Did Eve Have Sex With the Devil Or Did She Just Eat Some Fruit? - Part 1
my title question preposterous?
Up until recently I was of the mind, like so many others, that Adam and Eve's sin was just a simple act of disobedience, but writings I have discovered just lately have thrown a giant spanner into the works of my original understanding of their original sin. My understanding, too, not helped much by what is written in the King James Bible. However, always remember, that as believers, our understanding is never ours, it's the understanding we are given and The Lord does not give us all understanding, all at once, or at the beginning of our walk with Him. It takes years of study and much waiting on Him. Having clarified that little aside, let's write the crucial verses here so that we can see for ourselves what the Holy Scriptures actually say:
This verse is the most important and influences the whole of this study, for it mentions two seeds. Now what are these "seeds", because before we can move on we must be clear in our minds as to what they represent and, after a little research, we find it's all very straight forward. Most readers will know what the word 'seed' means in this context but to make sure, let's use another example or two so that there is no ambiguity or confusion:
Genesis 9:8-9 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you.
Genesis 15:3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
So as we can plainly see, the word 'seed' refers to offspring and if we refer to Strong's Concordance for further evidence we will find that the Hebrew word for 'seed' in Genessis 3:15 is the same as in Genessis 9:9 and 15:3. OK, so if we go back to Genesis 3:15 we can see that the Lord is going to put enmity between these two very different seeds or lines, but who is the Lord speaking to? Let's go there now:
Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
There we have it; the Lord is speaking to the Devil, Satan, that serpent and arch-deceiver also known as the destroyer, the adversary and in this instance the arch-seducer, for, without doubt, one of the two seeds mentioned here is his seed. Notice too the phrase "because thou hast done this". From that we can easily deduce and know that Satan actually did something and the term 'doing something', more often than not, refers to a physical action, not just an 'action' of sitting idly by on the sidelines enticing, goading or provoking as an exuberant spectator.
So what does all this mean for we are very definitely dealing with a physical seed that belongs to the Devil? In turn, this now beggars the question, how can a spirit being or a fallen angel have physical sexual relations with a human being? Well, the only verse in the Holy Scriptures we can rely on or turn to for any evidence to this event is in Genesis once more:
Genesis 6:1-2 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Who were these "sons of God" here that took the descendants or daughters of Adam for wives? Well they can only be one thing, they were fallen angels or angels that went astray and left their first estate as described in Jude 6
Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
The important words of this verse are 'kept not', 'first estate' and 'habitation'. The words 'kept not' mean they failed to keep a guard or failed to hold as precious their Spiritual inheritance or estate, i.e. to maintain any value upon their Spiritual substance and the honour bestowed upon them as Spirit beings. Instead they took it upon themselves to choose the lower order of the physical or the base level of physical men. This means they despised their first estate and placed more value upon human fleshly desires and, don't forget, these daughters were human beings in the fallen condition. These angels treated with contempt their manifestly higher order that the Lord had blessed them with, their 'first estate' - their position. Not only that, they gave up their home as well or their superior habitation; very reckless and foolish indeed. So much so, it ultimately cost them their freedom because the Lord incarcerated them in darkness, where they are to this day and where they will remain until the Last Great Day at the end of the Millennium or the end of the Lord's one thousand year reign on this earth as King of kings.
Now this brings us to the original issue, this wickedness was not a one off, this had all happened before, and it was a follow on from the earlier wickedness of their leader, Satan the Devil, otherwise known as Sammael in the other writings I mentioned. He set the example and these fallen angels followed in his footsteps, and their actions were a repeat of his wickedness. So what was this wickedness? Quite simply, it was the seduction of Eve. We can then add in the cuckolding of Adam or possibly even the sodomising of Adam - we do not know all the details. What we do know, though, is that the Devil contaminated their Godly union which up until that point had not been consummated. Adam and Eve discovered the sexual act through perversion and through lust and nothing but lust. This event was a compounding event, because after the Devil had had his evil way with Eve he then, through Eve, encouraged Adam to take her afterwards thereby reducing her to the status of a sexual object, an adulteress or possibly worse, a promiscuous slut. This, in effect, was the first pornographic act - the first threesome; the use of the woman's body for nothing but selfish sexual gratification. There was no love in this event, and it was the first sexual act on earth between a man and a woman. This, too, is how they knew they were naked and covered themselves with leaves and why, too, they hid from the Lord in the garden. They covered their sexual parts, they were laden with shame and guilt - they felt dirty and contaminated. Furthermore, it was this act that gave them the knowledge of good and evil, not through the literal eating of an 'apple', the fruit is pure symbolism. Not only that, if we think the literal eating of fruit from the wrong tree can make us feel dirty, unclean and shameful what kind of fruit could that be. OK, we could and would feel guilty for having disobeyed God but not dirty and ashamed. No, there is only one act that could have had that kind of effect on a previously innocent human being and that act is the promiscuous, lustful, loveless sexual act.
OK, so we now have the evidence that this wicked event took place, but where does this lead us? Quite simply, back to the two seeds, the two seeds that produced two offspring - Cain and Abel. One child was of the Devil's seed and the other was of Adam's seed. How do we know this? Not easy, because the King James Bible is not that helpful, so we have to look elsewhere, but where? Well, before I do that let's copy the KJV verse here, first, to analyse what it says:
Gen 4:1-2 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Now, based upon the evidence that I have revealed from the Holy Scriptures, Genesis 4:1 seems to read like a complete contradiction of the previous verses. We know there are to be two seeds, but this verse looks as if it's saying that Cain is Adam's son and Abel is Adam's son and not only that, but that Cain was a gift to Eve from God himself no less. Now where have the two seeds gone, because if Cain and Abel are both Adam's sons then they can only be of the one seed for they are both of Adam's seed, so what's going on in this verse? Well we know don't we, the true evidence has been written out of the narrative by the translators. Now there's a surprise, and why would they do that!? They would do it, because it would mean having to admit what I have stated above, that Eve had sex with Devil and produced Cain from that illegitimate union. The thing is, we have got a whole load of stuff going on in Genesis 4:1 and it will require another article to cover it, so stay with it folks.
"If you want to make someone angry tell him a lie; if you want to make him furious, tell him the truth. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
Did Eve Have Sex With the Devil Or Did She Just Eat Some Fruit? - Part 2 - Cain and Abel
OK, Genesis 4:1 what's going on here, because it makes no sense when we add in the evidence which I revealed in part one? I will therefore copy it here again:
Gen 4:1-2 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Now before I expound on the other writings let's look at the KJV first to see if we can make any sense of it: "And Adam knew Eve, his wife," hello, excuse me, Adam did what? Adam had already 'known' his wife in the garden, so how is it that after expulsion from the garden he is only now 'knowing' his wife as if for the first time? Notice, it doesn't say "And Adam knew Eve his wife again". Then it says she conceived and bare Cain and not only that but she says she has gotten a man from the Lord. We then have Eve conceiving and baring Abel, but with Adam having only known her once, so what's going on here!? We need to understand that Eve fell pregnant due to sinful, evil, promiscuous and lascivious sexual acts and then declares she has been blessed with a man from the Lord. How does that work then, does the Lord bless sin? We only have to recall what happened to King David's child through his illicit sexual shenanigans with Bathsheba to know that the Lord does not bless the fruits of the womb of Biblical characters when they misbehave. You can read the story in 2 Samuel 12 and in particular verse 15.
Make no mistake Eve's evil union with the Devil would, and could, only bring trouble, not only to her, but to Adam, and for all mankind in the future as well, culminating in the flood and the sinful post flood world, too. If we know the story, we will also know that the fruits of this event would be graphically displayed in the way in which Cain turns out i.e. what kind of a man he becomes. That being the case, what was Eve really saying when she said she had: "gotten a man from the Lord?" This KJV 'evidence' also raises another question, how did Eve come to the conclusion that Cain was a gift from the Lord. We know that Adam and Eve's sin in the garden was sexual in nature, because they covered themselves with aprons to hide their shame. This means that Eve must have had a good idea of whose child she was carrying in her womb. That being the case how did she come to the conclusion that it was a gift from the Lord. How does that make any sense? Furthermore, how did the translators of the KJV think they were going to get away with this nonsense - the nonsense of Eve's statement that she had gotten a man from the Lord? Was it a case that they thought she was completely naÔve, I don't think so, because all they wanted to do was hide the truth that Cain was literally a son of the Devil. Why did they want to do that and what did they have to gain from such devious behaviour? All will be revealed as this series of articles develops!
Moreover, if we continue to accept the story line as written in the KJV, we then have to ask ourselves if Cain and Abel were twins, for it appears that Adam only 'knows' Eve once. So if Eve did have twins, could these twins have had different fathers - a phenomenon known in medical terms today as superfetation? Well, it has been known, and more often than we might at first think. A little Google search will soon reveal and confirm to you this anatomical phenomenon. Therefore, Cain and Abel could have been twins with the Devil as Cain's father, and Adam as Abel's father. The thing is, twins or not, it's the two seeds or seed lines that matter here, nothing else for this is the core of the matter. Now before we move on to the other writings, let's add another Holy Scripture here to help us unravel this mystery:
1 John 3:12 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.
Notice in this verse of John's letter we have Cain who was "of that wicked one". The word 'of' here in Strong's Concordance means 'origin', so Cain's "origins" are of the Devil which again points to him being the Devil's seed. I will return to this verse again, in part three of this series of articles, for there is much more Truth to be gleaned from it.
More evidence, too, is made plain through the genealogy of Adam in Genesis 5. Notice, you will not find Cain's name mentioned in that genealogy, why is that? Well, quite obviously, because Cain was not Adam's child. I will copy the evidence here:
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.
Now why did Moses write this verse like that? Why, to draw to our attention the fact that Seth was made in Adam's own likeness, after his own image, but why make special reference to that? What other image could Eve have born in her womb, if it was not in Adam's image and in his likeness! Well obviously, this verse is telling us, without actually saying it, that of the two sons Cain and Abel, Abel now deceased, only one of them was in Adam's image and in his likeness - Abel. Elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures it tells us that Seth is a child born to Adam and Eve to take Abel's place:
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
So this means that from Adam we have Abel (murdered) and then Seth who begat Enos, who begat Cainan, who begat Mahalaleel, who begat Jared, who begat Enoch, who begat Methuselah, who begat Lamech and who begat Noah. So there we have it, the Sethitic line from Adam to Noah.
Moving on again, I will now copy here what it says in documents known as the Aramaic Targum(s). Those of you not familiar with these writings, Aramaic Targums are ancient Jewish writings dating from around the time of the Jews captivity in Babylon, so this means they date from around 550 BC. In general these writings are blasphemous in their content and I would not recommend them to Christian brothers and sisters at all. Having said that we cannot conclude that everything written therein is error for Truth can be found in the most unlikely of places e.g. the caves where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. OK, so here is the writing:
And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And she said: "I have got a man from the angel of the LORD."
Now here we can plainly see this verse has a completely different narrative altogether, and it also begins to make some sense. The name Sammael can mean several things: accuser, seducer, destroyer, which are all names of the Devil. From the Wikipedia we get 'Sam' meaning poison and 'el' meaning God - the poison of God and hence the serpent. We also know that the Devil was always going to try and thwart the Lord's plans for his pinnacle of creation - mankind. We are, after all, made in His image and what better way to thwart that plan than by literally polluting The Lord's creation by intercourse with His creation, Eve. Notice how Eve's statement has changed and the naÔvety of her KJV statement revealed for what it is - meaningless nonsense.
Returning to the KJV, notice, too, how Eve is known as the "mother of all living" but Adam is not known as the 'father of all living':
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
The word 'was' here should more accurately be translated 'was to become' and of course she did become the mother of all living but Adam is nowhere known as the 'father of all living'. This then tells us that Eve sired children from another source other than Adam, and, of course, that source was the Devil.
If we now return to Genesis 4:1-2 we can then see that after Eve conceived Cain she then bare Abel but it doesn't say how long the interval between the two conceptions was, so as I said earlier some commentators say Cain and Abel were twins, others that Abel followed swiftly nine months later. Either way they were of a similar age and grew up together, one, Abel, being a keeper of sheep and the other, Cain, a tiller of the ground.
The story then continues with Cain's infamous wicked act of murdering his half-brother, but what was behind this act? All will be revealed in part three.
"Our mind is of
three categories: what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know we don't
know. Not knowing is unfortunate; not knowing that we don't know is tragic." W.
Did Eve Have Sex With the Devil Or Did She impartial Eat Some Fruit? - piece 3 - The stamp of Cain
OK we know, too, that there was an argument between the two half-brothers but what was the argument about?
Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Here the word Ďtalkedí is meaningless KJV understatement on the portion of the translators. Cain and Abel were arguing ferociously, but what about? Well, we have a worthy understanding, because it was the subject of sacrifices or religious observances, those that were acceptable to the Lord and those that were not. So what was unacceptable about Cainís offering? Quite simply, it contained no blood, and it was one made by his hands. He had to plant the crops he offered, as opposed to Abelís which was made totally without hands by God. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Stone or Rock (please stamp, all you Roman Catholics) hewn without hands. Cainís was a tarnished offering, an insulting offering, and Abelís was unspotted, perfect, a lamb of his firstlings, a type of the Passover Lamb with shed blood that soaked into the ground. There was something else too; the spiritual dimension to all this, for be aware, the spirit of Cain is level-headed with us today, as is his name and as are his descendants, but what is that spirit, and how can a spirit, six thousand years primitive, have influence over us today? Again, quite simply, because it was the spirit of temporal and/or of man made political power and religious authority.
Having digressed, but keeping with the above theme, Iíll return to the historical yarn. Cain wanted to rule the roost in both areas of influence and mark his authority on everything. All politics and religion - THE SYSTEM or THE AGE or what the Holy Scriptures call The World, started here with Cain, and there was no procedure he was going to allow his upstart human brother to have any authority over him. Cain, donít forget, was a demonic hybrid - half beautiful being and half earthly, so no doubt considered himself far suitable to his earthly, fully human, half brother. This spirit was Satanís spirit, imparted to Cain by his father. Satan knew Godís thought would eventually mean resurrected human beings to Spirit site, a dwelling that would give resurrected human beings authority over him in the future. The Holy Scriptures bears this out when Paul said to the Corinthians:
1 Cor 6:3 Know ye not that we shall consider angels? How grand more things that pertain to this life?
Satan, therefore, was going to do all in his power to finish mankind attaining his ultimate prize - life eternal with authority over angels, for us as resurrected Spiritual beings in the Kingdom of God. His immoral view to thwart the progress of mankind, therefore, began with the assassinate of Abel through his son Cain and with this contaminated act comes the immoral ticket of Cain:
Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD state a imprint upon Cain, lest any finding him should waste him.
The demand that now needs answering is WHY!!?? Why did the Lord spare Cain, for without any doubt it was a let off, if only a temporary let off. Under the Law (for the Law in Spirit was in force before Moses) of the veteran Covenant he should have been slain immediately and in the same procedure as he had slain his brother - an spy for an contemplate etc., so why did The Lord let him off? For the simple reason that everything is to Godís Glory and His Glory being ultimately served through His idea for mankind, which Satan was never going to end - try as he will. In order to comprehend Godís ways, we must understand this fundamental of fundamentals. All the events in the record of the OT had to approach to pass, in order to bring us to and necessitate the Lord Jesus Christís birth into this world, His sacrifice and His resurrection. This ĎMarkí that Cain received is one and the same as the price of the Beast in Revelation, for it is the notice of man, as well the impress of Ďaí man - Cain, and I will deal with this in more detail later.
We must also remember as well, that our ways are not Godís ways; our logic and reasoning are not Godís logic and reasoning. Our ideas of logic and reasoning are based solely upon our puffed up ďwe reflect we know whatís bestĒ vanity and pride, unless of course, we are Born Again and have a terminate brotherly relationship with the Lord who then teaches us His logic. Please explore my series of articles on ďTheology and Theologians or Bible Intellectualism and Bible Intellectuals - parts 1-5?, for a bulky explanation of how manís pride and vanity, through his believe logic and reasoning, has created nothing but error. These articles will demonstrate to you that our ways are nothing to do with Godís ways, and, in turn, how this mindset, a mindset of philosophical lustrous religion, has separated man from his Creator. fair as an aside, Philo from whence we derive philosophy was a Canaanite Jew and therefore a descendant of Cain. Again, more of this later in my next article.
Getting serve to the memoir line we then have God punishing Cain for Abelís abolish, but with a punishment Cain cannot contain. How is it a punishment he cannot possess? He cannot gain it because manís environment was to be cursed by God a second time. Man lost the sparkling environment of the Garden of Eden through Adam and Eveís sin and he was about to loose the fertility of the earth as a whole. The Lord was going to curse the earth so that it would no longer yield crops and all men would know that Cain was to blame and would therefore ogle him out to slay him:
Gen 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
There we have it, Cain as fugitive on the accelerate from his fellow man for the rest of his days and, as a poverty stricken vagabond at that, unsurprisingly, was more than he could believe. So Cain pleads for mercy and the Lord hears him:
Gen 4:13-15 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can possess. 14 peek, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall advance to pass, that every one that findeth me shall destroy me. 15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD place a impress upon Cain, lest any finding him should demolish him.
Again, there we have it and with Cain admitting that his face will be hid from the Lord and his life not worth a dime. So the Lord puts a effect on Cain protecting him from his fellows lest any should attempt to raze him. Now this is all very spirited I hear you say, but if we have recent descendants of Cain collected with us today, do they composed carry the same tag? Yes, of course they do. How do we know that? Easy, they win away with blue slay and never accept apprehended. Our ex-Prime Minister was chop named Teflon Tony, for it seemed nothing would stick to him. Crisis followed crisis and he appeared untouchable and of course in a sense he was, and tranquil is. Both he, and Bush, was highly suspect in many of their escapades and dealings, but has anyone charged them with a single offence? No, no plot, not a chance. Why? Why, because of the effect of Cain. Mr Blair was also nick-named B. Liar, which is a play on the name Belial, one of Satanís princes, the sons of whom are known more commonly as Ďvile scoundrelsí. Doesnít that fair about sum all politicians? I reckon.
Finally, we then have Cainís genealogy from Enoch: Gen 4:18-22 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech. 19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. 20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brotherís name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. 22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
Now this Naamah is reputed to have been Noahís wife, but the Holy Scriptures again go frosty on this topic, for Mrs Noah is never referred to by name. There is other evidence though, the name of Cain is mentioned post flood, though, via the name of a tribe of people known as the Kenites and in the Hebrew language their name is a derivation of Cain. In the Hebrew itís pronounced qey-niy or Kay-nee and Cain is pronounced qayin or Kay-yin so we can behold the connection. We then have the name Canaan which is pronounced ken-naían or Ken-ah-an. So as we can plainly view all these people are related and initiate from Cain. This means that Cainís run did not die out with the flood, it continued, but how? All will be revealed in my next article. I will also be dealing with the subject of the giants who lived upon the earth at that time, so cease with it.
Did Eve Have Sex With the Devil Or Did She Just Eat Some Fruit? - Part 4 - Why the Curse on Canaan?
In part three I left it, where, according to the King James Bible, Noah's wife is only referred to as "Mrs Noah" (my terminology), but who was she? As I showed in part three; in order for the line of Cain to bridge the flood one of the eight redeemed survivors that entered the ark had to be a descendant of Cain. A crucial point we also need to understand is that at this point in mankind's history the tribal, clannish or better, the seed line is carried by the male side and it does not change to the female side until Sarah, Abraham's first wife. So this means that the Adam/Sethitic line or the line of man is carried by Noah and his three sons. This, in turn, means that Noah's daughters in law could also have been descendants of Cain, but we are not told. However, because the male side, at this juncture, carries the dynastic line, the genetic origins of these women are of no significance. The Sethitic line is carried by all three sons for they were all sons of Adam via Seth. So this brings us back to the racial identity of Mrs Noah, for it is she who is the link pin to this fascinating story. Please note, too, for this is important; all the offspring of Noah's three sons will carry the Sethitic line, but with one exception and I will return to this issue later in the article.
Now as I also stated in part three, there is a woman mentioned in Genesis 4:22 by the name of Naamah who was the sister of Tubal-Cain so she was, most definitely, a descendant of Cain. The thing is, was she Noah's wife? The answer, and suspiciously so once more, cannot be found in the King James Bible so we have no option but to look elsewhere for the evidence. Having looked elsewhere, what do you think we will find? Answer: Yes, Naamah was Noah's wife according to the Midrash Genesis Rabbah which are ancient Judaic texts and from the Wikipedia we get:
"Genesis Rabba Bereshith Rabba is a religious text from Judaism's classical period. It is a midrash (Hebrew for 'an interpretation') comprising a collection of ancient rabbinical homiletical interpretations of the book of Genesis (Bereshith in Hebrew)."
From another source we have verses 15-16 in chapter five of the Book of Jasher, which reads as follows:
15 And thou shalt raise up seed, and thy children with thee, in the midst of the earth; and Noah went and took a wife, and he chose Naamah the daughter of Enoch, and she was five hundred and eighty years old. 16 And Noah was four hundred and ninety-eight years old, when he took Naamah for a wife.
The Book of Jasher is referred to as the 'lost' Book of Jasher and in modern terms dates from a translation of 1887. Interestingly, this book gets mentioned twice in the Holy Scriptures, so from this evidence alone we can assume that it has more than some validity and here are the Scriptures for your information:
Josh 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?
2 Sam 1:18 (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)
Here we can plainly see that the Book of Jasher is referred to as a reference of some importance and used as proof text or back-up evidence for the two historical events mentioned. It is being used as a source of validation, so we cannot just sweep it aside as a book of myths and/or fallacious additional material.
OK, so with this proof and/or evidence in mind we will return to the Holy Scriptures where we read the account of Ham's wickedness or his wicked sin perpetrated upon his father, Noah. Here again the King James Bible leaves much to be desired in its recording of this crucial event in mankind's history. In effect it's another of those dumbed down stories, like the fall in the Garden of Eden account. Both these accounts were written so as to mislead by not revealing the Truth of these sordid and evil events. Make no mistake; this solitary evil act by Ham would affect the outcome of this world's history, for it was, without doubt, the Devil's handiwork through Cain's descendant, Naamah. So without further ado let's copy the relevant Holy Scriptures here so that we can analyse them in detail:
Gen 9:18-27 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Now the first thing that becomes apparent in this short passage of Holy Scripture is the mentioning of Ham being Canaan's father and it's mentioned twice, why? Why not reveal Ham's other sons and why not refer to Shem's sons as well as Japheth's sons? What is so special about this Canaan that he should be mentioned twice whilst all the other grandchildren of Noah are ignored completely; what's it all about? Quite simply, Canaan is a very different 'grandchild' altogether and not a grandchild at all in the ordinary sense, and more of that later.
Before I move on I wish to counter some negative stuff that some commentators have written about Noah and his drunkenness in this story. Let me tell you; their attitude is extremely judgmental with some of them even suggesting that Noah had become an alcoholic and that his drunkenness was a regular occurrence. This is pure guess-work on their part and, at best, blasphemous arrogant conjecture. After the flood Noah became a husbandman, and, amongst other husbandry, had planted a vineyard and was no doubt celebrating the fruits of his labours. All this story line is telling us is that he obviously ended up drinking too much, but this is no reason to label the great man an alcoholic; a man who found grace in the Lord's sight.
None-the-more-for-that, whilst intoxicated, something happens to Noah and this 'happening' is so serious that it results in Ham's son, Canaan, being cursed. This is no light matter when we consider that patriarchs usually like to bless their offspring, not curse them. (Please read the account of Jacob/Israel blessing his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, in Genesis 48) This event was tragic and traumatic for all concerned, including Shem and Japheth who had to literally cover their 'father's nakedness'. Now this occurrence leaves us with more questions. For instance, what was Ham trying to achieve here by involving his brothers? Did he boast about what he had done? Was this event symbolic of Adam and Eve's aprons in the Garden? Was he trying to hide his guilt? Was he attempting a 'cover-up', (just as our corrupt rotten politicians do today) hoping that Noah would not find out? Notice, too, that it needs both his brothers to carry the covering garment, so we're not talking about a flimsy single sheet that we would use today to cover one of our modern beds, this was a very wide garment indeed and most likely wide enough to cover two people, and herein lies the first evidence that we are not just dealing with Ham seeing his father's nudity.
Here again we have a parallel with the Garden of Eden account, for the punishment does not fit the crime if we take it as it reads. Once again we are dealing with symbolism or turns of phrase that have a deeper or stronger meaning. In this story we are having to focus on the term "uncovered his father's nakedness" and what it really means, just as we had to take another look at what the Biblical rendering was alluding to when it said that Eve "took of the 'fruit' and did eat". So what was the real meaning of Ham "uncovering his father's nakedness?" Fortunately, we don't have look outside the Holy Scriptures for the answer of what this phrase means, for it is found within the pages of Leviticus:
Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
When a man forms a permanent union with a woman they become one flesh in God's sight and the Holy Scriptures from Leviticus cement this view. In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ confirms this:
Matt 19:5-6 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So here we can see the seriousness of Ham's sin, for he did put asunder the union between his father and his mother. He saw his father's nakedness by lying with and having incestuous sexual relations with his mother and thereby made her pregnant with Canaan. This is the only explanation there can be for the singling out of Canaan as the recipient of the curse and not Ham's other sons. By doing this, Noah not only punished his son, but he punished his wife too, for no mother wishes to see harm come to her children. Now we know why the covering garment needed two men to carry it, for it most likely covered their mother's nakedness as well as their father's - if only symbolically and nothing else. It is also worth mentioning that Noah never knew his wife sexually again after this event.
Now what of the nature of this curse, for it clearly states that Canaan's descendants would be slaves to Shem's descendants and slaves to Japheth's descendants, and, even worse, slaves of slaves. They would also feature big time in the future when Joshua led the Israelites into the land of Canaan and more or less killed them all apart from a few whom they took as slaves:
Josh 16:10 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.
"The Ephraimites" in this verse represents the ten tribes of Israel, not just the tribe of Ephraim alone. Joshua was an Ephraimite. Also, the use of the word Ephraimites is used to differentiate between them and the twelve tribes which would have included Judah and Levi. In particular, though, for us in this latter day age it refers to England, her Commonwealth and Anglo-Saxon peoples of the USA where the slavery of Canaanites (black people) was at its greatest during the time period from the 16th to the 20th centuries - segregation was a type of slavery or a system where Canaanites were serving under tribute. How do we know that the Canaanites were black people? Easy, Ham in the Egyptian language means 'black' and Cush, one of Ham's other sons, also means 'black' in the Hebrew language. I cover this subject in more detail in my series of articles entitled "Was the Lord Jesus Christ a Long Haired Effeminate Looking Wimp?" These articles are a must read if you want to find out about the counterfeit Christian religious Jesus who, in Truth, does not exist.
Now were all Canaanites black; obviously not, because the Romans were descended from Canaan, as were the Egyptians (modern Spaniards or Hispanics) who were brown rather that black? We then have the Babylonians (modern Italians) who are also brown and, notice; all these peoples, predominantly, have black hair. Then, finally, we have the Canaanite Jews who originate from a forbidden and unholy union between the patriarch Judah and a Canaanitess named Shuah as recorded in Genesis 38. Again, black hair predominates amongst Canaanite Jews or those of the dispersion. Have you ever noticed how the Orthodox Jews i.e. Canaanite Jews always wear black - black suits, black coats and black Homburg hats - just a coincidence; I think not?
As mentioned earlier in this series we have people in Britain and the USA named Cain who are white; even Senator McCain whose name actually means "son of Cain" is currently attempting to reach the Whitehouse in this November's election. This evidence alone proves that the line of Cain is still with us today, but do they still carry the 'Mark of Cain'? Oh yes, most definitely, and I will cover this most important subject in my next article.
OK, to round off, I will return to the point I made earlier about Noah's sons and grandsons all being of the Sethitic line with one exception and of course that one exception was Canaan who carried Cain's blood through the evil sin of his parents - Ham and his Cainite mother, Naamah. The Lord then had to curse Canaan through Noah just as he had to curse all of mankind through Adam and Eve's sin by throwing them out of the Garden of Eden. Bad blood has to carry a curse, for it cannot find favour in the Father's sight unless it's redeemed by the Lord's blood through His death and resurrection.
As a final point do not listen to mainstream Christians who will tell you that a curse placed upon a certain individual all those years ago cannot stand today or be applicable to people descended from him, living today, because it does. If this is not so, how is it when I tend my garden I am frequently a victim of thorns, briers and thistles and I perspire profusely across my brow too? This is a good reminder of the fallen condition or of the curse place upon all mankind - 1,500 years before the curse on Canaan, so don't listen to any of their intellectual clap trap and pathetic attempts at explaining Biblical Truth away.
"In A Time of Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act" - George Orwell.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Charles_Crosby
external links could be outdated.
The "construction of this webpage, not the "data" - How we do it -
take the most factual & truthful articles (Author's data)
"format" that data, their articals, into a more "dynamic" html page using Java, scripting and formating.
this page constructed by