Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 19

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

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20171006-CAE-SpecNotice19.mp3 — Downloaded 6115 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 19

Yahshua Christ informed us in His Gospel that He came to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world. He uttered those words while giving us the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, and informing us that the tares – which are evidently wicked people who cannot ever be reformed – were planted by the devil. Shortly after saying those things, Yahshua Christ declared that “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Then much later, in Revelation chapter 12, we learn from Yahshua Christ that there was a rebellion against Yahweh God at some time in the past, as the description of that rebellion uses language that is explicitly in the past tense. So we learn that a third of the host of heaven were cast down to earth and that their place was found no more in heaven. The leader of that host was identified with labels such as the great dragon, that old serpent, the Devil, and Satan.

Perhaps 1,500 years before Yahshua Christ had revealed those things to us in both prophecy and parable, the Genesis account was recorded by Moses under the inspiration of Yahweh. We know that Genesis was written by Moses, because Christ Himself attributed it to Moses. That account also contains both prophecy and parable, as well as historical chronicles. In Genesis we see an entity that was already present in the Garden of Eden when Adam was first placed there, and which is identified as a serpent. This serpent of Genesis chapter 3 must be “that old serpent” of Revelation chapter 12, as the language insists upon identifying for us a particular serpent, “that old serpent”, and there is no other “old serpent” in Scripture which may be identified in such a manner.

Elsewhere in the parables of Christ we have an entire race identified as serpents, and there is a race of serpents in the words of John the Baptist from before Christ had even begun His ministry, and we also have goat nations, which are distinguished from sheep nations. These terms do not describe individuals of one religion or idea or another, but nations which shall ultimately be distinguished on sight. But in the descriptions in Genesis, Yahweh God created one race: the Adamic race, and the entire Adamic race is assured of preservation in Christ, as Paul of Tarsus had said, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” So ostensibly, none of the race of Adam can possibly be goats or goat nations as they are described in Matthew chapter 25. Instead, the goats must be those tares of the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, since the tares are all going to be destroyed, and since the fate of the goat nations is the “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”. With this it becomes evident, that the origin of the goat nations must be the same as the origin of the tares, as Yahweh God denies them, and has never taken credit for having created them. Yet they have the same fate as “the devil and his angels”.

Since the devil and his angels cannot actually create anything, but only rebel against God by corrupting His creation, we see that before Adam was placed into the Garden of Eden there must have been a corruption of Yahweh’s Creation, as there was an entire “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” which is present in Genesis and which is represented by the serpent. But in the end – in the Revelation of Yahshua Christ – it is gone, and after all those not written in the Book of Life are cast into the fire along with the devil, only the Tree of Life remains. Ostensibly, since only Whites can be historically traced to Adam, and non-Whites have resulted in corruptions of the Adamic race wherever they have mingled, then non-Whites must be accounted as being derived from this “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, as they are the flood from the mouth of the serpent, and they are the goat nations currently being gathered by Satan to besiege the Camp of the Saints. As Paul of Tarsus had indicated, if you are not a son then you must be a bastard, and there is no third possibility. If you are not a sheep then you are a goat, and if you are not of the wheat then you must be a tare.

The modern Jews, descended from the Edomites of the Old Testament, represent Satan in the world today, as the Gospel identifies them as an entire race of serpents, just as Herod the Great was an Edomite Jew and he was also depicted as a great red dragon in Revelation chapter 12. So those of us who understand Two-Seedline also understand that the origin of the Jews is with the devil, as the Scriptures inform us in so many places, and we can trace the genealogy of the Edomite Jews back through Scripture to Cain, and, ultimately, to “that old serpent” who was his father.

Our Two-Seedline interpretation of Scripture is consistent with every parable, every prophecy, with every Word of Yahweh our God. Only one verse in our modern Bibles stands in the way of this interpretation, which perfectly fits all the rest of Scripture as well as everything we see in history, and everything we see going on in the world around us today. That verse is Genesis 4:1. Throw out Genesis 4:1, and every other verse falls into place like a beautiful self-assembling jigsaw puzzle.

But we have fully demonstrated here in this series and elsewhere in our writings, that Genesis 4:1 is a corrupted passage, and that having no second witness, the way it reads today it cannot stand as a valid testimony. But because of Genesis 4:1, a host of men have sought to “spiritualize” good and evil, and seek to turn the origin of wickedness and the concept of evil into mere thoughts and words. However the Scripture does not accept those concepts. Throughout the New Testament wicked men are consistently and exclusively identified as a race (generation) or as seed or as plants or as nations or as certain types of beasts or as fathers or as sons, all of these things which are strictly biological distinctions. Never are groups of wicked people characterized exclusively as a religion or a school or a sect or a cult – which were the terms that would have been appropriate to describe students or adherents to a set of concepts or ideas. One verse is the primary cause of that confusion, and if you are hung up on that one verse you are wanting for a world of understanding. That verse is not a reliable witness, but evidently it is the prick in your eye promised to blind us, where the position of scribe in ancient times was ceded to enemies of our God. They remain our principle scribes to this very day.

Yahweh has promised that ultimately, to Him every knee shall bow. He destroys sinners, but it is not His objective to destroy sin. Nowhere is it promised that there will be an end to bad ideas, thoughts or conceptions. Doctrines do not get cast into the Lake of Fire, but people certainly do receive that fate. Christians are encouraged to conform their minds to Christ, but ideas or thoughts themselves can really never be destroyed. For that reason, Yahweh destroyed the Sodomites and He outlawed Sodomy. Men can cease to engage in it, but Sodomy as an idea can never really be destroyed so long as there are men. Bad ideas certainly cannot be destroyed, but the devil, his angels, and the goat nations certainly will be destroyed. Only our Two-Seedline interpretation of Scripture helps us to identify both who they are, and where they are going.

With this we shall begin our presentation of Clifton A. Emahiser’s


With this Special Notice, we again focus on the world’s greatest problem which has now been with us for over 7,000 years. We are confronted with this great issue every day of our lives, and we face it [in] every direction we turn. Try as we may, it cannot be avoided. And while we attempt to deal with this subject in a rational manner, there are hecklers on the sidelines ridiculing our efforts. They use every opportunity to belittle and mock the endeavors of those who expose the nature of the enemy. Top among these, at the present time, is Ted R. Weiland. Up until Weiland, Stephen E. Jones held first place. You may think it is not nice to point fingers and name names, but Ted R. Weiland in his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? instructed me to point fingers. Let’s see what he said on page 1:

If the seedliners’ assessment of the events in the Garden of Eden can be proven scripturally correct, then no matter how unorthodox or unpopular this doctrine may be, we are duty bound as adherents of the Word of God to accept and teach it… Spiritual leaders are admonished by the Scriptures to address false doctrine, especially doctrine injurious to the gospel of Yahshua the Christ — Titus 1:7-14.”

What Weiland had in mind with this passage was to use it to justify his own personally contrived point of view. This passage says in part: “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” That is exactly what I have been doing in this Special Notice series! The anti-seedliner’s position is totally irresponsible, and before we are finished, we will see how spurious their claim is.

As we have seen in previous presentations in this series, where Ted Weiland sees the word father in the Bible, it doesn’t means father. Where he sees the word seed, it does not mean offspring. Where he sees son, it means to refer to something other than a child or a descendant. In Ted Weiland’s Bible, nothing means what it says, so that he can imagine what it says for himself. That is a world of lies and deception, that it allows Ted to justify himself, along with the negro savages that he shares his Bibles with. Here Clifton continues and makes an example of Weiland:

Early in his book on page 2, Ted R. Weiland plays with words in an attempt to discredit the Two Seed doctrine of Genesis 3:15. Of the words he toys with, “fact, theory and hypothesis”, he settles on the latter. In his effort to play a game with words, he forgets the most important element; that being to check his premise. It doesn’t matter how many cunning words one might use, if the premise is not correct, the conclusion will be false. As we will see later, Weiland didn’t check his premise. Not only does Ted R. Weiland characterize the truth of Genesis 3:15 as being a hypothesis, he also accuses the Two Seedliners, [on] page 2 [of his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She?]: “... who proceed to ignore clear textual intent, who disregard the principles of Hebrew and Greek idioms and the rules of consistency, and who assume a literal interpretation of clearly non-literal statements.” [To that Clifton responds and says:] If anyone is disregarding Hebrew and Greek, it’s Ted R. Weiland! He disregarded the Greek when he scoffed at John 8:44 where our Savior said directly to the ‘Jews’ “Ye are of your father the devil.” The Greek for the word “of”, in that case, meaning “sons of a father”, as I covered in Special Notice #1.

Clifton is correct, that the Greek preposition ἐκ where it is used of one person in relation to another refers to the source or origin of that first person as the offspring of the later. But the use of the Genitive Case alone to describe one person as being of another, in the sense of being a descendant of another, is enough to establish the relationship. This was the usage in Classical Greek, and it is also the usage in Scripture, such as in the genealogy of Christ given in Luke chapter 3.

The Greek from the relevant part of John 8:44, where the King James Version has “Ye are of your father the devil”, reads thus: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ… In order to help us determine what this means, we will read the Greek from a similar phrase found in the Septuagint, in Genesis 19:36: καὶ συνέλαβον αἱ δύο θυγατέρες Λωτ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν… The translation of that passage from Brenton’s English reads: “Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father…” So the phrase ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν is “by their father”, and therefore in John 8:44 the meaning of the phrase should not be interpreted differently. Likewise, in the Greek from a relevant part of Genesis 19:37 we read: καὶ ἔτεκεν ἡ πρεσβυτέρα υἱὸν καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μωαβ λέγουσα ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου. Then in the corresponding verse in Brenton’s English we read: “And the elder bore a son and called his name Moab, saying, He is of my father. Once more, out of many possible examples, we may read the Greek from a relevant part of Leviticus 22:4 where it says: καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ααρων τοῦ ἱερέως… Brenton’s English from the corresponding part of Leviticus 22:4 reads: “And the man of the seed of Aaron the priest…” Now, can we imagine that this man was a mere follower of Aaron the priest, or, reading the law, must he have been a descendant of Aaron the priest? Of course he was a descendant of Aaron the priest, and no other interpretation is possible. But in Ted Weiland’s world words don’t mean what they mean, so we can just make up things where the truth is not convenient. Returning to Clifton, who continues to write in reference to Weiland:

In addition to his charge that we disregard the principles of Hebrew and Greek, Weiland accuses the Two Seedliners of misinterpreting literal and non-literal Hebrew and Greek idioms. Then on page 3, Weiland says: “However, as Bible students already know, there are no scriptures that expressly teach any of these false conclusions.” [Responding to that Clifton says:] Inasmuch as he demands the Scriptures to teach “expressly”, [that alone] is proof positive that Weiland himself has a total disregard for Hebrew and Greek idioms concerning Two Seedline doctrine, or any other doctrine.

Again [in his book], he makes the same allegation on page 7 where he says, “If these statements were true, certainly God would have inspired His writers to warn His people of these dangers somewhere in the Bible.” [So Clifton says:] Weiland evidently forgets that Matthew 13:34-35 says: “All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet…” Speaking in parables is hardly speaking “expressly.” This is why Ted R. Weiland has a total disregard for the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matthew 13, as he demands it to be rendered “expressly”. Not only did Yahshua speak in parables, but all the prophets did likewise. So, if Weiland expects the Scriptures to be “explicit”, he is under a voodoo induced hallucination. It seems, whether a Scripture is literal or non-literal, depends on how the all-wise Weiland interprets it. Is that “rebuke” sharp enough (Titus 1:13)? It also appears, according to his book on page 1, that he is the only one authorized to give a “rebuke”!

Here we must correct Clifton’s refutation of Weiland to some degree and assert that in the explanation of the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, which was only meant for His disciples, Yahshua Christ was indeed being explicit.

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, we see references to “a man which sowed good seed in his field”, and “his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.” But in the explanation of that parable, we are informed explicitly that “the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil…” So if seed are not children, and if there are not people here from the devil as well as there being people here from God, then the explanation of the parable is not an explanation, and instead it is only a second parable. However Christ was asked by His apostles privately for an explanation, and He supplied an explanation to them, which Matthew recorded and where we have no reason to believe that His explanation was not explicit. If we try to make the explanation into a parable, denying the literal meaning of the words as Christ used them to explain His parable, then in effect we are denying the words of Christ. There might be room for wrongful interpretation in the parable before the explanation was given, but the answer of Christ to His apostles which explained the parable leaves no room at all for such a mistake.

Continuing with Clifton:

Ted R. Weiland, and all the other anti-seedliners, continue to denounce and down-play the fact that nowhere in Scripture is Adam recorded as the father of Cain. They neglect to observe that in Genesis 3:15, Adam is left totally out of the equation. Had Adam’s name been mentioned in that verse, it would have said that “the seed of Adam would bruise the head of the serpent.” Therefore, the “enmity” was between Eve and the serpent alone. Thus the anti-seedliners unwittingly, and effectively, change the reading of Genesis 3:15 from the “woman” to “Adam.”

We will attempt to clarify Clifton’s statement here. Excluding Adam from the picture of Genesis 3:15, we see the possibility that there is seed referred to in that passage which cannot be attributed to Adam. But both Cain and Abel were born of the woman. Clifton continues:

They further fail to perceive that Cain’s genealogy is treated separately in Genesis 4:17-24, while Adam’s is recorded in chapter 5:1-32.

In all the rest of Scripture, no matter how wicked a son was, he was still described as having been the seed of his father. Christ said to the Edomite Jews: “I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me,” deicide being the greatest of all crimes, but they were still considered to be Abraham’s seed. Yet as Paul explains in Romans chapter 9 and in Galatians chapter 3, they were the seed of Abraham through Esau, and not through Jacob. The plain fact is that Cain’s descendants are treated entirely separately, and Seth was a replacement for Abel, because Cain was not Adam’s son. Clifton continues in reference to those who deny this and he says:

In order to support their hypothesis, it would be necessary to rewrite most of the Bible, or interpret much of it out of context, which is exactly what they do. There is good reason why Cain is never recorded as Adam’s son. Where it says in Genesis 5:1 “This is the book of the generations of Adam…”, and does not include specifically his supposed “firstborn son”, it would be a total lie, and our Bible would be blatantly untrustworthy. [So Cain is purposely excluded from falling into the category of “the generations of Adam”.] You will notice that Genesis 38:3-5 truthfully and honestly mentions Er, Onan and Shelah, the first three sons of Judah by a Canaanite [non-Israelite] woman. Not only are those three half-breed sons of Judah mentioned there but also at Genesis 38:6-8; 46:12; Numbers 26:19-20 and 1 Chronicles 2:3. [So even though they were bastards, they were still attributed to Judah, because Judah was their natural father. But Cain was not attributed to Adam in the “book of the generations of Adam”.] Oh, the anti-seedliners will wrangle, “Cain was unworthy to be mentioned”! Question: Who could be more unworthy than Er, Onan and Shelah? [Or thousands of other Israelites who purposely killed their own brethren, even David.]

The anti-seedliners completely overlook the significance of Seth being a replacement for Abel, not Cain. Even if Cain was disqualified for the murder of Abel, which he was not (for that reason), Seth would then had to have been a replacement for Cain, not Abel. Again, the anti-seedliners are ignoring the importance of the Biblical Law of the Firstborn Son. But, after all, they know better than the Almighty! The Hebrew says, “in place of Abel”, not Cain. According to the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, Genesis 4:1 should read something like the following: (The italics are from that Targum.):

And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan], and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.”

And as we have said before, so we shall say here: We do not accept the versions of Genesis 4:1 found in the Targums as being canonical. Rather, we assert that these readings represent attempts by early commentators to reconcile the demonstrably corrupt passage to their proper understanding of Scripture. Again Clifton continues:

Oh”, you say, “every word in the Bible is God-breathed.” Yes, the original was, but we don’t have an original God-breathed copy today. To prove to you there are omissions in various passages, I will show you an example that was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This information comes from the book Understanding The Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Hershel Shanks, pages 160-161. The scroll is designated 4QSama, and was found in cave #4. The passage is 1 Samuel 11:1-3. The following in italics is the part missing in our present Bibles:

[Na]hash, king of the children of Ammon, sorely oppressed the children of Gad and the children of Reuben, and he gouged out a[ll] their right eyes and struck ter[ror and dread] in Israel. There was not left one among the children of Israel bey[ond the Jordan who]se right eye was no[t put o]ut by Naha[sh king] of the children of Ammon; except that seven thousand men [fled from] the children of [A]mmon and entered [J]abesh-Gilead. About a month later Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-Gilead. All the men of Jabesh-Gilead said to Nahash, ‘Make a treaty with us and we shall become your subjects.’ Nahash the Ammonite replied to them, ‘On this condition I shall make a treaty with you, that all your right eyes be gouged out, so that I may bring humiliation on all Israel,’ The elders at Jabesh said to him, ‘Give us seven days to send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. If no one rescues us, we shall surrender to you’.”

This chapter in this book was written [or, perhaps, translated and edited] by Frank Moore Cross (a member of the staff editing the Qumran Dead Sea [Scrolls] manuscripts), and he explains how he thinks the omission came about: “The missing paragraph was lost probably as a result of a scribal lapse – the scribe’s eye jumped from one line break to the other, both beginning with Nahash as subject.”

The reading of the passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls is supported, at least to a great degree, by the way the episode is related by Flavius Josephus in Book 7 of his Antiquities of the Judaeans. Where Cross added the words “about a month later”, his authority is evidently the Septuagint, which also has those words. However even the Septuagint is missing most of the opening lines of the account as they appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls copy of 1 Samuel. Those opening lines help to clarify the account, and evidently they went missing from copies in the earliest times, even before the Septuagint was translated.

However to prove his case concerning the possible corruption of verses of Scripture at an early time, all Clifton really had to do was cite Jeremiah 8:8, which in the Septuagint says “How will ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? In vain have the scribes used a false pen.” Jeremiah wrote those words some time before 586 BC, where we see that in his day there were already some problems with the text of the Scriptures.

Now Clifton responds to Cross’ explanation of the omission and says:

This is very understandable, for I too have made this same kind of error when typing, for when I read back what I have quoted from some book, often I will inadvertently skip a line of the text. You can be sure, if it happened once, as you see here, it has occurred in other places. The Interpreter’s Bible has pointed out that Genesis 4:1 doesn’t make any sense. When the evidence in the Aramaic targums [is] considered, Genesis 4:1 makes all the sense in the world. As I covered that in other Special Notices, I will not elaborate further here.

We must add, that there are several other texts outside of the Targums which support our interpretation of Genesis chapter 3. Now Clifton continues speaking of the text which was wanting in 1 Samuel:

Since the full text has now been restored to 1 Samuel 11, the entire chapter comes to life. We now know that some seven thousand surviving Israelite warriors from Gad and Reuben, after their defeat by Nahash’s forces, escaped and found shelter north of the territory of Ammon near the Jabbok River in the Gileadite [we shall address this below] city of Jabesh. About a month after their escape, Nahash decided to enslave Jabesh-Gilead for sheltering these runaway “subjects.” Thus, we can see the motivation for Nahash’s assailing Jabesh-Gilead far north of his usual declared borders, a Gileadite city affiliated with Benjamin and Saul.

Actually Jabesh-Gilead would be affiliated with a great part of the tribe of Benjamin. It was a city in the territory of Gilead, but not really any longer a Gileadite city. After the war between the children of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin for the wickedness at Gibeah, there was only a remnant of Benjamin remaining, and they had no wives. But the men of Israel had sworn never to give their daughters to wife for the remnant of Benjaminites. Then when it was found that the people of Jabesh-Gilead, a city of the tribe of Gad, had failed to attend an assembly, all of its inhabitants were slain except for four hundred virgins who were then turned over to the remnant of Benjamin for wives. This is recorded in Judges chapters 19 through 21. So ostensibly, many Benjaminites descend from one of the virgins of Jabesh-Gilead. Later, the balance of Benjaminites who survived the war but who did not have wives from Jabesh-Gilead as the number of virgins was not enough, received wives at Shiloh in the land of Ephraim by another manner. But from this time, Jabesh-Gilead was most likely inhabited by Benjaminites who married one of the four hundred virgins. Even later, Nahash the Ammonite made war on the Benjaminites who would have been inhabiting Jabesh-Gilead PLUS 7000.

Clifton continues in relation to 1 Samuel chapter 11:

This newfound discovery of missing text from the Dead Sea Scrolls explains the reason why Nahash attacked Jabesh-Gilead; and additionally, why he insisted on the removal of the right eye as a condition for their surrender. It was not unusual, for those who harbored enemies in those days, to be punished in this manner. By the same token, Nahash named his own punishment. Upon receiving the news, Saul the Benjamite, being enraged, took immediate action by rallying the western tribes, crossing the Jordan as an Israelite militia, “slaughtered the Ammonites until the heat of day.” That great victory, on the part of the leadership of Saul, brought about his kingship over the whole of Israel. Thus was sealed the Ammonite’s fate. There is evidence the Ammonites traveled east, and mixing with others, form the Japanese of today.

Here Clifton repeated one old British Israel writer or another, whom I cannot agree with. If I am not mistaken, Comparet also repeated these fables. There is no tangible evidence connecting the Japanese to Ammonites, or to Japhethites, as British-Israel writers were often wont to do. Yet even modern Baptists attempt to make such wayward identifications, insisting that all of the world’s so-called “people” come from Adam, and looking to devise ways where that might be explained. [See the threads Who are the Moabites and Ammonites now? and Where did the races come from? at the Landover Baptist Church forums. They are childish. To these may be compared a paper at Christogenea titled The Race of Genesis 10.] Clifton continues and says:

The antichrist anti-seedliners, like Weiland and company, are so busy making pretzels of the Scriptures that they don’t have time to research these things. They seem more intent on rewriting The Word to fit their own personally contrived misconstrued concepts. They twist Genesis 3:15 into a pretzel to mean the “spirit against the flesh.” They also pretzel-ize Genesis 3:15 by making the “serpent’s seed” spiritual, while assigning the “seed of the woman” to be physical (“seed” in both instances being the same Hebrew word, #2233).

It was apparent in earlier presentations that Ted Weiland claimed that the seed of the serpent was the flesh, while the seed of the woman was the spirit. In any case, the contentions are ridiculous if one compares them to wherever the flesh or the spirit are mentioned in Scriptures. Clifton continues:

They pretzel-ize the parable of the wheat and the tares by their hocus-pocus reasoning to mean “spiritually righteous and unrighteous people” instead of genetic “wheat-people” and “weed-people.” They pretzel-ize the “tree of life” and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” to mean wooden trees rather than family trees. They pretzel-ize Genesis 4:1 to make Cain a son of Adam. [Actually, this passage was pretzel-ized by ancient scribes, and they refuse to de-pretzel-ize it – WRF.] They pretzel-ize the Greek word #1537 [ἐκ] translated [as] “of” or “from” to mean “spiritual offspring” in John 8:44 rather than the stock or family from which one is derived. They pretzel-ize Matthew 23:35 to mean the “blood of Abel” was somehow “spiritual” rather than Cain [having] physically murder[ed] Abel. They pretzel-ize John 3:3 to mean “born again” instead of being born of the correct race, (Strong’s Greek #1080 & #1085) [or born from above, as it should be read - WRF]. They pretzel-ize 2 Corinthians 11:3 to mean mental seduction rather than physical seduction. They pretzel-ize both the words “eat” (#398) and “touch” (#5060), as used in Genesis 3:3, to literally mean to consume food, while Proverbs 6:29; 9:17; 30:20; Genesis 20:6; 26:10-11 [all] prove otherwise.

They pretzel-ize Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 by making the impostor “Jews” mentioned there full blood brothers to Abel rather than [their having been] fathered by Satan. They pretzel-ize the passages about Judas Iscariot, making him an ordinary person rather than a genetic “devil.” They pretzel-ize 1 John 3:12 by spiritualizing the father of Cain rather than properly identifying him physically as [being] “of the wicked one”; Satan. In spite of evidence otherwise, they pretzel-ize John 8:23 & 38 to mean that the Redeemer and those “Jews” had the same father, again by claiming it is speaking “spiritually” rather than physically. In short, they continually pretzel-ize both the context and the letter of the original languages in order to support their warped hypothesis.

There is probably no better example of pretzel-izing Scripture than Jeffrey A. Weakley in his book The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History; in portions taken from pages 4 [through] 9. Since I have pointed out how these antichrist anti-seedliners do this, see if you can detect this in the following segments from his book:

... From the above, I find it difficult to believe that this tree from which Eve obtained the fruit was anything other than a tree. food: (ma’akal) » an eatable food (including provender, flesh and fruit), fruit, victual (Strong’s Concordance) » food, especially corn, fruit tree, sheep to be killed. (Gesenius’ Lexicon) ... » desire, pleasant, lust, greed, dainty, desirable, has the meaning of desire extending to both good and bad objects. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is translated 26 times in the Old Testament as: ‘pleasant’, ‘utmost bound’, ‘lusting’, ‘lust’, ‘dainty’, ‘desire’, ‘lusted exceedingly’ and ‘coveteth greedily.’ This word is neutral in our discussion. It does not prove the point one way or the other as it does not indicate what the object being desired is. Nonetheless, I put this here so that the reader can see how to fairly treat a neutral word. took (laqach) » to take (a primary root) accept, bring, buy, carry away, fetch, get, seize, etc. (Strong’s Concordance) » to take, to take with the hand, to lay hold of, to take away, to take possession of, to take captive, to send after, to fetch, to bring, to receive. (Gesenius’ Lexicon) » take (get, fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry (take a wife), snatch (take away). (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is translated over 100 times in the King James Version as: ‘take’, ‘taken’, ‘took’, ‘fetch’, ‘receive’, ‘accept’, ‘bring’, ‘married’, ‘have (wife)’, ‘brought’ etc. With this word seedliners will be quick to point out that it is something translated as ‘marry’ or ‘have to wife.’ I have bad news for these people. The idea of marry and have to wife is the possession of a wife — NOT SEXUAL RELATIONS! So the idea expresses when Eve ‘took’ the fruit was that she took possession of it. This word does not indicate that she was participating in sexual intercourse. fruit (periy) » fruit (lit. or fig.) bough, firstfruit, reward, (Strong’s Concordance) » (1) fruit whether of the field or of a tree, Metaph[or], used of the result of labor. (2) offspring. (Gesenius’ Lexicon) » fruit, as a verb — make fruitful — to increase — to multiply, the fruit of a tree/vine, the fruit of the womb (children), fruit as consequences resulting from an action (reward). (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is used over 100 times in the King James Version and is translated as: ‘fruit(s)’, ‘fruitful’, ‘reward.’ The meaning of this word is clear in this verse as we have already established that tree means (of all things) tree — thus fruit in this verse means fruit of a tree, eat (akal) » to eat (lit. or fig.) consume, devour, burn up, dine, eat up, feed (food). (Strong’s Concordance) » (1) to eat, to devour (food); to eat of a land, a field, a vine; to eat of its produce or fruit; to take food, to take a meal, to dine or sup, to feast (used of sacrificial banquets), to devour people (the poor), to destroy by war and slaughter. (2) to devour, to consume (fire). (3) to enjoy (good fortune, fruit of actions and sexual pleasures). (Gesenius’ Lexicon) » eat, consume, devour, burn up and feed. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is used over 100 times and is translated as ‘eat’, ‘eaten’, ‘consumed’, ‘at meat’, ‘devoured’ etc. Once again the seedliners will be quick to point out that this word can be used of sexual pleasures. While this is true, it is only true when used in that context. In the present case the context is that of an actual ‘tree’ with ‘fruit’ and thus ‘eat’ rightly means the consumption of food (not sexual pleasures). So we see that only by incorrectly defining words can Genesis 3:6 be taken to support the view that Eve was sexually seduced. Now we will look at Genesis 3:13: ‘And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.’ The understanding of this verse hangs on the word ‘beguiled.’ Have the seedliners been honest with this word? What does it mean? beguiled (nasha) » to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce, beguile, deceive. (Strong’s Concordance) » to err, to go astray (kindred to the verb ‘to forget’) to lead into error, to cause to go astray, to deceive, to seduce, to corrupt. (Gesenius’ Lexicon) » beguiled, deceive; This verb is used mainly in the sense of ‘lead astray, seduce, mislead, deceive’, even for self-deception (Jer. 37:9). (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word in its various forms is used 16 times and is translated in the King James Version as: » 1 time — ‘utterly forget’ » 1 time — ‘seize (Ps. 55:15-16)’ » 1 time — ‘beguiled’ » times — ‘deceive’ or ‘deceived.’ The seedliners will insist that it be translated ‘seduced’ and they define it as a physical sexual seduction because the English word ‘seduce’ can mean that. But can the word ‘deceive’ mean sexual seduction? Is it not proper to take the three definitions given as synonyms? As a matter of fact, I give more than one definition for every word because each source was written by fallible man and therefore could be wrong (as is the case for Dr. Strong: when he defines the word ‘Gentile’ in the New Testament his theology causes him to give a clearly impossible definition). In any case, the Biblical principle is to have all evidence verified by two or more witnesses. When all these definitions are taken together as synonyms, the conclusion one comes to (if he is seeking to be honest) is that Eve was deceived in the mind. NOT SEXUALLY SEDUCED! This is verified in three ways. » 1. The context established in Genesis 3:6 does not include sexual intercourse. » 2. The word ‘eat’ in Genesis 3:6 is the same word ‘eat’ in Genesis 3:13. » 3. The New Testament explains this same event in 2 Cor. 11:3 ‘But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.’ The word ‘so’ in the above verse can be properly rendered ‘in like manner.’ It is clear that this verse indicates that Eve’s mind was wholly deceived. So the first point of the Satanic Seedline doctrine does not agree with the Scriptures — Eve was not sexually seduced, but rather was mentally deceived. The next point of the Satanic Seedline doctrine is that Cain was the product of the alleged sexual encounter that Eve had in the garden. To examine this, let’s turn to Genesis 4:1: ‘And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.’ Once again the meaning of this verse will become clear by looking up some words. knew (yada) » to know (prop. to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, fig[uratively], lit[erally], euphem[ism], etc. (Strong’s Concordance) » to perceive, to acquire knowledge, to know, to be acquainted. (1) to know, to perceive, to be aware of, to understand. (2) to get to know, to discover, to experience. (3) to become acquainted with (a euphemism for sexual intercourse, i.e., to lie with). (4) to have knowledge of. (5) to foresee, to expect. (6) to turn the mind to, to care for, to see about. (7) to be knowing or wise. (8) to be or become known. (9) to make to know, to show, to teach. (Gesenius’ Lexicon) » know, is used in every stem and expresses a multitude of shades of knowledge gained by the senses ... It is also used for sexual intercourse on the part of both men and women in the well-known euphemism ‘Adam knew Eve his wife’ and parallels (Gen 4:1; 19:8; Num. 31:17, 35; Jud. 11:39; 21:11; 1 Kings 1:4; 1 Sam. 1:19). It is used to describe sexual perversions such as sodomy (Gen. 19: 5; Jud. 19:22) and rape (Jud. 19:25) ... to distinguish ... to have knowledge ... etc. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris) This word is used over 500 times in the Old Testament and is translated in the King James Version as ‘knew’, ‘know’, ‘known’, ‘perceived’, ‘wot’, ‘knowest’, ‘wotteth’, ‘can tell’, ‘sure’, ‘wist’, ‘understand’, ‘had knowledge’, ‘consider’, ‘was aware’, ‘learned’, etc. This word is clearly being used as a euphemism meaning ‘sexual intercourse’ because from this Eve ‘conceived’ and ‘bare’ a son. The one who had intercourse with Eve was Adam. The son produced was Cain. Cain is clearly the son of Adam ... Thus we have seen in clear and honest study that Cain was the son of Adam and Eve. Therefore Point 2 of the seedline doctrine (i.e., Cain was the product of Eve’s sexual encounter with Satan) is shown to be inconsistent with the Scriptures.”

If you have followed Weakley’s documentation and comments very carefully, you will notice he does more to verify Two Seedline rather than disprove it. Under the word “desired” Weakley said: “pleasant, lust, greed, dainty, desirable, has the meaning of desire extending to both good and bad objects.” Then he said it didn’t prove anything, implying that “lust” couldn’t be applied to that word. Under the word “took” he said this: “take (get, fetch), lay hold of (seize), receive, acquire (buy), bring, marry (take a wife), snatch (take away) ... ‘have wife.’ Then he turns around and says it doesn’t mean that! 1 Corinthians 6:16 says “... know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body, for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” Therefore, when Satan seduced Eve, in that union, they became “one flesh” as in marriage. Then on the word “beguiled” Weakley said: “(morally) to seduce ... [from] Strong’s.” How can Weakley deny that “morally to seduce” cannot apply to unlawful sexual intercourse? Yet he does. It seems that whether or not something has sexual connotations, depends on how Weakley interprets it. In the case of Eve and Satan, he says “no.” In the case of Eve and Adam, he says “yes.” He is wrong on both counts, unless Abel is included in the latter. In short, Weakley is arguing that Eve had a thought that killed. If that position is true, why didn’t Yahweh tell her to change her mind? Therefore, it had to be something that could not be corrected by reversing the thought pattern. If a thought can kill, as Weakley implies, we are all in trouble. After all, Genesis 3:13 asks the question: “What is this that thou hast done?” Had it been a mental crime the question would have been: “What is this that thou hast thought.” The word “done” in that verse is #6213 [‘asah] and in both Strong’s and Gesenius’ has nothing to with anything mental, and has everything to do with “to produce or create.” In fact, Gesenius’, under #6213, includes a definition with sexual connotations:

[‘asah:] “Piel, to work, or to press immodestly the breasts of a woman, i. q. ... Ezek. 23:3, 8, and in Kal [Ezek. 23:] verse 21 ... So Gr. ποιεῖν, and Lat. facere, perficere, conficere mulierem, as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, see Fesselii Advers. Sacra, lib. ii. cap. 23.” [Emphasis mine]

This last definition really blows Weakley and all the antichrist, anti-seedliners clean out of their fabricated theological polluted water!!!

The impact of this last definition is undetected in the text of the King James Version, where in each case the verb ‘asah (Strong’s # 6213) is rendered as the verb bruise, in one tense or another, all used of the breasts of a woman.

The Bible is full of sexual innuendo and it uses both allegories for sex, and sexual acts as allegories. For instance, we read a condemnation of the people of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 16:26 and it says: “26 Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.” Where it says that the Egyptians were “great of flesh” in relation to fornication and whoredom, it certainly was not referring to the size of their noses, or to something as mundane as obesity. We may read the following in the verse immediately preceding that: “25 Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms.” Here where it says “opened thy feet”, in modern language it may be translated “spread thy legs” and the meaning of the passage becomes much clearer. Yahweh our God describes our sin exactly for what it is, sometimes with euphemisms, and sometimes in very plain language. The existence of the plain language in some Scriptures informs us that euphemisms in others very well have similar meanings.

Jeffery Weakley can isolate each word of Genesis chapter 3 and use a Concordance to claim almost anything he wants to claim about them. Of course they can all appear in a multitude of contexts, since most of them are quite common words. For instance, one may be seduced to eat a bowl of ice cream. One may have desire for a new car, but that does not mean that one will engage in sexual relations with a barracuda or a mustang. However when the images of Genesis chapter 3 are all strung together, the desire for the “tree”, how pleasant it was to the eyes, the shame and covering of the loins, the punishment in childbirth, the command that the woman’s desire should be to her husband, who was probably not a fruit, and the prophesied war between two different kinds of offspring resulting from the commission of a tangible act, only someone with an agenda could deny that the nature of the sin was sexual, because any other interpretation pretzelizes the entire Bible – to borrow a term from Clifton.

CHR20171006-CAE-SpecNotice19.mp3.odt — Downloaded 410 times