Topical Discussions, September, 2024

Topical Discussions, September, 2024

Rejecting the Global Flood Fallacy, and the Folly of Jason von Laban

Over the years, and especially this past year, I have encountered many supposed Identity Christians who believe that the flood of Noah had covered the entire globe. Upon confronting them, they dig themselves in, adhering to their own understanding of the phrase “the whole earth” and the description found in Genesis chapters 7 and 8, that the tops of the mountains were covered. So now we hope to offer a synopsis of our proofs as to why the flood of Noah could not have been global, and as we have already explained at length in Part 11 of our recent Genesis commentary, The End of Sinners, neither of these phrases necessitates a belief that the entire globe of the earth, as we may perceive it, had been covered by water, by water five-and-a-half miles deep, the minimum amount required for those statements to be true if one insists on interpreting them from that global perspective.

But first, we must state that from our experience, none of these people even seem to understand the ramifications of believing that the entire globe of the earth was flooded, and that even goes for many of them who correctly think that the flood was only a local phenomenon, yet they give place to people who profess a global flood. The global flood theory, which is a lie, is something that the enemies of Christ have leveraged against the White European world, a problem which Identity Christians, above all others, should be able to figure out. Once the concept of a global flood is accepted, any sound reason for distinguishing the various races of hominids on this planet is marginalized and opened to ridicule because after all, a global flood interpretation also necessitates an admission that all of races of men must have descended from Noah and his three sons. That is how the devil uses the global flood claim against White Christians, and those who fall for it are suckers opening the door to their own demise.

Furthermore, if one thinks that Yahweh God had Noah and his family commune with Asians, Africans, Amerindians or any other races, especially the Nephilim, while they were all locked up together for over a year on a relatively small ark, then they should be mocked and ridiculed. This position forces the Word of God into contradictions which it does not have when one understands that the flood of Noah was only a local flood. For example, Yahweh had used the flood to punish and destroy the Adamic race for its having mixed with the Nephilim, a Hebrew term errantly translated as giants in the King James and other versions of Scripture. As we had explained in Part 8 of our Genesis commentary, The Giants and the Sons of God, in his Hebrew lexicon Wilhelm Gesenius had explained that before him, scholars had interpreted the meaning of the Hebrew term nephilim as fallers, rebels or apostates. That is true of the fallen angels, as they were described in chapter 12 of the Revelation, where we find that is also the origin of the Serpent of Genesis, “that old serpent”.

That leads me to another digression, which exemplifies just how many Identity Christians, imbued with the doctrines of the denominational churches from which they had come, also refuse to accept that in the Revelation, Yahshua Christ had identified the Genesis serpent. Yet twice in the Revelation the leader of the fallen angels who had fought with Michael and who was expelled from heaven, is described as “that old serpent”, referring to a particular serpent of ancient times, and the only possible Scriptural reference could be to the serpent of Genesis. On each occurrence, in Revelation chapters 12 and 20, the same serpent is also identified as the Devil and Satan. While this is not revealed in Genesis, it is evident in the context of Genesis chapter 3, and it is revealed in Matthew chapter 13, in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares and its accompanying explanation. In that same place in Matthew, we read that Christ had come to reveal “things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” So He certainly was explaining Genesis, and thereby it should be realized that the only proper way to understand the identity of the serpent is through the words of Christ. Therefore it is also just to insist that the Nephilim were the fallen ones, the fallen angels of the Revelation who were also mentioned in the epistles of Jude, Peter and Paul.

So considering the flood, we must ask ourselves this question: Since Yahweh God destroyed the race of Adam, having spared only Noah and his family, on account of their having mixed with the Nephilim, would Yahweh God have had the Nephilim on the ark with Noah and his family? It is clear that the children of Adam were procreating with the Nephilim, the sin for which they all died, and Noah and his family were preserved because Noah was “perfect in his generations”, which is to say, perfect in his genealogy, or descent, which is the meaning of the Hebrew word toledah (Strong’s # 8435). Therefore, if one imagines that Yahweh had Noah and his family mixed with Nephilim on the ark, then one must also imagine that God is a hypocrite.

Many Nephilim, not just a few, had survived the Flood of Noah. In the Bible, only five chapters after the end of the flood of Noah, in Genesis chapter 14 there is a reference to a people called Zuzims, who evidently did not descend from Noah, and the name is said to mean roving creatures. They are mentioned along with another people called Emims, whose name is said to mean terrors. They are described as having dwelt in Ham and in Shaveh Kiriathaim, or the “plain of two cities” which was evidently in the area east of the River Jordan and north of the Dead Sea. Then in Genesis chapter 15, ten tribes are described as having occupied the land of Canaan in the time of Abraham, and five of them were not of the Canaanites themselves, and they had no connection to Noah. They are the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Perizzites, and the Rephaim. Of them, the Perizzites were mentioned even earlier than any of these, and distinguished from the Canaanites, in Genesis chapter 13 (13:7). None of these were of the sons of Noah, and in fact, the Rephaim were of the Nephilim and the Kenites were the descendants of Cain. They are found in later Scriptures, for example oin Numbers 13:33, and the children of Israel were told to destroy them all, but they failed. All of these could have only survived the flood of Noah by having been outside of the area which was affected by the flood.

The only way to reconcile these things with Scripture, is to understand that the flood was localized in and around Mesopotamia. But I have found that many of the Identity Christians who think that the flood was global, and perceive the old British Israel tales concerning the Tarim Basin as the only alternative. We too reject the Tarim Basin theory, but even Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet accepted the Tarim Basin theory. This theory has actually discredited opposition to a belief in a global flood. But we do not accept it either, and we reject the global flood lie. As we had also explained in Part 11 of our Genesis commentary, there is a far better alternative.

In Genesis chapter 2, Moses had described the area where the Garden of Eden was situated as having been located in Mesopotamia and the neighboring regions of Persia, Syria and Arabia, where he had described the rivers which had encompassed it, all of which emptied into the same narrow area of the ancient Persian Gulf. Two of these rivers are clearly identified throughout Scripture as the Euphrates and the Tigris, and the other two may be found in the Karun River, which flows into the Persian Gulf from the east, and the now-dehydrated Kuwait River, which once flowed through Arabia from the west. After the flood, the sons of Noah are found once again in Mesopotamia, in the account of the tower at Babel. The Tarim Basin, which is in modern northwestern China, is about 2,000 miles east of the location of ancient Babel, and between the two are mountain ranges and deserts that would absolutely preclude the possibility of travel between them in the days of Noah, especially with women, children, and any number of domesticated animals.

However in that same Part 11 of our Genesis commentary, we had presented evidence from an academic paper titled Hydrogeology of the Mesopotamian Plain: A Critical Review, which stated the following in its abstract: “The Mesopotamian Plain hydrogeologically is a semi-closed basin where most of the groundwater accumulates in the central and southern parts of the plain. However, [a] small part of the groundwater flows out of the basin to the Gulf. This special character has significant effects on the depth and type of the groundwater in the plain.” [4] Being a semi-enclosed basin today, it is plausible that the flood did occur in Mesopotamia, and even if there may be other possibilities, we may see that a local flood could very well have occurred in Mesopotamia without our having to isolate and relocate three chapters of the Genesis account to a far-distant and impossible to reach place such as the Tarim Basin. Such a basin contains water, and when it is flooded, the water only slowly oozes out of the basin. This we had discussed at length in our commentary, from our own experiences living near the bottom of a river basin, where we still live. Here recently we had experienced a four-foot flood on our own property which took 10 days to subside, so we can understand that a flood many meters deep over a much wider area in a much larger basin may take just as many months.

There we also explained that in Genesis chapter 7, where we read in verses 19 and 20 that “all the high hills … were covered…. and the mountains were covered”, the Hebrew words for hill and mountain in that passage are both the same word, הר or har (# 2022), which was used of a hill or mountain, or a hill country, a place of hills, or even a highland. So for that we said:

The flood did not necessarily cover every mountain on the planet, which is a ridiculous assumption, but rather, every hill in the land where the flood had occurred. If Mount Everest were to be covered by a flood, the surface of the entire planet would have to be inundated with water over five-and-a-half miles deep, which is ridiculous to imagine even after 40 days of rain. While Mesopotamia is bordered by high mountainous lands east of the Tigris and north of the Euphrates rivers, most of Mesopotamia and adjacent portions of Arabia are on a vast plane with hills not exceeding 1,600 feet in elevation, and a very large section of Mesopotamia with an adjacent portion of Arabia has elevations of only about 200 feet above sea level. Where it says in verse 20 that “fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail”, evidently it took only about 22 ½ feet to inundate the land where the flood had occurred.

In Genesis chapter 8 we read that after the flood, the ark had come to rest “upon the mountains of Ararat.” The mountain called Ararat is also over 2,000 miles from the Tarim Basin. But notice that it says mountains, and not mountain, in the singular. The word is also plural in the corresponding Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of Genesis. In Part 12 of our Genesis commentary, titled Solid Ground, we explained that the plausible origin of the Hebrew form of the word ararat is from the Hebrew words אר or ar, which is a mountain or hill, and ארץ or erets, which is land or earth. Another important aspect of the flood story is understanding that the word erets is translated as either land or earth, but even when it is translated as earth it is only a synonym for land, and not a reference to the entire planet or globe. The same word erets which was translated as earth in Genesis chapters 6 through 8 was translated in that manner just over 700 times, but it was translated as land over 1,500 times in the King James Version of the Bible, according to Strong’s Concordance and other sources. So earth is merely land, and ararat actually only describes a mountainous land.

So in that same commentary, further reflecting on the locality of the flood, we said the following:

As for the location, there are over 200 miles of very rugged hills and mountains between the famous Mount Ararat and the northern plains of Mesopotamia, and the mountain is nearly 450 miles north of modern Baghdad, or nearly 500 miles north of the site associated with ancient Babylon. But the foothills on the southern edge of the hill country where Ararat is located are only half the distance to the site of ancient Babylon, and some are a little closer than 250 miles. From that distance, Ararat itself cannot be seen, as it is behind the horizon. If the ark of Noah settled there, it would not be such a challenge for Noah and his family, and both they and the animals would not have to achieve an impossible descent in order to survive after the flood. So the Armenian foothills skirting the northern edge of the Mesopotamian plain, which are now along the border between modern Turkey and Iraq, are a far better candidate for the settling place of the ark, only two hundred or so miles from where the descendants of Noah are found a few generations later, in Genesis chapters 10 and 11.

Not only Ararat, but all of the highest of the Zagros and other surrounding mountains in neighboring regions, are behind the horizon and therefore not visible from the Mesopotamian plain. Only the much smaller mountains and hills which immediately surround Mesopotamia may be visible from the plain, since they are much closer. So it may indeed have been said that “all the high hills … were covered…. and the mountains were covered”, from the perspective of Noah and his family, since that would have been their perception, and it would have been true. Therefore a local flood is entirely plausible from the perspectives of both geography and geology, and especially from Scripture.

In our Genesis commentary, we had also explained the logistics issues which Noah would had to have surmounted in order to accomplish his task. The actual dimensions of the ark, how many cattle it could be expected to hold, how much space is required per animal, how much food must have been stored, etc. There were seven pairs of every clean beast, not only one pair, something which many turkeys often overlook. There were two pairs, and not merely two, of every unclean animal.

Considering a global flood, do people even know how many species of elephant there are on all seven continents, and hippopotamuses, rhinoceroses and other significantly huge creatures? Do people realize how much space seven pairs of buffalo require? No, they do not. They only insist that the flood must have been global because they read the phrase “whole earth” in a Bible which was written at a time when the word earth was not yet used to refer to the entire planet.

Today, not counting subspecies, biologists recognize three distinct species of elephant, five distinct species of rhinoceros, two distinct species of hippopotamuses, eight distinct species of bears, two species of camels, and with that alone, if it were the case, Noah would have had to store and feed 40 very large animals, and that is only a portion of the large animals he would have to have preserved in a global flood. Then there are giraffes, giant seals, various species of lion and tigers, and then there is the Southern Elephant Seal, which is typically two tons in weight, but can weigh as many as four tons. There are species of hogs which weigh up to 600 pounds each, while some weigh far more than that. Aside from all these, there are countless smaller unclean animals, many of which are nevertheless as large or larger than the size of a man. There are twenty-two distinct species of apes, including gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons. While some of them are small, most of them are much larger than men.

According to the standards followed by zoos and other entities which house elephants today, a single elephant requires 1200 square feet of indoor living space. An African Bush Elephant, the largest subspecies of elephants in Africa, weighs up to 13,000 pounds. An Indian elephant, the largest subspecies of Asian elephant, is not quite as large, but grows up to nearly 12,000 pounds. One elephant typically eats up to 330 pounds of vegetation per day, which over the course of the year which Noah had spent on the ark, amounts to over 120,000 pounds. According to an extension resource for horse breeders, “Baled hay requires approximately 250 cubic feet of storage space per ton of hay. An 1,100-pound horse eating 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent of its body weight per day in hay would eat 16.5 to 22.0 pounds per day, or in one year about 3 to 4 tons (100-120 bales of hay).” So while a year of food for a horse would require 1000 cubic feet of storage space, the 60 tons of food which an elephant would eat require about 15,000 cubic feet of space. A 1,500-pound cow or steer eats more than a horse, about 45 pounds per day, and therefore its food storage would require twice as much space. Among other large clean animals, there are moose and elk and various other large species of deer, many of which can weigh up to 2,000 pounds.

But as for the clean animals, we do not know, we cannot know, how many kinds there were in the original creation, because men have been cross-breeding the different varieties of them from prehistoric times. There are as many as a thousand distinct breeds of cattle, and then there are bison, which are certainly a kind of their own. There are also hundreds of distinct breeds of sheep and goats, but we cannot know how many kinds there were from Noah’s perspective, for that same reason. In any event, Noah was told to take seven pairs of each. Since most animals are unclean, then even with this ratio of seven pairs to two, the number of unclean animals must have been greater than the clean ones. The typical male Irish Elk weighed up to 1,500 pounds, and had an antler span of as many as 12 feet wide. There are at least ten species of deer, a family which includes moose and elk, which can weigh from 500 to 2,000 pounds, and in a global flood scenario Noah would have to have taken in 14 of each of them, along with food for a year for each of them.

As it is described in Scripture, the ark had three levels, and each level had a total of 33,750 square feet of space, if the cubit may be calculated at 18 inches. If animals occupied two and a half levels of the ark, that is approximately 84,375 square feet of space. A modern American football field is only 57,600 square feet. If what we call the royal cubit was intended, which is approximately 21 ½ inches, then the total space on the ark would have been just over 100,000 square feet. Each level of the ark was evidently 10 cubits, or 15 feet in height. So if hay were stacked to its maximum of 15 feet high, the food for one elephant would require 1% of the total space of the ark. That is assuming that Noah had the same hay storage technology which is available today, something which is not evident and scarcely could be true. In any event, if the flood were global, the 40 largest unclean animals with their required food would take up half the space on the ark, and there is no way to account for the naturally carnivorous animals such as the polar bear or the Southern Elephant Seal. In a global flood, there would also be a tremendous amount of weight in the ark. A single elephant with its food would weigh over 484 tons, or 130,000 pounds. But the carnivorous animals, such as polar bears which require about 4 pounds of meat per day, or a lion which requires 5 to 7 pounds per day, are another issue entirely.

For that, we said the following in Part 11 of our Genesis commentary, The End of Sinners:

For a modern dairy barn, Pennsylvania State University suggests 36’ square feet of space be allotted to a stall for a 1,500 pound dairy cow. That would be 504 square feet needed for seven pairs of such animals. Leaving half of the space for other necessary uses, including food storage, the ark may have accommodated nearly 1,200 36-foot square stalls, or nearly 84 504-square-foot stalls. The calculations are conjectural, but they are based on the description of the ark and worthy of consideration in any attempt to picture how many animals the ark may have held, so here we only attempt to view the flood from a realistic perspective. While many animals are much smaller than cows, this space would certainly not be sufficient for every species on the planet, many of which are much larger than cows, but it certainly would have accommodated the animals in the region that the children of Adam had inhabited at that time.

Considering all of the implications in this data, the logistics of a global flood are impossible when the storage of food and the size of Noah’s Ark are considered along with the living space required by so many very large animals. But the size of the ark is quite reasonable, if Noah only had to accommodate the animals native to Mesopotamia and the surrounding Near East. Understanding that, we no longer have to wonder how a South American Sea Lion, a penguin, or some other quite clumsy animal could have travelled thousands of miles across and sea just to get on Noah’s ark.

So the global flood is impossible, with the parameters and necessities outlined in the Biblical flood account. This is not even considering the thousands of species of smaller animals, both clean and unclean, which are too numerable to mention here. There are 6,495 species of mammals currently recognized by biologists, although 96 of them are now believed to be extinct, although not all of them are terrestrial. There are 11,000 recognized species of birds. In light of the logistics challenges, the concept of a global flood, and all of these dwelling in a 100,000 square foot ark for a year, is quite ludicrous. Then there is the scriptural evidence, as many races which had not descended from Adam were in the earth after the flood, but the Scripture repeatedly attests that only eight souls, referring to Noah and his family, had been on the ark.

Why the ark, if the flood were local? Why did Jonah go to Nineveh in the belly of a whale, when Yahweh could have taken him in a chariot of fire, or lifted him up and whisked him through the air. Or even better, why did Christ have to die on the cross to forgive sins, if he could have just said so. Therefore the question is dishonest. The ark is a testimony to men and to the truth of God, both in the time of Noah, and also on our time today.

So Paul had written in Hebrews chapter 7 that “7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” Then the apostle Peter had written that Christ having been crucified had preached even to the spirits of those Adamic men and women who died in the flood of Noah, “20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” Noah was an example in the same fashion as Jonah and others had been examples.

My steadfast position on this issue has been called divisive, and because I will not waver from it, I have even been called a drunkard, a fool, and even, of all things, a Jew! My confidence is often mistaken for arrogance. But clowns like Stephen Hubbard, Matthew Jacob or the uber-feminist Laurel Jackson Vance simply haven’t thought all of these things through, and their own writings betray their complete ignorance. When people who do not even consider all of these things, and certainly cannot explain them, nevertheless claim to be teachers, then they need to be mocked and ridiculed, and not coddled. So on such important issues as the flood of Noah, I am ready to divide, because we should actually believe the Word of God. Most of the men claiming to be teachers found among Identity Christians in social media venues are really only hobbyists pretending to be teachers, or even worse, mere children in adult bodies. The global flood is a childish view of Scripture and they must twist the Scripture in order to uphold it. If you want to believe that the flood was global, then you may as well go sleep with niggers.

__________________________________________________

Now we shall discuss another such individual, whom in certain social media circles goes by the assumed name of Jason von Laban. Normally, such an individual is not even worth my mention, but in this case, he needs to be made an example. For well over a decade we were familiar with this individual, who claimed to be a Two-Seedline Identity Christian and who seemed friendly to our Faith. While he used to be in our social media circles, he mostly dropped out, and especially since he met and married a woman named Rebecca. Now all of a sudden Jason is writing lengthy social media posts which he himself has titled “Denying Two-Seedline”, and is even attempting to mock us for our Faith. As of this writing, he has written parts I, II, III and V, and I am reciting the symbols of the Roman Numerals which he himself had used, because he skipped part IV, which is part 4, so evidently he cannot even count in Roman numerals.

Lately, Jason has been posting a lot of Ted Weiland materials on his social media account. While we have refuted Weiland’s many lies on more than one occasion here, as we refute Jason’s stupidity, we must consider that he has gotten at least many of his idiotic points from Weiland. So here we will read from all four of Laban’s posts denying Two-Seedline, which are actually numbered 1 through 5, which will also be included here in screenshots linked in the text, so the words can be verified.

In Part I of his series of posts, which he titled in the manner of an essay, Jason von Laban wrote the following:

Here's why the Serpent Seedline doctrine is a fable.

First of all, even if we assume this doctrine is true, Genesis never actually describes Eve having any relations with a serpent, satan or a devil. Rather, Genesis describes the serpent deceiving Eve into taking/eating something from what? The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil!

Therefore, there never was such a thing as a Serpent Seedline. If you wish to refer to this belief as The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil Seedline this would be a much more accurate (but also just as silly and inconsistent with scripture) name for it

John 8:44 is often cited as premier evidence for dual seedline adherents. However, Christ does not refer to the father of these jews as The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. No, he referenced their father as being the devil. Christ also reveals to us "the old serpent" IS "the devil and satan" (Revelation 12:9).

Christ told the jews in his presence they were of their father the devil, not their father was The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil.

In reading Genesis, you will note the name of this tree is The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. The answer to what happened with Adam and Eve is in the description of this tree, not the serpent who had merely convinced Eve to eat from this tree. The question then must become; If sin is transgression of God's law (1 John 3:4, Romans 7:7), then what would give Adam and Eve the ability to discern right from wrong (their "eyes were opened and they knew they were naked")? If you just guessed The Tree of The knowledge of Good and Evil could give them knowledge of good and evil, give yourself a pat on the back. Therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented God's laws.

It's the only thing it could be and if you take enough time to search the scriptures and contemplate this you, too, will arrive at the same conclusion I have; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was some form of God's law.

Of course, we would assert that Genesis chapter 3 does indeed describe a sexual liaison between Eve and a man described as a tree, which allegorical language found in the Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon, and especially in the Song of Songs written by Solomon, as well as in inscriptions contemporary to the time of Moses, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, all serve to demonstrate. These things we cannot repeat here, but we discussed them at length just recently, in a presentation titled Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three, Revisited.

Here we shall only read one of our many witnesses, found in Song chapter 6 where the husband is portrayed as having said to his bride: “6 How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights! 7 This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples…” So the fruit is used to describe her body parts, and the tree itself is her stature. The Song actually borders on being pornographic, once it is properly understood, and so does a portion of Genesis chapter 3.

But Jason’s conclusion from his assertion, that “Therefore, there never was such a thing as a Serpent Seedline”, is a ridiculous denial of the words of Christ. In the Gospel accounts, on several occasions Yahshua Christ described a race of men whom He called serpents, and He had also addressed them as a γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν on four occasions. The word γεννήματα is a plural form of γέννημα, which Liddell & Scott define primarily as “that which is produced or born, a child”, and ἐχιδνῶν is a plural Genitive form of the word ἔχιδνα, which is an adder or viper, according to Liddell & Scott. So it is recorded on four occasions, that both Christ and John the Baptist had told His opponents that they were the offspring of vipers, so their parents were also vipers. These are found in Matthew chapters 3, 12 and 23 (3:7, 12:34 and 23:33) and in Luke chapter 3 (3:7). If both parents and child are vipers, then it is safe to conclude that they are of a race of vipers, or serpents, and therefore of a serpent seedline. We will discuss this further when we get to Part V of Jason’s stupidity.

Finally here, he concludes that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil must be the law, because that is the tree from which Eve had eaten. He even said that “it's the only thing it could be”. However Paul of Tarsus had attested that the law was not in the world until the time of Moses, where he wrote in Romans chapter 5: “13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” So death reigned from Adam to Moses, even while the law was not yet given, and therefore the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could not have been the law, because the law was not in the world until Moses!

Jason von Laban cites Romans chapter 5 later in his series of posts, in an attempt to prove an even more ridiculous assertion. So he must have read Paul’s words, that the law was not in the world until Moses. This is attested in other Scriptures, for example, in the 147th Psalm where it is attested that Yahweh had given the law only to Israel, and not to any other nation. The only law which Adam was given, was not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and therefore the Tree itself could not have been that law. According to the Septuagint chronology, there were 3,864 years from Adam until Moses received the law at Sinai, and for all of those years, the law was not in the world. Jason, having read Romans chapter 5, is either completely dishonest, or simply too stupid to see that Paul himself has refuted his asinine assertion.

Moving on to Part II of his series of posts:

Why the Serpent Seed doctrine is a fable part II (and why you cannot reconcile it with these scriptures).

In part one I established Eve never ate anything from the serpent. Rather, the Bible says Eve ate from The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. A very important distinction.

For part II, I will establish who Christ is referring to in John 8:44 since dual seedliners consistently will cite this scripture to both identify the "children of the devil" and to identify their "father the devil."

Firstly, in John 8:44 Christ calls the jew's father a "murderer from the beginning." The dual Seedline doctrine espouses this is a reference to Cain. But is this fable or is this fact?

Was Cain the first murder?

Here's who the Bible says the first murderer was;

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned..." (Romans 5:12). Keep reading Romans chapter 5 for even more context as to who the first murderer was (and is now).

So, who was the first murderer? Adam was the first to sin and THROUGH ADAM DEATH SPREAD TO ALL MEN (Romans 5:12).

So, was Cain the first to sin or was it Adam as scripture states? Scripture says it was Adam, period.

We know from John 8:44 Christ references the FIRST murderer. So, if "through one man sin ENTERED THE WORLD and the penalty for the sin was DEATH which SPREAD TO ALL MEN, and Adam was the first to sin, then only Adam can be the FIRST sinner and by default the first murderer.

Adam is the first murderer according to the Genesis account, Paul and Christ Himself, not Cain. And now you should start to understand who and what the serpent in the garden was.

I will likely make a part III demonstrating more witnesses and why the dual Seedline doctrine, at least as it pertains to some mystical fallen angel, is absolutely inconsistent with scripture and is in fact a fable.

I know 99 percent of you will not be able to accept anything other than what you already believe, so I will not be spending too much time arguing with any of you. The facts are in the scriptures, not me. The scriptures all match and compliment each other this way, but not in the dual Seedline manner and that is what matters to me.

Here Jason von Laban has deduced that Adam is the first murderer, and not Cain, out of his own reasoning, and not from Scripture. This is a perfect example of why men should not interpret Scripture like emotional bitches, because Jason’s interpretation is based on his own emotions.

Yes, Paul of Tarsus had said that death passed to all men through Adam. That alone may also have been deduced from Genesis chapter 3 where Yahweh had told Adam that “dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return”, on account of his sin. But the death of Adam’s as-yet-unborn descendants on account of his sin does not make Adam a murderer, and the Scripture never informs us that Adam was a murderer. It was only an unintended consequence, on his part, which Adam himself could not have understood nor foreseen at the time of his sin. To call Adam a murderer is to hold him to an artificial standard, which Yahweh God did not impose on him.

Furthermore, and more importantly, Yahweh Himself has taken responsibility for Adam’s transgression, which is one reason why Yahshua Christ is called “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. This is apparent where the same Paul of Tarsus, in chapter 8 of the same epistle to the Romans, had also written: “20 For the creature [the Adamic creation] was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” He who had subjected the same in hope is indeed Yahweh God, as Solomon had also explained, in Ecclesiastes chapter 1: “13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.” So Solomon agrees with Paul, or Paul with Solomon, that God had subjected the sons of men to vanity. Therefore we can only conclude that Yahweh purposely placed Adam in the way of sin, and knew that Adam would sin, so the result would be the exercise of which Solomon had spoken, with the hope of which Paul had spoken. Would Jason claim that God is a murderer for having subjected man to vanity? If not, then he cannot consider Adam to have been a murderer.

The same Paul of Tarsus had attested that Christ is of like nature with Adam where he wrote in 1 Corinthians chapter 15: “45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” That leads us to another and more significant reason why Adam could not have been the first murderer, and why Jason von Laban is a complete fool.

In Luke chapter 3, recounting the genealogy of Christ to David, and continuing through the patriarchs all the way back Adam, it is apparent that Christ Himself had Adam for a father, even if Yahweh God is the ultimate Father. In the Gospel accounts, Christ professed having been the Son of God, the Son of David, and of having had Abraham for a father, but they had all in turn descended from Adam, which also makes Adam His father. Throughout the Old Testament, on twenty-three occasions we see the phrase “children of men” in the King James Version, and on twenty-one of them, twenty in reference to Israel, the word for men is adam, referring to the children of Adam. Fourteen of these are in the Psalms, which is two-thirds of the total, so David was proud to call himself a son of Adam. The similar phrase “sons of men” appears twenty-one times, and nineteen of them are literally “sons of Adam”. Fourteen of those are in Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and five in the books of the prophets. Furthermore, in all of these verses, the word for men in Hebrew is not plural, but rather, it is האדם or ha adam, the singular word adam with a definite article, meaning the adam, which is Adam, our first father. The word for children is sometimes בני or beniy, which is the plural form of a word meaning son.

But in contrast, Yahshua Christ, a son of Adam, had told His opponents in John chapter 8 – in the very passage Jason cites here – that their father was not His father. So where He told them “ 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him…” how could He have been referring to Adam, who was also His father? Even if other references to His Father in the passage are references to Yahweh God, His ultimate Father, Adam was nevertheless one of His earthly fathers, and from a fleshly point of view Adam was the first of them all, while from a Scriptural view we now know that Christ Himself is first of them all, even if He was not first in this world. So if Adam is the father of Christ, as Luke also attests through his genealogy, then Adam could not have been the father of the opponents of Christ in John 8:44.

Cain is identified as the first murderer in Genesis chapter 4: “9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand…” Cain is also identified as the first murderer in 1 John 3:12: “12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.” Cain was a devil because his father was a devil, just as the opponents of Christ were identified by Him as the children of serpents, and as having had a different father than He had.

In Luke chapter 11 and in Matthew chapter 23, the opponents of Christ are held responsible for the blood of Abel, as we read in Luke: “50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.” The word generation in that passage, γενεά, is primarily defined by Liddell & Scott as “the persons in a family… race, stock, family…” and if His adversaries were of His family, then He would have been condemning Himself along with them. If His adversaries were of Adam, or of Israel, then He could have no mercy for his people. But rather, His adversaries were a race of serpents, as He had frequently identified them.

Moving on to Part III of Jason Laban’s idiotic series of posts:

Why the Dual Seedline doctrine is a fable part III.

Here I will list just a few of the scriptures the Dual Seedline doctrine must completely reject or twist to fit it's narrative.

Number 1a) Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..."

Dual Seedline adherents must completely throw out these words as a corruption in the text. They have no other explanation.

1b) "...and [Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the YHWH."

Here, again, in the latter part of Genesis 4:1, Dual Seedline adherents must either throw these words out completely or they will claim Eve didn't know what she was talking about. Imagine that latter argument, the first woman, who literally walked with YHWH and knew Him personally, was mistaken in who she attributes the birth of her child to.

Number 2a) Romans 5:12 Adam was the first to sin, not Eve or Cain.

Number 2b) Romans 5:12 Adam was the first to murder, not Cain.

Number 2c In accordance with harmonizing Romans 5:12 and John 8:44, Adam is father of lies ('serpent/ beguiler") and murderer, not Cain.

Number 3) 1 Timothy 2:14 Eve did not sin, but was deceived into her transgression (by Adam).

Number 4) Dual seedline adherents believe there was literally a talking snake or supernatural serpent in the garden who spoke to Eve (even though only Adam and Eve were present) while scripture clearly demonstrates all through the bible regular men *and women* are referred to as devils and even Christ called Peter a satan.

Number 5) Why was Cain's offering rejected? Was it because he was the seed of a snake? Or was it because Cain had little or no faith?

Hebrews 11:4 "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

Clifton had written his paper The Problem With Genesis 4:1 and prepared it for publication in April of 2007. In that paper, Clifton addressed Genesis 4:1 at length, and cited an explanation from academic sources which describe how the verse contains a gloss, and is therefore unreliable because it cannot be accurately translated. This is especially true in the second half of the verse, and the various ways in which it had been translated in ancient sources, such as the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and other ancient Greek translations all serve to prove the veracity of the assertions in Clifton’s source material. I presented Clifton’s essay at Christogenea in May of 2012.

Many times since, I have sought to refine our arguments and our position concerning this verse, notably in an April, 2020 presentation titled Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 9, Decoding Genesis 4:1, and among a few other presentations, in Part 5 of our Genesis commentary, which was titled Truth and Consequences. So what I cannot understand, is how Jason has taken the attitude here that we have never confronted the passage at Genesis 4:1? Like, should it be a surprise to us which refutes everything we believe? Rather, it is more apparent that Jason never understood what we profess in the first place. So in his 14 years as an Identity Christian, he was not studying, but merely going along and pretending. He is still doing that today, but now he is doing it with Ted Weiland instead.

The truth, as we have illustrated at length in our Genesis commentary, in Parts 2 and 3 which are titled Sustainable Plausibility and The Mourning After, is that on three occasions in Genesis chapter 3, Eve’s conception as a result of her sin is fully acknowledged by both Yahweh God Himself, and by her husband Adam. This is found where Yahweh informed the serpent that there will be “enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed”, so it is acknowledged that the woman had seed as a result of her sin. It is found again where Yahweh informed Eve that “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children”, and a third time where Adam had made a declaration of his own, and “called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” So with that, Adam certainly understood that his wife was going to bear a child as a result of her sin. With Eve’s conception being an established fact in Genesis chapter 3, the text of Genesis 4:1 cannot be interpreted to mean that Adam is the father of Cain, her firstborn. But as we have asserted, the text of Genesis chapter 4:1 itself is unreliable, and it has no second witness.

As for Romans 5:12, we have already demonstrated that Adam was not the “murderer form the beginning” of whom Christ had spoken, because Christ had said that in reference to a man who was not His father, and Adam was indeed His father. Only Cain was the “murderer form the beginning”, which is explicit in the records of Genesis chapter 4, and in the epistles of the apostles of Christ.

Finally here, Jason von Dumbass asked why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, concluded that it was “because Cain had little or no faith”, and cited Hebrews 11:4 to support that conclusion. But Paul’s words in Hebrews 11:4 do not make any comment on why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, or even why Abel’s was accepted. He only stated that Abel’s sacrifice was more righteous because it was accepted, without any further reason being necessary, because God Himself cannot be questioned.

The truth is that it cannot be said, that Cain lacked faith, which is belief. As we had explained in Part 5 of our Genesis commentary, titled Truth and Consequences, Cain, a tiller of the ground, had brought of the fruits of the ground to sacrifice unto God, while Abel, a shepherd, had brought a firstling of the flock. So all other things being equal, at least apparently, both men brought the fruits of their own hands to sacrifice, which was customary. But Cain was rejected, even though his act of sacrifice displayed his belief in the God to whom he had sacrificed. There are never any indications or accusations of a lack of faith, or of cheating the sacrifice, or of idolatry. Therefore there must be a greater reason for his having been rejected, and Yahweh God Himself elucidated that reason where He had told Cain, “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Cain could not do well, because he was a bastard, that was the circumstance of his conception, his door into this world, and immediately after he was told that, we read that he went and killed his brother. The only revelation which accounts for Cain’s sacrifice having been rejected, is that same statement “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.”

Jason von Laban obviously knows little of Scripture, and absolutely nothing of Scripture as it is taught from our Two-Seedline perspective, so the more he refutes it, the stupider he looks.

Now we shall move on to Part V of Jason von Laban’s refutations of Two-Seedline, and as we said, he also too stupid to count in Roman numerals, as he had skipped Part IV.

The Dual Seedline doctrine is a fable part V - The [Woman's] Seed & the Serpent's Seed Explained

Let me say before I get into this, I hope all of you reading these are well and, in the very least, have taken some of these scriptures (not necessarily my words) to heart in accordance with the knowledge of our God and savior, Christ. Now, let's get on with part five of this presentation, for which the aim comes in the spirit of harmonizing ALL of the word which God has given us.

Here I will interrupt Jason, because this part is longer than the others. While he should be credited with saying that the Scriptures should be taken to heart but “not my words”, he seems to be nevertheless implying that his interpretations should stand, where in reality they are easily refuted. Now he continues:

God did not establish a matriarchal hierarchy or a physical matriarchal lineage for mankind to descend from:

He is arguing this, because he does not understand our position, so in reality, he is making a strawman argument here. Matriarchy has never been our position. So continuing:

Firstly, the supernatural nature (spiritualizing) Dual Seedline doctrine (and all of Judeo-Christianity) ascribes to Genesis 3:15 is easily dismissed by the very nature of God's natural order: patriarchy.

This is funny, because I have never known any advocate of Two-Seedline who denied the prevailing Christian concept of a patriarchy, or that God had established His creation along those lines. Now he says:

In imagining Eve to be the literal, physical progenitor seed of mankind, they appose God and make God a feminist and a liar. God's establishment of a patriarchal order and descent from Adam is His design, not matriarchy.

First, the English word progenitor has no gender of its own, and it is commonly used in literature to refer to women as well as men. A progenitor is a person from which one has descended or originated, and that by necessity includes women as well as men. But recognizing that does not make a matriarchy, since even in Scripture, Adam was the origin of Eve. So here Jason is making yet another strawman argument, because we do not consider Eve the origin of our race, but Adam.

Therefore, in our actual point of view, while Eve and every woman has seed, in the ovaries of her womb, and contributes half of the core genetic material to every child born, Eve’s seed is also Adam’s seed, since Eve came from Adam. Yahweh said to the serpent “her seed”, as we shall see, so He had recognized this fact first, and He is the Author of Creation. Continuing, Jason will get even stupider:

As an aside, here is a great mystery; which is the mystery of Adam, Eve, Adam's sin, Eve being deceived into her transgression, and the future, perfected man, Christ, who is YHWH come in the flesh of a man:

Of course, of all the mentions of a mystery in Scripture we see a mystery Babylon, the mystery of Christ, a mystery of the Kingdom, a mystery of the nations, which is also the mystery of the woman of Revelation chapter 17, and the mystery of the identity of the children of Israel, but we never see a mystery of Adam or Eve or the sin in the garden, so Jason is just making up his own mysteries. Now he makes an unjust analogy:

Notice Genesis 3:20 states Eve is the "mother of all the living" (a double entendre born of necessity) while Romans 5:12 states Adam is the father (origin) of all the dead.

Here Jason takes Paul’s words and twists them out-of-context to fit his own agenda. Paul never said that Adam was the father of all the dead, but only that all of his descendants had to suffer death on account of his sin. Paul also says in that passage that “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”, which fully implies that they are no better than Adam, so they cannot claim that they did not deserve to die, and they cannot blame Adam for their death, because they themselves had all sinned. Of all men, only Christ Himself is without sin. Jason Laban is evidently also a self-righteous ass, and that is how he interprets Scripture, like a self-righteous ass.

Furthermore, Christ Himself said that Yahweh is not the God of the dead, but of the living, where he named Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all of whom were dead! The answer is that no child of God, through Adam is truly dead, but as we had seen from Paul and from Solomon, Yahweh God Himself had subjected them to transiency, which is vanity, to corruption as Paul had described it, and in that transiency there is the hope of life which is in Christ, so that was His plan from the beginning.

Jason never explained his “double entendre born of necessity”, and we won’t bother to address it. The declaration that Eve was the “mother of all living” is not to be taken literally, because Adam was living when he made it, and Eve was not his mother. But Cain’s name means acquired and Abel’s means breath, which is representative of the spirit, and the names themselves represent the circumstances of their births.

Jason continues to get even stupider, because stupidity is a slippery slope and one lie always leads to others:

The Dual Seedline doctrine, in an ironic twist, makes Adam the father of all the living and therefore a false idol.

That is not true. Nobody we have ever seen in Two-Seedline have placed Adam into the position of a god. But Genesis chapter 5 opens with the words “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”, and as we have illustrated, many times in Scripture the children of Israel had called themselves the children of Adam. All Israel, and the rest of the nations of the sons of Noah, descended from Adam, and therefore Adam is the father of all Adamic men and women. That is not idolatry, it is a plain fact of Scripture.

On one hand, Jason claims that Two-Seedline is matriarchal, and on the other, he claims we are idolaters for recognizing Adam as our father. He is divided against himself. It still gets worse:

Secondarily, and through consequence of the first error in the misidentification of Adam's seed as the anthropomorphic serpent's seed, the invention and personification of Adam as 'Adamkind' and the 'Adamic-race,' words which do not appear in scripture (but would undoubtedly be argued as implied concepts) are mistakenly made manifest.

Maybe Jason von Laban is drunk, even though it seems as if he had indirectly accused me of the same. Who in Two-Seedline had ever said that Adam’s seed is the “anthropomorphic serpent’s seed”? Once again, this is a strawman argument. We have never professed this or anything even close to this. We have also never said that the serpent is “anthropomorphic”. Rather, it is clear to us that serpent is just one of the many pejoratives used as an allegory to describe the fallen angels, and especially their original leader, who is “that old serpent” of the Revelation.

As we have also said, the phrases “children of Adam” and “sons of Adam” appear in Scripture at least forty times, and one’s sons or children are one’s race, as the word γενεά, a term which Christ Himself had often used, is defined as “the persons in a family… race, stock, family”. Being the sons and daughters of Adam, one is of the race of Adam, and that concept appears frequently in Scripture. So the Scriptural “children of Adam” certainly may be described as “Adamkind” or the “Adamic race”. What are the children of Adam, but members of a race which had descended from Adam?

What I have omitted, is the fact that the phrase “son of man” appears in the Scripture 108 times, and if I had the time to describe them all, it would make Jason von Laban look 108 times stupider. Jason von Laban is an unstudied dolt who is only pretending to be a teacher, and it will even get worse than this. He continues:

Nevertheless, contemplate the scriptures I've just cited and what they must imply in the spirit of harmonizing all scripture.

This appeal to harmonize all scripture is really silly, since Jason himself could not harmonize Romans 5:12, a passage which he cited here several times, with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which was mentioned only once, in a context which was over 3,800 years before the law came into the world, during which time the law was not in the world, as Paul professed in Romans 5:13. His confusion, or perhaps, his deception, continues:

Now to the heart, or should I say beginning of the matter.

Let's examine what should be an obvious inconsistency for the physical Dual Seedline doctrine: Adam's seed

Adam's seed (offspring) is mysteriously unaccounted for according to both Judeo-Christianity as well as the Dual Seedline doctrine (and Judaism/ Talmudism, which of the latter mentioned, I will eventually have much to say regarding all of this), but Adam's seed (offspring) is not unaccounted for by God!

The same Jason had just said that we are idolaters for speaking of Adamkind and the race of Adam, which are Adam’s seed! So here Jason seems to be delusional, and constantly in opposition to himself! Which is it Jason?

Earlier he had attributed the belief in an “anthropomorphic serpent” to Two-Seedline, where he spoke of our “misidentification of Adam's seed as the anthropomorphic serpent's seed”, which is false, but now he professes it himself:

The Garden of Eden is in truth a parable with an anthropomorphic serpent which can be more easily interpreted through the Revelation of Christ.

Jason mentions this, but never offers this interpretation. We should hold onto our popcorn. Now he offers yet another strawman argument:

There are only 2 seeds mentioned in the garden, not 3. The anthropomorphic serpent is meant to convey Adam's deception of his own wife into transgressing what YHWH forbid Adam to do (Eve wasn't even created yet, but did hear the law from her head/authority, Adam).

Jason means to explain that Eve was not yet created when Yahweh told Adam not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but that Adam conveyed that law to her later, which is true. It is also true that there were two seeds mentioned in Genesis 3:15. But we have never said there were three seeds, so that is another bogus strawman. Now Jason gets even stupider, but not yet does he reach his stupidest:

The great error in imagining Adam's seed is not present in these curses should be a red flag to anyone even slightly familiar with God's natural order and His laws.

Eve’s seed is Adam’s seed.

In reality, the answer is there were only ever 2 physical people in the garden and both of them and their offspring (seed) are accounted for; the woman and the man. Adam and Eve. Her seed and his seed.

No, the Word of Yahweh, who was speaking to the serpent, not to Adam is “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed”. But here, in an off-hand sort of way, Jason is claiming that the serpent is Adam! Where Jason said “the anthropomorphic serpent is meant to convey Adam's deception of his own wife”, he is saying that Adam was the serpent who deceived Eve! So evidently, in Genesis chapter 3, Yahweh had spoken first to Eve, who blamed the serpent, and then He spoke to the serpent, which was really Adam in a cosplay! Then he spoke again to Eve, and then he spoke to Adam, who was evidently once again identifying as himself, as if he had been identifying as a serpent in the first part of Genesis chapter 3. This is absolutely convoluted, and I do not know if Freud himself could conjure a more Freudian interpretation of Genesis.

It is all refuted in Genesis chapter 3, in verses 4 through 6, but for the sake of brevity we shall skip the lie of the serpent in verse 5: “4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die… 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 of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

If Adam had deceived Eve into this sin, then how did he only receive of this tree from Eve, after she partook of it? And especially if the tree was the law, as Jason von Laban claims. Then Jason von Laban is also saying that Eve did not recognize Adam in verse 4? Or even worse, that Yahweh God Himself, who transmitted this account to Moses, had called Adam a “serpent” in verses 1, 2 and 4, but then called Adam “Adam” in verses 8 through 24, which is sometimes translated as “the man”. We have a choice, believe Scripture, or believe Jason von Laban’s perverted fantasies, because Yahweh would reject such cosplay, as His law does in many ways on various occasions.

Now what follows is the pinnacle of Jason’s stupidity, but I am certain he will surpass even this in the near future:

Lastly, I will just mention, there is a small deception in the translations (all of them I bothered to check, and correct me if I'm wrong here).

There is no "woman" in the seed curses themselves according to the grammar. The scripture simply states "between seed (zera) and seed (zera)." The woman's seed is still being addressed here but, I feel if this was properly translated, fewer people would be so easily deceived.

Thus the scripture translated literally reads; "between I will put emntity/hatred, between woman/wife, seed between seed."

I actually did correct Jason von Laban in this aspect, because he is wrong, through my wife Melissa, because he had her as a “friend” but not me, which is sort of funny to me and proves he is a girl at heart. This evening, I found that he blocked her, so he certainly does act like a girl.

In the Hebrew language, pronouns are letters which are affixed to the beginnings or endings of words, as prefixes or suffixes, depending on the context and the part of speech of the words. But these pronouns are beyond the scope and purpose of tools such as Strong’s Concordance, which are not meant to be resources employed in translation. One cannot translate Hebrew from a Concordance, because one will miss all of the prefixes and suffixes which indicate pronouns, prepositions, or other parts of speech. There are other features of Hebrew which would also be missed with a concordance, such as conjunctions and other particles. Moreover, distinctions in the parts of speech are missed with a Concordance, so one shall never know if the Hebrew form of a verb is passive or active, or if a noun is singular or plural, among other differences.

So in Genesis 3:15 where Yahweh spoke to the serpent, in both instances the word for seed is זרע or zera, the common Hebrew word for seed, which means children or descendants when it is used of people. But where it says “your seed”, that Hebrew word is accompanied with the letter kaf as a suffix, זרעך or zera-k. The kaf as a suffix is used as a second person singular pronoun to mean “of you”. Then where it says “her seed” the Hebrew word is accompanied with the letter he as a suffix, זרעה or zera-h. The he as a suffix has other uses, but means “of her” in contexts such as this one.

When the Greek Septuagint was translated from Hebrew 2,300 years ago, the corresponding words in Greek are τοῦ σπέρματός σου and τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς, which are clearly and literally “your seed” and “her seed”. The same pronouns are found in translations in the Latin texts Genesis, which themselves have the pronouns. This is also representative of Jason von Laban’s abject stupidity: It is stupid to pretend to be able to translate either Hebrew or Greek, when one knows absolutely nothing about either Hebrew or Greek.

Such is the state of Christian Identity outside of Christogenea, where we strive to actually understand the Scriptures before we run our mouths. We may not be perfect, but we can at least demonstrate the reasons for our positions in actual books.

Below are the screenshots of Jason von Laban's posts, which I promised during the podcast, but it was too late last night. We are missing a screenshot for Part I, which I thought we had. I am sitll trying to obtain one and will edit this message if I do. 
 

Topical Laban Facebook Part I of IV

Topical Laban Facebook Part II of IV

Topical Laban Facebook Part III of IV

Topical Laban Facebook Part V of IV