Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Addressing Charles Weisman’s What About the Seedline Doctrine? Part 19: Vagabonds, Wanderers and Weisman

Here we shall finally finish our presentation and discussion of Chapter 4 of Charles Weisman’s book, What About the Seedline Doctrine?, which he had titled The Role of Cain. Doing this, we shall attempt to summarize many of the things we found throughout our discussions, as Weisman consistently misread passages, purposely ignored the context of passages, twisting and even lying about Scripture in his attempts to deny the veracity of Two-Seedline. With our investigation of this one chapter having begun in part 9 of this series, we hope to have refuted Weisman comprehensively.

In our last presentation, we had left off where Weisman mischaracterized the relationship of Kenites with Israel at the time of king Saul, where he said “The Kenites were friendly to the Israelites.” There we had shown that from the time that Balaam prophesied about the Kenites in Numbers chapter 24, to the time of Saul, a period of nearly 450 years, there is only one mention of a single Kenite, and that referred to Heber, who was a Midianite smith in the days of Deborah and Barak, perhaps 400 years before the time of Saul. The Kenites not being mentioned again until for some unknown reason Saul had warned them to depart from Amalek, we see that Weisman had no basis for that statement. This is representative of the poor interpretations of Scripture offered by Weisman throughout this book.

Now we are in the third-to-last paragraph of Weisman’s chapter. As he continues, Weisman attempts to deny any connection between Cain and the Kenites, claiming that the name only belonged to people from a particular city, a city which had almost certainly never even existed. So he claims:

Page 41:

The Kenites of Canaan derive their name from the name of a place called Kain, not from the descent of some man. It seems none of the authorities even suggest that either people are descended from Cain of Genesis 4.

First, where Weisman says “none of the authorities even suggest” that is not really true, in spite of the fact that so many Bible commentaries and dictionaries only further confuse the matter. In the original Strong’s Hebrew lexicon under the entry for the word for Cain, # 7014, it says in part “Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an oriental tribe”. As we shall explain, that place in Palestine apparently never existed by that name. Then under the entry for the word for Kenite, # 7017, we read “patronym from 7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin”, and Strong’s makes a very strong suggestion in those definitions that the Kenites were descended from Cain.

We had explained in our discussion of Numbers chapter 24 where Cain is mentioned, which is where the King James Version translated the word for Cain as Kenite, that if in the words of Balaam the mention of Jacob was a reference to Israelites, and the mention of Amalek was a reference to Amalekites, and if the mention of Asshur was a reference to the Assyrians, then the mention of Cain certainly must have been a reference to Kenites, to the tribe. If Jacob, Amalek, and Asshur were individual men and the patriarchs of tribes found in Genesis, then in Balaam’s allegory Cain also had to be a man and the patriarch of a tribe in Genesis. In Balaam’s account it certainly was not a city in Judah, as Balaam was in Moab when he spoke those words. This is further certain since in Numbers 24:22 where he said “and he looked on the Kenites”, the tribal name for Kenite, 7017, was used, but where he said “the Kenite shall be wasted”, he used the name of their patriarch, Cain, 7014. Likewise, where the reference to Kenites is found in Genesis chapter 15, the other nine other people groups mentioned along with them are names of tribes, and not merely names of cities. So Kenites there must also be a tribe, and not merely inhabitants of a single particular city.

But even the existence of this so-called “place called Cain” is doubtful. There is a town named Cain mentioned only one time in Scripture, where it is found only in the Masoretic Text, where it is listed among the cities, towns and villages of the inheritance of Judah, in Joshua 15:57. But the name does not appear in the Septuagint version, and it is not found anywhere else. In the Latin Vulgate, it is Accaim, which was incorrectly transliterated as Accain in the Douay-Rheims translation, as if they tried to force it to appear closer to the version of the Jews. Strong, following the Masoretic Text, included it in his definition under the entry for Cain.

But that does not mean that it actually existed. In Joshua 15:57 it is seemingly wanting in the Septuagint, and in the Latin text of the Vulgate it is Accaim, and each of those versions are far older than the earliest copies of the Masoretic Text. But there is a caveat where we must elucidate a confusion in the early manuscripts. In the King James Version, the last town listed in Joshua 15:56 is Zanoah, but in some manuscripts of the Septuagint it is spelled Ζακαναϊμ while in others it is Ζανωακιμ. From this we may infer that two distinct names may have been confounded in the transliteration from Hebrew to the Greek of the Septuagint, and that accounts for and corroborates the reading of the Vulgate. In any event, the name of the confounded city is not Cain. It seems that Ζανωακιμ, as the Codex Alexandrinus has it, may have certainly been compounded from Zanoah and Akim, the Accaim of the Vulgate.

Furthermore, if a city named Cain did exist in the south of Judah, which is highly unlikely, if it were so notable a city that it was the subject of one of Balaam’s prophecies, one may imagine that it would be mentioned more than once in the Masoretic Text. But after that single passage it is not mentioned again, even in places where the surrounding towns are mentioned. Why would Balaam even single out such a city when attempting to prophesy against Israel far away in the plains of Moab? The truth is that the city did not exist, and Balaam was speaking of a tribe which at the time was east of the Jordan as they were also found 450 years later in the days of King Saul. So apparently, the Kenites had no cities of their own, but were wanderers and vagabonds who lived in cities founded by other tribes, as the curse of Cain prophecies. Instead, we have glosses in the Masoretic Text which lead us to believe they had cities, and that is not true.

As we had also discussed in our last presentation, there is a reference to “cities of the Kenites” in 1 Samuel 30:29. So if we were to accept this passage as it appears in the Masoretic Text, that alone would prove Weisman wrong, as it shows that Kenites had at least several cities, and therefore they did not have that name from being the inhabitants of one city. However we cannot accept the reading of that passage in the Masoretic Text. In 1 Samuel 30:29 the phrase is “cities of the Kenizzites” in both the Septuagint and in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But while Joshua chapter 15 evidently did not survive in the scrolls, these other sources help to bring the readings of the Masoretic Text of that passage into question. It cannot be established that there was any place named Cain in Palestine, or that the Kenites had any cities of their own, and especially one famous enough to give its name to a particular people. Weisman is grasping at straws.

His penultimate paragraph in this chapter continues:

Some of Cain’s descendants were quite prominent individuals of their times. Jabal “was the father of such as dwell in tents” (Gen. 4:20). Jubal “was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ” (v.21). Tubal-Cain was “an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron” (v. 22). This would seem to indicate that Cain’s descendants were well established in the earth, making it more likely that Cain’s bloodline could have survived to modern times.

This is why we claimed that smiths could be named for Kenites, since a notable Kenite was a teacher of smiths. So here, while Weisman seems to support our position, perhaps he is implying that they should still be known as Kenites. How many people in White nations today are known collectively by the names which they had 4,000, or even 400 years ago? The truth is that they did survive, but under a host of other names, and in the blood of all the peoples with whom they mingled throughout history, including the blood of Charles Weisman.

Let us read from Genesis chapter 15: “19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

Out of these peoples, the Hittites, Rephaims, Amorites and Canaanites are identifiable people-groups with their own common ancestry, which is the definition of a tribe, or on a larger scale, a nation. But some of these tribes had ambiguous origins, so modern lexicographers seek other means by which they may have acquired their names. So for Perizzites some dictionaries have “villagers”, and for Kadmonites “easterners”, etc. But even Strong in his original lexicon, where he did not know the origins of some of these people, at least understood their names to be patronyms, as in the case of Girgashites, Jebusites and Kenizzites, or the names of tribes, as in his definitions for Kadmonites and Perizzites. This leaves us with Kenites, and Strong also understood that to be a reference to a tribe originating from Cain.

Of these ten names, if four or five or six of them are names of tribes, it makes no sense that any of the others are names of occupations or describe a people living in villages, or in some particular city or region, in circumstances and in places which were shared by all ten of them. They must have all been names of tribes, and that we see more clearly where most of them are mentioned once again in Deuteronomy chapter 7, where Moses is speaking of things to come: “1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou...” So Perizzites are a nation, and not merely “villagers”, and each of these others are also nations.

So here we see that not only are the Hittites, Rephaims, Amorites and Canaanites, tribes or nations of people, as we can discern from earlier Scriptures, but also the Girgashites, Perizzites and Jebusites who were mentioned earlier in Genesis chapter 15, since they are described as nations here. And if they are tribes, or nations of people, then in that same context so also must be the Kenites, Kenizzites and Kadmonites who were not mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 7. In the context of Genesis chapter 15, the term Kenite must refer to a tribe, and it is doubtful that there was ever any city named Cain. None of these other tribes were named after a city.

Finally, we have reached the final paragraph of this fourth chapter of Weisman’s book:

The question of whether the Jews today can be called Cainites comes down to whether or not Cain’s bloodline survived to present times. If Cain’s lineage did survive, then it is likely that Jews, or at least some Jews, have Cainite blood. This being because Jews are such a mixed people. Seedline advocates, however, present very little to show a connection between Cain and modern day Jews.

This is funny, and pitiful. Yahshua Christ Himself, as well as the entire Old Testament, has shown us the connection between Kenites and modern day Jews. But Weisman has denied it all while making lies and creating emotional arguments against every single proof.

In Genesis chapter 4 we see the descendants of Cain were listed, but they certainly were not on the ark of Noah during the flood. In Genesis chapter 14 we see Rephaim and other people who have no listing in the genealogies of Genesis chapter 10, so it cannot be said that they came from Noah. Then in Genesis chapter 15 we see Kenites, Rephaim, and three other tribes with obscure origins who were listed along with five tribes of the Canaanites. It was customary among all of these, as we have shown, to intermarry with their neighbors for the sake of peace and to facilitate trade. Later, Esau took Canaanite wives, and therefore it is highly probable that in his descendants runs the blood of both Cain and the Rephaim, as well as those other, unidentifiable tribes with whom the Canaanites had been mixing. Later, Judah took a wife of the Canaanites, and the resulting tribe of Shelah were of the same nature as the sons of Esau. So in Jeremiah we see the population of Jerusalem divided into Good and Bad Figs, and while some of Judah were good figs and would be preserved, others would be turned over to the bad figs for their punishment. This was fulfilled over the few centuries leading up to the time of Christ.

Later, in Ezekiel chapter 35, we see a prophecy that the Edomites would move into Judah and Israel to take the land for themselves. Then in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, we see that already the remnant which returned to Jerusalem from captivity had begun to intermarry with them and with others. Even after Ezra had resolved the situation, it was further prophesied in Malachi that it would happen again, and it did. Like the prophecy of the good and bad figs, that was fulfilled in those same events preceding the time of the ministry of Christ. We know from the accounts of Flavius Josephus that all of the Edomites and other Canaanites of Judaea were converted into Judaism by the time when the Romans turned Judaea over as a kingdom into the hands of Herod the Edomite.

So where Paul of Tarsus described the reasons for the divisions among the Judaeans in his own time, he attributed it to the fact that the nation consisted of both Israelites, who were vessels of mercy, and Edomites, who were vessels of destruction. When Christ was confronted by His adversaries, He explained to them that they were Edomites and descendants of Cain. We have belabored our explanations of these passages throughout our address of Weisman’s book, and we have refuted Weisman’s refutations. Doing this we have offered many other passages from Jeremiah, Daniel, the other apostles and the historic books of the Bible, all of which form a consistent narrative in support of our assertions.

Here is one more, from the apocryphal book known as Susanna, which should indeed be a part of Daniel. When Daniel had proven that two Jews who had falsely accused a woman were lying, then he said to them: “O thou seed of Chanaan, and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.” Just like Christ and His apostles, Daniel understood the false accusers and infiltrators into the body of Israel to be Canaanites, and not Israelites. Charles Weisman belongs in that same category, those of whom the apostle Jude had said “4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” As we have shown here frequently, Weisman did indeed do that very thing.

Discussion: A summary of some of Weisman’s lies from chapters 3 and 4 of his book.

In chapter 2 of his book, Weisman claimed all the power of Satan was eliminated at the cross of Christ, which is refuted by the words of Paul and the other apostles, and by Christ in the Revelation. He stated that the serpent represented “fleshly nature”, which we also refuted. He lied about the definition of nachash and terms such as touch and eat.

In chapter 3, Weisman agreed with us that the serpent was a person and had an agenda different from that of God. Then he proceeded to purposely obfuscate every related issue.

He offered a corrupted explanation of our perception of the words satan and devil, and without making any citations in order to support them, he offered his own made-up definitions. He failed to understand the difference between common adjectives and Substantives which are used as proper nouns. He also failed to offer sufficient Scripture or historical background in order to understand the context in which the words were used.

Weisman also steadfastly refused to connect the fallen angels of Revelation 12 to the serpent of Genesis 3 and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which it represented, which was that same race of people, instead claiming that we cannot know, or that “it cannot conclusively be said”, even postulating that the serpent was a reptile in order to cloud the arguments.

But I think a defining moment in our estimation of Charles Weisman appeared on page 21 of his book where he said “The term Satan or ‘devil’ was not known to the early Hebrews, nor does it occur in the early books of the Bible. Evidently, these terms were used later when the Israelites came in contact with the people who believed in two gods, the god of good and the god of evil. The Babylonians and the Persians accepted the doctrine of dualism, with two powers; good and evil.”

So basically, Weisman is admitting that we should not take seriously the New Testament writers or even the writers of later Scriptures, such as the minor prophets Malachi and Zechariah. Weisman is claiming that these writers were following pagan religions, rather than the Word of God and rather than having been inspired by God. So Weisman had the mind of a Jew, and not of a Christian. But even there he is wrong, he is lying because we showed that Hebrew words equivalent in meaning to the Greek words for demon and devil, or satyr, did indeed exist and were used in the oldest books of the Old Testament, which are the books written by Moses. We also showed that where Satan appears in the Book of Job, that work was written before the time of David, so it is also of great antiquity. So Weisman not only thinks like a Jew, he lies like a Jew. The attitude he projected on that one page should discredit him permanently and entirely.

Another significant fault in Weisman’s understanding of Scripture is his refusal to acknowledge that while Adamic men, or Israelites, can sin, they are always offered an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation, while there is another class of men described throughout Scripture who have no avenue for reconciliation, and who are consigned from ancient times to the lake of fire, to eternal darkness.

Weisman asserted that we believe in a “second god” which caused evil in the world, but that is not true, and it has never been true. Rather, we see Satan as a collective entity which is forever opposed to God, those men, if we must call them men, who are wicked by their nature and the circumstances of their own origin, for which they can never be reconciled. That is the satan and devil of which Christ and the apostles had spoken. Additionally, there were demons, which we find in Old and New Testaments, which are spiritual entities opposed to God, but they themselves are not gods.

Speaking of Genesis chapter 6, Weisman misread the passage, purposely or not, and neglected the fact that giants were in the earth before the sin which was described in that chapter. Instead, he insisted that the giants were only the results of the sin. But the giants were already there, and the word translated giant is actually nephilim, which can mean fallen ones. Weisman addressed this word, but purposely left out a portion of Gesenius’ definition which supports the veracity of our interpretation. Genesis 6 proves beyond doubt that the serpent of Genesis 3 was a “fallen one”, one of the fallen angels of Revelation chapter 12.

Weisman also failed to understand that only one law was given to Adam, which was not to touch the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So Adam and Eve being punished, and their descendants in Noah’s time having been punished, both groups must have violated that same law, and by that we know what the sin of Genesis 3 was. If there were no law, as Paul taught, sin could not be imputed. His own explanations, that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were the sons of Cain, also conflict with his own testimony that Cain was a son of Adam, in a way that he himself seemed not to notice, so he proved himself wrong.

Weisman contended with his own versions of our interpretations of Genesis 4:1, however we have shown from many ancient sources that the passage is corrupt. We also cited several early works of Christian literature that support our interpretation, and serve to prove that the passage must have been corrupt.

Where Seth is a replacement for Abel, Weisman tried to claim that Cain had lost his inheritance for murdering Abel, but that is not true anywhere else in Scripture. If Cain were bypassed for that reason, the birthright should have gone to Cain’s son, and Abel would not have needed a replacement.

On Page 28 of Weisman’s book, we encountered one paragraph where he lied four times. First he denied that Canaan was listed in Adam’s genealogies because he was cursed. Yet an entire section of the genealogy of Genesis chapter 10 lists Canaan and his descendants. Then he stated that Esau was not listed in Adam’s genealogy because he was rejected. Yet in Genesis, Esau’s descendants are listed in chapter 36, to which the entire chapter is devoted. Then in the genealogy of 1 Chronicles chapter 1 we read “ 34 And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel. 35 The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah.” From there, the descendants of Esau are described all the way down through the rest of the chapter, a total of 21 verses.

His third lie in that paragraph is where he said “Ishmael was Abraham’s son, but is not in Abraham’s genealogy as he was not of the chosen seed.” But Ishmael’s descendants are listed in Genesis chapter 25. Then Ishmael is listed, along with the sons which Abraham had with Keturah, in 1 Chronicles 1:28-33. Then his fourth lie in that paragraph was where he said “cursed or rejected people, such as Cain, are never included in the true genealogy of Adam, Noah, and Abraham.” But aside from Canaan, whom Noah cursed explicitly in Genesis chapter 9 but who in spite of that curse is still listed with his descendants in Genesis chapter 10, another example of accursed men who are listed in the genealogies is the accursed king Jeconiah of Judah, who is later mentioned in the genealogy of Christ Himself in Matthew 1:11. So there are four outright lies in one paragraph.

Following that, Weisman lied about the nature of the interchange between Yahweh God and Cain described near the beginning of Genesis chapter 4. Yahweh never accepted Cain as Adam’s rightful heir. Rather Yahweh challenged Cain to do good, knowing that he could not do good, and told him that if he did not do good it was because “sin lieth at the door”, because of the corrupt circumstances of his birth. Cain proved Yahweh was right when he had immediately gone off and killed his brother.

From there, Weisman turned to the words of Christ, where he purposely misread them and imagined that Christ was telling His adversaries that they were the descendants of the serpent, rather than the descendants of Cain. We cited much prophecy and history showing how that could be, which Weisman seemed to purposely ignore, or to be ignorant of.

From there we showed that Weisman followed the methods of interpretation used by the Gnostics and early Greek philosophers, while we interpret words according to their true meaning and historical and Scriptural context. Weisman accused us of doing what he insisted on doing all along.

Following that Weisman attempted to prove that the Jews were not the children of God because they did not believe Him. But Christ had told them the opposite, that they did not believe Him because they were not His sheep in the first place. We described exactly how that was through Scripture and history, but Weisman had only offered emotional arguments. He appealed to the words of Christ in John chapter 8 to support his assertions, but we interpreted those same verses, in harmony with the recorded history of the time, to show how those words actually support our assertions.

Weisman read John chapter 8 and claimed that “The Jews (or more correctly, Judeans) that Jesus was talking to in John 8 were true Israelites.” But that is refuted by Christ himself, by John, Jude, and Peter, and by Paul of Tarsus, and their refutations and explanations are corroborated by Josephus and Strabo.

Then using the invalid example of the Canaanite woman, Weisman insisted that “No one would ever have been called ‘Abraham’s seed’ who was of a mixed lineage, particularly by Jesus (Matt. 15:24-26).” The citation is invalid, because the Canaanite woman never claimed to be of Abraham’s seed. But that is also a lie because the corrupt seed of Esau continued to bear his name, and the corrupt seed of Judah continued to bear his name. Yahweh told the Levites “I will corrupt your seed”, and they continued to bear their name. So Christ admitted that His adversaries were the seed of Abraham, some of his literal offspring, while denying that Abraham, or God, was their father. The opponents of Christ knew what He meant when they answered and said “We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God”, but Weisman ignored that and projected his own idea of what Christ had meant. Their answer proves that Weisman is wrong again.

Weisman tried to insist that the phrase “children of the devil” was spoken metaphorically of people with bad ideas or who believed lies. He compared it to other similar terms, “children of wrath” or “children of hell”. But we showed that each time those and his other examples appear in Scripture, the phrases refer to a race of people who have no promises from God, no opportunity for repentance, and no cause for reconciliation, because they did not come from Him in the first place. Weisman made his own conclusions, and we elucidated the conclusions made by many passages of supporting Scriptures.

Weisman insisted that Israelites alone, and not the descendants of Cain, were responsible for the deaths of the prophets. But we refuted that, because while Israel holds a national responsibility, it is demonstrable throughout the Old Testament that evil influences within the nation were always personally responsible for the deaths of the prophets, where they are recorded. The reasons for the sins of the nation hinge on the fact that they allowed the descendants of Cain and Canaan to survive and live among them. The prophets mention that as the cause for the deaths of the prophets, for example, in Jeremiah chapter 2.

So Weisman insisted that Israelites were responsible for the murder of Abel, even though in truth only Cain and his descendants could be held responsible. Weisman tried to explain away the terms by which Christ described His adversaries, as serpents and a generation, or offspring, of vipers. Doing that he overlooked the fact that by those words, Christ was calling their parents vipers, and not themselves. That proves that He meant to refer to Cain as the seed of the serpent, in Genesis chapter 3. Then where he told them Cain was their father, in John 8:44, the connection is unmistakable.

So doing that, Weisman tried to claim that the serpent was the first murderer, and not Cain, but the Scriptures refute that idea. However Weisman only had emotional arguments, and never supported them with Scripture, because he couldn’t.

At every turn, we have proven Charles Weisman to be a deceiver and a liar.