Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 5

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170602-CAE-SpecNotice05.mp3 — Downloaded 1875 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 5

After Part 4 of my presentation in this series, I saw some of the buzz in social media, and various crybabies are complaining that I “attacked” Eli James. That is funny, because I was only responding to claims that Eli himself had made, that I never addressed his silly Crumbs  paper, as he had bragged that I could never refute it. He really is arrogant – he packages deceit and labels it as “irrefutable” because for six years I ignored it, not thinking it to be worth my attention. So after six years I get tired of his lies, and I point out a few serious problems with Eli’s paper. But not once did the crybabies who are now whining about that offer to discuss any of the issues. Rather, they attack me for “attacking” Eli, even when I was able to post screenshots of Eli’s vain boasting that I have not refuted his paper, for which my entire ministry stands as a refutation. So am I really attacking Eli or am I just answering his boast that I never refuted his stupid Crumbs paper? This is their grade-school mentality, and it represents why they will never amount to anything. In fact, the fools who are complaining the loudest have been supposed Aryan nations members and Identity Christians for twenty or so years, and they have not a single worthwhile accomplishment of their own. They cannot discuss the issues with me because they will be put to shame. They are a disgrace to Richard Butler’s legacy.

While British Israel, or BI, was wrong about a lot of things, even it did not really stand for Bastard Identity. Likewise, CI does not stand for Compromise Identity. The whole Eli James crowd is insanely stupid. They prove their stupidity by complaining about what I am saying in these podcasts, because it proves that they listen and still they do not agree. Why do they listen to my podcasts at all? Evidently because they do not have an original thought of their own. Here I will prove how stupid they are again.

First, Eli James has taken Genesis 12:1-3 entirely out of context and applies it to the non-Adamic Races. There, in part, it is said to Abraham by Yahweh “3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Now, Eli himself will tell you that the word “earth” in Genesis chapters 6 through 9 refers only to the land of Noah and the race of Adam, and not to the entire planet. Of course, the same word translated as earth in these passages in the King James Version was indeed translated as land on a thousand other occasions in the King James Version.

So Eli declares in his Crumbs paper, in part, that: “Genesis 12:1-3 Declares that the Non-White Races Will Be Blessed By Abraham’s Descendants”. But is that really the case? Eli then jumps through linguistic hoops to somehow prove that the word families in Genesis 12:3 refers to every other species of animal on the planet, and therefore to non-White races of people as well as animals.

However when we go back one chapter, we see the account of the tower of Babel, and the distribution of the Adamic race when Yahweh God had separated the people. It says “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language” and “the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth”. These people who were one were described in Genesis chapter 10 as the descendants of Noah where it concluded that “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” So the dividing in Genesis chapter 11 is the dividing of the nations listed in Genesis chapter 10. And they were all sons of Noah. In Deuteronomy chapter 32 we see a reflection of this, where it says: “8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Where it says in Genesis chapter 10 “32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood,” they are the families being referred to where it says in Genesis chapter 12 “...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” None of this has anything to do with other races or with animals. This is why I have asserted that there are so many basic premises wrong with Eli James’ Crumbs paper that it is much more trouble to address than it is worth, and it is not worth the paper it can be printed on.

Eli tries hard in his Crumbs paper to convince us that the crumbs of the account of Christ and the Canaanite woman represent blessings, and that they prove that the non-White races can receive blessings from God. Citing Genesis 12:3 and the story of the Canaanite woman, Eli says “From all of this Scriptural evidence, it is eminently clear that non-Whites can receive blessings from Yahweh.” Then he says “It is also very clear that Yahshua can give the crumbs to anyone He pleases.” Here is another problem with his premise: where does it say that God purposely drops crumbs under the table of the children so that the dogs may eat?

Here is the passage, from Matthew chapter 15: “26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”

Where she says “the dogs eat of the crumbs from their masters’ table” the woman only makes a general observation about dogs, and at most her only admittance is that she herself is a dog and not on the level of Christ or the people of God. Eli wants to make a theological statement out of this in reference to dominion theology, but there is not one shred of evidence that the woman had such a thing in mind, and the words are the words of the woman and are not a doctrine from God. Eli has a penchant for making doctrines out of the words of men, the king of Assyria in the book of Jonah being another example. Where Christ responded “great is thy faith”, by faith He was only referring to the woman’s belief that He could heal her daughter, and her admission that she was a dog. It does not make her a Christian, and then He only told her to “go thy way”, as it is recorded in Mark chapter 7.

So the woman makes the general observation that dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table, and Eli makes a doctrine out of it based on the false assumption that crumbs are purposely distributed by God. However Christ was talking about the bread of the children, and not the bread eaten by the Master Himself.

Dogs may be blessed by crumbs dropped under the table by the children, but should we really look at Scripture, as Eli does, from the perspective of the dogs? Why don’t we look at Scripture as we should, from the perspective of the children for whom the Scripture was written?

When I was a child, my father never liked it when we dropped our food on the floor. Mom would ask for the thousandth time, Why can't you sit up and eat with your head over the table? Keep your food over your plate! And when we dropped food on the floor, it was something like What are you, a slob? or Am I raising a pig? etc etc etc…. It was never a good thing to drop crumbs on the floor, especially around the time that mom had mopped and waxed it, and purposely throwing our food on the floor to the dog was always a sin. It would be worthy of a good spanking. That is what the crumbs are which fall on the floor: they are sins. When we inadvertently drop crumbs on the floor, the dogs are blessed. When we carelessly give away what belongs to our own children, we sin, and from their own perspective the other races are blessed but that does not make it any less sinful. In our sin, we cast our blessings to the dogs. When we give the blessings which our Father gives us to the dogs, purposely or not, that is a sin. That is how we should look at the parable, as a warning, as Christ had originally said that “it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.” As I have said before, Eli James would rip the bread out of the hands of the children, cast it to the dogs, and call it crumbs. That is precisely what he is trying to do in his Crumbs paper, characterizing the sins of the children of God as blessings from God, he is taking the perspective of the dogs and creating false doctrine for the children.

With this, we will commence with our presentation of Clifton Emahiser’s

Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, #5

Again, I would remind everyone who is not aware of it, we are in a WAR. This WAR has been going on now for about 7,000 years. This WAR is between the GENETIC children of Yahweh and the GENETIC children of Satan; this WAR is between the White children of Adam and Eve and the offspring of Satan through Cain whom we know today as “Jews.” Yes, the “Jews” are the literal progeny of Satan walking about today in shoe-leather. The “Jews” of today and the scribes and Pharisees of Messiah’s time should not be confused with the true Tribe of Judah. John Lightfoot understood this when he wrote in his A Commentary on the New Testament From the Talmud and Hebraica, volume 3, page 334 in reference to John 8:37:

We will interrupt Clifton momentarily to say that in our opinion, the entire race of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which is all of the Fallen Angels of Revelation chapter 12 and whatever corruptions they were responsible for, could be considered the “seed of the serpent”. Of course, the Jews and whatever Arabs and other descended from Cain would be the seed of the Serpent, but the rest of the fallen angels were certainly related. So we see that the “seed of the serpent” is a wider group than merely the descendants of Cain.

From this whole period it is manifest that the whole tendency of our Savior’s discourse is to shew the Jews that they are the seed of that serpent that was to bruise the heel of the Messiah: else what could that mean, ver. 44. ‘Ye are of your father the devil’, but this, viz. ‘Ye are the seed of the serpent?’”

Let’s now take a look at John 8:38. While we do, let’s remember that in verse 41 the “Jews” were very defensive of the implication of being “born of fornication.” Being born of fornication implies being born of an impure racial union, Greek #4202. Dr. Spiros Zodhiates in his New Testament Word Study Dictionary, page 1201: “In John 8:41, ‘We be not born of fornication’ means, ‘We are not spurious children, born of a concubine, but are the true descendants of Abraham’.” Sure, the Arabs can claim Abraham as their father.

Here we will interrupt Clifton momentarily once more and say that only certain Arabs, especially the Nabataeans, who are evidently descendants of Ishmael in part, could make a legitimate claim to have Abraham for a forefather. Otherwise, most Arabs may be mixed with at least some Israelite or Edomite ancestry in one way or another, but because of all the race-mixing of the last three millennia, even that is difficult to quantify, cannot be documented, and any claim that all Arabs are seed of Abraham is unfounded. But in the end they are only a race of bastards, just like the Jews. Clifton continues and says:

We know, also, that the “Jews” of Messiah’s day had absorbed Edomite blood, and therefore could claim both Abraham and Isaac as their fathers. The Shelanite-Judahites could even claim an affinity with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Judah, but that doesn’t make them of the true Tribe of Judah. Now let’s read that passage [John 8:39] with that in mind:

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Yahshua saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.”

Verse 39 really clears up the whole matter. The Holy Bible New Century Version puts it very nicely in verse 39:

They answered, ‘Our father is Abraham.’ Jesus said, ‘If you were really Abraham’s children, you would do the things Abraham did’.”

A Commentary On The Holy Bible, edited by Rev. J. R. Dummelow M.A., page 789 remarks on John 8:37 in this manner:

Their desire to kill Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, proved that they were not children of Abraham, but of Satan.”

Actually, many nations were the promised seed of Abraham, and that was fulfilled long before the time of Christ. Christ alone was not the seed of the promise to Abraham, as even Paul repeated the fulfillment of the promise in Isaac: “In Isaac sgall thy seed be called.” Clifton continues:

The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, agrees with Dr. Lightfoot on John 8:37 as quoted here above:

My word hath no place in you. Or, ‘This doctrine of Mine has no place in you.’ You hear the truths of God [Yahweh] but you do not heed them; the word of life has no influence over you. And how can it when you seek to kill Me because I proclaim this truth to you? From what is here said it is manifest, says Dr. Lightfoot, that the whole tendency of our Savior’s discourse is to show the Jews that they are the seed of the serpent which was to bruise the heel of the Messiah. Else what could that mean, v. 44: ‘Ye are of your father the devil’ ie., ‘Ye are the seed of the serpent?’”

Maybe, at this point, it would be well to consider Lightfoot’s history. For this we shall go to his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, volume 1, in the introduction, pages iii & iv:

Lightfoot was one of many earnest Christian scholars of his time. Master of St. Catherine Hall, Cambridge, he possessed the classical learning of those days. He was at home in Latin and Greek, and he was a master not only of classical Hebrew, but also of Mishnaic Hebrew and the Aramaic of the Talmud. We are reminded of his elder contemporary Lancelot Andrews, one of the translators of the King James Version of the Bible, who composed prayers for himself in Hebrew!

Aside from Lightfoot’s scholarly writings and productive teaching, he took part in the Westminster Assembly, which sat from 1643 to 1649. He belonged to the Erastian party [named for Swiss theologian Thomas Erastus, evidently to describe a doctrine which Erastus did not hold], favoring an established church, and this is reflected in the present work in his letter of thanks to Gilbert, who Lightfoot says is, ‘by divine providence, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England.’ Lightfoot lived in troubled times. Born in the last days of Queen Elisabeth, he was a boy when the King James Version was published. He sat in the Westminster Assembly while the Long Parliament beheaded King Charles I, then somehow survived the restoration under Charles II, all the while maintaining a real Christian testimony and making an important scholarly contribution to Scripture study. From his commentary one would hardly guess at the turbulent times in which he lived. One point is of interest. In the days of Oliver Cromwell, when Lightfoot was at the height of his powers, the Jews were allowed again in England after 250 years of proscription [prohibition].”

While Lightfoot was a Puritan, and learned in Hebrew and Aramaic without any notable assistance from Jews, and he was a scholar wrapped up in many of the theological debates of the time, it was not likely that he had much to do with the resettlement of Jews in England. For the most part, that was a political matter ultimately settled by Cromwell while it was not really ever settled at all. Finally, the English from Cromwell’s times simply stopped enforcing the laws proscribing Jews. Clifton continues:

From Lightfoot’s comments on John 8:37, we can plainly see he understood the “Jews” were the seed of the serpent of Genesis 3:15. This is the same position as taken by the teachers of Two Seedline. It seems, then, that Lightfoot understood the tenet of Two Seedline!!! But Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley, a fervently caustic anti-seedliner, in his booklet The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, page 15 says: “The Satanic Seedline doctrine was brought into the Identity teaching with San Jacinto Capt and Wesley A. Swift. Actually, San Jacinto Capt claimed he had gotten Wesley A. Swift started... In any case, Wesley Swift presented the seedline doctrine to Gerald L. K. Smith... From there Swift got Bertrand Comparet started... and shortly later San Jacinto Capt... introduced William P. Gale to Swift...” I submit that Two Seedline doctrine has been around for quite a long time, and was not the invention of Capt, Swift, Comparet, or Gale as Weakley spuriously suggests.

I must say that since this paper, we have identified passages agreeing with what we call Two Seedline in the writings of Tertullian and Justin Martyr, and Clifton also identified Two Seedline teachings in the writings of the early Celtic, or Culdee Church. So Two Seedline certainly did appear much earlier than the 20th century.

Now for some quotes from other commentaries on John 8:37:

Matthew Henry’s Commentary, volume 5, page 997: “Now Christ overthrows this plea, and exposes the vanity of it by a plain and cogent argument: ‘Abraham’s children will do the works of Abraham, but you do not do Abraham’s works, therefore you are not Abraham’s children.’ The proposition is plain: If you were Abraham’s children, such children of Abraham as could claim an interest in the covenant made with him and his seed, which would indeed put an honour upon you, then you would do the works of Abraham, for to those only of Abraham’s house who kept the way of the Lord, as Abraham did, would God [Yahweh] perform what he had spoken, Genesis 18:19.”

It may not be entirely clear here that Matthew Henry was speaking of literal children, except for where he said those only of Abraham’s house. Clifton continues:

The Interpreter’s Bible, volume 8, page 605: “Nonetheless, Christ’s answer to them is grim indeed. You are not of God. You are of your father the devil, and his nature shows itself in you. He was a murderer from the beginning; and you seek to kill me; he has nothing to do with the truth, and true to your blood and ancestry, when and because I tell you the truth, you do not believe it, resent it, fling it from you.”

It is hard to escape the meaning of the phrase true to your blood and ancestry in relation to the Jews being of their father the devil. Again, back to Clifton:

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Page 855: “The Jews have described themselves as ‘descendants of Abraham’; this leads to a second point. If they were truly Abraham’s children they would resemble their father; but in seeking to kill an innocent man, whose only crime is to speak the truth, they are unlike Abraham as could be. Jesus [Yahshua] is the Son of God, and declares the truth he receives from God; but who can their father be? The charge is repelled with a sneer; they [the Jews] are the children of God; Jesus (it is implied [by the Jews]) was born of fornication. This slander was current later; probably it was used in anti-Christian propaganda in John’s time, and perhaps earlier. But they [the Jews] are not God’s children; if they were, they would love his Son... No, their father is the devil; that is why they seek to kill, and prefer falsehood to truth...”

Perhaps the authors of these Bible Commentaries could not describe exactly how these Jews were not children of Abraham, but they clearly knew that these jews were not children of Abraham. However today the so-called Two-Seedliners certainly can describe exactly how the Jews are children of the devil, just as Christ described in Luke chapter 11, that they are of the line of Cain. The Kenites and the Rephaim mixed with the Canaanites, and Canaanites were mixed with the Edomites, and the Edomites infiltrated and took over Judaea in the time of Herod. That is really how simple it is to show the truth of Two Seedline, and it is entirely Scriptural, and it is demonstrably historical. Clifton continues:


In chapter 2 of Jeffrey A. Weakley’s booklet The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History, he puts together a composition on words found in Genesis 3:6, 13 and 4:1. These words are: tree, food, desired, took, fruit, eat, beguiled and knew. It will be necessary here to give this chapter a critical review, for some the conclusions in his research are sadly faulty. Actually, Weakley proves Two Seedline in many ways rather than disproving it, and you will see what I mean as we go along. At this time, we will consider the word “tree” in his presentation. Eventually, it is hoped that we will cover this entire chapter. It’s simply amazing, for Weakley doesn’t believe or understand some of his own research:

We will now look at the Satanic Seedline doctrine as compared to Scripture. Any teaching that we hear should not be accepted or rejected as truth until we have reexamined the Scriptures. This is what the Bereans did in Acts 17:10-11. So let us now be ‘more noble’ as the Bereans and search the Scriptures on this matter.

Weakley insinuates that he is more noble than the Two Seedliners. A lot of Bible writers love to describe themselves as Bereans in this fashion simply to compliment their readers into accepting their own research. Clifton continues quoting Weakley:

The first point of the seedline doctrine is that Eve was sexually seduced. In Genesis 3:6 we find: ‘And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.’ Now according to the seedliners, this passage is just written with good taste and is really talking about a sexual encounter. Let’s see. First we’ll examine some words in this verse: tree: (ets) a tree (from its firmness); hence wood. (Strong’s Concordance) (1) a tree (follows analogy of the verb atsah, to be hard, firm) (2) wood, specially of a wooden post, stake, gibbet. (Gesenius’ Lexicon) tree, wood, timber, stock, plank, stalk, stick, gallows. (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament edited by R. Laird Harris). This Hebrew word is translated over 100 times in the Old testament as: ‘trees(s)’, ‘wood’, ‘timber’, ‘sticks’, ‘helve’, ‘stalks’, ‘staff’, ‘gallows’, ‘stock(s)’, and ‘plank.’ From the above, I find it difficult to believe that this tree from which Eve obtained the fruit was anything other than a tree.”

I will agree with Mr. Jeffrey A. Weakley that it is paramount we should examine and reexamine the Scriptures. And, yes, the Two Seedliners do point to Genesis 3:6 as a sexual encounter with Satan, at least on the part of Eve. Yes, the word “tree” as used in this verse means a hard, firm or solid tree such as wood, timber, stocks, helve, stakes, gallows, stock, or plank. As a matter of fact, the counterpart word for the Hebrew #6086 (tree) is #3586 in the Greek and means the same thing. The problem, though, for understanding the “trees” of Genesis 3 is in the Hebrew idiom. George M Lamsa in his booklet Idioms In The Bible Explained, points out, page ix, that both the “tree of knowledge” and the “tree of life” have sexual connotations. In addition, Lamsa said this in his introduction:

I chose the King James text from which to pick the idioms quoted in this book (unless otherwise indicated), because the King James text is the most widely used Bible translation in the English speaking world. Moreover, the King James translators were more faithful to the texts from which they translated into English, making fewer additions and omissions than later English version translators and revisors. They translated many Eastern idioms and metaphors literally, not knowing their true meaning. For instance, ‘You shall handle snakes.’ They did not know that the word ‘snake’ refers to ‘an enemy.’ ‘Beware of dogs’ was not understood to be ‘beware of gossipers’, in Semitic languages.”

I would not agree with all of Lamsa’s conclusions concerning all of the idioms. Back to Clifton:

So we can observe very quickly Weakley is taking literally the idioms of Genesis 3, as did the KJV translators when they translated many of the Hebrew and Greek idioms in a literal manner. The bottom line is: if one cannot understand the idiom, one cannot understand the Bible, in numerous cases. As we go along, you will find that Weakley discovered many idiomatic expressions in various places of his research and refused to accept their idiomatic meanings. He did this mainly because the literal meanings outnumbered figurative meanings.


Maybe we can find what the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is if we first investigate the meaning of the “tree of life.” In both cases, the word for tree is #6086, meaning literally a firm wooden tree. In the various Bible commentaries and dictionaries there are a multitude of ideas on what the “tree of life” might be. It really goes back to Weakley’s definition of a wooden tree. As stated before, the counterpart word in the Greek is #3586, and means literally a wooden tree. In Dr. Spiros Zodhiates’ New Testament Word Study Dictionary, he says this on page 1023 concerning #3586, (xulon) “In Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, it is conceivable that the ‘tree of life’ may be an allusion to the cross and could be rendered ‘wood of life’ (a.t.). Sept.: Gen. 1:11,12; 2:9.” This makes a lot of sense! In other words, the wooden tree represents the wooden cross (whatever kind of device it might have been) on which our Messiah wrought Redemption! And how else do we “eat” of “the tree of life” but by the partaking of Communion? Inasmuch as a few Bible scholars understood it this way, let’s now consider some of their comments:

Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 1072, under the topic “TREE OF LIFE”: “Adam and Eve’s inability to eat from this tree after their sin showed that they failed to gain immortality, or eternal life. Because of their sin, they were subject to death and dying. This condition lasted until the coming of Jesus Christ [Yahshua], the second Adam, who offers eternal life to all [of Adam] who believe in Him (1 John 5:11-12).”

We will further describe the Tree of Life later, or at least augment Clifton’s description. But here Nelson’s explanation is based on a false premise. Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Adam and Eve could not eat from the Tree of Life. It only warns them at the end of Genesis chapter 3 that they were going to have to grasp onto the Tree of Life and eat if they were to live forever. Returning to Clifton, Matthew Henry almost identifies the Tree of Life correctly, and J.R. Dummelow almost nails the implications:

Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 3, page 1008: “... That they may have right to the tree of life; to Christ, called before, the tree of life, [Rev. 22] ver. 2, by virtue of the promise, chap ii. 7, for no works of ours will give us a right of purchase to it. And may enter in through the gates into the city ...”

A Commentary On The Holy Bible, edited by Rev. J. R. Dummelow M.A., page 10: “... the fruit of His perfect obedience, and have a right to the tree of life. ‘As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’.”

Can you now see that Weakley, in refusing to see the Hebrew idiom, is insisting that our Messiah was a wooden tree? Not only was our Savior not a wooden tree, but neither was “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” To follow up on the theme of the “tree of life”, let’s quote some different passages where it is mentioned:

2 Esdras 8:50-52: “50 For many great miseries shall be done to them [Israel] that in the latter time shall dwell in the world, because they have walked in great pride. 51 But understand thou for thyself, and seek out the glory for such as be like thee. 52 For unto you is paradise opened, the tree of life is planted, the time to come is prepared, plenteousness is made ready, a city is builded, and rest is allowed, yea, perfect goodness and wisdom.”

Testament Of Levi as found in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden, 5:26-30: “26 And he shall open the gates of paradise, and shall remove the threatening sword against Adam, and he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life, and the spirit of holiness shall be on them. 27 And Beliar shall be bound by him, and he shall give power to His children to tread upon the evil spirits. 28 And the Lord [Yahweh] shall rejoice in His children, and be well pleased in His beloved ones for ever. 29 Then shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob exult, and I will be glad, and all the saints shall clothe themselves with joy. 30 And now, my children, ye have heard all; choose, therefore, for yourselves either the light or the darkness, either the law of the Lord [Yahweh] or the works of Beliar.”

We cannot accept the Testament of Levi as being either Canonical or divinely inspired, even if it has an appearance of piety. The sword and the cheru guarding the way to Eden were not against Adam, rather they were an assurance that Adam would find his way back, through Christ. Clifton continues:

Once we comprehend that Yahshua the Messiah is the tree of life, our apprehension is opened up for us and our understanding comes to life. Notice verse 30 [in the above citation from the Testament of Levi] speaks of both “light” and “darkness”; the very same forces which are at WAR with each other in our world today. Beliar is another name for Satan. These two trees in Eden were not literal wooden trees, but walking, talking & breathing metaphorically idiomatic trees representing genetic people. The “tree of life” was Yahshua the Messiah and the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” was Beliar or Satan. Such family trees are described in Mark 8:22-24:

22 And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. 23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught. 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees walking.”

It seems this former blind man had better eyesight than the anti-seedliners of today. It is simply amazing, as the anti-seedliners of today dance up and down and insist that there is only one seed in Genesis 3:15, and that seed is only one man, Yahshua. It takes two to have enmity, as enmity means: mutual hatred. Mutual means: given or felt by one another in equal amount. The word for “enmity” in Genesis 3:15 is the Hebrew word #342, and is found also in Numbers 35:21-22; Ezekiel 25:15; 35:5-6, and in every case, two parties are involved. The only way, therefore, for Genesis 3:15 to be speaking of “one seed” is if the Redeemer were to hate Himself. Can you see now how ridiculous such a premise is, that the anti-seedliners promote? They have really backed themselves into a corner on that one! Then, they rant and rave that there wasn’t anything sexual concerning Eve’s seduction, but that it was all a matter of mental seduction. They insist it is all an invention of the Two Seedliners. [To show that] there are others who interpret the seduction of Eve in a sexual manner, let’s refer to The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume R-Z, page 696. While this publication does not take a stand on the subject one way or the other, at least it points out that this is one of the interpretations:

Sexual knowledge. The tree of knowledge is the means to sexual knowledge. The advocates of this interpretation have pointed out that the verb [Strong’s #3045], ‘know’ occurs frequently as a euphemism for sexual relations (Gen. 4:1; 19:5). When Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil, they recognized their nakedness and experienced feelings of shame. Finally, several parallel passages containing the phrase ‘knowing good and evil’ can be reasonably interpreted as referring to sexual knowledge (Deut. 1:39; 2 Sam. 19:35; 1QSa 1. 9-11).” [“1QSa”, abbr. for “Rule of the congregation.” (?)]

Matthew Poole states on Deut. 1:39: “Had no knowledge between good and evil; a common description of the state of childhood, as Jonah 4:11.”

One unnamed anti-seedliner said this: “Most seedliners go wrong at this point by correlating the eating or touching of the fruit of the tree to intercourse. But, when Adam received his directions from God, there was no female around for intercourse, so how could these words be made to imply sexual activity. Now, where does that leave these speculators [meaning Two Seedliners]?” We will next see this is not speculation, on our part, concerning the words “eating” and “touching” having sexual connotations.

Before we get to the conclusion of Clifton’s paper, I want to discuss the Tree of Life. Matthew Henry identified the Tree of Life as Christ Himself, but that is not quite correct. Of course, Christ identified Himself as a root of Jesse, and the root and offspring of David, as we see in Isaiah 11, Romans 15 and Revelation chapter 22, but even a root and a branch do not make an entire tree. In John chapter 15, Christ told His disciples “5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.” In Revelation chapter 22, in the passage to which Matthew Henry referred, we read in the description of the City of God that “2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”

The Tree of Life, bearing 12 fruits, must be an allegory for Yahshua Christ and His people, the vine and the branches. The Nations it heals are the Adamic nations. So the Tree of Life is Christ and His race. He being the Root, He is Yahweh and His race are the Adamic race which He planted in the Garden. The plea from Christ that the branches are nothing without Him means the same thing as the exhortation that the Adamic man must cling to the Tree of Life, to his own God and his own race, in order to live forever.

Then in Revelation chapter 12, we see Satan and the Serpent and the Fallen Angels which rebelled from God, an entire race cast out of heaven, and it is manifest that the serpent is the representative of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which is already in the Garden as soon as Yahweh had planted the Adamic Man. So this tree must be an allegory for that race which rebelled and was cast out of heaven on earth even before Adam was created.

Now to discuss the implications, which J.R. Dummelow almost hit on when he quoted from 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul said “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” There are plants here, bastard slips, which Yahweh did not plant, and of those Christ said “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up”, where it is clear that plants are an allegory for people, or races of people. But as it says in the Wisdom of Solomon, “through envy of the devil came death into the world...” and as the apostle John wrote in his first epistle, “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” If the works of the devil are to be destroyed, then the entire corruption of God’s Creation must be destroyed, and every Adamic man which was ever created must have eternal life, as Paul of Tarsus professed, since as it also says in the Wisdom of Solomon that “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” Aside from all of the carnal concerns in relation to sin and death, this is what the Scripture ultimately teaches.

Clifton continues to speak of some of the idioms of Genesis chapter 3:


RE. “EAT”, #398 (akal, to eat, also to lay), Scripture “Genesis 3:13, And Yahweh said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

Supporting Scripture — Proverbs 30:20; “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth (vagina/vulva), and saith, I have done no wickedness.”

Another Supporting Scripture — Proverbs 9:17: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread [eaten] in secret is pleasant.” [Lamsa: idiom: “Making love to another woman in secret appears pleasant.”]

Note: The word “eat” of Genesis 3:13 is the same word for “eateth” of Proverbs 30:20!!! In Proverbs 9:17 “eaten” is implied.

RE. “TOUCH”, #5060 (naga, to touch, also to have sexual intercourse) Scripture — Genesis 3:3: “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

Supporting Scripture Genesis 26:10-11: “10 And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us. 11 And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.” [KJV]

Second Supporting Scripture — Genesis 20:6: “And Yahweh said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her (Sarah).”

Third Supporting Scripture — Proverbs 6:29: “So he that goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.”

Note: The word “touch” of Genesis 3:3 is the same word for “touch” or “toucheth” of Genesis 26:11, Genesis 20:6 and Proverbs 6:29!!!

Conclusion: Both the words “eat” and “touch” can have sexual connotations when they are in that context!

Now for some remarks from some various commentaries on these passages which contain the words “touch” and “eat” as used in Genesis 3:3:

Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible on the word “touch” of Genesis 26:11, volume 1, page 61: “... and being applied to a woman, it is used for a defiling or humbling of her as Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29.”

The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle on the word “touch” of Genesis 26:11, page 54: “He that toucheth. He who injures Isaac or defiles Rebekah shall certainly die for it.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible on the word “touch” of Proverbs 6:29, volume 2, page 224: “That goeth in to his neighbour’s wife; that lieth with her, as the phrase signifies, Genesis 19:31; 29:21, 23 &c. Toucheth her, i.e. hath carnal knowledge of her, as this word is used in Gen. 20:6; 1 Cor. 7:1, and in Terence, and other writers. Shall not be innocent; shall be punished as a malefactor, either by God or man.”

The Interpreter’s Bible on the word “touch” of Proverbs 6:29, volume 4, page 822: “... There is no escape from the dire punishment that awaits the man who indulges in illicit love.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible on the word “eat” of Proverbs 30:20, volume 2, page 274: “Such, so secret and undiscernible, is the way of the adulterous woman; of her who, though she be called and accounted a maid, yet in truth is an adulteress; not a common strumpet, for of such the following words are not true, but one that secretly lives in the sin of adultery or fornication. She eateth, to wit, the bread of deceit in secret, by which is understood the act of filthiness, Prov. 9:17; 20:17, which such persons do as greedily desire, and as delightfully feed upon, as hungry persons do upon bread.”

The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible abridged by Ralph Earle on the word “eat” of Proverbs 9:17, page 541: “Stolen waters are sweet. I suppose this to be a proverbial mode of expression, importing that ‘illicit pleasures are sweeter than those which are legal’.”

In my opinion, a lot of the so-called non-seedliners are well-meaning, but still see the Genesis account on the level of children, never having matured in their views, and usually also have an unhealthy and naive altruism towards non-White races, even imagining for them to be people.

Clifton wrote this paper in August of 2001. It was not until 2006, however, that I had read the Epic of Gilgamesh for the first time. As soon as I read it, and realized the implications of some of its language in relation to the Genesis account, I wrote a paper titled Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three. Writing that paper, I did not fully treat all of the idioms in genesis 3, such as eat and touch, since I only meant to augment Clifton's work here. But perhaps one day it should be expanded to treat them all.

We cannot present all of Shemitic Idioms and Genesis Chapter Three here, but the ancient poem, the the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is believed to have been written not long before the time of Abraham, contained lines such as “She shall pull off her clothing, laying bare her ripeness”, “he possessed her ripeness”, and after having done so “now he had [wi]sdom, [br]oader understanding” and was described thus: “thou art wise ... become like a god”, all in a story of sexual desire and seduction very much like the account of Genesis chapter 3.

There should be no doubt that the sin of Genesis 3 was fornication, and that fornication caused the fall of Adam and Eve. Clinging to the Tree of Life is the keeping of the law of Yahweh, which is Kind after Kind – clinging to one’s own race because original the sin was mingling with a different race – along with the recognition that only Yahweh can save us from death, which is through Yahshua Christ. As He said, “I am the vine” and “without Me ye can do nothing”.

CHR20170602-CAE-SpecNotice05.odt — Downloaded 17 times
CI85ers.jpg — Never downloaded