Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 14

 Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 14

This evening Melissa and I are with our wonderful friends, Nancy and Bruce Bohn, in the beautiful mountains of northeast Georgia. We have taken a slow route back from Charlottesville, after taking nearly two days off in Lexington, in order to see some friends whom we did not get to see on our recent and much lengthier journey around this half of the country. We will remain here for the solar eclipse on Monday, and Yahweh willing, we will return to Florida on Tuesday.

I know that everyone wants to hear about Charlottesville, however that will have to wait for tomorrow evening when I present several things in addition to my own article on the subject, Charlatansville, Where the Animals Have Taken Over the Farm. There I will have my own account of what I observed last Saturday, and also a few prerecorded segments from a couple of our brethren in the League of the South. I will not talk much about things which I did not actually observe for myself, so the program is not intended to be a complete editorial of the day. I will only describe my direct experience, and have only minimal commentary on a couple of the day's events which I did not witness.

On a more somber note, Clifton Emahiser, now being 90 years old, suffered a bad fall in his garage last week. Not being able to raise himself, Clifton laid prone for seven hours before he realized that he was able to set the alarm off on his car. Once he did that, he continued to lie there for four hours more before a neighbor finally called the police and help arrived. He is in the hospital, and while initially he was in great pain, his condition has improved and evidently there is nothing broken. Now he is awaiting physical therapy. In case he cannot return home, we have offered to bring him to Florida where he can live out his last days in our home. We will keep our readers and listeners informed of developments.

As we have made these presentations of Clifton's Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, we have made a preface each week to discuss some of the challenges we face in the conduct of our ministry. Here we shall attempt to explain the importance of understanding what we had presented at the beginning of our last segment: that all Israel is saved, that all Adamic men have a guarantee of eternal life.

Once it is realized that this is what the Scripture actually teaches, that as Paul had said in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive”, only then may we realize the true importance of obedience to the law, love for one another, mercy and forgiveness. So in Romans chapter 9 Paul explained that the children of Jacob are “vessels of mercy”, while the children of Esau are “vessels of destruction”. Then in the letters of Peter and Jude we learn that the non-Adamic people among us are “spots in our feasts of charity” and “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed”. As Christ explained in Matthew chapter 25, all of the sheep nations enter into the Kingdom of God, and all of the goat nations enter into the same fires of destruction prepared for the devil and his angels.

Origin and Destiny are inseparably connected. Genesis is a book of origin and we see two metaphorical trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Christ said in the Gospel that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. The Revelation is a book of struggle and destiny, and in the end there is only one tree standing, the Tree of Life. We can identify the sheep nations in history, and wherever they have been they have brought forth the fruits of the Kingdom of God. We can also identity the goat nations, and in the end “they shall be as though they have never been”, as it says in Obadiah. They are not written in the Book of Life, since that there is no mention of Yahweh ever having created them in Scripture, and the words of Yahweh and Gospel of Christ are the Word of Life (Philippians 2:16, 1 John 1:1).

The entire Adamic race has the gift of an immortal spirit as an aspect of its creation, as it says in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon, “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” Paul explained this same thing in Romans chapter 5, and then spent most of Romans chapter 6 explaining why, because of this very thing, we should all realize the importance of obedience to Yahweh our God and of keeping His law, as Christ had also said, “if you love Me, keep My commandments.” But in the end, as Paul explained in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, even a man with no good works shall be saved, and in chapter 5 of that same epistle, even the spirit of a fornicator shall be “saved in the day of Christ”.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15 Paul explained how the resurrection is through the Adamic Spirit, and described that “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual.” The manuscripts upon which the King James Version is based last the conditional particle in that sentence. The prophet Daniel explains that of those who see the resurrection, some are raised to everlasting life, and some to everlasting contempt. But in saying everlasting contempt the Word of Yahweh nevertheless infers that one is to live forever.

This is why it is important to be firmly grounded in the correct interpretation of Scripture. This is the message I tried to present in my 2015 sermon, Unity and Divisions. Understanding this we can then understand why it is important to keep the law of God, love our brethren, and treat one another equitably and with mercy, while separating all of those of the other races who do not share either our origin or our nature. If we do not stand on this solid foundation, we will slide down the slippery slope into that Jewish relativism and works salvation presently taught in the Judaized churches. The next step after that is the desire to baptize orientals, negroes and Jews, along with the Pharisaical desire to see one's own brethren damned in the Lake of Fire. That is Roman Catholicism, that is the Leaven of the Pharisees, but that is not Christianity.

Disobedience to our God leads to our destruction in the flesh, but as Paul had said, our spirits shall be saved in the Day of Christ. The difference between those of us who are “saved” in the sense of eternal salvation and those of us who shall be forever destroyed in the Day of His Wrath is genetic, it is black and white, and we ourselves are powerless to change it, as that is the way that Yahweh our God has created us – if indeed we are of His Creation, and not bastards from the Tree which the Serpent had represented.

With this, we shall present Clifton Emahiser's

Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #14

The fact that we are in a WAR should again be emphasized. This WAR started in Genesis 3:15 and has continued now for over 7000 years. This WAR is between two “hate groups”; a good hate group and a bad hate group. Some may reply that all “hate” is unchristian, and that simply is not true. On the one side are the literal “children of Satan”; on the other side are the true “children of YHWH.” Among the fleshly “children of YHWH” is the Messiah Himself. Therefore, our Redeemer is a member of the good “hate group.” Once more, He is not ashamed to be counted as a member, Hebrews 2:11. Hate is only bad when it is focused in the wrong direction. However, if our hate would be properly manifested, it will not affect the innocent. Should we direct our hate where it is needed, some of our problems with our common enemy could be solved. The one seedliners (anti-seedliners) vent their hatred toward the flesh; the Two Seedliners vent their hatred toward the literal, walking, talking, breathing genetic children of Satan. If our “flesh” is the problem, we had better get our “flesh” out of today’s satanic banking system! Maybe one should cut off his “fleshly” fingers to avoid paying the IRS any illegal income tax, which in turn supports the murderous abortion of White children making one an accessory after the fact. According to the anti-seedliners (who teach that the flesh is the problem), we should look at those fingers and “hate” them rather than identify the real enemy. [This is the] Mother of all absurdities!

And of course this is true. The purpose of the incarnation of Christ was not to save us from our flesh, but to save us from our enemies, as Luke had expressed in the words of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, where he records his prophecy of the purpose of the Messiah in chapter 1 of his Gospel. The sophistry of those who proclaim that the flesh is our enemy, when Yahweh God created man in the flesh “and it was good”, is indeed an incredible absurdity. Clifton continues:

While speaking of absurdities, I must relate another situation that happened while researching the subject of Two Seedline. About five years ago I was writing several small articles on this subject having become aware that there were several distracting critics speaking in opposition to it. Because of the seriousness of the matter, I put these several small papers together entitling them Research Papers Proving the Two Seedline Seduction Of Eve. At that time I had purchased a laptop computer, which I took to work with me and worked on this project in-between customers. [Clifton actually sent me that laptop in 2009, and having made certain that I had copies of all of the documents it contained, I think that eventually I had to dispose of it, but I am not really certain. He continues:] Because I was continually being interrupted by phone calls and my usual duties, I made several typos. Sometimes, after tending to business for a couple of hours, it was difficult to find the place where I had left off and then continue running references, making notes and typing again. No sooner would I get organized than I was interrupted again. It was not unusual for me to be interrupted this way 35 to 45 times in a ten hour day. Nevertheless, I managed to put these small documents together with some semblance of order. Later, Ted R. Weiland obtained a copy of these writings and attempted to make a fool of me. I will now relate one of those instances, and you can evaluate the situation for yourself and determine who is really imprudently ill-advised on this topic.

Before presenting Clifton's account of this here, let me say that Ted Weiland puts on a front for people which conceals his true nature. In a 2009 email, he had sent our friend Don Brown some rather nasty remarks about Clifton. At that time I took it upon myself to confront Weiland in an email and offer him to take the issues up with me, and he did not even answer. Now, whenever I encounter him in Social Media I challenge him with simple questions, in a gentlemanly manner, and he counters me with vitriol, blocking me whenever he is able. The man is a coward who cannot even have a civil discussion with someone who does not kiss his ass.

Now we are about to read Clifton's account of this aspect of his dispute with Weiland, and one of Weiland's contentions is that a woman does not have seed, so the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 cannot be literal. Of course, we may not call it seed, but the egg of a woman certainly does represent seed: it contributes 23 chromosomes of each of her offspring, just as the sperm of a man contributes 23 chromosomes. And the egg, having the outer shell and the additional mitochondria, is actually a more complete organism of the common notion of seed than is the sperm itself, even though the seed of either sex is not truly complete until sperm and egg are joined. Weiland's notion of reproductive seed predates the knowledge which we have from our modern science, however Yahweh our God knew from the beginning of creation that the woman has seed just as well as the man. Returning to Clifton:

On page 4 of my Research Papers Proving the Two Seedline Seduction Of Eve, I said the following in part: “It is absurd, then, to say the woman doesn’t have any seed. The woman, then, contributes just as much genetic makeup to the offspring as the man! The question at this point is: if the serpent has seed, or ‘children’; who fathered and mothered them? For this, it is critical that we go first to Genesis 3:13 which says: ‘And Yahweh said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.’ You will notice that Eve told Yahweh, ‘The serpent beguiled me.’ Let’s see what this word ‘beguiled’ means in the Strong’s Concordance in Hebrew. It is #5377; ‘nâshâ, naw-shaw'; a primitive root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.’ Here the word beguile can mean seduce, which in turn means, to induce (a woman) to surrender her chastity ... entice to unlawful sexual intercourse. It can also mean to be mentally seduced, (and [here Clifton inserts a parenthetical remark which says:] I claim [that] one is mentally seduced before the physical act). [He then continues and says:] We have to be wise enough to know the difference. Now that we have covered the word beguiled, let’s now take up the word eat. Eat in the Strong’s Concordance is #398, and means: ‘akal, ’aw-kal; a primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively): -X at all, burn up, consume, devour (er, up), dine, eat (-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in... wise (-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite’ [X = Hebrew idiom]. In this particular verse eat could mean what it says, but it is better rendered lay. Now that we have consulted with the Strong’s Concordance as to the meanings of these two words, let’s try to determine what Eve really said: ‘The serpent seduced me, and I did lay.’ At this point you might say that we are stretching the Hebrew meaning of the word eat.”

Before we continue, we shall only take note that where Paul of Tarsus told the assembly at Corinth that he wanted to present them as a chaste virgin to Christ, and expressed the fear that the serpent would beguile, or seduce them and therefore prevent him from so doing, there we see the nature of the seduction of Eve, where in Paul's allegory he fully infers that the cost of her seduction was her virginity. Other Scriptures reveal this interpretation to be true. Now to continue with Clifton:

The part that Weiland quoted from my work was that part I had taken from the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible on the Hebrew word #398, akal, plus the sentence before it and the last two sentences after it. Then Weiland commented as follows on pages 24-25 [of his book, Eve, Did She Or Didn't She?]:

“The seedliners indeed stretch the Hebrew meaning of the word ‘eat.’ Any linguist would maintain that the Hebrew word ‘akal’ translated ‘eat’ has been distorted to say something it does not mean. The word ‘lay’ is not part of Strong’s definition for the Hebrew word ‘akal.’ The definition is only that word, or group of words, that precede the colon. In the preface to his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, Mr. Strong explained that what follows the colon are renderings by the translators of the King James Bible: ‘6. Finally (after the punctuation-mark:-) are given all the different renderings of the word in the Authorized English Version, arranged in the alphabetical order of the leading terms ....’ Mr. Strong also explains his use of parentheses around the word ‘Lay’: ‘( ) (parentheses) ... denotes a word or syllable sometimes given in connection with the principal word to which it is annexed.’ This is demonstrated in the following passage from Hosea: ‘I [Yahweh] drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them [the house of Israel] as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them. (Hosea 11:4)’ In other words, the word ‘lay’ as used by James Strong is not in any sense a definition or replacement for the word ‘eat’ and cannot be used in the fashion dictated by the previous seedliner [myself].’ Concerning the word ‘beguiled’ in Genesis 3:13, one seedliner [Nord Davis] speculated: ‘When Eve was cross-examined [by Yahweh], she is quoted as admitting: ‘Nachash beguiled (Strong’s word #5377, nasha, sexually seduced) me and I did eat, Genesis 3:13.’ For this seedline author [Nord Davis] to insert the word ‘sexually’ into Strong’s definition borders on dishonesty. Strong’s Concordance does not say ‘sexually’ seduced.”

These were the words of Ted Weiland. Let me state before we continue with Clifton's response, that I do not like Nord Davis. He spent a large part of his Star Wars essays attempting to convince us that Arab bastards (I realize that is a redundant term) are a noble race and of the seed of Ishmael. But Arab bastards are no more Ishmael than jew bastards are of Isaac, as they are all mixed with the Canaanites and other races. Nord Davis may have been considered “Two Seedline”, but I would contend that he certainly did not understand it properly. Now to continue with Clifton's response:

Since Nord Davis is dead and cannot defend himself, I am compelled to give an answer for him: Nord might instruct Mr. Weiland to check out the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, for it does say “sexual pleasures” for the Hebrew word #398, akal! There are four meanings for the word akal, and number three says this, page 43: “(3) to enjoy anything, as good fortune, Job 21:25; the fruit of good or evil actions, sexual pleasures, Pro. 30:20 (comp. 9:17 ... 5:20).” This meaning can also be verified from Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies under the topic “eat”, [on] page 141. Also, George M. Lamsa, in his Idioms In The Bible Explained, points this out concerning Proverbs 9:17 as “stolen love” and “making love to another woman in secret appears pleasant.” This is the same word that Eve used when she said, Genesis 3:13: “... The serpent beguiled me, and I did akal [eat].” Now, who really is the one “bordering on dishonesty”? Such spurious nit-picking arguments about “punctuation marks”, “colons” and “parentheses” have little or no bearing in this case. Remember, the statement made about “any linguists” above?: “Any linguist would maintain that the Hebrew word ‘akal’ translated ‘eat’ [where it is interpreted to refer to sexual activity - WRF] has been distorted to say something it does not mean.” Well, is Gesenius a qualified “linguist” or not? From this we can conclude one of two things: either Weiland doesn’t have a Gesenius’ Lexicon or he has refused to use it!

Actually, Weiland’s explanation of the components of Strong’s definition is correct. His real fault lies in his disdain for idioms. Just like he dismisses the entire Talmud, which contain many of the tenets of Israel Identity, he wants to dismiss all valid idioms in Hebrew. Weiland should also check Strong’s at the front of the “Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary” under “Signs Employed” concerning idioms, especially under “X”. Inasmuch as Weiland frowns on idioms (like [those found] in Genesis 49:9, 17, 21, 22, 27), [then] by his own standards, we should start searching for the “lost tribes” at the Bronx Zoo!

In other words, if Eve ate literal fruit, then Joseph was a literal bull, Judah was a literal lion, Naphtali was a literal hind, Dan a literal snake, and the Bible becomes literal hogwash. But we know that Eve was sexually seduced, because that is the comparison that Paul made when he used the example of Eve's seduction as an allegory in 2 Corinthians chapter 11. We know that Eve was sexually seduced, and that Adam had joined her in such a sexual act, when feeling guilty for their sins they covered their loins, hiding the scene of the crime. Clifton himself explains this elsewhere in this series of essays. Finally, we know that Eve was sexually seduced, where the punishment which Yahweh God pronounced upon her was befitting such a crime.

When we presented Part 5 of this series, we showed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is an ancient poem that predates by several centuries the writing of Genesis by Moses, that language quite similar to that found in Genesis chapter 3 also described sexual seduction in that writing. That language was used by people of a tongue and a culture very closely related to that of Abraham and Moses. Therefore Ted Weiland remains in purposeful denial. Continuing with Clifton:

Not only is Mr. Ted R. Weiland taking these things totally out-of-context, but he makes some of the most blasphemous statements against the Almighty I have ever witnessed in his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?, on pages 4 and 5. Here are some excerpts of his remarks attempting to put his own outlandish contrived words into the Two Seedliner’s mouths: “Yahweh, Himself, is a sexual deviant” ... “Yahweh had sexual relations with women and fathered children” ... “Yahweh is a liar” ... “The Bible is untrustworthy” ... “Adam was a sodomite ...” ... “Both Adam and Eve were abominations in the eyes of Yahweh” ... “Adam and Eve were permitted by Yahweh to have sexual relations with several partners ... or people of other races” ... “Yahweh was the originator of and even promoted spouse swapping for both heterosexual and homosexual purposes” ... “Yahshua carried the genes of someone of another race” ... “All Israelites are the seed of Satan” ... “Satan could have and possibly did have sex with some of the Corinthian Christians, both men and women alike” ... “Yahshua the Christ had and has sexual relations with His followers.”

We do not have a copy of Weiland's book to see the broader context in which Weiland makes such statements, but Clifton did have his copy on a table in his living room the last time we visited, which was only two months ago. For whatever purpose he took it out, I did not get the chance to learn because we did not have the sufficient time to discuss it even though we stayed with him for five days. We hope to visit him again soon, and maybe I will learn then. However it is clear that Weiland is actually using a mockery of God in order to mock our interpretation of Genesis. But Yahweh God will not be mocked, and one day Ted Weiland will certainly regret his mistakes. Continuing with Clifton:

Now Weiland makes the claim that we Two Seedliners imply these things just quoted. For the life-of-me, I have never read or heard any of the Two Seedliners make any such suggestions. Therefore, those statements belong to Weiland and Weiland alone, and he must bear the responsibility for them. They are his invention and he owns them by copyright, Library of Congress, #00-090494. Weiland, by making these remarks, implies that I personally am making such assertions, for he quotes me several times in that book (and mostly out-of-context).

[Clifton then says:] Weiland not only quoted me, but also many other prominent Two Seedliners. He tries to make it appear he is not pointing his finger and naming names. He does that by placing a number at the end of each quotation and then lists them at the back of his book. Let’s take a look at some of the people, other than myself, who he accuses of such blasphemy on pages 105-115: Dan Gayman, Gladys M. Demaree, Bertrand L. Comparet, Jarah B. Crawford, Nord W. Davis, B. J. Dryburgh, Dewey Tucker, James E. Wise, Scott Stinson, Norman Moody Rogers and Arnold Murray. How dare Weiland try to put blasphemous words like those into our mouths! Not only that, but some of these people are dead and cannot defend themselves, and if they said such blasphemous things, why doesn’t Weiland quote book, chapter and verse? He doesn’t because he can’t!

Evidently Weiland made many such quotes without supplying any citations, which is indeed intellectually dishonest because it is then difficult for people to see the original passage and context in which such things may have been written, if indeed they were written at all. This is a sign of someone who is purposely misrepresenting ideas, that words are attributed without their sources being properly cited. Perhaps Weiland was the serpent of Genesis 3. Clifton now continues under the lengthy subtitle:

IN HIS BLINDNESS, WEILAND STUMBLES ACROSS SOME VALUABLE INFORMATION FAVORING TWO SEEDLINE

Evidently as of the writing of this essay, Clifton had not yet seen the statements which Scott Stinson had quoted from the Aramaic Targums. I think the evidence in the Targums is valuable, but for different reasons than Clifton, and I shall explain that below.

Despite Weiland’s dogged, determined pursuit to destroy the Two Seedline Truth, he accidentally happens on some valuable evidence which helps substantiate [the fact that Genesis is describing] Eve’s sexual encounter with Satan, though he ridicules it as being “Babylonian-influenced.” But, before I use this secondhand quote from Weiland’s Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? concerning that informative data, you will need some background regarding it. According to Weiland’s source notes, it was written by [one] Scott Stinson in an article entitled “The Serpent and Eve.” In that article, Stinson speaks of the contents of various Targumim [Targums]. For a very brief explanation of what a Targum is, I will quote from the New Concise Bible Dictionary, Editor Derek Williams, pages 541-542:

“TARGUM. An Aramaic translation or paraphrase of some part of the OT. Targums exist for all OT books except Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel. They came into being as the synagogue evolved after the Exile, when Aramaic began to replace Hebrew as the Jews’ [sic. Israelites'] language. It therefore became customary for a reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue service to be followed by an oral rendering into Aramaic. As time passed, these renderings became more fixed and traditional, and were committed to writing probably from the 2nd cent. BC.

“Even the most literal targums brought place-names up to date, smoothed over textual difficulties and clarified obscure passages. Some of the paraphrase targums expand the text considerably, substantially altering the text and inserting additional material (‘midrash’). Their value today is that they offer major evidence for the vernacular speech of ancient Palestine, and hence for the study of NT language and background. They also offer an important witness to the OT text.”

This is the end of Clifton's citation from the New Concise Bible Dictionary, and now he will add his own elaboration:

Among these targumim are the Targum of Onkelos and the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum, among others. Weiland is definitely of the opinion that those targumim were and are “Babylonian-influenced.” I would rather believe they were not, for it wasn’t until after they came back from the Babylonian exile that the targumim came into being. They were borne out of necessity; not some Babylonian religious system! As the books of Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah were not entirely written in Hebrew, there wasn’t a need for Aramaic targums for them. When the exiles returned speaking Aramaic, it then became necessary to have a translation from the Hebrew into Aramaic. With the Scriptures being read publicly, both in their former Hebrew and in the Aramaic, any variation in the text would have been censured and reprimanded, for they had very stringent rules on how this was done. Scott Stinson points out that the targums and the Hebrew, as we know it today, do not agree on the Temptation story.

It is highly unlikely that the Aramaic Targums were influenced by Babylonians inn the sense of the Babylonian Talmud or other later writings, like the Kabbalah. This is entirely conjecture on Weiland's part, and cannot be proven. The Targums in question are esteemed to predate the time of Christ, and the Babylonian Talmud as it is currently known was not compiled until closer to the 6th century AD.

While I do not agree with or even like everything I see in the Targums, we should nevertheless esteem them to be important because they inform us as to what various early interpreters thought about certain important accounts in Scripture. The same can be said for the earliest portions of the Talmud, and even though generally the Talmud is a very evil work, or a collection of evil works, not everything within it is evil, or wrong. The Targums were preserved in the Talmud, but they are not necessarily Talmudic. The Torah is also preserved in the Talmud, and that certainly is not Talmudic.

While the Targums themselves are not Scripture, they show us what early interpreters thought about Scripture, and we cannot say that those interpreters are all Edomite Jews. The fourth book of Maccabees, which Clifton shall cite later in this series, is an early Christian work which clearly supports our Two-Seedline interpretation of Genesis 3:15, as does the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon and the pseudepigraphal work known as 2 Enoch, or The Secrets of Enoch. Of course, the New Testament clearly supports our Two-Seedline interpretation of Scripture, but Weiland denies it by claiming that the words do not really mean what they say, the same excuse that denominational Christians use to deny Two-Seedline and Christian Identity as well. Continuing with Clifton, he makes another citation from Weiland:

Now, quoting Scott Stinson indirectly from Weiland’s book, page 96:

“This [seedline] interpretation is confirmed in the ancient literature of Israel, especially the commentaries on the Hebrew Bible written in Aramaic and commonly known as Targums. These commentaries were written after the [house of Judah’s] return from Babylon ... One text gives this interpretation of Genesis 4:1: ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord’ (Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1). Another ancient commentary gives a similar interpretation of the same passage: ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ...’ (Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1). In another Rabbinic work we find a similar interpretation ..: ‘And she saw that his likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord.’ (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 21). One Rabbinic source states: ‘Eve bore Cain from the filth of the serpent, and therefore from him were descended all the wicked generations, and from his side is the abode of spirits and demons’ (Ahare Moth 76b). A similar explanation for the evil deeds of Cain’s lineage is found elsewhere. We read: ‘For two beings had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species, from which come evil spirits and demons.’ (Bereshith 36b).”

One thing that the Targums do exhibit to us, is that early interpreters of Scripture thought something was amiss in Genesis 4:1, and attempted to fill in the blanks. Some time after writing this series, Clifton found an explanation in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible that described a gloss in Genesis 4:1, and for that reason said that the verse could “hardly be translated” from the original Hebrew. I have also shown from evidence in Origen's Hexapla that various Greek translators also struggled with Genesis 4:1, and at least 4 different versions produced 4 different translations. This information is all found in ann article on Clifton's website titled The Problem With Genesis 4:1, and I have made an addendum to that article on Clifton's site to add the material from the Hexapla.

Clifton now responds to Weiland's claims concerning the material which Scott Stinson had cited, and says:

The real “Babylonian-influenced works” to which Ted R. Weiland refers is rather the Cabalistic numerology system by which the priesthood of that day till this attach an occult secret meaning to every letter, word, phrase and sentence of the Old Testament. Reading targums in public is hardly “secret.” Evidently, Weiland is unaware that the Aramaic targums affected greatly the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which is also considered a targum. Obviously, Weiland is also oblivious to the fact that most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken mostly from the Septuagint. By Weiland’s own premise, we are going to have to throw out all these Old Testament quotations in our New Testament because they are from Aramaic targums which are supposedly “Babylonian-influenced”!

I would not go so far as to say that the Septuagint came from Aramaic Targums, which is not true, and neither is it true of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament. It is true that at least a few New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are closer to versions found in the Aramaic Targums than those of the Masoretic Text. It is also true that technically speaking, the Septuagint may be considered a targum, because the word simply indicates what we may call a translation. In that sense, all modern versions of the Scripture are targums. Clifton continues and says:

Not only that, but when our Savior Himself quoted from the Old Testament, as recorded in Luke 4:17-21, He may have read from a targum. If He had read directly from the Hebrew, the people would have demanded an interpreter.

I find it more likely that Christ had read from a Greek manuscript similar to our version of the Septuagint. In any event, it is certain that the Hebrew of the first century was closer to Aramaic than it was to ancient Hebrew. Continuing with Clifton:

What Ted R. Weiland, along with several other one seedliners, attempt to do is condemn everything written in the Talmud, the Cabala, the Zohar, the targums and other “Jewish” literature as being 100% false, and that we must take a 180-degree stand in opposition to any such information! If we were to take such a position, we would have to condemn as well most of the tenets of the Christian Israel Message, for hundreds of references in the Talmud are parallel to Identity beliefs. Therefore, I believe that Scott Stinson presented some credible, relevant evidence concerning Genesis 4:1. If his research evidence is correct, then, someone has altered the meaning of Genesis 4:1. I will develop, expand, and elaborate more about the subject of these targums in a separate Special Notice.

I do not know what Clifton meant to refer to with his mention of “hundreds of references”, however not everything in the Talmud is false. It may be riddled with legalism, mockeries of God and Christ, and the leaven of the Pharisees, but it is not all false. Clifton continues:

While the one seedliners (anti-seedliners) rant and rave about Two Seedline doctrine being “Babylonian-influenced”, there is a reference on page 8 of The Wycliffe Bible Commentary concerning Genesis 3:14-15, for which they cannot make that claim:

“14. Cursed (’arûr) art thou. The Lord singled out the originator and instigator of the temptation for special condemnation and degradation. From that moment he must crawl in the dust and even feed on it. He would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a symbol of the degradation of the one who had slandered God (cf. Isa 65:25). He was to represent not merely the serpent race, but the power of the evil kingdom. As long as life continued, men would hate him and seek to destroy him. 15. I will put enmity. The word ’êbâ denotes the blood-feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf. Num 35:19,20; Ezk 25:15-17; 35:5,6). Thou shalt bruise (shûp). A prophecy of continuing struggle between the descendants of woman and of the serpent to destroy each other. The verb shûp is rare (cf. Job 9:17; Ps 139:11). It is the same in both clauses. When translated crush, it seems appropriate to the reference concerning the head of the serpent, but not quite so accurate in describing the attack of the serpent on man’s heel. It is also rendered lie in wait for, aim at or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate renders it conteret, “bruise” in the first instance and insidiaberis, “lie in wait,” in the other clause. Thus, we have in this famous passage, called the protevangelium, ‘first gospel,’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of woman. God’s promise that the head of the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and guaranteed victory. This assurance fell upon the ears of God’s earliest creatures as a blessed hope of redemption.” [Ed. underlining]

This passage spells it all out except naming the counterfeit Judahites (“Jews”) as the “serpent race” and Eve’s seed as the Anglo-Saxon descendants of the Israelites. Truly, the one seedline position is built on error, and therefore to maintain it, it becomes an endless necessity to build on top of it, with one error after another.

Now I must say that I have a wider view of the “seed of the serpent” than Clifton had when this was written in 2002. If one's brother is one's seed, and the serpent was one of the so-called fallen angels which in Genesis is called the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, then the entire tree is also of the “seed of the serpent”, as well as the serpent's offspring.

While the Wycliffe commentators said concerning the serpent that “Man would always regard him as a symbol of the degradation of the one who had slandered God”, we would rather think that this serpent, a man or more specifically, a fallen angel, was called after the term serpent for that symbolic reason. Now Clifton continues by responding to the Wycliffe commentary under the subtitle:

THE AGENDA OF THE SERPENT’S SEED

According to some one seedliners (anti-seedliners), the only seed of Genesis 3:15 is exclusively, and only, “Jesus Christ.” For the rest of them who assign the seeds of that verse to the so-called “seeds of the spirit and the seeds of the flesh”, they deny the Messiah Himself! Not only are there children (seed) of the serpent of this “First Gospel”, but his seed has an agenda. I have a prisoner on my mailing list who is taking a college course in Business Administration, and he sent me a copy of a page from one of his textbooks on that subject called Your Future in Business Begins Now, chapter 1, page 11. As you read it you will begin to see just how serious this WAR of TWO SEEDLINES is, which the one seedliners (anti-seedliners) challenge:

“The United States is undergoing a new demographic transition: it is becoming a society composed of people from multiple cultures. Over the next decades, the United States will shift further away from a society dominated by whites and rooted in Western culture toward a society characterized by three large racial and ethnic minorities: African Americans, U.S. Hispanics, and Asian Americans. All three minorities will grow in size and in share of the population, while the white majority declines as a percentage of the total. Native Americans and people with roots in Australia, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, and other parts of the world will further enrich the fabric of the U. S. society.

“The labor force of the past was dominated by white men who are now retiring. They will be replaced by a multicultural labor force who are beginning their careers in entry-level jobs in 2000. The proportion of workers who are non-Hispanic whites will decrease from 77 percent in 1997 [the probable publication year of this book] to 74 percent in 2005. A diverse is a healthy workforce. Diversity leads to new ideas, new ways of doing things, and greater income equality among ethnic groups.

“Multiculturalism exists when all major ethnic groups in an area — such as a city, county, or census tract — are roughly equally represented. Because of the current demographic transition, the trend in the United States is toward greater multiculturalism, although the degree varies in different parts of the country.

“Four of New York City’s five boroughs are among the 10 most ethnically diverse counties in the country. People of various ancestries have long been attracted to San Francisco county, and not surprisingly, it is the most diverse in the nation. The proportions of major ethnic groups are closer to being equal there than anywhere else. The least multicultural region is a broad swath stretching from northern New England through the Midwest and into Montana. These counties have few people other than whites. The counties with the very lowest level of diversity are found in the agricultural heartland — in Nebraska and Iowa.”

Of course, this book is odious to us, but anti-seedliners simply do not understand the truly racial message of our Scriptures, and therefore they help to enable our enemies in the execution of this war upon our race. In this sense, it does not matter how much Ted Weiland writes about God's Covenant People, he is helping the devil to destroy them by refusing to provide them with a proper education in regard to the works of the devil. Clifton concludes and says:

Does this agenda sound like a mere “flesh” problem as the anti-seedliners claim? How foolish an assumption! By denying Two Seedline doctrine, as the one seedliners (anti-seedliners) do, they actually help promote that agenda of the seed (children) of the serpent. Although the enemy is crying now for “equality”, in the end, he will demand total annihilation of the Whites. Once he has brought about admixture to the Whites, in essence, he has, in effect, annihilated them. Therefore, there is only one solution to the problem, and that is the total separation of the Whites from the other races. And unless that is brought about in the near future, we do not have a destiny. Possibly, with an understanding of Two Seedline doctrine, we might forestall, completely halt and reverse that forthcoming disaster to our race. If we ever come out of this dilemma, it will be no thanks to those who are fighting the Two Seedline message!

I would only add, that total separation from the non-White races is only possible when all of the goat nations are gathered and burned in the Lake of Fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels. That is their fate, and we all need to understand the implications before we can ever properly Arise and Thresh, before we can ever prevail.