Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 6

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20170609-CAE-SpecNotice06.mp3 — Downloaded 1312 times


Special Notices to All Who Deny Two-Seedline, Part 6

I spent some time this morning poking around for material to preface this program with, and I found a January, 2016 article by Eli James entitled Bertrand Comparet on the Adamic Race, where Eli goes to great lengths to uphold the so-called “6th and 8th day Creation Theory” and many other hare-brained ideas, while at the same time he misrepresents our own position on Genesis chapters 1 and 2 so that he may effectively discredit our Genesis interpretation – at least in his own mind. Once again Eli attacks the idea of recapitulation, which is what he calls our claim that the Bible does indeed repeat itself and describe some thing a second time in a different way in which they have already described.

Eli says in one place, where I will expand his abbreviations, that “Finck [and] Emahiser categorically deny the plurality of the Adamic Race in [Genesis chapter 1].” This is an outright lie, neither Clifton nor I have ever denied that Genesis 1:27 is speaking collectively of the Adamic race where it says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Eli is creating a straw-man argument, ostensibly so that he can pretend to prove us wrong, while he obviously never listened to Pragmatic Genesis and doesn't really know what we have said about this passage.

Then Eli says: “Their 'Recapitulation Theory' postulates that Genesis 2 merely provides additional information about the same 'day' (Day Six of Genesis 1). My thesis, which I call the Chronological Account, refutes this notion as being both un-Scriptural and unscientific. This essay will provide more evidence in favor of the Chronological Account, as the proof of pre-Adamic White civilization continues to mount.”

Eli asserts that the Genesis chapter 1 man is a pre-Adamic White man, but the word for man in that chapter is the same word Hebrew word adam that we see in Genesis chapter 2. We also see it in Genesis chapter 5 where we read that “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” He denies that there is recapitulation in Scripture, and, quite strangely, he completely ignores Genesis chapter 5. If the Bible is always strictly chronological, then there must be three creations of an Adamic man, and not two, which in itself is three times more ridiculous than the so-called “6th and 8th day Creation Theory”. He cannot honestly argue against recapitulation while ignoring Genesis chapter 5.

Eli goes on to describe perceived pre-Adamic Whites, identifying them as the man of Genesis chapter 1. I do not know how he calls them pre-Adamic, since in that chapter the word for man in Hebrew is adam, and it is ridiculous to imagine that there was a pre-Adamic adam. He insists that the Genesis chapter 1 man is a pre-Adamic adamic man, which is quite silly, then he sort of agrees with the assertions that Clifton and I make concerning the fallen angels and the corruption of elements of God's original Creation. But he never correctly identifies pre-Adamic whites as fallen angels.

Of course, the Genesis account is not complete, and Christ Himself had said that He would explain “things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Those explanations are found, in part, in the parable concerning the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew chapter 13, and in the Revelation of Christ which describes war in heaven, and the fall of the angels that sinned. Revelation chapter 12 puts those fallen angels on earth before the Adamic man was created. This is evident where in the Revelation the chief of the fallen angels is identified as that “old serpent”, and therefore must be the serpent of the Garden of Eden who was immediately present to corrupt our first parents.

Eli claims that our assertions are unscriptural, but they are completely Scriptural. He simply refuses to describe them properly. If there were pre-Adamic Whites, they were the fallen angels of Revelation chapter 12. We have already proven from Scripture as well as the elements of Hebrew grammar, in part 1 of our Pragmatic Genesis series, that the Adamic man created in Genesis chapter 1 is the same Adamic man created in Genesis chapter 2, and is also the same Adamic man created in Genesis chapter 5. Here we see three descriptions of one creation.

If Eli James denies that the Scriptures recapitulate certain accounts, he must explain the creation of Adamic man described at the beginning of Genesis chapter 5. But perhaps he thinks his listeners are stupid, and won't raise that question. He must also explain how, after the nations of the sons of Noah were “divided in the earth after the flood”, as it says in Genesis 10:32, that we read in the very next verse, in Genesis 11:1, that “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.” The truth is that Genesis chapter 11 is a recapitulation, from a different perspective, of the story of the division of the nations described in Genesis chapter 10.

In truth, Genesis chapter 2, from verse 4, recapitulates the general account of Creation given from Genesis 1:25 through Genesis 1:27. That creation account runs from the opening verse of Genesis chapter 1 through Genesis chapter 2:3. Genesis 2:4 through the end of chapter 4 are a separate book, a parable of the creation of our first parents the sin attributed to them, and some of the immediate results of that sin which was manifested in the enmity between Cain and Abel. Then Genesis 5:1-2 also recapitulate Genesis 1:26-27, and continues by carrying the account even further, down through the flood of Noah.

Here is an example of further recapitulation:

Genesis 4:25-26 read thus: “25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.”

Genesis 5:3-6 then state: “3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. 6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos....”

If the adam of Genesis 1 is a different man than the Adam of Genesis 2, because the Bible does not repeat itself, then the Adam of Genesis 5 must also be different, and there must be two Seths, and two men named Enos, both born to three different Adams. Either that, or Eli James is lying about recapitulation, since he cannot have it both ways.

The arguments of Eli James in these areas are all based on logical fallacies and sophistry which are denied by the rest of Scripture. Eli insists that Yahweh's day of rest is completed, and then He went on to create things again. But in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 we see that the children of Israel still have an opportunity to join Yahweh in His day of rest once they are ever obedient to His will, which is also indicated in the 95th Psalm. So Yahweh must still be in that day of rest, as for instance the Scriptures say in Exodus chapter 20: “11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day”, and there is never any mention of an eighth day.

So if you believe this Joseph November impostor, this charlatan who calls himself “Eli James”, then once again you have been convicted of your own stupidity.

Now we shall commence with Clifton Emahiser's

Special Notice To All Who Deny Two Seedline, # 6:

This is the sixth in a series of Special Notices to all anti-seedliners who are opposed to the proposition that there is a literal walking, talking, genetic Satanic seedline people in this world. Some have condemned me for coming out and naming names concerning the controversy over this issue. They advise me that I should go personally to them and work out our differences in private. I would point out to anyone who is of that opinion that the anti-seedliners were the first to make an issue of this teaching. Stephen E. Jones, in his 1978 book The Babylonian Connection, was the first, to my knowledge, to take issue with the Two Seedliners. Jeffrey A. Weakley wrote his The Satanic Seedline, Its Doctrine and History in 1994. It wasn’t until Ted R. Weiland came out with a ten-tape audio cassette series Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? that I began to counter what they were promoting. I had written an article in 1995, entitled The Problem With Genesis 4:1 which I did not distribute very widely. I had put that short article together because I had heard of a young man who was hung-up on Genesis 4:1. At that time, I had no idea the anti-seedliners had a campaign going to discredit the Two Seedline doctrine. Jeffrey A. Weakley, a year before I wrote my small article, was the first one to really start naming names and pointing his finger at some of the leading Two Seedline teachers like Swift, Comparet and Gale. As these three great pillars of men are now dead, I have taken it upon myself to defend them.

This is probably why the original title of Clifton's most current version of The Problem With Genesis 4:1, which was evidently written in May and June of 2003, had Reconsidered at the end of it, and Clifton later chose to drop that label. We do not think any copies of the original paper are extant, but we are persuaded that Clifton has improved upon it tremendously. He continues:

You may well ask, then, what is the purpose for my writing these Special Notices anyway? The answer to this question is: I am duty bound by Yahweh’s Law to witness to the truth to the best of my ability as I understand it. In other words, if I know a crime has been committed, in the process of being committed or there is a danger of a crime about to be committed, if I do not witness to what I know, I am as guilty as the person committing the crime. In this case, we are not talking about a single individual crime, we are talking about tens of thousands of crimes. The news of these crimes has been withheld from the public by the usual news media and writers of the past. The law concerning the witness of a crime is found in Leviticus 5:1 which reads: And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.”

A second Scripture which commands us to expose the truth is found in Ephesians 5:11, which says: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, edited by Jerome H. Smith says this on page 132: “... such an one shall bear his iniquity — shall be considered as guilty in the sight of God of the transgression which he has endeavored to conceal, and must expect to be punished for hiding the iniquity with which he was acquainted.” Both Jones and Weakley quote from the Zohar, the ‘sacred’ book of the Cabala, which is separate from Talmud. Neither Jones nor Weakley seem to be quoting directly from the Zohar, but indirectly from The Talmud Unmasked by Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, page 52. If this is the case, neither one quotes this passage faithfully; such as using the proper italics where it shows. I will now quote this passage exactly as Pranaitis presents it:

In Zohar (I, 28b) we read: ‘Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, I.) ‘More subtle’ that is towards evil; ‘than all the beasts’ that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve.’ The best argument used by the Jews to prove Christians are of a race of the devil is the fact that they are uncircumcised. The foreskin of the non-Jews prevents them from being called the children of the Most High God. For by circumcision the name of God — Schaddai — is completed in the flesh of a circumcised Jew. The form of the letter Isch is in his nostrils, the letter Daleth in his (bent) arm, and ain appears in his sexual organ by circumcision. In non-circumcised gentiles, therefore, such as Christians, there are only the two letters Isch and Daleth, which make the word Sched, which means devil. They are, therefore, children of the Sched, the Devil.”

Of course, reading this is almost as bad as reading one of Eli James' articles on Genesis. Clifton is citing the Talmud here, according to I. B. Pranaitis, or actually the Zohar, because Weiland, Weakley, and other anti-Seedliners claim it is the source for what we may call Two-Seedline. However none of the articles explaining two-seedline which are found at Chfristogenea, written either by Clifton or myself, depend on anything from the Talmud as support for our assertions. So they are all playing a game of guilt-by-association, and Clifton will address that here, where he continues by addressing this nonsense:

A “Jew” could be circumcised a hundred times and it would not bring him under the Covenant. If anything, this passage proves Two Seedline, as the “enmity” of Genesis 3:15 is clearly evident, and is at work here; but the “Jews” have everything backward as they are the ones who are the children of the devil. Ted R. Weiland in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? quotes one other passage from the Talmud, Shabbath 146a: “For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her.”

If the purpose of the anti-seedliners is to use the old worn-out accusation of guilt by association, they could have used more references from the Talmud. Here are some passages they could have used for their ambiguous claim:

Shabbath 146a: “The idea is that the serpent infected Eve (i.e., the human race) with lust, from which, however, those who accept the moral teachings of the Torah are freed.”

Berachoth 61a: “In cursing we commence with the least; first the serpent was cursed then Eve and then Adam!”

Sotah 9b: “I will kill Adam and marry Eve; but now, I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. Similarly do we find it with Cain, Korah, Balaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi, Absalom, Adonijah, Uzziah and Haman, who set their eyes upon that which was not proper for them; what they sought was not granted to them and what they possessed was taken from them.”

Avodah Zarah 22b: “When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her.”

Then Clifton asks:


The anti-seedliners base their whole argument on the premise that anything found in the Talmud has to be entirely false. As a matter of fact, this is their ace in the hole, so they think. All they have to do is point out that the Two Seedline doctrine is found in the Talmud, and magically, the teaching is condemned in many people’s minds. It is not my goal here to defend and uphold the majority of the contents found in these books. It is well recognized they are the most evil books ever written. But we must even give the devil his just dues. If the Two Seedline doctrine is condemned for being part of the writings of the Talmud, then all of their contents are condemned. Let’s take a look at a few passages found in them:

Sotah 11b: “... Judah [is called] a lion’s whelp; of Dan [it is said] Dan shall be a serpent, Naphtali [is called] a hind let loose; Issachar a strong ass; Joseph a firstling bullock; Benjamin a wolf that ravineth. [Of those sons of Jacob where a comparison with an animal] is written in connection with them, it is written: but [in the instances where such a comparison] is not written, there is the text: What was thy mother? A lioness; she couched among lions etc.”

Well, what do you know; who would have ever thought there was anything like that in the Talmud? It would appear the anti-seedliners are going to have to reject the main tenets of Israel Identity because they can be found in the Talmud. Maybe they will have to go back to Judeo-churchianity. They are going to have to take a black permanent marker and blot out the entire chapter of Genesis 49 along with all the cross-references, all because it can be found in the Talmud. If they blot out Judah, there goes the Redeemer! Are you beginning to see how ridiculous an argument the anti-seedliners advocate? Can you see now how dangerous the ploy of guilt by association can be? Actually, its a “Jewish” kind of trick. Well, let’s see what else we might find in the Talmud:

Talmud, Baba Kama 17a: “‘He is worthy of the inheritance of two tribes’: He is worthy of an inheritance like Joseph, as it is written: Joseph is a fruitful bough ... whose branches run over the wall; he is also worthy of the inheritance of Issachar, as it is written: Issachar is a strong ass. There are some who say, His enemies will fall before him, as it is written: With them he shall push the people together, to the ends of the earth. He is worthy of understanding like Issachar, as it is written: And the children of Issachar which were men that had understanding of the times to know what Israel ought to do.”

Isn’t it simply amazing what can be found in the Talmud? If we use the argument of the anti-seedliners, we are going to get in all kinds of trouble! If we apply their hypothesis, we will have to destroy most of Yahweh’s written Word. One very adamant unyielding anti-seedliner is Lt. Col. Jack Mohr, AUS Ret. who wrote a pamphlet entitled Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? He used this same worn-out tactic of guilt by association when he said on page 8:

Now this is pretty far fetched, I think, for it is the same teaching you find in the BABYLONIAN TALMUD, and in most heathen ‘phallic religions’ of the Far East. Wise [James E. Wise] implies that the FRUIT of the trees [sic.] of knowledge of good and evil, was sexual union, even though the Hebrew word for ‘fruit’, as it is used here (6529), means ‘Bough; fruitful; reward.’ There is hardly any room here for any sexual interpretation of the word, unless your mind is sexually oriented. Then I guess you can see sex in anything. Certainly the SEEDLINERS SEE SEX IN THIS PASSAGE. Shows you where their mind is, doesn’t it?” [Note: Gesenius’ includes “offspring” for #6529]

Jack Mohr's folly starts to become evident where Clifton notes that the same Hebrew word for fruit is also metaphorically used to denote offspring. However we believe his foolishness is even more pronounced where we quoted the Epic of Gilgamesh here last week and saw that the sexual act was described as the possession of the ripeness of a woman, which itself described the nude body of a woman, in writings from the very time of Abraham. So Clifton continues:

By the way, judging from his article, Jack Mohr believes that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were wooden trees; that the serpent was an ordinary snake and the fruit was simply some kind of fruit from some fruit tree. Thus, Jack Mohr, in implying this, makes the tree of life – which is the Messiah himself – a wooden tree. I have to question anything Jack Mohr might write for he does not appear to be of pure Israelite stock.

Gordon “Jack” Mohr died in 2003. We have heard rumors concerning his ethnic background, but do not know if they have ever been substantiated. In any event, Mohr was probably a lot better at writing about the evils of Freemasonry than he was about Scripture. Clifton continues by describing a phenomenon that we also encounter frequently from other directions:

You will also notice that Jack Mohr points a finger at James E. Wise. It seems it is quite all right for the anti-seedliners to name names, but it is anathema for the Two Seedliners. More on Jack Mohr later, but for now, back to the Talmud:

Sanhedrin 44b: “And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, Ethan and Herman and Calcole and Darda, five in all. Why the phrase: five of them in all? — Because all five were equally destined for the world to come ...”

Are we now supposed to throw out the entire Zerah branch of Judah because it can be found in the Talmud? If you listen to the anti-seedliners, this is their premise. In other words, the very mention of anything found in the Talmud automatically labels it as an evil teaching. [Again quoting the Talmud:]

Mas. Megilah 17a: “Why are the years of Ishmael mentioned? So as to reckon by them the years of Jacob, as it is written, And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years. How much older was Ishmael than Isaac? Fourteen years, as it is written, And Abram was fourscore and six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram, and it is also written, And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him, and it is written, And Isaac was threescore years old when she bore them. How old then was Ishmael when Jacob was born? Seventy-four. How many years were left of his life? Sixty-three; and it has been taught: Jacob our father at the time when he was blessed by his father was sixty-three years old. It was just at that time that Ishmael died, as it is written, Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob ... so Esau went unto Ishmael and took Mahlath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son the sister of Nebaioth. Now once it has been said, ‘Ishmael’s daughter’ do I not know she was the sister of Nebaioth? This tells us that Ishmael affianced [engaged] her and then died, and Nebaioth her brother gave her in marriage. Sixty-three and fourteen till Joseph was born make seventy-seven, and it is written, And Joseph was thirty-three years old when he stood before Pharaoh. This makes a hundred and seven. Add seven years of plenty and two of famine, and we have a hundred and sixteen, and it is written, And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How many are the days of the years of thy life? And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my sojournings are a hundred and thirty years. But [we have just seen that] they were only a hundred and sixteen? We must conclude therefore that he spent fourteen years in the house of Eber, as it has been taught: ‘After Jacob our father had left for Aram Naharaim two years. Eber died.’ He then went forth from where he was and came to Aram Naharaim. From this it follows that when he stood by the well he was seventy-seven years old. And how do we know that he was not punished [for these fourteen years]? As it has been taught: ‘We find that Joseph was away from his father twenty-two years, just as Jacob our father was absent from his father.’ But Jacob’s absence was thirty-six years? It must be then that the fourteen years which he was in the house of Eber are not reckoned.”

We find certain errors and fantastic conjectures in these Talmudic calculations, but here Clifton has his own comments:

While I have not checked this entire passage for error, it appears this part of the Talmud could be used as a valuable tool for figuring badly needed chronology. While I know the “Jews” cannot call Jacob their father through the Covenant, the evidence presented here could be used to confirm much of what is not recorded in our present Bibles. Therefore, I believe some passages from the Talmud would be creditable to our research, if we are careful how we use them; the Two Seedline doctrine without exception. I have several other passages of the Talmud which I could quote to enforce my position, but I think, by this time, you can see my point. In fact, if I were to use key words in the Old Testament and run them in the search mode of my copy of the Talmud on CD-R in my computer, no doubt, I could come up with at least 500 examples of truth contained within these writings. While I do not recommend the Talmud as a good source of inspiration, nevertheless, it is not 100% totally false information as the anti-seedliners imply. I only wish I had a copy of the Zohar on CD-R. Some might condemn me for studying the Talmud, but how else can we be as “wise as serpents” unless we know what the enemy has written? After all, I don’t hear anyone condemning Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, Henry Ford or Elizabeth Dilling!

The Zohar is actually a part of the Kaballah, a work of 12th or 13th century Spain, and is not a part of the Talmud. All three of those people had spent some time studying the Talmud in order to better understand the Jews whom they considered their enemies. Clifton continues under the subtitle:


Lt. Col. Jack Mohr plays the con-game a little differently than some. In his 26 page booklet Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? he uses the first six paragraphs to brag on his military service. He gives a review of how he served in Korea as advisor to the southern Korean forces; about being captured, tried and condemned to die by the People’s Court; how he escaped and was the first to be decorated by General William Dean; how he repatriated American prisoners returning from North Korean prison camps and how he was a speaker for the American Opinion Speaker’s Bureau. By trying to influence you with such an impressive military record, he tries to lead you to believe that this qualifies him to be an authority on the Scriptures. If he didn’t do any better in the military than he did in this booklet, I thank the Almighty I never served under his command. You will see what I mean in a moment.

And this is a mistake that we make often. Someone who is expert in one field is not exactly an expert in another. Eustace Mullins did quite well with the Federal Reserve, under the guidance of Ezra Pound, but he was a terrible interpreter of Scripture, especially since he knew very little of ancient history. Just because a man is a great engineer or great pilot, etc, does not make him a great authority in other fields. Often, expertise in a single field requires a lifetime of study. Clifton continues:

After acknowledging [that] there is an argument in Identity circles concerning the Two Seedline interpretation of Genesis 3:15, [Jack Mohr] begins by attacking James E. Wise on his thesis The Seed Of The Serpent. On pages 4 and 5 he attempts to define the Hebrew words “enmity”, “seed” and “tree” as found in Genesis 3. On the word “enmity”, he shoots himself in the foot the first time. Here is what he says: “Let’s look at a few more ‘key’ words in this verse [Genesis 3:15]: ENMITY — [#996] — Heb. ‘biyn’ meaning ‘between’; ‘among’; ‘within.’ In actuality it has seven meanings, only the three mentioned above can fit this setting.”

We corrected a slight mistake which Clifton made here, as Mohr was claiming that the Hebrew word for enmity was from Strong's # 996, not 966. Regardless of that small error, Clifton is right. Admittedly, I have not read it myself, but we have a copy of Mohr's paper, Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? posted at our Israelect.com website. The purpose of that site is to preserve Christian Identity writings in general, whether we find them agreeable or not. Whether Mohr was being sly or stupid we do not know, but his definition comes from a preposition, translated in the King James Version of Genesis 3:15 as between, and it is not the word for enmity, which Clifton describes here and which Mohr had ignored. Clifton continues:

As I was reading his booklet over very carefully, it didn’t seem plausible that the word “enmity” could mean “between”, “among” or “within.” I then decided to check with my The Complete Word Study Old Testament by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates which has the Strong’s Hebrew numbers above each word. I discovered the word was not [#996] at all, but #342! I found further [that] the word had only one meaning, not seven! In the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, which sometimes uses several pages to define a word, [it] says only this as the meaning: “... enmity; hostile mind...” The Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, [in] the “Hebrew And Chaldee Dictionary” [it] defines the meaning of the Hebrew word “enmity” as: “ay-baw; from 340; hostility: — enmity, hatred.” Because the Hebrew word #340 is referred to, we must take that one in consideration also: “ay-yab; a primitive root; to hate (as one of an opposite tribe or party); hence to be hostile: — be an enemy.”

For further confirmation that the word “enmity” means “hostility”, let’s consider some passages where #342 is found. According to the Wigram Englishman’s Hebrew-Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, #342 is used only five times. Once in Genesis 3:15 along with Numbers 35:21, 22; & Ezekiel 25:15; 35:5. Now, let’s read these and compare them to Genesis 3:15:

Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”

Numbers 35:21-22: 19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. 20 But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait 23 Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: 24 Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments: 25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.

So here we clearly see that enmity is hatred, and killing a man in hatred warrants a penalty of death, whereas killing a man without hatred, but accidentally, does not warrant such a penalty. However here it is speaking of Israelites, and in Genesis 3:15 we see where Yahweh God informs us that there would be mutual hatred between two distinct parties, who are of different seeds. In the next two passages, the word which was translated as enmity in Genesis 3 and Numbers 35 was instead translated as hatred in the King James Version:

Ezekiel 25:15-16: “Thus saith Yahweh; Because the Philistines have dealt by revenge, and have taken vengeance with a despiteful heart, to destroy it for the old hatred. 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will stretch out mine hand upon the Philistines, and I will cut off the Cherethims, and destroy the remnant of the sea coast.

Ezekiel 35:5-6 [speaking to Mount Seir, or the Edomites]: “Because thou hast had a perpetual hatred, and hast shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity, in the time that their iniquity had an end. 6 Therefore, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I will prepare thee unto blood, and blood shall pursue thee: sith thou hast not hated blood, even blood shall pursue thee.

So we see that a perpetual hatred was held by the Edomites against Israel, and it can be established that the enmity of Genesis 3:15 is also the root cause of that hatred, as the children of Esau are also descendants of Cain by their mothers, for which reason Paul had called him Esau fornicator. Clifton concludes:

You can see very clearly here, this is a very vicious and murderous type of enmity [referring to the enmity of Genesis 3:15], and Lt. Col. Jack Mohr says the word “enmity” means “between”, “among” or “within.” This blunder alone should discredit his entire thesis on the subject of Two Seedline doctrine. Lt. Col. Jack Mohr then shoots himself in the foot again in his Seed of Satan, Literal or Figurative? on page 10, commenting on 2 Corinthians 11:3, when he says: “When the Apostle Paul admonished the church at Corinth not to be a partaker of Eve’s sin, he said: ‘For I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent (if it was Satan, why didn’t Paul say so, he was usually outspoken when it came to naming the adversary), beguiled (#1185 — ‘deleazo’: meaning to entrap; allure; beguile; entice’, (nothing of a sexual nature here) Eve through his subtlety (3834 — ‘ponourgos’ [sic. panourgos] meaning: ‘shrewdness; craftiness;’) should be corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ.”

Again, Lt. Col. Jack Mohr uses the wrong Strong’s number. This time it is the word “beguiled” in 2 Corinthians 11:3. The Strong’s number for “beguiled” in this case is #1818 [exapatao], not #1185 [deleazo]. Mohr is correct that the word [at] #1185 deleazo means: entrap; allure or entice, but I repeat, it is not the word used in 2 Corinthians 11:3. You can see from this, if the meaning is that which Mohr implies, the word most likely would have been #3884 [paralogízomai], to deceive by false reasoning. [Clifton is referencing Mohr's claim from other paragraphs of his paper, that Eve was only mentally deceived. In truth, there is no punishment unless wicked thoughts are acted upon in the commission of an actual sin, and Adam and Eve being punished must therefore have partaken in a physical act.] Again, I repeat, the correct word in 2 Corinthians 11:3 is #1818 [exapatao], to beguile thoroughly.

The Thayer Greek-English Lexicon takes us to an unusual scripture on the Greek word 1818 in the Apocrypha, History of Susanna, v. 56 which reads: “So he put him aside and commanded to bring the other, and said unto him, O thou seed of Chanaan [Canaan], and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived [#1818 beguiled] thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.” [Note #1818: Same as for Eve.]

Clifton makes a note contrasting the attempted seduction of Susanna by Canaanite Jews to the seduction of Eve, where the Greek of the apocrypha and that of Paul used the same word to describe each. Then he commences by describing Susanna and saying:

This is the story of a woman of great beauty who lived with her wealthy husband Joakin in Babylon where he held court in his house. About Joakin’s house was a large garden where Susanna strolled and bathed herself during the heat of the day. One day, after the litigants had left, two Canaanite-Jew elders inflamed with desire for Susanna plotted among themselves to force her affections. Preparing to bathe, after her maids had departed, they confronted her with the alternative of either submitting to them, or being exposed as having an affair with a young man. Upon this, Susanna chose to be unjustly accused rather than submit. Upon this these Canaanite-Jews gave their false testimony at the court the following day, and she was found guilty. But there was a judge by the name of Daniel who was not swayed by their false testimony and requested a new examination of the witnesses. After parting the witnesses, Daniel examined them separately, demanding them to identify the tree in the garden where Susanna and her alleged lover were seen. Their contradictory answers betrayed their treachery, and Daniel said to them as quoted in verse 56 above, “O thou seed of Chanaan [Canaan], and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived [#1818 beguiled] thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.”

Clifton then concludes:

I will continue with Lt. Col. Jack Mohr in the next Special Notice.

Yahweh willing, we shall pick up at that point here next Friday, perhaps even with Clifton himself. We are going to try to make it to Clifton's home in time for next week's presentation.

CHR20170609-CAE-SpecNotice06.odt — Downloaded 18 times