by Ted Weiland

The seedline belief may appear to the average Christian so outlandish, so tasteless, and even vulgar that they may wonder why bring any attention to it at all? First, if the seedliners' assessment of what actually took place in the Garden of Eden can be proven Scripturally correct, then no matter how unpopular it may be, no matter how the media may use it against us, we are duty bound as Christians -- as adherents to the word of YEHOVAH God -- to accept and teach it. On the other hand, if the seedline belief can be proven to be Scripturally spurious, then it ought to be EXPOSED rather than ignored. Spiritual leaders are admonished by the Scriptures to address false doctrine, especially doctrine injurious to the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah -- Titus 1:7-14.

Fact, Theory or Hypothesis?

It will be Scripturally demonstrated that this seedline doctrine is a DISTORTION of what the Scriptures teach. However, I can see how well meaning (and in some cases, some not so well meaning) people have arrived at such a conclusion from certain passages. That is, I can see how they have arrived at such conclusions from a superficial reading of those scriptures. Until one digs deeper into those passages, and as long as the clear textual intent and the principles of Hebrew and Greek idioms and rules of consistency are ignored, and if literalness is read into clearly non-literal statements -- I can see how people can believe in the seedline hypothesis.

I have intentionally chosen to use the term "hypothesis" instead of "theory" when referring to the material in this article. Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language quotes a D. Olmsted who provided the following contrast between the two words "theory" and "hypothesis":

"Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena." 1

As will be proven, the seedline doctrine is certainly not fact, and does not even qualify as a theory. The seedline hypotheses have been made to sound somewhat plausible, but that in itself does not make it so. By ignoring the rules of honest and sound interpretation, the Bible can be made to say anything, and that is exactly what has transpired with the seedline doctrine.

Speculative Reasoning

As will be demonstrated, the infrastructure of the seedline doctrine is nothing more than speculation which, of course, is why it qualifies as a hypothesis rather than fact or a theory. Highlight the statements that are nothing more than speculation in the primary publications used by those who teach the seedline doctrine and it will become quite evident that most of this doctrine is based on assumption. The circular reasoning involved in this doctrine should then also become apparent.

Remove some of the foundational speculations and the whole seedline house of cards caves in. For example, following is a partial list of assumptions that must be true in order for the seedline hypothesis to also be viable:

1) Satan was able to incarnate himself.

2) The tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden was either Satan or a humanoid of another race.

3) The beguiling of Eve was sexual in nature.

4) Satan had sexual relations with Eve.

5) The terms nakedness and sorrow in childbirth are evidence of sin that was sexual in nature.

6) Eve either did not know, was deceived or lied about Cain having been a blessing from YEHOVAH.

7) The omission of Cain from Adam's genealogy proves that Cain was not a son of Adam, but instead a son of Satan.

If the seedline doctrine is true, one would think that at least one of these major premises for this doctrine would be found stated somewhere in the Bible. However, there are no Scriptures that expressly teach any of those postulations. And keep in mind that if those (and in some cases, just one or two of those) pillars of the seedline doctrine can be Scripturally removed, the whole seedline doctrine must be abandoned as false and spurious.

The Rest of the Story

As difficult as the idea of an incarnate, fallen angel, demon of darkness having sexual relations with Eve and fathering Cain is for the average person to accept -- it is nothing compared to what else must be embraced if that doctrine is true! Following is a list that tells the rest of the story that the seedline proponents will never tell you. That is, what else must be accepted when the basic premises of the seedline doctrine are taken to their logical conclusions: For example, it must also be sanctioned that:

1) YEHOVAH, himself, is a sexual deviant.

2) YEHOVAH had sexual relations with humans and fathered children.

3) YEHOVAH is a liar.

4) The Bible is untrustworthy.

5) Satan can manifest himself both spiritually and physically.

6) The knowledge of good and evil originates with Satan not YEHOVAH God.

7) Adam and Eve, the progenitors of the Adamic people, were respectively a homosexual and an adulteress.

8) Both Adam and Eve were abominations in the eyes of YEHOVAH.

9) Adam and Eve were permitted by YEHOVAH God to have sexual relations with several partners who were other satans, demons or humanoids of another race of people.

10) YEHOVAH was the originator of and even promoted spouse swapping for both heterosexual and homosexual purposes.

11) Eve committed adultery with Satan or a humanoid of another race several times and mothered more than one Satanic seedline.

12) All unmentioned sons of Adam were the consequence of Satan's and Eve's multiple sexual rendezvous.

13) YEHOVAH was willing to accept a hybrid, half-breed son of Satan if he would have made the appropriate sacrifice.

14) Adam's curse for his sin was that he would have sorrow instead of pleasure in sex.

15) Seth carried the genes of Satan or of a non-racially alike humanoid.

16) Yeshua the Messiah carried the genes of Satan or a non-racially alike humanoid.

17) All white men who do not follow Yeshua are the seed of Satan.

18) All Israelites are the seed of Satan.

19) Today's Jews are actually today's Israelites.

20) Only the seed of Satan sin or all sinners are the seed of Satan.

21) All non-seedline converts to Judaism are twice the sons of hell that "Satan's actual children" are.

22) Satan could have and possibly did have sex with some of the Corinthian Christians, both men and women alike.

23) Yeshua the Messiah has sexual relations with his followers.

Are those difficult to believe? Continue to read and it will be proven that if the basic seedline hypothesis is true then these tenets must be embraced as well!

The Seedliners’ Supposition

Following are the passages of Scripture upon which the seedliners hang their proverbial hat: Genesis 3:1-21; Matthew 3:7; 13:24-30, 36-43; Matthew 23:33; John 8:38-44; Acts 13:6-10; 2 Corinthians 11:1-3; and 1 John 3:12. When those passages are considered by themselves it can be seen how well-meaning people can find themselves believing in a literal, physical seedline of Satan -- especially when those same people have only been exposed to the seedliners' analysis of those passages. With those Scriptures in hand, and in many cases wielding them with much dexterity, the champions of the seedline doctrine can be quite convincing. "However, let us not forget Solomon's admonition: The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17, NASV)

Not only do the seedliners weave a pretty good story with those passages, but they are also quite skilled at putting the average person on a guilt trip if they do not accept how those Scriptures are presented to them. For example, in what is probably the most popular book of the seedliners, on an average of one out of every seven pages, the author makes a statement for the sole purpose of putting pressure on the reader to accept his premises. Consider carefully his tactics in the following examples:

"Until we are ready to examine the awesome fact that Almighty God, in the consequence of sin's entry into the world, placed hatred (enmity) between two opposing seedlines of literal people in this earth, we can never come to the knowledge of the truth." 2

This is an interesting claim since many people have come to the knowledge of the truth that Yeshua is the first-born Son of YEHOVAH God -- the redeemer of Israel -- our only hope who shed his blood and died on the tree and who, three days later, was resurrected from the grave. Many others have also come to the knowledge of the true identity of YEHOVAH's Israel people, that YEHOVAH's laws apply to us today, along with a host of other important theological issues, too many to mention, without understanding or accepting the seedline hypothesis. Also, it was in Yeshua, not Satan having sexual relations with Eve, "...in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:2-3)

"If you seek to be a follower of Jesus Christ, if you are concerned with understanding the Holy Bible, if you are ever to proceed from the milk to the meat state of understanding Holy Scripture, then you cannot fail to do business [as this seedline author interprets it] with Genesis 3:15....Your foundation of Kingdom Identity Bible Truth will stand or fall in relationship to what you do with Genesis 3:15. Failure to understand and divide this subject could ultimately exclude you from membership in the ecclesia [the saved] of Jesus Christ." 3

"You by the grace of God now have the key to unlock the Bible...you have the understanding as to the meaning of Genesis 3:15. May you use this KNOWLEDGE to the GLORY of JESUS CHRIST and His kingdom...or God will curse you in your sin!"

If this is true, certainly YEHOVAH God would have had one of the inspired authors of the Holy Writ tell us that somewhere in the Bible!

"Without the proper understanding and placement of this [seedline] truth into the total Cannon [sic] of Divine Truth there will be very little, if any, progress made in lifting the veil of darkness from our people now in bondage in the churches now making up the Protestant and Catholic church world." 4

Just the opposite is true. It is the absurdity and vulgarity of the seedline doctrine that keeps many people in our modern churches from accepting other Biblical truths that we offer them.

"The understanding of these two seed lines is truly one of the most critical theological questions of our time. To deny the seed lines of the Bible is to deny the testimony of the Prophets, Apostles, and the very words of Jesus Christ himself. Indeed the two seed lines established in Genesis 3:15 is the central issue at stake in the Gospel of the Kingdom." 5

"Only the ecclesia, the very elect, can perceive and understand the truth of the two seeds of Genesis 3:15." 6

Maybe it is just the opposite. Maybe the elect are those who have discerned that the seedline teaching is a bunch of hooey! Such statements are pointless, superfluous and uncalled for.

"...you are without spiritual discernment if you have not already been convinced that the serpent had seed." 7

It is the holy spirit, not the Seedline doctrine that gives spiritual discernment -- Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 2.

Not one of those previous assertions can be found anywhere in Scripture; they are just the author's opinion. Do not allow yourself to be coerced by such strong-arm techniques. YEHOVAH's word alone must determine the truth of the matter, not such tactics of intimidation. Let us now proceed and discover what the Scriptures teach and do not teach on this controversial subject.

Seedliner Speculation vs. Scriptural Facts

The seedliners assume much while at the same time rejecting what the Scriptures clearly declare. Whereas the seedliners assume that Cain was a curse and the offspring resulting from a physical sexual relationship between Satan and Eve, it is a fact of Scripture that Cain was a BLESSING from YEHOVAH God and the first born son of Adam and Eve. Point in fact:

"And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man [child] from YHVH" (Genesis 4:1).

That could hardly be stated more plainly. Genesis 4:1 alone refutes the seedline hypothesis. However, I am committed to deal with all of the seedliners' major arguments so that there will be no doubts about any of them. Following are three interpretations by seedliners regarding what took place in Genesis 3:

"One day Nachash [the Hebrew word for 'serpent'], a beautiful shining creature, seduced the woman [Eve] by lying to her, telling her she would not die if she partook of carnal knowledge, but would become a God, as they were, by the creative power of reproduction....Their [Satan and Eve's] first child, Cain, 'was of that evil one' (John 3:12)....Cain was sent from face of the Earth and the Cannanite [sic] line has carried down the seed of the Evil one to this day." 8

"...Eve says, 'The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof.' Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning enchanter, but instead of 'beguiled' the Hebrew word nawshaw means 'seduced.'...And YHVH God said unto the woman, 'What is this (that) thou hast done?' And the woman said, 'The enchanter seduced me.' That is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof." 9

"Satan, realizing that it was in God's PLAN to bring forth a SEED OF ADAM'S RACE, by the Grace of JESUS CHRIST, through the ATONEMENT, sought to bring forth a COUNTERFEIT SEEDLINE (a spurious bastard seedline) into the earth and then seek to Identify His Counterfeit Bastard Seed as being the TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD. After being totally unsuccessful in his assault against the BEING OF THE UNCREATED GOD, Satan (the Arch-Angel) sought to make his intrusion into the BEING OF ADAM KIND by cohabiting with EVE and incarnating himself into a physical Seed Line, hence the SEED OF THE SERPENT (Gen. 3:15)." 10

Those are interesting explanations, yet even the seedliners agree that those interpretations are hypothetical. For example, two prominent seedliners admitted:

"While the evidence is circumstantial, we are led to believe that Satan seduced Eve...." 11

"There are several opinions regarding the actual nature of this seduction which can not be clearly decided by the text [of Genesis 3] alone." 12

In other words, from Genesis 3 alone, the seedline position that the sin committed in the Garden of Eden was a sexual encounter between Satan and Eve is nothing more than a HYPOTHESIS. The seedliners must rely upon other passages to prop up their postulation. Other Old Testament passages? No! There is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament a passage of Scripture that substantiates their interpretation of Genesis 3.

This one fact alone should, at the very least, seem curious. If the seedline hypothesis is true, we are talking about a major significant event. The seedliners themselves overemphasize the importance of this supposed event:

"No subject in Divine Scripture carries more weight and deserves our attention with greater emphasis than does the two seeds spoken of in Genesis 3:15....It is the seed plot of all scripture. The proper understanding of this scripture is vital to the total pattern of discerning all scripture. 13

If the seedline position is accurate, does it not seem a bit odd that such a consequential event is never mentioned again in the Old Testament?

Genesis 3 Under Scrutiny

Genesis 3:1-5:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which YHVH God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree [of the knowledge of good and evil] which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die…."

The seedliners declare that the eating of the tree in the midst of the garden (identified in Genesis 2:17 as "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil") was Eve's mating with Satan or some humanoid of another race of people (depending on what persuasion of seedliner you are talking to). However, there are some profound problems with that interpretation. For example, consider Genesis 2:16-17:

(Verse16) "And YHVH God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: (verse 17) But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

If the Hebrew word translated "eat" in verse 17 is equivalent to sexual intercourse, then the same Hebrew word translated "eat" in verse 16 would have to represent the same thing. If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan or some humanoid of another race, then the trees in verse 16 would also have to represent the same thing. In other words, if the seedliner's interpretation of Genesis 3 and Genesis 2:17 is correct, then consistency demands that the seedliners admit that Adam and Eve were permitted by YEHOVAH God to eat, that is, sexually cohabit with the other trees, that is, other satans, demons or humanoids living in the garden at the same time. Consequently, the seedliners must also admit that YEHOVAH God was the originator of and even promoted spouse swapping for both heterosexual and homosexual activities. This is just one of those insignificant details that the seedline proponents fail to tell their prospective converts.

The word "fruit," as used in Genesis 3:2-3 is also manipulated for the seedliners' purposes:

"The word Fruit is Periy #6529 in the original Hebrew from #6509 Parah.…The word fruit conveys the idea of offspring or progeny. Bear fruit, be fruitful involves offspring." 14

From that explanation, one can only conclude that the Hebrew word "periy" means physical literal offspring from a sexual relationship. However, this author failed to inform his readership that periy also just means fruit, such as literal fruit from a literal tree as in Genesis 1:29. Further note the illogical inconsistency in what this same author stated next:

"What type of fruit did the woman partake of in Genesis 3:6? This fruit was the seed of Satan. It was sexual involvement with Satan and resulted in fruit or offspring, as evidenced in Genesis 3:15." 15

At best that can be described as linguistic gymnastics. Which was it? Was the fruit in Genesis 3 the sperm of Satan, or was it Cain? This author can not have it both ways, and has thus backed himself into an inescapable corner, unless of course, he abandons the seedline heresy altogether.

Although the reasoning of this seedliner is flawed, it is not near as bad as the tactics of another equally prominent seedline teacher:

"Now let us see what it actually says in the Hebrew: 'Fruit' is the Hebrew word 'pirchach' meaning progeny, brood, children, descendants." 16

The former seedliner at least correctly identified the Hebrew word from which the word "fruit" in Genesis 3 is derived, that is, "periy." This latter seedliner deceived who knows how many people into believing that the fruit in Genesis 3 comes from the Hebrew word "'pirchach' meaning progeny, brood, children, descendants." I do not know how this author could have made such a statement except by design since not only is pirchach not used in Genesis 3, it is not found anywhere in the book of Genesis. In fact, pirchach is only used one time in the entire Old Testament, Job 30:12. It appears that this seedline teacher searched for a Hebrew word that had a definition that best fit his purpose, knowing that the average reader would not bother to check him out on it.

This same seedliner, based upon that erroneous word and faulty premise, then wrote:

"Now of the pirchach, of the descendants, of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it.'" 17

Which was it? Was the descendant Cain, or was it the fruit that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat? It is evident, at least to those who are willing to put their theology to the test, that the seedliners, no matter how they exploit or abuse the word "fruit," once again, have some serious problems with their theology.

The word "touch" is another word from Genesis 3 that the seedliners provide a distorted, or at least an incomplete picture of. The same two seedliners provided the following commentary on the word "touch":

"TOUCH: The word touch is used in Genesis 3:3 by the woman Eve. What did Eve mean when she said that she could not touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Let us look at the original Hebrew and define the word Touch. See #5060 (Nawgah) naga, meaning to lie with a woman. See Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to the Holy Bible. The Hebrew meaning of the word touch has wide and profound implications. It is directly related to the lie of Satan, that pro-creation, would make Eve as a god." 18

"And that word 'touch' is the Hebrew word naga, which is a more polite expression meaning, 'to have sexual intercourse with.'" 19

Both of those definitions, once again, leave the reader thinking that there is only one way to interpret the word "touch," that is, that it means exclusively "to have sexual intercourse with." However, following is the complete definition from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance for the Hebrew word "naga" that both seedliners conveniently failed to provide to their readers:

"5060. … naga', naw-gah'; a prim. Root; prop. to touch, i.e. lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphem., to lie with a woman); by impl. to reach (fig. to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.)." 20

True, naga is used euphemistically for lying with or for having sexual relations with a woman. However, that certainly is not the only way that that Hebrew word is employed. It is predominately used for simply touching something. In fact, in the 155 times that naga is used, I could only conclusively determine two instances, and possibly two others, where it was employed as a euphemism for sexual relations. At the best, naga is used in this fashion in the scriptures only 4 out of 155 times. For someone to even imply that naga exclusively means to have sexual intercourse is INEXCUSABLE!

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."

Whatever it was that Eve did -- as described in this verse -- she persuaded Adam into doing the same thing. If the eating of the tree in the midst of the garden represented having sexual relations with Satan, then that is also what Adam did. However, to avoid having to admit that Adam was a homosexual, the seedliners declare that Adam and Eve had never participated in sex prior to this incident, and that Eve having enjoyed her sexual escapade with Satan persuaded Adam to do the same with her. As a result, the seedliners declare that it never was YEHOVAH's idea for man to procreate through a sexual relationship, in spite of the fact that YEHOVAH God had created them with all of the physical facilities to do so. The following quotation provides this theology straight from the proverbial horse's mouth:

"The knowledge (or Fruit) of Good and Evil was that of Pro-Creation. When Eve was beguiled. [sic] Satan told her of Pro-Creation. She was first beguiled and then she did eat or participate with Satan in the act of Pro-Creation. Their eyes (Adam and Eve) were opened because of sin, original sin, which is the transgression of the Law. Pro-Creation was the Fruit of that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. This was the Fruit which this evil tree did bear and Satan gave Eve of that fruit." 21

Once again, the seedliners face insurmountable obstacles with such theology. First, as a result of such a position, the proponents of the seedline doctrine have to admit that what was initially sinful is still sinful and consequently must take a vow of celibacy themselves. Since it is highly unlikely that many, if any, seedliners will take such a vow then they have no choice but to declare that what was once sinful is no longer sinful and that YEHOVAH and his moral standards change in contradiction to Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8.

Secondly, the seedliners must admit that if procreation was introduced by Satan then YEHOVAH's command to Adam/Man in Genesis 1:26-28 to "multiply and replenish the earth" was to somehow be accomplished in some fashion other then how reproduction takes place today. In fact, one seedliner hypothesizes this very thing:

"It would seem that God (El) the Father, had intended to bring forth children from both His son, Adam, (Luke 3:38) and Eve; perhaps in the manner that Eve was brought from Adam....Whatever the method, it would not have been physical. Physical reproduction was a curse (Gen. 3:16), pronounced on Eve, as a direct result of her disobedience. Because she had sinned, she was reduced to a purely physical plane of reproduction." 22

That, of course, is nothing but CONJECTURE, and the facts of the Scripture prove it to be RIDICULOUS:

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she [Eve] shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24).

Adam declared this prior to the incident in Genesis 3, and the Apostle Paul explains the phrase "shall be one flesh" as being accomplished, at least in part, through sexual intercourse:

"What? Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? For [the] two, saith he, shall be one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:16).

Also if "physical reproduction was a curse" then Adam, not Satan, was the originator of this perversity.

In addition, there is another problem with the seedliner's interpretation of Genesis 3:6 in that Adam was commanded by YEHOVAH God not to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil prior to Eve's creation. Thus, Adam's sin could not have been having sexual intercourse with Eve since he was commanded against partaking of a tree that was already in the garden before Eve was even created.

As a consequence, the seedliners must admit that the progenitors of the Adamic people were a homosexual and a whore. They must also admit that since Adam took Eve back after Satan had defiled her that (according to Deuteronomy 24:1-4) Adam and Eve were also an abomination in the sight of YEHOVAH, and should have both been put to death immediately for adultery!

Genesis 3:7-11:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.…And YHVH God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he [Adam] said,…I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he [YEHOVAH] said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

The seedliners maintain that since Adam and Eve were unaware of their nakedness prior to their sin reported on in Genesis 3, and that since they became aware of their nakedness subsequent to their sin, that sin of a sexual nature is indicated in these verses:

"NAKED: What does the use of the word naked mean? First: Note the use of this word in Genesis 2:25. Both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed prior to the act of original sin in Genesis Three. What made them ashamed in Genesis 3:8-11? What did Eve and then Adam do that made them ashamed of their nakedness? Why did they hide themselves? What was the sin that they had committed? What did they do to suddenly become ashamed of their naked bodies? Why did they make themselves aprons of fig leaves? What part of their body did the apron cover? Why did they hide or cover this portion of their nakedness? When you examine the word naked in the original Hebrew and its usage in scriptures you will understand why.

"The word naked as used in Genesis 2:25 comes from a different word than does the word naked as used in Genesis 3:7-11. Why the difference in the original Hebrew meaning of this word? Here is your answer. In Genesis 2:25 the word naked [in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible] is from #6174 arown meaning nude, either partially or totally: naked. There was nothing wrong with the state of nakedness before the original sin of Genesis Chapter three. The word naked as used in Genesis 2:25 from 6174 had no evil or bad implications. Now, how about the use of the word naked in Genesis 3:7-11. It comes from #5903 'eyrom' coming from the root word #6191 meaning aram, which is a prim. root; prop. to be (or make) bare; but used only in the Derogatory sense...to be cunning...deal subtilly [sic], the use of the word naked in Genesis 3:7-11 implies something derogatory. What had Adam and Eve done that made them ashamed of their nakedness? The use of this word naked is directly involved with the lie of the serpent to the woman Eve, that pro-creation, sexual involvement with the serpent would make her as a god." 23

This is, once again, nothing but speculation since nowhere in the Bible are we told that Adam and Eve's consciousness of nakedness means that they had indulged in forbidden sexual pleasures. Although this seedline author does present his argument in a convincing manner, that does not automatically mean that his interpretation of this event is correct. Making something sound plausible does not make it Scriptural. Many good sounding arguments have been predicated on error, which is exactly what this argument (as well as most seedline arguments) is based upon.

This author essentially declared that #6174 arown, used in Genesis 2 prior to Adam and Eve's sin the Garden, is a good and positive word. Whereas, #5903 eyrom, used in Genesis 3 following the evil deed, has evil or bad implications since the root word #6191 aram, from which eyrom comes, has evil or bad implications. However, if in fact the root word aram has evil connotations, what this author (intentionally -- ?) failed to point out is that just as eyrom in Genesis 3 comes from aram, so does arown in Genesis 2. They both come from the same root word aram.

In addition, #6191 aram -- translated "prudent" and "will beware" -- is employed in a positive rather than a negative fashion in Proverbs 15:5 and 19:25 respectively.

This author's first mistake was not only in failing to set off his quotation from Strong's Concordance in quotation marks, but also in quoting Mr. Strong incorrectly. Speculating that "der." in Strong's definition for #6191 aram meant "derogatory," he spelled it out as such rather than leaving it abbreviated. This would not be such a serious infraction if "der." stood for "derogatory." Instead, as Strong's explanation for that abbreviation proves, it stands for "derivative." 24

This author also later inferred that the words "naked" and nakedness" as used in Exodus 32:25, Leviticus 18 and 20, and Ezekiel 16:36-37 are examples of how #5903 eyrom is used. In fact, the words "naked" and "nakedness" in those three locations are translated from two totally different Hebrew words. In Exodus 32:25, #6544 para is used. And in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, and Ezekiel 16:36-37, #6172 ervah is used.

For all these reasons, this seedliner's point about the word "naked" as used in Genesis 3, is not only proven to be flawed, but invalid as well. In addition, if the word "naked" is indicative of sin that was sexual in nature, then the apostle Peter's nakedness and the fact that he clothed himself before going into the presence of Yeshua is indicative of the same thing:

"There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas...and Nathanael...and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples....They went forth [to go fishing]...and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Yeshua stood on the shore.... Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea" (John 21: 2-7).

From this account it can be deduced that Peter, James, John, Thomas, Nathanael and the two other unnamed disciples were, in addition to fishing in the boat, involved in some illicit sexual activity! Is that difficult to accept? There is just as much reason to believe that, as there is to believe that Adam and Eve's nakedness in Genesis 3 implies a sexual escapade with Satan or some humanoid of another race. Instead, perhaps YEHOVAH God provided us with Peter's incident as a commentary of sorts on what was going on in the minds of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. One usually de-robes when one goes swimming. However, in Peter's case, he put his robe on prior to diving into the water. He covered himself, not because of some sexual perversion on his part, but rather because he was going into the presence of Yeshua his Lord. In our mortal sinful state it is indecent for anyone (Adam and Eve included) to be unclothed -- either physically or spiritually -- in the presence of YEHOVAH God or those He has appointed.

Genesis 3:12-13:

"And the man [Adam] said, The woman [Eve] whom thou [YEHOVAH] gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And YHVH God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Eve declared that the serpent beguiled her. Concerning the word "beguiled," one seedliner wrote:

"...Eve says, 'The Serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof.' Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning enchanter, but instead of 'beguiled' the Hebrew word nawshaw means 'seduced.'...And YHVH God said unto the woman, 'What is this (that) thou has done?' And the woman said, 'The enchanter seduced me.' That is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof." 25

That statement leads one to believe that nawshaw means (sexually) seduced and only (sexually) seduced. Yet, consider James Strong's definition of the Hebrew word "nawshaw":

"5377... nasha, naw-shaw: a prim. root; to lead astray, i.e. (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce...." 26

Nawshaw cuts a much wider path then what this particular, and most other seedliners, would have their readers believe. Another seedline author provided the following explanation for the word "beguiled":

"When Eve was cross-examined, she is quoted as admitting: 'Nachash beguiled (Strong's word #5377, nasha, sexually seduced) me and I did eat.' Genesis 3:13." 27

For this author to insert the word "sexually" into Strong's definition is bordering on dishonesty and is certainly MISLEADING. Strong's does not say "sexually seduced."

Another seedliner made the following fallacious claim regarding the word "beguiled":

"What is the real meaning in [Genesis] 3:13 when Eve answered God by saying, 'The Serpent deceived me, and I ate?' [sic] The King James Version uses the word 'beguiled' instead of 'deceived.' A look at Strong's Concordance shows the Hebrew word 'nasha' is used here, the only time this Hebrew word is used in scripture." 28

It is true that Genesis 3:13 is the only Old Testament Scripture wherein nawshaw is translated in English as "beguiled." However, the Hebrew word "nawshaw" is employed sixteen times in the Old Testament. In the King James Bible it is translated beguiled once, utterly once, seize once, and deceive or deceived thirteen times. Of greater importance, in the fifteen other Old Testament passages where nawshaw is used; not once is it used with sexual connotations.

If the Hebrew word "nawshaw" means to sexually seduce as all seedline teachers claim, then in 2 Kings 18:29, Rabshakeh was warning the inhabitants of Jerusalem not to let King Hezekiah sexually seduce them! And in 2 Kings 19:10, Rabshakeh was warning Hezekiah lest he be sexually seduced by YEHOVAH! And in Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah was accusing YEHOVAH of sexually seducing the descendants of the House of Judah! And in Jeremiah 29:8, YEHOVAH was warning the remnant of Judah about sexual seduction of false prophets! And in Jeremiah 37:9, YEHOVAH was warning King Zedekiah and the remnant of Judah not to sexually seduce themselves! Sound ridiculous? That is because that is exactly what it is!

When one is wanting to ascertain the meaning or proper use of a Biblical word, although the Hebrew and Greek definitions are important, the lexicographer's characterization should not be the primary means of determining YEHOVAH's intent for any particular word. Instead, next to the immediate context, the primary means of exposition should come from a survey of how YEHOVAH God employs the same word throughout the Old or New Testaments.

In this particular instance, do not overlook the fact that in the fifteen other locations where the word "nawshaw" is employed in the Old Testament not once is sexual seduction implied in any sense.

YEHOVAH God himself provides us with an explanation as to what the nature of the beguiling was that took place in the Garden of Eden. It was neither physical nor sexual:

"...I [the apostle Paul] am jealous over you [the Corinthian Christians] with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:1-3).

Following is how one seedliner explained this commentary on Genesis 3:

"In II Corinthians 11:2 and 3, Paul is writing to those converts that he had led ... to Jesus Christ. To them he writes, '...I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.' Paul is here speaking in terms of chastity. A woman could be a thief, shoplifter, liar, or any one of many things and still be a virgin; for there is but one way for a woman to lose her virginity."

This is true. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul was not discussing individual women, but the collective body of the Messiah comprised of both women and men. This same author continues:

"Paul, while admonishing this Church in Corinth about chastity, remembered an episode that occured [sic] in the Garden of Eden...he wrote: 'But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility [sic]...'. The word beguiled means the same as does the word seduced and possibly should have been so translated here." 29

This author representing most, if not all seedliners, interprets 2 Corinthians 11:3 in the same fashion that he does Genesis 3:13. The Greek word translated "beguiled" is construed, as is it's Hebrew counterpart, to mean sexual seduction. However, the word translated "beguiled" in 2 Corinthians 11:3 is the Greek word "exapataho." It is found six times in the New Testament. It is translated beguiled once, and five times as deceive or deceived. As was the case with the Hebrew word "nawshaw," the Greek word "exapataho" is not once used with sexual connotations.

If exapataho means to sexually seduce as seedline proponents declare that it does then in Romans 7:11, the apostle Paul was declaring that sin sexually seduced him! And in Romans 16:17-18, Paul was warning the Roman church lest they be sexually seduced by divisive false teachers! And in 1 Corinthians 3:18, Paul was warning the Corinthian Christians not to sexually seduce themselves! Again, how absurd! There is nothing in the Biblical use of either nawshaw or exapataho to corroborate, justify or validate the seedliners' interpretation of those two words.

Another problem that the seedliners must face is that if -- in Genesis 3 and 2 Corinthians 11 -- the serpent corresponds to Satan and the beguiling was sexual in nature, then it must be admitted that the apostle Paul was concerned about and warning the Corinthian Christians against Satan's intention to come down and fornicate with them. I don't think so! If that was the case, then why did not the Messiah or any of the other New Testament writers warn their readership of this possibility? Why? Because that was neither what happened in Genesis 3, nor is that what Paul was warning the Corinthian Church about:

"...I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3).

The Bible is always its own best commentary, and it clearly attests to the fact that Eve was mentally deceived, not sexually seduced.

1 Timothy 2:14, a verse that comments upon the Genesis 3 account of Adam and Eve's sin, and where the same Greek word "exapataho" is employed, exposes another serious problem for the seedliners:

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:14).

Considering this from the seedliners' perspective, if Adam was not deceived or beguiled or sexually seduced (as the seedliners would have it) then what was he? If exapataho means to sexually seduce someone as the seedliners assert, and Adam's sin was sex with Eve as the seedliners also maintain, then that is exactly how Adam was convinced to sin. He was sexually seduced by Eve. Consequently, YEHOVAH God (since it was YEHOVAH who inspired the apostle Paul) did not know what he was talking about in 1 Timothy 2. Either YEHOVAH God was wrong or the seedliners are!

It should already be apparent that the seedliners have some insurmountable obstacles regarding their interpretation of Genesis 3, and we have only just begun.

Genesis 3 Under Scrutiny

Genesis 3:14:

"And YHVH God 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."

Verse 14 is a difficult verse to explain no matter what theological position one approaches it from. Seldom is this verse taken at face value, that is, that a literal, erect, articulate snake was condemned to slither on its belly throughout eternity. Some people interpret the serpent in this chapter to be a fallen angel or a demon of darkness. Others proclaim that it was a humanoid, probably one of Adam and Eve's servants. And still others declare that it simply represented Eve's sinful nature. Without getting into them, there are difficulties that could be presented from this verse for each of those interpretations. No one can emphatically demand that their interpretation for the serpent is how it must be understood since the Bible simply does not tell us how to interpret all of the symbolism in verse 14 and others in this chapter. On the other hand, that does not mean that, with the Bible, some interpretations can not be ruled out.

At this point, someone will certainly direct our attention to Revelation 12, which declares:

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world…." (Revelation 12:9).

The serpent is identified in this passage as "the Devil and Satan." That can not be denied, however most people have never been taught that the Bible speaks of a number of different devils and satans. This is easily proven with the use of one's Bible, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and an Englishman's Concordance. Consequently, one can not just automatically claim that the serpent or the satan in Genesis 3 was whatever they think that it was. The context and the balance of the Scriptures must be used to determine what is meant by the terms employed by YEHOVAH God in the Bible. 30

Genesis 3:15:

"And I will put enmity between thee [the serpent] and [Eve] the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

This is the verse of Scripture that the seedliners hang their hat on more than any other. But just how valid is their argument, especially in light of the problems with their doctrine already pointed out, along with those that will yet be exposed?

Seedliners declare that since one seed line, the woman's, is physical in verse 15, then the other seed line, the serpent's, must also be physical. However, is that necessarily true? The New Testament often pits the flesh against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. For example, Matthew 26:41 speaks of the willingness of the spirit versus the weakness of the flesh. Romans 8:1 addresses walking after the flesh versus walking after the spirit. 1 Corinthians 5:5 speaks of the destruction of the flesh to the salvation of the spirit. And Galatians 5 is especially interesting:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Galatians 5:16-17).

Note first the words: "lust" and "lusteth." If we did not know better, it could be concluded that the apostle Paul was writing about something sexual here. The point being that we must be careful not to read something unintended into this passage or any other passage, such as Genesis 3. One must be especially cautious so as to not read twentieth century English applications into ancient Hebrew or Greek words or phrases.

It should also be noted from Galatians 5:17 that the flesh and the spirit are spoken of as being contrary to one another. The word "contrary" comes from the Greek word "antikeimai," and is also translated in the New Testament as "adversary" and "opposeth." In other words, the flesh and the spirit are adversarial, antagonistic, hostile, that is, at enmity with one another.

Verse 19 of Galatians 5 then speaks of the works of the flesh, and verse 22 addresses the fruit of the spirit. Since Yeshua in Matthew 7:16-17 spoke of both good and evil fruit, YEHOVAH God could have inspired the apostle Paul to have employed the word "fruit" in both verse 19 and verse 22 of Galatians 5 without forfeiting too much in the contrast being made between the two. The Greek word translated "fruit" in Galatians 5:22 is the same word used for the fruit of the womb in Luke 1:42, and the fruit of the loins in Acts 2:30. Nevertheless, no one in their right mind will attempt to make the fruit in Galatians 5 physical offspring from sexual relations.

Also, Galatians 6:8 speaks of sowing to the flesh versus sowing to the spirit. The word "sowing" comes from the Greek word "speiro," from which the Greek word "sperma" comes, from which our English word "sperm" is derived.

The point in all of this is that the Bible often employs physical terms that have spiritual implications. In Galatians 5 the seed, the offspring, the fruit of the flesh is opposed, wars with, is at enmity with the seed, the offspring, the fruit of the spirit, often within the same person.

This could not be better illustrated then with the apostle Peter in Matthew 16:13-23. In verses 17-19, Yeshua lauds Peter and tells him that he was to be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Then just four verses later, the Messiah calls Peter, "Satan," that is, a satan, that is, an adversary to the will of YEHOVAH God. What was going on? A battle, if you will, between the two seeds: the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit, the same battle that takes place within every one of us, unless the spirit has been quenched. This demonstrates that there indeed not only can be, but that there is a conflict between flesh and spirit. That battle takes place on a personal level and is often expanded to a societal level as well.

Seedliners declare that consistency demands that in Genesis 3:15 that both seed lines must be the same; that is, that they must both be physical. However, the previous New Testament passages demonstrate that this is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, I agree with the seedliners; albeit, that does not mean that I accept that a fallen angel/demon of darkness was the father of Cain in contradiction to the plain teaching of Genesis 4:1. Instead, consider the option that Genesis 3:15 is referring to two spiritual seed lines within one physical seed line or group of people. Or to put it another way, one physical seed line with two spiritual outlooks on life: spiritual followers of evil and spiritual followers of good. The Messiah even warned of enemies from within one's own household or family -- Matthew 10:36.

That is exactly what we find to be the case with Isaac and Rebekah's twin sons, Esau and Jacob -- Genesis 25:21-23; Malachi 1:1-4; Romans 9:10-13. So why should it be so difficult to believe that the same is what transpired between Cain and Abel? According to Genesis 4:1-2, both Cain and Abel were fathered by Adam. Later in chapter 4 (verses 3-7), we are told that one brother chose good and one chose evil. The seedliners insist that the evil in Cain was genetic, but Genesis 4:7 affirms that he had a choice:

"If thou [Cain] doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

The New American Standard Bible renders this same verse:

"If you [Cain] do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

If Cain was indeed Satan's son, the seedliners must then accept that YEHOVAH would have accepted what would have been a hybrid, half-breed son of Satan, if he had only made the appropriate sacrifice.

Aside from today's Khazar Jews 31, it is nearly universally accepted that within Genesis 3:15 is the initial promise or prophecy concerning the Messiah 32 -- a man born from both the seed of a woman and the seed of a man -- who make it possible for a remnant of Israelites to overcome the fruit or seed of the flesh. Since doing so, there has been and continues to be two spiritual seed lines within that one physical seed line of people. Those Israelites who are "begotten…through the gospel" 33 and "born again…of incorruptible [seed]," 34 are reckoned "sons of God." Whereas, those Israelites who refuse to acknowledge YEHOVAH God as LORD of lords and KING of kings and Savior, and Yeshua the Messiah as YEHOVAH's appointed messenger and first-born Son, are reckoned "sons of the devil." Thus, two spiritual seed lines within one physical group of people. This is established by the apostle John in his first epistle; an epistle written not to Israelites and Cainites, but merely to Israelites. In fact, John identifies the two groups of people to whom he was writing as being brethren:

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he [Yeshua] was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever [whatever Israelite] abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever [whatever Israelite] sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he [any Israelite] that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He [any Israelite] that [habitually] committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever [whatever Israelite] is born of God doth not [habitually] commit sin; for his [God's] seed [sperma, i.e., God's word, 1 Peter 1:23] remaineth in him: and he cannot [habitually] sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever [whatever Israelite] doeth not righteousness is not of God [but is of the devil], neither he that loveth not his [Israelite] brother" (1 John 3:4-10).

In other words, non-born again, habitually sinning Israelites are deemed "children of the devil," whereas born again Israelites who, through the spirit and the resurrection, have put to death the deeds of the flesh are reckoned "sons of God."

Seedliners take such passages as 1 John 3 and such phrases as "children of the devil," and then declare that the two seed lines of Genesis 3:15 must be physical. Whereas, non-seedliners take such passages as 1 John 3 and such phrases as "sons of God," and then proclaim that Genesis 3:15 refers to two spiritual seed lines within one physical group of people.

Which is the more Scriptural and consistent interpretation? Consider the inconsistency of the seedliners. They loudly demand that both seed lines must be physical in Genesis 3:15, but when they get to the New Testament, only the sons of the Devil are interpreted as being literal and physical. However, consistency demands that if "children of the devil" or "generation of vipers," etc., are terms that are to be taken literally, meaning a literal physical seed line from Satan and Eve, then the term "sons of God" must also be taken just as literally. Consequently, the seedliners are forced to admit that to whomever the term "sons of God" is applied, it is referring to physical children begotten by God, having had an untold number of sexual relationships with a considerable number of women down through the centuries! Another consequence of the seedline hypothesis that the seedline champions are not telling their disciples.

Genesis 3:16-21:

"Unto the woman [Eve] he [YEHOVAH] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return…."

Most, if not all, seedliners make a lot of noise about the judgments upon Eve. One seedliner, after quoting Genesis 3:16, wrote:

"…the penalties doled out to Eve related to her sexuality and sexual relations with her husband. It is not unreasonable then to assume that whatever Eve did, it had to do with sexuality." 35

Note that this author used the word "assume." He did so because it has to be assumed, since nowhere in YEHOVAH's word are we told that the judgments upon Eve mean what the seedliners declare that they do.

Another prominent seedline minister put it in the following manner:

"In the divine punishment inflicted upon the woman Eve in Genesis 3:16 why did Almighty God employ the pain of childbirth? What is the purpose of the use of the word conception? How about the use of the word desire? The truth is: God made the punishment to fit the crime." 36

If that is true for Eve, then it must also be true for Adam. Consistency then demands that the punishment for Adam's sin also fit the crime, and thus the seedliners must interpret Adam's judgment to really mean that he and his male progeny were to be punished with pain and sorrow in sexual intercourse. After all, according to the seedliners, Adam's sin was also sexual in nature.

In addition, since seedliners interpret Adam's eating of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, in verse 17, as being sexual relations with either Eve or the Devil, then they have no choice but to interpret the judgment against Adam of eating the herb of the field, in verse 18, as having sex with other women or demons. Thus, they must also confess that YEHOVAH's punishment upon Adam was essentially the same thing for which YEHOVAH God condemned him in the first place!

Genesis 3:22-24:

"And YHVH God said, Behold, the man [Adam] is 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 for ever: therefore YHVH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man…."

Verse 22 presents two of the most grievous consequences to the seedline doctrine. According to verse 22, when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil it caused them to become like YEHOVAH God. Consequently, if the partaking of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to sexual immorality with Satan or one of his minions, then the seedliners must also admit that YEHOVAH Himself is a sexual deviate! The seedliners can not have it both ways. They can not declare on one hand that the knowledge of good and evil is sexual perversion without also declaring that YEHOVAH God is a sexual pervert!

In addition, look at the last half of verse 22:

"…and now, lest he [Adam] put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."

Seedliners correctly maintain that the tree of life was Yeshua the Messiah:

"Now, we know from Revelation 2:7 that the 'tree of life' that the overcomers will be allowed to eat from is JESUS CHRIST, so it only follows that this other tree [of the knowledge of good and evil] must be Satan." 37

"The Tree of Life is identified as Jesus Christ. What personage was represented by the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil? Please be consistent!" 38

Okay, let us do just that! If the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was sex with Satan, then consistency demands that the seedliners must also admit that, in Genesis 3 and verse 22, YEHOVAH was concerned that Adam and Eve (forgive me for having to say so) were going to have sex with the Messiah, the tree of life! That is what consistency demands!

Additionally, the seedliners must also confess that under the New Covenant the overcomers will be permitted to have sexual relations with the Messiah in the paradise of YEHOVAH God, since in Revelation 2 we are informed:

"…to him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:7).

And then the seedliners will have to admit that with the Messiah, his disciples will be provided twelve manners of sexual pleasures since Revelation 22:2 declares that the tree of life will "bare twelve manner of fruits."

I apologize for having to even suggest such things, but this is the baggage that comes with the seedline teaching. It is time that the seedline hypothesis is exposed for the perverted doctrine that it really is.

What Really Did Happen In the Garden?

Now that I have demonstrated the seedline doctrine as being a spurious, fallacious hypothesis with no Scriptural basis from Genesis 3 whatsoever, let us discuss what the partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil really was. There are no scriptures that specifically tell us what this tree was; however, the Bible does provide us with clues so that it's identity can be ascertained.

To begin with, consider the term: "the knowledge of good and evil." Who provides us with that kind of knowledge? The seedliners have no alternative but to declare that it is Satan that provides us with such knowledge. Worse yet, their doctrine dictates that it was actually sex with Satan that furnished Adam and Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. WHAT UTTER NONSENSE! Of course, there are no scriptures whatsoever that corroborate such an absurd hypothesis. Instead Genesis 3:22 clearly reveals that the knowledge of good and evil resides not with some demon of darkness, but rather with our omniscient God -- YEHOVAH!

Through what means is the knowledge of good and evil transferred to man? Man's cognizance of good and evil comes from YEHOVAH's law:

"Wherefore the law is…holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7:12).

YEHOVAH's law itself is good and thus it is the vehicle through which the knowledge of good is commuted to man. The same is true concerning the knowledge of evil:

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin [evil]" (Romans 3:20).

In addition to those passages, consider that Genesis 3:6 describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as being able "to make one wise," "pleasant to the eyes" and "good for food," all of which also describe the law of YEHOVAH God:

"The law of YHVH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHVH is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of YHVH are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of YHVH is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of YHVH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHVH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward" (Psalm 19:7-11).

At this point someone will probably inquire, "If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the law of God, would that not have made God's law evil since God did not want Adam and Eve to partake of it?" The apostle Paul essentially asks and then answers this same question:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead" (Romans 7:7-8).

I can imagine that some people, especially those who understand the vital goodness and importance of YEHOVAH's law for us today 39, will have difficulty reconciling in their minds that YEHOVAH God would ban his law from Adam and Eve. That, once again, would seem to imply that YEHOVAH's law was itself evil. Not necessarily. The prohibition delivered to Adam and Eve against partaking of the tree of life in Genesis 3 certainly did not make the tree of life evil.

So why would YEHOVAH want to keep Adam and Eve from His law? Consider again the latter part of the apostle Paul's answer in Romans 7:

"…For without the law sin was dead" (Romans 7:8).

Consider also the apostle Paul's declaration in Romans 5:

"…sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).

Possibly YEHOVAH God initially forbade Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil, that is, his law because he simply did not want them to sin and did not want to have to hold them accountable to it.

In the Genesis account Adam was warned:

"…Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17).

What else results in death?

"For the wages of sin is death…." (Romans 6:23).

And what is sin?

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

The law itself is not sin, but the choice made possible by the law can lead to sin and eventually death (i.e., separation from YEHOVAH God), unless one partakes of Yeshua the Messiah in the meantime:

"For the wages of sin [through transgression of the law] is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Yeshua [the] Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

Or this scripture might be rendered:

"The wages of improperly partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is death; but the gift of YEHOVAH God is eternal life through the tree of life" (Romans 6:23 paraphrased).

Hopefully, it can be seen how beautifully YEHOVAH's word harmonizes and how utterly ridiculous the seedline hypothesis really is. If the partaking of the knowledge of good and evil was sex with Satan, and it was that perversion that resulted in death in the progenitors of Adam-kind, then it would stand to reason that only when we would do the same should we likewise be condemned to die. In other words, there is no connection between a "sexual relationship with Satan" and other sin. On the other hand, if the eating of the knowledge of good and evil was the wrongful partaking of YEHOVAH's law, then there is a connection between Adam and Eve's sin and all other sin.

The Death Blow to the Seedline Hypothesis

Genesis 4:1-2:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from YHVH…."

There is absolutely no way that the seedliners can accept Genesis 4:1 for what it literally says since it very clearly teaches that Cain, rather than being a literal son of a Satan, was instead the son of Adam. It is extremely interesting to see how this verse is "explained away" by the seedliners:

"Eve actually was deceived into BELIEVING that Cain was gotten (not begotten) of GOD...when in truth Cain was fathered by Satan...." 40

Nowhere in the Bible are we told that Eve was deceived into believing this. Do not miss what this seedline minister is really saying, that is, that we should believe who he says Cain's father was over whom YEHOVAH said Cain's father was.

Another seedliner wrote:

"Gen. 4:1 tells us that Adam 'knew' his wife and she 'conceived'. True, she did conceive Abel…but she had already conceived, by Satan, and was carrying his seed, as well." 41

Does your Bible say that? Who was more fertile: Eve, or the imaginations of some of these seedliners?

Another prominent seedliner had a rather unique approach to Genesis 4:1:

"Genesis 4:1: 'And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain.' Now you notice, what is not said is more significant than what is said. The Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain." 42

What an ingenious way to manipulate the Bible into saying anything you want it to. Just declare that what a verse does not say is more important than what it does say, and then, by some mysterious inside source, inform your audience as to what is meant by what is not stated! That is what is known as eisegesis rather than exegesis, that is, the reading of something into a passage, rather than taking out of it it's intended meaning. Be not mistaken, what this verse does say is much more important than what it does not say!

It is true that Genesis 4:1 does not say that Adam begat Cain. However, if that rules out Cain as Adam's son then for the same reason Seth must be ruled out as Adam's son as well. Consequently it should be concluded that Seth, too, was a son of Satan. Compare Genesis 4:1 with Genesis 4:25:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; she conceived, and bare Cain...." (Genesis 4:1).

"And Adam knew his wife [Eve] … and she bare a son, and called his name Seth…." (Genesis 4:25).

In both instances Adam knew, that is, had sexual relations with Eve and she respectively bore Cain and Seth. The language is nearly identical in both cases. Yet the seedliners do not dare declare that Seth was a son of Satan since they know that Adam knowing his wife resulting in a birth means that Adam begat whatever it was that was born of that relationship. This is proven in Genesis 5:4 where we are informed that Seth was begotten by Adam. Seth, of course, was not a son of Satan; he was begotten of Adam, just as was Cain.

One of the previous seedliners also wrote:

"Original sin must be imputed to Satan, the father of lies. He appeared as a fallen angel, clothed in false light, he appeared to Eve as if he were God, in fact Eve apparently thought that the Serpent was God, for she thought that Cain was from God. (Genesis 4:1)" 43

Another seedline author, who believed that the perpetrator of the dirty deed was a humanoid of another race, wrote:

"Nachash, regrettably translated Serpent, was a specific Chay [the Hebrew word for beast]….

"There are several opinions regarding the actual nature of this seduction which can not be clearly decided by the text alone. One was that it was Nachash himself who provided the Wicked Seed as a surrogate of Satan and thus the off-spring Cain was an Adam-Chay cross….The other concept, which I feel is more clearly borne out by Christ's words as in St. John 8:42-45, and St John's words in 1 John 3:12, is that this Nachash merely performed as a pimp setting up the Event so that Satan could plant his own seed in the woman. Eve knew that nachash [the Hebrew word for serpent] was not The Lord, but just a nice looking Chay who worked for her husband. Why then did she say that her first child, Cain, was from The Lord? (Genesis 4:1) I think it was because she had been deceived by Satan into believing that he was God and wanted her to thus perform for him. No question but what Eve was thoroughly deceived." 44

When what one believes is Biblically unsupportable, then one has no alternative but to speculate in an attempt to somehow try to make plausible what one believes. Thus, these two seedliners first speculate that Eve was deceived, not only into having sexual relations with Satan or a non-racially alike humanoid, but that she was also deceived into believing that -- which ever it was -- it was actually YEHOVAH!

According to these seedliners, the serpent -- in Genesis 4:1 -- convinced Eve that he was actually YEHOVAH, in spite of the fact that -- in Genesis 3:1-5 -- the serpent represents himself as being a totally distinct entity from YEHOVAH. When one teaches unsupportable speculation as fact, soon or later, fact knocks the "supports" from underneath the speculation.

Also, do not miss that the statement, "I have gotten a man from YEHOVAH," is the only portion of Genesis 4:1 that Eve is credited as saying. The statement, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…." is what YEHOVAH Himself declared as fact. YEHOVAH did not say, as the seedliners do, that Eve had conceived Cain by Satan and then Adam knew her. Instead YEHOVAH announced that Adam knew Eve and then she conceived and bore Cain. Consequently, the seedliners must not only proclaim that Eve was deceived when she declared that Cain was from YEHOVAH; they must also accuse YEHOVAH of likewise being confused and/or deluded about what actually took place in the garden.

Although there are many points that the seedliners do not agree upon amongst themselves 45, there is one thing that they do have somewhat of a consensus upon; that being that in Genesis 4:1, Eve either lied, was deceived or did not know that it was Satan with whom she had sexual relations. In other words, the seedliners would have us believe that, in Genesis 4:1, Eve was mistaken or was deceived about Cain's father. Yet, in Genesis 3:13, Eve understood and confessed that the serpent beguiled her and that she had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; interpreted by the seedliners to mean that Eve understood and confessed that she had committed adultery with Satan. So which was it? She either knew or she did not know; the seedliners can not have it both ways!

The last seedliner quoted, declared: "No question but what Eve was thoroughly deceived." However, was it Eve who was thoroughly deceived in the manner the seedliners declare? Or is it the seedliners who are thoroughly deceived about Eve?

Genesis 4:3-5:

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto YHVH. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And YHVH had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect…."

Why did YEHOVAH not respect Cain's offering? The seedliners would have us believe that it was because he was Satan's seed. However, the author of Hebrews tells us otherwise:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain…." (Hebrews 11:4).

In other words, Cain's sacrifice was deficient, not his genes!

Genesis 4:6-7:

"And YHVH said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

Once again, if the seedliners are correct and Cain was the son of Satan, they are forced to admit that had Cain done well, YEHOVAH God would have welcomed and embraced this "half-breed, hybrid son of YEHOVAH's arch-enemy."

Genesis 4:8-10:

"And…it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And YHVH said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he [YEHOVAH] said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

Had YEHOVAH God identified Cain as Abel's half-brother, that one statement alone could have verified the seedline hypothesis. However, note that Cain was never identified as Abel's half-brother, but instead as his brother.

Genesis 4:11-15:

"And now art thou [Cain] cursed from the earth…when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto YHVH, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And YHVH said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And YHVH set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

Observe how the seedliners blatantly speculate about this mark upon Cain:

"Cain was marked with a swarthy skin. He was marked with a [big] nose that would always be his trademark." 46

What gives this minister the right to make such a statement? WHO DOES HE THINK THAT HE IS? He has the audacity to proclaim, as if empowered with some favored insight, what even YEHOVAH God did not declare himself.

Genesis 5:

Another favorite argument of the seedliners that supposedly proves that Cain could not have been the son of Adam, is that Cain is "suspiciously" missing from Adam's genealogy:

"Cain is NOT listed anywhere in Adam's Geneology [sic]. Why is Cain missing from Adam's Geneology [sic]? Because Cain is not Adam's son." 47

Note, once again, how brazen this seedliner is. He does not say that this is a possible reason why Cain is missing from Adam's genealogy, he declares this as reality, in spite of the fact that YEHOVAH God NEVER declared that anywhere in his inspired word. Is it special insight, or just a prolific imagination?

There is a difference between one's genealogy that is all-inclusive, and a genealogical table which may not be exhaustive, depending on it's purpose. It can not be said that Cain is missing from Adam's genealogy, whereas it can be said that Cain is missing from Adam's genealogical tables as provided in the Bible.

This same seedliner also declared:

"The first manifested seed of the serpent upon this earth was Cain. Cain is missing from Adam's geneaology [sic] not because he sinned but because he was not of Adam's seed." 48

If this is true, then any of Adam's sons and daughters not listed in Adam's genealogical tables cannot be Adam's children and consequently must also be the literal children of Satan. This would then also mean that Eve repeated her sin with Satan many times, which would then also mean that the serpent repeatedly deceived Eve into believing that he was actually YEHOVAH and not Satan. In fact, it would also mean that YEHOVAH was deceived multiple times about the true progenitors of Adam's so-called children as well. What am I talking about? Most people are unaware that the Bible tells us that Adam had other sons and daughters in addition to Cain, Abel and Seth:

"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat [other] sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4).

Why are not any of those sons and daughters mentioned in Adam's genealogical tables? Of course, like Cain, they must all be Satan's children rather than Adam's! This is what one must believe if the previous seedliner's reasoning is correct.

The Bible does not tell us why Cain and those other sons and daughters are not specifically mentioned in Adam's genealogical tables provided to us in the Bible. However, it may be for the reason that neither Cain's nor any of those other lines produced the Messiah and thus -- for this reason or for some other reason that only YEHOVAH God knows -- they were not pertinent enough to be mentioned.

The previous seedliner also proclaimed:

"Note that Cain is never listed as Adam's son in any of the chronology Tables of the Bible. Take note that in all other cases where Adamic Seed had corrupted itself in sin, their name still appears in the Chronology Tables." 49

If that is true, then we have no choice but to conclude that all those other unmentioned sons and daughters of Genesis 5:4 never sinned, in spite of the fact they also must have been the brood of Satan. When one's doctrine is predominately speculation, the hole that one digs for one's self just gets deeper and deeper. Regrettably, there will be those who will refuse to abandon their seedline heroes and who will follow them into the same hole or ditch in fulfillment of Yeshua's proclamation in Matthew 15:14: "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Genesis 6:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.…There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:1-4).

This passage is often employed by the seedliners in an attempt to somehow prove their hypothesis about what happened in Genesis 3. Over the last two thousand years there has been little agreement among theologians as to who the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" represent in this passage. Some have proclaimed that the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain are represented here. Others declare that the sons of God represent fallen angels, and the daughters of men represent the daughters of Adam or Seth.

The latter, of course, is the choice of the seedliners. However, even if the seedliners' interpretation of this passage is the correct interpretation, that does not prove that Satan had sexual relations with Eve, producing Cain, in Genesis 3. In fact, this passage and the seedliners' interpretation of it generates additional problems for the seedliners' explanation of Genesis 3.

For example, since the union of the sons of YEHOVAH God (representing fallen angels to the seedliners) with the daughters of men (representing daughters of Adam to the seedliners) produced giants, then certainly Cain as the progeny of Lucifer, the head fallen archangel, and Eve (according to the seedliners) should also have been a giant. And, then Cain would have himself been the progenitor of a whole line of giants, not normal size men such as are found in today's Jews.

Some seedliners quote Justin Martyr wherein he declared that the offspring of this union described in Genesis 6 were demons. However, that also creates a problem for the seedliners. If Genesis 6 is supposed to prove that Satan fathered Cain by Eve, then Cain and his seedline could not be represented in today's Jews, but would instead have to be demons as well. Jews, giants or demons; the seedliners can not have it all three ways!

In addition, if Genesis 6 proves the seedliners' interpretation of Genesis 3, then they will also have to admit that there are many Satanic or demonic seedlines which, of course, they never identify.

The Supposed Cain-Cainite-Canaanite Connection

Before leaving the Old Testament, it needs to be pointed out that it is imperative to the seedliners that they "make" a connection between not only Satan and Cain, but also between the Cainites (the descendants of Cain) and the Canaanites (the descendants of Canaan, the grandson of Noah). The reason being, because without such a connection there is no link between a "Satanic seed line" and today's Jews.

Most of today's Jews can be linked with the Canaanites through Esau/Edom and his marriage with Canaanite women. 50 However, there is nothing in the Bible, no matter how far it is stretched by the seedliners, that links Cain with today's Jews.

As usual the seedliners can not agree among themselves as to how this supposed connection was made. According to some seedliners, this gene link between Cain and the Canaanites came about in the following manner:

"In Genesis 9:18 we are told that Canaan was the son of Ham. It is also very plain that this Canaan was not a blessed seed of the woman, but apparently was mothered by a Canaanite [Cainite] woman of the Satanic Seed Line." 51

"…I believe that Ham had sex with his father Noah's concubine. This relationship produced Canaan.…I believe that Noah's concubine was a Cainite…." 52

No question that this would unite Cain's line with Canaan's line. However, do not miss the fact that this supposed union is accomplished through some mystery concubine who is never mentioned in the Bible, and who was thus created in the fertile imaginations of the seedliners.

Other seedliners attempt to make the Cain/Canaan link at a later time through the people in the Old Testament known as Kenites. I will not waste the reader's time by expounding upon how this supposedly happened. However, I will point out what the seedliners, who twist the Scriptures in this fashion, must admit if this hypothesis is true.

One well-known seedline teacher proclaimed:

"It means simply, when you say Kenite -- sons of Cain, that's all you are talking about." 53

Part of the reason that this is maintained by some seedliners is because the Hebrew word "qeyniy" translated "Kenite" comes from the Hebrew word "Qayin" from which Adam's eldest son's name "Cain" is derived. However, that does not necessarily mean that it can then be deduced that the Kenites are descendants of Adam's son, Cain. That is essentially the same mistake that is made by those who jump to the unmerited conclusion that the Rahab in Yeshua's genealogy is the Canaanite Rahab in the book of Judges.

There might be a connection between Cain and the Kenites, but that can not automatically be deduced from the similarities of the two words. Even if such an association is accurate, Cain is not proven to be the son of Satan by such an affiliation.

Additionally, but if Cain is Satan's seed and if the Kenite line is a continuation of that Satanic seed line, then the seedliners will have to admit that Moses' children were of the same Satanic seed line since his wife Zipporah was a daughter of Jethro whom the Bible identifies as a Kenite:

"And the children of [Jethro] the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up…with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah…and they dwelt among the people" (Judges 1:16).

It is also worth noting that YEHOVAH declared that Jacob/Israel's line would have everlasting enmity not with the supposed Cain/Kenite line, but rather with Esau/Edom's line -- Genesis 25:21-23, Ezekiel 35:1-5 and Amos 1:11. Thus YEHOVAH commanded King Saul to exterminate the Amalekites of the first born line of Esau, but said nothing regarding the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites at the time, and who were subsequently spared -- 1 Samuel 15:6. Once again, the seedliners' arguments, rather than providing proof for their hypothesis, have only created them more problems.

In this article I have addressed all of the major seedline arguments employed from the Old Testament, but I have also demonstrated them to be spurious, with absolutely no scriptural validity whatsoever.

Endnotes:

1. D. Olmsted, quoted by Noah Webster, "Theory," American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (San Francisco, California: The Foundation for American Christian Education, reprinted 1967).

2. "Charles Lee Mange," aka Dan Gayman, "Foreword," The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15 (1982) p. i.

3. Gayman, p. 12.

4. Gayman, p. 13.

5. Gayman, p. 18.

6. Gayman, p. 26.

7. Gayman, p. 27.

8. Gladys M. Demaree, The Divine Design, pp. 11-12, quoted by Jeffrey A. Weakley, The Satanic Seedline: Its Doctrine and History (Boring, Oregon: CPA Books, 1994) p. 1.

9. Bertrand L. Comparet, The Cain-Satanic Seed Line (San Diego, California: Your Heritage) pp. 5-6.

10. Gayman, p. 6.

11. Jarah B. Crawford, Last Battle Cry: Christianity's Final Conflict with Evil (Knoxville, Tennessee: Jann Publishing, 1986) p. 334.

12. Nord W. Davis, Jr., Star Wars (Topton, North Carolina: The Northpoint Teams) p. 11.

13. Gayman, p. 12.

14. Gayman, p. 46.

15. Gayman, p. 46.

16. Comparet, p. 4.

17. Comparet, p. 4.

18. Gayman, p. 48.

19. Comparet, pp. 4-5.

20. Strong, Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible, p. 76.

21. Gayman, p. 53.

22. B. J. Dryburgh, Christianity or Religious Tradition?? (Newhall, California: The American Institute of Theology) p. 5.

23. Gayman, pp. 48-49.

24. James Strong, "Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible," The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 6.

25. Comparet, pp. 5-6.

26. Strong, Dictionary of the Hebrew Bible, p. 80.

27. Davis, p. 11.

28. Crawford, p. 333.

29. James E. Wise, The Seed of the Serpent (Englewood, Colorado: Pilgrim Torch) p. 4.

30. It is not the point of this treatise to get into the author's perspective on Satan(s).

31. For a fully documented discussion regarding the Khazar Jews send for our article Are Modern "Jews" REALLY Descended from the Sons of Jacob?

32. Genesis 3:15 is known as the Protevangelium or the first gospel.

33. 1 Corinthians 4:15.

34. 1 Peter 1:23.

35. Dr. Everett Ramsey, "The Bible -- The Book of Adam -- God's Message of Hope to the World," America Today (Houston, Missouri: Faith Baptist Church & Ministries, February, 1996) p. 7.

36. Charles Lee Mange aka Dan Gayman, The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15 (1982) p. 16.

37. Norman Moody Rogers, Was It Really an Apple?, The Grape Press (Frederick, Oklahoma: Grape Press, October, 1982) p. 1.

38. Gayman, p. 45.

39. For anyone wanting more information regarding YEHOVAH's law as it applies to today, write for Are the Old Testament Laws Still in Force Today?

40. Gayman, p. 9.

41. B. J. Dryburgh, Christianity or Religious Tradition?? (Newhall, California: The American Institute of Theology) p. 5.

42. Bertrand L. Comparet, The Cain-Satanic Seed Line (San Diego, California: Your Heritage) p. 6.

43. Gayman, p. 64-65.

44. Nord W. Davis, Jr., Star Wars (Topton, North Carolina: The Northpoint Teams) pp. 11-12.

45. That is because when things are based upon speculation, one man's postulation is as good as another man's assumption.

46. Gayman, p. 28.

47. Gayman, p. 9.

48. Gayman, p. 26.

49. Gayman, p. 19.

50. "Edom," Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Vol. 6, p. 378. "Edom, Idumea," The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Vol. V, p. 50. "Edom (Idumea)," The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589. Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1960) Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279.

51. Gayman, p. 29.

52. Dr. Everett Ramsey, "The Bible - The Book of Adam - God's Message of Hope to the World," America Today (Houston, Missouri: Faith Baptist Church & Ministries, March, 1996) p. 2.

53. Dr. Arnold Murray, Kenite (Gravette, Arkansas) Cassette tape #436.

Hope of Israel Ministries P.O. Box 853 Azusa, CA 91702, U.S.A. www.hope-of-israel.org

Scan with your Smartphone for more information