By

Over the past 7-8 decades, a few confused, and "blinded in part," Christians became enamored of an unusual theory related to Adam and Eve: a theory that evolved into a doctrine called the "Serpent Seed," or as it is commonly called, the "Two-Seedline" doctrine. This theory promotes the assumption that Eve; as the perpetrator or instigator of original sin, submitted to a "Serpent" that these theorists claim was in reality, Satan; and as a result, this contact produced Cain. From this thesis, they then expand and associate all progeny of Cain, particularly the Esau/Edomite Jews of the world, as being serpent seed progeny.

Now, it is well understood that considerable symbolism is found in the Bible, but these promoters of the Serpent Seed have taken symbolism to other levels, into the realms of the occult or to a mystical world dominated by evil beings. The principle, the "Goat," is called Satan, the Devil or Lucifer, and is assumed to possess omniscient, supernatural qualities that shape the actions and defile the religious hopes of Christians. The convoluted assumption that emerged is that evil beings have control of the world and stand in the way of salvation.

Such views violate the Commandments, by the giving of such credence to an unknown, distorts the realities of the Faith and the "Common Sense" considerations that define the Word. If the Word is to be understood, it must be seen as logical and its contents arranged in a natural order or sequence, but we must also recognize, unfortunately, that it contains induced distortions fomented by Translators over the centuries, who modified or reworded the Texts. This point is overlooked by most Christians, because they simply have not been made aware of the many changes made to the Bible texts by those seeking to use its instructions for living, for their own purposes.

I hope to show that these early Bible Translators were mistaken in some cases, and but otherwise, were intentionally devious, mainly to insure Church/Synagogue dominion and control over the lives of their adherents; by creating a "fear" of the unknown, of occult powers and beings that could only be overcome by continued association and reliance upon principles and doctrines provided by Church leadership, by the Priests, who alone it was thus implied, possessed the ability to absolve sin and insure salvation for their churchgoers.

The Serpent Seedline proponents extend this view by insisting that considerable power and omniscience must be attributed to Satan and his underworld elements; by dictating to Christians, shaping their thoughts; but who; in reality, never does appear in the Book of Genesis.

Much of this Satan/Eve theory is extrapolated from both false and distorted symbolism and confusion injected into the Word by Translators. Further, the Serpent seed theory, by its basic premise, distorts established processes of nature; and disrupts the scheme of life established by the Creator that cannot be abridged, genetically or politically.

Indirectly this theory is accommodated by the current Judeo-Christian belief in the traditional, age-old, creation of man; wherein Adam is erroneously seen as the sole progenitor of all races. It is important to note that the translators, both in the Catholic Church and the Talmudists, promoted these ideas about a Satan, Eve and the resultant, Cain.

But, when a Common Sense evaluation is applied to the Bible, the Great plan of the Ages that the Lord established emerges from the pages of the Word to reveal His true overall plan for Man. While Genesis indicates that there were two separate and distinct "Creations" - that of a "man and woman" in Genesis 1, and of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, religions sought to cloak such views in favor of doctrines of multiculturalism and universalism—despoiling the facts within the Word, that a separate "chosen" element, a People specially chosen by God, is the main theme of the Word. They deny the implication that a single race of people could be the main focus of the Word. Yet, when we examine the Bible, we can see that it is the Book to, for and about, the People of Israel almost exclusively!

A brief evaluation of the two separate Biblical creations is necessary to confirm the ‘Common Sense" aspects in the Two Creations as they were created: first by the plural Elohiym, the ‘us" of Gen. 1, and then by Yahovah, in Gen. 2, acting alone when He "formed" Adam. Such a "common sense" approach makes the Serpent Seedline theory, remote, deviant, man-made and is in reality, the product of the Talmud of Judaism and related extra-biblical writings like the Targums.

The Two Creations:

In Genesis One, we can see that the Elohiym; the plural, Us, "created" the "man and woman" together and directed only that they procreate and "replenish" the earth. No other demands were levied on them, other then to achieve dominion over the animals of the earth. For food, they were instructed to gather nuts and fruit, which were openly available; nor were they assigned to occupy a specific geographic region in which to live or otherwise maintain. They simply became hunter-gatherers, created in the "image" of their creators, the plural, Elohiym. The word, "Image" in this creation, is applied to the man and woman of Genesis one, but its original Hebrew meaning is revealing.

This original Hebrew meaning of the word "Image" derives from the Hebrew word "tselem" (#6754-Strongs Con.) meaning "to shade", but it then refers back to another, primary Hebrew root word, "tsalal,"(#6751) whose meaning is also to shade, but also to, "begin to be dark, shadowing." Telling us how the dusky races came about.

When the first creation was completed, God, as if speaking to Himself, noted that it was "very good," and then we find Him resting and musing about those past events in the first 6 verses of Genesis 2. They are difficult to fathom, but are some of the most important Bible verses. They conclude and summarize what was done earlier by the Elohiym. Verse 4 simply concludes God’s musings by referring to the "generations of the heaven and earth when they were created," implying that an unknown period of time is contained within the context of the word, "generations." A period of unknown duration.

Then the text of Gen.2:5 shifts to God discussing plant growth and a new, or different process of supplying life giving water, along with a major modification to nature and the natural order of events for the earth. God then concludes His musings and adjustments of the prior earth processes with this unusual statement, that: "there was not a man to till the ground." This change of style or type of man begins the transition to Adamic man.

Major implications for all Creation derive from that one simple statement about tilling the ground! These few words of God begins the historic re-shaping of His Great Plan for mankind, in Adam: "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him."

Here, in these words applicable to this 2^nd creation, we can distinguish a different man: one not created in the "image" or "shadow" of the Elohiym but, in a "likeness" of God.

The Hebrew word for this unique distinction, this "likeness," is "demuwth" (#1823 Strongs) meaning "resemblance, fashion, like, model," but it further defers to a Hebrew primary root word, "damah" (#1819 Strongs). "Damah" translates as: "to compare, to resemble, devise." This choice of words is far more personally associated with God the Creator, then the word "image", the process that portrays the earlier creation by the Elohiym.

When we examine the original word that depicts this Adam in the ancient Hebrew, the word, "aw-dam" (#119-Strong’s Conc), it depicts a man that "shows blood in the face, i.e., flush or turn rosy, be dyed, made red (ruddy).

Yet, when we examine the many times that the word Adam appears within the King James Bible; which is the basis for Strong’s Concordance word selections; No. 119 never appears!

But the different physiognomy of Adam, as we can see from the words used to depict his creation, stands in stark contrast to the words used to depict the man and woman created in Gen.1, in the image of the Elohiym, those who were depicted as: shaded, dark, shadowy.

Strong’s, however, without any explanation, arbitrarily adds a separate word to depict Adam; adding #120; the word "aw-dawm," and then states that it derives from #119! This No. 120 "aw-dawm" is depicted as: a human being, the species of mankind, another, common sort, low man, mean, of low degree.

Yet, when the word Adam appears within the text of the KJV, Strong’s never assigns the number 119 to depict any of the many Adam’s shown in the Bible, even from the very beginning in Genesis. Only the number 120 is used, or a third number, 121, which Strong’s claims is the same as #120, being only the name of the first man!

If it was the editorial intent of the staff of Strong’s Concordance to set the stage that Adam was the first man, and then to define the fallen man, Adam, as #120, that depicts him as a common sort, low man, mean, of low degree, such an adjustment to this man, it must be considered as "editorializing," for the depictions in Strong’s Hebrew concordance of both #119 and #120, apply solely to their physical physiognomy and not to their societal or religious status in relation to God the Creator.

This begs the question, Why the failure to show Adam as he was formed? We know that the two separate creations produced two distinct and separate types of "man", as their physiognomy and other features confirm; i.e., the breath of life was blown only into the nostrils of Adam man; we must see in this editorial action of Strong’s and others as a deviation from the truth! Thus setting the stage, or following the traditional doctrines of organized, established religions that failed for reasons of their own, to truthfully examine the Word!

This failure to show #119 is not explained by the editors of Strong’s, nor is any explanation for this omission found in the original commentary of James Strong himself.

The translators could have applied the Hebrew word "isyh", meaning champion, great, mighty man, steward, worthy, (376-Strong’s) to Adam as was applied to Noah, who was called a "just" man, but such a reverence does not emerge from the texts, and Adam is never defined as being equivalent to Noah and other men.

The meaning of Adam further distinguishes just how the "forming" of Adam was done: by God alone, yet distinguishable in this process is the different countenance and physiognomy of Adam from that of the man and woman of Genesis 1, as well as the different demands levied by God on Adam, the first assignment of His Law and a fixed geographic residence; issues that stand in clear opposition to the instructions given to the first creation by the Elohiym.

Adam, as we read, is to be sustained by agriculture, a necessary "work" project, but bringing with it, a much different, more sedentary lifestyle, something that would further distinguish the two creations and separate the ultimate purpose of both.

The principle focus or reference in God’s agricultural comment infers that an agricultural growth process was being promoted that encompassed all of the domesticated processes necessary to insure the sustenance needed for mans survival. The hunter-gatherer process of the "first created" may have needed adjustment for reasons not stated; perhaps they were increasing in numbers beyond supportability or lacked mental or physical qualities not in accord with God’s purposes.

When we know that there have been Cro-magnon and Neanderthal humanoids on the earth, we must see in His purposes, an intent to change the lifestyle of man. This remote aspect of man’s history is easily validated by the words of the Elohiym; who had instructed the man and woman, in Gen.1:28, to "replenish" the earth. Such a demand indicates a prior creation or existence of man!

We will see however, from the following steps in the creation of man in Gen.2, of Adam, that it is now Yahovah, or God Himself, working alone as He "forms" Adam and assigns him to the agricultural Garden. This view is confirmed by God himself when speaking of the flood, in the use of the first person, ‘I,’ as is clear from Gen.6:7: " I will destroy man whom I have created…for it repenteth me that I have made them." Gen.6:13 & 17 similarly make reference to the distinguishing, ‘I’..

This stated "need" for another, "different" man to perform the complex tasks associated with agricultural processes, changes the entire life style of all created as it necessarily infers an established and prepared geographic location, requires the unique knowledge of seasons, seeds, germination time, harvest processes and soil preparation. The work of gardening implies as well, the need for peculiar physical attributes of man; physical features, as hands, feet and all his senses, with a reasoning ability and his unique mobility.

All of these special qualities, the needs and processes, are contained in God’s comment that understood and defined a different man; as these implications are contained within that single line in which God states that "there was not a man to till the ground."

We can then see from God’s words in Gen.2:6, that a new, different life giving watering process for the whole earth was established; necessary apparently to accommodate the agricultural processes established in Genesis 2, qualified in that phrase, about the need for a "man to till the ground," Adam.

So, here we find God "forming" this new man "of the dust of the earth:" formed in the "likeness" of God, but not in the "image" as was the man and woman of Genesis 1. To illustrate this difference, would be to stand in the sunshine and notice the shadow. The "likeness’ outlines the image of the shadow, but the shadow, or image is opaque. (See the book, "The Two Creations"by Lloyd Palmer-Gabriel’s Enterprises-P.O. Box 513, Albert Lea, MN. 56007)

Then this newly ‘formed’ creation of Yahovah, God, is also given a distinctly unique feature; one not given to those of the earlier creation; given to Adam it would seem, in anticipation of what God was planning -- along with the Garden of Eden and the production of agricultural food. This critical and unique distinctive grant occurs when God "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." (v.7)

This "breath of life" is the most distinguishing feature of Adamites, and will figure into the life of Adam’s progeny, some of whom subsequently became His specially chosen People,

"But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name, thou art Mine." (Isaiah 43:1)

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth:…" (Amos 3:2)

A people purposely kept separate and aloof by the mandates of the Law, from those of the first creation by God lest they defile their genetic qualities.

But, this admonition to refrain from this association was not followed by the Adamites and the punishment for these adulterous multicultural deviations were applied by God, when He "…saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil, continually." We are advised that only Noah remained "perfect in his generations" when the flood destroyed the Adamites.

With the coming of the flood, its application was targeted to Adamites specifically, as Gen.7:22 confirms; saying only Adamites died from its effects: Consider this verse:

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." (Gen.7:22)

That obscure, but highly definitive statement confirms that only Adamites were being punished for their violation of the Law, for interracial marriages and defilement of their genetic structure.

But, that statement addressing Adamites, also confirms as well, that there were "others," different humans, pre-Adamites, extant at the time. The distinguishing implication of the word, "only" viz. "all" emerges from verse 22. That distinction establishes the fact that there were "others" with whom the Adamites had intermarried.

Thus the cause of the flood confirms again, God’s insistence upon keeping the physical and other qualities of human life separate, as God insisted man must remain genetically sacrosanct, undefiled by intermarriage with the pre-Adamic, "Others," lest the Spiritual qualities blown into the nostrils of the Adamites become diluted and eventually bred out of His chosen people.

This fact is confirmed when we find God saying: My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh:…" (Gen.6:3) What God is saying here, is that this race mixing would eventually destroy His spirit breathed into Adamites, as children came from these mixed unions. Consider this quote:

"The word "strive" in verse 3 is interesting. It means contend, or plead the cause, so we can see that the Lord (Yahovah) was saying: My spirit shall not always plead the cause in man, (Adamites) because he is also flesh, (and will yield to the lust thereof). And by yielding to interracial marriage Yahovah’s Spirit, the breath of life, would be eventually bred out of Adamic man." (The Two Creations p.21)

When Adamic man’s situation had reached such a state of deprivation, God made the decision to destroy him, and what God says next also confirms that He alone, by Himself, had created Adamic man.

Consider this verse very carefully, as the pronoun, I, proves this point:

The reason why God made the decision resulted from man’s actions. "For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." (Gen.6:12) Read that verse again, to see what man had done, it corrupted His way, or God’s way that He had ordained that they should live, most likely in more ways then one.

There we can confirm the principle reason for God’s repetitive insistence upon racial purity for all, especially the Adamites, whom He alone had formed and assigned to establish a formal life style that insisted upon association with kinsmen—only. The dictum of kind after kind was formalized genetically, but in humans, dependent upon free will, but more particularly, on the conscience imbedded in Adam when the Spirit was blown into his nostrils.

Now, continuing with the process of creation -- Gen.2:8 shows that God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." There, God established agricultural fields that required man to tend them, and in these agricultural fields, God established Adam. In the texts that follow His comments about planting the Garden, is a description of the land of the Garden of Eden; its location, contents and a reference to the several important trees that were to figure into the life of Adam; and into ours as well.

Unlike the Gen.1 first man and woman given free rein among all trees, several trees of the Garden formed the basis for God’s instructions to His newly formed Adam and how they would shape his future, as well as the course of the world to come. God used these silent trees, prohibiting him their fruit, to test the will and conscience of His formed man, limiting his choices, restricting his actions; thus testing the mind and heart of this new man by applying limits on his freedom of independent action. The First Law!

This was a simple Law to determine how and if Adam would obey while adjusting to his surroundings; to his status in dominion over all created, but a law that also could and would separate Adam from his Creator. A law designed to test the will of man whom He made only a bit below the angels, a man possessing such qualities of free will that he was called, a "son of God." ( See Gen.5 , Luke 3:38 & Rom.8:19-"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.")

In summary, we have seen that God’s forming of Adam is also associated with God’s decision to change the world and the life style of all created, as well as the natural processes that govern the earth. Agriculture is the defining process by which man was now to be identified, as it enhanced his ability to survive, for his survival now hinged upon the abilities of man himself. God sets this process in motion, by "planting" the first crops in the Garden of Eden - a site perfected to accommodate the new man, Adam.

God next provides Adam with instructions for how he is to exist, describing the location of Eden and its special qualities, as well as the limitations on his freedom of action. He is taken into the garden, to "dress it and to keep it."

Having established Adam within the Garden, and restricting his choices, God makes a blanket statement that it is apparent that Adam needs help. "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him." (Gen.2:18)

What happens next, has often been ignored, or simply bypassed, but it figures most importantly in the history of Christianity and particularly in defusing the Serpent seed theory. In the next verse, 19 we find that God then forms " . . .every ‘beast of the field." As well as the birds and domestic animals, who were brought to Adam to be named. No time element emerges from these events, but time must be considered, as there is a definite sequence to these events of Gen.2.

Adam’s need for assistance in working the Garden’s "fields" is thus resolved when God forms the beasts of the field to assist in the agricultural functions, to work the land and the "Fields," of Eden.

Continuing in sequence, after Adam has named the animals and beasts of the field, God once again reiterates that Adam is still in need of help: "but for Adam there was not found help meet for him" (Gen.2:22) Some sources translate this statement as needing someone "fit for him."

A more realistic translation. The Greek Septuagint, the Bible used by Jesus and His disciples,(and thus authenticated) reads more appropriately, as "but for Adam there was not found a help like unto himself."

Following this acknowledgement, God "makes" Eve from Adam’s "flesh" or as Adam states; "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."

There is also an important distinction seldom noted, between these two Adamites-- in that the flesh of Adam came from the earth, possessing none of the deleterious qualities that the Bible assigns to "Flesh;" its capacity for lust. But Eve was made from the "flesh" of man as we all are, and she was subject to the same inducements or temptations that all flesh must face: even that of Jesus when He took upon Himself, our humanity.

This fact about Eve being sourced from "flesh" may account for why it was Eve who was induced, or as she acknowledged, "beguiled," into violating God’s instructions to avoid the Trees in the Garden. Yet, her flesh qualities, subject to sin, capitulated; while that of Adam, could not, yet his submission as an accessory after the fact, led to equal guilt.

Yet, the why of its happening, this admitted "beguiling" of Eve, does not emerge from the texts. Only that it happened and that it warranted punishment. Did the Lord know that it would happen? Was there a purpose in how it was handled? Did God have a "need" for having "death" introduced or to appear on earth? Did the earth have a limited capacity for the numbers of pre-Adamite beings whose sustainability may have been limited? Did God then, forge a system that would also put His creations through a selection process to insure that quality and not numbers became the defining factor in His choices of men?

Such answers can only come with the restoration of Israel and the restitution of all things that we anticipate emerging when He returns to establish His kingdom on earth.

Once again, we must shift to considerations of "Common Sense" issues that define God’s plans. From His forming of these useful, beasts of the field, we can determine from their name alone, that it implies a possession of physical attributes that are applicable to the processes of agriculture, simply from the word "field." Fields in the Garden of Eden that had been prepared by God for the cultivation and growth of crops. Clearly, what God was making reference to in verse 18, about help, meet for Adam, was the inherent abilities of these formed, beasts of the field. Their "forming" is done immediately after God determines and states that Adam was in need of help in the agricultural tasks that were beyond his own abilities. Had God planned that Adam would be exempt from this work and aloof from the "beasts of the field," and separate?

Again, we come to another point wherein the "Common sense" applications of the Word come into play. It applies to the many biblical attributes that define these "beasts of the field." Their physical and other qualities that have been ignored by politically correct, but misguided "Christians" especially by those who promote the current "Universalist" views, but who refuse to admit what the Word has to say about these "formed’ beasts of the field. Purposely refusing to admit, or otherwise, ignoring the true meaning of the Hebrew word, beast and its many Biblical connotations and references to the qualities of these "beasts of the field." We do know however, that the early translators did set the stage, so to speak, in their confused wording of some Bible texts, and as a consequence, many have been led down paths of confusion about the Word.

In ancient Hebrew, the word, "Chay," #2416 of Strong’s Concordance, is applied to these biblical "beasts of the field," but of the several multiple meanings assigned to the word, "chay," only the words, "living creature" emerges as the most appropriate. The English word, ‘animal’ does not appear among them as a definition. (An ‘animal’ is defined by the Hebrew word, "Cheyva," #2423.)

However, when all of the Biblical references to these "beasts of the field" are considered, what these references reveal, and very few Bible students are willing to state, accept, or even infer, is that these "Chay" have many qualities akin to those of humans, in that they are capable of speaking, reasoning, rational thought, walking upright, have hands and feet, wear clothes and live in dwellings (Dan.4:25,32)

In Genesis 3:1, are the words that depict the first activities of these beasts of the field when Eve is confronted by one of them; this one noted as the smartest of them all: "the most "subtil."

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden?"

Here, let’s get Dr Bullinger involved in this discourse. . This renowned Bible Scholar appears to have reached a similar conclusion about these verses, except, he, like many others, failed to see the correlation between the human qualities of these "beasts of the field" and what the translators did to this most important sentence in Gen.3:1. This failure stems from his not realizing that Genesis offers two separate and distinct creations. Here are Bullinger’s words on this chapter of Genesis.

When Satan is spoken of as Nachash, it no more means a serpent then it does when Dan is similarly called one in Gen.49:17, or when Herod is called a ‘fox’ or Judah is called a ‘lion’s whelp’. It shows something much more real is intended. The Hebrew word translated ‘serpent’ is Nachash from a root meaning to ‘whisper,’ as do enchanters, an artful malicious person."

He fails to note here however, that the Hebrew word "nachash" for "serpent or snake," is the very same Hebrew word used for the words "whisper" or "hiss."

Now, lets get back to the issue of the Hebrew, "Chay." There are 33 Biblical references to the activities of these "Chay", and most of them depict them as being located among the Adamites, but subordinate to them, as we can determine from Psalm 8:5-7 wherein David refers to the dominion that God gave to man over the animals, and these "beasts of the field." In Jeremiah 27:6, & 28:14 God states that He has given Nebuchadnezzar the ‘beasts of the field,’ to serve him. This act denotes God taking them away from Israel to give them to Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon. Here it appears that they not only serve him, but are to be allies.

In Job 5:22, is a reference to these "beasts of the field" having the ability to oppose man, to contest with him, as the reference here indicates that "the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee." To describe them otherwise would imply just the opposite: a state of or condition of being at odds with Job and man.

Two other verses that refer to these "beasts" serve as warnings to Man. They must insure that the numbers or population of the beasts of the field do not increase!

Exodus 23:29 reveals that the Lord limited the time that Israelites could permit adjacent alien lands to remain devoid of people: "lest the land become desolate and the beast of the field multiply against thee." Deut.7:22, has a similar instructive comment from God to Israel. Here God refers to performing a gradual removal of people from lands promised to Israel, then permitting Israel to enter all at once, "lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee."

Joel 1:15 has a prophetic commentary about the anticipated "day of the Lord", then verses 17-20 refer to shortages of food and water, to the lack of production, broken barns, the groaning of the beasts, herds of cattle confused for having no pasture, and sheep made desolate. Then in v.20, the "beasts of the field" are addressed separately for their "cry unto thee," –crying to Israelites who are charged with the nurturing of them.

There also is very unusual and revealing comment in Jeremiah regarding events associated with Israel and Judah in the end times, which alludes to a genetic mingling of the seed of the Israelites with the seed of "man" and the seed of the "beast."

This phrasing certainly could speak to the miscegenation now so prevalent within Israel, but its context within chapter 31 intend the reference to be rather one of support and their subordination to Israel.

The wording in both the KJV and the Septuagint reads: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and the seed of beast." Then, subsequent verses also spoken by God, seem to confirm the seriousness of the sowing of these disparate seeds, for the Lord says that: "…like as I have watched over them, to pluck up and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy and to afflict, so will I watch over them, to build and to plant, saith the Lord.

We can now determine from the many preceding verses applicable to the beasts of the field, just what they’re true status and their relationship to Israel has been. From these verses, we can determine that an association was established as affiliated with man, beginning with Adam, and now we can understand the mistakes the translators made when translating and interpreting that critical verse, Genesis 3:1. We can see just what the error was that the Translators, and Talmudists, and the Judeo-Christians have made, and the assumptions that the Serpent seed adherents used to promote their theory.

The failure of the translators and theologians to recognize who and what these "beasts of the field" actually were, their failure to associate the persona and distinguishing features of these beasts of the field, led the translators into re-writing this verse in such a way that a confusion of ideas emerged from it. Then too, as we examine subsequent involvement of the Talmudic Jews with the Bible in two separate but critical times of history, we may determine that the changes were intentional.

The translators of the Catholic Church who initiated their own distortions in the Word also demanded that it be considered as infallible and inerrant. The "why" of it is obvious, as it kept parishioners from questioning the Priests: for they had adjusted the Word to accommodate the need to instill that necessary fear and concern among their parishioners.

In the period immediately following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Jewish scholars in the Jewish center at Jabneh (Jamnia) had the first opportunity to alter the Hebrew texts. A comment from Dr. Gordon Ginn in his book, The Final Apostasy, points this out.

These Hebrew texts were next manipulated by the Jews when the Massoretes were organized to re-create a new version of the Hebrew Bible but by this time, most of the ancient Hebrew scrolls and texts used to create the Greek language Septuagint, or LXX, were not available. The events of AD 70 in Jerusalem had destroyed most of them.

The Massoretes began their work during the 5^th century after Christ and worked to rewrite the Old Testament until 913AD when a copy was given to the Catholic Church. This new Hebrew language text added vowel points to the old Hebrew words, but without the original Hebrew, the vowel additions were not necessarily valid in some cases.

The proper vowel, may or may not have been applied. Further, as we are well aware, the basis for the work of these Massoretes was the Greek language Septuagint, the Bible used by Jesus and His disciples, and thus authenticated. It had been prepared in 285B.C. from the original Hebrew Texts and Scrolls by dedicated Hebrew scholars in Alexandria.

The Massoretes however, in the final analysis had to rely on the Septuagint to confirm their work, and in the process, omitted over 1/3^rd of the Septuagint, and cleverly adjusted some of the key verses to accommodate the Jews and their Talmudic views of the Faith. This word-smithing that resulted in today’s Old Testament is with us yet today, and the cause of much of today’s distortions and skewed doctrines. Some changes are subtle, but important and have favored the Talmudists views on some critical topics.

One of the key reasons behind the work of the Massoretes derived from their loosing arguments with Christians when the Septuagint proved them wrong. At one time the Jews had looked with favor on the Septuagint but when the Massoretic texts were completed, they began a campaign to castigate it and deride its validity and its value -- to the point that they were able to influence many blinded Christians to adopt an antithetical attitude toward the validity of the Septuagint as well.

Today we still find Christian Shepherds castigating the value and the authenticity of the Septuagint. That inherent "fear of the Jews’ is as weighty as ever, and organizations like Chick Publications Inc.(www.chick.com) are actively supportive of talmudic distortions, being severely critical of the Septuagint and its truthful presentation of the Jews throughout the Old Testament.

It can be established that the translators of the Bible had a variety of key words to choose from, thereby increasing their options for distorting and skewing several key verses. These word origins helped form the basis for the creation of the Seedline theories and must be presented. Babylonian Talmudic sources must be understood and recognized as the primary source, as the Talmud influenced the Aramaic and Jewish Targums, the Jewish Encyclopedia’s, as well as other extra-biblical references of Jewish opinion alleging that a Satan was the paramour of Eve, mainly the Jewish Targums.

Extracts from a study titled, "Those Trees in the Garden of Eden-A Study of the Doctrine of Serpent Seed" provides the Jewish view of creation events outlined in both early and more recent textual references.

Serpent in Targums: Extra-biblical writings also confirm that Cain is the offspring of Satan. Louis Ginsberg provides this historic rendition of Genesis 4:1: ‘Satan, in the guise of the serpent, approached her, and the fruit of their union was Cain, the ancestor of all impious generations that were rebellious toward God, and rose up against Him. Cain’s descent from Satan, who is the angel Sammael, was revealed in his seraphic appearance. At his birth, the exclamation was wrung from Eve, ‘I have gotten a man through an angel of the Lord.’ (Legends of the Bible, p.54)

Further commentary on Genesis 4:1 is found in the Aramaic Targums which provide an historic understanding of how the Bible was interpreted during the time of Christ. One Targum on Genesis 4:1 states: ‘And Adam was aware that Eve his wife had conceived from Sammael the angel, and she became pregnant and bare Cain, and he was like those on high, not like those below, and she said, ‘I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord.’ (Targum of Jonathan)

Another Targum gives a similar interpretation of this passage: ‘And Adam knew Eve his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Abel.(Jerusalem Targum)

Serpent in Modern Writings: Even some modern (Jewish) publications recognize the origin of Cain. For further confirmation of Satan fathering Cain, notice what is recorded in The Encyclopedia Britannica of Jewish interpretations of Scripture: ‘The birth of Cain is ascribed to a union of Satan with Eve.’ (Vol.VIII (1910) p.122) Likewise, The Jewish Encyclopedia also states: ’Satan was the seducer and paramour of Eve.’ (Vol.XI (1905) p.69)

According to one dictionary, "Paramour" means: ‘A lover; especially one who loves or is loved illicitly; one taking the place, without the rights, of a spouse.’ (Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 3^rd Ed. 1928)

The same article in The Jewish Encyclopedia also states: ‘He (Satan) was an active agent in the fall of man, and was the father of Cain.’ The article then continues by stating: ’The serpent of Genesis 3 is identified with Satan.’ (Vol.XI (1903) p.493) All these publications clearly attest to Satan’s work in the Garden of Eden.

(End quoting from Jewish Opinion)

There are few if any, subsequent historic references promoting this theory of the Serpent Seed between the time these Jewish sources were published and the theory began to emerge upon the American religious scene in the 1920’s and 30’s. It found a toe-hold among a few of the many Christians who had been awakened to their original genetic backgrounds as a people with ancient Israelite origins; those to whom Jesus had stated that He was only sent,* and those to whom He directed His disciples, to only go: to the lost sheep of the house of Israel! Christians who identified themselves as being Christians and whose identity would be traced to those lost sheep of the house of Israel – As Christian Israel, or as otherwise identified, as Christian Identity.*(See Matt.10:6 & 15:24)

The principle promoters of this revived Talmudic theory emerged out of a combined religious/political background, but three American adherents and promoters, Dr. Wesley A. Swift, Dr. Gerald L.K. Smith and Dr. William P. Gale used their introduction to the Truths of Christian Israel as the avenue for promoting their Serpent Seed theory; a theory that also promoted Cain as being the progenitor of the world’s Jews, forcing the belief in an association with occult genetics that violate the Lordly dictum of kind after kind!

This convoluted view of occult genetics ignores the facts that most of the Ashkenazic Jews of the world have origins from within Central Russia, as former Khazars, a Turkic-mongol tribe that converted to Talmudic Judaism in 740AD. As a number of Jewish authors have reported, Arthur Koestler, Alfred Lilenthal, and Dr. Ben Freedman.

Yet, despite the noisy promotion of this theory of Seedline by these early American men in the 1930’s, their work presented the classic dichotomy, as these early promoters (as well as some of them today), on the one hand, vehemently condemned the Talmudists, while at the same time, adopted their Talmudic Serpent Seed doctrines, primarily because talmudic commentary supported their Serpent Seed theory.

There is yet another aspect to this common outlook that warrants mention, for it is well known that the Talmudists stimulate arguments antithetical to Christianity to keep the Truth from emerging. Protocol No. 12 makes reference to such an attitude: "I beg of you to note that among those making attack upon us, will also be organs established by us, but they will attack exclusively, points which we have predetermined to alter."

Recently, one of the most ardent Serpent Seed supporters, Clifton Emahiser, castigated opponents of the theory for their revelations about the Talmudic origins of this theory, insisting that some contents of the Talmud must be accepted. Protocol No. 12 notwithstanding. (See his "To All Who Deny Two Seedline", www.childrenofyahweh.com

These early adherents stimulated others to adopt their views, although some like Dr. Bertram Comparet, were not that actively supportive; many simply followed along, keeping up with family and friends.

Lately however, many have begun to abandon this theory as they began to recognize and realize that its unproven concepts had no meaning for them: that it contributed little or nothing to their hopes for Salvation and the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Here are a few recent examples of "Serpent Seed" as taught by a few of the adherents:

While this ancient heresy was held within several mystical and occultic religious systems, it has never been a doctrine of historic Christianity. It is Jewish to the core and it is the Jews who sought to use it to denigrate the value and Truths of Christianity.

That most key verse, Genesis 3:1, (KJV) is usually recognized as the beginning of the Fall of man. "Now the serpent was more subtil then any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden?"

In their zeal to translate the meaning of this verse, the translators accepted the fact that "beasts of the field" existed, but could not or did not understand how to correlate the capabilities or the qualities of these beasts. So, here again, Hebrew words that applied were mistranslated in such a way as to distort the entire verse.

When the Hebrew word for ‘Serpent’ is examined, we find that it is the word, "Nachash" (#5175 of Strong’s Concordance) - its translation reads: a snake, from its hiss, a serpent. But, then Strong’s directs us to the primary root word, #5172, which is coincidentally, also, "nachash."

Now Christian, we are getting somewhere! We can now deduce and "expose" the reason for the translators’ use of the word, "Serpent" in Genesis 3:1. The primary Hebrew root word "nachash," carries absolutely no, repeat no reference to snakes or serpents. Its literal translation is: properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper. When the translators were faced with finding a proper verb in this sentence, the use of the word ‘Serpent’ for this ‘nachash’ offered a separate ‘subject’ for this sentence which to them, was more appropriate then assigning the verbal actions by Eve to this most subtil beast of the field. A Serpent had qualities and features that the Translators could understand, it ‘hissed’, while a "beast of the field" was not understood.

To them, these beasts of the field or other beast, lacked the capability to "hiss," nor did they think that it had the intelligence and speaking ability to "whisper." As a consequence, these early translators sought out some value or other proper noun whose abilities would confirm an ability to hiss or whisper; but the only ‘hissing’ ability they understood came from snakes and serpents. So the action within this sentence, the "whispering," was converted from a verb to a proper noun, Serpent, solving the dilemma of beasts being able to whisper! And, in so doing, they failed to assign the action of the verb to this most "subtil beast of the field."

For the "whispering" to Eve was exactly what this smartest of all of the many beasts of the field did; and the words spoken by this most subtil beast of the field, reveals a display of fearfulness: of God and Adam; hence the inclination to whisper! Adam, obviously had briefed these "beasts of the field" following God’s instructions, and His prohibitions against eating the fruit of certain trees would have been passed along to all, including Eve.

Other, secondary meanings for the Hebrew primary root word, "nachash" tend to bear this point out: as its secondary meanings are: enchanter, enchantment, learn by experience. It is these secondary meanings that the Satan seed line adherents erroneously assign the principle meaning of the word "nachash" and to their contrived "Satan."

Now, when this subtil beast of the field whispered to Eve, not only did he understand the prohibitions against eating of the fruit, as some earlier experiences with it may have defied the implications of resulting death that God had made to Adam, but this most subtil beast many have perceived some events that led him to whisper to Eve; in a misguided assumption that he was being supportive.

This most subtil beast, may have seen animals eat this fruit, or may have even eaten it himself - and they did not die - at least not immediately. Such rationalized thought would have induced this most subtil beast to the field to confidently whisper his assumptions to Eve, stimulating her decision.

The "whispered" words from the beast of the field insinuated to Eve that God’s purpose was intended to prevent them gaining that knowledge that would make them as the Elohiym, thereby discrediting God while at the same time arousing in Eve, a desire for knowledge. Even more importantly, by introducing his evil negative into God’s command, "Ye shall Not surely die," the whisperer caused Eve to doubt God’s Word.

But, it was her decision and her subsequent inducement for Adam to follow along, became the principle cause of the sins of both, as Eve submitted to the three temptations of the flesh outlined for Eve in Genesis 3:6:

"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." What is being described here are the three lusts of the flesh to which all men are subject. (To be discussed later)

Now we can begin to see what some of the translators errors have been responsible for, how they distorted the Word to such a degree, that we find God demanding intense study of the Word, insisting that we go "precept upon precept, line upon line" to work our way through its purpose in its directions to the children of Israel. (See Isaiah 28:9-11)

Whether the distortions of the Word were intentional, or, permitted to emerge by the Lord, distortions have misled many Christians into false assumptions and confused the true basis of what constitutes sin! We can now see that there was an outside stimulus to Eve’s sin, that whispered suggestion from the beast of the field -- Who, in his mind, probably felt justified in making the comments that opposed the will and demands of God. But, when properly defined, this most subtil beast of the field, was a "Sawtawn" or "Adversary" to Eve and to God’s instructions. It is this adversarial relationship that the Hebrew word, "Sawtawn" defines. But, the translators, for reasons of their own, converted the Hebrew common noun, "sawtawn" into a proper noun, changing it to read Satan, transliterating the word "sawtawn" into an all powerful, supernatural entity with omniscient powers. Why?

Adam and Eve’s Changes and Consequences:

We must also speak to the absence of the "breath of life" in this "beast of the field." It was blown only into Adam’s nostrils: thereby creating a conscience that could feel and reflect guilt as is confirmed when Adam and Eve hid themselves after they heard the voice of the Lord: confirmed also in how they responded to the voice of the Lord walking in the cool of the Garden, when God called out to Adam: "Where art thou?"

That simple act of eating the fruit, in itself, may not only have imparted knowledge that told Adam that he was now naked, that things had changed. From the little we are told in Scripture as to the nature of the resurrection body and from the appearance of Jesus in the transfiguration scene, we can surmise that Adam and Eve had been covered by the aura of light associated with the spiritual body that they now had lost. They could now see their own bodies and as any decent person would, even today, they attempted to cover themselves.

Adam and Eve now had all the mental and intellectual capacities equal to those of the Elohiym (the Creators). It was the spiritual quality of their minds and intellect, their natures and character that set them apart from natural man. But their right to eternal spiritual life had been dependant upon one condition placed upon them, their belief in and obedience to the Word of God.

This is confirmed in Gen.3:22-23: "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is now become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

From the moment of their eating of the forbidden fruit they were cut off from God, the source of their spiritual life and they lost their eternal life and became subject to physical death as did the natural man created in Genesis 1. Thus, it became necessary for them to reproduce and so the "Whisperer’s" sowing of disbelief was now inherent within the flesh of Adamites, as we are advised: "by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." (Rom.5:19)

The change in Adam and Eve’s spiritual nature that resulted from their sin would now have a far-reaching effect upon their progeny. As we have seen, Adam’s disobedience was now implanted, his disbelief (for God calls disobedience, disbelief) has now become part of our physical make-up from generation to generation, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon their children’s children…"(Num.20:12-7 & Ex.34:7)

Original sin is thus contained in the act that generates our progeny, and its "reminding" effects are passed along as we can see from the two sources quoted above. Yet, that one other unique and distinguishing feature which God supplied to Adam, that "breath of life" that had made him a living soul, was retained, and would be passed down to the children undiminished, providing no alien seed was introduced into the genetic makeup of Adam’s progeny. To God, this genetic defilement was adultery and thus race mixing was absolutely forbidden!

So, once again, when Common Sense is applied to these original events found in Genesis, the events and their sequence become understandable and real, and the symbolism and false assumptions promoted by misguided Shepherds and others, are not appropriate. Nor had any Satan or Devil or other being made an appearance to "seduce" Eve as the Serpent Seed theorist’s assume. Genesis does not mention any Satan or Devil.

However, we cannot abandon Adam and Eve to their future quite yet, as the punishment that God meted out to all involved must be addressed. It is obvious that God had anticipated these events and their outcome, and as noted earlier, probably controlled the events in any case. But, sin has consequences, then and now, and God was obliged to curse the lives of these participants that violated His Laws.

The first to be punished is the "Serpent" - actually, the "whisperer" who had made the covert suggestion to Eve that death would not result from the eating of the fruit. That clever suggestion however, was an assumption that Adam also felt was justified, as Eve having eaten before him, was yet alive. Thus seemingly contradicting God’s Word—something that yet goes on today, but today’s consequences can be absolved - through forgiveness—fortunately.

What we find in the Gen.3:14 & 15 are the words that God uses to punish the "Serpent." They form part of the basis for what the Serpent Seed adherents use to accommodate their theory.

But here too, are words that have also been engineered to accommodate the idea of a snake or serpent being the culprit that "whispered." For when we investigate and analyze the words and their meaning, something far different emerges. It is necessary to repeat this important verse before commenting upon it:

Once again, using necessary "Common Sense," we find that this beast of the field understood language, as God spoke directly to it. Yet, once again, we find that the translators, in this case, the Jewish Massoretes who re-wrote the Old Testament into modern Hebrew between 400-900A.D, did not follow the original text of the Greek language Septuagint that Jesus and His disciples had used!

Here is the same verse 14 from the Greek Septuagint.

Here, it seems that the translators could not imagine a snake having a "breast" so they omitted the word. But, it figures in how this verse is to be properly understood, and applied. Snakes do not have breasts! This "living creature," this beast of the field, that had deceitfully advised Eve, was to suffer a greater curse then that applied to any of the participants, indicating that life for these "beasts of the field" in the future, would not be similarly supported as planned; by the Adamites.

In fact, God emphatically states that an eternal enmity between the two principle participants, or protagonists, would exist, as we will see.

These punished beasts of the field could not then, benefit from the work or skills of Adam, or receive the care and feeding to be given to the lesser creatures, supplied from the hand of Adam, and from his progeny. The beasts of the field would be forced to subsist on their own, and their breast and belly wants and needs would dictate their lives, making a constant search for food their primary goal in life, their lives shaped by the need to search and scrounge for sustenance. Hence the reference to the needs of their bellies!

It is the verse Genesis 3:14 that has shaped the doctrines of the Serpent seedline more then any other. It uses the idea that Eve had submitted to the Sawtawn, or the Adversary; only Satan is not mentioned in the entire book of Genesis.

These modern day proponents have gone one step beyond the mistaken translators and added another, fourth being, Satan, into the going’s-on between Eve, the most subtil beast of the field and Adam. But, they are not unique, as the Jewish Targums, Encyclopedia’s and the abominable Talmud were the first to promote this theory..

Yet few understand the cleverness and intent of the Talmudists in using this theory to advance their own goals and plans. While the theory disparages the Jews, it also generates sympathetic concerns for Jews that they then use to gain advantages over Christians, who in trying to be "Christian," give up advantages and status to enhance such concerns that are considered as supportive of the "Chosen." (An impression that is erroneously deduced from the words God spoke to Abraham in Gen.12:3—about being blessed for aiding Abraham)

We can see from this deceptive tactic, that the Serpent seed promoters are simply being used to enhance these concerns, but they fail when it is realized that the words of Gen.12:3 cannot apply to the Jews of today, for Abraham was not a Jew, but a Hebrew! Today’s Jews have no proven genetic affinity to or for ancient Judah or Israel and are not semetic in any case.

Elizabeth Dilling, a Christian activist of the 40’s and 50’s, pointed out the cleverness of these deceptive tactics in an open letter concerning GLK Smith, written to Frank Britton, the editor of the American Nationalist in April 1954.

"The Jewish Anti-Defamation League needs some A1 rabble-rouser "Anti-Semite" to make the little Jews kick in the millions they do yearly to fight an almost non-existent "anti-Semitism." They funneled whole populations with their Hitler as the excuse. Protocol 9 says, ‘Anti-Semitism’ is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren."

A book by Myron Fagan titled "Red Treason in Hollywood" had reported on GLK Smith’s connection with the Jewish ADL.

When Christians are led to accept particular Biblical verses as being proper and correctly phrased, with some verses touted as being the principle basis behind some of these "doctrines" of Christianity, Christians can, and do fall victim to the old Bible translators who, over the ages, and for reasons of their own, omitted texts and purposely word-smithed a number of verses. As a consequence, God has made it plain that we must study: "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" ( Isa.28:10)

The opportunity to distort the Word appeared among early Jews working in Jamnia immediately after the crucifixion of Christ, between AD 70 and AD 135. Then came the Catholic Church translators followed by the Jewish Masorettes of 400-900 A.D. who had to re-create their Torah (Old Testament) into a newer and different Hebrew language following the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.(Hebrew as a language had practically died out in Jerusalem)

Dr. Gordon Ginn advises us about these Talmudists who set about to rework the Bible after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 11^th Ed.Vol.4, contains confirmation of this work of these early Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, working out of Jamnia near Babylon.

Before the Massoretes became active in their work to rewrite a Hebrew Bible, an earlier Jewish group had already set precedent and were active in adjusting whatever old texts remained to accommodate the Jewish position and to deflate the growing status of the Christians.

Later, we will see that Catholic translators applied their own adjustments to the Word, putting Latin words such as "gentilis," or "Gentile" into the Old Testament, despite the fact that the two basic Bible languages were Hebrew and Greek, only! Latin was not a language when the Hebrew Texts were written, thus it should not appear in the OT. Yet, we find that the English translators simply followed suit.

Similarly, these translators transliterated the words sawtawn, diabolos and Gehenna into words designed to instill fear into their parishioners to induce them to church and to rely on the priests as the source of their salvation. Fear became the motivating factor that used contrived words such as Satan, Devil and Hell to create the fear and doubt among them.

The centuries-long work, a restoration of the Hebrew Bible, or Torah by specially chosen Jewish scholars called the Massoretes, was not faithful to the words in the Septuagint.

In fact, they omitted almost one third of the texts of the original Septuagint and softened the commentary that referred to the "Jews;" changed adverbs and adjectives to nouns and selected different words for use in those verses that reflected poorly on the Jews; i.e., the various Hebrew words that were used to depict "strangers" by their category, were changed to accommodate a Jewish viewpoint.

Note: (Strong’s Bible Concordance used these corrupt Massoretic Texts of the King James Version for its basis- a serious error: Nor does it appear that Strong’s word selections were checked for validity against the early Greek Septuagint text!)

These Massoretes were purposely not diligent in their translation from the original Septuagint Bible (Which had been compiled into the common Greek language from early Old Hebrew texts and Scrolls around 285B.C.) for several reasons: One being their need for "political correctness" of the day: Two - upon their return from Babylon, a prophetic 70 week "Jewish" nation replaced the nation of Judah, consequently these "Learned scholars" understood the "need" to cloak the words of the Torah in terms favorable to Jews: - Three, the new Hebrew language was considerably different then the Hebrew of 285 B.C. when the Septuagint was prepared from the ancient Hebrew of David and Solomon’s time. Four, they had been losing arguments because of the wording in the Septuagint and this induced them to re-create a more "acceptable" Hebrew Bible – for themselves. Unfortunately, Christians adopted it and it is still in use today!

The issue of Seeds is another avenue that the Serpent seedline promoters use for justification of their theory. It comes from God’s indictment of the guilty parties beginning from Gen.3:15. Here, the focus is upon Eve’s seed and the so-called Serpent seed of Genesis 3:15 being commingled . Well, if an industrious Bible student with more then one Bible looks into the use of the word "Seed" he will find that its meaning is varied: and that the words about "Seeds" in verse 15 of the King James Bible are presented quite differently in other Bible translations!

This KJV use of "seed" as regards Eve, violates the normal Biblical assignment or use of the word "Seed;" in that Seed is traditionally addressed as coming from the male side, (Gen.12:7-"And the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land…" Gen.21: 12- "…for in Isaac shall thy seed be called." Gal.3:16- "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Isa.65:9 – "I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains;…"

As different Bible versions reveal, All would have been better served had the KJV translators had used the words offspring or progeny in lieu of the word "Seed," as this might have eliminated the prospect of an invisible "Satan" carrying "seed" and being considered capable of impregnating a human female – A human, created in the likeness of God and possessed of that "breath of life" from her Creator. The question arises also, that if a Satan could actually perform as a "parent" or "male" sperm donor, then why attribute this opportunity only once to this illustrious, omniscient satanic being that some seem to tout as able to thwart the Plans of God.

So, the KJV references in Genesis 3:15 to the seed of the Serpent and the seed of Eve are clearly an improper choice of words. Further, Strong’s Concordance depicts this rendition of Gen.3:15 Hebrew word seed: "zera," (# 2233) a reference to a fruit, plant, sowing-time seed, which is clearly not a reference to a human seed or sperm, for then the word "zirmah", #2231, should then have been used as it is the feminine of #2230, "zerem," the masculine form for this human ‘seed.’ "Zerem" literally means, to "gush," as water.

In fact, other Bible versions do not even translate the word as "seed" as used in the KJV:, yet this "seed" used by the KJV has contributed to some Christians’ "finding" a "Satan" in Genesis when no actual reference to a Satan appears there. Had they used the proper word, Adversary, they might even have applied it erroneously to the "whisperer," that most subtil beast of the field.

Consequently, if no "culprit" is found to "perform" that surreptitious "seeding," then the root cause of Eve’s activities must have been inspired by something far different! Could it have been the obvious -- The covert "whispered" suggestion from the "beast of the field" about eating fruit and not dying that tripped up Eve’s ‘lust of the flesh’ and then she brought Adam into the act as an accessory? Who, having noted that Eve did not die, thought then, perhaps, that God must have been wrong! And so Adam became an accessory as well as an irresponsible husband.

The KJV use of the word seed in Gen.3:15 has led to confusion and serious doctrinal errors that emerge from this comment by God: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed."

If we examine the New Jerusalem Bible, we find that God’s comments to the Serpent and Eve are far different. "I will make you enemies of each other: you and the woman, your offspring and her offspring."

The Farah Fenton Bible reads differently as well: "I will also cause antagonism between you and the woman, and between your progeny and her progeny." And history does show that an enmity has existed between races. Certainly there have been racial wars, especially between the offspring of the "man and woman" of Gen.1 created in the "image" of the plural Elohiym" and the Adamites, "formed" by Yahovah alone, in Gen. 2, formed in the "likeness" rather then the "Image" of God and given that unique "breath of Life" as God’s Chosen.

Here we should note is another reason that the seed of some reptile, or serpent, cannot be considered in Gen.3:15. Eve’s progeny certainly would not be at odds or have "enmity" with serpents, but with other "living creatures," other humans. Consequently, the reference has to apply to the Progeny of humans, likely those of this "most subtil beast of the field!" A human type whom we know was capable of talking to Eve, and in his view, rationally suggested to her that death would not result in eating of the Tree of Knowledge. For having been "formed" before God made Eve, he was likely familiar with the rules and the Garden of Eden prohibitions.

As these "beasts of the field" were formed after Adam had been formed, after God had noted that Adam should not be "alone," they apparently carried some status in the Garden, as it must be noted that this "beast of the field" was formed immediately after these words of God in Gen.2:18. "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him." Now, just what does that comment of God really mean?

Well, it means, "suitable – fitting – proper," -- For Adam - in helping to perform those agricultural tasks assigned by God to Adam in Gen.2:15 "And the Lord God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." From these comments, it appears that Adam needed help in this tending and keeping of the Garden, so God then formed these "beasts of the field" as Adam’s "helpers" - creatures who were to be help meet for him!

(Note to that these "beasts of the field", are not the "beasts of the earth" that appear in the first creation of Genesis 1, however, this point serves to show another problem of the KJV translators who shifted to "beasts of the earth" in their definition of the animals that Noah was instructed to take aboard the Ark. Then no mention is made of "the wild beasts" that the Bible depicts. Check other "translations", the New Jerusalem and the Farah Fenton to see that they reworded the account of Noah to reflect, "clean beasts" or "clean animals.")

Now, to continue: After God had formed these beasts of the field and birds of the air and brought them to Adam for naming, God repeats His comment of Gen.2:18 - about Adam being alone: "…but, for Adam there was not found a help meet for him." (v.20) Note however, that this 2^nd iteration begins with the word, "but." This should tell us that His first iteration of the need for "help meet" - was satisfied by the ‘forming" of the "beasts of the field" and the birds, etc, "but" it was not conclusively satisfactory for Adam! Thus God adds the "but" in the 2^nd iteration about help fit or solely for Adam in Gen.3:20!

This re-iteration of the wording of Genesis 3:18 & 20 is very different in other Bible versions, and even the KJV itself offers up an alternative, the word "fit," in lieu of the word "meet" which seems far more appropriate for the facts of human life that derive from this 2^nd iteration in verse 20. (See footnote in some KJV versions.)

The Ferah Fenton version changes this verse 20 to read: "…but it was no comfort for the man to be with them." (Them- being the beasts and birds etc.) The New Jerusalem Bible is even more explicit in its depiction of the need for a female: "But no helpmate suitable for man was found for him." (Note the word change to helpmate in the NJB)

The wording of both of these Bible versions helps to make the forming of the beasts of the field as "help meet" for Adam, understandable and logical.

The second reference or comment by God about Adam not having someone "fit" for him, or "comfortable for the man", a helpmate suitable for man, is aimed solely at the creation of the female Eve as the fit partner for Adam himself!

Lets note once more, the special difference between the Adam that God had "formed" and those "created" by the Elohiym of Gen.1. They were not given that one unique aspect of life that God had given to Adam exclusively- that "breath of life blown into his nostrils" by his Creator, the Lord God Yahovah who had "formed" him.

Note: The word "formed" is used by God in very few applications. It appears first in "forming" Adam, then the "beasts of the field," and also when God says that He had "formed" Israel: "Remember these, O, Jacob and Israel, for thou art my servant: I have formed thee, thou shalt not be forgotten of me." (Isa.44:21) and then finally, God refers to Himself: "before me there was no other God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa.43:10)

Forming appears to be a far more personal, a more distinctive "creation" then simply being created out of nothing. And its applications are distinctive as well, appearing only in reference to Adam, to Israel and to God, Himself.

This man and woman of Gen.1 created in the image of the Elohiym, were given no instructions other then to "replenish" the earth - Replenish implying that "other" human life had pre-existed this Gen.1, man and woman. They were given no functions or tasks or assigned a fixed geographic location as done in the Garden, planned for Adam and Eve.

Simply, a "man and woman" whose life was to subsist on nuts and fruit, with no mandated responsibility for cultivation or work in order to survive.

They possessed no unique gift or spirit of life from the Elohiym that would differentiate them from other living creatures created in Genesis one. But now, Christian, contrast the following comment the Elohiym made to these first two "created" humans with that made by God to Adam in reference to "Trees"! "…and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree, in seed; to you it shall be for meat." (Gen.1:29)

There Christian, is the biblical proof that there were Two Creations, for these first created by the Elohiym had no prohibition levied against eating from "any" tree! But, God made His prohibition against eating from "some" trees, distinctly clear to Adam!

Some interesting and relevant implications derive from the comments of Adam after God had made Eve from Adam’s rib. Adam exclaims: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…." Note that no reference appears in Adam’s words to a need for blood,

the basis or source for life. Leviticus 17:11 states, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood…"

But after the flood, while we find the same prohibition, there is a difference: "…But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof …" confirms this point, showing that after Noah’s time, life among the other men and the animals will be different. (Gen.9:4)

While eating blood was prohibited, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you." No longer just fruits and nuts but meat. Life entered the carnivorous stage of today.

In several verses of Leviticus 1:5+ we find that the blood of every living creature belongs to God for when all animal sacrifices were performed, the priests were to "sprinkle the blood thereof round about upon the altar," a common Levitical term used when the laws of offerings - of "burnt, meat and peace" offerings are performed, and then were instructed in the method of applying the blood around the altar for "sin" offerings.

So it would appear that before the "fall," both Adam and Eve were formed in a flesh and bone state of being, and may not have carried blood, "the life thereof," but existed on that "breath of life" that God had blown into Adam’s nostrils. Before the ‘fall,’ they may have possessed physical body’s similar to that of Jesus after His resurrection when He returned to spend those last few days on earth as Flesh and Bone.

Adam and Eve likely would have stayed in that condition had they not been disobedient to God’s instructions.

But, then God certainly knew what was to happen and may just have had a purpose in the events associated with their transgressions, in that death may not have been in the world, and these first events were the avenue He chose to use for its introduction, letting man have choices, or options which would influence God’s own decisions, thus making their choices their own doing; self-inflicted! As it is yet today!

God confirms this point - about choosing – when He states in Deuteronomy 30:10: "If thou shalt harken unto the voice of the Lord they God, to keep His commandments and statutes which are written in the Law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul."

Note too, in Deut.30:11, that God says that the "future" it is not hidden from us and neither is it far off: "But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."(v.14)

"See, I have set before thee, this day life and good, and death and evil." (Deut.30:15) are the same options that confronted Adam and Eve, and are faced by man today.

It is apparent that the Fall caused a need for a physical change in Adam and Eve, and God began this necessary physical re-structuring, and in doing so, incorporated a value or lesson for man from this ancient historic event into His great plan for the ages.

God made clothing of ‘skins’ from animals to dress them, implying symbolically that the "blood" of these animals sacrificed was in a way, redemptive, as well providing them with this ‘clothing.’ Symbolically they would be living within and "coated" by an "animal" nature; subject to the "lusts of the flesh" while clothed in an outer covering from those of the animals sacrificed to clothe or cloak their outward physical nature.

So, it does appear from Genesis 3:14 that something physical, some change happened to Adam and Eve after their violation of God’s instructions. Here, as the curses are levied upon both Adam and Eve, they also effected the world of future Adamites. These changes may have led to a change in their physical makeup, becoming more akin to that of the other creatures on earth - where the life is in the blood!

They retained however, that single connection to God that differentiated them from all the "others" - the "breath of life," the "spirit" that is found inherent within Adamites, in Israel; biblically confirmed as being those whom the Lord considers His chosen.

More facts emerge from what God concluded - that Adam was now different: "See, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil,…" (Gen.3:22) but he could not be permitted to go beyond what he had already "discovered" or understood! As a consequence, God re-designed Adam and Eve to a lesser status, yet superior to the other creatures - those created and the formed – Others! (There is no reference to God having also modified any of the other creatures-thus they remained subordinate)

God’s final words to Adam state that he will now have to work the ground to eat, the very ground from which he was formed; cursed because of him. It appears that God did not ever speak again to Adam and may even have assumed the responsibility for instructing Adam’s sons, Cain and Abel, giving the impression that God no longer trusted Adam to "do the right thing." Adam, it seems, had problems making the right choices.

When Eve gave birth to Cain, she made a remarkable statement, one that has confused many Christians, but it speaks volumes about the nature of humans, wanting to be "like God." In saying that "I have gotten a man from the Lord,…" she seems to imply that she carried remorse and that this birth of a man was redeeming for her – that as a consequence she felt that now she may have returned to God’s good graces - exhibiting a true human quality about works.

Her comment implies that she also, was capable of "creating" a man; that in her own way, she had done what God had done earlier – created a man. Thus she delighted in her special ability, seeing her status as almost equivalent to God, having that unique ability to "create" and give life - to a man!

It is fortunate for all that Eve considered this event with such satisfaction or we may not have arrived. But, it appears to be the first indication of a mother’s love, as yet not mentioned in Genesis.

The punishment levied on the "Serpent" in Gen.3:15 would seem to be an appropriate one for a ‘reptile’ when its physical attributes are considered, but this "serpent " was not a reptile or as is commonly thought, a snake. Some Theologians have added considerable confusion to this relationship between Eve and this "most subtil, beast of the field." Not because of its physical disparities, but from the misconceptions derived from the words used to depict the events associated with Eve’s disobedience to God’s commands.

The translators mistaken assignment of the word "serpent" as applied to the "most subtil beast of the field," stems directly from the root word in Hebrew selected to depict what is written about the event – the root word being "nachash" (Strong’s #5172) meaning to "hiss" or "whisper."

From this Hebrew root word, the translators adapted the word "hiss," a sound applicable to a "serpent" or "snake’ but the error entered the Bible’s content and into the convoluted Talmudic doctrines of the Pharisees as the "hiss" of a serpent. Even earlier pagan texts relate similar stories.

When in fact the suggestion by the beast of the field was simply a sidelong comment, whispered by that most subtil beast who had reasoning powers, whispering in effect, O, Yes God did prohibit eating from that tree, but if you do, you will not die!

The response from Eve to this "whispered" suggestion reveals perhaps, that this most subtil beast knew more then "all the others", as he is designated as being the "most subtil of all the beasts of the field." (Gen.3:1)

After listening to him, we find that Eve’s actions following the suggestions from this most subtil beast are revealing – precursors to the sins of the flesh, Eve having been made from "weak flesh," the weaker vessel. In Gen.3:6, we can read the basis of her mistake!

There we find outlined in summary, the three sins of the flesh that Luke 4:1-13 also depicts. In Gen.3:6 are listed the sins of Eve: (1) "lust of the eye," (2) the "lust of the flesh"(eating) and (3) the "pride of life."

All three "lusts’ were also "tempted" of Jesus when the Holy Spirit, (not Satan) moved Him about to experience the same lusts that all men experience. Jesus had to experience them to justify His mission on earth: the only "man of flesh" able to overcome these three basic sins, the lusts of the flesh.

In 1 John 2:16 can be read identical confirmation about our true enemy: "For all that is in the world, the ‘lust of the flesh,’ and the ‘lust of the eyes" and the ‘pride of life,’ is not of the Father, but is of the world." So, now Dear reader, just what does this tell us?

Now, lets return to more of the translators problems of "mistaken" words: We can see that the word "hiss" used by the translators to define this entity has a far different meaning and is not a noun in any case: it relates to the Hebrew word, "whisper." The "beguiling" of Eve came from the beast’s suggestion whispered to her. And she succumbed! Even the word "beguiling" has a first meaning: to "lead astray, to mentally to delude" and secondarily to "morally seduce." Yet current expositors demand that this first use for "beguiling" be ignored and that the second definition, related to physical events determine its meaning.

While the punishment God levied upon the "serpent" is erroneously correlated with that ill-chosen word "hiss," so does God’s decree that, "upon thy belly shalt thou go," thus implying a slithering about, but this term is a euphemism. (Gen.3:14) The KJV translators, in leaving out of the word "breast" in the Septuagint of v.14, further removed the choice from anyone but a ‘serpent’ as the culprit choice for Gen.3:14.

Further, in checking the Hebrew meaning of the word "go" (yalak -#3212 of Strongs) used in Gen.3:14, its meaning reveals no affinity to or for, the typical physical movements of a serpent, but instead Strong’s translates it to " to walk" to "carry away," to "come away!" Hardly the motions of a snake!

So, once again, the translators tried to tie together and affiliate subjects that they did not understand and which they then further confused by using words that could and would accommodate their first mistake, the association with snakes and serpents!

Yet, there is another aspect to consider about these "errors" of translation and deception. Were these errors of created confusion Divinely intended, as a method of God’s testing of His people to evaluate their abilities to search, to seek discernment from study and reading of the Word – a winnowing out of those not seriously interested?

Consider also, that the Talmud of the Jews had already emerged when these early translators were at work and its influence most likely been involved in the shaping of these errors in biblical wording, as the concept of Eve being seduced by a Satan is part of its doctrines – Yebamoth 103b, Rabbi Johanan stated: "When the serpent copulated with Eve, …" or Haye Sarah 126a, "Thus I have learnt, that when the serpent had intercourse with Eve…" or 126b,"You rightly said that when the serpent had carnal intercourse with Eve…"

The Jewish Targums go into even more detail in promoting this falsehood, as do some early Jewish Encyclopedias. Even pagan sources have similar stories.

But the condemnation of the serpent by God does not relate to crawling about like a snake but to a far different form of punishment for this "beast of the field". Cursed, he was to be dominated, or controlled in life, by the needs or demands of "thy belly."

Further, we know from other biblical references that some of these "beasts of the field" could walk upright, talk, reason and had hands. So, the punishment "upon thy belly" is more a euphemism for having to submit to the demands of its "belly," a search for food to placate this need of "thy belly." This appetite was to be its motivation for life, the driving force that would motivate these beasts of the field.

This search for food created a competition with all others, with man and animals, for sustenance, and possibly became another root cause of the "enmity and antagonism" that Genesis 3:15 states will exist between the progeny of Eve and the implied serpent, the beast of the field.

The final lines of Genesis 3:15 referring to the "serpent’s head" and the "woman’s heel," have been the subject of several interpretations, but they are usually attributed to being associated with the destruction of an implied "Satan" by the seed of the woman, Jesus. The traditional implication being that Jesus came and sacrificed to destroy the power and control of some contrived Satan rather then the real issue, which this misnomer, Satan, actually represents! Sin and death - the bane of Adamic mankind.

Here, we must ask the right question. Is the origin of sin in mankind derived or stimulated from an outside source, from some person or alien being? Or does it originate within a person, from the carnal flesh nature of man himself and when at times it manifest’s itself, can it be stimulated to act by extraneous suggestion?

Yet, sin always has been that selfish and disguised aspect of weak flesh; its origins, its basis being where sin is based, the heart of man. "The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Je.17:9) Where it can be induced by outside stimuli, by some suggested, or "whispered" comment that then leads to one to sin, to its commission? The real Adversary is man’s flesh and not some occult "Satan!"

But, can a series of suggestive influences induce antagonistic events as has happened throughout the history of the Adamic Peoples, inducing that historic enmity between two different progenies, those of the "beast of the field" and those of Eve, whom God stated would be antithetical to each other? Did it begin when He stated in Gen.3:15 that there would be enmity between them?

Between their "progenies" or "offspring" predestined to live on the same earth; to live among those of the first creation of Genesis one, distinct and separate, but yet creations that were also considered with favor in the eyes of God. His statements of approval after the first creation, confirming that everything that had been created was very Good!

But, in reading the first 6 verses of Genesis 2, especially verses 4-6, it shows perhaps, that God may have had second thoughts, for we see here, that when He considered the results of that first creation, God made the distinct decision to "Form Man from the dust of the Ground," and then followed that "forming" of Adam with the establishment of the Garden of Eden, the forming of the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and finally Eve. So, what was God’s purpose in adding a different humanity to this earth?

This review of events helps to set the stage for understanding the confusion surrounding Gen.3:15 and the competition that emerged between those of the first creation and the two separate progenies of the 2^nd creation, those of Eve and the beasts of the field.

This competitive outlook derives from God’s own words in Genesis 3:15!

In the KJV the concluding phrase of this verse reads: "…it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." The word "it" is the subject of this verse and modifies the word "seed." The word "shall" infers a future application.

However, the Farah Fenton Bible reads differently: "He shall wound your head, and you shall wound his heel." This wording removes the implication that some "seed" or sperm or egg was involved and changes its focus by using the pronoun "He," while also moving the focus of the phrase into the future by the use of the word, "shall," making it applicable to future events that conclude the Great plan of the Lord for the ages.

The final wording of Gen.3:15 in the New Jerusalem Version (NJB) is different as well: "…It will crush your head, and you will strike its heel." The interpretation of this wording seems both final and temporary, in that "crushing" is a permanent end to the issue, while a "striking" is not - indicating that end time events conclude with one winner – Jesus, who in other references, is the "seed of the woman" that does the "crushing."

This prediction is not intended to overcome some Satan, but the weakness contained within man’s flesh - that which man cannot overcome on his own. Jesus came to destroy the power of sin and its resultant, death - that derives from the same "lusts of the flesh" that He Himself, also was subjected to and overcame. He did not come to destroy some alien dark non-existent Satan.

Yet, in God’s conclusive comments to both the beast and to Eve, it is clear that this enmity would remain for a time. There would be and has been, some form of influence by the "beast’s" progeny upon the progeny of the woman - probably a repeat of how she had been "beguiled;" her progeny to be continually "tested" as well, along this road of life.

Consider these points: Were the lives of drowned Adamite’s of Noah’s time influenced by an alien progeny - were the favored Israelites duped by Baal strangers years later, "beguiled" by events that led to their sin? And captivity? Yes they were, but the guilt was theirs!. Are the Israelites of today beguiled as well, by Esau, who as Gog and Magog, has been raised-up by the Lord to induce His People to "return" and awaken to the need for reliance on Him. "Return" really means to awaken as rejoined Israel - not to that ancient, long abandoned geographic site, but to where the long trek of the Tribes into history has concluded, and all Israel is now gathered – in North America!

The NJV’s use of "striking" at the "heel" appears to offer a slightly different approach to resolving this verse. Its wording inhibits the progeny of the woman from standing on their own two feet so to speak, their sin cutting the hamstring of the heel, forcing them to rely on God, on Divine assistance to remain standing at the end?

It does appear that the subtlety of the "Serpent," that most subtil "beast of the field," had the ability to influence Eve and her progeny, to induce in them, a tilt towards submitting to the weakness of flesh and thus sin, leading to death. Is Esau still similarly busy today?

The "head" of Gen.3:15, the "Adversary" needed to be stepped on and crushed by the heel of the one pure progeny of Adam and Eve at some future date - the He, the "seed of woman" tempted Himself, by the same destructive aspects of the flesh as experienced by those for whom He was to sacrifice His earthly life. (See Romans 16:20)

Yet, when the human flesh weaknesses of Adam and Eve and their progeny and the Laws that God had assigned, proved to be too difficult for Israelites to overcome, God stepped in several times to offer His people a new Covenant, another, easier avenue for the salvation of His Chosen.

Lamentations 3:34 makes reference to His overcoming the influences of these earthly people who possessed that ancient "enmity," confirming that it is a part of the Lord’s plan "To crush under His feet all the prisoners of the earth," the crushing of these "others," the progeny of the first created and those of the beasts of the field as "prisoners of the earth," would imply a conclusive end to them. .

So, is there a biblical confirmation or proof, a valued relevance in the confusion about who fathered Cain – does a talmudically inspired deception apply? Is the inference that a demonic spirit entered into the picture to thwart the outline of God’s Plans for the future of Adam and Eve, true? Does Genesis 3:15 as interpreted by some, make the progeny of the "beast of the field," and those of Adam and Eve, and those of the "man and woman" of Genesis 1, common and similarly sourced? Hardly!

In light of these facts about the early translators and the misuse of words, the opportunities for deceit were considerable, considering that at least four different languages were involved. We can see that previous interpretations of these Chapters of Genesis resulted in a failure to note that interpretations were based on loose translations of the minor meanings of the words selected, but most importantly, the meanings were taken out of context as well. Thus, little credence should be given to these mistaken applications of some Biblical words that were used to skew Christian doctrines.

The picture conjured up by these false biblical transliterations create doubt and concern, for they denigrate Eve, who it was decreed, was to become the Mother of all in whom was that "Breath of Life". For while Adam and Eve’s future was now one of death; through Eve alone could natural life continue. But, more significantly, by woman alone was to come the promised "Seed" which was to bruise the Adversaries head - the temptation to sin inherent in man’s flesh.

This promised "seed of woman" anticipated a Deliver, the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel, for the woman does not carry a physical seed any more than does a conjured Satan, an occult creation, have physical seed.

By this pronouncement and the fact that God has, throughout the ages, chosen women of the highest purity and character to be instruments in carrying out His purposes here on earth (He has protected them on occasion to ensure that purity), it is inconceivable that Eve could be considered to be any less than Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel or Ruth. No, not under any circumstances could Eve have been the woman portrayed by these erroneous interpretations that violate even the basic laws of nature.

Neither in the "genetic" sense, because in Genesis 4:1, God states that Adam was the father of Cain in a clear and unequivocal commentary. Yet, can Adam as a father, be faulted for seemingly not "bringing up Cain in the way that he should go?" Was this a reason why God no longer spoke to Adam and waited until the true nature of both Cain and Abel manifested itself in their sacrifices’ to Him? Probably, but the Bible is silent on the relationship between Adam and his sons.

Must we consider that the loss of both Cain and Abel was a further punishment levied on Adam? A most controversial point as there is no indication or inference in Genesis to parental "love" or concern by either Adam or Eve for their children, except for one possible expression of love when Eve made her comment after Cain’s birth, that "I have gotten a man from the Lord."

But this comment appeared to be more self-centered then an expression of love for her child. Most of the events associated with Adam and Eve appear to be both compulsive and yet instructive, but devoid of any demonstration of familial love, either for each other, or for their children.

Love as an attribute among these Adamic and Israelite chosen Peoples does not biblically appear until it is recorded to exist between Jacob and Rachel. It does not appear again, until it is used in a first reference to familial love when it is revealed that Jacob/Israel loved Rachel’s first son, Joseph, more then all his brothers. (Gen.37:3)

In some cases, there is a form of "loyalty" that emerges within the Old Testament, but Love as a conclusive attribute is not considered in those early days of the Old Testament in the same way that Jesus spoke to it. But, while Jesus made "love" the principle guideline for His followers, at the same time He did not remove the need for the Law; its basic principles were to remain.

Paul was clever enough to combine love and the law, by stating, "love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10)

Yet, in the final analysis, it is the Love of God that was the prime motivation behind the appearance of Adam and Eve. God put His love into their forming and into their entire future; it became the thread that tied Israel to Him from the time of Abraham into today.

For, when God had narrowed down His choice from those whom He Chose to be formed in His likeness after Adam, to only one man, Abram, he and his progeny became the beneficiaries of His benevolence, and despite their failures, they met His terms.

I suspect that the lack of Biblical comment about love in those early days of the Adamic world, stemmed from the Lord’s waiting and watching to see just how His people developed and what characteristics they would display before endowing them with the element of love as the distinguishing motivation for their being, their lives.

Those progeny of Adam and Eve that He further winnowed down from those of Abram, became the principle people of His Word and His Love.

All others are "…of the world; therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. (1 John 4:6) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is Love. (1 John 4:8)

Yet, we know that an "enmity" is still extant, and that opposition to God’s Plans does rise up amongst His people. At times He uses the misconceptions of men for His testing of the true Chosen to distinguish the truth from what they are not to do, or believe.

Even today, with confirmation obvious that the ancient dominion that Isaac promised would come to a whining Esau (Gen.27:40) in a distant future, we can see that Esau/Edom has been "risen up over thee," (even as He raised up the flood and later, raised up ancient the Assyrians), to induce the need today for a restoration among His Holy people who are increasingly being found under Divine duress, their power "scattered" as Daniel predicted. (Dan.12:7)

The late Dr. Howard Rand saw these events as needing both a personal and a National reassessment, saying that: "we have entered a cycle of God’s dealings with His people, under accumulating conditions of severe chastisement that will compel this nation to turn to Him for His intervention."

As a Nation, we are again being maneuvered into potentially disastrous circumstances by our flagrant violation of the Divine laws. Only national repentance and redemption can bring about the restoration of the Kingdom of God and the multitudes of blessings that will be showered upon the nations of Israel when they return to the Lord in repentance and sincerity.

Today, the Tares have risen above the Wheat, but a resolution to this problem for us, as Jacob, comes when His angels are sent to remove the "Tares" before the Harvest. (Matt.13:39) A promised, coming event that some will witness, as Psalm 91:8-9 advises us that: "Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked, because thou has made the Lord which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation."

Today, events are developing among the nations of the world that lend credibility to the prophetic pronouncements of the Bible’s prophets and especially those of Jesus. Certainly His people, today considered to be more ‘Jacob’ than ‘Israel,’ have been put into captivity, again, the second time. God stated emphatically so in Jeremiah 30:3 that such would happen to both Israel and Judah. (See also Isaiah 11:11 and Jer.30:18)

He advises Jacob with this single phrase: "Alas!" For that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it."(Jer.30:7)

The first saving of Jacob had been his own wrestling with the Lord, but this will be a time of "wrestling" for all His people, and from this experience they will emerge as did Jacob earlier, renamed, Israel, a prince with God. It is a Divine action that results in this saving of Jacob. God summarizes His plan for doing so in Jer.30:8:

"For it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds, and the strangers shall no more serve themselves of him." God is talking about Esau’s yoke here.

Esau/Edom was promised a time of dominion by Isaac in Gen.27:40 when whining to his father about his future. Isaac informs him that a time will come when he manages to achieve control over his brother Jacob. "…and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck." The world is under that yoke today, but as we can see from Gods own words in Jeremiah 30:8, that He will remove Esau’s dominion.

Similarly, Jesus advised that He would send in His angels to remove the "Tares" before the harvest. (Matt.13:39) Two parallels that confirm coming events and those still in the dark about their status as Israel need to reevaluate their views on Who is Who in the world today, and who have been the oppressors that will be Divinely removed.

Today we must anticipate that the prophetic words of the Lord have come into reality and the forecast events are happening as anticipated. These events will be further confirmed and signaled by what He promised would appear in the heavens and will change this world to what had been Divinely planned for it, millennia ago! Look for them…

JRN.

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party