Commentary On

GENESIS

by an unworthy servant

(Notice to Readers and especially Christian theologians. Please use what you can here—But with Credit to this website. Please do not do as most Christian Preachers do by plagiarizing and stealing words and ideas from others. The least you can do is to give credit when you take from others, to include taking from this website).

Chapter 1

1:1

In the beginning God (Heb ELOHIM) created the heaven (Heb shamayim) and the earth (Heb erets).

V. 1: This verse is in the undated past. It could be thousands, millions or even billions of years ago. Ferrar Fenton gives it as: “By periods, G-d created.” Thus, it may involve several distinctively different periods of time in huge blocks of many years. Just as earth had a presence some time before its (re)forming in the rest of Gen 1:3 on, it allows for the presence in Gen 1:1 of earlier forms—like huge dinosaurs, giant reptiles and even hominids/hominoids/humanoids/men.

Next, the Hebrew ELOHIM must be distinguished from the Hebrew EL and ELOAH which are also translated as G-d. EL is first introduced in Gen 14:18. The commentary there will address the different forms translated as G-d. The title ELOAH is first broached in Deut 32:15. But it will be addressed with The EL in Gen 14:18. The best translation of the Hebrew ELOHIM in Gen 1 is probably “The Chief SPOKESMAN FOR EL.”

On this, see John 1:1-3 which has: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G-d (The EL?), and the Word was G-d (The ELOHIM?). He was with G-d (The EL?) in the beginning. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing made had being.” The Targums also have it that the creation is attributed to the Word.

1:2

And the earth was without form (Heb tohu), and void (Heb bohu); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit (RUACH) of God moved upon the face of the waters.

V. 1:2: The RUACH represents the Invisible Spirit of The ELOHIM (or probably more correctly, it is The EL). It is typically manifested as wind or air in motion and is sometimes translated as the breath of The ELOHIM. It will be further described in Gen 2:7, 6:17, 7:15 and 14:18 to demonstrate that it is this Breath of The ELOHIM which apparently imparts life/spirit to certain air breathers on earth.

A study of geology provides some interesting facts on the history of planet earth. Wherever one may go over this globe, it is most fascinating that all visible land areas on this body were once under water. Not only was earth under water at least once, but in some instances parts of earth were clearly under water more than one time.

Not only was it possible that in Noah’s day (in Gen 6-7) that a worldwide flood “may have” ensued, but it is quite clear from Gen 1:2 that the earth was then covered with water preceding its evident later reforming in Gen 1:3-10, and just before Adam’s creation.

Gen 1:1 opens with a description of an original creation which was perfect and good and where the messengers (angels) shouted for joy (Gen 1:1; Job 38:4-7). In that perfect creation state, earth was not created without form (Hebrew tohu--see Isa 45:18 where the KJV gives tohu as vain) and void (Hebrew bohu), but it became that way in Gen 1:2 (also, per Jer 4:23).

Therefore, in the tohu/bohu state in Gen 1:2, the globe was covered with water. While there may be some doubt and cause for concern about the extent of the water covering the earth in Noah’s day, the coverage in Gen 1:2 is very certain and cannot be disputed. Manifestly, this tohu and bohu condition, outlined in Gen 1:2, involved a catastrophic event on earth. There is no question about it.

1:3

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1:4

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

V. 1:3-4. The sun and moon bodies are not presented until the fourth day of this reforming period. So there has to be concern about what was the source of this light and/or the reason for the darkness. Likely, this event did involve the sun or some other source providing light in the day with resulting darkness at night. See the explanation at Gen 1:14-16.

1:5

And God called the light Day (Heb yom), and the darkness he called Night (Heb layil). And the evening (Heb ehrev) and the morning (Heb boqer) were the first day (Heb yom).

V. 1:5. The Hebrew yom appears correct as day in English. Just as the English day can mean the daylight hours of a day or the 24 hour period of day and night, the same is true with yom. Too, the English day and Hebrew yom can also mean a period of time which can encompass a number of days or even years. See Isa 2:12 for an example with yom meaning the Day of YHWH, a period of time that may involve years.

The Hebrew ehrev, translated as even or evening, means precisely sunset. The Hebrew boqer means daybreak or sunrise. Thus a Scriptural day starts at sunset and a period of darkness followed by daybreak and day light hours till the next start of a day at sunset.

One of the issues concerning students of the Word is where does a new day start in the context of a circular globe rotating on its axis? The prevailing Western Christian civilization established that point in the nineteenth century as being a line running from the poles in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The theory was that at that point the change over from one day to another day would least likely interfere in man’s activities—and particularly in man’s commercial transactions. But the Word in Gen 2 is clear enough that the days must start in the Euphrates Valley in modern Iraq since that was the place where the first day started (although some argue for Jerusalem).

While the Hebrew text seemingly communicates the first day of (re)creation as involving a 24 hour day of rotation of the earth, Ferrar Fenton’s remarks on the creation by periods makes it allowable that the days of creation week may have been long periods of years. Since a thousand years is a day to YHWH (II Pet 3:8; Rev 20:3), possibly the days in Gen 1 were each 1,000 years long.

Or better yet, the case can be made that each of these days lasted 7,000 years. The reason here is based on the believed allocation of 6,000 years to Adam (following his creation at the end of the sixth day of creation week) with a 1,000 year Sabbatical rest when YESHUA rules the earth. Actually, The EL created the heavens and earth in six days and took His Sabbatical rest on the seventh day which as it turns out seems to involve 7,000 years in total. Thus, it might be that the days of creation week in Gen 1-1 to 2:3 were each about 7,000 years long. Actually, the number could be 7056 years which is 144 (12 x 12) jubilees of 49 years each.

1:6

And God said, Let there be a firmament (Heb raqia) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

V. 1:6. The Hebrew raqia means an expanse or space. Thus, the raqia divided the waters in some fashion.

1:7

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

V. 1:7. It’s very likely that when the water in Gen 1:2 was separated in Gen 1:7 to provide the firmament (atmospheric heaven or space) some of the water went into space orbit around the earth much like the bands of ice/water now apparent around the planet Saturn.

1:8

And God called the firmament Heaven (Heb shamayim). And the evening and the morning were the second day.

V. 1:8. The shamayim here refers to the firmament or space separating the waters from above and the waters below. Shamayim means “heaved up things” per Young’s. Strong’s give its root as same meaning “to be lofty, the sky.” referring either to the visible arc where the clouds move or to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve.

1:9

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

1:10

And God called the dry land Earth (Heb erets); and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas (Heb yam): and God saw that it was good.

V. 1:10. The Hebrew erets can mean the entire earth as in Gen 1:1 or it can mean some other definition of land--like the dry land portion of earth as here and at Gen 2:11, 12, 13, etc. The context here is clear that it is the dry land portion. Yam can mean a sea, lake, pool of water—per Young’s.

Richard Elliott Friedman’s Commentary on the Torah quotes Rashi and suggests that the earth was covered with water which also was dispersed in the atmosphere/sky and higher above the earth in the form of a watery chaos. The firmament was created to be a tent or dome empty arc space in the atmosphere which covered the dry land and possibly some adjacent areas left in water.

My take is that the waters were completely separated into two bodies—one high in the sky and one on earth adjacent to and surrounding the land area (but with some presence of water in underground vaults under the land portion of earth). Friedman quotes Rashi and says that the land area was one body surrounded by water. Thus, there was only one continent in Gen 1:10. This one super continent was surrounded by one continuous ocean which covered a large part of the earth. Apparently, there were few if any islands.

We now know enough about geography/geology to substantiate Gen 1:9-10. The ocean levels were once 300 to 500 feet lower than they are presently. A discussion on the Dreamland radio program on Sep 10, 2000, by Whitley Strieber and his guest, noted that geologists have now confirmed that the ocean levels were once at least 300 feet or more lower than they are today. Obviously, part of the present ocean waters came from somewhere. The most logical option seems to be that they came mainly from the heavens in rain to cause Noah’s flood (to be discussed in Gen 6-8).

Because the oceans once were much lower than they are today, there is strong evidence that a number of so-called island bodies were once attached as land bodies to nearby continents (some persons have called the connecting land links “land bridges”).

For example, the British Isles were attached by land across the English Channel to Europe/modern France; Madagascar was attached to Africa; the East Indies/modern Indonesia was a part of Asia/Australia; Ceylon was linked to Asia/modern India; West Indies, Cuba and Florida keys were part of North America; New Guinea, and Tasmania were tied to Australia; Greenland was a part of Europe or a land bridge between Europe and North America (its present form could have developed following the division of the continents); and it’s doubtful that the Mediterranean, Baltic and Black Seas had much if any water in them.

Most of the smaller islands in the oceans developed from underwater volcanoes once the super continent was divided to produce the present seven continents. Continental drift put pressure on the earth’s tectonic plates which caused underwater volcanoes to erupt and bring about islands as the volcanoes broke from the water. Japan seems to be volcanic in origin but it might have been attached to Asia. The Philippines are volcanic but it is not clear that they were attached to Asia; although this might have been the case (as may also be true with Indonesia).

Any perusal of the present geographical arrangement of the continents, with a realization of the lower ocean levels, leads one to easily envision how they generally were once together in one land mass. The clearest evidence of this is how Africa and South America seems to have perfectly fit together. Even today, this evidence is supported by the huge oil reserves in African Nigeria which just happens to link to those in Venezuela in South America.

Since South America and Africa apparently were joined together laterally, east to west, the presumption is that North America was similarly joined to Europe. And this is the most logical explanation. But an alternative must be on the table that Europe and North America were joined in some way north to south. If so, when the continents were later divided, the North American continent moved south to link with South America. Of course, it could have been that the North America and European link involved some form of both options.

Antarctica and Australia (with Tasmania and New Guinea) were together in the Indian Ocean, up under South Asia (from Burma to Arabia and Africa). Australia was perhaps just south of India. The breakup of the continents (and with the resulting continental drift) seems to have occurred in Noah’s post flood days of Peleg (Gen 10:25).

1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit (Heb peri) tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit (Heb peri), whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:13

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

V. 1:11-12. Rather than accept the simple Scriptural explanation for life, man has promoted an unproven theory that life started by a miraculous occurrence in nature when the right chemicals came together in a primordial pool of soup of some sort. Once life had allegedly been started, it evolved into the millions of species known to have existed here on earth. Glen Kimble on the Coast to Coast AM program on Feb 18, 2010 quoted one authority that such a start of life was about one in 10,000 to the 260^th power (or 260 zeroes). But per the law of biogenesis, life must come from life. There is no other way.

Per the Scriptural formula, please note that seed was produced after its kind or that seed produces seed of its own kind. The ELOHIM said that it was good. Yet, today, man has thought to introduce genetic modifications of seeds where different seeds are altered and spliced together to form new aberrations which are contrary to the kind after kind formula given by The ELOHIM at creation. These new seeds are so altered that they cannot produce kind after kind. They have to be made in chemical laboratories.

1:14

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs (Heb oth), and for seasons (Heb moed), and for days (Heb yamin, the plural of yom), and years (Heb shanah):

1:15

And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1:16

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1:17

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

1:18

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

1:19

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

V. 1:14-18. At last, The ELOHIM created or perhaps revealed visibly to the earth the sun, moon and stars (on the premise that they were created earlier and at last were visible to the earth). Perhaps the watery chaos hid the light effects of the sun, moon and stars somewhat earlier. Maybe, they at last showed forth all together on earth on the fourth day.

Alternatively, since vegetation appeared on earth the third day, it seems that light (likely sun light) must have reached earth on the third day for vegetation to have grown. In that vein, it might be that the moon was created on the fourth day (to reflect sun light on earth) and the remarks for the fourth day are predicated on the fact that at last the sun and moon are defined together with both of them showing light on earth on the fourth day. As far as light from the stars, for whatever reason, they were not visible on earth till the fourth day.

In Gen 1:14, both the sun and moon are to be for the Hebrew oth (or signals as Strong’s gives it) and moed (meaning an appointed time for something to take place) as well as to provide light upon the earth (Gen 1:15-16). In the Scriptures, the moed of the sun and moon are used to define certain religious festivals which are to be observed by YHWH’s people (like those defined in Lev 23).

The Creation Calendar

Exodus 12 establishes that the Scriptural new year starts with the month of Aviv in the spring near the spring equinox. Judaism and many New Testament Messianic believers hold to this belief for their religious calendar as used to determine the annual festivals (moed).

The technical vernal equinox occurs at about March 19th-22nd--when the sun crosses the celestial equator, causing the day to equal the night at that point (Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 214). Most often, the equinox occurs on March 21st. But its Julian-Gregory date depends much upon how leap years occur in particular years (with February having 29 days).

In some situations, the equinox can slightly vary from March 21st. Therefore, it can come as early as March 20th and possibly even March 19th. Presumably, March 22nd is another possibility.

Conversely, the observable astronomical sign of the new year (day equal night spring phenomenon in the Northern Hemisphere) can occur from a few hours up to a day or two later from the technical vernal equinox. Certainly, “day equal night” is the sign in the Jerusalem area where the festivals were Scripturally first commanded and kept on a recurring basis.

The same is true in Northern Egypt (where the issue of Passover first surfaced in Exodus 12) and in the Euphrates Valley in Iraq (which was the likely site of creation and probably is the place where the new day, new week, new month and new year correctly start). Actually, the areas of Egypt, Palestine and Iraq are very close together in the Middle East and produce almost the same calendar conclusions. Thus, there really is no reason to argue the differences.

So, although the technical vernal equinox occurs around March 19-22, the effective day equal night in the lands of Scriptural Yisrael/Israel (and even of the modern House of Yisrael nations) in the Northern Hemisphere does not always occur until about March 20-23 (in that the equinox has day equal night at the equator while the day equal night in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere comes later).

Obviously, the visible sign (watched for and observed) has to be day equal night (in the Middle East), which is usually March 20th to the 23rd. The exact solar day (per the Julian-Gregory calendar) when this event occurs, depends, of course, on exactly when the vernal equinox occurs (at the equator).

Since the sun and moon were created (or reconfigured) on the fourth day of the week (Gen 1:14-19) and since the moon merely reflects sun light, the earth would have had to be in orbit around the sun and shining on the daylight portion of the fourth day of (re)creation week at the Euphrates (and/or Jerusalem).

Hence, the (correctly invisible) astronomical new moon would not have occurred until the dark portion of the succeeding fifth day of the week. An explanation of how this came about will now be outlined.

By concluding that the day equal night “sign” was the sign of the sun (required in Gen 1:14) for the festivals, it seems factual that the day equal night phenomenon had to have occurred during the time of the (re)creation week of Gen 1.

Strangely enough, there is one primary remark suggesting the spring vernal equinox in this first chapter of Genesis. It occurs in Gen 1:4-5 when The ELOHIM seemingly established the sun to provide light on an orbiting earth. The MOST HIGH “divided” the rotating earth into two parts--day and night.

The implication in this “division” is that YHWH divided the day and night into equal parts. Precise equal parts must come at the spring or fall equinoxes. Since spring is the time for the regeneration of life, the event had to be the vernal equinox. This event concludes the first day (apparently of 24 hours as man now calculates time).

On the second day, The HIGHEST divided the waters and established the atmospheric heaven to exist between the waters in orbit around the earth and those on the earth (Gen 1:6-8). The next day, the third day, He apportioned the water on earth into seas and brought forth dry land and ultimately vegetation on that land (Gen 1:9-13).

Now, the real revelation about the calendar and festivals occurs in Gen 1:14-19 on the fourth day of creation week. For the first time in the narrative, the moon appears. Thereupon, The ELOHIM designates the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. He then went on to establish the fact that these two lights would determine His festivals or set apart times (in the word seasons [the Hebrew “moed”] of Gen 1:14).

What this amounts to is that while the sun is important in regulating the festivals, the moon assumes center stage in establishing the actual days for those festivals. Thus, the sun lays out the general times of the year for those festivals, but it is the moon which precisely dates them (this fact is brought out in Exodus 12 and other remarks which define the Scriptural calendar).

The context and wording of Gen 1:14 also would allow that this fourth day was just after the vernal equinox and perhaps near the day equal night event in the Northern Hemisphere. However, the fact is that the sun and its precise division at the equinox seems to have already been established in Gen 1:4; thus, discounting such an event in Gen 1:14.

Therefore, it is possible that the sun and moon remarks in Gen 1:14 do not address the equinox in that time frame, but in a general concept of future time periods when the sun and the moon would rule over the day and night. Truly, the focus in Gen 1:14 is upon the relationship of the sun and moon ruling the day and night.

Obviously, this relationship is continuous all year long and not just at the vernal equinox. So correctly, the division of the sun (ruling the day) and moon (ruling the night) was not precisely equal (in the sense of the vernal equinox) on the fourth day of creation week, nor were they precisely equal in time during the coming months until the later fall equinox.

If the vernal equinox occurred on the first day of that creation week (when YHWH divided light and darkness into assumed equal periods), it stands to reason that the day equal night phenomenon in the Northern Hemisphere occurred within a day or so later (in the Middle East near the Euphrates and/or at Jerusalem). Probably, day equal night was already passed by the fourth day of the week in Gen 1:14.

Because the status of the moon is only determinable in relation to the sun, it is very likely that this first new moon occurred during daylight hours (as cited above). Of course, as demonstrated elsewhere herein, the daylight hours’ occurrence kicks the visible astronomical condition of new moon (of no light) to that night (which automatically takes one to the fifth day of the week).

The first day of that first moon or monthly cycle (starting at sunset and occurring on the fifth day of the week) would have possibly been the night of March 24th-25th (per the present Julian-Gregory calendar), on the premise that the vernal equinox occurred around March 20th.

Anyway, the gist of these remarks is that based upon the Genesis account, it would be very plausible to date the first day (with the new moon) of the new year at (re)creation to March 25th. In that sense, it is possible that the later Israelite settlers of Britain correlated this information when the Julian calendar was imposed upon them. Maybe, that is the reason that they arbitrarily chose to start their new year on March 25th.

Of course, they ignored and passed up the tremendously important reality of the moon and the moon’s cycle to establish both the yearly calendar and the festivals. But at least, they were close to the Julian-Gregory solar calendar aspects of Gen 1.

Furthermore, this sequence of events in Gen 1 would have allowed the 14th day of Aviv to occur on a fourth day of the week, which is significant for another reason to follow.

From the Scriptures, it is also possible to determine the calendar in general at the time of the Exodus (from the chronology of the book of Exodus) and during the final days of the life of The MESSIAH in 30 CE (from the three days and three nights phenomenon of Matthew 12:38-40).

At the death of YESHUA, the same general calendar outline seems to have prevailed as in Gen 1. Aviv 14 fell on the fourth day of the week and the new year apparently started on the fifth day of the week, just after the spring equinox, as it now seems possible to date.

Possibly, Aviv 14 fell on the third day of the week at the time of the Exodus, but there is some possibility that the new year started about the time of the spring equinox (at least, it would have been logical at that important time).

While not being able to precisely date the actual vernal equinox at YESHUA’s death or at the Exodus, the possibilities remain interesting. Of course, such information could be theoretically calculable by astronomers, if the exact years can be ascertained.

One significant problem on this theme is that the vernal equinox can appear from March 19 to March 22 (based on the Julian-Gregory calendar). In the old days of just the Julian calendar, the variation was even more extreme. The problem is that the current solar year is about 365 and 1/4 days. It causes some flux or movement in the solar date for the vernal equinox.

Thus, all of the Julian-Gregory dates for the vernal equinox have to be approached on an approximate basis since there can be some variation on dating the events. In this vein, this writer believes that the Aviv new moon for 30 CE (the year of the death of YESHUA) must be dated by the Julian calendar to around March 23d or 24th (as discussed earlier). Could the vernal equinox have occurred around March 20th that year? Or perhaps even March 18th, 19th, 21st or 22d cannot be ruled out since the calendar involved was the Julian calendar and not the Julian-Gregory calendar.

The point is that the astronomical conditions at the creation and at YESHUA’s death were very close together. As a minimum, they both had a new moon and a first day of the new year falling on the fifth day of the week, and apparently following the vernal equinox by two to five days. The year of the Exodus could have been similar on the equinox, though the new moon is possibly dated to the fourth day of the week.

Again, as pointed as before times, the fact that the first day of the weekly cycle started first, earlier and independently of the creation or revelation of the sun and moon in Gen 1 and 2, proves that the first day of the week cannot be tied to a first day of a month or year. The cycles are utterly different and cannot be forced together.

How Big is the Creation?

In Gen 1:16, the stars were created in their immense host. Our sun is merely one star in the huge Milky Way galaxy which is made up of about 100 billion stars. Some estimate that there are as many galaxies in the heavens as there are stars in the Milky Way. In recent years, man launched the Hubbel telescope into earth orbit to better look at the heavens. This telescope was focused on a small area of sky showing no evidence of light. The area was a dark part of the sky the size of a grain of sand. Yet, the telescope found tens of thousands of more galaxies in that one small section of the sky.

1:20

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature (Heb sherets) that hath life (Heb hay), and fowl (Heb oph) that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

1:21

And God created great whales (Heb tannin), and every living (Heb chai) creature (Heb nephesh) that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl (Heb oph) after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:22

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

1:23

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

V. 1:20-22. The Hebrew chai nephesh is used for living, breathing creatures in general. Here the context is on nephesh life forms living in the ocean(s) which breath/use/consume oxygen from the air (like whales) or from the water (fish obtain oxygen from the water via their gills). Tannin refers to sea monsters. As a minimum, all fish and whales are covered in the context of life in the waters of the earth. The Hebrew oph clearly refers to fowl which have wings and fly in the air/atmosphere.

Gen 1:20 introduces a created sherets life form living in water which must be distinguished from fish, whales and fowl. These sherets will be addressed at some length in later Scriptures at Gen 1:25; 7:2 and 9:2-3 and in the context of allowable clean food to be eaten by Adam man (at Lev 5:2; 11:20-26; Deut 14:19). The sherets appear to be in the insect class and small life forms living in the oceans—like shrimp, crab, etc.

1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living (Heb chai) creature (Heb nephesh) after his kind, cattle (Heb behemah), and creeping thing (Heb rehmes), and beast of the earth (Heb chaiyah) after his kind: and it was so.

1:25

And God made the beast of the earth Heb chaiyah) after his kind, and cattle (Heb behemah) after their kind, and every thing that creepeth (Heb rahmas) upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

V. 1:24-25. Here the Word introduces several new species of life some or all of which seem to be restricted to habitation on land as opposed to water and air. We have the chai nephesh, the behemah, the rehmes and the chaiyah (and even Adam man in Gen 1:26 and 2:7 which is another definition of life). It appears that the chai nephesh is a broad definition of land forms of species; to include the three stated definitions which are also large definitions of life--behemah, chaiyah and rahmas/rehmes.

Chai means living and nephesh means a breathing life form. Thus, chai nephesh means living, breathers of oxygen. Gen 1:24-25 seems to address those land life forms which modern dictionaries would usually define as animals. More correctly, they are generally mammal/animal, non-Adamic forms of life. The chai nephesh definition is broad to include the three forms of life stated which are also broad terms covering many classes or species of life in each of the definitions of behemah, chaiyah and rahmas/rehmes.

At the start, what is the difference between the chaiyah and the behemah? In the “Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs” (p. 4), Dr J. H. Hertz, Late Chief Rav of the British Empire, concluded that the Hebrew behemah was used by The ELOHIM for domesticated animals while the Hebrew chaiyah was used for wild animals. Therefore, per the Scriptures, it is apparent that the behemah or domesticated animals must consist of species like dogs, horses, cows, etc. Conversely, the chaiyah or wild animals would include lions, tigers, apes, etc. Interestingly, the behemah and chaiyah classes of life both seem to include certain forms of humanoids (to be addressed in comments on Gen 2, 3, 4, 6 and 10).

Rahmas is more complicated. Rahmas and its cognate rehmes (as often translated in the KJV as moveth and moving thing) seem to identify certain small species of life (as opposed to use of sherets/sharas in Gen 1:20, as living in the oceans; and/or possibly sherets/sharas are a sub-category of the rahmas--on this, see Ps 104:25).

“The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” (TWOT, v. II, p. 850) says rahmas pertains to small creeping things--like possibly mice, reptiles, certain small fish and so forth. The term appears several times in the creation account (Gen 1:21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 6:7; 7:8, 14, 21, 23; 8:17, 19; 9:2, 3) where it would seem to suggest insects and/or very small creatures in general (in contrast to larger life forms).

Otherwise, rahmas/rehmes also seem to be differentiated from other forms of non-Adamic life--including the behemah, chaiyah, miqneh, tson, and eleph. In terms of eating rahmas, see Gen 1:29, 3:17-19; 7:21; 9:2-3; Lev 5:2; 11:20-46; Deut 14:19. In a review of several different commentaries and lexicons, this writer could not find a precise definition for rahmas, although TWOT did offer the just noted possibilities.

1:26

And God said, Let us make man (Heb Adam) in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish (Heb dagah) of the sea, and over the fowl (Heb oth) of the air, and over the cattle (Heb behemah), and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing (Heb rehmes) that creepeth (Heb rahmas) upon the earth.

V. 1:26. Likely the reference to creating Adam in “our” image refers to The ELOHIM and the messengers (angels) of the heavenly host who shouted for joy with the creation in Gen 1:1.

1:27

So God (The ELOHIM) created man (Heb Adam) in his own image, in the image of God (The ELOHIM) created he him; male (Heb zakar) and female (Heb neqebah) created he them.

1:28

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish (Heb male) the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish (Heb dagah) of the sea, and over the fowl (Heb oth) of the air, and over every living thing (Heb chaiyah) that moveth upon the earth.

V. 1:26-28. Here, a man named Adam is introduced. While English translators are notorious about trying to translate Adam to man, the truth is that Adam is a proper noun name and correctly should not be translated. It should be transliterated since it is the personal name of a particular man. Please notice too that here there is a revelation of what The ELOHIM looks like and is. Adam man was created in the image of The ELOHIM. So Adam man must be similar or liken to The ELOHIM. While it is easy to draw this parallel in the physical sense, there could be more to it in the vein that the plan is for Adam to develop far more with the character, thinking and mentality of The ELOHIM.

One of the most important commands The ELOHIM gave Adam was to replenish the earth (Heb male). This same word appears in Gen 9:1 in the command to the line of Noah to (re)fill the earth after the great flood of that day. It is manifestly clear in Gen 1:28 that Adam was to replenish or refill the earth of humans/humanoids/hominids following the catastrophic flood of Gen 1:2.

This reality accounts for the presence of evidence of prehistoric man which indeed could date to thousands or maybe even millions of years ago. Possibly some of these pre-historic men/humanoids/hominoids did live in Africa as evolutionists now claim for early man. In terms of Adam himself, one can date the chronology of him and his descendants from the Scriptures and come to about 4,000 BCE. Actually, I date the creation of Adam in c4,012 BCE. Please note that this dating is only for Adam and his descendants. The generic man could go back thousands of years earlier.

Also, in this citation of Adam, The CREATOR chose to grant him dominion over all life forms in the creation on earth. In effect, The CREATOR made Adam the Governor of planet earth. Therefore, if something is wrong and goes wrong in the life forms present on earth, the blame must be placed on Adam and his kind. There is a tendency by Christians particularly to try to blame The CREATOR or Satan for the troubles among men on earth instead of simply blaming Adam who was granted dominion over the life forms on earth.

Yet, while The CREATOR did give Adam dominion and governorship over all life forms on earth, this situation ultimately proves that Adam is incapable of even governing himself much less other life forms (see Prov 16:1-25; 20:24; Jer 10:23-24). It is simply not in Adam (or in any other man’s capacity for that matter) to direct his own foot-steps, much less others. Thus, all men and living kinds are in need of supernatural rule, guidance and direction from The CREATOR.

1:29

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1:30

And to every beast of the earth (Heb chaiyah), and to every fowl (Heb oth) of the air, and to every thing that creepeth Heb rehmes) upon the earth, wherein there is life (Heb hay), I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

1:31

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

V. 1:29-30. At a first reading of these texts, without regard to other Scriptures, one could make the case for vegetarianism for all types of men and other life forms. The Spring 1998 issue of “Back to the Garden” (p. 5) had some comments by Rhonda J, Malkmus that quotes Gen 1:29 with a conclusion that man’s diet should be raw fruits and vegetables. This reference has some support from Gen 3:17-19--when Adam was destined to eat of produce from the soil.

Perhaps these remarks in the Torah have prompted various Christians to become ascetic vegetarians over the years. But truth is established by all Scriptures on a subject and not just one or two. So, beyond Gen 1:29 and 3:17-19, there are a number of other texts which allow other food items in a diet. On this line, the issue primarily concerns clean meats (Gen 9:2-3; Lev 11:1-47; Deut 14:3-21). Hence, the question arises about this paradox between Gen 1:29 and the later texts allowing certain other foods to be eaten by Adam.

The explanation here is fairly simple. YHWH made Adam essentially as an herbivore (in Gen 1:29); but not totally, nor by commandment. Thus, plant foods (vegetables, fruits, grains, etc--which, of course, includes olive oil and cooked bread and cereal) should be Adam’s primary or basic diet for health and sustenance. Alternatively, in the Word, The MOST HIGH does allow some variation in a permissible vein with some clean meats, salt, honey, wine (to be discussed later in this commentary), etc.

Repeatedly, the Scriptural rule on diet is moderation and especially on these auxiliary and/or supplemental food items that are permissible. Thus, these other Scripturally identified and authorized foods (like salt, honey, wine, dairy products, clean meats, etc) are allowable, but in moderation. Truly, Adam was meant to be basically an herbivore and not a carnivore.

But some meats can be tasty and beneficial in diet. It’s just that they should not be the primary staple of Adam. Therefore, plant foods are the general rule for Adam. However, The CREATOR does allow some exceptions, in moderation (perhaps to offer some variety/enjoyment in eating). The question of food and the possible restrictions in Gen 1:29 will be further addressed in comments on Gen 3:17-19 and 9:2-3.

Finally, to try to justify Adam man being a herbivore only would force the reader to come to the same conclusion for the life forms cited in Gen 1:30. Obviously, many life forms are by nature and by the creation meat eaters in the present context. It’s hard to envision lions, tigers, wolves, etc being grass eaters in the present creation (though admittedly, their diets may change one day in the millennium—Isa 11:7; 65:25).

Chapter 2

2:1

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

V. 2:1. Hence, The CREATOR finished or completed His work of (re)forming or (re) creating earth and its inhabitants in six days or six periods of time.

2:2

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested (Heb Shabbat) on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

2:3

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified (Heb kodesh) it: because that in it he had rested (Heb Shabbat) from all his work which God created and made.

V. 2:2-3. Here The CREATOR rests/keeps the Sabbath on the Seventh day of the creation week. He designates this Seventh day as the kodesh or set apart Sabbath day. He did not say the 6^th day or the 1^st day was the Sabbath. He specifically defined and designated the 7^th day. Since He defined the days as being evening/darkness and morning/light as constituting a day, He stipulates that the Seventh day Sabbath starts at the evening separating the 6^th and 7^th days and runs till the next evening. In other words, morning to morning or midnight to midnight does not constitute a day per YHWH. It is evening to evening which means a day.

While the context does communicate 24 days, it must be allowed that there is possibly more being addressed herein. If the periods involved are of long durations (like possibly 7,000 years), this means that The CREATOR used 7,000 years for each period and He entered His period of rest at the start of the 7^th period of 7,000 years. At this point in time, we have experienced about 6,000 of those years and we are about to enter the 7^th millennium when YESHUA comes to rule earth and impose righteousness. Since YESHUA was and is a SON OF ADAM, He will complete the 7,000 years allocated to Adam as Governor of Earth.

By the way, the reality of the elapse of 6,000 years is a simple matter to determine by anyone willing to sit down and add up the years from Adam to our present time. Again, this is not the age of the earth nor is it the age of the various created life forms of behemah, chaiyah or rahmas (all of which were created before Adam—perhaps by thousands of years). It is only the age of Adam, who was the last of the (re)creation. He was created in the latter or ending part of the 6^th day of (re)creation week just before The ELOHIM entered His rest.

2:4

These are the generations (Heb toledoth) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD (Heb YHWH) God (Heb ELOHIM) made the earth and the heavens,

V. 2:4. Young’s gives the meaning of toledoth as births. Friedman’s Commentary says that the word generations is inadequate to translate the word since it is used to introduce records of births (as in a family as used here) or to introduce events within a family (as used at Gen 37:2).

This is the first Scriptural introduction of a proper noun name for The ELOHIM. Here this name of YHWH is attached to the title ELOHIM. Since it consists of four letters, it is appropriately referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the four lettered name of The ELOHIM.

In the OT, this YHWH The ELOHIM was the manifested Person Who regularly, and/or on appropriate occasions had visible contact with Adamites. Thus, He was the Person speaking to Adam in the garden, He was the Man Who came to visit Avraham at Hebron, He was the Messenger that wrestled with Yakov, He was the Person Who led Yisrael out of Egypt and on and on.

This Person ELOHIM (in seeming human form) was just One of the manifestations of The Invisible, Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent EL (inhabiting the entire universe, in perpetual infinity—to be discussed in Gen 14:18).

YHWH, as The ELOHIM, was The Visible GOVERNOR and RULER of the entire universe and Physical One Person Who sat on a material throne with all power and authority. He was the visible representation of The Invisible and Omnipresent EL, Who has not been and cannot be seen or effectively worshipped or comprehended by limited man (as will be discussed in Gen 14:18).

The Laws of Thermodynamics

Also, this statement suggests that The CREATOR made the heavens and earth in one period of time (the alteration, reforming or modification of which could have involved thousands of years). This statement brings up man’s postulation of the laws of thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics, the law of mass and energy conservation, was formulated in 1841 by Julius Robert von Mayer. It is thought to be the most important and basic law of all physical science. This law says that the sum total of all energy in the universe remains constant, but may be converted from one form to another.

A companion law is the law of mass conservation. It provides that although energy can be changed in size, shape, form, etc, the total mass cannot be changed. The essence of these two fundamental laws is that the overall content of mass and energy came into being or existence in a precise moment in time, and has never been altered in total since the beginning of its existence, whenever and however that occurred.

In other words, there is no evolution in the context of the continuous fixed quantity of mass and energy. The creation came into being in one motion and has never been altered in terms of its totality. These basic laws of thermodynamics prove the creation and back up and support the powerful words of the Apostle Shaul in Rom 1.

2:5

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man (Heb Adam) to till the ground (Heb adamah).

2:6

But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

V. 2:5-6. The firmament or space above the earth, which separated the waters above (in orbit like the situation with Saturn) from the waters below which were in the one contiguous ocean, acted as a type of hothouse to keep the earth’s land surface in a perpetual state of ideal growing conditions. The daily mist or dew watered the vegetation. Apparently, no manual labor was required to grow food. It must have grown spontaneously.

2:7

And the LORD God formed man (Heb Adam) of the dust (Heb aphar) of the ground (Heb adamah), and breathed (Heb naph) into his nostrils the breath (Heb nesama) of life (Heb hay); and man became a living (Heb chai) soul (Heb nephesh).

V. 2:7. Thus, Adam was made a living/chai soul (breather of oxygen), the same as the other forms of life created by The CREATOR. Please note that with the act of breathing, Adam became a living soul. For those wanting to believe in any so-called immortality of the soul must apply that same theory to all the other forms of life called souls (nephesh). But comments to follow below and in Gen 3 will prove that Adam does not have an immortal soul. He is very mortal and can and does die.

Adamic man is a triune being consisting of body, soul and spirit (I Thes 5:23). The body is nothing but mortal flesh, bone and blood. Add the soul (Hebrew “nephesh” and Greek “psuche”) and a dead body (of an Adamite, behemah or chaiyah) becomes a living soul.

The “Old Testament Word Studies” defines nephesh as “the animal life, or that principle by which every animal, according to its kind, lives; hence life,...” “Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary” says nephesh is “a prime root to breathe--a breathing creature, i.e. animal, vitality, life, soul...” Evidently, the soul represents the quality of life received by living from the breathing of oxygen in the air and the circulation of blood (Gen 2:7).

Thus, the soul is the life feature which all animals possess. It is the soul or quality of life which can terminate and end in death (thus, there is no such thing as an immortal soul). Souls can and do die (Ezek 18:4, 20; 22:27; Matt 10:28; Jas 5:20; Rev 16:3). In short, a soul is a temporary breather of oxygen giving life.

Just like the Hebrew ruach is associated with The ELOHIM (in Gen 1:2, in that He is invisible SPIRIT which is defined as The RUACH of The ELOHIM, in the sense of being like invisible wind, capable of motion), Adamites also possess a spirit (Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma) of man which appears to be non-physical, non-material and invisible--only gaining a visible presence in a human body of flesh and soul (Job 32:8; Isa 26:9; Dan 7:15; Lu 24:39; I Cor 5:3; 6:20; Eph 4:4; Heb 4:12).

It would appear that Adamites gain these spirits of man when they take their first natural response or act to breathe. It is this air breathed (from or of The RUACH, as cited in Gen 1:2) which imparts life to them (possibly the Adamic act of breathing is the Hebrew nesama; but in Gen 6:17 and 7:15, the message suggests that the air breathed comes from the Hebrew RUACH of The ELOHIM). But this act of Adamites taking their first breath (to receive life) opens the door to the fact that the taking of the first breath to receive life means something similar as applying to other forms of life as well (as discussed in Gen 7:15 and 22).

Consequently, the act of taking a breath is nesama; but the air breathed comes as the ruach breath of life. The breath of life is not limited to Adam but also occurs with certain other behemah and chaiyah forms of life (as a minimum, the humanoid forms of the behemah and chaiyah are likely involved; but the message could extend to all behemah and chaiyah life forms as well, as will be discussed in Heb 7:15, 22).

The “Old Testament Word Studies” notes that ruach means “breath, spirit, mind, intellect.” Strong’s at #7307 gives it as “wind, by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):--air, anger, blast, breath, cool, courage, mind, quarter, side, spiritual, tempest, vain, wind, whirlwind, windy.”

Per Strong’s, it would seem that ruach may have a variety of meanings which often may link to its contextual use(s). But ruach is typically associated with The MOST HIGH and being manifested as air or wind in motion. This seems to allow that ruach likely means invisible wind or air in motion (of The EL?)--as applying to breathers of air, to include Adam and evidently certain other life forms as well.

Perhaps it is this sense of wind or air in motion that links ruach to invisible spirit and allows that a spirit can communicate (some might define this as travel, but that concept might be questionable) over vast areas of distance or space in the context of mental telepathy and/or the exercise of mental powers.

In fact, the related word “psychic” means “pertaining to the mind, pertaining to mental phenomena that appear to be independent of normal sensory stimuli, as clairvoyance, telepathy, and extrasensory perception, caused by, proceeding from, or attributed to a non-material or occult agency, sensitive to mental or occult phenomena” (Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 534).

In other words, the new born baby Adamite and/or other life forms receive life with their first breath (ruach) as supplied by The CREATOR. Thus, life comes from The CREATOR. Along with receiving life in this breath from The MOST HIGH, it would appear that the distinctive spirits of man are also given to the new born baby of Adamites and humanoid behemah and chaiyah with their first breath of air (from The CREATOR).

The spirits of men are distinctly and individually identified and associated with particular men (Gen 45:27; II Kg 2:15; I Chron 5:26; II Chron 36:22; Hag 1:14). They seem to have knowledge (I Cor 2:10-11) and to constitute human minds (Eph 4:23). In short, the spirit of man seems to be the mental awareness, intellect, memory, personality, mentality and/or mind power present in a living human body. Evidently, the spirits of men come to the new born child with its first breath of air.

Adam’s human spirit, as seems true with The RUACH HA KODESH (called the Holy Spirit in English translations), can be separated from his dead body and soul (Job 32:8; Eccl 3:21; 12:7; Zech 12:1; Lu 8:55; I Cor 2:11; Jas 2:26). At death, this spirit of Adam evidently returns to The EL Who originally gave it to the new born Adamic child--likely at birth (Eccl 3:21; 12:7; Acts 7:59).

Contrariwise, please note that the spirit of the behemah (and possibly the chaiyah as well) seems to go downward to the earth at death (Eccl 3:21). This writer is not trying to raise questions over the future of behemah and chaiyah humanoids, as opposed to Adamites, at this time (the terms behemah, chaiyah and humanoid will be defined and described below and in comments in Gen 6:17 and 7:15). This text, by Shlomo, is merely presented as it reads.

Therefore, at death, it is this spirit of man (correctly--the spirit of an Adamite) which returns to The EL to be preserved in some manner, as if in a sleep or unconscious state, to await a future resurrection to consciousness (Job 7:21; Eccl 12:7; Matt 9:24; 27:52; Jo 11:11-12; Acts 13:36; I Cor 15:20; I Thes 4:14).

It appears very likely that it is this spirit in or of man (correctly Adam) which will ultimately be resurrected and given a new existence or body of flesh and bone (I Cor 15:50) since the mortal flesh of dead people completely decays to the ground and seems unrecoverable.

2:8

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man (Heb Adam) whom he had formed.

2:9

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life (Heb hay) also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

V. 2:7-9. Please note that the Garden under discussion was in the eastern part of Eden.

These texts also bring up again the presence of the behemah and chaiyah which were created in Gen 1:24-25, earlier than Adam. Mention was made to the fact that these definitions included some life forms of humanoids which must be briefly acknowledged here though they will be addressed at length in later commentary on Gen 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10.

As mentioned above, one of the problems faced in comprehension of the Word is the fact that translators often attempt to translate the Hebrew proper noun name of Adam to the word man. This should not be done. Adam is a name and not a generic word meaning man. Actually, the Hebrew has a word meaning man. It is enosh (anashim in the plural). The Hebrew word for husband—ish—is also sometimes translated to man. The Hebrew zakar used at Gen 1:27 refers to the gender definition of male as opposed to a female.

Trees in the Word

The short of it is that Adam was not the only so-called man defined in the creation and later in the Garden of Eden. The truth is that the trees in the Garden were actually types of men. It is no wonder that throughout the Word, trees are symbolically or allegorically called men—Ps 1:3; Isa 56:3; Dan 4:20 (in the NT at Rev 11:3-4, some are called olive trees).

Besides having some physical trees in the Garden and besides certain other allegorical meanings attached to the trees, there were also some men called trees (plural) in the Garden as affirmed by Ezekiel 31:3-18. These men must not be confused with Adam who is specifically addressed by name in most of these early comments from Genesis.

Thus, the evidence is that the trees in the Garden of Eden were, in fact, men. This reality establishes the fact that the Garden of Eden surely contained "humanoids" (this word will be defined in comments to follow) who were distinctively different from Adam and Eve. Clearly, this truth alone is sufficient to make a fair minded person wonder about the propriety of the theory that "all" so-called human beings descend from Adam.

Different Races of Men As Created by The CREATOR

Most modern people choose to believe that a homogeneous Adam and Eve were the parents of the huge number of different varieties of people on earth today (ranging from White to Yellow, to Brown, to Red and to Black with thousands of other variations). Of course, it is totally impossible for two homogeneous persons to produce this variety (since kind must reproduce kind per the Scriptures). If Adam and Eve were different racially, they would breed/reproduce toward uniformity and not diversity.

The truth is that there are at least four and possibly five separate major races in the world today which can reproduce (white, black, red, yellow-brown/yellow and brown). We find a similar situation with even animals--like in the canine family where there are hundreds of varieties; all the way from different dogs to wild dogs, wolves, coyotes, hyena, foxes, etc. These are all different and were created differently although man can pen-up the wild ones and forcibly mix them with dogs to produce new breeds of canines.

But these manmade mixing actions are totally contrary to the Scriptures and are absolutely illegal (see Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11--which make genetic engineering totally illegal). Thus, it is wrong to take two different created kinds of animals, birds, seeds or whatever, and to cross or mix them, although such reproductions are fully possible.

In Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11, the issue has to be focusing upon species which physically can cross and reproduce and not on two kinds that cannot cross, although this later situation would also be covered when men try to make such reproductions--as for example, in a chicken with a turkey.

Clearly, the issue in YHWH’s law involves man's rebellious efforts to cross kinds that can physically cross, as in the canine family or other groupings. The fact that YHWH stated that law suggests that its primary focus has to be on species which could sexually cross and reproduce offspring. If the different kinds could not cross (like a chicken with a fox or a chicken with a rat), there would seemingly be no point in having this law.

Back to the Behemah and Chaiyah

Now, let’s go back to the words behemah and chaiyah. As noted earlier, these terms cover a huge number of created species in families of either domesticated life forms or wild, non-domesticated life forms. The amazing thing is that the humanoid forms of the behemah and chaiyah can breed and reproduce with the Adam kind (although this is illegal and contrary to the Torah, as noted above).

A classic case of a very racially mixed person is the situation with US President Obama. He is ostensibly one-half White. At least his mother was essentially a White Irish woman. Her father was supposed to be White but suggestions have arisen that he was actually a Khazar Jew in ancestry.

Obama’s father was actually half Arab and half Negro. This makes Obama a mix of about ¼ each of Irish White, Khazar Jew, Brown Arab and Black Negro peoples. If these four races were to mix over time, they would produce a mongrel racial group of people who very much would look like Obama.

In the case of the behemah, there is a classic Scripture which predicts that this mixing will happen. It is Jer 31:27 which says that the days will come when the House of Israel and House of Judah will mix with the seed of man (the Heb Adam) and the seed of beast (Heb behemah). See also Lev 18:23, Jer 2:21 and Dan 2:43. Chaiyah is more complicated but the story is mixing is present in the Word.

Here are just a few of the many Scriptures which prove conclusively that the behemah walked upright, talked and did mix/miscegenate with the Adam kind--Ex 9:9-11, 20-21; 12:38; 19:12-13; 22:19; Lev 18:23; 20:15-16, 25; Num 11:4-6; Job 35:11; Ps 36:5-6; Neh 13:3; Jer 7:20; 21:6; 27:6; 31:27-30; Ezek 29:11, 16; Jonah 3:5-10; Joel 1:18, II Pet 2:12; Jude 1:10; etc. As Jonah 3:4-10 proves, the behemah can sin, fast, pray and bear moral responsibility for sin.

There are also a host of Scriptures which suggest or allow that the chaiyah classification includes some humanoid beings that can walk upright, talk and cross with Adamites. On this, see Gen 3:14; Ex 23:29; Num 16:30-38; 35:3; Deut 7:22; II Kg 14:9; II Chron 6:31; 25:18; Job 5:22-23; 12:10; 28:13; 28:21; Ps 50:10; 68:30; Isa 35:9; 43:20; 46:1; 56:9; Jer 12:9; 27:6; 28:14; Ezek 14:15, 21; 32:4; 34:25, 28; Dan 8:4; Hos 2:18.

Besides the Adamites, the behemah humanoids and the chaiyah humanoids, there is a fourth racial type of man that is totally separate from the others. This one will be addressed in Gen 3-4. The four major blood types of man (O, A1, A2 and B) will be covered in Gen 10.

It is prudent to make mention here of the fact that from an anthropological point of view, there seems to be at least three primary or major races of man on this globe. These three are: White (Caucasoid), Black (Negroid) and Red (Mongoloid).

The “Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee” (p. 10) says for Gen 1 that in the creation of man, “the Lord Elohim took dust from the place of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him white, red, and black.”

The Physical Adam

A further, lengthy study of the meaning of the word Adam can also be very revealing. Since Adam indeed came from the ground or soil (as is true with other forms of life which are conceived, grow and exist from the atomic structure and chemicals in the soil), this tells us exactly what he was/is made out of.

The “Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament” (v. 1, p. 78-79) seems to etymologically connect Adam to the “skin” and “to be red” --in the sense that after washing the new born Adamic baby, the normal human color is a reddish brown (the bringing of redness to the surface of the skin occurs when washing, rubbing or pinching the new born Adamic baby).

To help clarify what is involved, a thorough study will eventually lead a person to conclude that the best explanation for Adam is to bring red to face--to blush (as several scholars have indicated--see “Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary,” # 119, 120 and 121, per Dan Gayman of the Church of Israel). Find some so-called human being who can blush and you have found Adam.

This definition for Adam makes it clear that he was the White man in the creation. His descendants are often referred to as being fair and white (as will be covered later herein). It is easy to review the factors associated with the behemah humanoids and see at once that they formed the Black race at creation. The Mongoloid or Red race arose from the chaiyah creation. But there was also a fourth racial type—the Yellow-Brown race. It will be addressed in Gen 3-4.

For a complete comprehensive address on the subject of the behemah and chaiyah humanoids which can and have crossed with Adamite beings, the reader may check vol 8, on Man, in Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People at www.age-end.com.

Trees of Life and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

While the Garden had physical trees which could also mean men, Verse 9 specifically mentions a tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil. While these trees may be interpreted differently and may include more than one interpretation or application, the primary interpretation and meaning of these two trees is quite profound in its own right.

There seems to be still one more profound purpose of YHWH in His creation. This one surfaced in the Word in a very unique statement by Satan when he said that by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam would become like The ELOHIM, knowing good from evil (see also Gen 3:5).

As The SOVEREIGN went on to confirm that statement, it clearly is true. Yes, by partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam can become like YHWH (Gen 3:22). In other words, Adam can learn (so he will categorically know, understand and comprehend) the differences between good and evil by eating from this particular tree.

Without spending the needed time on this theme (since it would require a complete book on its own merits), the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are both fairly quite simple and can be basically outlined in a minimum of remarks.

According to Jewish tradition, the tree of life was YHWH’s law (the Torah); which, if a man takes hold of and obeys, receives life (actually earns by works, as happened with YESHUA--Lev 18:5; Deut 5:33; 11:27; 28:1-14; 30:11-20; Neh 9:29; Prov 4:20-22; Ezek 18:5-9, 19, 21; 20:11-21; 33:12-19; Matt 19:17; Rom 2:13; 10:5; Gal 3:12; I Jo 2:3; Rev 22:1-17).

In fact, at weekly Jewish synagogue services, the Torah is described as “A tree of life for those who take hold of it, and blessed are the ones who support it. Its ways are ways of pleasantness, and all its paths are peace. Long life is in its right hand, in its left are riches and honor. The Lord was pleased for the sake of this righteousness, to render the Torah great and glorious” (Oct 2002 “Yavoh He is Coming,” p. 4).

To this recognition, this writer would just add that the tree of life implies rote learning of right and wrong which is certainly inherent in the Scriptures.

Therefore, a person doesn’t have to wonder about or question the wisdom of the various commandments and laws communicated by The SUPREME (in the Torah and as amplified and clarified in the other OT writings and in the NT presentations). In effect, followers of The MOST HIGH are told in clear words of what constitutes right and wrong or good and evil.

By rote teaching and learning methods, people in authority can pass instructions on to their subjects. Historically, in America, the education of children and young persons was traditionally done by the rote method of declaring believed truth (by parents and older persons).

The learners were expected to absorb the teachings and put them into effect in their lives without question as proven and established truths. That’s how students used to learn their multiplication tables long ago (no longer since the 1950s).

But there is another method of learning which has gained acceptance in the USA--primarily, since WWII, because of the work of educator John Dewey to promote it. This one is predicated upon learning by experience and/or by trial and error. In other words, the student is taught that there is an absence of absolutes in terms of reality.

The student can learn right and wrong (good and evil) through a trial and error proposition (the empirical method). And that’s precisely what all is involved in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

On the one hand, Adamites have been told or rather can be instructed about YHWH’s marvelous Torah and what all constitutes right and wrong by rote methods (from the Word). This is precisely the tree of life if we humans would but accept it. One can be told (commanded in the Torah) and through obedience will be blessed with happiness and prosperity for having obeyed.

Conversely, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil entails a process whereby so-called human beings partake of and undergo life on the premise of no right and wrong, but that right and wrong is established (learned) through doing our own thing in experiencing life (typically by disobeying YHWH’s mitzwot).

We Receive Bad Teachings

While it would be simply easy for parents, religious leaders, secular bosses, and others in the entire society and culture to teach, advocate and promote the obedience of YHWH’s mitzwot in all circumstances, that’s not the way it works--certainly not today and evidently never really in the past.

In today’s world, almost everyone in authority is totally opposed to YHWH’s mitzwot in the Torah and spends his or her entire time working against the Torah’s teachings and instructions. Virtually everyone in society matures in an absolute case of rebellion in his heart for the mitzwot that define righteousness.

It is no easy proposition for people in absolute rebellion and indeed in gross ignorance to immediately decide to start obeying mitzwot that they not only have spent a lifetime of rebellion over, but even not really understanding the implications of the mitzwot.

Manifestly, it takes a learning process and much trial and error to ever begin to place these mitzwot in one’s heart, mind and attitude as a way of life--which is the essence of the eventual New/Renewed Covenant with Yisrael (as discussed in detail in the New Testament).

Thenceforth, there are two aspects of this learning by the empirical method of trial and error. First, all of us are in the learning process, whether we know it and understand it presently or not.

Someday, when we have an opportunity (in this life if the gift of repentance is granted to us in the flesh in the here and now or in a future resurrection in the World to Come if we have to wait until then), we all will be able to see our mistakes and where we went wrong. We can look back and understand that based upon experience, we could have done some things differently.

And secondly, we can thus see, evaluate and understand the difference and contrast between obedience and disobedience of YAH’s mitzwot. When we can look back and evaluate, contemplate and think about these differences and what might have been if we had done things differently, we truly learn what righteousness is all about. However, we learn the hard way.

Years ago, a friend of this writer quoted a famous little adage which says-- “Experience is a dear school and fools will learn from no other.” This lesson is extremely valuable for all of us. Somehow, if our teachers from our birth had pointed us in the right direction, maybe things would be different.

The Better Approach

Hence, The All Wise ELOHIM has specifically charted out the learning by experience or trial and error method over rote learning (obviously, the school of experience proves to be the better approach and particularly in the vein of freedom of choice and the building of real character and righteousness).

Yes, even for the election called in this age, who will have to learn to distinguish between obedience or disobedience (truth and error, righteousness or sin), the path of experience ultimately works out for good (of course, all things do work for good in the lives of the election chosen for salvation in this age of the flesh—per Rom 8:28).

Experience even works for good when an elected person is working and striving to obey but slips and falls occasionally (as in the case of chet sins). This whole process is just like a small baby or child learning about life. When a small child first begins to walk, the child may slip and fall occasionally. But all of this is necessarily a part of the learning process.

As a child develops and matures, the child will make many mistakes (like putting his finger on a hot iron or stove or doing something else which will evoke a whipping from a loving parent). But these mistakes are necessary for the learning process to reach fruition. Yes, we will ultimately learn from our mistakes. In other words, life is a process of trial and error learning--and even for the election that are chosen for salvation.

Regardless of whether the learning process is carried on with understanding or not, the fact remains that ultimately it works for good in all persons. In all cases, we can at some point in time look back and evaluate, compare and mediate upon the differences between obedience and disobedience.

This ability may not happen to all of Adam in the flesh in this life (that is for Adamic people not in the election); but assuredly, it will happen at some point in time for all Adamites before they are granted the gift of life for the World to Come.

In the case of the election of this age (to be later defined), they will learn and come to appreciate that this life has been a learning process for them (thus, they are disciples because in the Hebrew mentality, a disciple is a learner). They will come to a proper realization and understanding of the contrast between obedience and disobedience in this life and age.

Therefore, the process of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ultimately will prove to be the best process of all. This writer has been an utter fool to have rejected the mitzwot of the Torah. But at least, this knowledge and understanding has been slowly coming to me via the hard way (the school of hard knocks, experience).

Classic Illustrations

Thus, The HIGHEST says that Adamites are not to eat fat, blood, pork, dogs, catfish (the bad fish of Matt 13:48) and certain other species of life. To accept those food mitzwot without question and merely proceed to obey them involve partaking of the tree of life. But to ignore them and go ahead and eat whatever one wants to eat involves partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Of course, diet affects health. People who obey YHWH’s food and environmental laws are blessed. Those who do not obey must ultimately pay the price (themselves or in their children) in sickness and poor health. Therefore, there is a clear linkage between YHWH’s various laws and having health or sickness.

Marriage, sex and divorce are more examples. Men can be taught right and wrong and choose to obey with the resulting happiness and blessings of life. Or men can ignore YHWH’s Torah and decide to experiment on their own in sex, marriage and divorce and reap the resulting harvest of sorrow, unhappiness and trouble.

Since the flesh can be awful enticing and desirable, an Adamite man wanting a woman can easily look upon a female behemah or a nokri/nekar stranger and decide to seduce her or perhaps even go ahead and marry her (actually, this is what Esau did when he profaned his own seed-line, as described in Gen 36 and Heb 12:16). Adamite women often give themselves up to the behemah.

Miscegenation is defined as sin in YHWH’s Word (as will be established in later comments herein). Therefore, to disobey YHWH’s mitzwot on the theme of sex will invite the certainty of punishment. Manifestly, mamzer offspring (which cannot fit into the world of Adamites or the behemah) are a curse (as will be proven in the later comments discussing the subject of miscegenation and the created orders).

Assuredly, Esau paid a price and so will other Adamite men and women who decide to go ahead and partake of strange flesh (by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), in defiance The ETERNAL’s wonderful mitzwot.

While the punishment will be severe for disobedience (both in this life and in the hereafter), it is most tragic for the woman who contaminates (by telegony) her own blood line and bears the resulting mamzer children (the reality of telegony will be discussed in Gen 4).

Divorce is a classic illustration of how bad it is to ignore The ELOHIM’s mitzwot in preference to experimenting on our own. YHWH says He hates divorce (illegal divorce, to be discussed later--Mal 2:16). Divorce is not good and this statement is being made fully realizing that YHWH’s Torah not only provides for divorce (Deut 24:1-4), but seems to require it in those instances where the woman commits adultery (yes, YHWH divorced the fornicating Yisrael).

Yes, Learning From the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Therefore, men learn through the experience of adhering to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In short, Adam has learned and will learn from experiencing sin (as hard as that road is to travel). Yes, it is unbelievable that the practice of sin will produce understanding and learning. But that’s the way it is in the Book.

So while we all (and this includes this writer, as well as every other person who has ever lived and reached a level of some maturity) have chosen and do choose to follow and pursue the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (and become sinners, since we have and do disobey The MOST HIGH whenever we strike out on our own in opposition to His Torah), we tragically have learned and benefited intellectually from the empirical process.

What a paradox this whole thing is. On the one hand, we could (but won’t and don’t) obey and benefit from the wisdom and intelligence of The HIGHEST YHWH (and receive life). But on the other hand, we can disobey and choose to follow our own inclinations to learn the same truth the hard way--by experience.

But is there a difference in the quality of the learning? Probably, the answer is yes since The HIGHEST has created the two trees--fully realizing that all Adamites would choose to experience life. If Adamites would have accepted truth by the rote method of learning and obeying His Torah, then possibly many persons would have often wondered about whether they made the right decision or not.

Thus, does obedience of YAH’s Torah really grant (us) life, happiness, prosperity, etc? Since the world has seen a 6,000-year history of Adamites choosing to experience life, by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the whole creation has learned and is learning the wisdom and truth of YHWH’s Torah which we all should have been obeying by rote methods from the beginning.

The prophet Yeshayahu/Isaiah put it wonderfully well by stating “butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good” (Isa 7:15) and that YHWH “will make man more precious than fine gold, even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir” (Isa 13:12).

That’s the reality of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--to learn to refuse the evil and to choose good; and thus, be refined like fine gold.

2:10

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

V. 2:10. This seems to describe a river watering the Garden with four branches. Some readers have taken this to be a river which divides into four parts or the headwaters of four rivers which come out of a single source.

2:11

The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

2:12

And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

V. 2:11-12. Very early, gold was something good and seemingly something to be desired.

2:13

And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

2:14

And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

V. 2:10-14. The river(s) involved seem to come out of the watershed of Eden to water the Garden in the eastern side of Eden. Thus, it could be that the watershed of the four rivers stated constitutes the overall land of Eden. British archaeologist David Rohl describes the Garden as being in a walled valley (to be discussed in Gen 4:16). There is reason to believe that that description applies. The Garden was along the Euphrates which must have cut a deep valley as it flowed toward the Gulf/ocean.

Otherwise the stupidity of modern evolutionary thinking on the origin of man is not being addressed specifically here; but its absurdity should be kept in mind. It is important here to compare this prevailing scientific thinking of the great minds of modern man with what actually occurred.

Per the Scriptures, man and certainly a part of the rest of YHWH’s (re)creation, centered not in Africa at all (as modern scientists stupidly believe); but rather, in the Middle East--in the area of the Euphrates River (in modern Iraq) and three other rivers which are still partially unidentified. The record seems to say that the watershed of these four rivers emptied into a great valley or garden to water it and make it an Eden paradise.

E. T. Tennyson, in “Unspeakable Words” (p. 45-50), offers this conclusion and goes on to note that the word Eden means “the pleasant valley in which they lived.” Tennyson then went on to outline where he thinks those four rivers flowed. It is not hard to see that the Euphrates flowed on south into the Persian Gulf (or ocean before Noah’s flood)

Hiddekel is one of the rivers and some scholars tie it to the Tigris which parallels the Euphrates before finally joining it just before emptying into the Persian Gulf (Gen 2:14). Tennyson suggests at creation, all four rivers flowed into the Gulf area or ocean. The Euphrates is the primary one with the other three joining the Euphrates before it reaches the Garden. This theory has enormous support, as will be established in later comments.

While the Tigris does today join the Euphrates before the Euphrates empties into the Gulf, it is not farfetched at all to allow that at one time both rivers emptied much further below (south) in the present Persian Gulf area. Rivers can change course over the years and it is possible that in the post-flood environment, the Tigris changed slightly to link up with the Euphrates up river from where it once emptied.

The Pison River flows through the land of Havilah (which is thought to be the Arabian Peninsula, where Havilah, son of Cush, settled and/or illegally seized). The fourth river, the Gihon flows at the length of the land of Cush/Ethiopia and around the Arabian Peninsula. To understand the situation with the Gihon, it must be recognized that in Noah’s pre-flood days the earth’s land mass was in a singular pattern with one continent as discussed in Gen 1:9-10. As noted earlier, Australia and Antarctica were attached to the southern part of Asia.

Since the water level of the oceans was lower, the now Red Sea was much lower than it is today. Thus, starting at the Sea of Reeds (or Sea of Seaweeds), on the east side of Egypt, the Gihon River flowed south by the land of Cush/Ethiopia and turned east at the Horn of Africa to pass around the Arabian Peninsula (the land of Havilah) and flow between Australia/Antarctica and Asia over to the Euphrates at some point above the Garden of Eden which must have been in the Euphrates valley (which is now under water in the Persian Gulf).

By the way, it should be noted that this ancient land of Eden became the land grant by YHWH to Avraham in his day. As a matter of fact, the Shemites settled this area after the flood (which will be discussed in Gen 6-9). Very quickly, in time, after the flood, the Hamites started a number of illegal invasions to take over this land of Shem/Arphaxad.

First, Nimrod, the son of Cush, established Babel (Babylon) in the territory belonging to Arphaxad in the Southern Euphrates valley. Next, Havilah, a son of Cush, seized the Arabian Peninsula. Soon, the Canaanites encroached on the western part of the grant near the Mediterranean. And soon, the Philistine descendants of Mizraim settled along the coast of Canaan in the present Gaza area. By the time of Avraham, Arphaxad had lost all of his territory. The grant to Avraham would later reaffirm it.

2:15

And the LORD God took the man (Heb Adam), and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

2:16

And the LORD God commanded the man (Heb Adam), saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat (Heb akal):

2:17

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat (Heb akal) of it: for in the day that thou eatest (Heb akal) thereof thou shalt surely die.

V. 2:17. To eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil brings on the death penalty because of the occurrence of sin. This is proof positive that souls can die. Thus, there is no such thing as an immortal soul. Souls of men, fish, birds and all other life forms can and do die.

2:18

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man (Heb Adam) should be alone; I will make him an help meet (Heb ezer) for him.

V. 2:18. The Hebrew ezer comes from azar, meaning to surround, protect or aid.

2:19

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast (Heb chaiyah) of the field (Heb sadeh), and every fowl (Heb oph) of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living (Heb chai) creature (Heb nephesh), that was the name thereof.

2:20

And Adam gave names to all cattle (Heb behemah), and to the fowl (Heb oph) of the air, and to every beast (Heb chaiyah) of the field (Heb sadeh); but for Adam there was not found an help meet (Heb ezer) for him.

2:21

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs (Heb tsela), and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

2:22

And the rib (Heb tsela), which the LORD God had taken from man (Heb Adam), made he a woman (Heb ishshah), and brought her unto the man (Heb Adam).

2:23

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman (Heb ishshah), because she was taken out of Man (Heb ish).

V 2:21-23. Ishshah more correctly means wife and not the generic woman. Ish means husband.

While Adam was made from the dust of the ground, the woman comes in some fashion from man (via a miraculous event from The CREATOR). The Hebrew tsela is confusing but might mean a chamber, organ, cell or seed (per E. T. Tennyson in the Serpent’s Belly). Just as man produces seed to create his offspring, maybe the original ishshah came from a seed or cell extracted from Adam.

One of the tragic realities of our time is the presence of numbers of so-called males/men who decide to wear extremely long hair. Sometimes, at distance, one can have a problem is deciding whether the long hair belongs to a woman or a man. This problem has also affected traditional Christianity which routinely tries to paint the NT YESHUA with long effeminate hair. The truth the painters never saw The MESSIAH and are painting a picture of what they want Him to look like and not what He does look like.

As a number of students of the Word have come to realize, this long hair look for males has its basis in the effeminate Satan in that he seems to have chosen to wear long hair as a symbol of pride, vanity and rebellion against The ELOHIM. Thus, long hair on a male has come to mean effeminacy, rebellion and anarchy. Conversely, long hair on a woman is a beautiful and desirable attribute.

In the “Last Warning to Man,” writer James Griffin noted this paradox and concluded that with Satan’s rebellion and long hair, The CREATOR created a feminine woman (with her beautiful, long hair) in the image of the effeminate Satan with his rebellious long hair.

Thus, an obedient and faithful woman shows her submission and humility to man (her head) by being feminine and wearing long hair, contrary to how the effeminate Satan had been rebellious and proud with his long hair.

Of course, there are fundamental differences between feminine females and effeminate males. In other words, woman is quite beautiful and proper with her long hair, symbolic of humility, submission and obedience, while the supposedly masculine Satan is a pervert or queer with his rebellious, long hair.

There are profound reasons to belief that most or all of the Christian pictures and representations of the long-haired, effeminate “Jesus” are nothing more than presentations of the pervert Satan (as painted or copied from Satan’s look-alike and early preacher and spokesman, Apollonius, an early first century CE writer who wrote much on the Greek sun worship religion and its ties to Christianity).

2:24

Therefore shall a man (Heb ish) leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife (Heb ishshah): and they shall be one flesh.

2:25

And they were both naked (Heb arom), the man (Heb Adam) and his wife (Heb ishshah), and were not ashamed.

Chapter 3

3:1

Now the serpent (Heb Nachash) was more subtle (Heb arum) than any beast (Heb chaiyah) of the field (Heb sadeh) which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman (Heb ishshah), Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat (Heb akal) of every tree of the garden?

V. 3:1. Here, the serpent is an attempted translation of the Hebrew, proper noun name of Nachash, which means “to hiss like a snake” (see I Sam 11:1-2; 12:12 for an Ammonite king so named). The Scriptures regularly associate the serpent with Satan and his presence in Eden and contact with Eve. Thus, in Gen 3, one is dealing with a humanoid being who talks and walks upright on two legs (Satan does both--Job 2:2).

Also, it is appropriate to note that the Hebrew word arom/arum (which correctly means naked) appears at Gen 2:25 to describe both Adam and Eve’s evidently whole nude condition. As William F. Dankenbring notes, this word arom (the cognate arum) is also used to describe the serpent’s condition (translated as subtle in the KJV) in Gen 3:1 (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 60).

Dankenbring indicates that arom actually comes from a root word meaning smooth or slick (like in the case of Slick Willy Clinton). It describes the smooth or slick skin condition in a state of nakedness.

The Word “Humanoid”

Having used this word “humanoid” in this commentary for Nachash and the behemah and chaiyah, it should now be addressed in terms of its usage herein.

The 1984 “Webster’s New World Dictionary” (p. 682) says that a humanoid is (1) nearly human in appearance or characteristics; (2) any of the earliest ancestors of modern man; or (3) a science fiction usage of a creature from another planet. Certainly, item 2 defines Nachash and the behemah and chaiyah as will be proven later herein. More recent dictionaries now generally identify humanoids with human-like beings from other planets.

These definitions are to be contrasted with a hominid, which means all forms of primates (per Webster’s, p. 672); and/or a hominoid, which means an animal that appears to be human (per Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 307).

In this study at hand, this writer has faced the problem of having to refer to non-Adamic beings which have been accepted as human beings for vast centuries (though there is manifestly a clear distinction between the Adam kind and the other created beings that are called and thought to be human beings).

Perhaps the problem really is that dictionaries without exception talk about a “human race,” as if the different races exist in the framework of one overall human race (but this thinking is totally contrary to reality and the Scriptures, as conclusively proven herein).

Tragically, for civilization, Christendom has ignorantly and wrongly promoted this one race of man idea as a part of Christian theology--in the context of the alleged “brotherhood of man” (which thinking comes directly from the old sun worship cults--as is discussed at some length later herein).

3:2

And the woman (Heb ishshah) said unto the serpent (Heb Nachash), We may eat (Heb akal) of the fruit (Heb peri) of the trees of the garden:

3:3

But of the fruit (Heb peri) of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat (Heb akal) of it, neither shall ye touch (Heb naga) it, lest ye die.

V. 3:3. Here Gen 3:3 uses the Hebrew “naga” (translated as touch in the KJV) which plainly indicates lying with a woman--as at Gen 20:6 and Lev 15:19.

3:4

And the serpent (Heb Nachash) said unto the woman (Heb ishshah), Ye shall not surely die:

V. 3:4. Here, the serpent Nachash becomes the father of the lie as the Scriptures elsewhere describe him.

3:5

For God doth know that in the day ye eat (Heb akal) thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

V. 3:5. In a strange paradoxical way, this is partially true. By eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam man can know the difference between good and evil. Thus, can he then become like The ELOHIM in knowing the difference between good and evil?

Also here, the word gods is from elohim, the same word used to refer to The CREATOR. Elohim is the plural form of ELOAH which is first used at Deut 13:15. A full discussion of the different forms of EL, ELOAH and ELOHIM will be made at Gen 14:18.

3:6

And when the woman (Heb ishshah) saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant (Heb taavah) to the eyes, and a tree to be desired (Heb chamad) to make one wise, she took of the fruit (Heb peri) thereof, and did eat (Heb akal), and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (Heb akal).

V. Gen 3:2-6. The word fruit comes from the Hebrew “peri” (its root is “parah”), which means to “bear fruit, bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase” (per “Strong’s”). Obviously, this definition can cover children. For ages, the words and ideas associated with fruit have had sexual implications. To this day, a person’s virginity is linked to the word “cherry.” Too, the words desired and pleasant (in Gen 3:6, the Hebrew “chamad” and “taavah”) both suggest a longing desire and lust (per “Strong’s”).

Please note that just as the woman partook of the illegal fruit/peri (or the case can be made that Nachash partook of the woman’s fruit), so did Adam.

The Early Chronology of Sin

The early chapters of Genesis seem to lay out the sequence of events affecting Adam and Eve. The couple was created on the sixth day of creation week (Gen 1:27). Probably their marriage was consummated that day. The next day, the Seventh day Sabbath, The ELOHIM spoke to them and gave them His Torah. It’s probable that Satan’s preaching/instructions on sex came to them on the next day--Sunday (Gen 3:1).

Satan’s seduction of Eve (Gen 3:6) likely occurred during his Sunday preaching effort. At some point in time, thereafter (either immediately, just after Satan finished with her, or later in time), Adam did the same thing when he, too, surely partook of Eve’s fruit (Gen 3:6; 4:1)--which clearly was illegal in view of YAH’s Torah (Deut 24:1-4).

Though it would seem that indeed Adam did partake of her fruit, after Satan finished with her, the wording of Gen 3:6 may possibly open the door that both Adam and Eve partook of Satan’s fruit--allowing that perhaps Satan seduced Eve and then engaged in a homosexual act with Adam. This writer is not suggesting that the first homosexual act took place then. But this possibility must be put on the table.

Based on the later birth of Cain and Able, the better option is that Adam partook of the woman’s fruit after Satan finished with her.

3:7

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked (Heb erom); and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

3:8

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife (Heb ishshah) hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

3:9

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

3:10

And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked (Heb erom); and I hid myself.

3:11

And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked (Heb erom)? Hast thou eaten (Heb akal) of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat (Heb akal)?

3:12

And the man (Heb Adam) said, The woman (Heb ishshah) whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat (Heb akal).

V. 3:12. Here Adam is caught in his evil. So what does he do? He blames his wife and then follows up by blaming The ELOHIM WHO gave her to him.

3:13

And the LORD God said unto the woman (Heb ishshah), What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent (Heb Nachash) beguiled (Heb nasha) me, and I did eat (Heb akal).

V. 3:13. Beyond the previously cited evidence of the ability of Adamites to sexually cross with the behemah and chaiyah, this story in Gen 3:13 says that the “serpent” beguiled or seduced Eve. Most Christians would argue to their death that Satan here (in the form of a snake) talked Eve into stealing an apple or some other piece of fruit from a fruit tree.

No! The evidence is considerably different than this children’s story. The incident involving Satan and Eve was sex. This reality is conclusively proven from the Word. Actually, no other option is plausible.

Thus, as the Greek New Testament plainly communicates, Satan sexually seduced Eve (II Cor 11:2-3; I Tim 2:13-14). This seduction is likewise brought out in the Hebrew word “nasha” (meaning to “delude or [morally] to seduce,” per “Strong’s”) as used for the seduction in Gen 3:13.

The word eat in Gen 3:1-13 comes from the Hebrew “akal” which means “to eat (lit. or fig.) at all, burn up, consume, devour, dine, eat, feed, food, freely, in...wise, (lay) meat, quite” (per “Strong’s”). Though this definition points to eating food, it does allow for sex (to lay). This same word is used in Prov 30:20 where sex is implied.

Finally, just as Adam blamed others for his sin, the woman followed suit and blamed Nachash.

3:14

And the LORD God said unto the serpent (Heb Nachash), Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle (Heb behemah), and above every beast (Heb chaiyah) of the field (Heb sadeh); upon thy belly (Heb gachown) shalt thou go, and dust Heb aphar) shalt thou eat (Heb akal) all the days of thy life:

V. 1:14. Here, the curse stipulates that this serpent humanoid (and evidently his progeny as well) is destined to move upon his belly and eat dust (as most English translations give it). It deserves some analysis--since this explanation suits neither humanoids or snakes (snakes do not eat dust, soil or earth, but life sources like flesh and eggs).

In “The Serpent’s Belly” (p. 11), E. T. Tennyson correctly points out that the word “belly” comes from the Hebrew “gachown” which Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” defines as labor to issue forth on a set course, like a river or stream (per Strong’s # 1512, 1518, 1821). Hence, Tennyson says gachown means the set course or life’s work which Satan was thereafter destined to do (correctly, as a prosecutor in service of YHWH).

Finally, the descendants of Nachash (which will be discussed in Gen 4) are to eat of the dust of the ground just as this sentence is placed on Adam in Gen 3:15-19.

3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed (Heb zera) and her seed (Heb zera); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Heb eqeb).

V. 3:15. Here the text specifically mentions both the seed of the woman and the seed of Nachash. In both instances, seed comes from the Hebrew “zera” which categorically refers to progeny (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 853). Thus, the connotation on sex is present throughout Gen 3.

As Dan Gayman points out in his 1977 book, “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15” (p. 14), to correctly believe that the woman produced a seedline (as she did, and as most Christians believe) demands a recognition that Satan likewise produced a seedline (which generic Christendom refuses to accept). To be consistent, seed in both places must be interpreted in the same way (in contrast to inconsistent Christianity).

3:16

Unto the woman (Heb ishshah) he 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.

V. 1:16. There should be no doubt here. The CREATOR ordained that the husband Adam shall rule over the woman who must be in subjection to her husband. When a people violate this edict, it spells disaster to the people (Isa 3:12).

3:17

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife (Heb ishshah), and hast eaten (Heb akal) of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat (Heb akal) of it: cursed is the ground (Heb adamah) for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat (Heb akal) of it all the days of thy life;

3:18

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat (Heb akal) the herb of the field (Heb sadeh);

3:19

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat (Heb akal) bread (Heb lechem), till thou return unto the ground (Heb adamah); for out of it wast thou taken: for dust (Heb aphar) thou art, and unto dust (Heb aphar) shalt thou return.

V. 3:17-19. Like Gen 1:29, these verses seem to allow that Adam is to be an herbivore. But like the earlier comments, one must examine all the relevant Scriptures on a subject to determine truth.

The eating of dust, dirt or soil was thus a part of the punishment upon Adam, in that he was to eat of the ground or soil in the context of vegetables, grains, nuts and fruits grown from the soil (Gen 3:17-19). Now, while Adam (assuredly Israelites of the Adam kind) was specifically given the option of eating some clean meats in the Torah, the truth remains that plant and tree foods have always remained the primary food staples for Adam.

Positively, this eating of the soil or from the soil also addresses the seedline of Satan, as well as that of Adam. This same punishment (of eating from the soil) was placed upon the descendants of Nachash as discussed in Gen 3:14.

3:20

And Adam called his wife's (Heb ishshah) name Eve (Heb Chawwah); because she was the mother of all living.

v. 3:20. Hawwah or Chawwah means life giver. This text in the KJV seems to suggest that Eve was the mother of all living (people). This can be translated in different ways. The word “all” is wrong and thus she was the mother of (some) living people—but not all living people. This reality is conclusively proven in Gen 4.

3:21

Unto Adam also and to his wife (Heb ishshah) did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

V. 3:21. While literally this text says that YHWH provided coats of skins to clothe Adam and his wife (which must be accepted as true since it makes perfect sense), there likely is more to it in the allegorical sense. Did YHWH offer a sacrifice of clean animal(s) for them (this shedding of blood was a covering for their sins)? For sure, the slain animals also provided the skins used for the physical clothing? Yes, sin requires a blood sacrifice. Surely, this was the first one which probably was done by YHWH or His representative for the sins of Adam and Eve.

3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man (Heb 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 (Heb akal), and live for ever:

3:23

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

3:24

So he drove out the man (Heb Adam); and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

V. 3:24. Adam and his wife were driven from the Garden and a seal was placed at its gate on its eastern side. Probably, Adam and his wife settled near the Garden along the eastern side of the Euphrates. Perhaps later, their descendants moved up river to areas in the overall Eden watershed of the four rivers.

Chapter 4

4:1

And Adam knew Eve his wife (Heb ishshah); and she conceived, and bare Cain (Heb Kain or Kayin), and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD (Heb YHWH).

4:2

And she again bare his brother Abel (Heb Hevel). And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

V. 4:2. It seems almost a certainty that Eve became pregnant there in the Garden of Eden, first from Nachash and next from Adam. The birth of Cain/Kain and Abel (Gen 4:1-2) came later after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden.

A reader of the lives of Adam and Eve can easily allow that Cain and Abel were, in fact, twins (the context of Gen 4, the Targums and other ancient Jewish legends and literature allow that Cain and Abel were twins, which is a strong possibility). In their conception, it seems plausible that Nachash initially seduced Eve and she became pregnant with Cain. Then she next became pregnant with Abel from Adam.

Can a woman get pregnant with twins from two different men? Yes, it has happened on occasion in recorded history. It becomes evident in situations involving Caucasian prostitutes who are with both a Black man and a White man on the same day.

When the twins are born, one can be an obvious Negro while the other is White. This writer has seen newspaper pictures of such births together with background statements of the woman’s prostitution to produce the resulting different children.

There is another possibility on this subject which is brought out in Gen 4:1 that the KJV gives as Adam knew Eve (for sure, sexually). Most Christians automatically assume that the pregnancy with Cain happened when Adam knew her. However there are problems with this text.

The “Soncino Chumash” (p. 17) gives the correct reading here in the sense that Adam “had known” (Eve) before he was expelled from the garden. Richard Elliott Friedman “Commentary on the Torah” (p. 26) text for Genesis gives Gen 4:1 as “had known.”

Since Adam and Eve were expelled after this first sin, it might be that he knew her when they consummated their marriage on the 6th or 7th days of creation week (and preceding her seduction by Satan, as probably happened on the next Sunday). Possibly this is what the first part of Genesis 4:1 says in context.

Alternatively, the case can be made that after Satan finished with Eve, Adam too partook of her fruit (as can be the explanation here, per the above discussion). The point here is that perhaps Adam did “know” her both before and after her sex with Satan. Thus, Gen 4:1 with its “had known” might just be a general remark on reality. Anyway, it provides a clear disconnect between when he knew her and when she became pregnant.

More from Ancient Judaism

In articles on angels and “Cain, Abel, and the Seduction of Eve,” writer William F. Dankenbring quotes a number of ancient Jewish authorities which establish the historic Jewish position as being that Satan seduced Eve in the garden. He quotes the Talmud as saying that the Devil copulated with Eve. The forbidden fruit was a symbol of illicit sex between Eve and Satan (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 61).

As quoted in the Sep/Oct 2000 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 3), the Talmud is very specific in saying that “For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her” (Shabbath 146e), and “...at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her” (Yevamont 103b). The Kabbalah even says that the idolatrous people of the earth are the children of the serpent which seduced Eve.

Elsewhere, Dankenbring quotes (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79) from the ancient Jewish commentary “Pirqei deR. Eliezer 21” which noted that “The serpent came unto her and she became pregnant with Cain, as it says, ‘And the man knew his wife Eve.’ What did he know? That she was already pregnant (from someone else).”

The book of IV Maccabees has some observations by a virgin woman of character who reported that the Destroyer, the deceitful serpent, did not defile the purity of her virginity (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79, quoting IV Maccabees 18:7-8).

The “Prophecy Flash” article also quoted from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip which said that Cain was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the serpent (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79, quoting the Gospel of Philip 61:5-10).

A Dankenbring quotation from the “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan” (on Gen 4:1) notes that “Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael (another name for Azazel or Satan) the (wicked) angel of YHWH and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 78).

“The Jewish Encyclopedia” (1903, v. III, p. 483-494; and 1905, v. XI, p. 69-70) states the historic Jewish position that Cain was the son of Satan and that pious men descended from Adam/Seth (“The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, p. 412).

As a minimum, the context of Gen 4 allows that Eve did not attribute Cain to Adam, The KJV of Gen 4:1 says that with the birth of Cain, Eve said “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” She certainly didn’t attribute Cain to Adam. Perhaps since Satan became the god of this world in Gen 3, maybe the woman attributed Cain to him as YHWH.

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Book of Genesis” (p. 169) gives Gen 4:1 as “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.” Of course, it is entirely reasonable to believe that Eve would have concluded that Satan was a messenger of light from YHWH (as others have done--II Cor 11:14).

A friend of this writer once pointed out that Cain was never called a son of Adam in the Scriptures (as was true with Adam’s descendants). The genealogy of Cain is always separate from that of Adam--suggesting that Cain was not a son of Adam.

Isa 14:12-18 identifies Satan/Nachash as a male humanoid (Hebrew “ish,” but not of the Adam kind). Since sexual intercourse constitutes marriage in the Scriptures, Satan’s violation of Eve made him an ish, an effective husband of Eve. Bu there is nothing linking Nachash to Adam or indicating that Adam was the father of Cain.

From the New Testament

In the NT, Cain is never linked to Adam, but is identified as being of that wicked (Greek poneros) one (I Jo 3:12). The Greek poneros is used several other times in the NT in apparent reference to the Adversary (for example--Matt 13:19; I Jo 2:13; 5:18).

In fact, this linkage of poneros to Satan is so firm that the J. B. Phillips’ translation of “The New Testament” saw fit to translate I John 3:12 as “We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil...” Phillips called him the evil one in I Jo 5:18. On this, see also Matt 23:33 and Jo 8:44. From the illegal sexual adultery, involving Nachash and Eve, the first born Cain was seemingly a product of his father, the Devil (as the New Testament asserts--I Jo 3:12).

An interesting fall out of this miscegenation was that Satan effectively attempted to reproduce himself with Kain--just as YHWH is doing in terms of Adam. William Dankenbring makes the case that Satan and the later sinning angels, to be discussed in Gen 6, in connection with the flood, all attempted to reproduce themselves by copulating with human women and getting them pregnant (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 60).

While there might could be some question about the extent that the giants inhabiting the earth affected later human beings from Adam; the behemah, the chaiyah and certainly the Kain line all survived. The descendants of Cain reflect much of Cain’s father Satan--physically, mentally, emotionally and so forth.

Later comments will focus on some of the Devil’s human/humanoid descendants who have survived over the ages to influence world history dramatically for the bad. Many of these descendants of Satan-Kain assuredly have the mind set and wickedness of their fathers.

4:3

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

V. 4:3. Positively, the eating of the soil or from the soil addressed the seedline of Satan, as well as that of Adam. This same punishment (of eating from the soil as placed on Adam) was placed upon the descendants of Nachash as discussed in Gen 3:14.

In fact, the situation with the descendant of Nachash (via Kain/Cain to be addressed in Gen 4) plainly communicates that he was an ascetic vegetarian who ate from the soil, and who apparently was devoted to animal rights (Gen 4:3). This condition is especially prevalent today in the Eastern religions found mainly in India.

This vegetarian backdrop probably prompted Kain to prepare some vegetation for an offering to YHWH rather than blood as YHWH required.

4:4

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

V. 4:4. Havel made the proper kind of offering in contrast to Kayin who ignored YHWH’s requirements and made an offering as he saw fit.

4:5

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

4:6

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

4:7

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.

4:8

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

V. 4:8. In “The End of Days” (p. 6, 249-250), Israeli author Gershom Gorenberg lays out some of the ancient Jewish traditions which have prevailed over the centuries to spur some contemplation and study of them even today in modern times.

One of the oldest traditional stories dates to about 20 CE (which puts it in the time frame of YESHUA The MESSIAH). Per Gorenberg, a debate and/or discussion arose among Jewish scholars of that day on what else could be involved in the murder of Hevel by Kayin. Several different theories (beliefs) surfaced to fuel the dialogue.

However, one of the most fascinating beliefs was put forth by Rav Levi who said that the two brothers had an argument on how they were going to divide the earth to themselves and over which brother would get Mount Moriah (the eventual Temple Mount).

While this conflict might seem far-fetched, one must remember that there is some traditional knowledge suggesting that Eden included Jerusalem and/or Palestine (as discussed elsewhere herein). Even if the Garden started or was centered in the Persian Gulf area (as outlined above), it is clear that the land of Eden was quite large and likely extended west to include Palestine (as discussed in Gen 2).

The importance of Moriah was a belief that whichever brother owned the mount would possess the key to heaven. As Levi recorded it, the argument grew intense and soon erupted into a fight between the two brothers. Ultimately, Kayin prevailed and murdered his brother Hevel.

4:9

And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

V. 4:9. After having just murdered Havel, Kain is very cocky and smart alec in trying to play games with The ELOHIM.

4:10

And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

V. 4:10. Note that the shed blood of an innocent cries out for revenge and/or justice. Since Adam was granted the governorship of earth, it was his duty to impose that justice. In the case of the murder of Hevel by Kain, this justice was not imposed. Adam failed to do his duty. Thus, anyone wanting to blame YHWH for the fact that Kain was not executed for killing Hevel must remember that Adam had the responsibility and not YHWH.

4:11

And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

V. 4:11. Note that Kain became cursed from the earth for his sin. His line of descendants thereafter would carry the same curse.

4:12

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive (Heb nua) and a vagabond Hewb nud) shalt thou be in the earth.

V. 4:11-12. Note that in the curse, both nua and nud communicate to move, be a wanderer with no roots or permanence to any part of the earth or ground. See Gen 4:24 for more of the attributes of Cain.

4:13

And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

4:14

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 (Heb nua) and a vagabond (Heb nud) in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

4:15

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

V. 4:15. Who is this whosoever that might slayeth Cain? Does this mean illegally kill Cain since Adam was the Governor of earth and likely had authority to execute Cain for his murder of Hevel?

What is the mark put on Cain. As the Cain line is responsible for the introduction of sun worship (see Gen 3:1; 4:24), could the mark of sun worship be the sign of the cross (which is done by descendants/devotees of sun worship even today as a fetish act of protection). The cross is the classic symbol of sun worship. It will be addressed in Gen 4:24.

4:16

And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

V. 4:16. Where is the land of Nod? For sure, it is east of the eastern boundary of Eden. As a minimum, this has to be in the present area of Iran (Jim Myers in the Number 8, 1999, of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 12). Myers quoted a story from the Feb 1, 1999, “Jerusalem Report” on “Paradise Found.”

This story centered on the work of British archaeologist David Rohl who says he has found the site of the Garden of Eden in a lush valley in Northern Iran. Rohl also believes that he has found the land of Nod, east of Eden. He says that today this land of Nod is called “Noqdi” (evidently east of Tabriz, Iran) While Rohl may not have the site of the Garden right, it is interesting that he has found an area in Iran which is apparently called or referred to as Noqdi which may or may not relate to the Nod of Gen 4.

Moreover, since Cain fathered a line of descendants, my take is that some of those descendants went on to other parts of Iran and eventually either India or China.

4:17

And Cain knew his wife (Heb ishshah); and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

V. 4:17. There, Kain knew his wife (if he knew her in Nod, is it not reasonable to believe that he first found her there?) and soon built a city (Gen 4:17). So, where did the wife come from whom he knew in Nod?

Some 2,000 years ago, the famous Jewish philosopher Philo (who was to become beloved by Christians) asked if it was not reasonable to ask about Cain’s wife “for there had been no birth of any one other woman since that of Eve who was formed out of the side of the man” (“Philo,” translated by F. H. Colson, p. 135).

Going on, Philo (ibid, p. 135) noted that “if any one says that Cain took his sister to wife, putting the impiety of such a connection out of the question, he will speak falsely; for Moshe represents the daughters of Adam as born late (per Gen 5:4, daughters were born to Adam after Seth--ed). What then are we to say?” Obviously, Philo had questions about the traditional beliefs which simply don’t hold water.

In view of this backdrop, the best option is that Cain found and sexually crossed with his wife in the land of Nod. Since she was not Adamic, was she a created chaiyah or behemah humanoid?

If Kain and his wife and their baby Enoch were the only humans/humanoids in the land of Nod, why did he built a city and for whom? This whole presentation in Gen 4 is very clear that Adam, Eve and Cain were not the only so-called human beings on planet earth at that time.

4:18

And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

4:19

And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

4:20

And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle (Heb miqneh).

V. 4:20. The Hebrew miqneh means something bought, i.e. property, but only live stock (from Strong’s).

4:21

And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

V. 4:21. This attachment by Jubal to musical instruments makes one be suspicious that he had some of the genes of the behemah humanoid. The behemah humanoids have natural born abilities for rhythm, dance and music.

4:22

And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

V. 4:22. Naamah is important here. Since females are not named in the Word unless they play an important role in history, Naamah was significant. Jewish tradition has it that she was the wife of either Noah or Ham. But it was impossible for her to be of Noah since he was perfect in his generations (Gen 6:9, to be discussed later). This suggests that she was the wife of Ham. A study of Ham and his descendants makes it obvious that his wife was of the line of Kain; thus Naamah makes sense (to be discussed in Gen 6-10).

4:23

And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

4:24

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

V. 4:17-24. This is the pre-flood line of Cain, which started in the land of Nod and probably spread east from there to encompass parts of India and/or China.

As noted above, the eating of the soil or from the soil in Gen 3:17-19 addresses the seedline of Satan, as well as that of Adam. In fact, the situation with Kain plainly communicates that he was an ascetic vegetarian who ate from the soil, and who apparently was devoted to animal rights (Gen 4:3). This condition is especially prevalent today in the Eastern religions in India.

The flood in Noah’s day will be addressed in Gen 6. Without getting into it now, the point must be made that it probably was not universal. Thus, it is plausible that some descendants of Kain (like in India or China) may have survived the flood. Some Mongoloids, which had crossed over from Mongolia to North America, also probably survived the flood.

In particular, some descendants of Kain mixed with Negroes in India to produce the Australoids, who were perhaps some of the earliest inhabitants of India. While some stayed in India, others migrated into the Australian continent which lay to the south of Asia in the pre-flood/pre-Peleg, one, huge continent. Of course, these Australoids could have surfaced in the immediate post flood era. But pre flood is more likely. As the continents divided (in the days of Peleg—Gen 10:25), the continent of Australia drifted south and east.

The above is a most fascinating Tanakh presentation which goes a long way in helping to identify and establish exactly who the descendants of Kayin/Kain/Cain might be in terms of history and contemporary peoples and particularly in respect to their likely linkage to the Kenites (living in the House of Yehudah), possibly to the Horites and later seemingly with the Edomites in their habitation of Petra or Sela.

The context of Gen 4:1-12 plainly communicates that early on Kayin was a tiller of the ground and that the soil initially did produce for him (Gen 4:2-3). Evidently, he was quite successful at it, as Genesis seems to suggest. Being a gardener of sorts (a vegetarian?), Cain chose to take some of his produce and offer it to YHWH as an offering in defiance of The ELOHIM’s commandments on this issue (requiring blood offerings/sacrifices).

Of course, Hevel obeyed The MOST HIGH by sacrificing an animal for a blood offering. YAH was pleased with Hevel’s offering and displeased with Cain’s offering. This angered and upset the jealous Kain so he raised up and slew his brother Hevel--evidently shedding Hevel’s blood upon the ground. Thereupon, Hevel’s shed blood cried out to YHWH for revenge.

More ties of Cain to Sin.

However, beyond the just outlined obvious, there are a couple of other remarks which are most profound. The first of these occurs when The HIGHEST tells Cain that “sin lies at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (per the KJV at Gen 4:7). Samson Raphael Hirsch’s commentary on “The Pentateuch” (v. I, p. 103) links this text to Satan’s role as tempter which is ultimately designed to allow men to master sin.

Alternatively, “The Soncino Books of the Bible” (v. I, p. 13) suggests that “Sin awaits thee (Cain), and thou wilt add more (sin) to what thou hast already committed.”

But for now, another interpretation of this text might be something along the line that Cain (and his line) has been given over to sin--because of the evil in his heart. Therefore, it might be that sin (from Satan’s temptation) shall desire the Cain line--which will actually become such experts at sin or masters of sin that they effectively control it or use it for their own evil purposes. Otherwise, maybe sin completely rules them and everything they do.

This Cain propensity for evil was brought out by the Jewish writer Philo some 2,000 years ago when he suggested that the race of the Cain line shows “a life of plotting, and cunning, and wickedness, and dissoluteness, full of passion and wickedness” (“Philo,” p. 136).

The Aug-Sep 1998 “Prophecy Flash” magazine (p. 93) quoted various legends and oral history material from the ancient “Second Book of Adam and Eve” to show that the pre-flood Cain line was guilty of much robbery, murder and sin.

The Introduction of Sex/Sun Worship

Darrell W, Conder quotes the “Jewish Encyclopedia,” which said that the Epicurean philosophers were of the school of Cain--that advocated worshipping the sensual powers (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 9). In time, this worship of sex was blended in by Cain or his descendants into popular sun worship.

Apparently, all the sun cults have included the worship of sex in some manner over the years. This evidence is most persuasive that Kain, the son of Nachash (Satan), introduced sex worship into the very earliest beginnings of false, pagan worship which quickly became sun worship (starting with Cain and/or his later descendants/in-laws--including Ham and Nimrod). In Gen 4:15, the classic symbols and rituals of sun worship are attached to Cain.

In addressing the death of YESHUA in the New Testament, discussion must be focused upon the Christian cross which has been a heathen sun worship idol from antiquity (per “The Two Babylons,” p 197, by Alexander Hislop and per “Fossilized Customs, p. 47 and 101, by Lew White).

Historically, the cross came to be a formal Christian symbol or image in 431 CE and was first used on church steeples in 586 CE (per Ralph Woodrow’s “Babylon Mystery Religion”). In background, it was a favorite image and symbol of the sun worshipper Constantine, who took over the Roman Empire c312-313 CE (thus, it probably had some Christian use this early or earlier).

But interestingly, the cross idea or symbol has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Scriptures (in a positive way) or with the death of The MESSIAH--though it has been promoted and used extensively as a Christian symbol for ages.

Actually, the English word “cross” in the NT is a translation of the Greek word “stauros” which appears 28 times in the NT where it is always translated as cross. However, stauros literally means “an upright pole or stake.” A second Greek word associated with The MESSIAH’s death is “xulon” which means “a piece of a dead log of wood.”

The Greek xulon appears 19 times in the New Testament where it is commonly translated as “tree, wood, stave or stock” (per “The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament”). In five of those usages, xulon (translated as tree) clearly ties to the death instrument used in The ANOINTED ONE’s execution.

The meaning of both NT words can be the same (per Dr E. W. Bullinger, an authority on New Testament Greek, in his “Companion Bible”). Other Greek lexicons and dictionaries bear out the same findings as well.

As Dr Bullinger saw it, there is nothing in either word to allow its connection to a cross instrument of “two pieces” of wood or timber. Categorically, the two words are referring to a single piece of wood, as in a vertical pole or stake. And if the translation of “tree” is valid for xulon, then the most that one can conclude is that the stauros was attached to the xulon in some fashion that would still be vertical for two good reasons to follow.

Moshe wrote that if a man is put to death for sin and hung on a tree (Hebrew “ets,” meaning a tree), then his body is not to remain on the tree over the night, for he that is hanged on a tree is accursed (Deut 21:22-23). The Apostle Shaul saw the connection when he wrote that The MESSIAH became a curse for us, for it is written “cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (xulon)--quoting from Moshe (Gal 3:13).

The other reference also came from Moshe when he wrote that the people were to take a fiery bronze serpent and attach it to a pole (Hebrew “nec,” meaning a vertical flagstaff, pole or standard), so that persons bitten by a serpent could find healing and life by looking upon the fiery serpent on the pole (Num 21:8-9).

The Apostle Yohanan also linked these mitzwot (meaning commandments and the plural form of the Hebrew mitzwah) to The MESSIAH’s death when he tied the symbolism of the two situations together on two occasions (Jo 3:14, 12:32-33). As Yohanan saw it, The SON OF ADAM clearly hung on a vertical pole or stake, as did the serpent under Moshe’s writing.

All of this background research is more than sufficient to conclude that there is just no way that a cross of two pieces of wood could be construed as the death instrument of SALVATION. The Hebrew MESSIAH died on a vertical pole or stake which “possibly” (although not certainly) could have been attached vertically to a tree.

The writer of this study has seen pictures of figurines from archeological digs of condemned individuals impaled on vertical poles or stakes on occasion. The impaled person’s arms were extended over the head and the arms and/or hands were nailed to the top portion of the pole.

An article by Hartmut Stegemann in “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls” (p. 135) reports on some reliefs found which showed three nude Israelites hung on a pole or stake by the Assyrians at the fall of Lachish c700 BCE. Stegemann says that the Dead Sea Scrolls have references to the hanging of people on a pole (Hebrew “talah al ha-nes”) for certain criminal acts.

He suggests that hanging people alive by this method was familiar to the people of Yisrael--as well as others for many long centuries, preceding the time of YESHUA in the early first century CE. This appears to have been a common method of execution 2,000 years ago (and is conclusively proven from the just noted archeological finds).

Though Christian scholars claim that crosses were sometimes used for crucifixion, this writer has never seen any firm archeological evidence of such theories. In the absence of clear proof, this claim may or may not be valid.

Regardless, there is the indisputable evidence of the use of vertical poles or stakes which is substantiated from the Scriptural and historical records.

Where Did the Cross Idea Come From?

Manifestly, as noted above, there is absolutely no way that an honest student of the Word can deduce a cross of two beams from the various Scriptural references to the topic in either the OT or the NT or in the Hebrew or even the Greek. Yet, the word cross and the idea of crucifixion upon a cross have completely dominated Christianity for vast eons of time.

If this thinking is wrong (as it is), where then did it come from? Put another way, why is it and how is that Christendom has grabbed this pagan symbol for her sign of identification when the cross is so totally foreign in the Word?

Author Lew White, in his excellent presentation on “Fossilized Customs” (p. 47, 101), attacked this problem head on. White says that in every part of the world, crosses were used as religious symbols or ornaments long before the Christian era.

Richard M. Rives, in “Too Long in the Sun” (p. 139), suggests that the cross symbol goes all the way back to Nimrod (who was venerated as the reincarnation or progenitor of the sun god Tammus in ancient Babel).

This work by Rives notes that the cross was associated with the letter T, which was the symbol of Tammus. A picture of an ancient relief or image of Tammus carrying his cross is in “Too Long in the Sun” (p. 139).

In Fossilized Customs,” Lew White goes on to assert that the cross became a symbol of Christianity in Constantine’s time (early 4th century CE)--though Ralph Woodrow dates it formally a little later, as noted above.

Although the writer of this study at hand is not attempting to dispute Lew White, but mention must be made of the possibility that the cross came to be associated with Christianity much earlier than Constantine’s time (c312 CE). It is possible to perceive that the sun worship cross symbol had some recognition in Christendom perhaps long before the fourth century CE.

The above quoted Lew White adds that when Jerome translated the Scriptures into the Latin (for the Latin Vulgate, in the late 4th century CE), he transposed the Greek “stauros” into the Latin “crux.” To the sun worshipping Mithraists, the crux had religious significance as an “X” or a vertical line crossed horizontally.

Per White, the sun was crossing the celestial equinox in the zodiac sign of Taurus in the spring when the Mithraists sacrificed the Taurus (bull). Reportedly, these pagan Mithraists allegorized or interpreted this as the sun (Mithras) overcoming the bull, crossing the celestial equator. Thus, the cross became their most cherished religious symbol.

Of course, the relevance of the cross was not only germane in the Mithra cult; but also, all or most all other sun cults as well. White says that the cross symbol was the symbol of the sun, “par excellence.”

Once the Latin Vulgate was in existence in the Christian “Bible” for 1,200 years, the bias and influence of the words cross, crux, crucifixion and crosier (in the Vulgate) came to become the foundation of Christian theology and thinking. When the early Protestants broke from Rome and made their own translations of the Book, the bias was already established in their mentality and they didn’t break free of it.

A Revisit to Gen 4:15 and the sign of the Cross

Additionally, the religious ritual of making a sign of the cross on the forehead and chest of believing Catholics is most interesting because it positively links to ancient Babylonian sun worship, as Alexander Hislop wrote (“The Two Babylons,” p. 197). Otherwise, it could be even more ancient than what Hislop found.

Second century CE Christian historian Tertullian mentioned that the sign of the cross on the forehead was made by Mithra worshippers in the Roman army (“Too Long in the Sun,” p. 141). Obviously, this sign is quite ancient.

In fact, the evil cross idol (from sun worship) might go all the way back to Cain and the mark which was put on him for protection and security--in his hands and forehead, just as Babylonian sun worshippers and Catholic Christians have done for centuries with their "sign of the cross" (a fetish, cultist act done by sun worshippers regularly, whenever they are in fear or trouble or facing a trying situation) and with the image and acceptance of healing from the popular Red Cross sign (used for medical facilities and people).

Sacred Name leader Earl Bigford of Holt, Michigan first pointed out the connection of the Christian cross to the Scriptural “mark of the beast” to this writer many years ago. At once, Bigford’s words resonated with this writer because it was easy to see the sign of the cross commonly used by Catholic Christians as a fetish act of protection which completely fulfills what one might expect in terms of a sign in the hand and on the forehead.

While this linkage of the sign of the cross almost assuredly has a historical relevance, in terms of an ante-typical fulfillment of the mark of the beast, this writer is compelled to mention that the age end fulfillment of the mark of the beast might be and probably will be a more clearly discerned event.

The evil cross symbol is so pagan that Darrell W. Conder makes the case that it is one of the greatest of embarrassments to both Catholic and Protestant Christians and that many choose to ignore its history while others contend that it doesn’t matter (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 64).

The Scriptural Condemnation of Sun Worship

The New Testament Stephen, on trial for his life, made mention of a profound record in history when he said that The MOST HIGH had abandoned (given up) the House of Yisrael “to worship the host of heaven” because of her sin (Acts 7:42). This reference to the host of heaven is quite fascinating and most profound in respect to the House of Yisrael.

Moshe wrote some words (quoting The ELOHIM) that are especially relevant here. He defined the host of heaven as including the sun, moon and stars and linked this false worship to the non-Israelite nations (Deut 4:19; 17:2-5). The MOST HIGH abandoned the nations to sun worship at a very early time. In today’s modern world, both Buddhism and Hinduism are classic illustrations of sun worship. But they are not unique in this as sun worship is very prevalent in other religions—to include Christianity.

As Stephen observed, YHWH had turned the House of Yisrael over to the same worship of the sun, moon and stars (and the abandonment of the true faith). In other words, YHWH had given up on them and turned them over to sun worship (Jer 8:1-3).

Obviously, Cain and his descendants would be the personification of sun worship. The essence here is that there is much evidence suggesting that the Scripturally condemned sun worship started with Cain and his pre-flood lineage. For more on how pervasive sun worship is in the modern world, please read Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People ( especially vol 4 and 14) at www.age-end.com.

More Identifying Features of Cain’s Descendants

The second extraordinary text at Gen 4:12 surfaced when YHWH prophetically cursed or condemned Cain (and the Kain line) by saying that the ground would not yield her strength (produce and food) for him (and his line) and that he and his line would be fugitives and vagabonds in the earth—maybe like the Gypsies. They would be wanderers without a homeland and place of abode.

The “Soncino Pentateuch” commentary (v. I, p. 106) has it here that for Cain “the earth will no longer yield its powers, yes, he will have no spot on earth that he can call his own as a home...the landless stranger.” At a first glance, one might suppose that Cain and his descendants would not make good farmers and that they would never have a homeland of their own.

On the curse on Cain, Christian Identity leader Peter Peters says that Cain would live away from the fertility of the earth--meaning that he would have to live off of the fruit of other people’s labors, like a parasite (Vol 3, 2003, “Scriptures for America,” p. 3). On Esau (who intermarried into the Cain line), Peters notes Gen 27:40 in that Esau lives by the sword; or as Peters interprets this text, Esau will make money from war (ibid, p. 3).

For sure, the Kain line would likely live in cities (Cain built the first one, as described above) and be entertainers, lawyers, physicians, bankers, traders, merchants, politicians, and religious leaders--certainly crooked ones.

The Canaanite post flood descendants of Cain are also interesting in this regard because the word Canaanite means “merchant, trafficker” (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary,” #3669). The Canaanites were descendants of Ham and his wife who probably was Naamah (per some Jewish tradition), a descendant of Kain (Gen 4:22). Certainly, this definition ties back to Cain.

The Phoenician neighbors and relatives of the Canaanites had a similar description attached to them by the Prophet Yeshayahu (Isa 23:8). He called them traffickers (at least some of them were in the form of ancient Tyre). The Phoenicians were Edomites who evidently descended from one of Esau’s marriages with Canaanite women.

Gen 4:19-22 gives the children of Lamech of the Cain line. One son was a herdsman (the Soncino Chumash gives it as being a nomadic herdsman living in tents and moving from place to place as temporary dwelling sites); a second son was a musician; and the third son was a worker with metals.

Hertz’s Commentary on the Pentateuch and Haftorahs has an interesting note on this Lamech. It observes that if his ancestor Kain was promised a sevenfold vengeance on a foe, Lamech, equipped with the weapons of war, invented by Tubal Cain, will be able to exact a vengeance very much greater. The commentator adds that “This heathen song marks the growth of the spirit of Cain.” This remark by Lamech ties to his Edomite descendants who will live by the sword or by war (Gen 27:40).

The Evil Khazars

For long ages, there was a prevalent legend about “the Wandering Jew” in most of the Christian West. The essence of this Christian story was that these Jews were cursed to walk the earth until Judgment Day for their role in the murder of YESHUA (Jan 14, 2002, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 42-43). But use of the word Jew in Christian lands fails to distinguish that many Jews are true, bloodline Jews of Israel while some of them are descendants of Cain, pretending to be Jews (like the Amalek-Edomite Khazars).

In terms of the Amalek-Edomite Khazars, with the Kain link, “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (v. 10, p. 944) notes that the name Khazar was explained as being derived from the Turkish “quzmak” meaning “to wander” or “to nomadize” or from “quz” meaning “side of mountain exposed to the north” (could this link to Petra/Mount Seir?).

While the collective Jews certainly were not under such a curse, it is interesting that this concept and the associated curse on Kain profoundly link with the reality of the evil Amalekites (who definitely make money from wars).

These Amalekites, above all other peoples of the earth (except possibly the Gypsies), are classic wanderers who wander around, without roots, in an attempt to steal, exploit and destroy everything possible in the Adamic society. This seems to be the Amalekite Khazar history for much of the last 2,500 or more years (since they left their ancestral home in the Seir Mountains).

Manifestly, these workers of evil have achieved enormous success in the 20th and 21st centuries in the US and the White British Commonwealth of nations. If these sharks have ever found a welcoming home (where the people are totally gullible), it has occurred for them in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic nations.

The Gypsies with all of their problems would seem to best express what the curse on Cain might entail. The Kenites (who are defined as sons of Cain attached as parasites on the House of Yehudah) might also qualify for this identification. In background, the Kenites pop up as a post flood people without identification as to their ancestry.

The Kenites were one of the nations inhabiting the land at the time of Avraham (Gen 15:19). Interestingly, there is also evidence available (to be shortly outlined) to suggest that these very people probably are of the bloodline of Cain (the Hebrew Kayin) and his father, previously discussed (Matt 23:33; Jo 8:44; I Jo 3:12).

Since the word Kenite means a son of Kain, it is likely that they descend in some way in the post flood era from the above line of Kain in Gen 4:17-24. During the period of the kings in Israel, the Kenites seem to have attached themselves to the Yehudians. They became scribes with Yehudah (I Chron 2:55; Neh 3:14).

In any case, the Cain people (like the Khazars) were historically a landless, nomadic people and certainly fit the description attached to Cain. In the modern Israeli state, a number of Israelis are farmers and own excellent, rich, producing farms and gardens. It’s very questionable that one would find any Kenites or Canaanites on these farms.

To whatever extent that Kenites and Canaanites exist among modern Jews, it seems likely that they would be engaged in politics, trade, commerce and banking. In particular, the descendants of Kain (especially the Amalek-Edomites) seem to predominate in the banking, entertainment and media industries.

4:25

And Adam knew his wife (Heb ishshah) again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed (Heb zera) instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

4:26

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD (Heb YHWH).

V. 25-26. With the birth of Enos, the Adamic descendants of Adam began to call upon the name of YHWH.

The Revelation of Two Seedlines

The point of these early chapters in Genesis is that there seems to be two seedlines from Eve which went on to produce civilizations and inhabit that early Asian portion of planet earth--ultimately Seth from Adam and Cain from Nachash (per “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, by Dan Gayman).

Clearly, this evidence is extremely convincing and of such substance so as to suggest that the line of Cain and his father has persisted among man to this day--surely, from Naamah (who likely married Ham) and possibly a male line as well (maybe, the Kenites, as mentioned above) that survived the flood (if the flood was not universal, but was limited to perhaps portions of Asia).

If this reasoning has merit, could a fourth racial type or blood line (from Nachash) be in existence in parts of so-called humanity? Probably, the answer is yes--in the vein of the small, yellow-brown peoples inhabiting the hot portions of earth from Europe and North Africa on east to Southeast Asia and on into the Pacific Islands.

Before leaving the reality of Satan producing a seedline of people (who have inhabited earth both before and after the flood), the prohibitions on interracial marriage need mention. It has to be important to note that the descendants of Ham are all generally stated in those prohibitions. Thus, Yisrael was commanded to not cross with the seedline of Satan (or the behemah, chaiyah, etc).

The Role of Evolution

Atheistic evolutionists have helped Christianity enormously in promoting and popularizing this gross perplexity by teaching the ridiculous theory that all modern men (so-called humanity) descend from a common ancestor (which is certainly both wrong and stupid, as proven herein).

For both Christians and atheistic evolutionists, they have jointly worked together to put their ludicrous theories over in the sense of evolution to account for the three to five major races of man. Christians say that the first man was created and then evolved to the major races. Evolutionists say that the first man came from an ape and then evolved to man and later to the major races. Actually, both parties teach evolution!

Anyway, since there is enormous confusion over what constitutes a human being, this writer has generally used the word humanoids to refer to the several non-Adamic races that were created by The HIGHEST (which technically can also be called hominids or hominoids). For sure, the basis of the word humanoid is human-like or human appearing. Thus, it seems to be a good word to describe non-Adamic peoples.

In many cases herein, this writer’s usage of the words “humans” or “human beings” clearly suggests that the meaning really must be accepted in the sense of the “so-called or alleged human beings,” as believed by the world at large (this writer has found it impracticable to try to insert the humanoid (non-Adam) idea into all remarks dealing with the totality of the collective humans/humanoids in the world at large but the distinction is value and must be recognized.

The Telegony Problem

The birth of Seth probably happened at least seven years after the birth of Cain and Able. In order to avoid the detrimental effects of telegony (as is common among mare horses when bred with a donkey and then later with a stud horse), it appears that some time might be needed to clean up a female’s blood line once she has been impregnated by an alien seed.

While modern science and biologists can never understand the reality of telegony, it is a part of the real world in the interbreeding of animals (and humans as well). People who have raised mules are aware that when the bloodline of the growing fetus (with the blood of the paternal parent) comes into contact with the female’s blood (through the placenta), it’s possible for blood from the fetus to enter the mother’s bloodstream.

Therefore, the female’s blood stream becomes contaminated with the blood of the fetus which can come from the male. In the case of like kinds being involved in the pregnancy, this is no big deal. But when “unlike” kinds produce the pregnancy, it is a big deal of evil.

If a mare is impregnated by a donkey (to produce a mule), her bloodline becomes contaminated by the jack. If she is with an ass several times, her bloodline will contain many of the DNA characteristics of the jack. If she then is bred back to a stud horse, the ensuring pregnancy can produce a colt with “mulish” characteristics, as the mare’s blood comes into contact with the fetus during the pregnancy.

The same phenomenon applies to humans/humanoids. If a woman is impregnated in a legal marriage with one of her own racial kinds, her blood will pick up some of the male, DNA characteristics (from the fetus during the pregnancy). Obviously, if an Adamite woman is impregnated by a behemah male, she will pick up some of his DNA.

The more times she’s with a behemah, the more she will have of his characteristics in her blood. Later, if she becomes pregnant with an Adamite male, it seems evident that the resulting Adamite child can become contaminated with the behemah DNA characteristics.

In the case of Kain’s conception from Satan, it is plausible that Eve’s blood became contaminated from Satan. Perhaps this situation also had some impact on the bloodlines of Satan’s descendants.

Hence, to the extent that Eve’s bloodline was contaminated with the blood of the developing Cain (from his father Satan), time was needed for Eve to regenerate new Adamic blood before Seth was born. Consequently, it might be that there was “at least” a seven years lapse of time (actually longer) from Cain and Abel to the birth of Seth.

Apparently, humans can regenerate all new blood in seven years (per Christian Identity leader Dan Gayman). Actually, there seems to be some reason or reasons to believe that every molecule in the human body undergoes some change or transformation every seven years in an Adamite (Apr 2002 “Yavoh,” p. 3).

Chapter 5

5:1

This is the book of the generations (Heb toledoth) of Adam. In the day that God created man (Heb Adam), in the likeness of God (The ELOHIM) made he him;

V. 5:1. This interesting verse has several revealing messages. First, this writing is about Adam. It is not about the humanoids of the behemah or chaiyah kinds or the Satan-Kain peoples. Next, this is a “book” or writing about the generations or records of Adam. This suggests that this was a story or communication compiled in Adam’s day and passed on down or transmitted to Moshe over a thousand years later who edited/compiled it into the book of Genesis. It is likely this record came down from Adam’s day either orally or perhaps in some form of writing or conceivably in some mix of the two. Finally, it repeats the message made earlier in Gen 1-2. Adam was created in the likeness of The ELOHIM.

5:2

Male (Heb zakar) and female (Heb neqebah) created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

V. 5:2. The Adam kind, Adamites, must be distinguished from the other humanoids which they can sexually cross and mix with. Notice too, they were created. They did not evolve.

5:3

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

5:4

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

V. 5:4. This suggests that the other sons and daughters cited came after the birth of Seth. If true, then it is impossible that Cain would have married a half sister daughter of Adam.

5:5

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

V. 5:5. A thousand years is a day to The ELOHIM (II Pet 3:8). Thus, Adam died in the day that he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17).

5:6

And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: