Willie Martin

22752 Arapaho Rd.

Justin, Texas 76247

(940) 648-8030

[email protected]

Mr. Reed Benson

%Watchman Outreach Ministries

218E Route One

Schell City, Missouri 64783

Dear Mr. Benson:

I read your treatise� on �Defending the Global Flood,� on pp. 32-37 in the Watchman, Summer 2002, vol. 25, Number 3, and found it interesting but I don�t believe that it there was a world wide flood, and I believe that I can prove it from the Scriptures and secular history.

Now I full well realize that someone with your credentials will never answer someone like myself, who has never attended a cemetery (seminary) a day in his life, but has spent some 40 years studying the scriptures and secular history.

It would appear that you don�t realize that the Bible is concerned only with one small geographical area of the world, and not with the entire planet except in some prophecies. And the flood is certainly not one of those; it is a fact and actually happened but not on a world or planet wide scale.

You state on page 32 �Scripture uses language indicative of a global flood.�� Then you quote some scriptures (Genesis 6:12; 6:13; 6:17; 7:4; 7:21; 7:23 and 8:21) none of which encompass the entire globe of planet earth. They are all concerning that one small geographical area in the Middle East.

Then you further quote (Genesis 6:17) again but still we have not gotten out of that small area of the world which concerns the Bible. Furthermore it states �wherein is the breath of life.� Well there were other races on earth at the time which is clearly demonstrated in Ezekiel 31 and THEY WERE NOT DESTROYED. Only those descendants of Adam that had remained in that area were destroyed.

I will not go on with any further demonstrations because it would make this study too long, and seeing as how I don�t believe you will read it anyway there is no incentive to go further; but I will present my objection to your premise for your review if you should feel so inclined. Also, I am presenting along with this a study on Cain, because he certainly had descendants which survived the flood, for the Kenites are his children, and the children of the devil as Yahshua said in John 8:44. Therefore, with all due respect following is my thoughts on the flood and on Cain.

��

�� Was Noah�s Flood Universal?

For years the controversy has raged about whether Noah's flood was universal, or was it confined to a certain geographical location. This is a study to present our view about the flood as related in the Scriptures. We will use the Bible, and see if it has anything to say about it's scope.

The common claim, among most denominations, who still preach the Bible; and who more or less try to stay with the Scriptures as they read it and study it. Is that there was a world wide drowning of men, about 4300 to 4500 years ago.

That there was a flood called Noah's flood that drowned all the men upon the earth at that time in the world's history, except for his wife, his sons and their families. This is the common teaching among most Protestant Denominations, the Catholic Church. Some Fundamentalists groups and some Pentecostal groups do not teach this. Then there are many people outside of the church who don't know one way or the other, and could really care less.

Some of them think this is nonsense, they think the Bible story is a myth. Some say that is not important anyway. Then there is the great, vast bulk of the population, know so little about the Bible, they don't know if there might have been a flood or not.

Those who do study the Bible, and are willing to go through the Scriptures and see what the Bible actually teaches about where was the flood in Noah's time. First of all let us look at the Book of Genesis.

It is amazing how people can read a verse of scripture, and think to themselves: Yes that's right. Then they put their brain in neutral and simply become brain dead. They will study no further; they have found the truth; and God help the person who disagrees with them.

Such is the case when a discussion comes up concerning Noah's flood. Many read Genesis 6:13-17: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth...And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

These are the verses most generally used when defending the destruction of the entire earth by Noah's flood. Now first off we know that the earth was not destroyed. Yet, if one is to believe that the flood was universal, they must also believe that the entire world was destroyed at that time. Because that is what is says "I will destroy them WITH THE EARTH."

By this one verse we know that the flood was not universal. But let's go on because those who believe in the entire world being flooded will not be content with this verse. But one can just see them beginning to foam at the mouth, and wish to destroy me, and accuse me of trying to destroy God's Word. And nothing could be further from the truth. I simply believe in reading and �UNDERSTANDING� all of God's Word and not present some stupid argument that the atheists and other non-believers can latch upon like a dog on a bone.

First. Let's look at what Strong's Concordance has to say about the word earth. I suppose you all will accept that Strong's is an authority. If you do not, then there is nothing which can be used as an authority for anything. Strong's relates:

In the Old Testament the following is used almost every time. #127: soil; country, earth, ground, husband, land. #776: a land; common, country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way, wilderness, world. In the following one is used only once and the other only a few times. #2789: a piece of pottery; earth; sherd, stone. #6083: dust; clay, earth, mud: ashes; dust; earth; ground, mortar; powder; rubbish.

In the New Testament the following is used almost every time: #1093: soil; region; country; earth; ground; land; world. Once as #3625: Part of the globe; the Roman Empire; Once as #1919: worldly; in earth; terrestri�al. Once as #2709: The ground; subterranean, under the earth. Once as #3749: eartern-ware; of earth; earthen.

"And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth: and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. {Well so far so good. Everything is going to die and everything is covered, but in the next verse it says} Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:17-20)

There are two possibilities of this specific verse. First of all 15 cubits is believed by most Bible scholars to equal approx. 22 � feet. In other words a foot and a half for each cubit. Now, if this means 22 � feet above the highest hill then the earth was covered. If it means 22 � feet above the location of the Ark or where the Ark was built. Then you are in trouble, the water would not have been deep enough to cover the entire planet.

But let's go on and read some other verses: "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." (Genesis 7:21-22)

So far everything that we have read, is quite familiar to those who teach about the flood. And it does sound pretty complete. It sounds pretty complete as far as the destruction of everything outside of the Ark. And of course, we know, from the contents of the scriptures that all of the animals and people inside the Ark did not die. The real question is, after reading and studying God's Word and trying to find out about the flood. Which must be understood in order to understand history a little better. When God said in His Word - The Earth - did He mean the planet earth? Or did He mean the Land? Did He mean the planet earth, which would mean the entire earth? Or did He actually mean the land which was being spoken about?

Turn to Genesis 4:11-14 where in speaking about Cain we read: "And now art thou cursed FROM THE EARTH...And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH..."�

It is clear that Cain was only being driven out from the place where he was, to another place. But Cain said to the Lord "thou hast driven me out this day FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH." If we used just that phrase one could easily say that Cain was removed off of the earth entirely.

Because it says from the face of the earth. But then the scriptures show that Cain clearly understood what had happened. "And from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth."

Here we have two things pointed out to us.

One: That the scriptures are only concerned with a certain geographical area of the world. Cain knew this, otherwise he would not have made the proviso statement: "from thy face shall I be hid." This clearly shows that when Cain moved out of that specific geographical area, that God was no longer concerned with him, and he would be, in effect, hidden from God's eyes.

Second: That Cain clearly knew that he was being driven from one area of the earth to another. And not literally from off the earth entirely, the planet earth, but from the land wherein he had dwelt. And that he would sill be on the planet earth.

After The Flood: Genesis 11:1: �"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

Now that's what it says. It says that "the whole earth was of one language and one speech." Trying to interpret this in the same manner as the previous verses to mean a world wide flood.

We would have to assume that it meant that every person on the earth spoke one language. Because that is what it says. "And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there."

Now they must be the people of all the earth. So if we follow the same line of interpretation we would have to assume all of the living people on the face of the earth spoke one language and they all came and dwelt in the land of Shinar. Archaeologists and sciences can provide no record of all the people of the earth living in the land of Shinar, about 2400 years before the birth of Christ. But let's go on and read some more.

This is the story of the angel bringing Lot out before the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah: "The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." (Genesis 19:23)

We know from the story that those who were inside these cities on the plain were wicked. God destroyed those two cities, Lot and his two daughters and his wife went out and his wife died and was turned into a pillar of salt. And as some translations say, turned into a pillar of ashes. Leaving Lot and his two daughters alive.

When we read verses 30 and 31 listen to what is said: "And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him...And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and THERE IS NOT A MAN IN THE EARTH to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth."

There is not a man in the earth. When one interprets this in the same manor as he might interpret the others. You would have to assume, with the limited knowledge that we have hear, that what she means is that all the rest of humanity has died. That there are no other men alive.� Because she said �THERE IS NOT A MAN IN THE EARTH� to come into us in like manner. And of course you know the rest of the story. That the girls went ahead and got pregnant by their father, because they "thought" all the rest of the men on earth had died. Yet in verse 30 we know there "were" others alive because Lot "feared to dwell in Zoar."

If there were no others alive but him and his two daughters what did he have to fear. Of course those who don't want to accept what is being presented will cry out: "He was afraid of the animals."

But the scriptures don't say that. And if one believes in a universal flood, then they have to believe that if there were animals that frightened Lot, the scriptures would say so. At any rate, here, the universal flood advocates will be forced to admit, all mankind was once again destroyed except Lot and his two daughters.

Understand this one thing. As we go through these verses of Scripture. I am not poking fun or trying in anyway to discredit the Scriptures. I am simply trying to get you to think, use your head. Turn away from the Jewish Fables and false teachings and listen to what God says for a change!

As we continue on to Genesis 41 we find that Joseph is in Egypt, and we are coming up to the time of the famine. "And the seven years of plenteous-ness, that was in the land of Egypt, were ended. And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread."

Following the same line of reasoning that has been followed before. That would mean that all the rest of the world was suffering from a famine or a dearth or drought, whatever turns you on; except for the land of Egypt. Verses 55-57: "And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, God unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do. And THE FAMINE WAS OVER ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxes sore in the land of Egypt. And ALL COUNTRIES CAME INTO EGYPT to Joseph for to buy corn; BECAUSE THAT THE FAMINE WAS SO SORE IN ALL LANDS."

We are arriving at a time when secular history is very specific, and we can study the ancient writings and get a pretty good idea of what was happening in those days. Of course, prior to the flood, we recognize that there are few actual written records available and thus are limited in our knowledge of that time in history.

But, if we follow the same reasoning as on the previous verses, the plain teaching of these scriptures, and if we interpret them in the same manner as the advocates of a universal flood do, this very definitely means that ALL OF THE REST OF THE WORLD WAS HAVING A FAMINE. Right?

This would mean that the Americas, England, Australia, China, New Zealand and etc., were suffering from a famine or dearth. And that they all came to Egypt to purchase food. Which would have been impossible because the Scriptures does not even recognize China or the rest of the world at this point in time.

From the knowledge that we have gained from history and archeology in the last thousand years of this time, after the flood, does not indicate that we have any knowledge of people from Asia, the Americas, the Eskimos, or anybody else from the opposite side of the earth going to Egypt to buy food. In fact, if one will study closely they will see that the only people involved in this famine was Egypt and the lands immediately surrounding Egypt.

If you will obtain a map of that portion of the earth, you will clearly see, that everything we have talked about so far, has been a relatively small geographic area in the Middle East.

But, yet many still teach that the flood was over all the earth. Now we have read that the famine at the time of Joseph was over all of the earth. Yet there is no record of it in our secular history, of people coming into Egypt from the other parts of the earth to buy food.

So far, to briefly relate what has transpired:

1). We have a flood which has covered all the earth;

2). We have a fire which the survivors have stated specifically, that there were no other men left on the earth;

3). We also have a famine which was, a famine over ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

Do we, have, in truth, three things which has either destroyed all of the populations of the earth or most of them. In fact, the last one leaves us to believe that all of the people on earth, who did not go to Egypt died.

Therefore, everyone on earth died of the famine except for those in Egypt and the few fortunate enough to be able to get to Egypt to get food.�

Now turn to the Tenth Chapter of Exodus where we will look at the plagues of Egypt, a story most know quite well. Exodus 10:14-15: "And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such. For THEY COVERED THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH..."

Here, we have yet another plague which covered the face of the whole earth. "...so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, {where?} through all the land of Egypt."

Yet the phraseology or terminolo�gy is identical to what we have read before. They covered all the face of the whole earth.

In Ezekiel 39 all of the Israelites were killed. Did you know that all of the Israelites were dead in Ezekiel's day? Well Ezekiel the prophet said so. Talking about this end of the age battle, he said: "And the heathen shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore hid I my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: SO FELL THEY ALL BY THE SWORD."

Thus Ezekiel is telling us that all of the Israelites had fallen by the sword.

As we said earlier, we am not trying to be frivolous about this thing. I am simply trying to show you that when the Bible talks about something happening over all of an area or all of something or over all of the earth; that it does not necessarily mean that every single solitary person on every inch of the entire planet was involved. Because if it did we have already had more than four total destructions or almost total destructions.��

Turn to Ezra we will show you, after we state the point, we will show you THE LOCATION OF THE FLOOD ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE! "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven HATH GIVEN ME ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE EARTH..."

Now we are arriving down to a point in history where we can easily verify the things that have happened in the scriptures according to secular written history.

There is no way for us to know what Cyrus was thinking or what God Almighty was thinking when He put it in His Word. But we know from secular history that Cyrus's kingdom never extended more than a thousand miles from his capital city. He had a tremendous kingdom; But the Bible says that God had given him "all the kingdoms of the earth." Yet we know, and no minister tries to prove to us, that Cyrus ruled over China or North America or South America, or even over Africa.

They know better. They know just how foolish such teaching would be. Because it would not take long for their flock to realize that he was teaching a falsehood.

Turn to Daniel. You know that Daniel was a high official in the Babylonian Kingdom, and after he and the others has shown their protection and favor of God. Daniel 6:24: "And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den."

Darius was so pleased with the actions of God and His apparent protection of Daniel that this was what he did. Then, in verse 25: "Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that DWELL IN ALL THE EARTH..."

That is what is says. God's Word says; "Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, THAT DWELL IN ALL THE EARTH; Peace be multiplied unto you. I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel."

What was he talking about? Of course, when Darius wrote to all the people on the earth, he was writing to all the people IN HIS KINGDOM! And his kingdom, we know from secular history and from God's Word was rather limited compared to the entire planet.

It covered an area contained in that small geographical area, where all of the Bible talks about. It did not exceed beyond it. Not a single bit of the previous history has gone outside that small geographical area of the Middle East.

Now turn to the New Testament to the book of Luke, where we read the reason that Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehem. Luke 2:1-3: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that ALL THE WORLD SHOULD BE TAXED. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And ALL went to be taxed, EVERY ONE INTO HIS OWN CITY."

You see what happens if one interprets the scriptures the same way all the way through the Bible. Now we have Caesar Augustus ruling over ALL OF THE WORLD. Which is absolutely not true.

He never ruled over Germany. He never ruled over all of the British Isles. He never ruled over the Americas. He never ruled over Japan.

He never ruled over Asia, nor any of the other countries of the world. Do you not see how silly those who would have us believe that the flood was universal?

Because according to the way they interpret the scriptures they would have all the Indians in North and South America going into their cities to be taxed. They would have all the Chinese going into their cities to be taxed. They would have all the Japanese going into their cities.

Countries that never knew Rome existed for hundreds or thousands of years later. They would have you believe that. Because right here in the scriptures it says "All went to be taxed, every one to his own city." It is clear that this scripture is not talking about the entire planet earth, it is talking, once again, about a certain geographical location in the Middle East.

For another point turn to the book of Acts. Did you know that if all of the people did not die in the famine in Egypt, that they are going to die in another famine, which is related in Acts. "And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth THROUGHOUT ALL THE WORLD: WHICH CAME TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF CLAUDIUS CAESAR." (Acts 11:27-28)

Now we are down to about 1900 years ago, where we have excellent written secular history, and no one; not even the most ardent universal flood advocates would dare to declare that all the world had a great dearth or famine. Yet if one interprets these scriptures in the same way, then there must have been a famine over all the world, the entire planet 1900 years ago. And secular history failed to mention such a catastrophe.

To not park your brains at the door when you enter church. To think for yourselves and not to believe everything that someone tells you. Search out the scriptures, think and reason, not just pat your self on the back and think what wonderful knowledge you have. That you have all the truth, and no one else has any. That is false. NO ONE, NOT ME, NOT YOU - NO ONE HAS ALL THE TRUTH EXCEPT ALMIGHTY GOD.

We are laying a foundation, so that you will fully understand what we are presenting, that it the interpretation is not true, that when the Bible says all the earth, it is talking about the entire planet.

THE ENTIRE BIBLE ONLY ENCOMPASSES ONE SMALL GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE SCRIPTURES WHEN IT IS SPEAKING HISTORICALLY. It is only when it is speaking prophetically that it is speaking about other parts of the world, and then it is only concerned with the Children of Israel. And we don't mean the Jews when we say that for they are no part of Israel. They are mostly of Japheth, Esau, and Khazars.

Turn to the Second Book of Peter. For we will now look at verses which are quite often referred to when the universal flood advocates talk of the flood again. And remember as we read these verses also, that so far, that the history written down in the Word of God still has not moved outside of the area of one small geographical portion of the Middle East.

All the way from the Book of Genesis to 2 Peter we have been talking about one geographical location. Peter is referring to the flood: "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." (2 Peter 2:4-6)

God brought in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. And we would state that this doesn't necessarily mean all the world, the entire planet. First of all you must remember and understand the principle that God operates upon. Which is, that sin is the transgression of the Law. And where there is no Law there is no transgression.

God does not destroy even peoples unless they have the Law and violate it. And you can read this far in the Holy Scriptures and you will not find definite and conclusive evidence that God's Law was ever preached beyond the confines of that small geographical area of the world.

God's Law, as far as the scriptures relates had not gone out to the other parts of the planet. So the flood was brought in upon the ungodly.

Again this does not necessarily mean all the world - the entire planet. As we have already shown quite clearly, we believe. Of course there will be skeptics, such as one of the thieves which was crucified next to Christ. Who railed and mocked Him as they died. "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old {notice he was talking about people being destroyed who were 'WILLINGLY' ignorant, and definitely disobeying the Word of the Lord}, and THE EARTH standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." (2 Peter 3:5-6)

But this does not necessarily prove a world or planet wide flood. Now make no misunderstanding, we know these can not be used to preach or teach a limited flood, but the universal flood advocates almost always use them and so we must recognize they are there.

Turn to Joshua, who we believe will show you the bounds of Noah's flood. You must understand that this was happening to Joshua approx. 500 years AFTER Shem.

So we are talking about a period of time which was 500 years after one of Noah's sons who was actually in the Ark during the flood. We are not talking about Joshua doing something a 1000 or 2000 years after the flood. But only about 500 years after it. He has called all the people of Israel together. He's old and knows he is going to die. "Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem {a city between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River - this is where this event took place}, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, YOUR FATHERS DWELT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD in old time, even Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods." (Joshua 24:1-2)

Now we have read, in part, the Bible through several times and never realized what is being presented here. Every time I read it I always thought in terms of time. Your fathers dwelt BEFORE the flood. But that is not what it is saying, is it? It says "Your fathers dwelt on the OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD." And then it gives the names of their fathers. "Terah, the father of Abraham." If you think about it for a minute it will dawn upon you that Terah didn't live BEFORE the flood. Terah lived just before Abraham, long AFTER the flood.

Yet the scriptures says that Terah lived "on the other side of the flood." Now if you will read this several times and �THINK� use your heads you will realize that Joshua is not talking about "time." HE IS TALKING ABOUT GEOGRAPHY!

He is telling them "WHERE THEY LIVED," not WHEN they lived! Now listen carefully to what he says: "...and I took your father Abraham FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac."

Turn to Genesis 11 and we will show you where Terah, Nachor and Abraham lived. Genesis 11:10: "These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years AFTER THE FLOOD."

Then it goes down and gives all of the descendants of Shem. And two hundred and twelve years after the flood we read in verse 24: "And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah."

Yet in Joshua 24, Joshua says, "your fathers even Terah," which Genesis 11 said was born two hundred and twelve years AFTER THE FLOOD, �LIVED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD.� And then it talks about bringing Abraham. "And Terah took Abram {Abraham} his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran." (Genesis 11:31-32)

Joshua said in Joshua 24:3: "And I {Almighty God} took your father Abraham FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD..."

Now it is very apparent that Abraham did not live BEFORE the flood. So if God brought Abraham FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD, what is He talking about.

Well he is telling us that he, Joshua, standing at Shechem is on one side of where the flood was; and Abraham living in Ur of the Chaldees was living on the other side of the flood. And there is no doubt that he is talking about the flood of Noah.

So if you wish to know where the Flood of Noah was, then get you a good map of that part of the world in old times and look between Ur of Chaldees and Shechem and you will see the geographical area of the flood.

Now the scriptures tell us to have a second witness. So we will turn to a well known verse for this second witness. I believe that God has laughed at those who espouse a universal flood, and has revealed its location in one of the best known verses in the Bible, as a jest. To see if we would search out the truth for ourselves. Or would we grope in blindness. "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served THAT WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD {Not �BEFORE' the flood, but 'ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD'}, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15)

Most ministers will read this and say "Well I don't know what you people are going to do, but I am going to serve the Lord."

Yet right here in that very commonly used verse is the double or second witness that Joshua knew he stood on one side of the flood, and that Abraham was born and raised on THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FLOOD. We realize this is a futile effort for most Christians because they do not want to know the truth. Because they would rather believe a lie than the truth. God said this was so: "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; AND MY PEOPLE LOVE TO HAVE IT SO..." (Jeremiah 5:31-32)

This is one of the reasons that Hosea declared: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: {why?}: BECAUSE THOU HAST REJECTED KNOWLEDGE..." (Hosea 6:4) And if you will read the scriptures carefully and honestly you will see God destroyed the old world because the people were mixing with other races.�

�� Cain

Who knows how many children have been taught that Eve ate an apple when God told her not to. What an embarrassment to the religious teachers of today. How many sermons have been preached on the Sin in the Garden by "parsons" who do not have the slightest idea of what that sin was?

Open your Bible, PRAY that the Holy Spirit will show you the truth, and I will tell you what I have received thru study. I sincerely hope that you will NOT take my word for it without checking it out for yourself. The following is not contradicted any where in the whole of God's word. On the contrary, much of the hard to understand passages of the Words and parables of Jesus as well as the writings of Paul, Peter and James are made plain.

In the first chapter, we learned that there was an earth age before this present one, and that God destroyed his original creation. This in itself is an astounding statement, yet God's Word declares it for hose with "eyes to see." Also in Genesis 1, we saw the CREATION of the second (this present) Earth and Heaven Age, through the sixth day man (the races of even today), and after the seventh day the FORMING of Adam (the eighth‑day man), and his wife, Eve.

We found that this Adam was made a special servant of God, for it was through his seed that Christ Himself was to come. This man was special. We found that even the ORDER of creation was different in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. God gave Adam and Eve totally different instructions than the sixth day man, and prepared a special place for them to live, separate from the rest of creation.

As we now dive into Genesis chapter 3, the first� questions I want you to consider are these: Was Satan aware of God's plan? Was Satan aware of God's plan in the first earth age? Does Satan ALWAYS seek to destroy God's plan? And finally, if Satan was aware that God's plan was to send Jesus in the flesh through the seed of this special creation at some future time, how best could Satan disrupt this plan.

When we get to Genesis chapter 6, we will see that Satan's fallen angels seduced the daughters of Adam (in fact ALL of them except Noah's family) bringing forth the 'giants', which was the reason for the deluge. This was just a continuation of Satan's attempt to fatally corrupt the Seed line through which the Messiah was to come. OL' Scratch has not given up to this day!

Recall from Genesis 2:9, that in the Garden was "the Tree of LIFE" (Which we find many places in the New Testament was Jesus), and "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (That old serpent, Satan, the deceiver, the destroyer, the devil, the beast, Lucifer, the king of Tyre, and etc..) Genesis chapter 3 That old serpent was in the garden, alright. He was not a physical "snake," but a spiritual one. The word translated 'serpent' is nachash in Hebrew and there are four words, each with different meanings.

The word is generally accepted to be "the shining one" in most texts. Strong's # 5172 nachash (naw‑ khash'); a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate: KJV‑‑ X certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe. (DID) Strong's #5173 nachash (Nah.'‑ash); from #5172;� an incantation or augury: KJV� enchantment. (DID) Strong's� #5174 nechash (Aramaic) (nekh‑awsh'); corresponding to #5154; copper: KJV� brass. (DID) Strong's #5175 nachash (naw‑khawsh'); from #5172; a snake (from its hiss):KJV‑‑ serpent. (DID) So Satan was a charmer. A silver tongued devil, just like he is today. Lets look at verse 3:

Look at the words used for "eat" and "touch "EAT� Strong's #398 'akal (aw‑kal'); a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively): KJV‑‑ 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. (DID) OUCH‑‑Strong's #5060 naga (naw‑ gah'); a primitive root; properly, to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemism., TO LIE WITH A WOMAN); by implication, to reach (figuratively, to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): KJV‑‑ beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch. (DID) Isn't it strange that naga (touch) means to lie with a woman? In verse 6 we find that Eve partook of the 'fruit of the tree,' and ALSO gave of the same fruit to Adam, and he partook also. Is this strange to you?�

Look what Eve said to God in verse 13‑ "the serpent beguiled me...just look at what the Hebrew word means‑‑beguiled‑‑Strong's #5377 nasha' (naw‑shaw'); a primitive root; TO LEAD ASTRAY, i.e. (mentally) TO DELUDE, OR (morally) TO SEDUCE: KJV‑‑ beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly. (DID)Was Eve seduced? Paul (2 Corinthians 11:2‑3) says she was. (2) For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

What do you suppose the Greek word here translated 'beguiled' means? Strong's # 1818 exapatao (ex‑ap‑at‑ah'‑o); from 1537 and 538; to seduce wholly: KJV‑‑ beguile, deceive. (DID) Notice that it has only one meaning. "to seduce wholly" Look now at verse 16. Notice that God says "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception..." I believe it is plain here that Eve was pregnant! Look at the word 'conception'. It is definitely present tense, not future.

Strong's # 2032 herown (hay‑rone'); or herayown (hay‑raw‑yone'); from #2029; pregnancy: KJV� conception. (DID)Strong's #2029 harah (haw‑raw'); a primitive root; to be (or become) pregnant, conceive (literally or figuratively): KJV‑‑been, be with child, conceive, progenitor. (DID)In addition, in verse 15, God tells Satan that He will put enmity (hate) between her seed and his (Satan's) seed.

Every Christian accepts her seed as Christ, but they gloss over the phrase dealing with Satan's seed. Christ Himself told of them in many places. See especially the parable of the tare sin Matthew 3:24‑42. Thus Eve was carrying twins, but not of the same father. The medical term is "paternal twins", and it is not uncommon today among prostitutes. In 1990,the Reader's Digest carried a story of a woman in Thailand giving birth to twins of two different races, one oriental and one black. But does God's Word indicate they were twins? I think so.

In Genesis 4:1‑2 we read "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (2) And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.� (KJV)

Look at the Hebrew phrase used for the English "and again" Strong's #3254 yacaph (yaw‑saf'); a primitive root; to add or augment(often adverbial, to continue to do a thing): KJV‑‑ add, X again, X any more, X cease, X come more, + conceive again, continue, exceed, X further, X gather together, get more, give more‑over, X henceforth, increase (more and more),join, X longer (bring, do, make, much, put), X (the, much, yet) more (and more), proceed (further), prolong, put, be [stronger‑], X yet, yield. (DID) Thus the Hebrew says she continued in labor...Is there any other proof? I'm glad you asked. It is obvious that Cain and Abel were the same age. Why?

Look at verses 3 and 4 and you will see that they both brought their sacrifices to God at the same time. In the Hebrew traditions, it is at the age of 13 that a man becomes accountable (Bar‑Mitzvah). They obviously became accountable at the same time! We know that Cain killed Abel. Could it be that this was because Abel was the firstborn of Adam, and the beginning of the promised seed line of Christ?

It is written that Cain and his sacrifice was "not acceptable" to God. Did Adam think Cain was his own firstborn? No he didn't. Cain didn't look anything like Adam. How do I know? Read 4:25 and 5:3. Genesis 4:25 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. (KJV) Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: Is there any other proof that Cain was NOT Adam's son? I'm glad you asked!

Notice that Genesis chapter 5 is the genealogy of Adam. Cain is not listed in that genealogy. Do you know why? Cain was NOT Adam's son! Cain has his own genealogy in Genesis chapter 4:17‑24.2) See John 8:44, the words of Jesus "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (KJV)3) See Matthew 13:38, the words of Jesus "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;" (KJV)

Please note the Greek word used for "seed" as used in this parable. Strong's # 4690 sperma (sper'‑mah); from 4687; something sown, i.e. seed(including the male "sperm"); by implication, offspring; specifically, a remnant (figuratively, as if kept over for planting): KJV� issue, seed. Interesting, what? See First John 3:12 "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." (KJV) The English word "of" here is the Greek word ek, which means "out of the immediate origin"

1 John 3:12: �Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.�

Are the children of Cain still with us? I'm glad you asked. Yes they are.

Do you know who the KENITES are? You should. It's the Hebrew word for Cain! Strong's #7014 Qayin (kah'‑yin); the same as #7013 (with a play upon the affinity to 7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: KJV� Cain, Kenite (‑s). (DID) The Kenites were the ones who killed Jesus and the ones to whom Jesus was talking to in John 8:44. Cain killed the firstborn son of Adam, and his children killed the only begotten Son of God! Notice that the knowledge of who the Kenites are is worth a special blessing from the Father. You can see this in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

Only the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia received God's blessing. They taught who those were who "claimed to be of Judah, and are liars!" (I think this is the tribe of DAN ~Lu) Read it for Yourself. You should devote some special study in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua and Jeremiah, because the Kenites are mentioned there by name. By the Ezra‑ Nehemiah period they were temple servants or Nethinims, and by the time of Jesus, they were the scribes. I'll bet you never thought of this did you?

There are still some difficulties, because the WORD says everyone died in the flood of Noah's day ‑ or does it? Wouldn't this include the Kenites, and in fact all the other races? Well, if you take man's tradition it would. BUT IN FACT WE KNOW THAT THE KENITES AND THE OTHER RACES GOT THROUGH THE FLOOD. THE NICE PART IS THAT THE BIBLE TELLS YOU HOW.

�� Biblical Creation; A Mid-Term Summary

The ideas presented with blatant audacity in the first parts of this treatise have caused some to howl with unbelief, even insinuating heresy. For the most part, these are the ones who have filled themselves with the 'cherished' traditions of man which are so prevalent in the theological cemeteries (pardon the faux pas) of the world's 'religions', and have become very learned in man's tradition. To these I offer no apologies.

I will discuss my Fathers Word as it is written with them or anyone else, in great detail, and with patience and love; but I will not spend a moment disputing over the commentaries of man. To these incredulous I make the following offer: Let us limit the proof of our ideas to the WORD of God, AS IT IS WRITTEN and thereby discern both what has been and is to be. This approach, you see, is very biblical. 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (KJV) Psalms 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (KJV)

There are many other references which could and should be understood. Many people sit in cemetery (seminary, where the word of God is taught through deception, and deceit) classes to be taught the word of God so that they may be prepared to teach and preach. Saul of Tarsus is one great example in particular of one who came out of the Babylon of denominationalism. He was taught in the cemetery (see Matthew 23:27 and you will understand my faux pas of the Pharisee school, (Acts 22:3), by Gamaliel, the 'great doctor of the law' (Acts 5:34). For those unfamiliar with Saul and his zeal for 'God' using what he had been taught (by man) read Acts chapters 8 and 9. Note that it took a visit from the LIVING WORD Himself to open Paul's spiritual and physical eyes. The problem was not that Paul did not know WHAT God's Word said: It was that he was never taught to BELIEVE what it said nor to interpret it without the bias and blindness of man's tradition.

It has been said that those who fail to understand and heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the errors. We witness this so often today in well- intentioned but blinded men of God who teach the� traditions of man which they have learned in the great seminaries: We hold up men as beacons of truth instead of the Living Word; We constantly hear about 'that great old preacher' or 'that great communitarian, never realizing that such commentaries are themselves firmly rooted in the teachings of Josephus (a Pharisee), or in the works of the early church fathers such as Origen, Aristobulis and Jerome. These writings are perhaps 99% biblical, but of times reek of the mixture of Pharisee leaven (perhaps in advertently) added to the bread of Life.

The great evidence which plainly suggests that many of these early Christian writers borrowed heavily from the early Latin texts of the Pharisees such as the Mishna, Juchasm and Porta Mosis is ignored. The lesson should be clear: We must be careful to use the written WORD as our guide, or we shall surely fall into the same pitas Paul. One may rightly ask 'what problem has he with the Pharisees? My friend, the words of Jesus were full of contempt for the denominations of that day. We could literally spend hours reading about it in the gospels, for when Christ was not doing His miracles He was teaching against the Pharisees. He began in Matthew 5 (see esp vv 19‑20) and finally finished in John 19:31.

Who do you think was responsible for His crucifixion? Who else but the denominations of the day led by the Pharisees. Do you allow the traditions of the denominational world to crucify Him again in your heart by refusing to believe His Word? My firm hope is that the comments above not be misunderstood. I certainly do not suggest that one should not read any and all� subject matter one may be presented with, including commentaries. The point I wish to make is just this: The Word of God we now have is both sufficient and complete. There is NO contradiction AT ALL in its volume. The problems always come when some tradition of man is pressed into the pages. The Word will ALWAYS vomit the traditions out with expedience when you seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I am not asking that you accept my words more than the words of any other man. I am asking that you get into the WORD that counts, however, the WORD of the Living GOD, and decide for yourself what you will accept. There will be no scripture lawyer standing in the judgement to defend your beliefs except Jesus. Be sure you know His WORD. These studies in Genesis are very important to understand God's plan. In fact if one does not comprehend the beginning, how will we understand "the rest of the story?"

We will fail to see the design as it was iterated in the persons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We cannot comprehend the prophetical books nor even the lesson books of Job, Jonah, Canticles, Esther and Ezra. We will fail to see the deeper truths in the parables of Jesus, as He both taught and confirmed that" which was from the beginning."

They didn't recognize Him when He came the first time. In fact they killed Him. Will you bet your spiritual life on them recognizing Him the second time? Jesus Himself told the Pharisees this in John 5:43 "I am come in my Father's name, and receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.(KJV) "We will need much knowledge for the days coming shortly upon us. It is through the knowledge of who the Kenites (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) are that we can recognize our adversary and put on the gospel armor of Ephesians 6:12‑18. God is indeed calling out an army for these end times.�

Biblical Creation Understanding Genealogies Brief Review

In part 1, we established from Genesis 1 the existence of the first earth and heaven age, its destruction in old time and thee establishment of the second (this present) earth and heaven age. We further found that the earth was NOT created 'tohu va bohu,' or destroyed, but that it BECAME that way. We used this knowledge to understand some 'problem passages' in 2 Peter, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. Although we did not choose to examine some of Jesus' parables with this knowledge, if you would do so on your own, you would see a great light go on in your mind. Much more would make perfect sense. In Part 2, We talked extensively about the days of creation, and found that there was NOT merely six days of creation, but there were EIGHT.

A neophyte reading chapters 1 and 2 can see that the order of creations described in Chapter 1 is different from the order described in Chapter 2; That the instructions given to man were different; That the Hebrew words used for 'create' and 'man' in chapter 1 are different from the words used for 'formed' and 'Adam' as in chapter 2. Since we began by accepting that ALL of God's Word is true, we cannot be forced to accept that only one of the first 2 chapters is true: Nay, on the contrary, we must say "let God be true and every man a liar." BOTH chapters 1 and 2 are TRUE.

Since both chapters are true, then our only option is that they are describing two separate creations, one on the SIXTH day, and one on the EIGHTH day, just as it is written. This Eighth day creation of the promised seed line is spoken of eloquently in 2 Peter 2:5: "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (KJV) "You should recognize that the word 'person' in your KJV is in italics, meaning that it is not in the original language. Noah was the described as "eighth", because he was of the EIGHTH day creation, and God had promised to preserve this seed line until the birth of Messiah.

In part 3 we see that the "original sin" was physical adultery on the part of the first of the eighth day creation, God's "chosen." We noted that the physical adultery was preceded by the spiritual adultery of not believing God; Eve listened to the father of lies, the devil, who we know also as the father of the Kenites (Cain), and accepted his word instead of God's.

We also began the tracing of the genealogy of Adam, as well as that of Cain. We found that though Cain was Eve's son, he was not Adam's son. Cain was the firstborn son of Satan, and it was his children the KENITES who killed Christ. It is the children of the Kenites who labor today to destroy Christ's sheep through lie sand the tradition of man via commentaries. We are in a spiritual war: No one should go into a battle without a knowledge of who the enemy is and how to recognize him. We must know the nature of his weapons, and have the proper arms to overcome them. Many today are heading to the battle behind a banner held up by the enemy himself, thinking they are heading for safety.

�� Understanding Genealogies

We have a saying "like father‑like son," or, 'He's a chip off the old block'. The study of genealogy is often a dry subject out in the open, but virtually everyone of us has longed to know who our ancestors were, and how they fit into history. God's Word uses genealogy for a special reason. The chapters in the WORD devoted to the fact that so‑and‑so begat so‑and‑so for page after page are often overlooked.

The Holy Spirit did not put these chapters in to fill up space. They are there that we may prove the WORD for ourselves. The first genealogical list is found in Genesis chapter 4. It is no surprise to me that Cain's genealogy is listed first. He was the first child born in this earth age. His father was not Adam, but Satan. (John 8:44, Matthew 13:38, 1 John 3:12) Cain, we find, obviously did not look anything like Adam (Genesis 5:3).Genesis Chapter 4 begins with the birth of the first twins (see part 3), and we take up now the account of the first murderer, beginning with Genesis 4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. (Genesis 4:4) And Abel, he so brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: (Genesis 4:5) But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." (KJV)

Many have failed to see why Cain's offering was not acceptable. Yet, it is clearly written why. God requires a blood sacrifice. True, you say, but the law was not yet given about the blood sacrifice! Yes it was, my friend. It was not only previously written, it was also demonstrated by God Himself. How do you think Abel knew? WHERE is it written, you protest, PROVE it!

OK, look at Genesis 3:21: "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." (KJV) Do you think for a moment that those animals gave up their skins without losing both their lives and their blood? Thus, in plain sight it is written right here that God Himself showed Adam and Eve the acceptable requirement for forgiveness. In this case it was both a physical "covering" as well as a spiritual one acceptable to God.

Now think for just a moment. Can you imagine what an impression this act must have made on Adam and Eve? They had NEVER seen ANY death up till this time, yet here is some totally innocent being shedding it's blood for THEIR sins. Does this remind you of something? It should remind you of Christ who came through Adam and Eve's offspring to pay for all of the sins of all mankind. Surely, Adam and Eve told Cain and Abel what God expected, but Abel alone believed. Cain wanted to do it his own way. Cain felt, just like his progeny the Kenites feel today, that whenever the WORD of God doesn't agree with what they think then they are right and God is wrong.

Scottish children. Tsk tsk. Well, Cain didn't like it one bit (Genesis 4:5), when God accepted Abel's sacrifice and rejected his (Genesis 4:4). God did not chastise Cain, (Genesis 4:6), but (Genesis 4:7) offered him advice and showed him the way to be acceptable, but to no avail. So Cain (Genesis 4:8) "talked" to his brother, Abel, killed him, and then tried to lie TO GOD (Genesis 4:9) about it.? WOULD YOU TRUST A KENITE TO TELL YOU GOD'S WORD.

Now we will see why the Kenites are also called 'riders'.(from the word "Rechab" as used in 1 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." 1 Chronicles 2:55 (KJV) Strong's # #7017 Qeyniy (kay‑nee'); or Qiyniy (1 Chronicles 2:55)(kee‑nee'); patronymic from #014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin: KJV‑‑ Kenite. The root word #7014 is: Strong's #7014 Qayin (kah'‑yin); the same as #7013 (with a play upon the affinity to #7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: KJV‑‑ Cain, Kenite (‑s).Strong's #7394 Rekab (ray‑kawb'); from #7392; rider; Rekab, the name of two Arabs and of two Israelites: KJV‑‑ Rechab. The root #7392 is: Strong's #7392 rakab (raw‑kab'); a primitive root; to ride (on an animal or in a vehicle); causatively, to place upon (for riding or generally), to despatch: KJV‑‑ bring (on [horse‑] back), carry, get [oneself] up, on [horse‑] back, put, (cause to, make to) ride (in achariot, on, ‑r), set.

Now, Cain's occupation at the first was as a farmer.(Genesis 4:2) It wasteth way Cain made his living. We see in Genesis 4:12 that God removed this option: Cain would NEVER sow any more seeds which would bring forth food. Don't let THIS point go over your head. Think of the parables of teaching that Jesus used. (See Matthew 13 for several examples)To this day, Kenites make their living from the labor of others. They make their living with usury (interest), and with vain flowing words,(lies, even religious lies), and with politics such as the NEW WORLD ORDER (taxes) but never with 'the sweat of their brow' as Adam and his offspring does (Genesis 3:19).

The KENITES make their living by 'riding' (rechab) on the backs of the labor of everyone else. In Genesis 4:13‑17 we find several striking things. 1). Cain was afraid of being killed. (Genesis 4:14). If there were no other people ( i.e. the sixth day creation), just who would kill him? We see from Genesis 5:3 and 4 that there was no other Adamic (eighth day) offspring. Cain feared the ones of the sixth day creation, to be sure. It was from these peoples that Cain knew his wife (Genesis 4:17). Cain received a 'mark' of protection from God Himself (Genesis 4:15). 3)

Cain built a CITY (Genesis 4:17).Isn't this strange? A CITY! Who would there be to live in it if there were no other people? What good would a CITY be? Who on earth would feed him while he built it? Have you ever tried to lay bricks and mix mud by yourself? It is not easy. Have you ever considered the logistics of gathering materials for the streets, buildings and walls? God's WORD is never the less true and exact. Cain built a city. Common sense will tell most that Cain had considerable help from the sixth day crew, however. What do you suppose enabled a FARMER to know HOW to build a city, or for that matter, what a CITY even was? How did he know how to figure weights, measures and angles? How did he survive on his own?

I believe the key is in the mark placed upon him by God. I believeth this mark was knowledge and the superiority knowledge brings to people. Cain was readily accepted by the sixth day people because he could tell them how to farm, tell them how to train animals to work, as well as teach them much subtlety in the use of weapons, how to kill your brother tribes and get their goods, etc. All for a price, however, all for a price. We come now to the listing in Genesis chapter 4 of the progeny of Cain.

Note first that Cain has his own genealogy, and it is listed separately from that of Adam (chapter 5) which we will cover in the next part. The reason should be plain to all by now. CAIN WAS NOT ADAM'S SON. Cain was Satan's son. (John 8:44, 1 John 3:12) Secondly, you should notice, with care, how the names of Cain's offspring of Genesis 4 so closely imitates the names of Adams children in Genesis 5. This fact should cause a bell to ring in your mind.

The Kenites are great impersonators. THEY LIKE TO POSE AS GREAT MEN OF GOD. They were the ones who ran the church when Jesus came. (Matthew chapter 23 and John chapter 8). Their father killed the first begotten son of Adam. They killed the first begotten Son of God, and they sow confusion among God's people to this day to keep them from knowing the truth. Strange but very true, my friend, strange but true. Some of the above are the words of man. Never take the words of any man without proving them for yourself in the only true WORD. May the Holy Spirit lead you in your search.

�� Biblical Creation The Seed of The Woman

In part 4 we talked about the 'serpent's seed,' and traced Cain's Genesisealogy through God's Word from its beginning in Genesisesis to its end in the book of Revelation. The mere fact that there is an adversary to God's plan of salvation is easily accepted.

The revelation that such an adversary has PHYSICAL offspring among us is a more difficult treatise, but the fact that God ALLOWS such an abomination to co‑exist with us is just unthinkable to many. Nevertheless, it is a true fact as we have shown. One may not understand why, but it is only because they have not used their own minds, but have allowed the traditions of man to serve as their interpreter of God's WORD.

Think about it. We began this series with a 2 part thesis which I will reiterate here: Thesis part (A) ALL OF GOD'S WORD IS TRUE. Thesis part (B) SOME OF MAN'S WORD IS TRUE. We will continue using the same rules. The offspring of the serpent and the woman is first mentioned in Genesis 3:15: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (KJV)

�� Is not this a promise by the Living God? The message is so clear even a child can understand. Notice first of all who God was talking to. (previous verse:{Genesis 3:14} "...God said unto the serpent..") The message is to Satan. God does not talk to the woman until Genesis 3:16. Now pause and think a minute. If this is God's Word, are not the serpent's seed (children) still here with us? Of course they are. We identified them in Part 4 as the Kenites.

The seed (children) of the woman are thus set at odds against the seed (children) of the serpent. Notice something else about Genesis 3:15. God said that HE (GOD) would put 'enmity' between the children. This word is Strong's # 342'eybah (ay‑baw'); from #340; hostility: KJV‑‑ enmity, hatred. The root word is Strong's #340 'ayab (aw‑yab'); a primitive root; to hate (as one of an opposite tribe or party); hence to be hostile: KJV‑‑ be an enemy. God also made a prediction about the children. GOD said (Genesis 3:15) "that the seed of the woman would 'bruise' the head of the serpent's seed, and that the serpent's seed would 'bruise' the heel of the woman's seed."

The word 'bruise' is Strong's #7779 shuwph (shoof);� primitive root; properly, to gape, i.e. snap at; figuratively, to overwhelm: KJV‑‑ break, bruise, cover. The word 'head' is Strong's #7218 ro'sh (roshe); from an unused root apparently meaning to shake; the head (as most easily shaken), whether literal or figurative (in many applications, of place, time, rank, itc.):KJV‑‑ band, beginning, captain, chapiter, chief (‑est place, man, things),company, end, X every [man], excellent, first, forefront, ([be‑]) head, height, (on) high (‑est part, [priest]), X lead, X poor, principal, ruler, sum, top. The word 'heel' is Strong's #6119 `aqeb (aw‑kabe'); or (feminine)`iqqebah (ik‑keb‑aw'); from #6117; a heel (as protuberant); hence, a track; figuratively, the rear (of an army): KJV‑‑ heel, [horse‑] hoof, last, lier in wait [by mistake for #6120], (footstep). The root word is Strong's #6117aqab (aw‑kab'); a primitive root; properly, to swell out or up; used only as denominative from #6119, to seize by the heel; figuratively, to circumvent (as if tripping up the heels); also to restrain (as if holding by the heel): KJV‑‑ take by the heel, stay, supplant, X utterly. (DID)All this is presented in detail so we may grasp the following truths.1)�

God promised both continuing destiny and a continued hostility between the offspring of the serpent and the woman. This hostility began in earnest when Cain slew Abel.2) From the time God made this promise, we accept that for it to be fulfilled, BOTH the seed of the woman and the serpent's seed must be preserved PURE until the end, which we find in the book of Revelation chapter 20, where the serpents seed is finally destroyed. PLEASE don't let these points get over your head. See the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:24‑30) and Jesus' very plain explanation (only to those that will HEAR) in Matthew 13:36‑43.

What can we know from Genesis 3:15 and the words of the Master in Matthew? We MUST see that not only were BOTH seedlines here, after the flood, but they continue to this day after the works of their fathers (read John 8, esp. 8:44). Keep this in mind as we study about the flood in part 6. The second Genesisealogy is that of Adam, given in Genesis 5. It is significant that the serpent's Genesisealogy is listed first (in Genesis 4), because it brings out the further truth spoken by Jesus in Matt 19:30 "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first." Hence the seed of the woman will be first in the kingdom of heaven. Continuing on with the seedline of Adam, we see that it continued with Seth (Genesis 5:4), because Abel was murdered and Cain was not Adams seed.

I have previously mentioned that we should notice the similarity of the names of Adam's children and the names of Cain's children in chapter 4. We should see from this how the serpent's seed loves to mimic the children of God. Their works, however, give them away. They do have great words that sound (to the lazy) very Biblical. They love to be thought of as "great men of the LORD." The problem is that they are mighty men of the WRONG lord. We must be wiser than the serpent and use only God's Word as our guide. Don't be misled by these Kenites and their false doctrine, the commentaries of man. Jesus taught often how we were to handle them. He did NOT say to destroy them.

Genesis. 4:15 "And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (KJV) Are you now beginning to see what Cain's mark was? Jesus told us: LEAVE THEM ALONE! (Matthew 13:28‑30) 28: "He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29: But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30: Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." (KJV)

Jesus also told us (Matthew 7:15‑20) that we were to be fruit inspectors.15: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16: Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17: Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18: A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19: Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (KJV) He said" by their fruits will you know them." Don't miss the mention here in Matthew of the 'good and bad trees.'

This should point your mind straight to Genesis 2:9, the two trees in the garden. Have you smelled any bad apples lately? Our Master gave us instruction on how to deal with them God's way: Matthew 10:16 "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Finally, our Master gave us a great example lesson when the serpent's seed came to take Jesus for crucifixion: Matthew 26:52: "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword: Remember God's words in Genesis 4:15 "DON'T KILL CAIN." Jesus said to Peter, DON'T KILL CAIN'S CHILDREN. Thus, we are to IDENTIFY them, TEACH truth against them, resist wholly by the word of GOD, but to otherwise LEAVE THEM ALONE. As we see the New World Order of the Kenites come into existence right before our eyes, we would do well to remember and to follow Jesus' example. Let God do the physical fighting. He has promised He would. "IT IS WRITTEN, VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY, Saith the LORD." (Romans 12:19)

Within the seedline of Adam, we see ALL the great men of God to the birth of the promised one‑JESUS the Messiah, the SON OF GOD. One is tempted to stop the seedline with Jesus, but God's Word doesn't. You see, there have been many forks in the seedline. At each of these forks, the Kenites have done their best to destroy it. They did not succeed, nor will they ever. We see one fork with the story of Noah. This one is amazing, and will be treated in the next part. The second fork was with Noah's children.

Another major one was with Peleg. The one we are most familiar with was Abraham, then Isaac, and finally Jacob and Esau. The story of the seedline from Abraham is probably the one that is most misunderstood. Some commentary‑educated theologists call Abraham a Jew. Some call him an Israelite. Very few know that Abraham was a Hebrew (Genesis 14:13). He was neither an Israelite nor a Jew, for Israel (Jacob) was his grandson, and Judah was his great‑grandson! Do we not see from this that the children of Abraham were all Hebrews? Do we forget that Abraham had SEVEN sons OTHER than Isaac? (Genesis 16:16), Genesis 25:1‑2). ALL these and their offspring are Hebrews, but NONE of these are either Israelites nor Jews. You see, God promised Abraham that Abraham's offspring would be numbered as the sand of the sea, the stars of heaven (Genesis 22:17), and the dust of the earth(Genesis 13:16) These predictions yield startling conclusions to thinking persons.

Lets see now: "the sand of the sea". Hmm... Isn't that the place that John saw the Beast rise from? SURE IS. Rev 13:1 "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." (KJV) How about "the dust of the earth"? Hmmm.. Didn't we just read that in Genesis. 3:14? SURE DID "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou headstone 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: (KJV)Satan's little ones eat everything we produce, or at least they try to. How about "the stars of heaven"? HMMM...yessss.. Daniel 12. Jesus tells Daniel to seal the book but the wise shall understand. in Daniel 12:3 we find" And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. (KJV)

Thus we see God's prediction that most of Abraham's seed would do the work of the Kenite, by being deluded into worshiping the ways of this world. I say most, for it is probable that the combination of the dust of the earth and the sand of the seashore vastly out number the 'stars of heaven.' Something to think about anyway. It would not be proper to leave the subject of Adam's seed without pointing out something else. Namely, God promised that Abraham's seed would Genesis. 22:17‑18: 17: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18: And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

God passed this promise to Jacob when he changed his name to Israel Genesis 28:14 "And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (KJV) Who passed it to Josephs children, Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48: 16: The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. 17: And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. 18: And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. 19: And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. 20: And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. (KJV)

Notice especially verse 16 "LET MY NAME BE NAMED ON THEM"!! WHO?? Ephraim and Manasseh, that's WHO. Joseph's children are ISRAEL, which in the Hebrew is 'the people of GOD' Look it up. Now man tells you that THE JEWS are God's people. But as you can see from the first verse of Genesis 49, it is Jacob who blesses Judah and the rest of the tribes. The WORD is showing us that his Blessing name of Israel has already been given away: TO EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH.

Now these promises God gave Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are absolutely wonderful, and are physical, national blessings. If you listen to man, he will tell you it is the Jews that got them. Such trash. You would have to believe God lied to believe that. No, my friend, look at the nations of the earth today. You should be able to find God's people. They would be the ones who would be a blessing in the earth to other nations; They would possess the gates of their enemies'. They would be a Christian nation. They would feed the earth with their bounty. They would have vast natural resources. They would spend time and effort to send missionaries into the earth. They would be the envy of all nations. Hmmm. Look in the mirror, and give God thanks.

�� Biblical Creation

The Flood and the aftermath‑‑It is amazing to me how few people will actually study the WORD of GOD using their own grey matter and the study tools available. Most people would not DREAM of letting some "great man of reputation" handle their check book for them, or tell them what possessions they are allowed to own or how they must live their personal lives. Yet these same people have no apparent problem with allowing "great men of reputation" to tell them how to believe God's Word. Knowledge of our Father's Word is the most important thing any of us can possess. Don't allow man to rob you of this blessing. STUDY GOD'S WORD. YOU AND GOD MAKE A MAJORITY We will cover the following points in this final part:1) The presence on the earth of the various races BEFORE and AFTER the flood, including the Kenites (Cain = Serpent Seed = son of satan).2) The REASON for the flood.3) The WAY God saved ALL races for posterity.4)

The character of Noah's offspring and the nature of Ham's son, (Cush)Canaan. We are all familiar with man's account of the flood. Most have been taught by man's understanding that all of mankind except Noah and seven others were destroyed, and as a corollary to this, all of the present day races originated with Noah's children. Not only is this teaching absurd to anyone who will use their own brain, it is in itself AN ADMISSION BY CHRISTIANS THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE. What is meant by this statement is that many of man's favorite commentaries state "environmental factors must have played a role in the present skin color and physical attributes of the many races." This is blatant admission BY "CHRISTIANS" that man mutates just like the evolutionists claim he does. God's Word does not even conceive the thought that man physically mutates. i.e. Genesis 2:21 "And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.�

The word here translated 'ribs' is #6763, 'tsela' which is from the root word Strong's #6760 �tsala�

(tsaw‑lah'); a primitive root: probably to curve; used only as denominative from #6763, to limp (as if one‑sided): KJV‑‑halt. (DID) This is particularly interesting in light of the account of the creation of woman; For example, as we see in the creation of the sixth day peoples in Genesis 1:27, both male and female were created by God, and at the same time. In the eighth day forming of Adam, however, it is quite clear that originally Adam was alone, and God made special animals and plants for him BEFORE the female EVE was brought forth. As we see in verses 2:21‑22, apparently Eve was created from the SAME DNA that Adam possessed. This Hebrew word 'curve' thus brings to mind the familiar picture of the 'curve' present in the DNA double helix of all mankind. This DNA strand thus carries the Genesisetic signature determining the physical characteristics of every subsequent Genesiseration of offspring. KIND AFTER KIND.

Why is he stressing this, you may ask. Is he some kind of racist? No, my friend, it was God who created the races. He loved them very much. He blessed them (Genesis 1:28). God gave them all of His creation to possess. God was very pleased with them, just as He created them (Genesis 1:31). So am I. The reason for stressing the separate identity of the races and their creation before the flood is to present the fact that the races are still here. Somehow, they got thru. It is important to understand the separate identity of the races to really see the lie put forth by man, who claims that sunshine and geography caused people to mutate and turn red, brown, black or yellow. Can you not see from God's Word the truth? In all of recorded history it is not known that ANY racial mutations have occurred. Don't be a part of the lie. Come out of Babylon.

In parts 3 and 4 we dwelt heavily on the offspring of the serpent's seed, the Kenites. We traced them from their flesh father Cain (Genesis 4) to Genesis 15:19, through Numbers 24:21; Judges 1:16; 1 Chronicles 2:55; Jeremiah (chapter 35, all) to John 8:44 and finally to Revelation 2:9 & 3:9. We traced them by using the Strong's dictionary to see that the English words 'Cain and 'Kenite is the single Hebrew word: Strong's #7014 Qayin (kah'‑yin); the same as #7013 (with a play upon the affinity to #7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: KJV‑‑ Cain, Kenite (‑s). (DID) This fact is important to keep this in mind as we discuss the flood, because the WORD is clear: The Kenites got on the other side of the flood. Like wise the various races came through the flood. They are all with us today, aren't they? Before we see how God's Word itself tells us how the Kenites and the other races got thru the flood, (yes it is written right here in Genesisesis) let us first ask ourselves some questions.

God himself promised a sevenfold punishment on anyone who killed Cain; Genesis 4:15 "And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." He (God) even put a protective 'mark on Cain to protect him!1) Would God then kill Cain or his proGenesisy? Cain was already guilty of unrepentant murder and blasphemy in Genesis 4:15.

For God to kill Cain God would have to go back on His Word. This is not a possibility, because; 2) God� promised Cain's father (Satan) that God "would place enmity between the seed of the woman and his (Satan's) seed." (Genesis 3:15) The word 'seed is 'zara', or offspring ‑ see Strong's #2233. For this to be true, as all of God's Word is, BOTH the seed of Satan and the seed of the woman must exist on both sides of the flood, and does, in fact as we have already shown, to this day. The Word clearly teaches that the Salvation offered by God through His Son Jesus is universally applicable to all mankind. Jesus is thus our 'Ark'. We will therefore see that God provided an ark for mankind via the hands of Noah, and this ark saved all mankind. In like manner, God uses teachers today, and sometimes in as strange a manner as the ark of Noah must have seemed to those peoples. The Word also states 'God never changes' (Psalm 102:27), and that 'Jesus is the same forever.' (Hebrews 13:8)

God is true. So is His Word. ALL of it. Let us now look with open eyes into Genesis chapter 6. We will first show the REASON for the flood. Although it is true that man was (and is also today) full of sin against God, there was a very special kind of sin being committed. Not only was man sinful, the purity of Adams seedline was virtually gone. If this seedline were to become totally corrupted, then God's promise of Genesis. 3:15 would fail, for there would be none of Adam's seed left to fulfill the promise. Keep this thought in mind as we continue.

In the first two verses of chapter 6, we see the nature of the second attack on the seedline of Adam by Satan and his henchmen. We see that by the tenth Genesiseration (Noah's was 10^th Genesiseration from Adam), the 'sons of God' had PHYSICALLY seduced the women of Adam's seedline to the point that only Noah's family's pedigree was unpolluted Genesis 6:9 by these fallen angels. These 'sons of God' were not flesh, any more than the 'son of God' who Nebuchanezzar saw walking with the 3 children in the furnace was flesh, Daniel 3:25 or the 'sons of God' mentioned in Job 1:6; 2:1; or 38:7 or Psalms 29:1; 89:6 were flesh.

These were beings with spiritual bodies. These particular ones in Genesis 6 were the spiritual messengers, or angels, of Satan. Jude, in verse 6, clearly points to an eruption of fallen angels, and states that their sin was of like manner as Sodom's in Jude 7. In addition, the time of one eruption of the fallen angels is given as being 'in the time of Noah' in 2 Peter 2:4‑7. Though spiritual beings, these 'sons of God' had very physical attributes. So did most all of the spiritual beings who visited man. Remember the three who came to Abraham in the plain (Genesis 18:8) and had� supper with Abraham? In verse 4 we find that the words 'children' and 'became' are in italics, meaning that they are not in the manuscripts. When we leave them out and read the verse, we find that the offspring of these fallen angels and flesh women didn't "become" mighty men of old, they WERE the SAME as in old time.(Remember part 1 about Genesis 1:2?). It was apparently a similar escapade by these fallen ones that caused the destruction of the 'world that then was' (2 Peter 3:6).

Continuing, we see that these half‑breed hybrids were an abomination to God, who had ordered His creation to reproduce 'kind after kind'. (Genesis chapter 1) They were giants, certainly both in wickedness and in physical size. They would certainly eventually exterminate ALL of Adam's children. God chose to intervene to destroy these giants, by a flood of water. Note that God would certainly have no need to destroy any of mankind as he created it, but only as it had become corrupt in it's kind. These 'giants' were a "creation" of Satan. They were not of God. God would not need to destroy mankind merely because of sin, because He had promised to send a Messiah. When the seedline that God promised would bring forth the Messiah became in danger of extinction, He acted to preserve His Word. He always will.

Notice verse 7 of Genesisesis 6. "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Here God apparently says He will destroy the complete creation, man and beast. Did He? Of course not. The word 'said' is Strong's #559 'a man (aw‑mar'); a primitive root; to say (used with great latitude): KJV‑‑ answer, appoint, avouch, bid, boastself, call, certify, challenge, charge, + (at the, give) command (‑ment), 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. In verses 8 and 9, we see that Noah alone was both 'just', and 'perfect in his Genesiserations', and thus found 'grace in God's sight.'

These little words and phrases are gigantic. 'Just' is the Hebrew 'tsadach', or ZADOK, the rough equivalent to the 'Elect' of the new testament. Noah believed God. The word 'just' is Strong's #6662 tsaddiyq (tsad‑deek'); from 6663; just: KJV‑‑ just, lawful, righteous (man). Tsidoniy. See #6722. This word is from the same root as Strong's # 6659 Tsadowq (tsaw‑doke'); from #6663; just; Tsadok, the name of eight or nine Israelites: KJV‑‑ Zadok.

The phrase 'perfect in his Genesiserations' means, quite simply, He had not mixed with these fallen ones, and had a clean "pedigree" going back to Adam, 'the seed of the woman.' The Hebrew is two words, Strong's #8549 tamiym (taw‑meem'); from #8552; entire (literally, figuratively or morally); also (as noun) integrity, truth: KJV‑‑ without blemish, complete, full, perfect, sincerely (‑ity), sound, without spot, undefiled, upright (‑ly), whole. and, Strong's #8435 towledah (to‑led‑aw'); or toledah (to‑led‑aw'); from 3205;(plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history: KJV� birth, Genesiserations. Now we should see a very special point. Because Noah was pure Adamic, His children were also. They apparently were THE LAST ones of Adamic man that was of pure pedigree.�

If God's mission was to preserve the seedline in a pure sense until the birth of Messiah (Genesis 3:15) THEN HOW COULD NOAH'S CHILDREN BEGET OTHER RACES? They obviously could not, else they could not have been pure to start with. God's Word says they were of pure linage. God also said KIND after KIND‑‑ remember? ALL of NOAH's Children as well as their offspring were therefore pure Adamic. Believe God. Ok. If this is the case, then HOW did the Kenites and the sixth day creation get through the flood? Answer: On the Ark. The same way any person will be saved today. On the ark of God,

Jesus. Look if you will at Genesis 6:3 "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (KJV) Notice the phrase 'he also is flesh.' It is most important for what follows. Man is declared to be flesh, which should be no big deal. EXCEPT‑‑Look at the instructions God gave Noah in Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of ALL FLESH, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female." Not ONLY here, but in EVERY subsequent passage (Genesis 7:16; 7:23; 8:17), God repeats it: "TWO OF ALL FLESH", the male and his female. Just like God combines all flesh in Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." He combines them when He instructs Noah. Why is it's so hard to understand the truth?

Why must man teach the traditions of the Pharisees and the lies of the Kenites? Why will people continue to believe them in the face of God's Word and common sense? I just don't know. The flood story just would not be complete unless we refute another lie of man. What have you been taught from the cemeteries about the nature or skin color of Canaan, the son of Ham? What have you been taught about the nature of Ham's sin? We see the first mention of this fellow Canaan in Genesis 9:18. It seems out of context, placed here. Noah as we see in Genesis 9:25 curses this fellow Canaan because of what his father, Ham, did.

Does this seem strange to you? It should the way man presents the story. Why should a son get the blame for what a father did? This is totally against God's Will. See the whole chapter of Ezekiel 18, as well as Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (KJV) Well, God did not curse Canaan. Noah his grandfather did. Why would Noah curse this first born after all the death he had just witnessed? As it turns out, this Canaan was an incestuous son, born of Ham and his mother, Noah's wife. Preposterous, you say? No my friend, truth.

Noah made wine, and got drunk. He was living it up after the year he had just been through, and Noah let down his guard. (Genesis 9:20‑21) Here we see a strange (to us) thing. Genesis 9:22 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. (KJV)" What is the sin, we ask, dumbfounded. What is so sinful about seeing a drunk old man lying naked?

Now the cemetery teachers will say things like, Ham 'laughed at him', or 'Ham was a homosexual', or 'Ham had no respect,' or something equally absurd. The Hebrew phrase "to uncover someone's nakedness" has a very special meaning. Let us look at Leviticus 18:8 "The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.� "Well, you say, that is perhaps a suggestion, but I don't know...Ok, How about Leviticus 20:11 "And the man that lieth with his father's wife hathun covered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (KJV) "Is that language plain enough? According to the Word, Canaan was an incestuous offspring.

OK, now let me ask you what RACE Canaan was? Was he black, red, yellow, white, brown, or adamic? If you answered 'Adamic, go to the head of the class. Of course Canaan was Adamic, because BOTH of his parents were, and they were just like Noah, 'perfect in their pedigree' (Genesis 6:9‑10) from Adam, the eighth day man. Pay special attention to these "Canaanites", as you study the Word. They gave Abraham and Israel a lot of trouble for a long time. Then they joined with the Kenites, and had completely taken over the temple service by the time the second ADAM, Jesus came. They killed Him. They are the ones today who give our true brother Judah a hard time, Revelation 2:9 "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich)and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (KJV) "Revelation 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

Only these two of the seven churches received no condemnation from our LORD. Look at what they recognized. They knew who the Kenites were. Do you? Does your "church" teach about them? As you continue on in your studies, don't be afraid to follow the leading of God's Holy Spirit. Use your mind and the original languages to expose the lies. Don't expect people in today's theological cemeteries to be pleased with your insight, though. Most will reject truth, just like they rejected Jesus in His day, and as Jesus said they would in our day. God's Truth, my friends, is much stranger than man's fiction.

�� False Doctrine Placed in the Scriptures

�� By Kenite Scribes

In the Books of The Chronicles we find recorded there the names and the genealogies of the Tribes of Israel and where their portions of the inheritance is listed.

�These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjath‑jearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Beth‑gader. And Shobal the father of Kirjath‑jearim had sons; Haroeh, and half of the Manahethites. And the families of Kirjath‑jearim; the Ithrites, and the Puhites, and the Shumathites, and the Mishraites; of them came the Zareathites, and the Eshtaulites. The sons of Salma; Bethlehem, and the Netophathites, Ataroth, the house of Joab, and half of the Manahethites, the Zorites. �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.� (1 Chronicles 2:50-55)

Other genealogies in the Bible go into great detail and never leaves out a son! (Especially a firstborn son) If one reads Genesis 4:1 correctly, as depicted, it is not there either. Why is Cain totally left out?? Cain's descendants are mentioned separately in Genesis 4:17‑24 and it doesn't list Adam as the father of Cain! WHY???

The next place we find Cain in the Scriptures is Genesis 15:19 and we will have to read verses 18 through 21:

"In the same day the LORD 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: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Ammonites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites." (Genesis 15:18‑21) (KJV)

One of these nations among the Canaanites was the KENITES (#7017 Strong's) which were DESCENDANTS OF CAIN. Being that Cain was of the SATANIC SEEDLINE, he would infect his satanic blood AMONG ALL THESE TEN NATIONS. And the "Kenizzites" were Edomites.

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."

The Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, says: "The Kenites. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards reckoned but seven; see Deuteronomy 7:1; Acts 13:19. 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 remained."

Kenites: "[KEE nights] (metalsmiths)‑‑ the name of a wandering tribe of people who were associated with the Midianites (Judges 1:16) and, later, with the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:6). The Kenites lived in the desert regions of Sinai, Midian, Edom, Amalek, and the Negev. The Bible first mentions the Kenites as one of the groups that lived in Canaan during the time of Abraham (Genesis 15:19); their territory was to be taken by the Israelites (Numbers 24:21‑22). The Kenites were metal craftsmen who may have traced their ancestry to TUBAL‑CAIN (a descendant of Cain) (Genesis 4:22). (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary) (Copyright (C) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

The 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: "CURSED (ar�r) 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 slandered God (cf. Isaiah 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. I WILL PUT ENMITY. The word "�b�" denotes the blood‑feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf. Numbers 35:19‑20; Ezekiel 25:15‑17; 35:5‑6) THOU SHALT BRUISE (sh�p).

A PROPHECY OF CONTINUING STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE DESCENDANTS OF WOMAN AND OF THE SERPENT TO DESTROY EACH OTHER. The verb sh�p is rare (cf. Job 9:17; Psalm 139:11). It is the same in both clauses. �When translated �crush� it seems appropriate to the reference concerning the had of the serpent, but not quite so accurate in also rendered lie in wait for, aim at or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate renders it "conteret," "bruise" in the first instance and in this famous passage, CALLED THE PROTEVAGEFIUM, �FIRST GOSPEL,� the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of the woman. �God's promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. Thus assurance fell upon the ears of God's earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption."

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 etymologis of the root �gyn� show that it has to do with metal and metal word (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 cooper ore. W.F. Albright has pointed to the Beni Hassan mural in Egypt (19^th century B.C.)

�As an illustration of such a WONDERING 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 HEARDS (Jubal), MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS (Jubal), and METAL WORK (Tubal‑Cain, or Tubal, THE SMITH), the three occupations which seem most evident in the mural...2nd quote from the same article: THE EARLY MONARCHY. 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.�

Postexilic references. 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.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible, page 114: "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.

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole bible has this to say on Kenite, page 293: "THE 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."

The Matthew Pool's Commentary On The Holy Bible has this to say on the Kenites, Volume 1, page 778: "THE 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 thy dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them. Which dwelt, or rather, dwelt; Hebrew, were dwellers. For the other translation, which dwelt, MAY SEEM TO INSINUATE THAT THESE WERE DESCENDANTS OF JUDAH, WHICH THEY WERE NOT; but his translation ONLY SIGNIFIES COHABITATION WITH THEM, for which cause they are here named with them.�

All these things the Jews do today, here in America. And because Christians have listened to the lying, deceiving, traitorous, Priests of Baal, the Judeo-Christian Clergy they have almost destroyed our nation and are fast destroying our people.

�� Who Were/Are The Kenites?

It is obvious from all this that the scribes in the House of Israel, in the days of the Kings, were Kenites, and that the title of scribes was kept in the family so-to-speak, just as it is in some parts of the world today. So it is obvious that the Israelites allowed them to stay in the land with them because they were the Kenite Scribes that were living in Canaan when Israel first come into the land. After their 40 year trek through the wilderness in their escape from Egypt.

For it is the land of Canaan that Yahweh told Abraham: �In the same day the LORD 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: THE KENITES, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.� (Genesis 15:18-21)

These verses are witnesses that Yahweh gave the land to Abram (before He changed his name to Abraham) and some 400-500 years before the Children of Israel returned to the Promised Land under the leadership of first Moses and then Joshua.

Kenites: Strong�s Concordance #7017 Qeyniy (kay‑nee'); or Qiyniy (1 Chronicles 2:55) (kee‑nee'); patronymic from OT:7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin: KJV ‑ Kenite.

Kenites: Strong�s Concordance #7014 Qayin (kah'‑yin); the same as OT:7013 (with a play upon the affinity to OT:7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: KJV ‑ CAIN, Kenite (‑s). (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek‑Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Which shows that a Kenite are identified with the descendants of Cain or Kajin. Therefore, Kenites are the descendants of Cain. And since Cain intermarried (mixed race) with pre-Adamic peoples and thus the Kenites were only a partially of Adamic stock; THEY WERE DEFINITELY NOT FROM THE TRIBE OF SHEM, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT SEMITES.

�The Kenites were a nomadic people whose original home was in the region just south of Palestine, and they were loosely associated with the Amalekites. Balaam, in his prophecy recorded in Numbers 24:20-23, spoke of the Kenites in connection with the Amalekites. �And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly. Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city. And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever. And HE LOOKED ON THE KENITES, AND TOOK UP HIS PARABLE, AND SAID, STRONG IS THY DWELLINGPLACE, AND THOU PUTTEST THY NEST IN A ROCK. NEVERTHELESS THE KENITE SHALL BE WASTED, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive. And he took up his parable, and said, Alas, who shall live when God doeth this! And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever. And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place: and Balak also went his way.� (Numbers 24:15‑25)

Another false scripture that the Kenites slipped into the Scriptures concerns Deuteronomy 23:

�� Deuteronomy 23:7

Have you ever wondered about this verse and its seemingly contradiction to what the rest of the Scriptures say about Edom.

I am going to clear up and document the problem with Deuteronomy 23:7. There are approximately 27,000 transnational errors in our present Bibles. Some various translations by various translators have attempted to clean up many of these discrepancies, but the errors are very numerous and overwhelming. The translation of Deuteronomy 23:7 is one of them. I will start by quoting this passage: �Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou was a stranger in his land.�

From this verse it would appear that we should welcome all Edomites into our congregations with open arms, and with no questions asked, and that we are somehow guilty of some dire contemptible sin for even thinking an evil thought against them. Is this not the impression which seized upon you when you read this passage for the first time? Remember the guilty, dirty, condemning feeling which overcame you for even giving the Edomites the slightest hint of disparaging thought, that possibly Yahweh might suddenly kill you in your very tracks for even blinking an eye?

If this has been your reaction when reading this passage in the past, forget it, for that is not what this verse is saying; not even remotely. I happened upon this verse many years ago when I was listening to a presentation by an Identity speaker who was making reference to the Edomites by using this verse as one of his points. At the time, I decided to look into the Hebrew meaning of the word �Edomite� for myself. I found the Strong�s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible,� assigned the term �Edomite� the Hebrew word �130 which says:

�130 ... Ed�m�y, ...Ed�wm�y, ed-o-mee�: patronymic [derived from father�s name] from #123; an Edomite, or descendant from (or inhabitant of) Edom: Edomite. See #726 Which had the following to say:

#726 ... Ar�wm�y, ar-o-mee�; A CLERICAL ERROR FOR #130; an Edomite (as in the margin): Syrian.

At once the truth struck me (and this was about 15 years ago), for if the proper rendering was �Syrian� instead of �Edomite,� it would make all the difference in the world. Over the years, since that time, I have pointed this clerical error out to many people of our persuasion. At the time, I knew this made more sense if Deuteronomy 23:7 were to correctly read �Syrian� rather than �Edomite� for the Syrians were Abraham�s relatives, in which case this verse would read: �Thou shalt not abhor a SYRIAN: for he is thy brother, thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.�

Over the years, I have been satisfied that the word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. I remember one party who challenged me, indicating that it was only a clerical error, and really didn�t mean anything. I finally came to the conclusion that it would be a hard proposition to prove and decided not to push the point openly any further.

That is, however, until recently, when I was preparing for this lesson, I accidentally discovered what the CLERICAL ERROR was. I will now reveal to you how I made this discovery. As I had decided to take up the topic of Esau, I was in the process of reading anything and everything I could find on the subject. I was reading along in �The Interpreter�s Dictionary of the Bible,� volume E-J, page 24, under the subtitle Edom, when I read this:

�...there are places where, because of the similarity between the letters _ (d) and _ (r), the text has wrongly read __�, �Aram� (i.e. Syria), and ____�, �Arameans� (i.e., Syrians), for __�, �Edom,� and ____�, �Edomites,� such as 2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chronicles 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.

�Note: I have followed the Hebrew characters as faithfully as I know how to do on my computer; I may have made a mistake ... The main thing to notice here is the �similarity between the letters _ (d) and _ (r). You can see very readily, that a very small slip of the pen can change the word from Edomite to Samian, or Syrian to Edomite. I will enlarge these two Hebrew letters and place them side by side so you can observe the difference in them:

�� __

With this very small change in the Hebrew writing, and the word can be changed from Syrian to Edomite! Think of it this way, syRian or eDomite. By this above slight change, the Hebrew �r� sound is changed to a �d� sound.

Since I originally wrote this, I now realize that the small remnant of Judah from Jerusalem who went into Babylonian captivity spoke Hebrew when they went in and spoke Chaldee when they came out seventy years later.

Also, when they went in they were using a rounded style of Hebrew to write in, and when they came out they were using a square style of Hebrew. Is it possible that the changing from a rounded style to a square style produced such an error? Well, if it did, how many other mistakes are there because of this? After all, it is absurd to believe we should not �abhor an Edomite� when the Almighty hates them Himself.

�And I HATED ESAU, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, THE PEOPLE AGAINST WHOM THE LORD HATH INDIGNATION FOR EVER.� (Malachi 1:3-4)

�And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword...And he (Edom) said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.� (Numbers 20:18-21)