Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 20

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
CHR20171027-CAE-SpecNotice20.mp3 — Downloaded 5990 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 20

There are generally good Christian Identity brethren in our social circles, both near and remote, who are what we may consider to be old-time Identity Christians. This is true even if they have only been aware of Identity relatively recently, and has nothing to do with how long they have been involved with it. Many of them are Aryan Nations members. While we know them from Social Media, they frequently seem to stay away from our work here at Christogenea because we upset some of their traditions, and especially things such as the 6th & 8th Day Creation theory which was espoused by Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet. They also sometimes seem reluctant to embrace us into their fellowship, and they are even much more reluctant to listen to our messages, for that same reason. But these things which they cling to, these things which frequently preclude them from studying our work, are the traditions of men, and they are not necessarily what is taught by Scripture. Tonight, with Clifton's presentation, we are going to see an example and an indirect admission of this very thing which had once come from the mouth of Pete Peters.

Without an understanding of what we call Two-Seedline, and what we also think should be called Two-Treeline, and the way that we teach it at Christogenea, there is no possibly complete understanding of the true importance of the issue of race in Scripture. You cannot imagine that there are other races of so-called “people” among the creations of Yahweh our God if in the parables of Christ we are told that there are not. For example, in the net of the Kingdom of Heaven there are only Israelites which are called good fish and all others are only bad fish, which are destined to be destroyed, however nothing which Yahweh created in Genesis was designated for that particular purpose. Then these other supposed people are described elsewhere as the goat nations which shall ultimately share the same fate as “the devil and his angels”, as Christ Himself had professed in Matthew chapters 13 and 25 and as He had also illustrated differently in other parables elsewhere. So if your Genesis interpretation is not consistent with the Parables and the Revelation of Christ and the prophets of Yahweh, then you had better rethink your interpretation.

The 6th & 8th day Creation Theory is dead. We killed it here four years ago when we presented the first few parts of our series titled Pragmatic Genesis. Clifton had already embarked on that endeavor in his earlier papers on The Only True Adam of Genesis 1:26-27 & 2:7, (Part #1 and Part #2), which he wrote several years before that. He might give me some credit for helping him, but this was an issue we wrestled with and studied in depth and engaged in correspondence for several years early in our ministries. There was only one Adam created in Genesis, and our later presentations on the subject prove that beyond all doubt. We have gone over every point of grammar and context in Scripture to prove our position, and in a way that the adherents to the 6th & 8th Day Creation theory cannot honestly refute. They might realize that only if they take the time to study the issues.

So it is time for these adherents to these antiquated and disproven theories to grow up, and to come to the realization that there is a better way and better scholarship than what we have upheld in the past. The 6th & 8th Day theory is not the Word of Yahweh our God. It is a doctrine of men, and it is wrong. It represents an attempt to explain the existence of non-Adamic races, and yet it falls far short of the understanding of Scripture. We can respect Swift, Gale, Comparet, Butler and all the rest of our predecessors, but we must realize that they were all just fallible men, and we must seek to improve both upon them and upon ourselves. So we must move forward to a firmer foundation and even better scholarship. Christian Identity is truth, and it deserves honest inquiry and scholarship, not petty division and adherence to heresy for the sake of tradition and ego.

While Clifton’s early work did not explain it quite the way we can explain it today, there were two allegorical trees in the Garden of Eden which represented people, and Yahweh God only planted one of them, which is the Tree of Life in the Adamic race. The meaning of the allegory of the Tree of Life is, in part, revealed in the Gospel of Christ where He tells His sheep that “I am the Vine and you are the branches….” However the nature of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is not revealed in Scripture until Revelation chapter 12, where we learn that it arose out of rebellion against God, a rebellion by the so-called “fallen angels”. That “serpent of old” was therefore depicted as having represented this tree. With this, we are led to understand the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, how the devil planted the tares at the beginning, and why Yahshua Christ had said that “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”

Since Yahweh only takes credit for the creation of the Adamic man, then ostensibly all other so-called “human” races must be from that other tree. The goat nations who share the same fate as “the devil and his angels”, and who must be categorized as tares because they are certainly not wheat, must also be the bad fish to be tossed into the fire, and “every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted”. We can know this because we can trace the history of the White nations from the descendants of Noah, as they originally were, and in the Parables of Christ all non-Israelites, and by extension non-Adamic nations, are goats and tares. The Enoch literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the epistles of the apostles also support this position. The sooner we accept these truths, the better success we shall have promoting our common message in the future. Among those that actually fear God, truth should not cause division.

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


With this Special Notice, we will again focus on the subject of Two Seedline as [it is] proclaimed in Genesis 3:15. Many of you may wonder why it is so necessary to relentlessly pursue this subject and to point out those who ridicule this Bible Truth. The reason for this is, if one knows for a fact someone is lying about a certain topic and he keeps quiet about the matter, he becomes part and parcel of that lie. Though keeping quiet may, for the moment, sustain an unsettled peace, in the end it will eat away one’s soul like acid. Therefore, the Truth cannot be compromised come hell or high water! Two Seedline is too important an issue and cannot be avoided in Scripture. Other false doctrines besides the anti-seedline teachings are universalism and the no-devil doctrine. Universalism is usually called “the restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21 taken out of context).

Indeed, Acts 3:21 mentions “the times of restitution of all things”, but the context there is first, the covenants which Yahweh made with the patriarchs, and second, the sin of the children of Israel. The appropriate understanding of what the apostle was referring to is found in the Gospel where Christ said in Matthew chapter 17 that Elijah would come first, and would “restore all things”. Christ spoke of Elijah coming in the future tense, and a future coming of Elijah is found in prophecy only in the prophet Malachi, where it is said that Elijah would “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers”, and the context there is also sin. Therefore the Elijah message is related to the restoration of the children of Israel to their heritage. Examining the occasions that the word restore appears in the prophets, there is a consistent promise to restore the children of Israel into the Kingdom of Yahweh by forgiving their sin, so Paul in Ephesians chapter 4 refers to this as the “restoration of the saints”. The “restitution of all things” is the repairing of the relationship between the children of Israel and Yahweh their God. It is nothing more than that.

From Isaiah chapter 49 we read: “5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. 6 And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Nations, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. 7 Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.” The entire purpose of the Gospel is to “restore the preserved of Israel”, and ultimately all of Israel shall be preserved, as it was announced in the prophets.

Continuing with Clifton:

With this paper, we are going to scrutinize a situation where a proclaimed teacher in Israel Identity finally discovered [that] there was a real devil. Unfortunately, he is still unaware of who the devil’s children are. All this can be found on an audiocassette tape dated 10-2-2002 entitled What We Don’t Know, by Pete Peters. At certain places I will explain or paraphrase him, or quote him word for word. Early on he said: “The truth of the matter is, though we’ve found out who we are, we have still been suffering defeat after defeat because we don’t know where we are; we don’t know who we are fighting; we don’t know what we are fighting; and we don’t know with what we have to fight with, or use the weapons of warfare. Now I know I introduced a concept to some of you, who previous to that have been introduced to a lie, or partial lie, or associated on the outskirts of a lie; and sometimes when we only have a partial truth, and take it as total truth, that in itself can act as a lie; and then along with that, we have hooked up to it our pride, we’re going to hold on to that lie.” Then Peters goes on to proclaim we must repent of that lie. All that sounds quite good, but we must examine the rest of what is being said.

As Clifton will point out later, here where Pete Peters pretends to be able to announce “what we don't know”, he is being either sneakily disingenuous or absolutely arrogant. Simply because I do not know something, or imagine that something cannot be known, it is awfully presumptuous for me to imagine that nobody else can know it. But like the typical Judaized pastor, Peters imagined that if he did not know something, then nobody could know it. Furthermore, many men certainly did know exactly what was going on and exactly who was doing it, at the time that Peters spoke those words. Peters must have willfully rejected their counsel. So Peters was either purposely ignorant, or a chickenhearted numb-skull afraid to admit the truth. Clifton continues speaking about Peters:

Then he brings up how the Israelites crossed the Jordan and moved into Canaan to fight giants. It should be noted, at this point, [that] he made no mention of the origin of those giants. This was a serious omission! Moving along a little further on the tape, he makes a somewhat sarcastic remark: “Let me tell you something, man, woman, scholar, when you’re forty, on the Bible, you don’t know it all, and neither do I.” [Of course, we have no problem with the idea that none of us know everything at any age. Now Clifton asks:] Does he mean that just because he doesn’t understand something concerning the Bible, no one else does either? From the tone of his voice, that seems to be the thrust of his statement.

Peters certainly did mean that, as his earlier statement revealed. And while the presence of giants may not conflict directly with a denial of Two Seedline, it surely does destroy a belief in a global flood. Then again, if the presence of giants is acknowledged, it leads to a better understanding of what really happened in Genesis chapter 6, and we must admit to the enmity operating between two-seedlines, or two distinct races of people. Clifton continues:

Then, several minutes into the tape, he makes this confession: “Now this might kill some people to do this, but I have to tell you something; I was wrong. When I picked up the teaching of the devil — that he’s just the flesh — I’ll tell you a little bit about where that came from — but before I do, I want you to read what the Bible tells you about the devil, and you best take it to heart.”

[Again Clifton responds and says:] The “lie” to which Peter’s alludes seems to have been introduced shortly after Sheldon Emry died, which would have been somewhere in the mid 80s, according to his story. [I do not know why Clifton said this, because below we shall see that Peters relates the understanding that Emry helped introduce the lie to his Identity following. He may have meant before rather than after. Clifton continues:] Now if it took him [meaning Peters] about 15 years to find out that the “no devil” doctrine was false, how long will it take him to discover that Satan actually has physical children? If I remember correctly, the Sheldon Emry camp, with Stephen E. Jones and others, were pushing the single seedline doctrine in addition to the “no devil” doctrine some time before Emry died. [Here Clifton is correct, but he must have earlier misinterpreted something which he quoted from Peters below.]

This is where the anti-seedliners are the most wrong, in my opinion: in denying a literal Satan. The only way to correlate the statements in Revelation chapter 12, which refer to a Devil and Satan and identify it with “that serpent of old”, which is a reference to the serpent of Genesis chapter 3, is to understand that the events described in Revelation chapter 12 must have taken place before the events of Genesis chapter 3. This is entirely plausible, as Christ tells us in Matthew chapter 13 that He came to reveal things kept secret from the foundation of the world. So we cannot make any assertion that the Genesis account is complete, and immediately thereafter Christ explained for His disciples the parable of the wheat and the tares, where we learn that the tares are evil people which were somehow planted by the devil.

With that understanding, we may see that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents a race of people not planted by Yahweh, but having their origin in the rebellion of the fallen angels, who were cast out of heaven to earth, and whose place was found no more in heaven, as we read in Revelation chapter 12. They may have at one time had a leader designated with the label Satan, which means adversary, but collectively these are Satan, and individually they are all devils, and their descendants are among us today. These were the so-called “sons of God”, the fallen heavenly creatures of Genesis chapter 6, and among these are the Genesis chapter 3 serpent, and these are the origin of the Rephaim and Anakim giants of the Old Testament, as well as the line of Cain which Christ and the apostles identified as being from of the devil.

Why this is so difficult for people to accept is beyond me. It does not matter where one thinks the devil, or the fallen angels, had fell from: whether it was the sky, or another dimension, or another planet, or simply from some elevated Godly society here on earth; in any case the allegory is sufficient, and it is all we need to know. What really matters is that the Scriptures teach this rather explicitly, so this is what we should understand and this is what we should accept. Returning to Clifton:

After quoting 1 Peter 5:8, which says: “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert, your adversary the devil prowls about like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour”, then [Pete] Peters continues to comment thus: “Now the devil has been winning he has been winning this world, and the head of the conspiracy is not the Pope not the Illuminati not the Masons not the bankers not the Jews; it’s the devil. Jesus Christ referred to him as the ruler of this world ... And so we have been taken down time after time after time. We’ve lost ground in this battle we’ve lost our borders we’ve lost our families we’ve lost our health we’ve lost our morality we’ve lost our decency we’ve lost our freedoms ... but I want to tell you this, if you never quit fighting, you don’t win the war ... So I humble myself I apologize to you because I’ve been a part of this to a certain extent ... And will you forgive me for teaching you error? ... Now let me tell you something a little bit about this no devil doctrine, O.K.” [And Clifton now responds and says:] This apology is very admirable on the part of Pete Peters, if [it was] meant in all sincerity. But if this is a desperate move on his part to save his following, that is a different matter. Time will tell. For those who read my materials they know that, I too, have apologized when I found I was wrong in certain areas.

Of course, we should all be willing to humbly admit when we are wrong, and Scripture should be the authority to which we should all submit. However Scripture can easily be misunderstood, and rather than understanding that by the time of Christ, the devil is an entire collection of individuals all descended from a particular seed-line, Peters goes to the other extreme and imagines a singular personal devil who exerts power and control over particular individuals. Returning to Clifton:

Had Peters checked Job 1:7 & 2:2, he would have found that it is similar to 1 Peter 5:8 but doesn’t mention the “roaring lion”, yet the center reference of 1 Peter 5:8 sends us to Job 1:7. Also, the center reference at Job 1:7 takes us back to 1 Peter 5:8. It should be apparent that the “devil” of 1 Peter 5:8 is identical to the Satan of Job 1:7 & 2:2. I became curious when I realized that Peter described the devil as a roaring lion and the passages in Job didn’t. Job, in 4:10 does speak of the lion, but not in that context. I found, by checking my many commentaries, that Peter's reference to the “devil” being as a “roaring lion” was a euphemism for Nero’s feeding the Christians to the lions. If that is true, then we can understand why the “roaring lion” was not mentioned in Job. In order to comprehend what Peter was warning about in 1 Peter 5:8, we have to place ourselves in the political climate of the Roman Empire at that time. Pete Peters didn’t take the Roman Empire and the feeding of the Christians to the lions into consideration when commenting [on] 1 Peter 5:8. Likely, Peter never made it to the city of Rome, but he understood the danger to the Christians. The next question we must consider is: how was Nero’s Rome analogous to “the devil?” I believe the answer to that is the influence of Nero’s second wife, the Jewess, Poppaea Sabina. The significance of this is the fact that Poppaea was a descendant of the satanic seedline of Cain. If you don’t think that Poppaea had all that much influence on Nero, then you need to read a history book like Edward Gibbon’s The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire. People form many absurd ideas and arrive at numerous foolish conclusions about what they think the Bible is saying because they don’t take the time element and the circumstances into account.

It is certainly true, that people seem to flatten the Bible in their understanding, which means that they imagine it to represent concepts written from the same point of view in all times. Actually, the Bible is written from many different points of view at many different times, and each must be taken into account when opinions are formed about what it is saying.

Here we see that Clifton did not accept the relatively late and possibly fabricated Roman Catholic account of the apostle Peter's death. But Clifton does seem to accept the denominational commentaries which attempt to identify the apostle Peter's devil with Rome. However the early Christian writers Tertullian and Minucius Felix, as well as Paul of Tarsus, and the apostle Luke, all inform us that the persecution of Christians by the Romans was always at the instigation of the Jews. Pete Peters foolishly said that “the head of the conspiracy is not the Pope — not the Illuminati — not the Masons — not the bankers — not the Jews; it’s the devil”, but we must beg to differ. The devil is a collection of individuals – including but not limited to those whom we know as Jews – who have always acted in a manner consistent with their nature, and who are therefore genetically inclined to act together in a manner which is contrary to God and to Christian civilization. So they developed Freemasonry, they are the Illuminati, and they are the bankers, and they corrupted the Church and the popes, and so on, because as Christ had warned us, they are the Princes of this world, and they will be until He returns. Clifton continues repeating the interpretation of 1 Peter 5:8 which he found in the commentaries:

Because the Roman emperors considered themselves gods in those days, it was dangerous to speak out against Rome. Peter was simply instructing his followers to be careful of what they said in this regard. In 1 Peter 5:13, “The church that is at Babylon” is mentioned. The term “Babylon” was a code-word for Rome. By interjecting “Babylon” for “Rome” it was safe to speak of Rome without any repercussions. We do that sort of thing today. So then, Peter was simply instructing his followers to be as good citizens of Rome as possible, while at the same time being “sober and vigilant.” In other words, don’t unnecessarily wave a red flag at the enemy! That is also good advice for us today! That doesn’t mean we have to renege on our Christian principles in the process.

While much of what Clifton says here is good, actually Peter's epistle was almost certainly written before John wrote the Revelation, and the identification of Rome with Babylon was only made many centuries later, by the Reformers, although it was derived from analogies presented in the Revelation. There is no reason to believe, however, that the identification was made by anyone in the first century, including Peter. When the Revelation described a whore, it was describing the small-c church, the collective people of the tribes of Israel, and not the Roman Catholic Church, which is an imperialistic organization pretending to stand for Christ and masquerading as Israel. The fact that many of the children of Israel were part of that organization for several centuries still does not give us authority to reassign the descriptions provided by the prophets. When Peter wrote “Babylon”, he certainly meant Babylon, and not Rome. Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, and in his time there were still many Judahites of the captivity dwelling in Babylonia and the rest of Mesopotamia, which we see from Acts chapter 2. In his first epistle, regarding the devil, Peter was talking about Jews and not merely about pagan Romans. So while we do not agree, we will nevertheless continue with Clifton where he says:

Another reason for using the code-word Babylon, in place of Rome, may have been because the Roman emperors considered themselves the representative of the Babylonian Pontifex Maximus. All that came about when the Medo-Persian kings expelled the Chaldean priesthood after the death of Belshazzar and they settled at Pergamos. [There is no historical evidence for this statement that we have ever seen, and if there is something we never read, a citation would certainly be in order.] In the course of time, Pergamos became part of the Roman Empire. Upon the death of Attalus III in 133 B.C., having no heir, he bequeathed the title of Pontifex Maximus to Rome. After that, each Roman Emperor automatically became a Pontifex Maximus. This continued until Gratian, who refused it for Christian reasons. It was then transferred to the Roman Catholic Church where it remains today. This account can be found in The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, pages 240-242. You might remember the account of Achan and his family being destroyed for hiding a Babylonish garment under their tent; Joshua 7:21.

Here Clifton followed Alexander Hislop, and I am certain that today he would admit that was a mistake. Hislop, an anti-Popish Reformer, sought a condemnation of the Roman Church and contrived every tale he could imagine in order to get it. In truth, there is no historical substantiation for Hislop's claim concerning the title Pontifex Maximus, and the ancient historians attest to the title's having been used in Rome long before the time of Attalus III of Pergamos. Others have claimed that it was his father, Eumenes II, who made the bequest. So we wrote the following in Part 2 of our commentary of the Revelation of Yahshua Christ, first presented in December of 2010, under the subtitle:

The Pontifex Maximus: A Reformer and Identity Error

Another error that Comparet and many others in Christian Identity make is to follow Alexander Hislop in his book, The Two Babylons, especially where he claims that the title pontifex maximus came to Rome through Pergamos, inheriting it from Eumenes II upon his death in 159 BC [his son Attalus III ruled even later, from 138 to 133 BC]. This is easily disproven from the classical writers, and here I shall offer one example, Diodorus Siculus, and two citations of his. The first is found in his 7th book, at 7.5.8, where he explains that Iulius, the legendary founder of the Julian line and ancestor of the famous Gaius Julius Caesar and his kindred, gained the title pontifex maximus after he was bested in an election for the kingship by Silvius, after the death of Aeneas. So we see that Diodorus believed the title to have been in Rome since its inception. Whether one wants to accept the myth or not is of no consequence, since Diodorus' second testimony is a historical citation which is from about 202 BC, in the fragments of his 27th book (27.2) where he stated that “As pontifex maximus he [meaning Publius Licinius Crassus Dives] was obliged by reason of his religious duties not to absent himself from the vicinity of Rome.” Furthermore, the Roman historian Livy mentions the title pontifex maximus [in Rome] in many historical contexts before the death of Eumenes II of Pergamos, the first being in connection with one Quintus Furius, who held the office circa 447 BC, This is from Livy's Book III, Chapter LIV (3.54).

Here we see through two ancient witnesses that the title pontifex maximus was in Rome long before the death of Attalus III, or even his father Eumenes II. With this knowledge, Hislop's claims disintegrate and there is no such connection in this manner that can be made between Babylon and Rome. We know that much of the paganism found in the Roman Catholic Church had its origins in the east, but that is because our race migrated from the east in antiquity, and brought those pagan traditions with them as they moved west. When Rome accepted Christianity, pagan priests became Catholic priests and retained their pagan traditions. Today there are many clowns who perceive those traditions to represent Christianity, but the apostles of Christ certainly would have had nothing to do with them.

This may raise a question, as to why in the Revelation it is said that Satan's seat is in Pergamos. Here we shall explain that when Paul of Tarsus was writing his second epistle to the Thessalonians, some time around 50 or 51 AD while he was in Corinth, Paul informed us that Satan's seat was in the temple in Jerusalem, where the man of perdition was sitting in the temple of God, pretending to be a god. This was certainly a reference to the Edomite Jews who had usurped the office of high priest for themselves, and collectively they represented Satan, being the Adversary of Christ. However by the time that the Revelation was written, as John was in exile on Patmos during the reign of Domitian, Jerusalem had been destroyed, and Satan's seat must have moved. Pergamos was a powerful city at the time, one of the richest cities in Anatolia, and it is very likely that many of those same Edomites took refuge there.

Continuing with Clifton:

It should be pointed out that Pete Peters didn’t mention any of these things concerning 1 Peter 5:8 [referring to the things from Hislop attempting to identify Rome as Babylon]. Now back to Pete Peters on his audio-cassette tape presentation: “Now I want you to know something: the second most important thing to understand about the devil is this he is. The second most important thing to understand about the devil’s servants (his children) is they are. Now we don’t need to fight and divide and argue with our pride holding us here and there, if nothing else, except the fact that the devil is; and that he does scheme according to the Bible; and that he is a roaring lion seeking someone to devour. And accept the truth of God’s Word that says his servants lie in wait to deceive.”

Here I must interject, that Pete Peters is essentially admitting that Two-Seedline is true without acknowledging just how it is true, and then he pleads that he does not want to argue over the details, which is only a pitiful cop-out. Clifton continues:

Inasmuch as Pete Peters will repeat the phrase “lie in wait” several times in the remainder of his lecture, let’s see what kind of implications it might have. He is correct when he points out this is the nature of the devil. The first place that it is mentioned is in Genesis 4:7 where the Almighty speaks to Cain saying: “If thou doest well, shall thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” The connection here are the words “sin, lieth and door.” What does this mean, “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door?” A lot of people try to read this as if Cain had a choice in the matter. That is not at all what it is saying! What is it saying then? Yahweh through Moses is speaking of Cain’s conception and birth here — his natural tendency toward sin as a result of the character of his father. Cain’s conception was therefore his “door.” Yahweh knew that he wouldn’t “do well” and wasn’t fit for the birthright and He told him as much! Let’s see what the words “sin”, “lieth” and “door” mean in the Hebrew:

Sin — #2403 chattâ’âh, khat-taw-aw; or chattâ’th, khat-tawth; from 2398; an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender: — punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin (-ner, offering).

Lieth — #7257 râbats, raw-bats’: a primitive root; to crouch (on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal); by implication to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed:— crouch (down), fall down, make a fold, lay, (cause to, make to) lie (down), make to rest, sit.

Door — #6607 pethach, peh’-thakh; from 6605; an opening (literally), i.e. door (gate) or entrance way:— door, entering (in), entrance (-ry), gate, opening, place.

Notice how well the word #7257, “lieth”, fits an animal that lies in wait for its prey. Peters doesn’t grasp this connection either. In other words, the Almighty was telling Cain it was in his genetics to think and act the way he did. Cain’s sin lieth at his conception and birth door! All of Cain’s (Satan’s) descendants are congenital liars and murderers (John 8:44). If one will notice that verse, they will observe that it says “from the beginning.” Therefore there is not a single generation where that was and is not true.

No matter what we may think of the technical aspects of Clifton's interpretation, it is certainly correct in the overall aspect that Yahweh challenged Cain to do well, and Cain proved that he could not do well, immediately going out and killing his brother. Sin certainly did await him at the door, or, at least, at the very first opportunity. Cain was indeed a devil, because of the circumstances of his birth, as well as being a murderer from the beginning – so he could not help himself but to be a murderer. Clifton then says:

Now back to Peters’ presentation:

And the other day it just came to me like that — how it all happened. And then I called up George Southwick who’s been involved in this movement many years, and he confirmed how it worked. Now what happened is: a very fine man who hass reached more people with the Anglo-Israel Message than any man I know of — a man that ordained me that I highly respect — who’s a far better man than I am, for he was a far better man, and certainly a better scholar — but nevertheless he was like me, he was a man. And he, pastor Emry, came out with the ‘no devil’ doctrine. And the way it came about, though, he was given a book by (it was revealed to me just as clear as could be) a Jewess. Now some of you are not going to like this I don’t really care I’m even going to tell you her name. Her name was Gerda Koch ... You are going to have to accept the fact that when you become mature in Christ, and you begin to have these revelations, you begin to recognize snakes. Gerda Koch showed some of the finest fruits fought against the Jews put out some of the finest material imaginable [had] been to my camp.

Here Pete Peters talks about Gerda Koch the same way a lot of people now talk about Mike Enoch, or Andrew Anglin, or Stefan Molyneux. So many of us are deceived by the so-called “good jew”, and it always comes back to burn us in the end, whereas Christ would rather see us burn these Jews.

Now I must interject, that Gerda Koch certainly had some strange ideas, taught some fantastic novelties, and even claimed to be a prophetess, or at least, some clowns pretending to be Identity Christians, such as Nathan Ashley of Heirs of the Kingdom, claim that she was a prophetess. Another fellow named Dan Gentry in Texas also used to promote her. I wrote Dan when I was in prison and I never received a response. There was a booklet making the rounds under the pseudonym Kalamos which was promoting Gerda's nonsensical claims that Satan was actually a reference to the flesh. Here, I am glad that Pete Peters labelled Gerda Koch as a Jew long before we ever had the thought. Imagine a devil convincing Sheldon Emry that there was really no such thing as devils, and that sin is all the fault of the flesh. That is exactly what Peters describes here, and his testimony is highly critical of himself as well as Emry, since they both fell for it. Gerda Koch didn't fight against the Jews, but instead she evidently convinced a very influential man that Jews could not be devils, because there are no devils, contrary to the absolute Biblical truth. God created the flesh, and He called it good, so the flesh itself cannot be the devil. Therefore all of her supposed good work is neutralized because she was only a deceiver. Christian Identity continues to suffer from her deception unto this very day, and we strive daily to correct the problem. Clifton continues citing Pete Peters:

But it occurred to me this Jewess we were having trouble with at Branson, Missouri the last few years — she was standing out there with — we have evidence she works for Morris Dees standing out with a protest sign some of you saw her, didn’t you? She was the spitting image of Gerda Koch. And old Gerda laid in wait, and this is what they do. They will lay in wait a lifetime if necessary ... You don’t understand because you’re sheep the nature of a wolf disguises themselves as sheep. And you don’t have to understand their nature just understand what the Scripture says have enough humility to accept it, and believe it.” [(Clifton now adds a reminder:) Note: these are Pete Peter’s words about Gerda Koch, not mine. (Now Clifton continues in response to Peters:)]

Ironically enough, the Scriptures say that the “Jews” are “of” their father the devil, but Peters neither “accepts” it nor “believes” it! When speaking of people, the Greek word for “of” means a son of a father. Peters has one standard for others and another for himself. It appears that it all depends on what Peters believes, and only he has a right to change his mind. Let’s continue with his oration:

When you begin to go through Scripture there is a devil. He does put thoughts in people’s minds. [I must state, if the devil puts thoughts into people's minds, it is now usually done through entertainment industry or news media – WRF.] Jesus referred to him as the ruler of this world. Jesus did a sword fight with him in the temptation in the wilderness. He is like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour. He does deceive the nations. He has at his disposal the evil forces of darkness that Ephesians speaks about. They are Jews they are unclean spirits they are unclean birds the Bible talks about all these things ... We had one leader who espouses what is known as the seedline. And if I got seedline people here, I want to tell you something. When you got a whole hoard of these coming at you, and you’re in the foxhole, and you have to take the enemy down, there’s no sense in getting in an argument with your foxhole partner as to the origin of these people. Let’s take care of that later, O.K.? But we turn around and shoot each other.”

[Now Clifton responds:] You can see here, Peters wants to violate the first principle of warfare. That being, under no circumstance, go to war without knowing the character of the enemy. In metaphoric analogy, it is known as “going off half-cocked.” Peters couldn’t be more wrong on that statement, for it is quite the opposite from his claim. He’s adopting the position, “shoot first and ask questions later.” That’s a real good way to shoot the wrong people. [We would add that a Christian Identity which seeks to identify only a portion of the people of our Bible, and disregards the others, is not Identity at all. Sheep and goats, wheat and tares, sons and bastards, and every plant which Yahweh did not plant must all be properly identified before we can ever truly repent of our sins. Clifton continues and says:] Now back to Peters:

Now I want to tell you what I think the origin of these people are, all right the origin of the devil. I think my God is the creator of all things that He creates good and evil. You have to accept that. And I accept the pure teaching if you go over to ... Genesis chapter 4, verse 1. ‘Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived, and gave birth to Cain, and she said, I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord. And she again gave birth to his brother Abel, and Abel was the keeper of the flock, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.’ Now that’s the way I see it.”

Yahweh creates good and evil, but Yahweh only creates good and evil in certain contexts. Man is either blessed or chastised for sin. So being blessed to man is considered good, and being chastised is evil. That is the sort of evil Yahweh creates, which is evil in man's perspective, but which is for his good. But Yahweh did not create the sort of evil which is rebellion against Him. That is sin, rebellion against Yahweh, and man cannot blame his God fir his sin. Man violating the law, Yahweh did not create bastards, and He cannot be blamed for bastards. Sin and its products is the work of man, not of God.

This is how we introduced part 19 of this series: by explaining that if Genesis 4:1 is a stumbling block to one's acceptance of two-seedline truth, it is the only such stumbling-block, and one must understand that this verse is demonstrably corrupt. Once the problem with Genesis 4:1 is understood, there are no obstacles and two-seedline is practically self-evident throughout Scripture. Now Clifton responds and says:

This last statement by Peters should set off alarms and red lights in our minds, for it demonstrates, with little doubt, that he has never fully researched the matter. Had he ever checked The Interpreter’s Bible, both the twelve and one-volume editions, he would have discovered there are difficult problems with the Hebrew in Genesis 4:1. For instance, the words “with the help of” were never in the Hebrew. Evidently, Peters is using one of the Bible translations that erroneously spawn that rendering. To refresh your memory, I will repeat what I have cited before. Many of the best Hebrew scholars confirm there is a problem with Genesis 4:1! The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 “consulting editors” plus 124 other “contributors”, makes the following observation on this verse, [in] vol. 1, [on] page 517:

Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. From the Lord (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ — and that the words are a gloss ...” [Then responding to this, Clifton warns:] While The Interpreter’s Bible does quite well on the Hebrew in this verse, they are wanting in many other areas. [And now Clifton continues and says:]

I don’t mean to suggest that a gloss is the actual problem, but only to show [that] there is an anomaly with this verse. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on this passage, on page 6: “... under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood).”

Evidently, Pete Peters has some extraordinary insight on Genesis 4:1 that no one else knows about! (Or does he only think he has?) It is commendable that he has finally conceded to the fact there is a devil, but we can’t wait another 15 years for him to finally admit there is a Two Seedline devil of Genesis 3:15 and 4:1. For anyone who is interested, Pete Peters, by his own admission as presented here, does not teach Two Seedline, no matter how much he raves about the devil. I suggest that his latest revelation; now that there really is a devil, may be a ploy to satisfy both the anti-seedliners and [the] Two Seedliners in his congregation. If you’re really not sure, why don’t you put him to the acid test. With this evidence, I believe we already have.

And I think Clifton was correct, that this was a ploy. But so far as I know, Peters never answered Clifton, and he died as a result of an accident in 2011. This paper was written in January, 2003. So Clifton continues:

Now that we have established an ambiguity with Genesis 4:1, let’s once again review the evidence found in the Aramaic Targums. I will now cite again the following evidence:

Targum of Jonathan to Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by the Angel Sammael, and she conceived and bare Cain; and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.”

Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1: “And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ...”

Again, it would appear from those references that the problem with Genesis 4:1 is an omission of some of the words of the Hebrew text. I will now quote Genesis 4:1 from the King James Version and I will add the potentially needed words in italics from the Targum of Jonathan so it will make some sense:

And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, 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.”

Clifton did well here, but as I have said before, the value of these Targums is that they demonstrate that early commentators did indeed realize that there was something missing in Genesis 4:1, and attempted to rectify the situation for themselves. Other sources, such as Origen's Hexapla, show the difficulty in translating the Hebrew of the passage, where it is apparently corrupted. Still other sources show that at least some early Christians understood that Eve was indeed sexually seduced, and Paul of Tarsus certainly agreed, in 2 Corinthians chapter 11. Continuing with Clifton:

Let’s now return to Peters’ presentation proving there really is a devil: “Now I have handed you a handout, and I rapidly want to look at that handout called Scriptures On The Devil And Satan. The Strong’s definition on the Greek word translated Satan is the accuser, that is, the devil. The word devil is transducer, a slanderer, a false accuser. The devil and Satan is one and the same entity, and is also called the tempter, see Matthew 4:1-3, 10. The evil one, Matthew 13:38. The great dragon and old serpent of Revelation 12. The devil knows and uses and quotes Scripture to promote false doctrine and deception, see Matthew 4:1-11. [Here Pete should have considered Gerda Koch! - WRF] He plants his people in the Kingdom, see Matthew 13:38-39. He takes away the Word of God from the heart of his people, Luke 8:10-13. He puts into the heart of men to do evil, even to the extent of betraying the Son of God, John 13:2. He can oppress some to the point they need healing, Acts 10:38-39. If you let the sun go down on your anger, you give the devil an opportunity, Ephesians 4:25-28. He schemes against us ... Ephesians 6:11-12. He is able to ensnare and hold people captive to his will, 2 Timothy 2:25-26. He’s a roaring lion seeking someone to devour 1 Peter 5:8-9. He has works, 1 John 3:8-9. He deceives, that is he is capable of deceiving the whole world, Revelation 12:8-9. [Think about CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. - WRF] He can enter into certain people, Luke 22:3-4. He can sift people like sifting wheat, Luke 22:31-33. He can fill your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3. He has dominion known as the dominion of darkness, Acts 26: 16-18. To combat him is a sword fight. Jesus used Scripture to fight him, and told him to be gone. Matthew 4:1-11. He has angels, Revelation 12:8-9. Satan falls when we use the authority and power given to us, Luke 10:17-20. He can disguise himself as an angel of light, 2 Corinthians 11: 12-15. Satan hinders us at times, 1 Thessalonians 2:17-19. Power, signs and false wonders can be performed by Satan, 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10. Some Christians turn and follow Satan, 1 Timothy 5:14-16. Satan has a synagogue and a throne, Revelation 2:8-10 and Revelation 2:12-14 ...” [Peters said all of these things only to show the folly of believing that Satan is merely “the flesh”, as Gerda Koch had apparently convinced Sheldon Emry and many others. Now Clifton responds:]

While Peters did a good job on his handouts describing Satan, he forgot his most important Scripture. That being that Satan, by seducing Eve, had the power to procreate children, John 8:44. Because Peters assigns Satan to the spiritual realm only, he recommends exorcism as a method, similar to the Pentecostals, for fighting against the devil. He completely overlooks the fact that the fallen angels had the ability to change themselves into the form of men and mate with women. The antichrist, anti-seedliners usually point to Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:34-35 to refute that idea, but that is not what these passages are inferring. There’s a lot of difference between unlawful sexual intercourse and the institution of marriage. True marriage takes into account the parental responsibility for the offspring of those unions. True marriage is kind after kind. Angel-Adamwomen unions are not in that category!

Actually those passages all refer to angels in heaven, and not to “fallen angels” cast out into earth, where it is said that the angels inn heaven do not marry nor are given in marriage. Now Clifton did well enough here, but we would say that the fallen angels naturally had the form of men and were able to mate with women, which happened in both Genesis chapters 3 and 6. The same thing is going on today, except perhaps the form of these satanic bastards is even a lot more corrupt than it was then....