Special notice to ALL
WHO DENY two seedline, #19
By: Teacher Clifton A.
Emahiser
1012 North Vine Street
Fostoria, Ohio 44830
Phone (419)435-2836
With this Special
Notice, we again focus on the world�s greatest problem which has now been
with us for over 7,000 years. We are confronted with this great issue every
day of our lives, and we face it every direction we turn. Try as we may, it
cannot be avoided. And while we attempt to deal with this subject in a
rational manner, there are hecklers on the sidelines ridiculing our efforts.
They use every opportunity to belittle and mock the endeavors of those who
expose the nature of the enemy. Top among these, at the present time, is Ted
R. Weiland. Up until Weiland, Stephen E. Jones held first place. You may think
it is not nice to point fingers and name names, but Ted R. Weiland in his book
Eve, Did She Or Didn�t She? instructed me to point fingers. Let�s see
what he said on page 1:
�If the
seedliners� assessment of the events in the Garden of Eden can be proven
scripturally correct, then no matter how unorthodox or unpopular this doctrine
may be, we are duty bound as adherents of the Word of God to accept and teach
it ... Spiritual leaders are admonished by the Scriptures to address false
doctrine, especially doctrine injurious to the gospel of Yahshua the Christ �
Titus 1:7-14.�
What Weiland had in mind
with this passage was to use it to justify his own personally contrived point
of view. This passage says in part: �Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that
they may be sound in the faith.� That is exactly what I have been doing in
this Special Notice series! The anti-seedliner�s position is totally
irresponsible, and before we are finished, we will see how spurious their
claim is.
Early in his book on page
2, Ted R. Weiland plays with words in an attempt to discredit the Two Seed
doctrine of Genesis 3:15. Of the words he toys with, �fact, theory and
hypothesis�, he settles on the latter. In his effort to play a game with
words, he forgets the most important element; that being to check his premise.
It doesn�t matter how many cunning words one might use, if the premise is not
correct, the conclusion will be false. As we will see later, Weiland didn�t
check his premise. Not only does Ted R. Weiland characterize the truth of
Genesis 3:15 as being an hypothesis, he also accuses the Two Seedliners, page
2: �... who proceed to ignore clear textual intent, who disregard the
principles of Hebrew and Greek idioms and the rules of consistency, and who
assume a literal interpretation of clearly non-literal statements.� If
anyone is disregarding Hebrew and Greek, it�s Ted R. Weiland! He disregarded
the Greek when he scoffed at John 8:44 where our Savior said directly to the
�Jews� �Ye are of your father the devil.� The Greek for the word �of�,
in that case, meaning �sons of a father�, as I covered in Special Notice
#1.
In addition to his charge
that we disregard the principles of Hebrew and Greek, Weiland accuses the Two
Seedliners of misinterpreting literal and non-literal Hebrew and Greek idioms.
Then on page 3, Weiland says: �However, as Bible students already know,
there are no scriptures that
expressly teach any
of these false conclusions.�
Inasmuch, as he demands
the Scriptures to teach �expressly�, is proof positive that Weiland
himself has a total disregard for Hebrew and Greek idioms concerning Two
Seedline doctrine, or any other doctrine. Again, he makes the same allegation
on page 7 where he says, �If these state ments were true, certainly God
would have inspired His writers to warn His people of these dangers
somewhere
in the Bible.�
Weiland evidently forgets that Matthew 13:34-35 says: �All these things
spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not
unto them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet ...�
Speaking in parables is hardly speaking �expressly.� This is why
Ted R. Weiland has a total disregard for the parable of the wheat and the
tares in Matthew 13, as he demands it to be rendered �expressly.�
Not only did Yahshua speak in parables, but all the prophets did likewise. So,
if Weiland expects the Scriptures to be �explicit�, he is under a
voodoo induced hallucination. It seems, whether a Scripture is literal or
non-literal, depends on how the all-wise Weiland interprets it. Is that
�rebuke� sharp enough (Titus 1:13)? It also appears, according to his book
on page 1, that he is the only one authorized to give a �rebuke�!
Ted R. Weiland, and all
the other anti-seedliners, continue to denounce and down-play the fact that
nowhere in Scripture is Adam recorded as the father of Cain. They neglect to
observe that in Genesis 3:15, Adam is left totally out of the equation. Had
Adam�s name been mentioned in that verse, it would have said that �the seed of
Adam would bruise the head of the serpent.� Therefore, the �enmity� was
between Eve and the serpent alone. Thus the anti-seedliners unwittingly, and
effectively, change the reading of Genesis 3:15 from the �woman� to �Adam.�
They further fail to perceive that Cain�s genealogy is treated separately in
Genesis 4:17-24, while Adam�s is recorded in chapter 5:1-32.
In order to support their
hypothesis, it would be necessary to rewrite most of the Bible, or interpret
much of it out of context, which is exactly what they do. There is good reason
why Cain is never recorded as Adam�s son. Where it says in Genesis 5:1 �This
is the book of the generations of Adam ...�, and does not include
specifically his supposed �firstborn son�, it would be a total lie, and our
Bible would be blatantly untrustworthy. You will notice that Genesis 38:3-5
truthfully and honestly mentions Er, Onan and Shelah, the first three sons of
Judah by a Canaanite [non-Israelite] woman. Not only are those three
half-breed sons of Judah mentioned there but also at Genesis 38:6-8; 46:12;
Numbers 26:19-20 and 1 Chronicles 2:3. Oh, the anti-seedliners will wrangle,
�Cain was unworthy to be mentioned�! Question: Who could be more unworthy than
Er, Onan and Shelah?
The anti-seedliners
completely overlook the significance of Seth being a replacement for Abel, not
Cain. Even if Cain was disqualified for the murder of Abel, which he was not
(for that reason), Seth would then had to have been a replacement for Cain,
not Abel. Again, the anti-seedliners are ignoring the importance of the
Biblical Law of the Firstborn Son. But, after all, they know better than the
Almighty! The Hebrew says, �in place of Abel�, not Cain. According to the
Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, Genesis 4:1 should read something like the
following: (The italics are from that Targum.):
�And Adam knew
his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan], and she conceived
and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly
beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of
the Lord.�
�Oh�, you say, �every word
in the Bible is God-breathed.� Yes, the original was, but we don�t have
an original God-breathed copy today. To prove to you there are omissions in
various passages, I will show you an example that was found in the Dead Sea
Scrolls. This information comes from the book Understanding The Dead Sea
Scrolls edited by Hershel Shanks, pages 160-161. The scroll is designated
4QSama, and was found in cave #4. The passage is 1 Samuel 11:1-3.
The following in italics is the part missing in our present Bibles:
�[Na]hash, king
of the children of Ammon, sorely oppressed the children of Gad and the
children of Reuben, and he gouged out a[ll] their right eyes and
struck ter[ror and dread] in Israel. There was not left one among the
children of Israel bey[ond the Jordan who]se right eye was no[t
put o]ut by Naha[sh king] of the children of Ammon;
except that seven thousand men [fled from] the children of [A]mmon
and entered [J]abesh-Gilead. About a month later
Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-Gilead. All the men of Jabesh-Gilead
said to Nahash, �Make a treaty with us and we shall become your subjects.�
Nahash the Ammonite replied to them, �On this condition I shall make a treaty
with you, that all your right eyes be gouged out, so that I may bring
humiliation on all Israel,� The elders at Jabesh said to him, �Give us seven
days to send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. If no one rescues
us, we shall surrender to you.��
This chapter in this book
was written by Frank Moore Cross (a member of the staff editing the Qumr�n
Dead Sea manuscripts), and he explains how he thinks the omission came about:
�The
missing paragraph was lost probably as a result of a scribal lapse � the
scribe�s eye jumped from one line break to the other, both beginning with
Nahash as subject.�
This is very understandable, for I too have made this same kind of error when
typing, for when I read back what I have quoted from some book, often I will
inadvertently skip a line of the text. You can be sure, if it happened once,
as you see here, it has occurred in other places. The Interpreter�s Bible has
pointed out that Genesis 4:1 doesn�t make any sense. When the evidence in the
Aramaic targums are considered, Genesis 4:1 makes all the sense in the world.
As I covered that in other Special Notices, I will not elaborate
further here.
Since the full text has
now been restored to 1 Samuel 11, the entire chapter comes to life. We now
know that some seven thousand surviving Israelite warriors from Gad and
Reuben, after their defeat by Nahash�s forces, escaped and found shelter north
of the territory of Ammon near the Jabbok River in the Gileadite city of
Jabesh. About a month after their escape, Nahash decided to enslave Jabesh-Gilead
for sheltering these runaway �subjects.� Thus, we can see the motivation for
Nahash�s assailing Jabesh-Gilead far north of his usual declared borders, a
Gileadite city affiliated with Benjamin and Saul.
This newfound discovery of
missing text from the Dead Sea Scrolls explains the reason why Nahash attacked
Jabesh-Gilead; and additionally, why he insisted on the removal of the right
eye as a condition for their surrender. It was not unusual, for those who
harbored enemies in those days, to be punished in this manner. By the same
token, Nahash named his own punishment. Upon receiving the news, Saul the
Benjamite, being enraged, took immediate action by rallying the western
tribes, crossing the Jordan as an Israelite militia, �slaughtered the
Ammonites until the heat of day.� That great victory, on the part of the
leadership of Saul, brought about his kingship over the whole of Israel. Thus
was sealed the Ammonite�s fate. There is evidence the Ammonites traveled east,
and mixing with others, form the Japanese of today.
The antichrist
anti-seedliners, like Weiland and company, are so busy making pretzels
of the Scriptures that they don�t have time to research these things. They
seem more intent on rewriting The Word to fit their own personally
contrived misconstrued concepts. They twist Genesis 3: 15 into a pretzel
to mean the �spirit against the flesh.� They also pretzel-ize Genesis
3:15 by making the �serpent�s seed� spiritual, while assigning the �seed of
the woman� to be physical (�seed� in both instances being the same Hebrew
word, #2233). They pretzel-ize the parable of the wheat and the tares
by their hocus-pocus reasoning to mean �spiritually righteous and unrighteous
people� instead of genetic �wheat-people� and �weed-people.� They pretzel-ize
the �tree of life� and the �tree of knowledge of good and evil� to mean wooden
trees rather than family trees. They pretzel-ize Genesis 4:1 to make
Cain a son of Adam. They pretzel-ize the Greek word #1537 translated
�of� or �from� to mean �spiritual offspring� in John 8:44 rather than the
stock or family from which one is derived. They pretzel-ize Matthew
23:35 to mean the �blood of Abel� was somehow �spiritual� rather than Cain
physically murdering Abel. They pretzel-ize John 3:3 to mean �born
again� instead of being born of the correct race, (Strong�s Greek #1080
& #1085). They pretzel-ize 2 Corinthians 11:3 to mean mental seduction
rather than physical seduction. They pretzel-ize both the words �eat�
(#398) and �touch� (#5060), as used in Genesis 3:3, to literally mean to
consume food, while Proverbs 6:29; 9:17; 30:20; Genesis 20:6; 26:10-11 prove
otherwise. They pretzel-ize Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 by making the impostor
�Jews� mentioned there, full blood brothers to Abel rather than fathered by
Satan. They pretzel-ize the passages about Judas Iscariot, making him
an ordinary person rather than a genetic �devil.� They pretzel-ize 1
John 3:12 by spiritualizing the father of Cain rather than properly
identifying him physically as �of the wicked one�; Satan. In spite of evidence
otherwise, they pretzel-ize John 8:23 & 38 to mean that the Redeemer
and those �Jews� had the same father, again by claiming it is speaking
�spiritually� rather than physically. In short, they continually pretzel-ize
both the context and the letter of the original languages in order to support
their warped hypothesis.
There is probably no
better example of pretzel-izing Scripture than Jeffrey A. Weakley in
his book The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History; in portions
taken from pages 4-9. Since I have pointed out how these antichrist
anti-seedliners do this, see if you can detect this in the following segments
from his book:
�... From the
above, I find it difficult to believe that this tree from which Eve obtained
the fruit was anything other than a tree.
food:
(ma�akal)
�
an eatable food (including provender, flesh and fruit), fruit, victual
(Strong�s Concordance)
�
food, especially corn, fruit tree, sheep to be killed. (Gesenius� Lexicon)
...
�
desire, pleasant, lust, greed, dainty, desirable, has the meaning of desire
extending to both good and bad objects. (Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is translated 26 times in
the Old Testament as: �pleasant�, �utmost bound�, �lusting�, �lust�, �dainty�,
�desire�, �lusted exceedingly� and �coveteth greedily.� This
word is neutral in our discussion. It does not prove the point one way or the
other as it does not indicate what the object being desired is. Nonetheless, I
put this here so that the reader can see how to fairly treat a neutral word.
took
(laqach)
�
to take (a primary root) accept, bring, buy, carry away, fetch, get, seize,
etc. (Strong�s Concordance)
�
to take, to take with the hand, to lay hold of, to take away, to take
possession of, to take captive, to send after, to fetch, to bring, to receive.
(Gesenius� Lexicon)
�
take (get, fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry
(take a wife), snatch (take away). (Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is translated over 100
times in the King James Version as: �take, �taken�, �took�, �fetch�,
�receive�, �accept�, �bring�, �married�, �have (wife)�, �brought� etc. With
this word seedliners will be quick to point out that it is something
translated as �marry� or �have to wife.� I have bad news for these people. The
idea of marry and have to wife is the possession of a wife
� NOT SEXUAL
RELATIONS! So the idea expresses when Eve �took� the fruit was that she
took possession of it. This word does not indicate that she was
participating in sexual intercourse.
fruit
(periy)
�
fruit (lit. or fig.) bough, firstfruit, reward, (Strong�s Concordance)
�
(1)
fruit whether of the field or of a tree, Metaph[or], used of the result of
labor. (2) offspring. (Gesenius� Lexicon)
�
fruit, as a verb
� make fruitful
� to increase � to multiply, the fruit of a tree/vine, the fruit of
the womb (children), fruit as consequences resulting from an action (reward).
(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris).
This Hebrew word is used over 100 times in the King James Version and is
translated as: �fruit(s)�, �fruitful�, �reward.� The meaning of this word is
clear in this verse as we have already established that tree means (of all
things) tree � thus fruit in this verse means fruit of a tree.
eat
(akal)
�
to eat (lit. or fig.) consume, devour, burn up, dine, eat up, feed (food).
(Strong�s Concordance)
�
(1) to eat, to devour (food); to eat of a land, a field, a vine; to eat of its
produce or fruit; to take food, to take a meal, to dine or sup, to feast (used
of sacrificial banquets), to devour people (the poor), to destroy by war and
slaughter. (2) to devour, to consume (fire). (3) to enjoy (good fortune, fruit
of actions and sexual pleasures). (Gesenius� Lexicon)
�
eat, consume, devour, burn up and feed. (Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is used over 100
times and is translated as �eat�, �eaten�, �consumed�, �at meat�, �devoured�
etc. Once again the seedliners will be quick to point out that this word can
be used of sexual pleasures. While this is true, it is only true when used in
that context. In the present case the context is that of an actual �tree� with
�fruit� and thus �eat� rightly means the consumption of food (not sexual
pleasures). So we see that only by incorrectly defining words can Genesis 3:6
be taken to support the view that Eve was sexually seduced. Now we will look
at Genesis 3:13: �And the Lord
God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said,
The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.� The understanding of this verse hangs
on the word �beguiled.� Have the seedliners been honest with this word? What
does it mean?
beguiled
(nasha)
�
to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce, beguile,
deceive. (Strong�s Concordance)
�
to err, to go astray (kindred to the verb �to forget�) to lead into error, to
cause to go astray, to deceive, to seduce, to corrupt. (Gesenius� Lexicon)
�
beguiled, deceive; This verb is used mainly in the sense of �lead astray,
seduce, mislead, deceive�, even for self-deception (Jer. 37:9). (Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word
in its various forms is used 16 times and is translated in the King James
Version as:
�
1 time
� �utterly
forget� �
1 time
� �seize (Ps.
55:15-16)�
� 1
time
� �beguiled�
�
13 times
� �deceive�
or �deceived.� The seedliners will insist that it be translated �seduced� and
they define it as a physical sexual seduction because the English word
�seduce� can mean that. But can the word �deceive� mean sexual seduction? Is
it not proper to take the three definitions given as synonyms? As a matter of
fact, I give more than one definition for every word because each source was
written by fallible man and therefore could be wrong (as is the case for Dr.
Strong: when he defines the word �Gentile� in the New Testament his theology
causes him to give a clearly impossible definition). In any case, the Biblical
principle is to have all evidence verified by two or more witnesses. When all
these definitions are taken together as synonyms, the conclusion one comes to
(if he is seeking to be honest) is that Eve was deceived in the mind. NOT
SEXUALLY SEDUCED! This is verified in three ways.
�
1. The context established in Genesis 3:6 does not include sexual intercourse.
�
2. The word �eat� in Genesis 3:6 is the same word �eat� in Genesis 3:13.
�
3. The New Testament explains this same event in 2 Cor. 11:3 �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.� The word �so� in
the above verse can be properly rendered �in like manner.� It is clear that
this verse indicates that Eve�s mind was wholly deceived. So the first point
of the Satanic Seedline doctrine does not agree with the Scriptures
� Eve was
not sexually seduced, but rather was mentally deceived. The next point of the
Satanic Seedline doctrine is that Cain was the product of the alleged sexual
encounter that Eve had in the garden. To examine this, let�s turn to Genesis
4:1: �And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and
said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.�
Once again the meaning of this verse will become clear by looking up some
words. knew
(yada)
�
to know (prop. to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses,
fig[uratively], lit[erally], euphem[ism], etc. (Strong�s Concordance)
�
to perceive, to acquire knowledge, to know, to be acquainted. (1) to know, to
perceive, to be aware of, to understand. (2) to get to know, to discover, to
experience. (3) to become acquainted with (a euphemism for sexual intercourse,
i.e., to lie with). (4) to have knowledge of. (5) to foresee, to expect. (6)
to turn the mind to, to care for, to see about. (7) to be knowing or wise. (8)
to be or become known. (9) to make to know, to show, to teach. (Gesenius�
Lexicon)
�
know, is used in every stem and expresses a multitude of shades of knowledge
gained by the senses ... It is also used for sexual intercourse on the part of
both men and women in the well-known euphemism �Adam knew Eve his wife� and
parallels (Gen 4:1; 19:8; Num. 31:17, 35; Jud. 11:39; 21:11; 1 Kings 1:4; 1
Sam. 1:19). It is used to describe sexual perversions such as sodomy (Gen. 19:
5; Jud. 19:22) and rape (Jud. 19:25) ... to distinguish ... to have knowledge
... etc. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird
Harris) This word is used over 500 times in the Old Testament and is
translated in the King James Version as �knew�, �know�, �known�, �perceived�,
�wot�, �knowest�, �wotteth�, �can tell�, �sure�, �wist�, �understand�, �had
knowledge�, �consider�, �was aware�, �learned�, etc. This word is clearly
being used as a euphemism meaning �sexual intercourse� because from this Eve
�conceived� and �bare� a son. The one who had intercourse with Eve was Adam.
The son produced was Cain. Cain is clearly the son of Adam ... Thus we have
seen in clear and honest study that Cain was the son of Adam and Eve.
Therefore Point 2 of the seedline doctrine (i.e., Cain was the product of
Eve�s sexual encounter with Satan) is shown to be inconsistent with the
Scriptures.�
If you have followed
Weakley�s documentation and comments very carefully, you will notice he does
more to verify Two Seedline rather than disprove it. Under the word
�desired� Weakley said: �pleasant, lust, greed, dainty, desirable, has the
meaning of desire extending to both good and bad objects.� Then he said it
didn�t prove anything, implying that �lust� couldn�t be applied to that word.
Under the word �took� he said this:
�take (get,
fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry (take a
wife), snatch (take away) ... �have wife.�
Then he turns around and
says it doesn�t mean that! 1 Corinthians 6:16 says �... know ye not that he
which is joined to an harlot is one body, for two, saith he, shall be one
flesh.� Therefore, when Satan seduced Eve, in that union, they became �one
flesh� as in marriage. Then on the word �beguiled� Weakley said: �(morally)
to seduce ... [from] Strong�s.� How can Weakley deny that �morally to
seduce� cannot apply to unlawful sexual intercourse? Yet he does. It seems
that whether or not something has sexual connotations, depends on how Weakley
interprets it. In the case of Eve and Satan, he says �no.� In the case of Eve
and Adam, he says �yes.� He is wrong on both counts, unless Abel is included
in the latter. In short, Weakley is arguing that Eve had a thought that
killed. If that position is true, why didn�t Yahweh tell her to change her
mind? Therefore, it had to be something that could not be corrected by
reversing the thought pattern. If a thought can kill, as Weakley implies, we
are all in trouble. After all, Genesis 3:13 asks the question: �What is
this that thou hast done?� Had it been a mental crime the question
would have been: �What is this that thou hast thought.� The word �done� in
that verse is #6213, and in both Strong�s and Gesenius� has
nothing to with anything mental, and has everything to do with �to produce or
create.� In fact, Gesenius�, under #6213, includes a definition with
sexual connotations:
�Piel,
to work, or to press immodestly the breasts of a woman, i. q.
... Ezek. 23:3, 8, and in Kal [Ezek. 23:] verse 21 ... So Gr.
B@4,�<,
and Lat. facere, perficere, conficere mulierem, as a euphemism for
sexual intercourse, see Fesselii Advers. Sacra, lib. ii. cap. 23.�
[Emphasis mine]
This last definition
really blows Weakley and all the antichrist, anti-seedliners clean out of
their fabricated theological polluted water!!!
HOME
