Analyzing the Fruit

We have elucidated that trees are common allegories for races of people in our scriptures, and that the sin of the Fallen Angels was one of miscegenation and the defilement of seedlines. These angels had violated the law of kind after kind, which was the only explicit law expected of creation at the time and identical with the commandment for Adam to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Now we understand the implications of Eve eating of their fruit.

It is not hard to believe that Adam would also be expected to follow this law, as he was a part of that same creation. At this point in time, Israel had obviously not yet developed as a nation, and barely even in a primordial sense; and had therefore not received the law at Sinai. Sin without the law is not imputed, and therefore the only transgression could be one made against an explicit and present law from Adam’s time.

It has become clear so far in this two-part series that Church doctrine is often absurd, and it is absurd for good reason. Following the clear and pragmatic logic that we have used thus far, the identification of the fruit in the garden becomes less interpretive, and more so an undeniable fact. There is only one way for this pragmatic and thorough analysis of scripture and history to go forward, and doing so allows us to compliment the rest of scripture and secular history with perfect alignment and commonality. The commandment of kind after kind is in every way the same as the law given personally to Adam in Genesis 2. It uses different words to express the meaning, but in a way it is even more explicit. 

All these things, the fruit in the garden and the transgression involved especially, are best understood when the Hebrew allegories are seen with the highest level of clarity. 

 

If trees are Hebrew allegories for people, and if the first tree’s, the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, if its founders had engaged in miscegenation; then the act of eating the fruit of a tree becomes easy to identify, and its implications for the founding patriarch of an entire people become startlingly clear as scriptural and secular history move forward.

As obvious as it may be, further investigations are always necessary and fruitful for proving a point. By identifying the contemporary societies at the time of Moses, (the era in which this text dates), we can see similar allegories used elsewhere by kindred civilizations, and they are executed in much the same manner. By understanding the language and culture at the time of a text’s writing, we can better decipher the original pragmatic context of that text that was easily understood by its earliest readers. Doing this, we can trump over the interpretive translation that modern readers may employ today, which happens when they lack context.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is one such piece of literature that can be identified, an epic poem from the Sumerians that both had a very early Sumerian form that was later translated into Akkadian. The Sumerian script predated even the time of Abraham, and its themes match the context of the period that we have gleaned from Genesis 6. The Akkadian form was in more contemporary alignment with Moses, and therefore this will be the version we will be investigating. ( Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament). Epic poems were at the time a popular method of transmitting history through easily digestible and entertaining oral tradition, and even the original form of the Biblical Exodus was an epic poem.

Most of the Akkadian tablets containing this inscription of the Epic of Gilgamesh were unearthed by archaeologists who excavated the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal at Nineveh. The Assyrians were kindred to the Israelites, and it is for this reason they were described as an Adamic nation when we explored the tree metaphor from Ezekiel, earlier. The Assyrians were Shemites, cousins of the Israelites, who had descended from Asshur mentioned at Gen. 10:22. 

The poem itself has several parallels with Genesis 6, Gilgamesh himself, like many ancient heroes, is described as being two-thirds god and one-third human; a byproduct of a thematically similar union to the ones described in Genesis. Gilgamesh is also mentioned in scriptural records, where his name is seen several times in the Book of Giants, a document found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. A curious detective could refer to scrolls 4Q530 and 4Q531. The Book of Giants builds on what is said in Genesis 6, and its associations with Enoch literature is clear and present. The status of the book in the end is immaterial, as regardless of its veracity it indeed reveals to us that the Hebrews shared many literary traditions, myths, culture, history, and language with the surrounding nations that were kindred to them. 

The Epic uses an important and easily recognizable metaphor that we are most acquainted with. In the narrative, Gilgamesh rules as king over the Mesopotamian city Uruk, which is the familiar Erech mentioned at Genesis 10:10. It is in the land of Sumer, in the Chaldaean city of Ur, where Abraham is first introduced in Scripture (Gen 11:27). The land is in no way foreign or strange to the Hebrew people, but a well traveled and inhabited place. 

Gilgamesh is tyrannical, and none can challenge his reign. The people in desperation resort to the god Anu for aid in their endeavor of usurping his harsh rule over the people. Anu heeds, and the goddess Aruru complies with the pleas and creates the giant Enkidu as a rival to Gilgamesh. Enkidu is created in the wilderness and leads an isolated life far from civilization. With little contact with man, Enkidu instead learns to tame the wild and befriend animals. Enkidu’s alliance with wildlife is a sorrowful development for local hunters and trappers, as they are put out of their means to gain sustenance and livelihood; as Enkidu protects the beasts from them. For this reason, a hunter goes to Uruk and asks Gilgamesh for assistance in defeating the barbaric Enkidu.

Gilgamesh does not leave Uruk to confront his rival head on, but instead advises the hunter to subdue the giant with a more subtle and crafty method. From Tablet I, part iii, lines 40-45 of the epic (ANET, p. 75):

“Go, my hunter, take with thee a harlot-lass. When he waters the beasts at the watering-place, She shall pull off her clothing, laying bare her ripeness. As soon as he sees her, he will draw near to her. Reject him will his beasts that grew up on his steppe!”

The imagery drawn is already familiar, and it continues on later with success in part iv, lines 16-39 of the same tablet (ANET, p. 75):

“The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom,

And he possessed her ripeness.

She was not bashful as she welcomed his ardor.

She laid aside her cloth and he rested upon her.

She treated him, the savage, to a woman’s task,

As his love was drawn unto her.

For six days and seven nights Enkidu comes forth,

Mating with the lass.

After he had (his) fill of her charms,

He set his face toward his wild beasts.

On seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles ran off,

The wild beasts of the steppe drew away from his body.

Startled was Enkidu, as his body became taut,

His knees were motionless – for his wild beasts had gone.

Enkidu had to slacken his pace – it was not as before;

But now he had [wi]sdom, [br]oader understanding.

Returning, he sits at the feet of the harlot.

He looks up at the face of the harlot,

His ears attentive, as the harlot speaks;

[The harlot] says to him, to Enkidu:

‘Thou art [wi]se, Enkidu, art become like a god!

Why with the wild creatures dost thou roam over the

steppe?

Come, let me lead thee [to] ramparted Uruk,

To the holy temple, abode of Anu and Ishtar,

Where lives Gilgamesh, accomplished in strength,

And like a wild ox lords it over the folk.’”

Before we discuss the similarities ourselves, we can first investigate the footnote supplied in the ANET, on pg 75, at line 29:

 “The general parallel to Gen. 3:7 is highly suggestive.”

Certainly to us, it is more than simply highly suggestive but a near identical replication of the idea of sexual awakening. By reading this, we can glean that the ancient Assyrians who read the Epic, related one’s sexual awakening with an attainment of wisdom, an attainment of understanding (line 29, Gen 3:6-7). Through attaining that understanding,  one was seen as “becoming like a god”, as they could create and corrupt at will.

This obtainment of knowledge was important for Enkidu, as being isolated and reclusive from society, is doubtful that Enkidu had any knowledge of sex before meeting the harlot. This situation would have been emphasized for Eve, who almost definitely had no knowledge of sex before meeting the serpent; and therefore the awakening would have been especially significant. 

These inscriptions were contemporary with the time of Moses, and being learned from a high class family, there is no doubt that he was familiar with the concept that these metaphors provoked. These idioms were used by a kindred people that spoke a very closely related Shemitic dialect. The Akkadian text itself  was being copied and orally recited during the time that Moses was in the process of writing the Pentateuch.

Furthermore, this parallels perfectly with our understanding of the tree allegory, the law of kind after kind, and the history of miscegenation that predated these events.

Adam and Eve, after the events of the transgression, were indeed sexually awakened. It is recorded that “… the eyes of them both [Adam and Eve] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons”. One does not become aware of the nature of their sexuality after eating a literal fruit, but after eating the fruit of another, indeed one is shameful and wanting to hide the tools with which they participated in that very transgression. Before their seduction, Adam and Eve were naked in the garden; they were “not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). After the event, this is completely reversed and they are rife with shame, as they are now aware of the sexual nature of their bodies and the sexual sin that had participated in through them. 

This fact was understood by many writers of the scripture:

From Paul himself, in second Corinthians 11:2.

 “2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”

 

Paul was learned, and was certainly aware of the realities of scripture before factual knowledge became concealed through the intervention of the later church. If the episode in the garden of Eden did not result in the loss of Eve’s virginity, then his use of this allegory is rendered mute. Why would Paul use an allegory of what happened to Eve, when describing the loss of virginity? Paul did not want the Corinth assembly, a member of the Bride of Christ, which is true Israel and its kindred nations, to become corrupted in a similar way.

 

What happened to Eve, he meant literally, as he is citing an objectively recorded event, and if Eve had not lost her virginity as a result of the deception described, then Paul would not have mentioned virginity for the purpose of the comparison. He would have instead referred to being faithful, or something else.

 

Further examples of this are found in apocryphal books, and while the referred to account here should not be considered canonical, it does nevertheless reveal the understanding of the people contemporary to the time in which it was written. 

 

In Brenton’s Septuagint, at 4 Maccabees 18:7-8, we find a woman who is clearly and explicitly compares herself to Eve in a very similar way to which Paul used the event:

 

 “7 And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father’s house; but I took care of the built-up rib. 8 No destroyer of the desert, [or] ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful, snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.”

 

Understanding of the sexual transgression of Eve does not end there, but is also referenced and described in an eloquent manner in another apocryphal work representing attitudes common at the time, that being the Protevangelium of James: 

 

 “The Protevangelion” 10:1-10:

 

 “1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me. 8 Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this? 9 Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? 10 But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man.”

 

The realities of Eve’s sexual transgression are startlingly clear, but who was the other party or participant of this sexual transgression? Indeed, it is obvious to us that it must have been a member of this Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And not a true or literal serpent, as members of this race are often referred to using bestial metaphors in scripture, especially prophecy; using terms such as serpent, dragons, dogs, and owls.

 

From the account in Revelation which we explored previously, certainly the serpent is understood to be a member of the race of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Either a fallen angel, or a descendent thereof: 

 

At Rev. 12:7-9: “7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”

The “serpent” is introduced at Genesis 3:1: “Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made…” 

Those who cling to church doctrine may possibly attempt to ignorantly assert that this statement somehow proves that the serpent was a part of the original creation, a literal snake, even though this contradicts the rest of scripture and holds for itself no accompanying proof. However, to the rational reader it is obvious that the statement is simply comparing the serpent to the beasts of the original creation. In very much the same way that one would compare the speed of their vehicle to the running speed of a horse, and the preceding vehicle is in no way a creation of God.

Indeed, the very same law that was expected of all creation was also expected of Adam, Yahweh’s pinnacle creation. The miscegenation and intermingling of the trees was a clear parallel to the sins of the Fallen Angels that preceded Adam, a mistake that Yahweh was trying to protect Adam from. The transgression in the garden had now defiled the seed of the women, resulting in two bloodlines. 

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

It is amazing how much scripture reveals itself once it is understood with the proper lens. Understanding the previous accounts, the statement here made by Yahweh in Genesis 3:15 makes perfect sense. Indeed, the sexual transgression of one can result in corrupted offspring, in very much the same way that the sin of the Fallen Angels did. And now we can understand why after the transgression of Eve, Yahweh is after-the-fact referring to two distinct seeds, or bloodlines.

This elucidation is given further clarity by Christ, who as we explained previously, came to “reveal things kept hidden from the foundation of the world”.

In Christ’s parable of the Wheat and the Tares, He draws back on this event in the garden:

From Matthew 13:24-27: “24He laid forth another parable for them, saying: “The kingdom of the heavens is likened to a man having sown good seed in his field. 25 And while the man is sleeping his enemy came and had sown tares among the wheat and departed. 26 And when the grass sprouted and produced fruit, then the tares also had appeared. 27 Then coming forth the servants of the master of the house said to him ‘Master, have you not sowed good seed in your field? Then from where does it have tares?’ 28 But he said to them: ‘A man who is an enemy has done this!’ Then the servants say to him: ‘Then do you wish that going out we should gather them?’ 29 But he says ‘No! Lest gathering the tares you may root up the wheat together with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest I shall say to the reapers: ‘Gather the tares first and bind them in cords for which to burn them, then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’’”

Before we explain this parable, it should be clear that Christ Himself elucidated on it, as the apostles had difficulty in understanding. We will first refer to Christ’s explanation, which adds undeniable clarity and pragmatic focus:

Then leaving the crowds He had gone into the house, and His students came forth to Him, saying: “Elucidate for us the parable of the tares in the field.” 37 And responding He said: “He sowing the good seed is the Son of Man; 38 now the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom. But the tares are the sons of the Evil One, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the False Accuser, and the harvest is the consummation of the age, and the reapers are messengers. 40 Therefore just as the tares are gathered and burn in fire, thusly it shall be at the consummation of the age. 41 The Son of Man shall send His messengers, and they shall gather from His kingdom all offenses and those creating lawlessness 42 and they shall cast them into the furnace of fire. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth! 43 Then the righteous shall shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He having an ear must hear!

Indeed, just as Christ explained, we can easily understand things as thusly:

“The kingdom of the heavens is likened to a man…” “…having sown good seed in his field”	This figure is certainly Yahshua Christ, who is Yahweh Himself, the ‘Son of Man’, who is the maker of original and unadulterated corruption, and the Father of the Adamic race. The world itself, is undeniably the world or the Adamic society or oikumene.
“And while the man is sleeping…” “…his enemy…”	The sleeping is indeed an anagram for the Sabbath, a model for the sake of Israel and the age (or day) after the first six ages of creation.  The enemy is indeed Satan, the collective entity, and the same serpent that transgressed with Eve, is already present on Earth at the time, as we have learned from Revelation 12.
“his enemy came and had sown tares among the wheat and departed.”	This can only have happened in Genesis Chapter 3. While it happened again in Genesis chapter 6, it began in chapter 3 with the seduction of Eve and the birth of Cain. Tares can often time appear indistinguishable to wheat, though they are genetically different, and agricultural parables were important to the agricultural Israel.
“And when the grass sprouted and produced fruit, then the tares also had appeared”	The race of Cain, the Kenites, described in Genesis chapter 4.
“Then coming forth the servants of the master of the house said to him ‘Master, have you not sowed good seed in your field? Then from where does it have tares?’ 28 But he said to them: ‘A man who is an enemy has done this!’ Then the servants say to him: ‘Then do you wish that going out we should gather them?’ 29 But he says ‘No! Lest gathering the tares you may root up the wheat together with them.”	The descendants of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can today look very similar to the descendants of the Tree of Life, or the Adamic race, after many generations and millenia of intermingling and interbreeding that has resulted in deceiving countenance.
“Allow both to grow together until the harvest, and at the time of the harvest I shall say to the reapers: ‘Gather the tares first and bind them in cords for which to burn them, then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’”	There is no doubt that Yahweh has only promised to preserve the descendants of Adam, of Abraham, and the Adamic and Israelite race.

This parable of the Wheat and the Tares, and the statements given by Christ in its explanation, correlate perfectly with the history explained by Genesis, Revelation, Enoch, and all other accompanying literature and scripture. The flood, which was an event local to Anatolia and indeed not a global flood, resulted in the destruction of much of the Adamic race. However, races such as the Kenites and Rephaim survived, and continued all of the way into the books of Kings and Chronicles. During this time, they had mixed themselves with a wide array of pre-Adamic and mixed races, such as Canaanites, (as evident in scripture, these races being mentioned in Gen 15:19-21 and elsewhere), and also Ishmaelites and Edomites, and then ultimately Israelites and other Adamics. 

 

Now we can understand why Christ told the Pharisees, who were largely of Edomite blood after the Babylonian deportations, that they were of “their father the devil”, who was a “murderer from the beginning” (John 8). Yahshua also told them that their race was responsible for the blood of all the prophets from Abel forward, and indeed only Cain was responsible for the blood of Abel. Cain being a member of the seed of the serpent, a result of the transgression of Eve in the garden, a violation of the law of kind after kind, an intermingling of the trees, as described by Yahweh in parallel with the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15.

 

Such things were and still are important for Israelites to understand, and they play an imperative part in the process of history and prophecy. It was for this reason that laws against miscegenation, namely fornication, were significantly important for the Israelites and a common part of their heritage. Time and time again, the Israelites were warned by Yahweh not to intermix with other bloodlines, and for good reason. Yahweh’s laws are upstanding and do not change, and the laws that He has expected all of his creation since before time still hold today. We will now explore these laws here, before investigating the nature and circumstance of the birth of Cain himself.

Other Racial Laws in the Old and New Testament

“For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13). 

If we understand now that the law of kind after kind directly works in tandem with Adam’s commandment to not interact with the other trees in the Garden, where else can we find such racial laws throughout the Old Testament? Indeed, the events we have explored thus far were not isolated and God’s laws are eternal. Racial issues arose time and time again throughout scripture, and the Israelites often suffered for their interactions with races they were commanded to separate themselves from.

The word fornication appears often in scriptures, and is a condemnable action of sin responsible for countless woes. Fornication is any type of immoral sexual relations, and it includes illicit sex, homosexuality, and racemixing. When Jude referenced fornication in his short epistle, he described it as the “pursuit of strange flesh” (Jude 7).

The Israelites were commanded to keep themselves away from tribes such as the Canaanites, a group that can be traced back to Cain through the Rephaim. This vital avoidance of the peoples wasn’t for cultural or ‘religious’ significance, but rather to prefer the sanctity of the seed of Israel. Throughout scripture, the Israelites were held accountable for marrying members of these other races and this was the sin of Esau, as well as many Judeans throughout the second temple period and other figures found in the Old Testament.

Both Jeremiah and Ezekiel warn against fornication in their prophetic books, referencing the Israelites interactions with the Baal worshiping races at the time. This issue was indeed not only involving religious apostasy. 

“For of old time I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress; when upon every high hill and under every green tree thou wanderest, playing the harlot. Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh Elohim. How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways; A wild ass used to the wilderness, that snuffeth up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her. Withhold thy foot from being unshod, and thy throat from thirst: but thou saidst, There is no hope: no; for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go.” (Jer. 2:20-25)

We can remember that the people of Israel are the Tree of Life, nations are often referred to as trees, and now a portion of the Judeans have become a degenerate and strange vine. They are polluted, and their seed has mixed.

“But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so … Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms. Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger.” (Ezek. 16:15-16, 25-26). 

Yahweh is the husband of Israel, and we, Israel, the woman and bride ever evident through prophecy, interacted with other peoples and their idols, we committed adultery against our original husband. Yahweh condemns us as a race for committing adultery against Him countless times throughout the Old Testament. The punishment for adultery is death, and remarriage can only happen if one of the parties reset the marriage through death. Therefore, Christ, being the bridegroom, reconciled His people back to Yahweh by dying in their place and making the remarriage legitimate. Yahweh does not break His own law, nor does He put it aside or edit it to make it fashionable to the hopeless standards of a corrupted and idolatrous society. 

Baal is referenced by Yahweh, and we understand through classical histories that Baal worship had a strong sexual component. Much like the enemies of God today, even back then they had perverse and abominable sexual appetites that were exploited upon the vulnerable and ignorant members of Israelite society.

 

Herodotus writes of Baal and the idol’s precinct in Babylon: “On the topmost tower there is a spacious temple, and inside the temple stands a couch of unusual size, richly adorned, with a golden table by its side. There is no statue of any kind set up in the place, nor is the chamber occupied of nights by any one but a single native woman, who, as the Chaldaeans, the priests of this god, affirm, is chosen for himself by the deity out of all the women of the land.” (Herodotus 1:181, G. Rawlinson’s translation).

We know that idols are lifeless, the works of men’s hands, and even Yahweh challenged them in Isaiah that if indeed they are real for them to verify it through the use of prophetic fulfillment. Indeed, no idol has ever had a prophecy attached to it that came to pass and they are fabrications of the minds of men. Baal was no different, and being reasonable minded and sensible we cannot expect that Baal did not appear to women in this temple. Herodotus shared this informed opinion:

“… but I for my part do not credit it – that the god comes down in person …” (1:182)

It is more than obvious that some man entered these chambers and pretended to be Baal. All this being nothing more than a charade used to satisfy the lusts of a degenerate race. Tertullian, the 2nd century Christian writes the following:

“Then if I add – and the conscience of every man of you will recognize it as readily – if I add that in the temples adulteries are arranged, that between the altars the pander’s trade is plied, that, quite commonly, in the very vestries of temple-keeper and priest, under those same holy fillets, crowns and purple garments, while the incense burns, lust is gratified …” (Apology 15:7, Loeb Library edition).

These dilemmas with Baal worship were not short lived, but were a stretched out and endemic problem that arose time and time again. We can remember that Jezebel enacted Baal worship on a national scale, and an overview of history reveals a highly credible chance that she herself was a Canaanite. Baal is mentioned several times in Judges and Samuel, alongside another peculiar idol known as Ashtaroth. 

(Judges 2:13; 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:3, 4; 12:10 and also 1 Kings 11:5, 33 and 2 Kings 23:13).

Herodotus called the temple of Ashteroth in Ashkelon the temple of “celestial Aphroditê”. This is intriguing, and indeed Astartê was called Aphroditê by the Greeks, and also Ishtar by the Babylonians. We can only imagine the wretched fertility rites that would have been associated with the worshipping of this idol. The Assyrian name was Mylitta, and this is the name Herodotus uses here in his referencing: 

“The Babylonians have one most shameful custom. Every woman born in the country must once in her life go and sit down in the precinct of Aphroditê, and there consort with a stranger. Many of the wealthier sort, who are too proud to mix with the others, drive in covered carriages to the precinct, followed by a goodly train of attendants, and there take their station. But the larger number seat themselves within the holy enclosure with wreaths of string about their heads, – and here there is always a great crowd, some coming and others going; lines of cord mark out paths in all directions among the women, and the strangers pass along them to make their choice. A woman who has once taken her seat is not allowed to return home till one of the strangers throws a silver coin into her lap, and takes her with him beyond the holy ground. When he throws the coin he says these words – ‘The goddess Mylitta prosper thee.’ (Aphroditê is called Mylitta by the Assyrians.) The silver coin may be of any size; it cannot be refused, for that is forbidden by the law, since once thrown it is sacred. The woman goes with the first man who throws her money, and rejects no one. When she has gone with him, and so satisfied the goddess, she returns home, and from that time forth no gift however great will prevail with her. Such of the women as are tall and beautiful are soon released, but others who are ugly have to stay a long time before they can fulfill the law. Some have waited three or four years in the precinct. A custom very much like this is found also in certain parts of the island Cyprus.” (1:199).

This is highly disturbing, but the sexual deviancy introduced into our nations today is even worse. The sexual defilement of our people is a product of the enemy, a consequence of our intermingling with them, and prophetic chastisement unto our nation by Yahweh our God. Strabo corroborates Herodotus report:

“And in accordance with a certain oracle all the Babylonian women have a custom of having intercourse with a foreigner, the woman going to a temple of Aphroditê with a great retinue and crowd; and each woman is wreathed with a cord round her head. The man who approaches a woman takes her far away from the sacred precinct, places a fair amount of money upon her lap, and then has intercourse with her; and the money is considered sacred to Aphroditê.” (16.1.20, Loeb Library edition).

These secular testimonies correlate with the words from Baruch chapter 6, a highly probable epistle of Jeremiah, from Brenton’s Septuagint:

“How should a man then think and say that they are gods, when even the Chaldaeans themselves dishonor them? Who if they shall see one dumb that cannot speak, they bring him, and intreat Bel that he may speak, as though he were able to understand, Yet they cannot understand this themselves, and leave them: for they have no knowledge. The women also with cords about them, sitting in the ways, burn bran for perfume: but if any of them, drawn by some that passeth by, lie with him, she reproacheth her fellow, that she was not thought as worthy as herself, nor her cord broken. Whatsoever is done among them is false: how may it then be thought or said that they are gods?” (Baruch 6:40-44)

The King James Study Bible, © 1988 by Thomas Nelson Inc. and by Liberty University, has a footnote at Judges 2:11-15 concerning Ashtaroth:

“Ashtaroth (or Ashtoreth, 1 Kings 11:5), known also from the literature of Ugarit and of Phoenicia, was a goddess of erotic love and war. She was known elsewhere in the ancient Near East as Ishtar or Astarte (cf. 1 Kin. 11:5, 33; 2 Kin. 23:13). The veneration of this goddess entered the Mediterranean world under the name Astarte, and the practices associated with her cult became associated with the Greek goddess of love, Aphrodite. She was called Atargatis at Ashkelon. The Canaanite worship rites were carried out not only in temples (2 Kin. 10:21-27) but on ‘every high hill, and under every green tree’ (2 Kin. 17:10, 11). These rites were accompanied by such things as frenzied dances (1 Kin. 18:26-28), cult prostitution (both male and female), and, at times, even by human sacrifice …”

Strabo describes the ‘cult prostitution’ employed by the Greek Temples of Aphrodite, and says discussing the temple at Corinth:  “And the temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans, whom both men and women had dedicated to the goddess. And therefore it was also on account of these women that the city was crowded with people and grew rich; for instance, the ship-captains freely squandered their money, and hence the proverb ‘Not for every man is the voyage to Corinth’.” (8.6.20).

Strabo also later discusses the worship of a moon Goddess, Mên, or Selenê, at the temple of Comana in Armenia. (12.3.36). These Corinthians, and many of the Armenians at the time, were indeed among the descendents of the children of Israel. It is for this reason that Paul would later write epistles to the Corinthians, fulfilling his duty of spreading the message to the ‘lost sheep of the House of Israel’.

These practices were found in these places, for large part because they were brought there from Palestine. It isn’t difficult to assume that the cakes made to the “queen of heaven” were crescent-shaped in honor of these idols Mên or Selenê. (i.e. Jer. 7:18).

These perverse acts committed by the pagan Greeks were indeed influenced by the similar actions that Israelites also participated in alongside peoples such as the Canaanites and Moabites that surrounded them. The Israelites originally learned of these disturbing practices from the Canaanites and Moabites, and then engaged in them when they intermingled with the peoples and shared in their idol worship. All of these abominable acts in Judea, Babylon, Egypt, and Greece, are related to one another. The Israelites came from Egypt, were held captive in Babylonia, and many of the Greeks were Israelites themselves. Such things becoming evident from studies such as the origin of the Danaans. All of the abominations that the Greeks had engaged in themselves trace back to Egypt or Phoenicia, Babylonia, Syria, and more. It is no question why at the same time that the Israelites joined themselves to Baalpeor, the god of Moab, that they also began to “began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab” (Num. 25:1-3). As a result of this, twenty-four thousand of them were slain (25:9).

If the inhabitants of Jerusalem were worshipping in Canaanite temples, then it is evident that they were also having sexual intercourse with Canaanites. The very nature of corrupt and degenerate sex was at the core of these Canaanite religions, and was the very foundation that they were built upon. The consequence of engaging in these things was that the Israelites who did so would have had Canaanite children, those of mixed heritage, the Hebrew word mamzer, today known as bastards. 

 

Now we understand the heavy words written by Ezekiel and Jeremiah:

“And say, Thus saith Yahweh Elohim unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite … Thou art thy mother’s daughter, that loathed her husband and her children; and thou art the sister of thy sisters, which loathed their husbands and their children: your mother was an Hittite, and your father an Amorite.” (16:3, 45)

 “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (2:13) 

These are serious implications, as we know that the products of fornication cannot be recompensed. Proverbs gives a stately and grave warning:

“Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? For the ways of man are before the eyes of Yahweh, and he pondereth all his goings. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.” (Proverbs 5:15-23)

There is an important aspect to realizing that Adam was not the first man, that helps one understand the key of the Abrhamamic Covenant and the prophetic truth of scripture. It is that the spirit of Adam is only passed down onto his descendents, and scripture teaches us that a defilement of the genetic line corrupts the DNA and prevents that spirit from passing onto the next generation.

What did Jeremiah mean when he referenced vessels, cisterns of broken water? Vessels are used often throughout scripture to describe people, husbands are told to give “honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7). Paul himself was a  “a chosen vessel” (Acts 9:15). Isaiah says at 52:11: “Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of Yahweh.” These words can indeed be corroborated with Revelation 18:4.

Our bodies are vessels, and temples for the spirit of Yahweh which is transmitted from generation to generation. This spirit earns us reconcilement through Christ and the path to eternal life, but this remains an Adamic privilege. We know from scripture that all the seed of Israel will be saved, each rewarded according to their works, some raised to shame and others to everlasting life, and that the gates of the Kingdom of Yahweh are inscribed with the twelve tribes. If you are not one of the twelve tribes, you bear no entrance, and the nations, often transliterated as Gentile, are the descendents of the dispersions and migrations as observable through demonstrable history. 

Paul referred to our bodies as temples:  “And what agreement has a temple of Yahweh with idols? For you are a temple of the living Yahweh; just as Yahweh has said, ‘I will dwell among them, and I will walk about; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ On which account ‘come out from the midst of them and be separated’, says the Prince, and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.” (2 Cor 6:16-17)

Not everyone bears this spirit, as you must be a member of the Tree of Life, and not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is for this reason that Paul writes “And if one has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not of Him” (Rom. 8:9)

John substantiates this in his epistle with powerful and clear language:

“All who have been born of Yahweh do not create wrongdoing, because His seed abides in him, and they are not able to do wrong because from Yahweh they have been born.” (1 John 3:9).

No wonder Christ spoke often of trees, and that good trees cannot bear bad fruit and that bad trees cannot bear good fruit. (Matt 7:17-18). It is clear also what He meant when he said that “every plant which His father did not plant will be uprooted and destroyed.”

Our genes carry this essential message, this crucial essence that pertains to the Adamic spirit. Kind after kind.

Pear trees do not produce apple trees, and leopards do not birth young that resemble calves.

“… Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” (Matt. 7:16). 

Paul says of this holy seed (and holy means to be separate): “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:44). 

We’ve discovered from our investigations throughout this presentation that the Spirit of Yahweh was only given to the Adamic race. It was never given to another party, and the laws of God prevent that possibility and its miraculous inclusion would be a transgression of His law that doesn’t change. Only our Adamic bodies contain the genetic information to raise a spiritual body, and it is for this reason that only Israelites and Adamics are referenced to being resurrected. 

This spirit is the “treasure” that we store in our “earthen vessels”. (2 Cor. 4:7). 

When we cling to other races, and mix our seed, the result is a broken cistern that can hold no water. The body of the individual is broken, the DNA is mixed, and it can no longer hold within it the spirit of God, the same way that a mule, or a bear, cannot. And Yahweh indeed created the donkey and the horse, but the mule is the invention of man. For this reason we have only sons or bastards (Heb. 12:8), and there has never been and never will be a third alternative. 

And thusly the “bad figs” (Jeremiah 24) of Jerusalem, who mixed themselves with the seed of the Hittites, Amorites, and Canaanites (Ezek. 16:3, 45),  became to Yahweh “the degenerate plant of a strange vine” (Jer. 2:21). It is for this reason that Christ said that when approached by the goats, who are not sheep, and only Israelites were ever referred to as sheep, He will tell the goats to get away from Him for he never knew them. And Yahweh only ever professed to know Israel, and to know the Adamic race.

It becomes startlingly clear the words of Deuteronomy 23:2:

“A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.”

If a bastard is the product of a man and woman who are not legally married, then this fact seems absurd. When one realizes that indeed bastards, or mamzers, are the products of fornication, then we understand why even to the tenth generation they shall not enter the congregation of Yahweh. The first generation would be half mixed, and the one proceeding a quarter, but even to the 100th generation the DNA would never be fully pure ever again. To the tenth generation, is nothing more than a Hebrew metaphor for ‘forever’.

In Romans 9 through 11, Paul compares the few pure blooded Israelites left in Judea (of Jacob) with the Edomites of Esau found there at the time. Paul makes it clear that the Israelites are “vessels of mercy, which [Yahweh] had afore prepared unto glory” and that the Edomites are “the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Romans 9:22-23).

We can remember what the sin of Esau was, a sin so grave that Yahweh states in Malachi that he hated Esau. And indeed, Yahweh does indeed hate. Esau had despised his birthright, and he mixed his seed, he took wives of the Canaanites (Gen. 36:2). This was so abhorring, that it disturbed his mother Rebekah to a degree high enough that she is recording having said:

 

“I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me?” (Gen. 27:46). 

Heth, a son of Canaan, was progenitor of the Hittites (Gen. 10:15; Strong’s Hebrew #s 2845 and 2850).

The descendants of Esau, the Edomites, came to possess much of the territory and political authority of Judea after the Babylonian captivities. Many of the Pharisees, and even the Herod family, were Edomites, and now it is understandable why they acted the way which they did. Christ told the Pharisees that the reason they did not believe Him, was because they were not His sheep, and he accounted their forefathers as responsible for the death of Abel, and only Cain was responsible for the death of Abel. In adversity against Him, the Psalm is fulfilled where it prophesied that Christ would be killed by the power of the dog. 

When Christ encountered the Canaanite woman, He called her a dog and moved on His way, noting that He only came for Israelites, for “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. When the women admitted to this fact, and continued her supplication, Christ adhered to her supplication as it was the standard of the Greco-Roman world at the time, as observable upon an examination of the contemporary histories. Christ adhered to certain cultural norms in Judea at the time, such as the other circumstance where he assisted Peter in the payment of taxes.

In 1 Thes. 4 Paul states “… abstain from fornication … to possess one’s own vessel in sanctification and in honor.”

It is beyond clear that these things go hand in hand. We can notice throughout this presentation that scripture finally does not contradict itself, once read correctly. And indeed, the consequence of fornication is the breaking of the vessels of your children.

When Christ said in Revelation that he would “slay the children of fornication with death”, He was not speaking of children made from one-night stands, but those of broken vessels who will not be a part of the next age, the Kingdom, which is reserved for the children of Israel and their kindred Adamic peoples.

At 1 Cor. 10:8, Paul tells the Corinthians: “Neither should we commit fornication, just as some of them had committed fornication, and in one day twenty-three thousand had fallen”, we remember now the reference made earlier to Numbers chapter 25, where “Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab”. Phineas was rewarded with an eternal priesthood, because he slew Zimri, “a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites”, for bringing a “Midianitish woman” unto his brethren and fornicating with her (Num. 25:1, 6, 13 &14). 

Jude, when referencing those of broken vessels, describes them thusly: 

“These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;” (v. 12).

“Plucked up by the roots” certainly refers to Matt. 15:13, which we had just quoted earlier.

These clouds without water are similar to broken vessels that cannot hold water, and they are empty and wandering. A cloud without water is little more than dust, for clouds consist mostly of water vapor and dust particles. Before the spirit of Yahweh was breathed into Adam, he was nothing more than dust of the ground. Therefore, it is observable that a cloud without water is the same metaphor as a broken cistern, it is a man without the spirit of Yahweh, that can hold no water. An errored vessel resulting from fornication.

Jude continues and says “Raging waves of the sea, foaming out of their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.” Surely we understand the reservation of darkness to be equal to his prior statement of being twice dead; meaning that while Adamics die yet live again, non-Adamics die a second death.

It is interesting, because Jude references in his epistle “the angels that lost their first estate”. The connection between the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the ultimate parentage of these broken vessels, is elucidated. Peter uses similar language in his second epistle when he discusses “the angels that sinned”:

But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption … Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness … These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.” (vv. 12-17).

Jude’s “clouds without water” are also Peter’s “wells without water”. Jeremiah’s “broken cisterns, that can hold no water”, are also Paul’s “vessels for dishonor” or “vessels fitted to destruction.” 

None of them hold “water”, and none can hold the spirit of Yahweh which was endowed upon Adamic man.

As Paul told the Philippians: “Do all things apart from murmuring and disputing, that you would be perfect and with unmixed blood, blameless children of Yahweh in the midst of a race crooked and perverted – among whom you appear as luminaries in the cosmos …” (Phil. 2:14-15).

And also Peter: “Being born from above, not from corruptible parentage, but of incorruptible, by the word of the living and abiding Yahweh.” (1 Pet. 1:23).

It is clear why the unforgivable sin is the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit”, for it is the defilement of our vessels, of our temple of the spirit of Yahweh, which results in offspring that cannot be reconciled as genetics cannot be changed and such an act would transgress the law anyways. 

We must bring to remembrance the words from before: Kind after Kind.

Two Bloodlines at War: Birth of Cain, Genesis 3:15, 4:1

“And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the LORD”

Just earlier, when Jude discussed the “angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation”, he compared them to Sodom and Gomorrah, cities which in a similar manner pursued strange flesh and transgressed the law of Kind after Kind. Jude said of these parties: “Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward” (v. 11)

It is blatantly evident that the way of Cain must have something to do with fornication, and this leaves us to the final main subject of this presentation. After having learned the nature of the transgression in the garden, and the fact that Eve had participated in a sexual engagement with a non-Adamic individual; we can gain understanding of the nature of Cain and the theme of all scripture that follows. It is no coincidence that Jude compared fornication with the way of Cain, for Cain was conceived through fornication. 

The Hebrew in Genesis 4:1 is highly corrupted, and parts of the Hebrew are nearly unintelligible. From The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 ‘consulting editors’, plus 124 other ‘contributors’, vol. 1, page 517:

“Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites … The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker’ or ‘smith’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘acquire’, ‘get’ — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man.  ‘From the Lord’ (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh’, and so unintelligible here (the help of [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh’ — and that the words are a gloss …”

In addition, The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary On The Bible, edited by Charles M. Laymon, makes the following comment on page 6: “… under circumstances which are obscure (vs. 1b can scarcely be translated, still less understood). His younger brother was named Abel, which suggests the Hebrew word for breath.”

Genesis 4:1 is the only verse in scripture that even suggests, and at that fact not even implicitly, that Adam fathered Cain; despite the fact that this contradicts all other scripture. One cannot use the presence of this verse as an argument, as it has no foundation. If the verse is “unintelligible” and “scarcely translated and barely understood”, how could it ever be the primary pillar of which one uses to prove a point on?

The authors of the Aramaic Targums, one of the earliest interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures, had similar difficulties with this problematic verse. In an attempt to maneuver their way around the problem, they made their own elaborations which reflect some of the attitudes from the time; similar to the Protevangelium which also does this.

From the Targum Onkelos:

“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.”

And from another, known as pseudo-Jonathan:

“And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the Angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said: ‘I have got a man from the angel of the LORD.’”

These readings reveal that early interpreters also had difficulties with the Hebrew of the text, and translation has been difficult for a long period of time. Any version based on the Masoretic Text comes from problematic sources, and faces challenges, and even the Septuagint translators had difficulties.

Greek interpretations can be gleaned from sources such as the 3rd century AD work known as the Hexapla, the Alexandrian Christian scholar Origen had compiled 6 versions of the Scriptures from Hebrew and Greek and set them in columns side-by-side. 

The columns were the Hebrew, then a transliteration of Hebrew words into Greek, the Septuagint, and versions by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. 

The Latin and Greek readings:

Latin: “I got a man to help Yahweh.” [Jova]

 

First Greek reading: “I have acquired a man through [by] God.” (Presence of a definite article indicates “the God”, or a particular God.)

 

Second Greek reading: “The Hebrew and Syriac: I have acquired a man with [or by] a god.” (Lack of a definite article would indicate that it is referencing no particular god, so here there is an indefinite article added.)

 

Third Greek reading: “I have acquired a man with a lord.” (Again, there is no definite article, so in our translation there is no definite Lord, but an indefinite article was added.)

 

Fourth Greek reading: “I have acquired a man, a lord.” (The two nouns each being singular and in the accusative case with no prepositions, they are both the object of the verb, and therefore they each describe the same object, a man who is a lord.)

 

The Hebrew has always been problematic, and both the writers of the Targrums and the Greek interpretations both had to face these challenges; yielding diverse conclusions. If the original language of Hebrew 4:1 is corrupt, we can never rely on it and can only guess on what it said.  Many of these early translations support the fact that Eve had conceived through an alternative party, either an angel, through or by some other god, or with a lord, or even a man who was a lord. There is no Hebrew word for half-brother nor is there even one in the Greek, and the word brother is used despite the fact that they only shared a mother. This is similar to the half-brothers of Christ through Mary, who are referred to as His brothers, despite having an entirely different father.

On top of everything we have learned through this presentation, the nature of Cain’s parentage is further revealed through the words of Christ, where he was speaking to his Edomite adversaries:

John 8:44: “44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” 

 

Only Cain was a murderer from the beginning, and it wasn’t the nature of being a murderer that made Cain a devil. Even David had murdered, and Moses, but neither were ever called such, and the title of devil reveals someone’s intrinsic nature, a genetic heritage, that can not be altered through action. For this reason, Christ called Judas Iscariot a devil, as Judas hailed from an Idumean town, (a province located in what was once the Old Testament region of Edom); and he was certainly an Edomite by race and a member of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. 

 

When Christ says “and the father of it” at the end of the verse, it can also be read in the Greek as “and his father”, revealing Cain’s true father, who was a devil. If Cain was a devil, he had gained this genetic heritage from his real father, the party that seduced Eve in the garden.

 

The apostle John had later written in chapter 3 of his first epistle: “11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” 

 

Cain had done no wrong before the murder of Abel, and his works of evilness were the circumstances of birth. Christ said you would know them by their fruits, and that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Yahweh tested Cain, challenging him to do good, knowing that in the end he would yield to his instinctual temptations. Similarly to how Judas Iscariot ultimately yielded to his own instinctual temptations. Actionable products of The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The consequences of bearing Cain are clear, and now we understand why what happened in Eden was grave and serious enough to warrant Yahweh’s justified reaction to it.