On the Origins of the Dual Seedlines
One of the most important themes of Scripture that has been overlooked, ignored and obscured is that of the two opposing seedlines, that of the serpentine Adversary and that of God (Genesis 3:15). It is evident that Cain was not only born through Eve's seduction by the Serpent, נחש nachash, lit. snake, but in the verb form "to enchant" or "to practice divination"), but that his descendants, the Kenites/Qeynites, can be traced throughout the Biblical narrative through to the New Testament. When we come to understand that the Genesis 2-4 story of the Edenic fall is an allegorical representation of the beguilement and fornication of Eve, we may grow a much deeper understanding of the Holy Texts of our race and this ancient feud that will one day meet its inevitable finale.
When we analyze the language of Genesis, as it pertains to fruits, tasting and eating (Prov. 30:20), we may see that these are clear sexual euphemisms, as talk of trees and branches refer to origins of genealogies, nations, families and peoples. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (and its fruits) is no different in that regard. Cain, after murdering his half-brother Abel and his own banishment, found a wife from outside of the Adamic family (given that he was banished to the land of Nod) to continue his contaminated seedline, before also having founded a city known as Enoch which had to be comprised of a population of dubious origin. The perfect natural state of Creation had been corrupted.
Satan's brood of fallen angels (Rev. 12:7-9) continued to inseminate Adamic women producing bastard races of beast and giant alike (Gen. 6:1-4; 2 Pet. 2; Jude; cf. 1st Enoch 35). This is in direct violation of the law of "kind after kind" we find in Genesis 1. The Noahic Flood was delivered by God to punish Adamkind for these abominations, and in order to preserve an untainted bloodline through which Noah was called, because he was a just, faithful man who was pure in his generations (Gen. 6:9). The aforementioned Kenites (Cain's tribe) appear yet again during the days of Abram, both dwelling and intermingling in the land of Canaan among other strange tribes like the Rephaim tribe of Giants (Gen. 15:18-21). Genesis 36 also informs us that Esau took wives of these bastardized Canaanites. From this we can infer that the Canaanites, Edomites and surrounding nations are of the spawn of the Serpent. We shall cover these nations in more depth in future installments.
Once understood what these creatures are, it may now be clear as to why Yahweh God commanded their complete and utter destruction at the hands of Israelites on many occasions (Num. 21:2-3; Deut. 20:17; Josh. 6:17, 21; 1 Sam. 15). The Israelites failed to do so, and are warned by God's prophets (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3; Jer. 2:13, 21-22; Ezek. 16:3, 45), before being punished in Assyrian and Babylonian exile.
This unseen war is the base of the entire Scripture, as the implications are reflected both in the New Testament and our current era.
One of the most important themes of Scripture that has been overlooked, ignored and obscured is that of the two opposing seedlines, that of the serpentine Adversary and that of God (Genesis 3:15). It is evident that Cain was not only born through Eve's seduction by the Serpent, נחש nachash, lit. snake, but in the verb form "to enchant" or "to practice divination"), but that his descendants, the Kenites/Qeynites, can be traced throughout the Biblical narrative through to the New Testament. When we come to understand that the Genesis 2-4 story of the Edenic fall is an allegorical representation of the beguilement and fornication of Eve, we may grow a much deeper understanding of the Holy Texts of our race and this ancient feud that will one day meet its inevitable finale.
When we analyze the language of Genesis, as it pertains to fruits, tasting and eating (Prov. 30:20), we may see that these are clear sexual euphemisms, as talk of trees and branches refer to origins of genealogies, nations, families and peoples. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (and its fruits) is no different in that regard. Cain, after murdering his half-brother Abel and his own banishment, found a wife from outside of the Adamic family (given that he was banished to the land of Nod) to continue his contaminated seedline, before also having founded a city known as Enoch which had to be comprised of a population of dubious origin. The perfect natural state of Creation had been corrupted.
Satan's brood of fallen angels (Rev. 12:7-9) continued to inseminate Adamic women producing bastard races of beast and giant alike (Gen. 6:1-4; 2 Pet. 2; Jude; cf. 1st Enoch 35). This is in direct violation of the law of "kind after kind" we find in Genesis 1. The Noahic Flood was delivered by God to punish Adamkind for these abominations, and in order to preserve an untainted bloodline through which Noah was called, because he was a just, faithful man who was pure in his generations (Gen. 6:9). The aforementioned Kenites (Cain's tribe) appear yet again during the days of Abram, both dwelling and intermingling in the land of Canaan among other strange tribes like the Rephaim tribe of Giants (Gen. 15:18-21). Genesis 36 also informs us that Esau took wives of these bastardized Canaanites. From this we can infer that the Canaanites, Edomites and surrounding nations are of the spawn of the Serpent. We shall cover these nations in more depth in future installments.
Once understood what these creatures are, it may now be clear as to why Yahweh God commanded their complete and utter destruction at the hands of Israelites on many occasions (Num. 21:2-3; Deut. 20:17; Josh. 6:17, 21; 1 Sam. 15). The Israelites failed to do so, and are warned by God's prophets (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13; Jdg. 2:3; Jer. 2:13, 21-22; Ezek. 16:3, 45), before being punished in Assyrian and Babylonian exile.
This unseen war is the base of the entire Scripture, as the implications are reflected both in the New Testament and our current era.
The Noahic Flood
Before the creation of Adam and following, the world had been flung into chaos following the fallen elohim (or 'angels') rebelling against God by introducing other races through corrupting creation, prohibited by the early Law of 'kind after kind'. More on this later however. Prior to the Flood, angels would lay with Adamic women they found fair, and this spawned the bastard race of giants known as the nephilim (from the root naphal נָפַל, "to cast down/fall"), see Gen. 6:1-5.
Cont.
Before the creation of Adam and following, the world had been flung into chaos following the fallen elohim (or 'angels') rebelling against God by introducing other races through corrupting creation, prohibited by the early Law of 'kind after kind'. More on this later however. Prior to the Flood, angels would lay with Adamic women they found fair, and this spawned the bastard race of giants known as the nephilim (from the root naphal נָפַל, "to cast down/fall"), see Gen. 6:1-5.
Cont.
God, having seen the wickedness and extent of man's sins, decided He would punish our race, but not without salvation. A Flood would submerge the land and God had called out Noah and his family to trust in Him, building an Ark to survive the Deluge. Noah was chosen on account of his faith, being just and pure in his generations (Gen. 6:9). He and his three sons would be the means by which the Adamic race could continue on earth.
Now, it is a common misconception, as proposed by the judeo-churches of our day, that the Noachic Flood was a global event that submerged the entirety of our planet. Not only is this logically and scientifically improbable, but also subversive in its own end. For if the flood were worldwide, that'd imply that all of the races share their origins from Noah's party around 5500 years ago, and that some manner of short term evolution had to occur to produce such a wide range of biological diversity. Once this racial monogenesis is maintained, the floodgates are opened for all manner universalist doctrines. Of course, it is a scientific impossibility that all of the hominid races descended from Noah, as one man cannot birth different races.
Universalist adherents to the global flood would of course point to Genesis 6 through 9 to demonstrate how the Flood came upon the "earth". They will appeal to our modern understanding of the "earth" being the name of our planet. This is a fallacious approach, as looking at scripture through our cultural lens and not the Ancient Hebrew one is folly and will only lead to misunderstanding. The hebrew word used for 'earth' is erets (H776, אֶרֶץ), which refers to earth, a field, country or a proximal piece of land. One can utilize a concordance to see how the word is applied throughout the Old Testament, many occasions even pointing to the territory of particular nations (see Gen. 21:21,32,34). Nobody, no matter how cognitively dissonant, would admit to the silly idea that these nations would inhabit their own planets.
Another proof for the Local Flood of the Bible is that Scripture even tells us that antediluvian tribes managed to survive it. One only has to look at the land of Canaan in Abram's day for an example. In Genesis 15:18-21, we see that Canaan harbored many tribes that are nowhere to be found on the Genesis 10 table of Adamic nations. Two that spring to the forefront are the Rephaim (descendants of the bastard nephilim fallen ones/giants of Genesis 6) and the Kenites (tribe of Cain). If Noah was saved on account of his purity, and he was told to bring the animals onto his Ark for safety, then why would God choose to allow cursed abominations onto the Ark? If beings survived outside of the Flood, then the Flood could not have submerged our entire planet. There is no way to explain the existence of Aryans, Mongoloids, Negroids, Amerinds and all other aboriginals from the loins of one man within the space of a few millennia. The known world according to the Ancient Hebrew mind would've included both the Near East and the Mediterranean Basin, it's inconceivable that Noah called creatures from outside of this area to embark on his boat, for them to return back to their lands afterwards to repopulate.
Either the Noachic Flood was a global event and God failed to destroy everything on the earth with its presence, or the Flood was a local event in the Ancient Near East and everything in its proximity perished as God had promised.
Genesis 6:1-4
6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, ²the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. ³Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” ⁴The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Now, it is a common misconception, as proposed by the judeo-churches of our day, that the Noachic Flood was a global event that submerged the entirety of our planet. Not only is this logically and scientifically improbable, but also subversive in its own end. For if the flood were worldwide, that'd imply that all of the races share their origins from Noah's party around 5500 years ago, and that some manner of short term evolution had to occur to produce such a wide range of biological diversity. Once this racial monogenesis is maintained, the floodgates are opened for all manner universalist doctrines. Of course, it is a scientific impossibility that all of the hominid races descended from Noah, as one man cannot birth different races.
Universalist adherents to the global flood would of course point to Genesis 6 through 9 to demonstrate how the Flood came upon the "earth". They will appeal to our modern understanding of the "earth" being the name of our planet. This is a fallacious approach, as looking at scripture through our cultural lens and not the Ancient Hebrew one is folly and will only lead to misunderstanding. The hebrew word used for 'earth' is erets (H776, אֶרֶץ), which refers to earth, a field, country or a proximal piece of land. One can utilize a concordance to see how the word is applied throughout the Old Testament, many occasions even pointing to the territory of particular nations (see Gen. 21:21,32,34). Nobody, no matter how cognitively dissonant, would admit to the silly idea that these nations would inhabit their own planets.
Another proof for the Local Flood of the Bible is that Scripture even tells us that antediluvian tribes managed to survive it. One only has to look at the land of Canaan in Abram's day for an example. In Genesis 15:18-21, we see that Canaan harbored many tribes that are nowhere to be found on the Genesis 10 table of Adamic nations. Two that spring to the forefront are the Rephaim (descendants of the bastard nephilim fallen ones/giants of Genesis 6) and the Kenites (tribe of Cain). If Noah was saved on account of his purity, and he was told to bring the animals onto his Ark for safety, then why would God choose to allow cursed abominations onto the Ark? If beings survived outside of the Flood, then the Flood could not have submerged our entire planet. There is no way to explain the existence of Aryans, Mongoloids, Negroids, Amerinds and all other aboriginals from the loins of one man within the space of a few millennia. The known world according to the Ancient Hebrew mind would've included both the Near East and the Mediterranean Basin, it's inconceivable that Noah called creatures from outside of this area to embark on his boat, for them to return back to their lands afterwards to repopulate.
Either the Noachic Flood was a global event and God failed to destroy everything on the earth with its presence, or the Flood was a local event in the Ancient Near East and everything in its proximity perished as God had promised.
Genesis 6:1-4
6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, ²the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. ³Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” ⁴The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
The Civilizations of Noah
Following the Great Flood, all that remained of the elect Adamic bloodline was to be found within Noah and his family of eight aboard the Ark.
Noah, a purebred descendent of Adam, had three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth. If Noah was White, then surely these three would have been White. The judeo-churches will still remain adamant that these three men represent the patriarchs of three races (usually Japheth as the Caucasians, Ham as the Negroid and Shem as the Asiatic), however as we will show, the progeny of the three sons would go on to become the founding patriarchs of the great ancient Aryan civilizations.
Cont.
Following the Great Flood, all that remained of the elect Adamic bloodline was to be found within Noah and his family of eight aboard the Ark.
Noah, a purebred descendent of Adam, had three sons: Ham, Shem and Japheth. If Noah was White, then surely these three would have been White. The judeo-churches will still remain adamant that these three men represent the patriarchs of three races (usually Japheth as the Caucasians, Ham as the Negroid and Shem as the Asiatic), however as we will show, the progeny of the three sons would go on to become the founding patriarchs of the great ancient Aryan civilizations.
Cont.
In fact, even anthropologists of old understood that Japhetite, Hamite and Semite/Shemite were just three divisions of the Caucasian race (see images). We will of course contend that not all Caucasoids in this day and age are pure Whites, however that it is an indication of Adamic admixture to varying degrees (those outside of the European oikoumene being mostly bastardized).
It should also be noted that the Afro-Asiatic language family, of which very few of the Sub-Saharan tribes speak, was formerly known as the Hamito-Semitic (this would contain the Semitic languages of the Near East, and the languages of North Africa). We can digress into linguistic theories at a later date.
From the biblical record, we can infer that the Urheimat of the Noahite Aryans lies in the land spanning from the Armenian Highlands (mountains of Ararat where Noah's Ark landed, Gen. 9), Mesopotamia (where languages were confounded in Babel, Gen. 11) and the Iranian Plateau. From this region began the Adamic diffusion of migration, civilization, culture, language and technology across the known world.
Now, as for Noah's progeny, we can accurately pinpoint the whereabouts of many. For the purposes of this post, we shall handpick a couple from each of the three sons, but for a longer essay I would recommend reading William Finck's The Race of Genesis 10, as can be found on Christogenea.
Japheth is generally to be associated with the early Indo-European cultures of Eurasia (Yamnaya, Andronovo, Corded Ware, etc). In Gen. 9:27 it reads "God will enlarge Japheth...", as was found following the IE domestication of the horse. Of course, due to the fact that many of these Japhethite cultures dispersed north of the Caucasus, we cannot find them mentioned within texts of the Ancient Near East. However, we can determine several of them that did in fact settle on the Mediterranean. Javan/Yawan is to be identified as the Ionian Greeks of the Aegean, as Persian and Sanskrit will also bear the cognate names of Yona or Yavana for the Greeks. Javan's sons Rodanim can be identified with Rhodes, Kittim with Cyprus, Tarshish with Tartessus in southern Iberia. Japheth's other son Madai can also be identified with the Indo-Aryan Medes of the Iron Age.
Shem's major identifiable progeny are of course Aram with Aramea/Syria; Asshur with Assyria; Elam with the pre-Iranic Elamites; and Lud who was the forefather of the Indo-Anatolian Lydians. Not of course forgetting the Ancient Hebrews and their seed, more on this in the future.
Ham is commonly confused as the patriarch of the negroid races, however even an iota of study shatters this myth irreparably. Ham's progeny include Mizraim as patriarch of the Ancient Egyptians; Kush as patriarch of Ancient Aithiops (Greek for 'burnt/shining face'), the Sumerian royal dynasty with Nimrod (a son of Kush), the Mesopotamian city of Kish, and of course the Hindu Kush mountains of the east; Casluhim from whom came the Indo-European Philistines (Gen 10:14); and Caphtorim which would be Crete.
There exists no room for negroids or mongoloids in the Genesis 10 Table of [Adamic] Nations.
[Read More]
It should also be noted that the Afro-Asiatic language family, of which very few of the Sub-Saharan tribes speak, was formerly known as the Hamito-Semitic (this would contain the Semitic languages of the Near East, and the languages of North Africa). We can digress into linguistic theories at a later date.
From the biblical record, we can infer that the Urheimat of the Noahite Aryans lies in the land spanning from the Armenian Highlands (mountains of Ararat where Noah's Ark landed, Gen. 9), Mesopotamia (where languages were confounded in Babel, Gen. 11) and the Iranian Plateau. From this region began the Adamic diffusion of migration, civilization, culture, language and technology across the known world.
Now, as for Noah's progeny, we can accurately pinpoint the whereabouts of many. For the purposes of this post, we shall handpick a couple from each of the three sons, but for a longer essay I would recommend reading William Finck's The Race of Genesis 10, as can be found on Christogenea.
Japheth is generally to be associated with the early Indo-European cultures of Eurasia (Yamnaya, Andronovo, Corded Ware, etc). In Gen. 9:27 it reads "God will enlarge Japheth...", as was found following the IE domestication of the horse. Of course, due to the fact that many of these Japhethite cultures dispersed north of the Caucasus, we cannot find them mentioned within texts of the Ancient Near East. However, we can determine several of them that did in fact settle on the Mediterranean. Javan/Yawan is to be identified as the Ionian Greeks of the Aegean, as Persian and Sanskrit will also bear the cognate names of Yona or Yavana for the Greeks. Javan's sons Rodanim can be identified with Rhodes, Kittim with Cyprus, Tarshish with Tartessus in southern Iberia. Japheth's other son Madai can also be identified with the Indo-Aryan Medes of the Iron Age.
Shem's major identifiable progeny are of course Aram with Aramea/Syria; Asshur with Assyria; Elam with the pre-Iranic Elamites; and Lud who was the forefather of the Indo-Anatolian Lydians. Not of course forgetting the Ancient Hebrews and their seed, more on this in the future.
Ham is commonly confused as the patriarch of the negroid races, however even an iota of study shatters this myth irreparably. Ham's progeny include Mizraim as patriarch of the Ancient Egyptians; Kush as patriarch of Ancient Aithiops (Greek for 'burnt/shining face'), the Sumerian royal dynasty with Nimrod (a son of Kush), the Mesopotamian city of Kish, and of course the Hindu Kush mountains of the east; Casluhim from whom came the Indo-European Philistines (Gen 10:14); and Caphtorim which would be Crete.
There exists no room for negroids or mongoloids in the Genesis 10 Table of [Adamic] Nations.
[Read More]
The Biblical Philistines were Adamic Aryans
The Philistines, the neighbours to the south of the Israelite Kingdom in the biblical era, owe their origins to the Aegean Sea (east of the Greek mainland) according to DNA and archaeology. [1] This is in complete corroboration of the scriptural narrative which speaks of the Philistines, as the descendents of Mizraim, who migrated from Capthor (Crete) to the Southern Levantine Coast.
Genesis 10:13-14
¹³Mizraim [Egypt] fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, ¹⁴Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.
Amos 9:7
⁷“Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel?” declares the Lord. “Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor [Crete] and the Syrians from Kir?
The Philistines, the neighbours to the south of the Israelite Kingdom in the biblical era, owe their origins to the Aegean Sea (east of the Greek mainland) according to DNA and archaeology. [1] This is in complete corroboration of the scriptural narrative which speaks of the Philistines, as the descendents of Mizraim, who migrated from Capthor (Crete) to the Southern Levantine Coast.
Genesis 10:13-14
¹³Mizraim [Egypt] fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, ¹⁴Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.
Amos 9:7
⁷“Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel?” declares the Lord. “Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor [Crete] and the Syrians from Kir?
"And after some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became pregnant by him and bore a son. And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright.... his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious...and the colour of his body is whiter than snow and redder than the bloom of a rose, and the hair of his head is whiter than white wool, and his eyes are like the rays of the sun, and he opened his eyes and thereupon lighted up the whole house....make known to thy son Lamech that he who has been born is in truth his son, and call his name Noah."
Book of Enoch 106 (Fragment of the Book of Noah)
Book of Enoch 106 (Fragment of the Book of Noah)
On the "Curse of Ham"
One of the most common means by which people have tried to fit the black race into the seed of Adam is by imagining a 'curse of Ham' in Genesis 9 by which one of Noah's three sons, Ham, was cursed for 'seeing the nakedness of his father' and was turned into a negroid (and his progeny followed suit). Is this biblical?
A basic reading of the text would reveal that it was in fact Canaan who was cursed for the sins of Ham (Gen. 9:25) and that there is no curse on Ham to speak of (the earliest mentions of a Curse of Ham coming from the Talmud). Canaan's offspring, though accursed, would come to inhabit the southern Levant (Gen. 15:18-21) and were not a Sub-Saharan populace like the negroid.
Even if we are to roll with the erroneous conventional idea that Ham produced the black race, then we would have to concede that of the Genesis 10 nations, Egypt (Mizraim), the Philistines, and the earliest Sumerian dynasty (Gen. 10:8-12) are all of negro origin.
One of the most common means by which people have tried to fit the black race into the seed of Adam is by imagining a 'curse of Ham' in Genesis 9 by which one of Noah's three sons, Ham, was cursed for 'seeing the nakedness of his father' and was turned into a negroid (and his progeny followed suit). Is this biblical?
A basic reading of the text would reveal that it was in fact Canaan who was cursed for the sins of Ham (Gen. 9:25) and that there is no curse on Ham to speak of (the earliest mentions of a Curse of Ham coming from the Talmud). Canaan's offspring, though accursed, would come to inhabit the southern Levant (Gen. 15:18-21) and were not a Sub-Saharan populace like the negroid.
Even if we are to roll with the erroneous conventional idea that Ham produced the black race, then we would have to concede that of the Genesis 10 nations, Egypt (Mizraim), the Philistines, and the earliest Sumerian dynasty (Gen. 10:8-12) are all of negro origin.
Genesis 1:24-25
²⁴And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. ²⁵And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
²⁴And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. ²⁵And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Deuteronomy 23:2
²A 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.
*Strong's Hebrew #4464 –מַמְזֵר mamzêr, mam-zare'; from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of [an Israelite] father and a heathen mother:—bastard.
²A 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.
*Strong's Hebrew #4464 –מַמְזֵר mamzêr, mam-zare'; from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of [an Israelite] father and a heathen mother:—bastard.
In this world, God created only one Adam which became one race of man that would spawn from his loins. To this race alone were the many covenants, laws and promises of eternal life made. From the days before our fall from Eden, through to the gathering of the wheat at the end of the age, our race has always been met in opposition by the children of the wicked one. There are only two categorize in Scripture. One is either:
• A son or a bastard (Heb. 12:7-8)
• A sheep or a goat (Mtt. 25:31-46).
• A good fish or bad fish (Mtt. 13:47-50).
• Wheat or a tare (Mtt. 13:24-30, 34-42).
• Of the good tree or the bad tree (Gen. 2:9; Mtt. 7:17-18).
Your destiny is to either inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, or to be burned up in the Lake of Fire following the Gathering. There is NO middle ground.
Hail Christ, our Kinsman Redeemer and Saviour.
• A son or a bastard (Heb. 12:7-8)
• A sheep or a goat (Mtt. 25:31-46).
• A good fish or bad fish (Mtt. 13:47-50).
• Wheat or a tare (Mtt. 13:24-30, 34-42).
• Of the good tree or the bad tree (Gen. 2:9; Mtt. 7:17-18).
Your destiny is to either inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, or to be burned up in the Lake of Fire following the Gathering. There is NO middle ground.
Hail Christ, our Kinsman Redeemer and Saviour.
Sons or Bastards
Hebrews 12:7-8
⁷If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? ⁸But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
☩
As it says in Proverbs 13: “24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” And again, in Amos 3:2, speaking to the children of Israel collectively: “2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."
The Greek word for bastard here is νόθος (Strong’s # 3541). Liddell & Scott define the word to mean “bastard, baseborn, i.e. born of a slave or concubine... opposed to γνήσιος… 2. at Athens, child of a citizen father and an alien mother… of animals, cross-bred… generally, spurious, counterfeit, supposititious [substituted for the real thing; not genuine], of persons and things...”
Since the antonym of νόθος is γνήσιος, which appears in Paul’s writings on four occasions, it will serve us to see the definition of that word as well, from Liddell & Scott: “belonging to the race, i. e. lawfully begotten, born in wedlock…” For Christians, lawful wedlock is described in Genesis chapter 2, where a wife must be flesh of one’s flesh, and bone of one’s bone. Anything else is fornication and produces bastards, not sons or daughters. The word γνήσιος is derived from the word γένος, which according to that same source is “race, stock, family”. So a person who is γνήσιος is an authentic member of a particular race, and one who is νόθος is spurious, and does not actually belong to the race. A νόθος is therefore a bastard, or someone not belonging to the same Adamic race as the children of Israel.
Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, Part 15: Sons or Bastards
Hebrews 12:7-8
⁷If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? ⁸But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
☩
As it says in Proverbs 13: “24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” And again, in Amos 3:2, speaking to the children of Israel collectively: “2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."
The Greek word for bastard here is νόθος (Strong’s # 3541). Liddell & Scott define the word to mean “bastard, baseborn, i.e. born of a slave or concubine... opposed to γνήσιος… 2. at Athens, child of a citizen father and an alien mother… of animals, cross-bred… generally, spurious, counterfeit, supposititious [substituted for the real thing; not genuine], of persons and things...”
Since the antonym of νόθος is γνήσιος, which appears in Paul’s writings on four occasions, it will serve us to see the definition of that word as well, from Liddell & Scott: “belonging to the race, i. e. lawfully begotten, born in wedlock…” For Christians, lawful wedlock is described in Genesis chapter 2, where a wife must be flesh of one’s flesh, and bone of one’s bone. Anything else is fornication and produces bastards, not sons or daughters. The word γνήσιος is derived from the word γένος, which according to that same source is “race, stock, family”. So a person who is γνήσιος is an authentic member of a particular race, and one who is νόθος is spurious, and does not actually belong to the race. A νόθος is therefore a bastard, or someone not belonging to the same Adamic race as the children of Israel.
Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, Part 15: Sons or Bastards
Isaiah 43:3-4
³For I am Yahweh your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
your Savior.
I have given Egypt as your ransom,
Kush and Seba in your place.
⁴Since you have been precious and honored in my sight,
and I have loved you,
therefore I will give people in your place,
and nations instead of your life.
In Egyptian record, we read from The Admonitions of Ipu-Wer (believed to date to the period between the Old and Middle Kingdoms, or perhaps from 2300 to 2050 BC), from page 441 of Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, by James B. Pritchard, in part: “A man regards his son as his enemy… A man of character goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land... Foreigners have become people everywhere.[1]” The translator, John Wilson, made a footnote at the word for people here which says: “The term ‘men, humans, people,’ was used by the Egyptians to designate themselves, in contrast to their foreign neighbors, who were not conceded to be real people.”
³For I am Yahweh your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
your Savior.
I have given Egypt as your ransom,
Kush and Seba in your place.
⁴Since you have been precious and honored in my sight,
and I have loved you,
therefore I will give people in your place,
and nations instead of your life.
In Egyptian record, we read from The Admonitions of Ipu-Wer (believed to date to the period between the Old and Middle Kingdoms, or perhaps from 2300 to 2050 BC), from page 441 of Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, by James B. Pritchard, in part: “A man regards his son as his enemy… A man of character goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land... Foreigners have become people everywhere.[1]” The translator, John Wilson, made a footnote at the word for people here which says: “The term ‘men, humans, people,’ was used by the Egyptians to designate themselves, in contrast to their foreign neighbors, who were not conceded to be real people.”
Moses' Negro Wife?
Detractors of Christianity usually point to Numbers 12 as evidence that God has no qualms with the mixture of races as Moses takes a Kushite wife and Miriam is punished for opposing his choice of wife. Is this really an instance of God permitting miscegenation?
Moses' wife, Zipporah, is from the land of Midian (Exo. 2), and these Midianites are descendants of Abraham through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-2). We won't digress into whether Zipporah is the Kushite wife. Miriam's opposition to Moses is due to him choosing a non-Israelite wife, before she questions his status as prophet (by proxy questioning God). The Kushites are descendants of Ham (Gen. 10:6), hence Adamic [1]. The land of Kush originally was in Mesopotamia (Gen. 2:13, 10:8-12), though they expanded their oikouménē to the Horn of Africa [2] [3] [4]. Given that Moses was wandering in the Levant by this time, he couldn't have found a wife from amongst the 'Ethiopians' in Africa but from those of Kush in the East.
Detractors of Christianity usually point to Numbers 12 as evidence that God has no qualms with the mixture of races as Moses takes a Kushite wife and Miriam is punished for opposing his choice of wife. Is this really an instance of God permitting miscegenation?
Moses' wife, Zipporah, is from the land of Midian (Exo. 2), and these Midianites are descendants of Abraham through Keturah (Gen. 25:1-2). We won't digress into whether Zipporah is the Kushite wife. Miriam's opposition to Moses is due to him choosing a non-Israelite wife, before she questions his status as prophet (by proxy questioning God). The Kushites are descendants of Ham (Gen. 10:6), hence Adamic [1]. The land of Kush originally was in Mesopotamia (Gen. 2:13, 10:8-12), though they expanded their oikouménē to the Horn of Africa [2] [3] [4]. Given that Moses was wandering in the Levant by this time, he couldn't have found a wife from amongst the 'Ethiopians' in Africa but from those of Kush in the East.
Was the Eunuch of Ethiopia a Negro?
Proponents of racial universalism will commonly direct your attention to the Ethiopian Eunuch who Philip baptized on the road from Gaza to Jerusalem (Acts 8:26-40) as evidence that all of the races can partake in the New Covenant. Of course this all hinges on the assumption that this Eunuch was a negroid, this claim is wrong.
The nuance that is not typically noticed is the fact that the Eunuch was both in possession of a scroll of Isaiah (v30) and was making pilgrimage to Jerusalem for worship (v27). The most obvious inference was that this was a Judaean in the Ethiopian court, and this was indeed a view held by Early Church writers such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 4.23.2) and Pontius (Life of Cyprian, 3). This view continues to make sense when you consider the Jerusalem Temple Warning forbidding entrance to aliens as well as the existence of an Israelite temple as far down the Nile as the Elephantine in the 5th Century BC [2].
Proponents of racial universalism will commonly direct your attention to the Ethiopian Eunuch who Philip baptized on the road from Gaza to Jerusalem (Acts 8:26-40) as evidence that all of the races can partake in the New Covenant. Of course this all hinges on the assumption that this Eunuch was a negroid, this claim is wrong.
The nuance that is not typically noticed is the fact that the Eunuch was both in possession of a scroll of Isaiah (v30) and was making pilgrimage to Jerusalem for worship (v27). The most obvious inference was that this was a Judaean in the Ethiopian court, and this was indeed a view held by Early Church writers such as Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 4.23.2) and Pontius (Life of Cyprian, 3). This view continues to make sense when you consider the Jerusalem Temple Warning forbidding entrance to aliens as well as the existence of an Israelite temple as far down the Nile as the Elephantine in the 5th Century BC [2].
Genesis 2:7
⁷Yahweh God formed man (adam, H120) from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
John 3:3
Yahshua replied and said to him: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man should be born from above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of Yahweh.”
John 3:5-7
⁵Yahshua replied: “Truly, truly I say to you, if one should not be born from water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the Kingdom of Yahweh! ⁶That which is born from of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born from of the Spirit is Spirit. ⁷You should not wonder that I said to you that it is necessary for you to be born from above.
⁷Yahweh God formed man (adam, H120) from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
John 3:3
Yahshua replied and said to him: “Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man should be born from above, he is not able to see the Kingdom of Yahweh.”
John 3:5-7
⁵Yahshua replied: “Truly, truly I say to you, if one should not be born from water and Spirit, he is not able to enter into the Kingdom of Yahweh! ⁶That which is born from of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born from of the Spirit is Spirit. ⁷You should not wonder that I said to you that it is necessary for you to be born from above.
The Abrahamic Covenant
Following Noah, and the disinheritance of the Adamic nations at the Tower of Babel after the confusion of tongues, the next time God would interact with mankind would be with Abram, a Hebrew (descendent of Eber, the great-grandson of Shem) from the city of Ur in the land of Aram Naharayim (Gen. 12, 24:4,10, 28:5-7). Abram was called out by God to undergo a series of trials and challenges, travelling to Canaan, Egypt, and Canaan again. Eventually, God had revealed His racial covenant He would make to Abraham.
Cont.
Following Noah, and the disinheritance of the Adamic nations at the Tower of Babel after the confusion of tongues, the next time God would interact with mankind would be with Abram, a Hebrew (descendent of Eber, the great-grandson of Shem) from the city of Ur in the land of Aram Naharayim (Gen. 12, 24:4,10, 28:5-7). Abram was called out by God to undergo a series of trials and challenges, travelling to Canaan, Egypt, and Canaan again. Eventually, God had revealed His racial covenant He would make to Abraham.
Cont.