The word Jew to me means Antichrist. as to call your self one is to offend Christ.
The word Jewish to me means that you could be a Israel.
Israel to me means the people of God, Gods Chosen and they are true Christians, in Jesus Christ.
There is no other plan ? as the only plan is to come to Christ as there is noting that exceeds that as there is no other end.
I think the only reason people have black or white skin is it evolved that way due to where they lived and that Jesus was most probably a brown colour.
If people were not to breed because of colour then i think God would of made it that way that you could not have offspring and if Cain was totally corrupted and his seed was as well i think that is just nonsense to.
I don't mind what you have to say as you are entitled to your opinion and i thank you for it.
I have a handle on prejudice and racism so i am not offended by it like some of the new age PC numbskulls that get all wound up over it. as i see it as it is. as in truth we are all prejudice and every one has some racist views and no one is immune for they are then a liar and don't understand the stain of original sin.
So Cain has descendants ? now over a period of 1000 or maybe 4000 years you have an ancestor that we found out was related to Cain ? now what are you ?
I agree that many jews are antichrists, i agree that jew
could mean true Israelite, I agree that
most Christians comprise true Israel. I disagree on ANY form of evolution, and understanding that Yahweh God made every creature kind after kind is the only proof that I need that evolution is a false 'theory'. When Eve was seduced by the 'serpent', she bore the first 'mixed' seed. Cain was described as an 'ish' male and not an 'adam' male when Eve proclaimed "I have gotten a MAN(ish) from the Lord."
Below is a copy of Clifton Emahiser's paper he wrote on the subject.
The Problem With Genesis 4:1
"Many may reply, “ I didn’t know there was a question concerning that verse.”
Unless one understands that the Hebrew is badly corrupted on this passage, he will,
like most everyone else who has ever read it, arrive at a mistaken conclusion. Before
we start an evaluation to discover the ramifications, let’s read it according to the KJV:
“ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I
have gotten a man from the LORD.”
Most people will respond upon reading this, “ That’s perfectly clear, Adam was
the father of Cain.” If that’s also been your interpretation, I hate to rain on your parade!
Unless one can fathom the true significance of Genesis 4:1, much of the balance of
Scripture will remain a mystery. To show you that the Hebrew at Genesis 4:1 is indeed
corrupted, I will use the following two witnesses:
The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 ‘ consulting
editors ’, plus 124 other ‘ contributors ’, makes the following observation on this verse,
vol. 1, page 517:
“ Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning
of the name is ‘ metalworker ’ or ‘ smith ’; here, however, it is represented as a
derivation of a word meaning ‘ acquire ’, ‘ get ’ — one of the popular etymologies
frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man. ‘ F rom the
Lord ’ (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is
literally, ‘ with Yahweh ’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the
Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘ the mark of Yahweh ’ —
and that the words are a gloss ...”
Secondly, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by
Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on this passage, on page 6: “...
under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less
understood). His younger brother was named Abel, which suggests the Hebrew word
for breath.”
Therefore, if Genesis 4:1 is “ unintelligible” and “can scarcely be
translated, sti l l less understood”, how can one prove anything by quoting it?
Additionally, if the words are a gloss, where is the foundation for such a premise? It
should then be quite obvious that we need to look somewhere else for the answer.Page 2
Fortunately, we do have other sources, but there are those who refuse to allow them in
spite of the corrupted Hebrew.
At this point, I will quote a few passages which most of the anti-seedliners claim
are “ Jewish ” sources, and according to them should be discredited along with and
including the Talmud. Inasmuch as the Torah & Old Testament are the first volume of
the Talmud, then by their perverted line-of-reasoning we would have to discard the
entire Old Testament from our Bibles. (How absurd!)
First, in the Aramaic Targum (Aramaic was merely one of the languages which Messiah and his disciples knew),
called pseudo-Jonathan, on Genesis 3:6, which is unique inasmuch as it identifies the
angel Sammael as the “ serpent ”:
“ And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death, and she was afraid
and knew that the tree was good for food, and that it was a remedy for the
enlightenment of the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise.
She took of its fruit and ate and also gave (it) to her husband and he ate.”
Again, they will also condemn the Aramaic Targum pseudo-Jonathan, on
Genesis 4:1: “ And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the
Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those
on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘ I have got a man from the angel
of the LORD ’ .”
This rendition of Genesis 4:1 is interesting, for it speaks of the “ angel of death ”
plus “ like those on high ” and “ like those below.” This seems to accord with John 8:23,
where Yahshua told the Canaanite variety of “ Jews ”: “ ... Ye are from beneath; and I
am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” Satan was on high
until his fall, when he fell like lightning; Luke 10:18.
The Palestinian Targum to Genesis 4:1: “ And Adam knew his wife Eve, who
had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have
acquired a man, the angel of the Lord ...”
In another Rabbinic work: Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 21: “ And she saw that his
likeness was not of earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she
prophesied and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord.”
It would appear from those references that the problem with Genesis 4:1 is an
omission of some of the words of the Hebrew text. I will now quote Genesis 4:1 from
the King James Version and I will add the potentially needed words in italics from the
Targum of Jonathan so it will make some sense:
“ And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael, and she
conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like
earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.”
While one might not like the source of the Aramaic Targums, still he must
concede that this evidence brings the Scriptures into context, and many Hebrew
scholars recognize this.
One such scholar is Clarke’s Commentary, volume 1, page 58, and he suggests
a contextual problem with Genesis 4:1 as opposed to 1 John 3:12, and being aware
that the meaning of the Greek word “ wicked ” in this instance means “ Satan ” says the
following: “... Unless she had been under Divine inspiration she could not have calledPage 3
her son (even supposing him to be the promised seed) Jehovah; and that she was not
under such an influence her mistake sufficiently proves, for Cain, so far [remote] from
being the Messiah, was of the wicked one; I John 3:12 ...”
THE GENESIS 3:1 5 & 4:1 CONNECTI ON
Unless Genesis 4:1 is properly comprehended, one simply will not be able to
grasp Genesis 3:14-15. Before delving into this second passage, let’s take a look at it
in the KJV: “ 14 And Yahweh said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly
shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 And I will put
enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. ”
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary has a better than average interpretation of
Genesis 3:14-15
“ 14. Cursed 'arur'¨ art thou. The Lord singled out the originator and instigator of
the temptation for special condemnation and degradation. From that moment he must
crawl in the dust and even feed on it. He would slither his way along in disgrace, and
hatred would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him
as a symbol of the degradation of the one who had slandered God (cf. Isa 65:25). He
was to represent not merely the serpent race, but the power of the evil kingdom. As
long as life continued, men would hate him and seek to destroy him. 15. I will put
enmity. The word 'eha' ¨ ¨denotes the blood-feud that runs deepest in the heart of man (cf.
Num 35:19, 20; Ezk 25:15-17; 35:5, 6). Thou shalt bruise 'shup'¨ . A prophecy of a
continuing struggle between the descendants of the woman and of the serpent to
destroy each other. The verb 'shup'¨ is rare (cf. Job 9:17; Ps 139:11). It is the same in
both clauses. When translated crush, it seems appropriate to the reference concerning
the head of the serpent, but not quite so accurate in describing the attack of the serpent
on man’s heel. It is also rendered lie in wait for, aim at, or (LXX) watch for. The Vulgate
renders it conteret, ‘bruise,’ in the first instance and insidiaberis, ‘ lie in wait,’ in the
other clause. Thus, we have in this famous passage, called the protevangelium, ‘ first
gospel, ’ the announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on
both sides, and eventual victory for the seed of woman. God’s promise that the head of
the serpent was to be crushed pointed forward to the coming of Messiah and
guaranteed victory. This assurance fell upon the ears of God’s earliest creatures as a
blessed hope of redemption.”
Notice Wycliffe on verse 14, where he comments:“ From that moment he must
crawl in the dust and even feed on it.” This became a literal fulfillment in history
when the “ Jews ” rummaged through city dumps throughout Europe to find anything
that could be repaired and peddled again to others. Not only that, but they are famous
for their involvement in junkyards and landfills. Literally, they have made a business
living off the refuse, filthiness and immorality of this world.
Further, Wycliffe adds: “ He would slither his way along in disgrace, and hatred
would be directed against him from all directions. Man would always regard him as a
symbol of the degradation of the one who had slandered God ... He was to representPage 4
not merely the SERPENT RACE, but the power of the evil kingdom.” [emphasis mine]
Indeed, this is a very exemplary portrayal of the descendants of Cain.
Also notice Wycliffe’s comment in verse 15, “ It is also rendered lie in wait for,
aim at, or (LXX) watch for.” This is interesting for, when Yahweh spoke to Cain in
Genesis 4:6-7 and said to him: “ 6 And Yahweh said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth?
and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be
accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door ...” The words “ sin ”,
“ lieth ” and “ door ” describe Cain’s natural genetic demeanor, and have nothing to do
with a personal decision as so many claim. For instance, the meaning of the word
“ lieth ” is described by Strong’s as follows:
“ Lieth — #7257 râbats, raw-bats’: a primitive root; to crouch (on all four legs
folded, like a recumbent animal); by implication to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed:—
crouch (down), fall down, make a fold, lay, (cause to, make to) lie (down), make to rest,
sit.”
Inasmuch as Genesis 3:15 speaks of a war between the seed (descendants) of
the woman and the seed (descendants) of the serpent, this portrayal of the “ seed of the
serpent ” is very fitting, and is manifested in the children of Cain, or the Canaanite
variety of the “ Jews.” Notice how Wycliffe depicts this Two Seedline war: “ ... the
announcement of a prolonged struggle, perpetual antagonism, wounds on both
sides, and eventual victory for the seed of woman.” That war has been going on
now for about 7,500 years. The major agenda of the “ serpent ” descendants of Cain is
to totally destroy the “ seed of the woman.” Anyone who doesn’t understand the
protevangelium simply hasn’t the slightest idea what is going on in the world today!
With this enlightenment on Genesis 4:1, everything else falls into its proper
place, and all the supporting Scriptures for Two Seedline doctrine fit together very
nicely. There can be little reasonable doubt as to the correct meaning of all the
interlocking passages to Genesis 3:15. The Protevangelion 10:1-7 now squares with
the Bible when it says (Mary’s Joseph speaking); The Lost Books of The Bible and The
Forgotten books of Eden:
“ 1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his
building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found
the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I
look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman?
3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! and have not
preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil
in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the
history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his
glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the
same manner it has happened to me ...” [emphasis mine]
John 8:44 now becomes quite comprehensible. There can be little logical
question, then, that Messiah was speaking of the scribes and Pharisees as being the
literal genetic descendants of Satan through Cain. The Smith & Goodspeed translation
renders John 8:44 like this
age 5
“ The devil is the father you are sprung from, and you want to carry out
your father’s wishes. He was a murderer from the first, and he has nothing to do
with truth, for there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in his true
character, for he is a liar and the father of them.”
This leaves little reasonable doubt that when Messiah identified the scribes and
Pharisees as being guilty of all the blood from Abel to Zacharias, then they could be
none other than the literal lineage of Cain, Luke 11:49-51.
Also, Josephus Wars 2:8:2 becomes clear: “ For there are three philosophical
sects among the Judeans. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees;
of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer
discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Judah by birth, and seem to have a
greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”
From this, it would appear that of these three sects mentioned, only the Essenes
could essentially claim to be pure blooded Israelites of the Tribe of Judah. Why didn’t
Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews by birth? Is it possible
the Bible is correct when it says at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9: “ ... and I know the
blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [Judah], and are not, but are the
synagogue of Satan ... Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which
say they are Jews[Judah], and are not, but do lie ... ”?
Not only did Yahshua the Messiah accuse the scribe and Pharisee “ Jews ” of
lying about their lineage, but He also told them in plain, unadulterated language they
were not of his sheepfold; John 10:26-27: “ 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not
my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and
they follow me.”
Context means the entire Bible, not just a small passage. Disagreement with the
entire context suggests scribal or translation problems. Sometimes, context must take
precedence over the Hebrew or Greek letter.
But to believe that evolution is possible when the bible teaches the contrary... why does it not happen today? or is this another example of God changing His mind? The God of Israel is eternal, and keeps His word.
