wise enough to know the difference. Now that we have covered the word
beguiled, let’s now take up the word eat. Eat in the Strong's Concordance is #398, and means: akal, ’aw-kal;
a primitive root; to eat (literally or
figuratively): -X at all, burn up, consume, devour (er, up), dine, eat (-er,
up), feed (with), food, X freely, X
in… Wise (-deed, plenty), (lay)
meat, X quite. In this particular verse eat could mean what it says, but it is
better rendered lay. Now that we have consulted with the Strong's Concordance as
to the meanings of these two words, let's try to determine what Eve really said:
"The serpent seduced me, and I did
At this point you might say
that we are stretching the Hebrew meaning of the word eat, but read the
following. If you can understand the Hebrew idioms, you know that the word eat
can have many connotations. Proverbs 9:17, for example, reads: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten
in secret is pleasant." The Hebrew idiom here is according to Idioms In The Bible Explained by George M. Lamsa, page 27: Also,
Proverbs 30:20 is referring to sexual connotations when it uses the word eat:
“Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no
wickedness.” This is what Lamsa interprets the meaning, "The
tree of good and evil", Genesis 2:17: Metaphorically
— sexual relationship. Also
"the tree of life in the midst of the
garden", Genesis 2:9: Sex:
posterity, progeny, (page 1), and I don't think Lamsa has an ax to grind on
this subject. Some people are so goody good and above it all that they don't
want to think in sexual terms concerning Eve's temptation. Now the
"trees" spoken of in Genesis, Hebrew #6086, does mean wooden trees,
but idiomatically a tree can mean many things like in Proverbs 11:30, "The
fruit of the righteous is a tree of life." You can see from this, if
you don't understand the idioms of
the language, you will not understand the meanings. From all of this, you should
now understand that Eve didn't eat an
apple from a wooden tree and that the serpent wasn't a scaly snake!!!
Not only is it hoped that we
understand what the nature of the episode, which happened in Eden, was, but also
a fact we have to be aware of is the machinations of the scribes. Jeremiah 8:8 says, "How
do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Yahweh is
with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is
According to Lamsa (underlined here), this has an idiomatic meaning: "Scribes forged some of the passages in the Scriptures."
If this is true, and it apparently is, then we can understand why there is a
problem with Genesis 4:1 and some other passages we have to deal with in Holy
Just Why Then Is Genesis
4:1 So Important?
Genesis 4:1 in the KJV falsely
makes it appear that Adam was the father of Cain while in reality Satan was.
Whether or not this passage has been altered by the scribes, or whether some
error has been made in the translation is not known. What we do know is, Genesis
4:1 doesn't fit with the rest of the story. We really don't have to go out of
the fourth chapter of Genesis to find more on this story. Genesis 4:25 says, "And
Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God said she,
hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."
It appears here, in this
verse, that Seth was a replacement for Abel. Why was not Seth a replacement for
Cain??? It is obvious, Cain being fathered by Satan, Seth could only be
"appointed" a replacement for Abel. In the Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance Of The Bible, #8352 Hebrew, the name Seth means “substitute.” In
the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon Of The Old Testament, Seth means “in
stead of another.” We can’t just pass over this passage without answering
“instead of who”? It is obvious Seth has to be instead of somebody. Who was
it? All you one seedliners out there, we need an answer to this question. Why is
not Seth a substitute for Cain? If Cain, Abel and Seth were all full brothers,
why would their have to be a substitute for anyone of them? Being that Abel was
dead, he was the only one that Seth could be a substitute for! It is stated in
Jasher 2:1 that Seth was in Adam’s likeness, and that Yahweh had appointed
another seed in the place of Abel. It doesn’t say anything about Cain being in
Adam’s likeness, Why? You will notice here that Cain was left totally out of
the picture, and for good reason. Genesis 4:7 says, "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."
In Genesis chapter 4, verses 1 and 2, you will notice after the births of Cain
and Abel, the order is reversed to Abel and Cain. At first this may not seem
important, but when you consider the patriarchal position, it makes all the
difference in the world. It appears that Cain, when he killed Abel, was going
for all the marbles. The stakes were high. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1894, the name of Cain means
"to obtain" (get, acquire,
annex, compass, gain, procure), and that is what the descendants of Cain are
doing today. In The Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia Of The Bible (in five volumes) by Merrill C. Tinney, the name
of Cain is "related to the word to
forge in metal, hence, a smith. ... Also from the Hebrew word, to aquire." There
will be more said on this later.
At this juncture it would be
well to point out the fingerprints or characteristics of Cain and his seed line.
There are three primary distinctive things mentioned in Genesis which should
identify or determine who the descendants of Cain are: #1 the ground will not
yield its strength, Genesis 4:12, therefore they will not be farmers. #2 they
have a physical mark on their body, Genesis 4:15, it is that large long
hooknose. Cain may have other marks too. #3 They shall make their living from
the "dust" (rust from the junk yards, refuse from landfills) and deal
in leftovers like a pawnshop, These mentioned here are the primary marks of the
descendants of Cain. Now we shall consider the secondary marks of Cain and we
shall get a pretty well rounded out picture of the people we are speaking of.
Genesis 4:17 indicates they are to be city dwellers. Genesis 4:20 indicates they
would be tent dwellers having cattle. (If this one doesn't seem to fit, think of
Armand Hammer who is big in feeding lots and has an airplane outfitted like a
travel trailer inside.) Genesis 4:21 indicates they would be masters of musical
instruments. Genesis 4:23 indicates they would be people of violence. A better
picture of the “Jews” of today, or in the past, would be hard to find. The
reason, then, to get Genesis 4:1 cleared up is so we can understand the
implications of Genesis 3:15. Genesis 3:15 indicates a war between Satan's seed
and the woman's seed. That war started in Eden and it is still going on today.
It could be said; we have put the fox (“Jew” devils) in charge of the hen
The reason Genesis 4:1 is so
important to understand is because the “Jews” of today are the descendants
of Cain who was fathered by Satan. Yes, the “Jews” are literal children of
the devil and they are in charge of the great conspiracy today economically,
politically, religiously, and racially. As a matter of fact, the whole
conspiracy revolves around the racial issue. Satan's
plan is to destroy, in any way, the white race of Adam!!! If you cannot see
it happening, you have to be blind!!!
A lot of Bible so-called
experts try to indicate there is no mention made of the descendants of Cain
beyond Genesis chapter 4, and this is not true! If you check the #7014 in the
Hebrew section of Strong's Concordance (the
same number used for Cain in Genesis), you will notice that the descendants of
Cain were called Kenites. We find the Kenites mentioned in 1st Chronicles 2:55,
which says, "And the family of the
scribes which dwell at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites.
These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of
Rechab." So we find they were called Kenites and Rechabites. By
studying these two words, it will lead to a better understanding of the
descendants of Cain. You have to be careful, though, because in Judges 1:16 and
4:11 Moses' in-laws are wrongly called Kenites. Also in Judges 4:17, Jael is
wrongly called a Kenite. The reason for this error can only be speculated on, it
may be the work of the "scribes". Also it could be because they
lived in the same area with the Kenites. The 35th chapter of Jeremiah pretty
well describes the Rechabite descendants of Cain as they would drink no wine,
build no houses but dwell in tents, have no field or vineyard nor sow seed. The
Pictorial Bible Dictionary by The Southwestern Company under Rechab, item 2
says, "An early ancestor of the Kenite Tribe which later became
identified with the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:55). Rechab was the founder of
the order of the Rechabites. It was Jehonadab who rode with Jehu on the penal
mission against the house of Ahab (2 Kings 10:15ff). Jeremiah utilized the
example of the Rechabites and their obedience to their father to drink no wine
as a method of sharply berating the nation for their lack of obedience to
God." Do you suppose the Rechabites could remember the offering of Abel
that it was a blood offering which the wine represents? Could it be that the
Rechabites lived in tents because they were vagabonds? Could it be the
Rechabites didn't plant seed because of the curse that the ground wouldn't yield
of its strength? Do you notice that these Rechabites, these Kenites, these
descendants of Cain made it well past Noah's flood? It appears that we have more
It seems that Jesus (Yahshua)
didn't have any problem identifying these “Jew” devils as He said to them,
John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the
devil", and that isn't all He said. He also identified them when He
said, Matthew 23:34,35, "Wherefore,
behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye
shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues,
and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous
blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias son of Barchias, whom ye slew between the temple and the alter."
No one else who has ever lived could fit this description except the descendants
of Cain!, NO ONE. Cain
was the only one who ever killed Abel! The one seedliners can jabber
forever, but they cannot change Yahshua’s words on this passage. Yahshua said
in Matthew 13:35: “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been
kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Then the one seedliners
have the audacity to proclaim the Redeemer didn’t know what He was talking
about. By taking a stand against the Two Seedline teaching that the “Jews”
are the descendants of Cain, and this is what the one seedliners in substance
Adam Or That Man?
We are now going to approach
this subject from a different angle. In
The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English by Hendrickson (Jay P. Green
Sr.) we would like to discuss Genesis 4:1 in more detail. Now this is coming
straight from the Hebrew text by the Masoretes (if you think you can trust a
devil). Between the Septuagint and the Masorah, we don't have anything else and
they have both been in the hands of the enemy. That is why we have to scrutinize
what we have so carefully. The truth is probably there except we have to examine
it with a fine-toothed comb to find it! Genesis 4:1 reads according to The
Interlinear Bible, "And the man
knew his wife Eve. And she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a
of Jehovah. 2 And she continued to bear his brother, Abel."
We purposely went over into the second verse as it shows that Cain and Abel were
fraternal twins developed from separately fertilized ova and thus having
hereditary characteristics not the same. The main interesting thing to note
here, however, is the fact that this passage is interpreted to mean "the
man" and not necessarily "Adam". Now in The Interlinear Bible
Genesis 4:25 reads: And Adam knew his wife again, and she bare a son." Now
in both the 1st and 25th verses here, it uses the Hebrew word #120 in the Strong's
Concordance. We have to ask the question at this point: Can the Hebrew word
#120 in the Strong's Concordance have more than one meaning? We know that in
English sometimes there are many meanings of a single word. This is also true in
Hebrew and Greek. It appears that a more detailed study of this word is in
order. Strong's Concordance in the
Hebrew dictionary #120 reads like this: âdâm,
aw-dawn'; from 119; ruddy; i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind,
etc.):- X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (meaning, of low
First of all, it designates
that the word is from #119, which means to show blood in the face, flush, turn
rosy or to dye red. From this we will have no trouble identifying this with the
white race, as they are the only race that can blush. We can also see here that
Adam was the first white man. Secondly, it appears that it can mean an
individual and it doesn't seem to specify whether of the white race or not.
Thirdly, a species, a biological grouping of closely related organisms (like
kind, Adamic people). Fourthly, it can mean white mankind in general. Fifthly,
it can mean another. Another means, any or some other or one different ... in
other words, someone of another race. Sixthly, it can mean hypocrite, a
pretender to what one is not. Seventhly, it can mean hypocrite, a pretender to
what one is not. Eighthly, it can mean a common sort or ordinary person.
Ninthly, it can mean just a person (probably of any race). Now it is important
to point out that the words "another" and "low, man” (meaning
of low degree) can be idiomatic. Whenever there is a X mark in front of a word
in Strong's Concordance it means: X (multiplication)
denotes a rendering in the A. V. that results from an idiom peculiar to the
Hebrew. You can see here, again, that we are dealing with idioms. Then, also, we
should note what a + sign means in front of a word: + (addition)
denotes a rendering in the A. V. of one or more Hebrew words in connection with
the one under consideration. You will find these definitions at the front of the
Hebrew dictionary in your Strong's
Concordance. I have noticed a inherent tendency on the part of the one
seedliners to completely avoid the possibility of idioms! If you will but search
the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries of the Strong’s Concordance, you will find there are multi-thousands of
X’s and +’s to resolve the meaning of. This idea of taking the English
versions as gospel is ludicrous!
Now having said all of this,
let us see if we can make a rendering for "The man" in The Interlinear
Bible. We feel that the translator had a good reason for not using
"Adam" in this instance. Under these circumstances the best rendering
could be and probably is: "And another lesser man, hypocritical and of low degree, knew his
(Adam's) wife. And she conceived and bare Cain." A better rendering
of this verse is not likely to be made. Just when, where, how, by whom and under
what circumstances this verse became twisted from its correct meaning can only
be conjectured. We do know, however, that with the Scriptures being in the hands
of Yahweh’s enemy makes them highly suspect!
The Case Of The Cainites
An interesting paragraph in
the Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, 1894, under the topic “Cain”
reads: "A Gnostic sect of the 2nd
century were known by the name of Cainites. They are first mentioned by
Irenaeus, who connects them with the Valentinians. They believed that Cain
derived his existence from the superior power, and Abel from the inferior power,
and that in this respect he was the first of a line which included Esau, Korah,
the Sodomites and Judas Iscariot." Now this is quite a revealing
statement, for it includes Esau, Korah, the Sodomites and Judas Iscariot among
the Satanic seed line! Not only this, but the descendants of Cain evidently know
who they are. We could go into a long discussion about the Satanic nature of the
line of Esau, but that will have to wait for another time. We will have to limit
this discussion to the Satanic seed line of Cain.
article in the Dictionary Of The New Testament by Hastings has this to say about
the Cainites: "According to the
scanty information we possess about the Cainites, they seem to have formed one
of the Gnostic sects which are classed together under the somewhat inadequate
and perhaps misleading name 'Ophites,' though the serpent, from which the name
'Ophite' is derived, seems to have played no part in their system. Our oldest
source is to be found in Irenaeus ... He tells us that the Cainites regarded
Cain as derived from the higher principle. They claimed fellowship with Esau, Korah, the men
of Sodom, and all such people, and regarded themselves as on that account
persecuted by the Creator. But they escaped injury from Him, for Sophia used to
carry away from them to herself that which belonged to her. They regarded Judas
the traitor as having full cognizance of the truth. He therefore, rather than
the other disciples, was able to accomplish the mystery of the betrayal, and so
bring about the dissolution of all things both celestial and terrestrial. The
Cainites possessed a fictitious work entitled 'The Gospel of Judas' and Irenaeus
says that he had himself collected writings of theirs, where they advocated that
the work of Hystera should be dissolved. By Hystera they meant the Maker of
Heaven and Earth ... Epiphanius ... characteristically gives a much longer
account, in substantial harmony with what Irenaeus says. He appears to have had
some source of information independent of Irenaeus. He speaks of Abel as derived
from a weaker principle — a statement, which bears the marks of authenticity. He also says that
Judas forced Archons, or rulers against their will to slay Christ, and thus
assisted us to the salvation of the Cross. Philaster, on the other hand, assigns
the action of Judas to his knowledge that Christ intended to destroy the truth —
a purpose which he frustrated by the betrayal ... Like other Gnostics, the
Cainites drew a distinction between the Creator and the Supreme God ... They
viewed Him and those whom He favored with undisguised hostility; redemption had
for its end the dissolution of His work. They claimed kinship with those to whom
He showed antagonism in His book, the Old Testament, and shared themselves in
the same hostility. Nevertheless He was the weaker power, who could do them no
permanent harm, for Sophia, the Heavenly Wisdom, drew back to herself those
elements in their nature which they had derived from her. Presumably, then, they
thought of a division of mankind into two classes —
the spiritual and the material, the latter belonging to the realm of the Creator
and deriving their being from Him, but doomed to dissolution, while the former
class contained the spiritual men, imprisoned, it is true, in bodies of flesh,
but yet deriving their essential being from the highest Power, opposed by the
Creator and His minions, but winning the victory over them as Cain did over Abel
... There is no doubt that they applauded the action of Judas in the betrayal,
but our authorities differ as to the motive which prompted him. The view that
Judas through his more perfect ... penetrated the wish of Jesus more
successfully than the others, and accomplished it by bringing Him to the Cross
through which He effected redemption, is intrinsically the more probable ... So
far as the moral character and conduct of the Cainites is concerned, there is no
doubt that Irenaeus intended to represent them as shrinking from no vileness,
but rather as deliberately practicing it ... It is held by several scholars that
some Ophite sects date back into the pre-Christian era".
Cain In The American Standard Version
American Standard Version of the Bible has had a lot of criticism, and maybe
much of it rightly so, but there is one passage were they have it correct! That
passage is Numbers 24:21,22. The numbers for Cain in the Hebrew Dictionary
section of the Strong's Concordance are 7014 or 7017, and whenever you find the
word Kenite in the Bible, the numbers are identical to Cain. Now the American
Standard Version spells it out quite well except it spells Cain with a K, or
Kain. It should be noted that the Kenites, in this passage, made it safely well
past Noah's flood. That will present a very big problem with many because of the
way the flood account is taught today. Evidently everybody wasn't drowned in
that flood. This passage, Numbers 24:21,22 reads: "21 And he looked on the Kenite, and took up his parable, and said,
Strong is thy dwelling-place, And thy nest is set in the rock. 22 Nevertheless Kain
shall be wasted, Until Asshur shall carry thee away captive."
Cain In The God's Word
GOD'S WORD is a copyrighted
work of God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. Quotations are used by
permission. Copyright 1995 by God's Word to the National Bible Society. All
rights reserved. This version, Numbers 24:21,22 says, "21Then he saw the
Kenite and delivered this message: 'You have a permanent place to live. Your
nest is built in a rock. 22But it is destined to be burned, you descendants of
Cain, when Assyria takes you as prisoners of war.'" It is interesting to
note that this version uses the word Cain instead of Kenite. Genesis chapter 3
is not very good in this version as it uses the word "snake." It is
obvious, though, the translators had some working knowledge of the Hebrew as
they used the correct transliteration for Cain. They would probably have done a
better job on Genesis chapter 3 if they understood the Hebrew idioms better.
1st John 3:10-12 On Cain
This next passage, 1st John
3:10-12, is going to open up on this subject of Cain, and we are going to
understand this war that is going on between the seed
of the serpent and the seed of
the woman. There may be some who will apply this passage in a spiritual way, but
that is not correct. Satan has just as literal seed as the woman. Knowing that
these descendants of Cain, or “Jews”, are the children of the devil, we
should expect them to act, look and think like devils. Just like a rattlesnake
will naturally have all the characteristics of a rattlesnake, so a “Jew”
will naturally have the characteristics of Satan. Now as we read this passage,
we will see why Genesis 4:1 is so important, "In
this the children of Yahweh are manifest, and the children of the devil:
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of Yahweh, neither he that loveth not
his brother. 11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that
we should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, who
was of that wicked one, and slew his (½) brother. And wherefore slew he him?
Because his own works were (naturally) evil, and his brother's (naturally)
At this point, don't let the
term "children of God" confuse you. The children of God are the same
as the seed of the woman! This is why it is so important to understand Genesis
4:1. The seed of the woman being the White race (including Yahshua Himself), and
the seed of the serpent being the descendants of Cain who was fathered by Satan
himself (which are known as “Jews” today). From all of this, we have a
better idea just who the devil is.
This has completed the first
part of this research, which I wrote in 1995. The following is research, which I
put together later. I was attending some Identity meetings in Perrysburg, Ohio
where I was loaned a ten tape series on audiocassette tapes entitled Did
She or Didn’t She by Ted R. Weiland. The more I listened to these tapes,
the more disgusted I got. I decided right then and there to do a Bible study
into the subject as I had never done before. The following materials are a
product of this intensive research. This is a research, which I will never
complete, as I will continue to add more information to it as I discover new
evidence, which is related.
I was allowed to speak at one
of meetings in Perrysburg, and the following are the notes I typed out as a
guide to speak by. I cannot fill-in every thing which I said on this occasion,
but from these notes will give you a general view of my presentation. You will
have to remember that I put this together because of Ted R. Weiland’s opposing
views on the subject.
PRESENTATION ON THE TREES OF GENESIS
Clifton A. Emahiser
Review how the subject of the idea of a sex
connection with “Christ” (Yahshua) came about.
Speaker was talking about the Ted R. Weiland series
of audio tapes about Did She, or Didn’t
It was concluded that there had to be two seed
lines, but there was a doubt whether there was a sex act committed on the part
of Eve with Satan.
The reason for such a conclusion was based on: if
Eve eating of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” was interpreted as
Eve having sex with Satan, then, it would also mean that it would imply that it
would be necessary to have the sex act with “the tree of life” which
represents “Christ” (Yahshua), which would be ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd,
unreasonable, preposterous and idiotic.
Actually, this conclusion is absolutely correct if
you are thinking in this vein, but that’s the problem. That is thinking in the
If we are to understand what the “tree of
knowledge of good and evil” and “the tree of life” are, we are going to
have to understand the Hebrew idioms.
Explain what an idiom is:
Paint the town red.
Born with a silver spoon in
Let’s go to George M. Lamsa’s Idioms In The Bible Explained.
Who is George M. Lamsa? — read bottom of back
Read paragraph 1 of page ix of the Lamsa booklet.
This is why we have 666 denominations of
“Churches” today (each one with its own favorite idiom — some painting the
town red and the others with a silver spoon in their mouth.)
Explain how to find the idioms in the Strong’s
Let’s see what Lamsa has to say about “the tree
of knowledge of good and evil” and “the tree of life”
Genesis 2:17, “The tree of
good and evil”, Metaphorically — sexual
Genesis 2:9, “The tree of
Life”, Sex; posterity, progeny.
We can see here, then, both of these trees have an
idiomatic connotation with sex. (And Lamsa didn’t have an ax to grind here —
he is just an expert on Bible idioms — he is not trying to prove anything.)
The next thing we are going to do here is: explain
about “the tree of life” and what it has to do with sex.
We know that this “tree of
life” represents Yahshua the Messiah. All agree on this one.
We are going to use the
backdoor approach on this one.
We know that Yahshua was our
We know that He was not only
our brother kinsman, but He was also Yahweh (God) Himself. (All through the
Bible, they call Him the “son of man” which means son of Adam.) Son of God
and son of Adam, right?
We know that when He died on
the Cross (whatever kind of cross it was), it was “God’s” own blood that
He shed. The child does not get his blood from the mother, but makes its own.
To have shed “God’s”
blood, He would have had to be fathered by Yahweh Himself for He was Yahweh in
the flesh of Adam man — the 2nd Adam.
you think Mary’s egg, with its 23 chromosomes was fertilized by Yahweh’s own
DNA and His 23 chromosomes, if not for the fact that Mary’s reproductive
organs were affected
— maybe not conventionally, nevertheless
it did happen? (I have written on this subject recently as of 4-28-2000) This
is one of the major tenets of the “Christian” faith — and there is
nothing dirty about it! — And it was some type of reproductive organ contact,
at least on Mary’s part! If this offends you, complain to Lamsa. Now
we understand the Hebrew idiom of Genesis 2:9! Now we can understand what
Lamsa’s explained “sexual” connotations of the “tree of life” are all
about! And now that we have strong evidence of it, let’s consider the matter
of the “tree of good and evil”, Genesis 2:17. The Hebrew meaning for the
word “tree” in these instances means something firm or substantial. It’s
not talking about a fruit tree here!
serpent wasn’t a snake!
tree wasn’t a wooden tree!
We know that the “tree of life” is a person or
family member — so, also, is “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”
a person or family tree, (but not of our family). We have to consider the
possible position that the “tree of knowledge” of good was Eve’s
sexual union with her husband, Adam. And the “tree of knowledge” of evil,
was Eve’s sexual union with Nachash (Satan), [Comment by W. E. T.].
The Hebrew idiom here indicates that there was
sexual contact with this family tree also.
The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is
Satan and his family. He was practicing deceiving in the “garden” and he is
still practicing deceiving today. His methods haven’t changed since the
“garden.” He is still calling evil good and good evil — he is still
calling darkness light and light darkness — he is still calling bitter sweet
and sweet bitter. Satan’s lie was that eating of this forbidden “tree”
would have a positive result while Yahweh warned that it would be deadly. Is
this not calling evil good? This is Satan’s M.O. (method of operation). Every
criminal has his particular M.O. We can tell who Satan is today by his M.O.
Let’s take a look at Isaiah 5:20:
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet,
and sweet for bitter.
We don’t have any trouble recognizing these
people today because they are doing the same thing as in Genesis — they are
We can recognize the serpent’s seed (children)
today from the markings Yahweh put on them. One of these marks is this
misrepresenting of good and evil, darkness and light, and bitter and sweet.
Another two marks go back to Cain, which identify him, while another one goes
back to the serpent, Satan himself.
It is said of Cain, Genesis 4:12, “the
ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength”, so
therefore you will never see a “Jewish” farmer — you never have and you
It is said of Cain, Genesis 4:12, “a
fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth” and they have lived up
to that one, too, with their tinkering trade, pawnshops, and gypsy life style.
It is said of the serpent, Genesis 3:14,
“dust shalt thou eat all the days
of thy life.” We know that an ordinary snake does not eat dust. It will
eat insects or small animals, but not dust. The “Jew” started out selling
what other people threw in the trash to amass his fortune. Today the “Jews”
are still in the junkyard and landfill business. This is a mark that has been
placed on the serpent “Jew” so we can recognize him — eating dust — the
rust and oxidation of the junkyard would be the “dust.”
If we were to study the descendants of Cain as recorded in the Bible, we
could recognize more items of identification that the “Jews” are the
offspring of Cain — we really don’t have to guess as to who these people
Yes, both “the tree of knowledge of good and
evil” and “the tree of life” have sexual connotations in the Hebrew idiom!
Yes, the “Jews” of today are the descendants of
Cain who was fathered by the sperm Satan!
For further proof that the “Jews” of today are
a Satanic seed line let’s go to The Lost Books Of The Bible and The Forgotten
Books Of Eden, The Protevangelion 10:1-10, and this is where Joseph becomes
aware that Mary is pregnant with child (and this reference author doesn’t have
an ax to grind):
1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph
returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into
the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said,
With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning
this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my
God! and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has
committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled
her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in
the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced
her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me. Then Joseph arising
from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by
God, why hast thou done this? 9 Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast
educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels?
10 But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no
But you may say, “this book was not canonized.”
— canonized by whom? — the Roman Catholic Church? Well what do they
have to with it? Where or when does Yahweh give pagans the authority to
“canonize” anything? And what does the Council of Nicaea have to do with it?
By what authority did the Council of Nicaea have anything to say about what
books were to be in the Bible and which ones were not? You have to understand
that the Roman Catholic Church has never been a part of Yahshua’s Ekklesia.
They have never been a part of the true “Church” even for one day — they
have never been a part of the true “Church” for one hour — they have never
been a part of the true “Church” for one minute — they have never been a
part of the true “Church” for one second.
Where was the true Ekklesia then? They were called
Ebionites, Albigenses and Waldenses and they had their meetings in the
catacombs, in the forest and in mountain caves and the Roman Catholic Church
hunted them down like wild animals ready for the kill. They suffered many
hardships. They were branded as heretics, their motives impugned, there
characters maligned, their writings suppressed, misrepresented, or mutilated,
yet they stood firm. Rome had nothing good to say about these people just as the
media has nothing good to say about the Identity people of today!
With all of this, if Satan indeed seduced Eve
physically, then we have a mistranslation with Genesis 4:1. There just has to be
something wrong with this passage. (Later on we will be getting into just what
is amiss with it.) Let’s take a look at it:
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and
bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Yahweh.
word for Adam here is the word number 121 in the Strong’s Concordance. It says
in the Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee
Dictionary that number 121 is the same as 120. Let’s take a look at it and
see if we can find anything:
120 ... ’âdâm,
aw-dawm’; from 119, ruddy, i.e. a human being
(an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): — X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (meaning, of low
121 ... ’Âdâm,
aw-dawm’; the same as 120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in
Notice the two X’s here. This is telling you (by
the Strong’s Concordance) that we are dealing with Hebrew idioms and we cannot
take it as it says — it can have an
idiomatic hidden meaning in some cases. It can mean Adam — another — hypocrite —
low — a low degree man.
Could a scribe or translator, not knowing the
Hebrew idiom, have translated it “Adam” instead of “another man (other
than Adam) of low degree knew Eve and she conceived? I believe possibly this is
what we are dealing with! Or could it have been: Another in the place of Adam
knew Eve his wife and she conceived?
This study would not be complete if we did not
check out what the rest of the Bible might have to say on these “trees” in
“Eden.” Unless we take the time to understand these idioms, we are going to
miss the entire message the Bible has to convey.
If you have a King James Authorized Version of the
Bible with the center column references, you will notice that for
Genesis 2:9, it refers you to Ezekiel 31:8. I think you will find that this
reference in Ezekiel will clear up what the trees in Genesis are all about. What
we have here, in this reference, is Yahweh through the prophet, comparing Egypt
with the Assyrian Empire. In doing so, the prophet uses several Hebrew idioms.
The prophet refers to Assyria as a “cedar
of Lebanon.” This “Assyrian” is described in idiomatic language as
having “fair branches.” Further,
the prophet speaks in idiomatic language of the “shadowing
shroud” and the “high stature”
of this cedar tree. Then, he again speaks in idiomatic language of the “waters”
and “rivers” surrounding this cedar tree of Assyria. He speaks also
idiomatically of the cedar having “an
high stature” and “thick
boughs”. Ezekiel further speaks idiomatically of “the
fowls of heaven.” Also he uses a term idiomatically, “the beast of the field.” Also he speaks idiomatically of the “root”
of this cedar. He also speaks idiomatically of “fir
trees” and “chestnut trees.” All these terms are idiomatic and cannot be understood unless we
understand the Hebrew idiom, and this applies also to the “trees” of
Genesis. Now that we understand these terms are idiomatic, let’s read this
passage from verses 3 to 12:
3 Behold, the Assyrian was
a cedar in Lebanon with fair
branches, and with a shadowing shroud,
and of an high stature; and his top
was among the thick boughs. 4 The waters
made him great, the deep set him on
high with her rivers running round
about his plants, and sent out her little
rivers unto all the trees of the
field. 5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees
of the field, and his boughs were
multiplied, and his branches became
long because of the multitude of waters,
when he shot forth. 6 All the fowls of
heaven made their nest in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beast of
the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length
of his branches: for his root was
by great waters. 8 The cedars
in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the
garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. 9 I have made him fair by the
multitude of his branches: so that all the trees
of Eden, that were
in the garden of God envied him. 10
Therefore thus saith the Yahweh; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height,
and he hath shot up his top among the
thick boughs, and in his heart is lifted up to his height; 11 I have
therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen; he shall
surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness. 12 And
strangers, the terrible of the nations,
have cut him off, and have left him: upon
the mountains and in all the valleys
his branches are fallen, and his
boughs are broken by the rivers of
the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his
shadow, and have left him. (And the Hebrew idiom
continues for the rest of the chapter.)
All the above passage in bold type are Hebrew
idioms. When we compare the “trees” of this passage, we can recognize that
the trees of Genesis are also idioms.
Let’s see here, then, what these idioms can mean:
Cedar — according to Lamsa,
page 50, “Assyrian a cedar. Ezek. 30:3.
A great and tall people.” (The following from my understanding, but based
on the Bible.)
Ÿ Branches — extensions of
Ÿ Shadow — power of
Ÿ Waters — people.
Rivers — racial streams
(four flowing out of Eden?)
Thick boughs — might be
highly populated areas.
Fowls of the heavens — the
serpent seed line, Jews.
The beast of the field —
(In other words, the trees of the garden may have
been racial trees, and the rivers were racial streams.) Question: How do you eat
of a racial tree?
Let’s check out the Hebrew meaning of the word
“cedar.” It is the number 730 in the Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary:
ch ’-rez; from 729; a cedar tree (from the tenacity of the roots): —
It is important, here; to notice the word “cedar” in Hebrew means a
wooden cedar tree!!! — so also are the trees of Eden!!! It is also important
to notice that in the Hebrew idiom it means a people!!! It is
important to understand that the Hebrew cannot always be taken literally as to
what is actually being said in the Hebrew language!!! If you take the
languages of the Bible simply in their linguistic meanings, not taking the
idioms into account, you are not going to understand very much of the Bible!!!
Now we should take a look at the Hebrew word 729 as
the word 730 above refers to it. I think you will be surprised as to its
aw-raz’’; a prime root; to be firm; used only in the passive particle as a
denominative from 730; of cedar; —
made of cedar.
“To be firm” — this is exactly
what the word for “trees” means in the “garden” account of Genesis!!! It
is obvious; we are talking about the same thing here in Ezekiel as in Genesis!!!
looked into some various reference books and this is what I could find about the
cedar tree as mentioned in the Bible:
The cedar tree grows to about 120 foot high.
The cedar tree was about 40 feet in girth (measured around the trunk).
They were called in the Bible “cedars
When young, the cedar tree is almost pyramid-shaped.
There are cedar trees today over 2,000 years old.
The cedar tree has a very strong root system.
The branches and roots of the cedar tree have a tendency to spread out
The cedar tree is considered scientifically as a Juniperus oxycedrus, a magnificent evergreen tree.
Because the cedar tree was an evergreen tree, ever bearing and life
giving in that they produce food and medicine, they are considered a
juxtaposition (to put side by side — meaning compare to) of the “tree
The cedar tree is a solid tree free from knots which is why it was a good
material for construction of the Temple.
The cedar was used in purification in connection with the scarlet and
all of this, we can have a better idea of what the “tree of life” and the
“tree of knowledge of good and evil” are all about!!!
here we have this Ted R. Weiland saying that the “tree of life” was the law,
and when Eve ate of it, it brought on death!!! —— that the “enmity”
between “thy seed and her seed” of Genesis 3:15 is the enmity between the
“flesh and the spirit.” In other words, the flesh represents a seed line.
What Ted R. Weiland is doing is separating verse 15 from 14 as if it didn’t
exist. Yahweh is directing His message to the “serpent” not the “flesh.”
Let’s read it all Ted:
And Yahweh said to 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.
read it now as Ted R. Weiland would have us to read it:
And the Lord God
said to Eve’s flesh, Because thou hast done this, thy flesh is cursed above
all cattle, and above every beast of the field; and thy flesh shall go upon its
belly, and dust shalt thy belly eat all the days of thy life: And I will put
enmity between the flesh of the woman and the spirit of the woman, and between
the offspring of her flesh and the offspring of her spirit, and the offspring of
her spirit shall bruise the head of the offspring of her flesh, and the
offspring of her flesh will bruise the heel of the offspring of her spirit. (The
Gospel according to Ted R. Weiland.)
TO “PRESENTATION ON THE TREES OF GENESIS”
Clifton A. Emahiser
On June 22, 1997 I gave a
presentation on the “Trees of Genesis.” In this presentation, I tried to
prove the Satanic seedline by the Hebrew idiom. That the Hebrew wording does in
fact indicate a wooden tree, but the Hebrew idiom suggest a sexual connotation.
That, in fact, Satan seduced Eve and the product of that seduction was Cain, the
father of the present day “Jews.” I used George M. Lamsa’s booklet, “Idioms In The Bible Explained”, as evidence that the
“trees” of Genesis did have a sexual meaning in the Hebrew idiom. I used
several illustrations of the Bible that help identify the Satanic seedline. I
quoted from The Lost Books Of The Bible
and The Forgotten Books Of Eden, The Protevangelion 10:1-10, that it was
understood by Joseph (husband of Mary) that Satan did indeed physically seduce
Eve. I further stated that I believed that Genesis 4:1 was a mistranslation (The
date is now 4-28-2000, and I am updating this information. I wrote this
postscript and presented it in printed form to the people at the meeting in
Perrysburg, Ohio June 29, 1997. By this time, I was wearing out my welcome, so I
didn’t ask to speak again, but I didn’t drop the subject!):
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and
bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahweh.
I based this on the meanings
of the Hebrew words 120 and 121 in the Strong’s Concordance which is two of
the three Hebrew words for Adam. I explained that when you see an “X” used
in the definition of a word that Strong’s Concordance is indicating you are
dealing with an idiomatic usage. Let’s look at it again:
aw-dawm’; from 119, ruddy, i.e. a human
being (an individual or the
X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (meaning, of low degree),
aw-dawm’; the same as 120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in
the two X’s here. This is telling you that we might be dealing with Hebrew
idioms and we cannot necessarily take it is it says literally — it has a possible idiomatic hidden meaning in some cases. It can
mean Adam — another
— hypocrite — low — a low degree man. Could a scribe or translator, not knowing the
Hebrew idiom, have translated it “Adam” instead of “another” man other
than Adam of low degree knew Eve and she conceived? I believe that this is what
we are possibly dealing with! Or could it have been: Another in the place of
Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived?
I was presenting this scenario of this passage, the thought came to me,
Wouldn’t it be great if I could find another passage of Scripture where the
number 120 or 121 meant another man other than Adam? Later, while looking
through my Hebrew reference books, I found such a Scripture (in fact, I found
two). I found them in the Gesenius’
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament by H. W. F. Gesenius on page 13.
It is short, but this is what it says:
(a) For other men, the rest of mankind, as opposed
to those in question; Jer. 32:20.
take a look here at this passage which uses the word Strong’s number 120, aw-dawm’,
as “another” rather than an Adamite, Jeremiah 32:20. This passage is not
about the same subject, but is an example of how Genesis 4:1 could read with an
alternative idiomatic meaning:
Which hast set signs and wonders in the land of
Egypt, even unto this day, and in Israel, and among
and hast made thee a name as at this day.
You will notice here that it
is definitely not talking about Israelite “men”, but yet it is the number
120. It would have been very easy for some scribe or translator, not knowing the
Hebrew idiom, to have made a mistake here. You will also notice that the King
James translators were aware that it was not talking about Israelites or Adamic
men as they specified other in
italics in this case.
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament makes another reference in which
“men” #120 is speaking of other
“men” rather than Israelites. This passage is Isaiah 43:4:
Since thou (Israel) wast precious in my sight, thou
hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men
for thee, and people for thy life.
Here, again, #120 is used for
someone other than Israelite men. Inasmuch as the word 120 is used in these two
examples for another man/men, there
is no reason that the same thing could not have been done in Genesis 4:1. As a
matter of fact, for the Bible to be consistent in all other references on this
topic, it must be translated as
“another man.” [Comment by W. E. T.: Since in both of the above
cites the contrast was to Israel, not to Adamites. I still agree
with your basic premise.]
GENEALOGY OF ADAM
Here are a couple of more
provoking afterthoughts which I should have pointed out in my presentation. (1)
Why did Eve indicate, Genesis 4:25, that Yahweh appointed another seed in
Abel’s place? — Why was not Seth appointed as “another seed” in place of
Cain? Let’s read this passage:
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son,
and called his name Seth: For God, said
she, hath appointed me
another seed instead of (in
place of) Abel, whom Cain slew.
This verse should at once
alert us there is something wrong with Genesis 4:1, — an alarm should be going
off in your brain! Cain, as a seed, is totally left out of the picture here
except in the fact that he was the one who murdered “righteous” Abel. Seth
was a replacement for Abel, not Cain!!! —
This should be telling you something!!! This does not square with Genesis
4:1! (2) Genesis, chapter 5, gives the Genealogy of Adam from him to Shem, Ham
and Japheth, and Cain is not mentioned once! — Why???
Other genealogies in the Bible go into great detail and never leave out a
son! — Why is Cain left out??? Cain’s
descendants are mentioned separately in Genesis 4:17-24 and it doesn’t list
Adam as the father of Cain!!! —
POSTSCRIPT #2, TO “PRESENTATION ON THE TREES OF
Clifton A. Emahiser
(Before I get started with
this postscript presentation, I should give you an update as to when I presented
this material. It was sometime in July 1997 to the same group in Perrysburg,
Ohio. If I remember correctly, it was the very next week. I knew they were
tiring of the Two Seedline message, so I didn’t ask to speak again. I printed
up the material pretty much as presented here and passed it out to each one
attending. Not only did I present this material to them, but I passed out
several cassette tapes by Bertrand L. Comparet and Wesley A. Swift (mainly on
Two Seedline). Some of the group appreciated this very much.)
Up to this point I have
written or presented:
“The Problem With Genesis 4:1.”
“Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis.”
To “Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis.”
The items I covered in these
written articles and presentations are as follows:
In the article, “The Problem With Genesis 4:1”,
I broke down every word to its Hebrew and Greek meanings.
I showed how the Septuagint (LXX) could not
necessarily be trusted. (I gave a short history of it from the Encyclopedia Britannica and the
Dictionary Of The New Testament by Hastings.)
I showed how the enemies of Yahweh could have
forged both the Septuagint and Masoretic text.
I further showed how the Bible is written purposely
in parables, allegories, symbols, proverbs, adages, similitudes and metaphors,
and how, if we didn’t understand them, we can not understand what the Bible is
I went into detail on Genesis 3:13 and showed how
on the breakdown of the Hebrew — that it actually meant that Eve was
physically seduced and she did lay with Satan.
I showed further how the Hebrew idiom of “The
Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil” and “The Tree Of Life” had sexual
I showed the importance of understanding Genesis
4:25 — that Seth was appointed as a seed to replace Abel rather than Cain.
I pointed out (and I am going to say more on this
here) how the names of Cain and Abel were reversed in Scripture.
I pointed out some of the fingerprints of Cain and
how we can recognize him today.
I pointed out how the Scriptures continued to speak
of the descendants of Cain as Kenites and Rechabites and gave some examples.
I showed how the Hebrew word Adam, #120, can mean
“another” man in some cases and showed how this could affect translation.
I gave the history with some interesting remarks of
a sect called “Canites” which seem to be the descendants of Cain.
I showed how the American
Standard Version and The God’s Word
version of the Bible had translated correctly the “Kenite” as Kain or Cain.
I concluded that the seed of the woman was the
White race and the seed of the serpent were the “Jews” and the enmity
between the two was still here today in a race war.
On my presentation of June 22,
1997, I talked on the following subjects:
I reviewed how the subject of the Two Seedline,
with Satan seducing Eve came up and its attempted refutation by Ted R. Weiland.
I explained how it was necessary to understand the
Hebrew idioms in order to understand the Two Seedline truth.
I explained what the idioms of “The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil” and “The Tree
Of Life” meant according to an expert, George M. Lamsa.
I went on to show how the “Tree Of Life” had
sexual connotations with the union of “God” and “man” in the Virgin
birth, (a major tenet of the “Christian faith”).
I went on to show that these “trees” were
family trees and not wooden trees.
I pointed out that Satan’s lie was the
misrepresentation of good as evil and evil as good which he is still doing
I pointed out that you can know a “Jew” by the
fact that he is not a farmer but a vagabond who deals in trash and junk which
the Bible calls “dust.”
I read from The
Lost Books Of The Bible and The Forgotten Books Of Eden, The Protevangelion
chapter 10, verses 1 through 10 where it describes Mary’s pregnancy with that
of Eve’s seduction, Joseph accusing the blessed Virgin of infidelity.
Then I showed how Genesis 4:1 may be a
mistranslation in that the Hebrew number 120 can sometimes mean “another”
man other than Adamic.
I further pointed out how to recognize idioms in
the Strong’s Concordance.
I referred to Ezekiel 38:3-12 as it is a good
example of how the Bible uses the term “tree.” The King James center
reference even points to this passage from Genesis 2:9 as it speaks of “the
cedars in the garden of God” and “the trees of Eden.” (If you have a King
James Version Bible with the proper center reference, you can very readily prove
Two Seedline teaching with it, for it will take you from one supporting verse of
Scripture to another almost endlessly on the subject. Not that the KJV is an
especially advisable Bible to use for study, as it is alleged to contain
approximately 27,000 translation mistakes. This KJV center reference system I am
referring to was produced by the opinions of many contributing scholars and
theologians. Most of the older Bibles have this proper center reference system.
I have a KJV published by The World Publishing Company during the mid 50’s,
which has the proper center reference system. I checked a World Bible recently
at a Christian bookstore, and it had been changed from the one, which I have. I
also have a large Southwestern Bible, which has the correct center reference
system. I understand some of the Bibles printed by Dove Inc., Nashville, TN have
the correct center reference also. Today you can purchase a KJV Zondervan Classic Reference Bible with the correct center reference
system. If you already have a KJV with a center reference, you can check the
following passages to see if you have the right one: See (1) if Rev. 12:9 takes
you to Gen. 3:1, 4; Rev. 20:2; Rev. 20:3; Rev. 9:1, (2) if Gen. 3:1 takes you to
Rev. 12:9; 2 Cor. 11:3 or (3) if Jude 6 takes you to John 8:44; 2 Pet. 2:4; Rev.
20:10. If you find these center references in your present KJV, chances are you
have the correct center reference system. Beware of Nelson, Universal or
Then I went on to describe that the word
“cedar” in Hebrew means “firm” like the “trees” in Eden.
In my “Postscript To
“Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis”, I brought up the following:
I reviewed generally the “Presentation On The
Trees Of Genesis.”
I quoted Genesis 4:1 again.
I reviewed the Hebrew meanings of the word
“Adam”, #120 and #121 again.
I pointed out that when you see an “X” in the
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary, you are dealing with an idiomatic usage.
I showed some instances where the word for Adam can
mean someone other than an Adamic-Israelite (and showed two examples).
I ask the question: Why did Eve indicate that Seth
was a replacement for Abel and not Cain?
I ask the question: Why was Cain left out of
Adam’s genealogy if he had fathered him?
Now that we have reviewed all
of this forgone material, let’s get on with “Postscript #2, To
“Presentation On The Trees Of Genesis.”
CAIN DISQUALIFIED AS FIRSTBORN
Hardly had Cain been born than
he was put in second place. Many writers and commentators point out the fact
that in Genesis 4:2, the order is changed from “Cain and Abel” to “Abel
and Cain.” We have to ask the question, then, why would this be? Cain had not
murdered Abel yet, so we can’t say that was the cause. Moses was writing this,
and why would he change the order of the names? You will remember that Reuben
was disqualified from being the firstborn for an impropriety with his one of
Jacob’s wives and was replaced with Joseph. The order of Esau and Jacob was
reversed to Jacob and Esau, Genesis 25:23. Being that Cain was fathered by Satan
would be enough to disqualify him for the position of firstborn, or priest of
the family! Let’s read Genesis 4:1-2 to see how this reads:
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived,
and bare Cain, and said, I have
gotten a man from Yahweh. 2 And she again bare
his brother Abel. And Abel was a
keeper of sheep, but Cain was a
tiller of the ground.
WHY, THEN, WAS CAIN DISQUALIFIED AS FIRSTBORN?
In verse 7 of this same
chapter, the subject of the birthright is brought up. Let’s read verses 6 and
7 to see it:
6 And Yahweh said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth?
and why is thy countenance fallen? 7. If
thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin
lieth at the door. And unto thee shall
his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
You can see here it is
speaking about the birthright quite plainly! As Cain was the firstborn, he would
be in line for the family priesthood as well as the inheritance. We are talking
about big stakes here! There is more to this than just the acceptance of the
sacrifices. Cain evidently wanted to kill Abel all along for losing his position
as firstborn and used the rejected sacrifice for an excuse to justify it.
Secondly, there is something
here that should stand out conspicuously to everyone who reads it, and that is: “If
thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin
lieth at the door.” What does this mean, “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door???” A lot of
people try to read this as if Cain had a choice in the matter. That is not at
all what it is saying! What is it saying then? Yahweh through Moses is speaking
of Cain’s conception and birth here — his natural tendency toward sin as a
result of the character of his father. Cain’s conception was therefore his
“door.” Yahweh knew that he couldn’t “do well” and wasn’t fit for
the birthright and He told him as much!!! Let’s see what the words “sin”,
“lieth” and “door” mean in the Hebrew:
Sin — #2403
chattâ’âh, khat-taw-aw ’;
or chattâ’th, khat-tawth’;
from 2398; an offence
(sometimes habitual sinfulness), and
its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender:
punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin (-er, offering).
Lieth — #7257 râbats,
raw-bats’: a prime root; to crouch
(on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal); by implication to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed: — crouch
(down), fall down, make a fold, lay, (cause to, make to) lie (down), make to
rest, sit. (This probably is the root of our English word, rabbits.)
Door — #6607 pethach,
peh’-thakh; from 6605; an opening
(literally), i.e. door (gate) or entrance way: door, entering (in), entrance (ry), gate,
In other words, Cain’s
opening passage into the entrance of life was his conception and birth — the word here refers to #6605 which means to open wide or break forth.
Thus we can see the implication here of conception and birth. The word here for
sin means habitual sinfulness like in
The shew of their countenance doth witness against
them; and they declare their sin
as Sodom, they hide it
not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
The word sin here is the same
as used in “sin
lieth at the door.” There is another word which will illustrate just what
Cain’s “door” was and we will key on the word “bare” in Genesis 4:1 “and
she conceived, and bare Cain.” The Hebrew definition for the word
“bare” sheds some light on the term “door.” The Strong’s number for
the word “bare” is #3205. Bare #3205 Hebrew, to bear young;
causative to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show
lineage:— bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children,
young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of
delivery, gender, hatch, labor, (do the office of a) midwife, declare
pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman). I
will not dwell on the entire definition, but just to say that one of the words
used to define “bare” is the word “hatch.”
The word “hatch”
in English means “to emerge from an
egg.” In other words, Yahweh is indicating to Cain that if he didn’t
do well, it was because of his satanic birth (or sin lieth in Cain’s
genetics). Cain did indeed emerge from
Satan’s fertilized egg of Eve and that was his
“door”, his door to life. What other kind of door did you expect it was?
If we understand the sin of
Sodom, then we understand the sin of the serpent and his offspring, Cain!!! The
word “lieth” means to crouch (sin
is lurking in a resting position ready to lurch out) —
the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament says, page 755, (a)
used of a beast of prey lying in wait, and also, Gen.
4:7 (and indulgest in secret hatred) ... i.e. sin will always be a lier in wait
at the door for thee, like a wild beast, lying at thy door. All “Jews”
have this secret hatred lying in a crouched position ready to spring like a
roaring lion at an unsuspecting victim.
Wycliff Bible Commentary, Editors: Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F.
Harrison has this to say on page 8, and this quote will cover Genesis 3:14-15:
art thou. The Lord singled out the
originator and instigator of the temptation for special condemnation and
degradation. From that moment he must crawl in the dust and even feed on it. He
would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred would be directed against
him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a symbol of the
degradation of the one who had slandered God (cf. Isa 65:25). He was to
represent not merely the serpent race, but the power of the evil kingdom. As
long as life continued, men would hate him and seek to destroy him. 15.
I will put enmity. The word ’êbâ
denotes the blood feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf. Num 35:19,20;
Ezek 25:15-17; 35:5,6). Thou shalt bruise
(shûp). A prophecy of continuing struggle between the descendants of
woman and of the serpent to destroy each other. The verb shûp is rare (cf.
Job 9:17; Ps 139:11). It is the same in both clauses. When translated crush, it
seems appropriate to the reference concerning the head of the serpent, but not
quite so accurate in describing the attack of the serpent on man’s heel. It is
also rendered lie in wait for, aim at or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate renders it
conteret, “bruise” in the first instance and insidiaberis, “lie in
wait,” in the other clause. Thus, we have in this famous passage, called the
protevangelium, “first gospel,” the announcement of a prolonged struggle
perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of
woman. God’s promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed
forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. This assurance fell
upon the ears of God’s earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption.
You can see here, by these
comments, that I was not using the Hebrew incorrectly with the words
“sin”, “lieth” and “door.” Sin was not something Cain chose but sin
chose Cain — he got it from his father, Satan. It just came natural to him.
Now let’s pick up on the
reference of Isaiah 65:25 which was mentioned by The
Wycliffe Bible Commentary above:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the
lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be
the serpent’s meat.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith Yahweh.
This is all idioms. Lamsa says
this of the “serpent” here: “The
oppressor shall be reduced to poverty; humbled.” Lamsa says the “wolf”
and “lamb” means: A dictatorship and a
meek nation trading and living together in peace. It becomes quite apparent
here that it is important to understand what these Hebrew idioms mean. I
believe, though, the “serpent” will not only be reduced to poverty, but
completely destroyed, as there are Scriptures to indicate that this will happen.
The “serpent” here in the King James Version center reference column (noted
before) takes us back to Genesis 3:14 on this one, so we know who this serpent
is. We don’t have to guess.
THE CENTER REFERENCE OF THE KJV ON GENESIS 3:15
those who think that the King James Version of the Bible is the only inspired
word of “God”, let’s take a look at it here. Some believe that every
single word in the King James Version is inspired and has come down to us
without error. While I have a high regard for the KJV, I do not look upon it in
such a way for there are errors. I do believe, though, its coming to us was the
work of the Almighty. I believe that there is inspiration in it. I also believe
there is inspiration in the center reference column if you have the right one,
which I mentioned before. So, at this point, I am going to use this center
reference column to see what Scriptures are referred to by Genesis 3:15 and we
will quote them here:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And said, O full of all subtilty and mischief, thou
child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to
pervert the right ways of the Yahweh?
1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the
devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose Yahshua was manifested, that
he might destroy the works of the devil.
Therefore Yahshua himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Luke 1:31,33, 35
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb,
and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Yahshua. ... 33 And he shall
reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no
end. ... 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
And Yahshua of peace shall bruise Satan under your
feet shortly. The grace of our Yahshua Anointed be
with you. Amen.
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels
fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.
A couple of these references
didn’t apply but the others did. Notice here Acts 13:10 in particular. Notice
the words, “O full of all subtilty”,
as this is giving the very nature of Satan himself — as the father so the
child — that is, the “child of the
devil.” How much plainer do you want it to be? Now these are the reference
Scriptures found in center column the (proper) King James Version of the Bible
on Genesis 3:15. If you have a quarrel with them, take it up with who ever put
them there — it wasn’t me, but I
think they are right! It should be quite evident that Genesis 3:15 is the main
theme of the Bible — that there is a war going on between the seed of the
woman and the seed of Satan — that it is Yahweh and His seed against Satan and
his seed — that it is the family “tree” of Yahweh against the family
“tree” of Satan. You are personally involved in this very war every day of
Another Scripture found in the
KJV is Revelation 12:9 which identifies the Satanic seed of Genesis 3:15. It
uses the terms “great dragon”, “old serpent”, “the Devil” and
“Satan.” John of Revelation uses all of these names so we won’t get mixed
up in identifying who it is talking about. He is called by all these names and
two more, “vipers” and “Lucifer.” It is interesting, here in this verse
9 of the 12th chapter of Revelation, as in the center reference it
takes you to is Genesis 3:1,4. Let’s read Revelation 12:9 and compare it with
And the great dragon
was cast out, the old serpent,
called the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the
earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Genesis 3:1, 4
Now the serpent
was more subtle than any beast of the field, which Yahweh had made. And he said
unto the woman, Yea, hath Yahweh said, Ye shall not eat of every tree
of the garden? ... 4 And the serpent
said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
So, at this point, we have a
direct connection between the “serpent”, ”dragon”, “Devil” and
“Satan” of Revelation 12:9 and the “serpent” of Genesis 3:1, 4. Now
let’s take up the word “viper.” We will read Matthew 3:7-10:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them,
O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of
these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees:
(“Jew’s” family tree) therefore
every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
It is interesting to note here
that one of the “trees” spoken of in Matthew 3:10 takes you to “the tree
of knowledge of good and evil, in Genesis as The
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (which is also a very good reference guide
book) takes you to Genesis 3:13, and we will read it:
And Yahweh said unto the woman, What is
thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent
beguiled me, and I did eat.
Now we know that John the
Baptist was speaking of laying the ax to the root of “the tree of knowledge of
good and evil” representing the Pharisees and Sadducees which were “Jews”,
descendants of Cain fathered by Satan!
SETH KEEPS LEVIRATE LAW
We read in Genesis 4:25 the
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son,
and called his name Seth: For Yahweh, said
she, hath appointed me
another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
We should see right away,
here, that Cain is left totally out of the picture — he is not even
considered! Yes, Cain was born first and was in line for the birthright, but he
was disqualified because he was a mamzer (a bastard). This is why the names of
Cain and Abel are reversed in Genesis 4:2! This made Abel officially the
firstborn of Adam. Then Abel
was murdered by Cain leaving no official children. It is the Law that a younger
brother is to raise up seed to his childless brother. That is why Genesis 4:25
says: God hath appointed another seed
instead of (or in place of) Abel.
Rousas John Rushdoony in his book, The
Institute Of Biblical Law has this to say about the levirate Law, page
Levirate, Mace observed, concerning “the true cause of
Hebrew polygamy”, that “There can be no doubt that this was the desire for
an heir.” This is true if we realize that the desire for an heir was more than
simply a love of a son. The family was basic to Biblical society and culture;
the godly family had to be perpetuated, and the ungodly family cut off. The
bastard was cut off from church, and state, insofar as any legal status was
concerned, to the tenth generation (Deut. 23:2). He might be a godly man, but he
was not a citizen. In cannon law, “the church” [sic] barred bastards from
church orders, although exceptions were made by papal dispensations. The purpose
of Hebrew polygamy, which was usually bigamy, to be accurate, was thus the
perpetuation of the family. Moreover, in terms of the facts, as Mace pointed
out, “we are bound to envisage the community as being in general almost
entirely monogamous.” ... The one exception permitted is the law of the
levirate (Deut. 25:5-10). According to the law, if a man died childless, his
next of kin had the duty to take the widow as wife and rear up a family bearing
the name of the dead man. This law was older than Moses, and was applied in
Judah’s household (Gen. 38:8).
We can see here that it was
not only the honorable thing for Seth to raise up seed for Abel, but it was his
duty as next of kin to do so. Cain was not next of kin, therefore all you would
have gotten would have been more bastards.
I believe that some of the
confusion over Genesis 4:1 is a misunderstanding of legal status! Have you ever
read a legal contract where they would use the terms, “party of the first
part”, “party of the second part”, “party of the third part” etc.?
This is done so someone in the contract doesn’t get mixed up with
another person, which could be disastrous for all other parties in the contract.
Let’s apply this same method with the Bible. Lets apply it this way:
Satan, party of the first part.
Eve, party of the second part.
Adam, party of the third part.
Cain, party of the fourth part.
Abel, party of the fifth part.
Seth, party of the sixth part.
Genesis 3:13, And the woman said (party of the second part) The serpent (party of the first part) beguiled me (party of the second part), and I (party of the second part) did eat. Genesis 4:1, And Adam
(party of the third part) knew Eve his
wife (party of the second part); and she (party of the second part) conceived, and bare Cain (party of the fourth part); and
said, I have gotten a man (party of the fourth part) from
the Lord. Genesis 4:2 And
she (party of the second part) bare
his brother Abel (party of the fifth part). Genesis 4:25 And
Adam (party of the third part) knew
Eve his wife again (party of the second part); and
she (party of the second part) bare a
son (party of the sixth part), and
called his name Seth (party of the sixth part): for God, said
(party of the second part), hath appointed
me another seed (party of the sixth part) instead of Abel (party of the fifth part), whom Cain (party of the fourth part) slew.
If we understand that Eve was
already pregnant by Satan when Adam knew her, Genesis 4:1 would be correct in
saying that “Adam knew Eve his wife.”, and then, “she conceived [Abel] and
bare Cain.” You will notice that it doesn’t say that Abel was conceived!
This is important! The sequence of events are like this: Satan seduced Eve and
got her pregnant. Then Adam knew Eve and fertilized an extra egg that didn’t
get fertilized by Satan. Then Eve bare Cain fathered by Satan firstly. Then Eve
bare Abel fathered by Adam secondly. If we can understand this chain of events,
then we can understand the reading of Genesis 4:1!
HOW DID ADAM EAT OF THE TREE?
This is a much-asked question.
We are told that Adam was not deceived as Eve was. I found an interesting
statement in a book entitled The Works Of
Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge, page 57:
But take notice that the man says that the woman
gave it to him; but that the woman does not say that the serpent gave it to her,
but that he beguiled her; for it is the especial property of the outward
sense to give, but it is the attribute of pleasure which is of a diversified and
serpent-like nature to deceive and to beguile.
I believe we are going to have
to take a legal look at this thing if we are going to understand it. When Adam
learned that Eve had been unfaithful to him, his legal responsibility would have
been to put Eve away as Joseph thought to do in Mary’s case. In this case, Eve
would have had a trial and probably have been stoned to death whereupon Yahweh
would have had to have made provisions for another wife for Adam. Evidently Adam
loved Eve so much that he decided to keep Eve as his wife in spite of the
outcome. I am sure that there has been many a husband that has made a similar
decision, (and wives for that matter). Adam, then, partook of the tree by
“knowing” Eve after Satan had defiled her! This is not lawful. Adam rightly
should have divorced her. I think though, if I were in Adam’s place, I would
probably have done that same thing as Adam did.
WHAT KIND OF A SEDUCTION?
There are some who try to
indicate that the “seduction” of Eve was only a matter of mere “mental
deception” on Satan’s part. While it is true that Eve was deceived in word,
it is also true that Eve was physically sexually violated, and I am going to
show evidence of it. We can read the account of this in Genesis 3:13:
And Yahweh said unto the woman, What is
thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Now the word “eat” here is
from the Hebrew word #398, and one of its meanings is “lay.” In other words,
Eve was telling Yahweh, here, that “The
serpent beguiled me, and I did lay.” At this point you may still not
believe me. Well, in the proper center reference system of the KJV it refers us
to 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:14. Now both of these shed light on the
situation, but 2 Corinthians 11:3 is simply outstanding! In order to understand
verse 3, we are going to have to read from verse 1 through 3. Before we read it
though, let’s preview it just a little. We find Paul here in a state that he
wishes to brag about his ministry —
we all like to do that occasionally. Paul was probably a little proud of
himself for doing such a good job of presenting the gospel to these Corinthians,
but at the same time, he warns them that someone might come along to undo all
that he had done. Now Paul is concerned about someone subverting their minds
such as Eve’s was, but the way it is stated there can be no doubt that Eve was
also physically seduced. Let’s read it:
1 Would to God Ye could bear with me a little in my
folly: and indeed bear with me. 2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy:
for I have espoused you to one husband,
that I may present you as as chaste virgin to
Yahshua 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as
the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,
so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Yahshua.
Now I know Paul is speaking of
mental seduction here, but at the same time he is comparing this mental
seduction to Eve’s physical seduction or why even bring up the idea of a
“chaste virgin”? In other words, Eve was a “chaste virgin” until Satan
physically seduced her. There is no
possible way Satan could have taken away Eve’s virginity through mental
seduction alone!!!!!! Of course, if you don’t understand that Israel was
divorced by Yahweh, and that the only way He could remarry her was by his dying
according to the Law, you will not understand why it is important that we become
as “chaste virgins” so He can remarry us — but Redemption is another
story. The other center reference of the KJV on Genesis 3:13 is 1 Timothy 2:14:
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression.
You will notice what I said
previously — that his part was in accepting Eve and consummating his marriage
to her in her defiled condition. Now two of the center references of 2
Corinthians 11:3 leads to Genesis 3:4 and John 8:44. Maybe Ted R. Weiland
doesn’t have a center reference in his Bible, or maybe he has the wrong center
reference system. Now John 8:44 is a direct
connection between the serpent and
his children, the Pharisees and Sadducees!!!
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his
own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not
It is interesting here with
Genesis 3:4 for the center reference takes us right back to 2 Corinthians 11:3,
so this verse is the mental seduction of Eve leading up to her physical
seduction. Now we are presented with another interesting situation as the center
reference of the KJV on John 8:44 takes us to Jude 6:
And the angels which kept not their first estate,
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under
darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
We know from this that Satan
is an angel who left his own habitation and seduced Eve and produced what we
know today as “Jews”!!! Satan cohabited with Eve!!! Cain and the “Jews”
are mutations of this union!!!
“TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL” AND
THE “SERPENT” THE SAME THING
The center reference of the
KJV for the verse Genesis 2:17 takes us to Genesis 3:1. Let’s take a look and
see how it fits:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of
the field which Yahweh had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath Yahweh
said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Now these two scriptures are
referred to each other by the center reference of the KJV. I didn’t put them
there, so if you don’t like them, don’t come to me. I did some other writing
on this subject so I will insert it at this point:
are three Scriptures to support the idea that Satan sexually seduced Eve:
2nd Corinthians 11:3
1st Timothy 2:13-14
1st John 3:12
will now quote these with changes to help understand the Greek wording and other
But I fear, lest by any means, as Satan beguiled
Greek, wholly seduced) Eve through
his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the purity
which is due
For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was
not deceived (#538
Greek, seduced into error completely), but
the woman being deceived (#538 Greek, seduced into error completely) was
in the transgression (of the Law).
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one (#4190 Greek, devil or
evil one) and slew his (half) brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were (naturally)
evil, and his (half)
brother’s (naturally) righteous.
will notice I have included the Strong’s numbers for the Greek words. The
words 1818 and 538 can mean, to deceive or seduce mentally or sexually, but here
the meaning is to “fully seduce” which would mean both mentally and
there is the Greek word #4190. This is one of those words that can mean many
things. There are several levels of meaning. You will notice that I have
highlighted the important meanings especially the meanings found in The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament by Spiros
Zodhiates, TH.D., pages 207; 600, 1198-1199.
Greek, (p. 207) “... from apate (539),
deceit. To deceive, bring, or seduce into error ... as a device to mislead
another ... When it comes to Eve, the woman, it is exapatetheisa, the aorist (an ‘aorist’ is used to develop the
nucleus or backbone of the story) passive participle, feminine of exapatao
(1818) to deceive completely ... speaking of the serpent deceiving Eve, it
is the compound verb that is used, exepatesen,
thoroughly deceived. In the mind of Paul, when Satan directly deals with man
[kind], he endeavors to thoroughly deceive. This Satan did to Eve while she
simply deceived (epaitsen) her husband in persuading him to eat...”
Greek, (p. 600) “... exapatao;
contracted exapato, future exapateso, from ek (1537),
an intensive, and apatao (538), to
seduce, deceive. To deceive completely, beguile, seduce, meaning to lead out of
the right way into error...”
Greek, (p. 1198) “poneros ... Evil
in a moral or spiritual sense,
wicked, malicious, mischievous...”
basic thing we should know from the above is that Adam was not deceived in the
same sense as Eve. It was Satan who deceived Eve. It was Eve who deceived Adam
and the Greek words used are different. Now
we come to something interesting as the word “wicked”, #4190, is used
similarly in the parable of the sower to mean the “evil one”, “Satan” or
“wicked” in Matthew chapter 13:
Matthew 13:25,38 & part of 39.
4 And when he sowed, some seeds
fell by the way side, and the fowls (Jews) came
and devoured them up ... 19 When any one heareth the word of the Kingdom, and
understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one (4190), and catcheth away that which was sown in the heart. This is he which
received seed by the way side.
25 But while men slept, his (Yahweh’s) enemy
(Satan) came and sowed tares among the wheat (Adamites) and went away. (symbolic of Satan seducing Eve)
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the
children of the Kingdom (Israelites); but the tares are the children of the
(Cain and his progeny #4190). 39
The enemy that sowed (fathered)
them is the devil (Satan) etc.
It is interesting here because
in the center reference of the KJV, the
“wicked one” in Matthew 13:38, leads us to Genesis 3:15; John 8:44; Acts
13:10; 1 John 3:8:
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.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer (Cain) from the beginning, and
abode not in the truth, because there was no truth in him. When he speaketh a
lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And said, O full of all subtilty and mischief, thou
child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to
pervert the right ways of the Yahweh?
1 John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the
devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Yahshua the Anointed was
manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
We can see here that this
“wicked one” is the same as the “seed of the serpent”, “devil”,
“child of the devil”, “enemy of righteousness”, and again in the last
verse, the “devil.”
JUDAS ISCARIOT, A “DEVIL”, “SEED OF THE
Another interesting offspring
of Satan is Judas Iscariot. We can tell that he is a descendant of Cain from
both his actions and from where he came. In order to get started on Judas,
let’s read John 6:70-71:
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you
twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71
He spake of Judas Iscariot the son
of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
If there were ever anyone who
could recognize a devil it would be Yahshua. If you check out the Greek word
1228, it means devil! Its not talking about the “seeds of the spirit” as Ted
R. Weiland would like you to think! Yahshua knows who are His and who are of
Satan! He predestined and choose Judas to be a “vessel of wrath” to betray
Him — Judas had no choice in the matter — Judas, as a devil, descendant of
Cain, would only do what came natural to him in the betrayal! I really don’t
understand how people, when “Yahshua” Himself points Judas out as a devil,
will say “its only spiritual.” To be sure, we are dealing with a real
“devil”, and it is the same “devil” as in Genesis 3:15 where it says, “thou
(a descendant of Satan through Cain)
shalt bruise his (Messiah’s) heel.”
YAHSHUA’S HEEL BRUISED BY JUDAS!!!
We have a direct connection
here with Judas and the “serpent” of Genesis 3:14-15! We can see the
connection between Judas and the “serpent” if we read John 13:18:
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen:
but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, He
that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his HEEL
scripture spoken of here, which was fulfilled in Judas, was Genesis 3:15!!!!!!
Does that sound “spiritual”??????
was a Canaanite “Jew-devil”, a descendant of Cain fathered by Satan! There
is a problem here, though, because it says that “he” (Judas)
“hath lifted up his heel against me” whereas Genesis 3:15 says that
“thou (the seed of the serpent) shalt bruise his (Yahshua’s) heel.” Is it
the “heel” of Judas or Yahshua that is affected? I am quite certain that
John 13:18 is referring to Genesis 3:15, as it is indicating that it is a
fulfillment of Scripture. Tell me, What other Scripture could it be? — there
isn’t any other. There is another Scripture, Psalm 41:9, that reads similarly
to John 13:18, but John 13:18 is not a fulfillment of Psalm 41:9 — as a matter
of fact, Psalm 41:9 is not a prophecy about anything. The prophecy then can only
be Genesis 3:15! — and Genesis 3:15 is definitely a prophecy. Therefore, there
has to be a slight mistranslation in Genesis 3:15! Let’s try to render it so
it makes some sense here:
And I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (her seed) shall bruise thy head
and thy heel shall (rise up and)
bruise him (her seed).
Its not that the seed of the
serpent will bruise the heel of Yahshua, but the seed of the serpent will lift
up his heel and bruise Yahshua (the seed of the woman). Now Yahshua is not the
only seed of the woman. All of Eve’s descendants are the seed of the woman.
Now that we understand that it is the seed of the serpent (in the person of
Judas) that was to lift up his heel against the Messiah, we can better
understand Isaiah 53:5:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
I have only found one good
comment on John 13:18, and that is from the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary
On The Whole Bible, page 1058:
speak not of you all — the
“happy are ye,”
of vs. 17, being on no supposition applicable to Judas. I know whom I have chosen —in
the higher sense. But
that the scripture may be fulfilled —i.e.,
one has been added to your number, by no accident or mistake, who is none of
Mine, but just that he might fulfill his predicted destiny. He
that eateth bread with me —
“did eat of my bread.”
It was Judas that raised up
his heel against Him and bruised Him. It probably should be pointed out here
what is meant by “lifting up the heel.” It is described as someone who kicks
out at the person who is feeding him. Judas planing to betray Yahshua while
eating of the sacrificial supper did just this, and it is known as “lifting up
the heel.” This “heel” here in John 13:18 is the same “heel” as in
Genesis 3:15. This type of action was considered one of the most insulting
things a man could do. Of course, what else would you expect of a devil?
Just before this “lifting up
the heel” on the part of Judas by partaking of the last supper, some
interesting statements are made. They were having a foot-washing lesson from
Yahshua. Verse 10 says, “Yahshua saith
to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his
feet, but is clean (pure) every whit: and ye are clean (pure), but not all.”
Yahshua is indicating that all the disciples are clean (pure) racially, but no
amount of washing would make Judas clean (pure).
A second statement in this
18th verse is also interesting. It says, “I
speak not of you all.” Again Yahshua is excluding Judas from the others. I
know whom I have chosen. I am not deceived in My choice. I knew what was
going to happen from the very beginning of the enmity of the serpent. I have
chosen Judas as a “serpent” and I plainly foresaw that he would raise up the
heel and deliver Me. Did not I foretell this at the time of the curse upon the
14 Then one of the twelve,
called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priest, 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I
will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of
silver. 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
If you can’t see “Jew”
written all over this action on the part of this “serpent”, Judas, you have
to be blind. He was only doing his father’s bidding.
4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot,
Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for
three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared
for the poor, but because he was a thief
and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Not only was this
“serpent-Jew” a traitor, he was a thief — just like the “Jewish” IRS
and Federal Reserve of today. Here is more evidence that Judas was the offspring
Now Judas was a Canaanite
“Jew”, and the Bible says he was. The problem is, whoever put the
punctuation in the Bible put a comma in the wrong place. The way it is written
in Matthew 10:2-4 and Mark 3:19 it makes it appear that Simon was the Canaanite
— but this is not true. I will rewrite it as it should be, and I will use
Matthew 10:2-4 as the example:
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these;
The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son
of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew
the publican; James the
son of Alphaeus, and
Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon,
and the Canaanite Judas Iscariot,
who also betrayed him.
The supper being ended, the devil having now put
into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son (a different Simon from above
in verse 4), to betray him.
Like the Spirit that is within
Yahweh’s children (seed of the woman) so there is a counter spirit within the
“serpent’s” children. That is why it just came natural to Judas to betray
Yahshua. It says here that the devil put it into the heart of Judas to betray
the Messiah. The children of Satan have a certain nature about them, and under
various circumstances, they will react in predictable behavior patterns. The
Messiah understood exactly what the behavior pattern of the “serpent”,
Judas, would be. This behavior pattern is just another proof that the “Jews”
are a Satanic seedline. You cannot change the nature of a rattlesnake, nor can
you change the nature of a “Jew.” So much for “Jews for Jesus”!
WHAT WAS IT THAT EVE DID “EAT”? AND
WHAT DID EVE “TOUCH”?
Clifton A. Emahiser
“EAT”, #398 (akal,
to eat, also to lay), Scripture — Genesis 3:13, And
Yahweh said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman
said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
— Proverbs 30:20, Such is the way
of an adulterous woman; she [eateth], and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness. Another Supporting
Proverbs 9:17, Stolen waters are sweet,
and bread [eaten] in secret is
pleasant. Note: The word “eat”
of Genesis 3:13 is the same word for “eateth” and “eaten” of Proverbs
30:20 and Proverbs 9:17!!!
RE. “TOUCH”, #5060 (naga, to touch, also to have sexual
intercourse) Scripture — Genesis 3:3, But
of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye
shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it, lest ye die. Supporting Scripture
— Genesis 26:10-11, 10 And Abimelech
said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one
of the people might have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have
brought guiltiness upon us. 11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He
that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death. Second Supporting Scripture — Genesis 20:6, And
Yahweh said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in
the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me:
therefore suffered I thee not to touch
her (Sarah). Third Supporting
Proverbs 6:29, So he that goeth in to his
neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth
her shall not be innocent. Note: The
word “touch” of Genesis 3:3 is the same word for “touch” or
“toucheth” of Genesis 26:11, Geneses 20:6 and Proverbs 6:29!!!
Conclusion: Both the words “eat” and “touch”
have sexual connotations!
#3, TO “PRESENTATION ON THE TREES OF GENESIS”
Clifton A. Emahiser
(It was July and August of
1997, and I was still not making much headway teaching the Two Seedline doctrine
to the people attending the Identity meetings at Perrysburg, Ohio. Later some of
them did start to respond favorably to the Two Seedline Message. I could tell,
though, the people in charge were unresponsive, and were not about to change
their position. As before, I continued to give out cassette tapes and the
printed material, much of what you are reading here. By this time, I had really
worn out my welcome. Since then, though, I have been able to refine these
research papers to a higher degree. This is a project, which I probably will
never finish, as I will continue to add to it from time to time.)
Thus far we have covered
“The Problem With Genesis 4:1” and some of its translation problems. I
covered a short history of the Septuagint showing how it cannot always be
trusted. I showed how the enemies of Yahweh could have forged or altered both
the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. I covered how the Bible is purposely
written in parables; allegories, symbols, proverbs, adages, similitudes and
metaphors, and how, if we don’t understand them,
we cannot understand what the Bible is saying. I went into detail on Genesis
3:13 and demonstrated how the breakdown of the Hebrew that it actually meant
that Eve was physically seduced and she did lay with Satan. I showed further how
the Hebrew idiom of “The Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil” and “The Tree
Of Life” had sexual idiomatic meanings. I conveyed the importance of
understanding Genesis 4:25 that Seth was appointed as a seed to replace Abel
rather than Cain. I pointed out the significance of the reversal of the order of
names from Cain and Abel to Abel and Cain. I pointed out some of the
fingerprints of Cain and how we can recognize him today (and we are going to go
into that a little more in this postscript). I made mention of how the
Scriptures continued to speak of the descendants of Cain as Kenites and
Rechabites and gave some examples. With this postscript we are going to develop
more on this. We are going to trace the descendants of Cain up until they
attached themselves to the Tribe Of Judah in 1st Chronicles 2:55
and even up into chapter 35 of Jeremiah. I expressed how the Hebrew word
Adam, #120, can mean “another” man in some cases and showed how this could
affect translation. I have come believe that this is not the problem with
Genesis 4:1 though. I believe it is a case of cause and effect. Everybody
assumes that because it says Adam knew his wife and she bare Cain that Adam was
the father of Cain. I could say that one night I went to the movie theater and
the next morning the sun rose. You can see that the sun didn’t rise because I
went to a movie theater. So, too, just because Adam knew Eve and she bare Cain
doesn’t necessarily make
Adam the father of Cain. If Eve was already pregnant with Cain when Adam knew
her, it would be an entirely different story. You see, we must always know cause
and effect to understand the true story. I gave the history with some
interesting remarks about a sect called “Cainites” which seem to be the
descendants of Cain. I concluded that the seed of the woman was the White race
and the seed of the serpent was the “Jews” and the enmity between the two
was still going on today. I showed how the “trees” in Eden were family trees
and not wooden trees. I pointed out that Satan’s lie was the misrepresentation
of good as evil and evil as good which he is still doing today. I made mention
of and pointed out the Protevangelion in the Lost
Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books Of Eden which compares Mary’s
pregnancy to Eve’s seduction, Joseph accusing the blessed Virgin of
In my postscript #2, I cited
how the quarrel between Cain and Abel was a quarrel for the birthright and not
the sacrifices. I mentioned how Cain’s “door” was his conception and
birth, and when it says, “sin lieth at the door” it means that Cain was born
with an evil nature from his father. I demonstrated how the center references in
the King James Version of the Bible (if you have the right system) on Genesis
3:15 points to John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1st John 3:8; Romans 16:20; Revelation
12:7. It confirms whoever put the center references in the KJV understood the
Satanic connection between the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes of Yahshua’s
day and Cain. I pointed out how Seth kept a law similar to the Levirate law by
raising up seed to Abel. I pointed out that Seth was a seed appointed to replace
Abel and not Cain. I further depicted the legal status as the chain of these
events continued. I showed the true meaning of 2nd Corinthians 11:3 how the
mental seduction of the Corinthians is compared to the physical seduction of
Eve. I cited how the word “beguiled”, #1818, means, “fully seduced.” I
showed how, in the parable of the sower, that the Jews were sowed (or fathered)
by Satan. I pointed out that the “heel” of John 13:18 was the same as the
“heel” of Genesis 3:15 — that Judas (a Satanic seed) fulfilled the
prophecy of Genesis 3:15.
Then I wrote a one-page
article, “What Was It That Eve Did ‘Eat’? And What Did Eve ‘Touch’”?
With this article, I proved beyond all doubt that the Bible does use the words
“eat” and “touch” to mean sexual intercourse not only in Genesis 3:3,
but in Genesis 3:13; Proverbs 20:30; Proverbs 9:17; Genesis 26:10-11; Genesis
20:6, 29. Next we are going to trace Cain and his Satanic seed through the
TRACING CAIN THROUGH THE BIBLE
Before we trace Cain through
the Bible, we are going to Genesis chapter 4 to find out the fingerprints of
Cain. Certain characteristics and behavior patterns are mentioned in this
chapter so we can recognize Cain’s descendants today. We will also find that
these characteristics show up and identify him in the Bible. I will not read
this passage, but only point out Cain’s fingerprints:
v14, a hated person (men wanting to kill him).
v15, a marked man.
v17, a city dweller.
v20, tent dweller.
v21, handlers of musical instruments.
v22, artful metal workers.
The next place we find Cain is
in Genesis 15:19 and we will have to read verses 18 through 21:
18 In the same day Yahweh made a covenant with
Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt
unto the great river, the river Euphrates: 19 The
Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites,
and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites,
and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
It is important to understand
that Yahweh was going to keep Israel in Egypt for four hundred years until the
“iniquity” of these people came to the “full”, verse 16. These people
are generally termed as Amorites probably because they were the dominate group.
But, anyway, here we have the Kenites #7017, or the descendants of Cain. We are
going to have to look into this thing further here to see the significance of
what this passage is all about and how Cain fits into it. We are simply told in
Genesis 15:16 that Yahweh was going to leave these nations generally called
Canaanites, which included the Amorites, until their iniquity (#5771) came to
the “full.” This process was to continue for four hundred years to come to
completion. The term “iniquity” here means perversity (willfully
deviating from acceptable or conventional behavior). We are going to see
soon what kind of behavior this might have been.
Well one of these nations
among the Canaanites was the Kenites (#7017), which were descendants of Cain.
Now being that Cain was of the Satanic seed line, he would infect his Satanic
blood among all these nations. This is what it would take four hundred years to
accomplish. Many of the tribes listed as living in that land were the
descendants of Ham, and their lines would become polluted by Cain’s seed. The
history of that area is a history of infiltration of many diverse people. It is
too long to present in this article. The main thing to comprehend, at this
point, is how the descendants of Cain moved in the area and mixed their blood
among the various tribes.
There are two other nations
among these ten nations worth mentioning, the Kenizzites and Rephaim. Here is
what Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The
Holy Bible, volume 1; page 38 has to say about the Kenizzites:
The Kenizzites, thought to be the Idumeans, who
sprung from Kenaz of Esau’s race. But it seems not to agree with Deut. ii. 5,
where God expressly said to the Israelites concerning the Idumeans, I will give
you none of their lands, &c.
As Kenaz was only one of the
fourteen dukes of Edom, this statement about agreeing with Deuteronomy 2:5 is
superfluous. The Kenizzites are indeed of Esau. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page
782, has this to say of Kenaz and the Kenizzites:
KENAZ Singular form of the clan name Kenizzite, son
of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:11; 1 Chron. 1:36), one of the
chieftains of Edom (KJV Dukes) (Gen. 36:15,42; 1 Chron. 1:53).
Well, this is interesting, it
seems that Esau has mixed his blood with this group of nations too!!! Now it
sure gets exciting when we find out what these names mean, doesn’t it? Now
let’s talk about these “Rephaim.” The Zondervan
Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 5, page 64, says this in part:
REPHAIM. ... The inhabitants of Trans-Jordan in
pre-Israelite times whom the Moabites and Ammonites called respectively
“Emim” and “Zamzummim” ... “giants” ... Their land is one of ten
ethnic groups promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:20). ... Deuteronomy 2:10, 11 says
that they were great, many and tall like the Anakim. Og, king of Bashan, for
example possessed a king size iron bed, nine cubits long and four cubits broad.
... Giants among the Philistines who fought against David and his mighty men
along their disputed border both at Gezer ... and at Gath ... These giants were
the descendants of Rapha, the eponymous ancestor of these Rephaim.
Now that we know this, let’s
analyze what we have here:
Emim-Zanzummim Giants Mixed With Edomite And
Cainite Satanic Seed.
NOW THAT’S THE DAMNEDEST JEW MIXTURE I EVER HEARD
TEN NATIONS BECOME SEVEN
Now in Genesis 15:19-21 are
listed ten nations and they race-mixed so much that in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 there
are only seven. The Kenites, Kenizzites and Rephaims were completely absorbed by
the other nations of this group from which the “Jews” are extracted. The
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible,
Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, has this to say:
Kenites. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards
reckoned but seven; see Deut. vii. 1; Acts xiii. 19. Probably some of them which
existed in Abram’s time had been blended
with others before the time of Moses, so that seven only out of the ten, then
In the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 116 we find this about this mixed
group of nations spoken of in Genesis 15:19-21:
When the Israelites entered Canaan they found there
a very mixed population
generally designated by the term Amorite or Canaanite.
How, then, do we know that
this is what happened? Well, we can know this because we know the lifestyles of
what kind of people they were. It is recorded in the 18th
chapter of Leviticus and we will read verses 24 and 25:
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things:
for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and
the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
We are not going to read the
whole chapter here, but just point out what kind of people they were according
to this chapter:
The sons were having incest with their mothers.
The fathers where having incest with their
The brothers were having incest with their sisters.
The fathers-in-law were having incest with their
The nephews were having incest with their aunts.
The uncles were having incest with their nieces.
The brothers-in-law were having incest with their
The sons-in-law were having incest with their
The grandfathers were having incest with their
The grandsons were having incest with their
They were laying every man carnally with their
They were also committing homosexuality.
Now if they were doing all of
this, you know damn well (and I really don’t like to use this kind of
language) they were breeding interracially. Now in this four hundred years, this
Satanic seed spread throughout Canaan. Not only was the Satanic seed of Cain
involved here, but there was also the Satanic seed of the Rephaims and later the
Edomites. The Rephaims were the children of the mixture of fallen angels (who
left their first estate) and the daughters of men, and it is recorded that there
were giants among them (mutants with six toes on each foot and six fingers on
each hand). This is why Yahweh gave Israel the commission to kill every damn
man, woman and child among them and He has never rescinded that commission —
He has just put it on hold.
The next mention of the
descendants of Cain is found in 1st Chronicles 2:55:
And the families
of the scribes, which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and
Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house
Now the whole 2nd chapter of
1st Chronicles, from verse 3 on, is the lineage of Judah. Then tacked on at the
end of the chapter (verse 55) is this group of people who are actually
descendants of Cain known as Kenites and have no blood connection at all with
Judah. A footnote in The Complete Word
Study King James Bible, by Spiros Zodhiates, page 1055 says, “They became incorporated into the tribe of Judah.” The word Kenite
here is 7017 in the Strong’s Concordance. Actually the numbers for Cain are
both 7014 and 7017. You will notice here in 1st Chronicles 2:55, they are
called, “the families of the scribes.”
They were scribes at this time and they were scribes in Yahshua’s time —
they are the same people.
At this time I am going to
quote from The Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782:
KENITES ... meaning (metalworkers, smiths).
Clan or tribal name of semi-nomadic peoples of South Palestine and Sinai.
The Aramaic and Arabic etymologies of the root gyn
show that it has to do with metal and metal work (thus the Hebrew word from this
root, “lance”). This probably indicates that the Kenites were metal workers,
especially since Sinai and Wadi ‘Arabah were rich in high-grade copper ore. W.
F. Albright has pointed to the Beni Hassan mural in Egypt (19th century B.C.) as
an illustration of such a wandering group
of smiths. This mural depicts thirty-six men, women and children in
characteristic Semitic dress leading along with other animals, donkeys laden with musical
instruments, weapons and an item which Albright has identified as a bellows.
He has further noted that Lemech’s three children (Genesis 4:19-22) were
responsible for herds (Jabal), musical instruments (Jubal), and metal work (Tubal-Cain, or Tubal, the smith), the three occupations, which seem most evident in the
2nd quote from the same
During this period a significant concentration of Kenites was located in the
southern Judean territory. This is clear from 1 Samuel 15:6 cited above and also
from David’s relations with them.
3rd quote from the same
In 1 Chronicles 2:55 the families of the
scribes living at Jabaz are said to be Kenites. Apparently, during the
kingdom and exile periods, certain Kenites had given up nomadic smithing and had
taken on a more sedentary, but equally honorable profession of scribe.
Commentary on the Bible, page 114, has this to say about the name of the
The etymology of the name suggest that they were smiths or artificers, a theory which is supported by
their association with the Wadi ‘Arabah, where there were copper deposits
which had been worked by the Egyptians since the middle of the 3rd millennium.
Again in the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 181, we have more on the
name of the Kenites:
The name Cain
is generally taken by Semitic philologists to mean ‘smith’, and regarded as
the patronymic of the Kenite clan of
Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible has this to say on Kenite,
families of the scribes
either civil or ecclesiastical officers of
the Kenite origin, who are here classified with the tribe of Judah, not as
being descended from it, but as dwellers within its territory, and in a
measure incorporated with its people.
Matthew Pool’s Commentary On The Holy Bible has this to say on the
Kenites, volume 1, page 778:
Scribes; either civil, who
were public notaries, who wrote and signed legal instruments; or ecclesiastical
... and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but
because they dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages,
and so in a manner incorporated with them. Which dwelt,
or rather, dwelt;
For the other translation, which
dwelt, may seem to
insinuate that these were descendants of Judah, which they were not; but
this translation only signifies cohabitation with them, for which cause
they are here named with them.
Here is where these Pharisees,
Sadducees and SCRIBES which Yahshua
pointed out as being of their father the devil came from. When He said to them
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zachariah son
of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Yahshua was stating a
scientific fact. Not only was all of the blood from Abel up to this point on
their head, but the blood of Yahshua Himself would fall upon them. Matthew 27:25
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be
on us, and on our children.
Not only is the blood of
Yahshua upon their head, but all of the blood shed since that time in all their
murders. That means every Adamic man woman and child that has died in their
planned wars and whatever other murder they have committed. Here is where this
one seedline (or maybe no seedline) doctrine gets serious: When you deny the
Cain Satanic seedline you put the “Jew” on the same level as anyone else.
What you are actually doing, in essence, is forgiving the “Jews” for the
murder of Yahshua. What the one seedliners are saying, in essence, is that the
enmity is in the flesh and therefore we are the murderers of Yahweh. You can see
here, once you take a false position, all kinds of problems start to arise. I
know that Yahshua died for my sins, but I didn’t murder Him! Now if the one
seedliners want to continue the position of one seedline or no seedline, and be
responsible for the death of our Savior, then go right ahead.
From 1st Chronicles 2:55, we pick up another name for Cain. Let’s review it again to
see what it is:
1st Chronicles 2:55
And the families of the scribes which dwelt at
Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are
the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.
Here we pick up the word
“Rechab” or “Rechabite.” In The
Complete Word Study, Old Testament, King James Version by Dr. Spiros
Zodhiates, page 1055, there is a note to go to Jeremiah 35:1-19. If you have a
King James Bible with the center reference it will take you from Jeremiah 35:2
back to 1st Chronicles 2:55. Now
let’s go to the 35th chapter of Jeremiah, verse 2:
Go unto the house of the Rechabites. And speak unto them, and bring them into the house of
Yahweh, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink.
Now I am not going to go into
detail on this passage, but point out the fingerprints of Cain. In verse 7 it
says the Rechabites would not plant seeds nor plant vineyards. If the ground is
cursed for their sake, the seed wouldn’t grow anyway. In this same 7th verse
it says they shall dwell in tents. Well vagabonds do live in tents. You will
also notice in several verses here that they won’t drink wine. Could it be
that they didn’t want to take the wine of Communion? We can see here that the
fingerprints of Cain are consistent. Yes, Yahshua, when he pointed out that they
were serpents, devils and vipers, knew who he was talking to.
SMITH & GOODSPEED ON JOHN 8:44
The devil is the father you
are sprung from, and you want to carry out your father’s wishes. He
was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do with truth, for there is
no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true character, for he is
a liar and the father of them.
You can see then, this verse
is not speaking in a spiritual sense, as most one seedliners would have you to
believe. If so, how would one murder someone spiritually? It would be absurd to
interpret this verse in a spiritual manner. When it is speaking of murder in
this verse, it is speaking of Cain murdering Abel. It is not speaking of Cain
murdering Abel spiritually, but physically. I am not the only one who
understands this verse in such a way. The
New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Edited by Jerome H. Smith, published by
the Thomas Nelson Publishers, page 1203, understands John 8:44 to be speaking of
the murder of Abel by Cain, for it makes reference to Genesis 4:8. This is an
entire book of cross-references. As far as I know, this book is in no way
promoting the Two Seedline doctrine, nor does if have an ax to grind on this
subject. Let’s take a look at Genesis 4:8 which this book makes reference to
from John 8:44:
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.
For evidence to help prove
that John 8:44 is speaking of the “Jews” as being descendants of Cain, and
that Smith & Goodspeed has translated this passage correctly, we will check
on the word “of”, like in “Ye
father the devil.” The Strong’s number in the Greek is 1537. The New
Testament Word Study Dictionary by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates devotes five pages
to interpret the word “of”
as used in the Greek, pages 529-534. Obviously I cannot quote this entire
document here, but use that which is relevant to John 8:44:
“... Preposition governing the genitive,
primarily meaning out of, from, of, as spoken of such objects which were before
another ... Of the origin or source of anything, i.e., the primary, direct,
immediate source ... Of persons, of the place, stock, family, condition, meaning
out of which one is derived or to which he belongs ... Of the source, i.e., the
person or thing, out of or from which anything proceeds, is derived, or to which
euphemism CONCERNING FLESH
example of an idiom or euphemism is the term “flesh.” Although this term is
not directly connected with the seduction of Eve, it is closely related, and it
will serve to demonstrate the quaint language of the Bible. “Flesh” is the
Hebrew word #1320 in the Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible and is
described as follows:
baw-sawr’; from 1319; flesh (from its freshness);
by extension body, person ;
also (by euphemism) the pudenda of a man: — body, [fat, lean] flesh [-ed], kin,
[man-] kind + nakedness, self, skin.
let’s check in The Reader’s Digest
Great Encyclopedic Dictionary to see the meaning of the word “pudenda.”
You will find it spelled “pudendum” in most dictionaries:
... (1) The external genital parts of the female; vulva. (2) The external
genitals of either sex ... [Latin neuter of pudendus, gerundive of pudere
to be ashamed]...
know this is sort of graphic, but I believe from all of this, we can better
understand what was involved concerning the episode when it says, Genesis 2:25 “And
they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” It’s
the Hebrew way of saying; Adam and Eve were of one flesh. To give evidence that
the word flesh can mean “pudenda” or the genitals of both a male or female,
I will cite the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 13th and 19th verses of the 15th chapter of
Leviticus (truly, you need to read the entire chapter):
Verse 2: When any man hath a running issue out of his pudenda ... Verse 3: And
this shall be his uncleanness in his issue: whether his pudenda run with
his issue, or his pudenda be stopped from his issue ... Verse 7: And
he that toucheth the pudenda of him that hath the issue ... Verse 13 ...
and bathe his pudenda
in running water ... Verse
19 And if a woman have an issue, and her
issue in her pudenda be
You can see very clearly
that we have to learn to read the scriptures in the correct context of their
true setting, as the words being used may only be a substitution of a genteel
expression for an unpleasant or offensive one. This is called a euphemism, or
genteelism. In other words, the word “flesh” is a euphemism, and in the case
above literally means “the pudenda” of a man or a woman. Many times
we miss the entire meaning of passages, lacking understanding of a euphemism
when we encounter it. If we understand these euphemisms, then we can understand
why Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. And later, we can also
understand what kind of “aprons” they made, and what part of their body they
were trying to hide. Its one thing to find the various Hebrew and Greek meanings
of the words, but it is quite another thing to put them in their proper context
with the Scripture involved. In order to understand the context, one must have a
working understanding of how any one passage fits with the rest of the
scriptures. If one finds a conflict with other passages, his mental context has
to be wrong. The above application is a good case in point.
APRONS AND SHINS
Genesis 3:7 tells us that Adam
and Eve became aware of their nakedness, after the seduction, and maid
themselves aprons. “Aprons” is the Hebrew word # 2290, and means, a belt
(for the waist): —
apron, armour, gird (-le). The first among several English meanings is: A
garment or cloth, leather, etc., worn to protect or adorn the front of a
person’s clothes. A belt is usually worn to encompass the waist, so it is
obvious an apron is to cover the front part of the body from the waist down
which would cover the pudenda.
The question arises, then, if this were mental seduction, as the one
seedliners shout so loudly, why would Adam and Eve have made aprons to cover
this part of the body. If it was mental seduction, then, why didn’t Adam and
Eve try to cover the brain area? Or if it was an apple, as many put forward, why
didn’t Adam and Eve put something over their mouth? If it were mental, why
didn’t Yahweh attempt to change their mind and correct it. After all, we all
make errors in judgment and have to change our minds. It is obvious that it was
something they had done that couldn’t be reversed by breaking Yahweh’s
commandments. Today, Eve could simply have gone down to the local abortion mill!
If you think it is terrible that Eve could have been seduced, look at all the
Eves who are being seduced today.
Yahweh was aware that the
fig-leaf aprons were not adequate, so He made Adam and Eve “coats of skins”,
Genesis 3:21. “Skins” is #3801, and In the Gesenius’
Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, page 420, it can mean, a
tunic, an inner garment next to the skin ... also worn by women ... generally
with sleeves coming down to the knees, rarely to the ancles [sic]. It is
obvious from this description, the “skins” were more extensive covering more
of the body, and undoubtedly especially for the woman.
WORK TO BE CONTINUALLY EXPANDED AND ENLARGED BY ME