The End of Genesis Heresy - 01-17-11


Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please consider donating to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information.


  • Christogenea Forum
ChrForumCall20110117.mp3 — Downloaded 2119 times

Downloads from old Christogenea website: 19,806

There was a technical glitch at the end of the program and the last few minutes of the recording were cut off. It does not affect the presentation, except for an abrupt ending. We apologize for that.

The End of Genesis Heresy

Many people in Christian Israel Identity operate on emotion, and with an agenda, rather than simply examining and following the truth of the written Word - which is consistent from one end of the Bible to the other, as they would find if they would just read it, while, of course, also considering those relatively few verses which are clearly proven to be corrupted or mistranslated. But people would rather take short cuts, and both believe and profess things which may sound good and which may seem to present simple solutions to things hard to understand, but which do not represent real scholarship, and then they always run into problems later. Tonight I plan to go through the entire Genesis scenario once again, as I did on the Euro Forum last Thursday. I am tired of people making up stories and trying to call it “Christian Identity”. If it is not Christian in the first place, then how can it be Christian Identity? Paul warned us in Romans where he said that “Indeed if the truth of Yahweh were increased by my lie for His honor, why then am I still judged as a wrongdoer?” In other words, if we lie thinking that we are helping God, then we are still liars. Does Yahweh need the help of liars? Lies discredit Christian Identity when they are exposed to rational minds. One lie can forever turn a brother or a sister off from a world of truth. Sophistry does not build the Kingdom of Yahweh.

There is the Word of God, and there is the Word of fools. Some people call me arrogant, or even slander me with worse epithets, because I am often assertive and confident in my studies. I will remain so. But I do not claim to know everything. Rather, those of you who know me best, know that I am quick to admit when I am wrong, and I am quick to admit what it is that I do not know. No man can know everything. But a man must build his house on a solid foundation, that when the floods of disputation come, his house is not swept away. For those who think that I am not humble, I ask this: what is real humility, a man who is quick to admit it when he is wrong? Or a man who conducts himself in an amicable and soft-spoken manner, but who never admits that he has changed a position, or that he has been wrong - even long after he has changed a position.

Indeed we know that many of our Scriptures have been perverted by the devils of this world, and there are problems with the texts, and there are different ancient versions found for some of the verses of the Gospel and the Law and the Prophets. However, if we have no witnesses to the contrary, and no reason to doubt a translation, we must accept the Scripture that we have. And when Yahshua Christ Himself or His apostles put an imprimatur on a particular Scripture, we had better accept its veracity. I, for one, do not want to be caught denying the Word of our Master. And we can closely determine those also, since we have many manuscripts of Greek dating very close to those original witnesses of Christ.

Yahshua Christ put His imprimatur on the extant account of the Creation of Adam, expecting us to both read and believe it, when He told us that it was written in the law, where He says “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” recorded in Matthew and in Mark. He was citing a clause found in both Genesis Chapters 1 and 5 - and they are certainly both talking about the same creation of the same Adamic man.

In Romans Chapter 5 the apostle Paul equates Adam and Man, and he talks of one Adamic man only – those from Adam to Moses. In the closing verses of Romans Chapter 8 Paul talks about the Adamic creation, as one creation opposed to other creations, such as angels. In 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 Paul talks about the natural body and the spiritual body. Here we see that the natural Adam - the First Adam - the father of our race - is the one who received the Spirit of Yahweh as illustrated in Genesis 2:7. Paul quotes Genesis 2:7, thereby putting his imprimatur on that account. There was no Adam before this first Adam, and Christ is the last Adam - the last man created directly by Yahweh. The first Adam was created from the dust of the earth, and the last in the womb of the virgin Mary, both directly by Yahweh Himself. The rest of us are mere progeny of the First Adam.

Here once more is the paper I presented last Thursday, and I will elaborate upon it to some degree, making some additions and clarifications.

 

The Last Word on The First Adam

This paper is written as a partial response to Eli James' recently-published paper, Beast of the Field. Yahweh willing, we will respond to other aspects of Eli's long paper in the near future.

The Biblical text of Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 represents an account of the Creation of Yahweh God, where the Adamic Man is the pinnacle of that creation. This account describes the creation as having taken place over six days, which cannot be literal 24-hour days, because there was neither sun nor moon until the fourth day. Therefore the days must be metaphoric, representing longer periods of time. This is very clear in many later Scriptures where the same word is used to describe an entire era. On the seventh day God rested, “from all his work which God created and made”, meaning that He ceased from creating new species. That Yahweh is still in that period of rest is evident in Scripture, for instance at Hebrews 4:5, and this is symbolic of the fact that no new works or species have been created on the part of God since He created the Adamic man in Genesis. Therefore the seventh day, that day of rest for God, is metaphoric just as the first six days were not literal days as we now use the word.  

KJV Genesis 1:26-27: 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”  

After the creation of the Adamic man, we see that God rested, and Genesis 2:3 ends the great Creation account which began at 1:1:  

KJV Genesis 2:3: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”  

It is thereafter evident that Genesis 2:4 begins another account, introducing the same Creation story anew, and relating it from a different perspective. Where Genesis 2:4 states that “these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth” we cannot imagine that it is relating an account of the creation of a different heavens and a different earth as that which we saw in the previous chapter. Therefore we must accept this as a different account of the very same creation:  

KJV Genesis 2:4-5: “4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”  

We see in Genesis 2:5 that there was “not a man to till the ground”, and the Hebrew term for man is אדם, adam (not את־חאדם or eth-ha-adam), exactly as it appears in Genesis 1:26. By this we have another clear indication that this is indeed a separate account of the same Creation which is also related in Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. It is indeed the same creation which is being described, and not some imaginary second creation. If there is only one heavens and one earth, then there is only one Adamic man. There are some sophists who like to point out that in the Septuagint, the Greek words for man at both Genesis 1:26 and 1:27 are anthropos, where the word Adam as a proper name does not appear until Genesis 2:7, and so the Genesis 2:7 Adam must be different from the anthropos of Genesis Chapter 1. The error of this assertion is two-fold. First there is the fact that Adam is equated to anthropos throughout the Bible, New Testament and Old. Secondly, the Adam described in Genesis 2:7 is created as a direct response to the notice of Genesis 2:5, that there was no man (anthropos again) to till the ground, and if there was no anthropos, or adam, to till the ground then – just as in the previous verses of this chapter – we are still merely retelling the Genesis 1 account, expounding upon it but not yet adding to it. Genesis 2:7 retells what we had read in the first account, at Genesis 1:27:

KJV Genesis 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”  

The Hebrew term for the adam of Genesis 1:26 is אדם by itself. In his recent Beast of the Field paper Eli James has quoted T.A. Davies who in his 19th century work Genesis Disclosed has attempted to prove that there were two separate creations of adam. But Davies' work is based upon a lie, a lie by omission, since he based it upon the form of the word for adam which is found in Genesis 1:26 while apparently ignoring the form of the word as it is found in Genesis 1:27. The Hebrew term for adam at Genesis 1:27 is את־חאדם or eth-ha-adam, which signifies a particular adam, just as it also appears here at Genesis 2:7.

On November 17th, 2010, I told Eli James about this, where in a brief and pointed critique of his Beast of the Field paper which he requested from me before publishing it, I had written to him the following: “Davies lied by omission, and therefore his entire paper is based upon a false premise. While Genesis 1:26 has only “adam”, the Hebrew phrase “eth-ha-adam” DOES appear at Genesis 1:27. I have told you over and over that the man of Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:7 were the same. I meant it. Your final attempt to distinguish them fails utterly. I pray it is your final attempt! I would urge you to reconsider this entire position.” Yet Eli chose to follow Davies in the lie, and ignore the evidence I sent him – apparently because Davies' book fits his agenda. But that does not make it true. I have explained this to Eli on many occasions, even on our programs together, and Eli has never once told me that I was wrong, so far as I can remember. Yet now he has chosen to ignore all of my appeals. (Eli later admitted to me that he had never read my reply, even though I asked him on the phone to read it before publishing his paper.)  

At 1 Corinthians 15:45 Paul of Tarsus says “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Now if the Adam of Genesis 2:7 is the only Adam in Genesis who “became a living soul”, as the text of that passage says, then indeed Paul considered him to be the “first man Adam”, as he stated, and there could therefore be no other adam before Adam! We have seen in Genesis 2:5 that there was “no man [adam] to till the ground”, and this Adam of Genesis 2:7 was created in response to that observation. Eli James insists that there were other adams, contrary to Scripture, and therefore Eli James is wrong – and he is going to have to admit it at some point in his existence, either before men or before God. (Notice that the text of Genesis 2:7, and where it is quoted by Paul, it does NOT say that the first living soul had come into an adam, as some have tried to twist this statement, and Eli's thesis on Genesis 2:7 is similar to that assertion.) I will discuss more of Genesis Chapter 2 below.  

The creation of man is related once again in Genesis Chapter 5:  

KJV Genesis 5:1-2: “1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”  

The word man as it appears in 5:1 is in the Hebrew simply אדם, adam, just as it appears in Genesis 1:26 and 2:5. The word rendered Adam in the King James Version, as a name in both 5:1 and 5:2, is also in the Hebrew simply אדם, or adam, and not את־חאדם or eth-ha-adam. As it will be discussed below, the verb in 5:1 and 5:2 which is translated as created is the same verb which is found in Genesis 1:27. The account at Genesis 1:26-27, 2:5-7 and 5:1-2 are all describing the same creation of the same Adamic man.  

Considering the logic of the 6th & 8th day creation heretics, the man created here in Genesis 5:1 must be related to the Genesis 1 adam, and cannot be related to the Genesis 2 adam. This is because the term for both man and adam is only the Hebrew adam, and we do not see the term eth-ha-adam here as we see it at Genesis 2:7 (and 1:27 – which they conveniently ignore), and the verb is created, as it is in Genesis 1, and not formed, as it is in Genesis 2. Yet, of course, these are the descendants of Seth – so they must be the descendants of the Genesis 2 adam! Using their own logic, those who purport that these are two separate creations of Adam do not have a leg to stand on.

Arguments both created and formed by sophists! (Pun intended, of course.)  

There has long been a sophistic argument crafted by those who hold this same position as Eli James, who see the Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:7 creation accounts as two separate creations, which takes advantage of the use of two different verbs, which in the King James Version are translated in those passages as created and formed. This argument fails when we compare the use of these words to later Scriptures:  

KJV Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

KJV Genesis 2:7: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”  

KJV Genesis 5:1-2: “1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”  

Genesis 5:1 and 2 use the same Hebrew verb to describe the creation of the Adamic race that Genesis 1:27 does, which is bara', Strong's # 1254. By the arguments of the sophists, who assert that this use of particular verbs distinguishes something that cannot otherwise be distinguished, Genesis 5:2 relates the descendants of Seth to the Adam of Genesis 1:26, who was created (bara', Strong's # 1254), and not to the Adam of Genesis 2:7, who was formed (yatsar, Strong's # 3335)! The additional observation that three times it is the simple word adam that appears here, and not once is it the eth-ha-adam of Genesis 2:7, supports that contention even further. Therefore, with the word-twisting logic of the created vs. formed and adam vs. eth-ha-adam sophists, no descendant of Seth could have proceeded from the Adam of Genesis 2:7! Yet we see that such a notion in the context of the text of Genesis is ridiculous! Fortunately we, if indeed we see that this is an argument of sophistry, can see that these accounts are all describing the creation of one and the same Adam – and one and the same Adamic race. In Isaiah Chapter 43, verses 1 and 7, we read thus: “But now thus saith the LORD that created (bara', Strong's # 1254) thee, O Jacob, and he that formed (yatsar, Strong's # 3335) thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.... Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created (bara', Strong's # 1254) him for my glory, I have formed (yatsar, Strong's # 3335) him; yea, I have made ('asah, Strong's # 6213) him.” By the logic which Eli has adopted, if the created Adam and the formed Adam are different beings, then the created Jacob and the formed Israel are also different beings! So the use of this argument also fails Eli James, and it fails him miserably. Sophistry always gets us into trouble down the line.  

In summary, Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 is an account of the Creation of Yahweh our God, and Adamic Man is the pinnacle of that creation. Genesis 2:4 through to the end of Chapter 4 is historical, but the account is told as a parable, which describes the creation of that same Adamic race once more, in greater detail, and illustrates the causes for its fall from grace, setting the stage for the entire History of our race and for the rest of the Bible. But it is meant to be a moral lesson, and not a scientific account. From Genesis 5:1, we see yet another mention of the creation of that same race, and the historical aspect of Scripture begins.  

Addendum: This was the end of the original article I presented last Thursday. After I posted this article, I had - as should be expected - many questions both in emails and in the Christogenea.net chat room. Here I will attempt to answer them.  

Answers to Certain Criticisms Concerning this Article (reordered):  

1. The King of Tyre was in Eden, and the Assyrian was in Eden, the garden of God, as seen in Ezekiel Chapters 28 and 36.  

Reply: Yes, but the Assyrians descended from Asshur - Genesis 10:22, and therefore the word Eden and the phrase "garden of God" as they appear in several places in Ezekiel are clearly a metaphor for the Adamic oikoumene, or world, and they are not to be taken literally.

  2. If in 1 Corinthians 15:45 Christ was the last Adam, and there are Adamic people after Christ, why could there not be Adamic people before Adam?  

Reply: Adam our first father was a direct son of God (Luke 3:38) and was therefore the first Adam. Christ was a direct son of God and is therefore likened to by Paul as the last Adam, since no man since Christ has been fathered directly by Yahweh God Himself.  

3. But there were trees in the Garden of Eden that Adam could eat, so they must represent other people who were created before Adam.

Reply: Please go back and read Genesis 2:7-9. It is clear that the trees which were good for food were created after Adam was created.

Genesis 2:7-9: "7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."  

Here I will further elaborate upon that. Contrary to popular opinion, the Genesis text tells us that Adam was created, and then Yahweh planted a garden where He placed Adam. After that, only then did Yahweh make to grow “every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food”. But do not imagine that this could be an immediate occurrence – the text does not make that view a necessity. Many of us want to imagine that these trees are metaphoric trees, and that from here more of our race were created. I would agree, however this did not occur until after Yahweh created that first man Adam! And furthermore, that this process did not occur immediately is seen in the fact that there was still not a creature from which Adam could have taken a wife. Therefore, we cannot imagine – as many of us do - that there was yet a creature from which Seth could have taken a wife! If there was not yet a candidate for a wife for Adam, then there was not yet a candidate for a wife for Seth! So we must stop inventing our own Scripture!  

No interpretation of the scripture which follows can turn any of what we have read thus far into a lie. Genesis 2:15-16 read thus: “15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:” Yet we have seen in Genesis 2:8-9 that the man existed before any tree which was in this manner “good for food”. Genesis 2:8 also states that the man was put into the garden, so this Scripture is only reinforcing that notion. If we assert that the trees here are people, and that we could already find a suitable wife for Seth among these trees, then we would have seen a suitable wife for Adam among these trees. Yet it is clear that there are not yet any other Adamic people, because Adam is still alone! Genesis 2:18 reads: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” Yahweh told us explicitly that he had to create a wife for Adam. Therefore, we have to accept that somehow He also supplied a suitable wife for Seth. And while we are not told anywhere who that wife was, we must accept that she must have been acceptable to Yahweh, by the same standards which we see here. Our own sophistry and disputation does not give us license to pervert the Scripture, to make up stories about pre-Adamic Adamites, even veiled as stories about pre-Adamic White people – they are either our kind or they are not, and you cannot have it both ways. If they are not Adam, then they are not our kind, and the record of their creation is not found in Genesis! These chapters of Genesis are a moral lesson which, I may assert, only the Children of Yahweh can truly understand. These chapters of Genesis are a moral lesson which includes an account of the creation told in parables, but they are not intended to be a scientific record of that creation, or of any and all things which may have existed before Adam. Any attempt to twist them into some worldview or other which was inspired by jewish-influenced so-called scientific findings fails miserably. Stop twisting Genesis into judaism!

The Greek language proves that Adam was White: an exposition of the origin of the word anthropos:

Liddell & Scott assert that anthropos probably comes from aner, man, and ops, or face. We see the word ops in words such as cyclops, round-face, the one-eyed creatures of mythology, and aithiops, or shining-face, the Aithiopians of early history. But Liddell & Scott are certainly not sure of this derivation. Both Strong and Thayer also have the derivation, but Thayer qualifies it, adding the word perhaps to his definition. I would contest the derivation entirely, especially since aner is not even given primitive root status by Liddell & Scott, and its genitive and dative forms are andros and andri, which, I may conjecture, would give to us andropos and not anthropos.

Yet deriving anthropos from aner is the universalist's dream: it means that the earliest Greeks derided themselves by calling themselves merely man-faced, which makes absolutely no sense either culturally or linguistically. I would assert, that there is just as valid a reason – or an even greater reason, for deriving the word anthropos from the adjective antheros and ops rather than from aner and ops. This also explains the presence of the letter theta. The word antheros means flowery, from anthos or flower. It would be tantamount to saying rosy-cheeked. The White Adamic race is therefore the only race upon the earth which this word could accurately describe. Now this is conjecture – it is only a theory (which I must originally attribute to another Greek student, named Isaiah Enault) – yet it is certainly not refuted by Greek or by any other ancient writings. If it ever is, I will retract it happily. But even if it is rejected that does not change the equation that anthropos only properly describes the adamic man, since Paul equates them in Romans Chapter 5.

In Closing:

I challenge all of Christian Israel Identity. You claim that you know the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the record of the founding of our race, and the promise of the destiny of our race - the White Adamic race, and only the Adamic race. You will not find the creation of the other races in the Bible, and there is a reason for that. When you think that you have to explain things either to or about the other races, you have already failed, because the Bible is a book only for the Adamic race, and Yahweh your Father will not recognize a bastard - so why are you trying to do so?

Whether there were original hominid beasts in the Creation through Genesis 1:25 or not, might be debatable. I say might because I do not believe that there were, but I cannot definitively prove that there were not. However that does not even matter! I hope to write another paper on this in the future. But to all of you who make excuses for the other races, what you are doing is taking the beast from the jungle, dressing him up, and trying to speak to him, he who is an alien, in your own language – a language which he can never truly understand. Then you try to convince him that he is just a beast, when you should instead be building the Kingdom of God! To hell with the beasts!

Here is my challenge: Many of you have been claiming for years that Adam was placed into a garden where other good trees, pleasant to the eyes and good for food, already existed. You have then used this as an excuse to imagine two creations of Adam, or even a pre-Adamic - and therefore possibly even non-White - race. Some even use this two-creations theory to promote that the Bible includes non-White races, which it certainly does not! I challenge you all to show me what scripture that came from, that there were “good trees” (of races of people) before Adam was created. You won't find it anywhere. The scripture says that Adam was created first, Adam was placed into the Garden, and only then did Yahweh our God both plant and cause such a pleasant plant to grow. We can all be excused for being ignorant at one time - and especially myself. We are all still ignorant of many things. But from this day forward, the 6th & 8th Day creation theory is DEAD. Any notion of pre-Adamic Adamites is DEAD. Any belief that the Genesis account describes the creation of any man except the Adamic man is DEAD, and if anyone hearing my words chooses to remain purposefully ignorant - you no longer have an excuse. You are following some strange Gospel, and you have the curse of Paul upon your heads!