By Eli James
PART 6: THE CLASH OF THE BLOODLINES
TWO SEEDLINE
Two-Seedline teaches that there are two distinct family trees traceable from Genesis 3:15. In that verse Yahweh speaks directly to nachash, the “Serpent” of the Garden, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed.”
ďƒ’
These two Family Trees are the Seedline of the Adamites and the Seedline of the Canaanites. These two seedlines have been at war with each other since Yahweh made His declaration in Gen. 3:15 and as a direct result of Eveâ€&#x;s sin. The descendants of Cain are known as the Canaanites. These Canaanites were later joined by the Edomites so that Canaanites and Edomites are synonymous terms after their merger.
ďƒ’
The descendants of Adam later came to be symbolized by the Israelites because all of the Covenants God made to Abraham were later restated to Israel exclusively. Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom were twin brothers, just like Cain and Abel. Edom had an intense, murderous hatred for his brother Jacob, just as Cain had for Abel.
DEUT. 22:9 Today, the descendants of the Israelites are known as the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Caucasian peoples. The descendants of Esau are today known as Jews. “Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. (Deut. 22:9)
The bloodline of Cain is a mixed (“defiled”) race from Cain down to the present. The Jews are no exception to this rule as the Jews are NOT a pure race but a MIXED BREED who also practice a particular religion.
ďƒ’
This religion, Judaism, IS NOT the same religion that was practiced by the Hebrews and the Israelites. Their religion is based on the Talmud, which is the rabbinical interpretations of Scripture, not Scripture itself.
ďƒ’
Despite Jewish claims of Shemitic descent, their religion, contrary to Yahwehâ€&#x;s frequent exhortations for Israel to remain separate, preaches race-mixing as a virtue (especially for Adamites) and it has done so since the days of Cain.
Both Cain and Abel had Eve as their mother. The crucial matter of disputation is whether or not Adam fathered Cain. Two-Seedline teaches that Cain and Abel were half-brothers, having had different fathers. Specifically, Abel was fathered by Adam; but Cain was sired by Nachash, the “Serpent.”
ďƒ’
Numerous biblical verses are understood. It is a fact that most people assume that the Jews are Israelites. I cannot stress strongly enough that this idea is false. My book, The Great Impersonation, How the Anti-Christ Has Deceived the Whole World, details the 2,000-year-old Jewish pretense and masquerade as Israel.
This book tells the parallel stories of True Israel and of those, the Edomite and Khazar Jews, who have been pretending to be us. Although the word „Jew‟ is technically derived from the words „Judah‟ and „Judean,‟ a Jew is NOT a Judahite.
ďƒ’
A Judahite is a 100% lineal descendant of the patriarch, Judah. No admixture of alien blood is allowed. This excludes half-breeds (mamzers). Godâ€&#x;s Law explicitly forbids race-mixing for Adamites and Israelites and Judahites.
ďƒ’
One look at the Jewish visage and a little bit of historical understanding proves conclusively that the Jewish people are neither Israelites nor Judahites. On this point, most CI teachers agree irrespective of their position on the bloodlines.
ďƒ’
Yahwehâ€&#x;s Covenants, which were made exclusively to Israel, are being claimed by a usurper, the Jewish people, under the direction of their priesthood, the rabbinate. Fraud should be exposed wherever it is found; and fraud on so gigantic a scale as this must be shouted from the housetops. The Jewish impersonation of Israel is the basis of their claim to Palestine.
They are impostors, usurpers and murderers, in the name of Judah. “The Jews are God‟s chosen people.” “The Jews are God‟s chosen people.” “The Jews are God‟s chosen people.” †ad nauseum.
ďƒ’
The world has heard this lie billions of times. No amount of repetition makes the statement any truer. It is, in fact, the BIGGEST LIE OF HISTORY. Since their occupation of Palestine is based on this historical fraud, everything they do there is evil; and anyone who supports them in this evil is also doing evil, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
ďƒ’
Some believe that Jewish people were the tribe of Judah! American Israel, on the contrary, understands that the Jewish people are neither Israelites nor Judahites. The fact is that the German people are descended from the Jutes, Saxons, Sueves, Goths, Teutons, and other Germanic tribes, all of whom are directly descended from the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel.
The Israelites came to be known as the “Caucasians.” The Jews, unlike Judah, have always practiced race-mixing and have always practiced a different religion.
A Jew is one who pretends to be a Judahite, or, perhaps, better, a Jew is a counterfeit Judahite.
Rev. 2:9 says, “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judahites], and are not, but are of the synagog of Satan.”
Rev. 3:9 tells us, “Behold, I will make them of the synagog of Satan, which say they are Jews [Judahites], 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.”
Is it conceivable that Jesus is talking here to the Jewish people, after he has identified them as the “children of the devil”? He is talking to the House of Judah! Who is it that is impersonating Judah? Judah cannot impersonate Judah. Judah IS Judah. It is the Jews who are impersonating Judah and Israel.
ďƒ’
These two statements make no sense otherwise. Who on earth would want to impersonate a Jew anyway? Jesus is talking to Judah and Israel and is warning us about this great impersonation by the Edomites who have usurped the name of Judah.
ďƒ’
Yahweh was never with the Jews because the Jews have always been the children of a lesser god – the god that encourages race-mixing in direct opposition to Yahweh! The Jews have never worshipped Yahweh. They only pretend to. They have always been deceivers and they will remain deceivers because that is their nature. It is in their blood.
Identity Lite” is the name I have given to those members of Christian Identity who downplay the race issue. The very word, „Identity‟, means that we identify with Israel of the Bible. These Israelites were commanded, time and time again, to separate themselves from the other ethnic groups by which they were surrounded.
ďƒ’
They were commanded by Yahweh to not only remain separate from but to EXTERMINATE the mixed-race Canaanites, because the Canaanites were so evil that Yahweh had declared the death penalty upon them. (See Ex. 23:28; 33:2; 34:11; Num. 21:3; the entire book of Joshua; Judges, Chapters 1-3; and many other scriptures.)
ďƒ’
But we failed to do the job because our people, unlike the pre-Adamite savages of this world, did not have the stomach for killing toddlers and infants! Why would Yahweh order us to exterminate them unless they were of the irredeemable, evil seed, as per Gen. 3:15?
ďƒ’
I know that the modern, genteel White Christian does not like to address this reality of an angry God; but the day of Judgment is also known as the day of His vengeance; and He will have His vengeance in spite of genteel opinions. Please read Psalm 94 for confirmation of this.
ďƒ’
We are to come out of Babylon and build Israelite communities which cannot be infected by the Jewish parasite. What I am trying to convey to you is the Divine Imperative for us to remain separate and distinct from the Jews, so that a pure-blooded remnant will survive the cleansing that is coming-
ďƒ’
This is what the parable of the Wheat and the Tares is all about. The day is surely coming when we will have to defend ourselves from their ethnic cleansing programs which they have instituted against us: massive immigration, race-mixing propaganda, anti-Christianity, communism, Zionism, etc., etc.
ďƒ’
All of these things the Oberjuden (high Jews) have done both secretly and openly against us while the average White Christian is blissfully unaware. These things are the historical evidence of the Jewâ€&#x;s biological hatred of Whites.
I fear that there are those in CI today who are trying to appear “non-racist.” There is no possibility that CI will go mainstream. CI is biblically mandated separatism. Those who wish not to offend “polite society” are an offense to Yahweh Himself. I understand that we have to speak softly in order not to alienate newcomers to the movement.
BUT WE OURSELVES CANNOT BELIEVE NONEXCLUSIVIST DOCTRINE! If we water down God‟s truth in our own minds so that it might be more palatable to the sleeping sheep, we risk falling back asleep ourselves. (Another fall, no less!)
MAJOR OBJECTIONS THE ANTI-SEEDLINERS
Some of the major objections the anti-seedliners have to our scholarship consist of the following:
1.) Genesis 3:15 can only be taken literally and not interpreted as meaning sexual seduction.
2.) The very idea that Eve was sexually seduced is vulgar and tantamount to blasphemy.
3.) Two-Seedliners quote the Talmud in order to document the fact that Eve was sexually seduced by the Serpent.
4.) We rely on the Aramaic Targums and other nonCanonical sources of information.
5.) The Two-Seedline doctrine is a recent innovation unsupported either by Scripture or traditional commentators.
6.) Genesis 4:1 stands as written and understood by them. There is no problem with the text or the translation.
So, let‟s examine some of these claims to see what the two sides have to say.
LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 3:15.
Our study text, again, is: “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.”
Anti-Seedliners are adamant in insisting that the sexual interpretation of Genesis, Chapter 3 is preposterous. Let‟s see how the Bible uses the various words in that Chapter to see if the Two-Bloodline interpretation has any merit.
Statement #1: The trees of the Garden can only be literal trees, not family trees.
Response: After Moses declares that Yahweh had made Adam “out of the dust of the ground,” Genesis 2:9 reads, “And out of the ground made Yahweh God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”
First, let us look at Strong‟s definition of „ground,‟ #127, adamah (pronounced “ad-awmaw”): “soil (from its gen. redness): -- country, earth, ground, husband [-man] {-ry}, land. Most dictionaries list the most common meaning first and the least common last. I want to point out three meanings which do not imply literal dirt: husband, husbandman, husbandry. These three words are references to people, not dirt.
Next, the word „tree.‟ „Tree‟ is Strong‟s #6086, ets (pronounced “ates”): †a tree (from its firmness); hence wood (plur. sticks)†carpenter, gallows, helve†pine, plank, staff, stalk, stick, stock, timber, tree, wood.
Notice in the middle of all those definitions the word „carpenter.‟ This is a reference to a person, not a piece of wood.
In William Wilson‟s Old Testament Word Studies, under the word „tree,‟ we are given this defintion: 3.) A tree; often collective trees; green trees the righteous, dry trees the wicked, Ez. 20:47; 17:24, all trees of the field, all men, the high tree, lofty and powerful, the low tree, the weak and contemptible. Question: Are literal trees capable of righteousness or wickedness?
George M. Lamsa, in his book, Idioms In the Bible Explained, gives us the following idiomatic meanings: „garden‟: metaphorically, a wife, a family; tree of life in the midst of the garden: sex; posterity, progeny. “Tree of life”: eternal life.
ďƒ’
If the anti-seedliners are arguing that all idiomatic language must be translated literally, then about a quarter of translated literature would never be understood. Certainly, poetry and much fiction could not even be translated, because such language is often highly figurative. But idioms are different in that the expressions have very specific meanings that cannot be deduced from the literal definitions of the words employed. One has to know the history of the language in order to understand the meanings of idioms.
In the following verses, Scripture clearly equates trees, sticks, branches, roots and boughs with human beings:
“Joseph is a fruitful bough” – Gen. 49:22. According to the logic of the anti-seedliners, God is declaring that Joseph is a literal clump of small branches. Holly, perhaps?
“Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make of them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.” -- Ezek. 37:19. Is Yahweh declaring that He is going to turn these Israelites into literal pieces of wood?
“If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men” -- II Sam. 7:14
“Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old; the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed.” -- Psa. 74:2.
Hundreds of examples can be adduced to show the legitimacy of translating such words as referring to human beings, not literal trees or wood. Trees bear fruit. Is the expression, “fruit of the womb” a reference to fruit that you put on a table for consumption?
LET‟S EAT! Statement #2: The word „eat‟ can only mean eating literal food. Response: Strong‟s Exhaustive Concordance tells us that one of the meanings of the word „eat,‟ akal, is LAY. When Eve admitted to being beguiled by nachash, was she admitting to being raped? “He tricked me!” she said.
One of the definitions of the word „beguiled,‟ nasha, is “seduced.” Genesis 3:13 tells us “And the woman said, the serpent beguiled me and I did eat.” Why should “And the deceiver seduced me and I did lay” be deemed impossible in the light of these alternative meanings?
I submit that one of the listed meanings ought to be “partake,” because “to partake of” covers a wide variety of indulgences. Does “and I did partake” not cover the possible meanings being discussed here?
Here follow some biblical verses in which the meaning of the word „eat‟ is clearly sexual:
“Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” -- Proverbs 30:20. The context of this passage is adultery. Eating and adultery are compared synonymously. “And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed unto their gods.” -- Num. 25:2. Here is a good spot for the word „partake‟ in place of „eat.‟
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary has this to say about the above passage, page 145: “The subject THEY is feminine, referring to the daughters of Moab with whom the men of Israel committed fornication."
"Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant." – Prov. 19:7.
Now, let‟s read Genesis 2:17 in the light of the above context:
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in that day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
We all know what it means to “know” in the biblical sense. It means sexual intercourse. This verse is talking about “knowing” good and “knowing” evil. Good knowing is “kind after kind.” Evil knowing is mixing forbidden seed. The “forbidden fruit” is the race-mixed children of forbidden “eating.”
And the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is the tree of mixed offspring as a result of miscegenation.
Now, Genesis 3:15 warns of the enmity between the two resulting offspring. The Father is warning Eve of the potential death of the White Race due to race-mixing.
He is NOT warning her of her own immediate death due to poisoning by the “literal fruit.” If that were the case, she would have died then and there. But, no, the consequences bear upon her offspring, not just her. If the meaning is nonsexual, how can the consequences of her sin bear upon future generations of Adamites? Look at what is happening in the world today.
ďƒ’
The White Race is being ganged up on by all of the other races through immigration and miscegenation. Which ethnic minority is encouraging these other groups to race-mix with us? Itâ€&#x;s the offspring of the other seedline.
In effect, the anti-seedliners are admitting that there is some sort of enmity between the Serpent‟s seed and the seed of the Woman, but they try to limit the “seed of the Woman” as a reference to Jesus Christ only. They think that by changing the value of the expression “his heel,” they can circumvent the seedline argument that the enemy seedline began with Cain.
But since the Adamic seedline is reckoned patriarchally, the word „his‟ is merely a reference to the male seed (sperm) that follows in these generations. And the fact is that, throughout history, True Israel has been followed around by Jewry wherever we have gone.
They have been nipping at our “heel,” not just the heel of Jesus Christ! They simply will not leave us alone. The story of White Civilization is the story of how True Israel builds kingdoms and nations after which the Jews slither in, like snakes in the grass, and then subvert our culture with their usury and their pornography, gambling, infiltration of our institutions and other vices. The language of Genesis 3:15 fully bears this out.
The Serpent had his head bruised once by Titus, the Roman General of Israelite stock who destroyed Herod‟s Temple. It has yet to be crushed by Jesus Christ at the Second Coming. The Serpent‟s head was also bruised by Joshua, Saul, David, and all of the other Israelite Kings who made war against the Canaanites. We, as a race, have, by ignoring the constant threat that the Jews pose to our civilization, allowed them to nip at our heels throughout history.
ďƒ’
At least twenty-two times in the history of Europe, the Jews have been evicted from our nations because of their subversive culture. Because we are always looking ahead, we have failed to watch our backside; and the Jews always attack us from behind, from their familiar position, hiding in the grass, like serpents, waiting for a chance to bite.
IDIOMATIC HEBREW
In addition, when we translate from one language to another, we have to take into account expressions, such as idioms and figures of speech, or the translation will be hopelessly lacking.
Idioms are very common expressions which can be at complete variance from the literal meaning. Take, for example, the expression, “Can I give you a lift?” I‟m sure that this idiom hearkens back to the horse and buggy, stagecoach days when a person often needed help getting up into the buggy or stagecoach.
Today, whoever uses this expression means “Can I give you a ride?” or “Can I take you to your destination?” The word „lift‟ has nothing to do with riding in a vehicle. Its dictionary definition is “to raise up.” Yet, everyone who uses this expression knows that it means “Can I give you a ride?”
ďƒ’
Ancient Hebrew was no exception. Idiomatic expressions abound in Scripture and, in order to understand a given passage, one MUST take into account idiomatic usage before assuming a literal interpretation. Unfortunately, the King James Version of the Bible, has, among its many faults, a severe lack of consideration for idiomatic expressions in its translation. Other faults include the fact that it is based on the Jewish Masoretic text.
The Masoretes were Pharisaic Jews who rewrote the Old Testament in order de-emphasize the prophetic role that Messiah Jesus would play. They also took out the 7000 instances of the word „Yahweh‟ and replaced it with LORD. Their excuse for doing this is the claim that “The name of g-d is too holy to be pronounced.”
However, there is nothing in Scripture which validates this claim. The claim is Talmudic, not Biblical!! On the contrary, the Bible repeatedly admonishes us to “Publish the name of Yahweh.” (Deut. 32:3), not deny its use. The Third Commandment says we are not to take His name in vain. It does not say we are to stop using it. How can you take His name in vain if you don‟t use it? This is a blatant example of false Jewish piety. With Rothschild‟s trillions, the rabbinate spends man-years of time devising slogans which will deceive the goyim.
Another one of their brilliant deceptions is the claim that the rabbis “study” the Torah. Yes, they study the Bible, but they don‟t TEACH it, nor do they practice it. They teach the Talmud instead. Those who don‟t understand the nature of Jewish deceptions naturally assume that they teach what they study! The sheep are so gullible, aren‟t they?
ďƒ’
If we are using exclusively a text that does not take idiomatic expressions into account, we have a serious problem. We are missing out on the meanings employed by the original authors. The translators have let us down.
The fact is that, idiomatically, the words "tree", "fruit", “branch” and "seed" are repeatedly used in the Bible to refer to human offspring, the genealogical tree. There is no justification for us to deviate from this dual usage of words, literal and idiomatic. If an idiomatic expression is used more than once in Scripture, and consistently so in different Books, then we have to give serious thought as to whether to translate literally or idiomatically. This is nothing less than honest scholarship.
ďƒ’
The anti-seedliners are adamant that these words can only be taken literally. They insist that any figurative or idiomatic interpretation which implies sexuality is invalid. Given the above examples cited from Scriptures outside of Genesis 3 and 4, can this proposition be taken seriously?
By not taking Hebrew idioms into account, the anti-seedliners have jumped to a premature conclusion. In essence, what they are saying is “You can only use my interpretation. You cannot use your idiomatic interpretation.” I‟m afraid that this is simply a closed-minded attitude, and we all must understand it for exactly what it is.
ďƒ’
ďƒ’
Scripture just leaves it at that. If she were turned into a literal pillar of salt, then the experience would have killed her. If she was frozen in her tracks from terror, she may have recovered. Then again, she might have been scared to death, literally.
Another great example of an idiomatic expression is “turned into a pillar of salt.” When Lot‟s wife looked back at Sodom and Gomorrah, was she transmogrified into a literal pillar of salt? Possibly, but the idiomatic expression we are dealing with is still used in the Middle East today to mean “petrified with fear.” Evidently, what she saw was quite astounding and terrifying.
ďƒ’
Since the translators of the KJV were apparently not aware of this idiom, they were left with only one possible translation: Lotâ€&#x;s wife was literally turned into salt. Does the punishment fit the crime? Or was she, as the idiomatic translation implies, petrified by fear? Do you, dear reader, still think idiomatic expressions should always be translated literally?
ďƒ’
At the very least, the reader should be made aware of the idioms so he can consider the alternatives. Apparently the anti-seedliners are either unaware of the idiomatic nature of ancient Hebrew or they donâ€&#x;t want you to consider it.
Wouldn‟t you want to know about any relevant idioms? Wouldn‟t you want to know that, if someone wanted to give you some “ecstasy,” it is only by means of a dangerous drug?
AN ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3 AND 4
The two-seedline translation of Genesis 3:15 would read thus: “And I will put enmity between thee and her, between thy offspring and her offspring; her offspring shall bruise your head, and your offspring shall bruise his heel.”
It goes without saying that “seed” cannot do any bruising and that any literal seed cannot have enmity toward each other. I contend that a careful reading of the rest of Chapters 3 and 4 completely validates the bloodline interpretation.
Gen. 3:1: “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which Yahweh Elohim had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath Elohim said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Now, the Hebrew word „nachash‟ has several meanings. Yes, it can mean a literal snake.
ďƒ’
But it also means “to hiss, whisper (a magic spell), enchanter, enchantment, incantation, snake (from its hiss), serpent.� Given this range of meanings, by what authority do the skeptics declare that only a literal snake can be meant? From their literalist position, they are actually saying that the snake raised up and spoke!
ďƒ’
Now, if little Miss Muffet was scared off her tuffet by a little spider, you can imagine what a talking snake would have done to her! She would have hightailed it out of there, to use a figure of speech from the Old West. But no, some anti-seedliners insist that this was a literal snake that spoke to her. And this snake was able to tempt her into eating a piece of fruit! And then this snake disappeared, never to be heard from again, leaving Eve holding the piece of fruit as evidence. Should this interpretation really be taken seriously?
Gen. 3:1 contains the expression, “beast of the field.” What is a beast of the field? Professor Charles Carroll, in his book, The Tempter of Eve, explains, from a comparative study of many verses of the Bible, that the beast of the field is capable of speech, has hands and feet, and can even worship God. Thus, the “beast of the field” is clearly a humanoid. Professor Carroll claims that it is a reference to Negroes.
ďƒ’
Whether it means Negroes or some other species is not clear to me because it can mean any or all of the other races that we know existed before Adam was formed. The fact is that we are dealing with ANOTHER RACE. This proves that there were other races in existence at that time, and, as such, it is clear evidence that Eve was dealing with a humanoid, not a snake.
Now, the verse tells us that the serpent was more subtle than any of these people. Since the “serpent” is being compared to a race of people, should we not consider Genesis 2-4 from the perspective that this nachash was a humanoid? The next few verses describe how nachash smoothtalks Eve into defying God‟s law.
Verse 5 says this: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Now, this enchanter was actually telling Eve the truth. It is true that God does know that, if she does what he, nachash, wants her to do, she will have known good AND evil. What the serpent was doing was piquing her interest, tempting her into an unusual experience. “You‟re really gonna love this, Eve. There‟s no harm. Try it, you‟ll like it.” We hear this same refrain behind nightclubs and dance halls today†also in the back seats of numerous cars.
What “gods” is he talking about? The nephilim (fallen angels), perhaps, of which he was an example? The nephilim were known for mixing their seed with humans.
Verse 6: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Certainly, the serpent had convinced her that the exceptional experience he promised her would be harmless. Of course, he lied. Are literal snakes capable of lying? Are literal trees capable of lying? How does a literal tree, or its fruit, make one wise?
Now, here is where the anti-seedline position begins to fall apart, because from here on, the context is indisputably sexual. Verse 7 says: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” How does eating literal fruit relate to nakedness? Why did they have to cover their genital areas with clothing if their sin was some kind of culinary mistake? – or some kind of unnamed sin?
ďƒ’
ďƒ’
If the sin were related to the mouth, then the punishment should have been to wear face masks! Surely, the Father does not punish us in unusual ways. And, as we all know from our common law, the punishment must fit the crime! What did Adam and Eve do that required a punishment to be imposed upon their sex organs?
ďƒ’
Verse 11: Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Again, what does nakedness have to do with the eating of literal fruit?
ďƒ’
Verse 11: Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? Again, what does nakedness have to do with the eating of literal fruit?
In Verse 14, Yahweh condemns the Serpent to his lowly status for the rest of his days. If the Serpent were a literal snake, how would crawling on his belly be a curse? The anti-seedliners would have us believe that God is saying, “Hey, you snake, from now on you will crawl on your belly like a snake!” But, clearly, the Serpent‟s status is here being LOWERED TO THAT OF A SNAKE, if only in figurative language. If nachash was a literal snake, this would be no curse at all, for crawling on his belly is nothing out of the ordinary – for literal snakes!
Verse 16: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children [Can you hear Eve saying, “Because I ate a piece of fruit?”]; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over you.” What does childbearing (conception) have to do with literal fruit? But if the “eating” that Eve did was of a sexual nature, then you can understand why Yahweh was so upset with her.
And what about the latter clause of this sentence? Was her previous desire NOT EXCLUSIVELY TO HER HUSBAND, ADAM? Why would Yahweh have to even mention this if she had not desired someone else? And, apparently, she had not yet been subject to his rule†until she “ate” of the ”forbidden fruit.”
Yahweh had made them for each other. Eve was even made out of Adam‟s side (rib). Would not her desire be automatically for him and him alone? (Kind after kind. Like begets like.) Think about it. Even today, White women, much more than White men, stupidly intermarry with other races, thinking they are “doing good” while actually contributing to the destruction of their own race. Because nachash APPEALS TO HER EMOTIONS OF SYMPATHY FOR “THOSE LESS FORTUNATE,” Eve loses her perspective and commits racial suicide. It is up to our menfolk to rectify this situation because our women apparently cannot or will not do it.
In Verse 17, Yahweh curses the ground of the earth because of the “tree” sin they have committed. The verse concludes with the statement: “In sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” This “eating” is really serious business, isn‟t it? If it was just a piece of fruit, or some vague unnamed sin, why would Yahweh heap curse upon curse, sorrow upon sorrow, especially upon her conception and child-bearing? Could it be because this was “eating” of a sexual nature and not the end of it either? Could it be because this meant the beginning of six thousand years of sorrow? Race-mixing creates forbidden fruit, such as Cain! We are still eating the bitter fruit of racemixing today, aren‟t we?
At the Last Supper, Jesus broke bread and said to the Apostles, “Take, eat; this is my body.” (Matthew 26:26) Was He asking them to literally EAT His body? Was Eve EATING literal fruit?
Now, before I quote Genesis 4:1, I want you to understand something. Up to this point, with all of the curses, shame, and nakedness, Adam has not yet “known” Eve! Yet, her womb was cursed; and her childbearing, and that of future generations of Adamite women, was to be done in pain. We call it “labor.” If she had mated only with her blood-kin husband, would such a curse have been issued by Yahweh?
Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from Yahweh.” Evidently, Eve was still under the spell of nachash, because, obviously, Cain was not of Yahweh. We already know from Verse 16 that she was unfaithful to her husband. Why didn‟t she say, “I have gotten a man from my husband, Adam?” Was there something remarkably different about Cain that he didn‟t resemble Adam? Or was this just wishful thinking on her part?
Verse 2: “And she again bare his brother, Abel.” Eve does not make any remarks about Abel. You should all know that it is possible for a woman to be pregnant by two different men at the same time. The offspring are called “twins” but it should properly be called a “dual pregnancy.” It is also possible for a woman to be pregnant at the same time by two men of different races.
If you do not believe this, then just look up “heteropaternal superfecundation” in your encyclopedia or search for it on your browser, and you will find a host of references and examples. Superfecundity is the ability to conceive by two different men at the same time.
ďƒ’
Eve was sexually known by nachash in order for Cain to have been conceived. Cain may have been humanoid, but he was not an Adamite. After murdering Abel, Yahweh drove him out of the land, and put a mark on him so that no one would try to slay him. Why this mark?
ďƒ’
My opinion is that Yahweh wanted Cain and his offspring to survive because it is part of His plan to judge the Serpent seed. In order for Genesis 3:15 to be fulfilled, both seedlines had to survive into the future, with the First Advent redeeming the sin of Adam - remember, this was A PERSONAL BLOOD SACRIFICE, not a mere field offering - and the Second Advent instituting judgment upon the evil seed.
Again, why a blood sacrifice for the sin of Adam and Eve if only literal fruit or only mental seduction is involved? Jesus Christ shed His own blood so that our blood might be cleansed of its contamination. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11) Adam and Eve fell (and so are we fallen because we are their descendants) because their blood became polluted (mixed) with that of the Serpent (nachash) race. Once Eve‟s womb was polluted, there was nothing Adam could do about it. Can you imagine his disappointment?
Incidentally, the name, Abel [#1893], is based on the Hebrew words, „habal‟ [#1891], meaning “..to lead astray: -- be (become, make) vain,” and „hebel‟ [#1892], meaning “..emptiness, vanity†transitory†unsatisfactory.” Adam‟s disappointment is reflected in the name, Abel, because he knew that Eve‟s womb, and blood, had been contaminated.
This is why Jesus had to shed His own blood, as our Kinsman Redeemer, following the law of cleansing, or atonement for sins. If Adam and Eve‟s sin were only mental seduction, WHY WOULD LITERAL BLOOD HAVE TO BE SHED FOR THE ATONEMENT? Remember, the Old Covenant was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” Jesus died in order to make an end of these blood sacrifices, but He could only do it with His own Blood, as the scapegoat for our sins. -end part 1- go to part 2 http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/content/part-6-clashbloodlines