Slaying Cain

[EzraLB]

Bill, thanks for that nuanced explanation--the protection afforded to Cain was not transferred to Lamech, despite his boasting. This would allow for the propagation of Cain's seedline and free the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites when commanded by Yahweh.

I also agree with you about China--they are nothing but tools and vassals of the Jews. Whatever power that has been granted them could disappear tomorrow at the whim of the bankers if they step out of line. And Jews were very much behind the Chinese Communist Revolution, and Mao was a Rothschild front man from the beginning with many jewish advisors nudging him in the desired direction. Their purpose right now is to drain wealth from the West and flood our lands with permanent foreign exchange students, displacing qualified Whites in our top universities, among other uses.

[MikeTheAdamite]

It's possible that the name 'Chan' also comes originally from Cain!?
I'd say it was highly likely given their worship of the dragon which seem always to be decorating the Chinese takaways here in England!

[Kentucky]

Mark, I'm not sure how you are making the leap from "on the east of Eden" all the way to China.

Well, I guess it would depend on where you think Eden was. If you accept Frederick Haberman's presentation, then it's not a leap at all, but right next door, in the Tarim Basin.

After all, the Bible is more specific than just "east of Eden" as it locates Cain in the "Land Of Nod," and from the concordance, "Nod" merely means "wanderer". Could this not be a the first reference to the idea of the "wandering Jew"?

Considering the etymology of the word 'jew,' a colloquial for Judean, it is more likely a wandering Nodite. It probably would have been less confusing 5 or 6000 years later, had the writer said "land of wandering." It's also known as the land of shaking or trembling, because he could no longer find rest in Paradise, in the presence of God. I really don't see jews as nomadic as some other people groups, but they are full of restlessness. The jew seems to have a hive mentality, albeit hives do not remain static and stationary. The jew also has a knack for being chameleon-like and able to assimilate wherever they go, in order to fulfill their parasitic nature. When the host is devoured, they move on.

But the concept of "wanderer" seems to conflict with the idea that Cain then builds the first city. Wanderers don't build cities, nor do Jews. I can reconcile this only by seeing Cain himself not as a wanderer, but rather he lives among people who traditionally are wanderers, like the historical Arabs.

After Cain was purged from the nest, it didn't matter where he went, he would encounter the mongrel element in any direction. Given the syntax of Genesis, the ancient wording of people, places and things had an additional significance of being symbolic of something. Wandering could have suggested more than just two footed locomotion, but also the wandering mind of mongrels and the influence it must have had upon the early Adamic race when it came to imagination (Gen. 5:5).

It may not have been a conventional city as we know them today, but like "the cities of refuge," a designated area or region for fugitives in flight and banishment. We really don't know. But are given clues as to the characterization of people, places and things. That's what makes the Word so amazing on so many levels... for our edification. What he built may have been something other than what his Adamic kin were living in.

Also, at this time in history, China had no cities, nor was it, as far as I know, part of the known world or oikumene. The phrase "on the east of Eden" suggests a close proximity to Eden, not in the Far East as we know it, and certainly not on the other side of the world.

If you're suggesting that Eden was located in the Middle East, then I can understand the difficulty of proximity, but during the Neolithic Age, China did have communities and a semblance of civilization circa 7000 to 5000BC; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiligang_culture

And I understand the different translations of Numbers 33:55, as you pointed out. Instead of "forcing out" the Canaanites, it has also been rendered "destroy" or "kill" them. But if that is more accurate, then that would preclude the idea that the Canaanites are the physical descendants of Cain, because of the commandment not to kill Cain or his physical seedline. Is there Scriptural evidence that the Canaanites are a distinct people from the seedline of Cain?

It's not for me to prove suppositions. If there were clear Scriptural evidence, then there would be clear Scriptural evidence.

And as far as the Chinese being part of Revelations to help bring about the fall of Babylon, you'll have to show me in the Scripture where you are getting that from.

China is not mentioned in the Bible any more than America. I already mentioned an OT type that provides a pattern for a NT antitype. I said, "Israelites did not defeat ancient Babylon and the pattern may be the same for modern Babylon." From that criteria we are able to identify who or what is going to bring down Mystery Babylon, just as we identify the White race as true Israel. If "kings of the east" do not pertain to the orient, then where is this east? What is China doing right now in relationship to the jews contrived "world economy"? They are developing a counter movement called BRICS whereby money is not fiat-created out of thin air, but based on gold. This has the very real possibility of bring down the house of Rothschild and all of their over-extended tentacles of international criminal banking. This ultimate Ponzi scheme has no chance of recovery, because it is based on the ungodly practice of debt-usury. Secondly, look at how the Medes and Persian kings of the east, in 537BC, dried up the Euphrates River to defeat Babylon. Today, the river is the liquidity of money and the banks of the river are now the literal banks on Main Street. Today these “kings” are Russia and China, who are setting up an alternative system that will eventually dry up the western money system. It's 2:00AM so I must go to bed, but this is a good discussion.

Mark

[EzraLB]

Mark, thanks for your further explanation of some of the points at issue. Personally, I think it's a stretch for Wikipedia to call the Chinese Peiligang a "culture" any more than the Africans ever had what I would call a "culture". From my perspective, culture cannot exist without a written language to transmit it, which is what separates White culture from all others. And I don't see any evidence that the Peiligang had any written language at that point.

Also, gold-backed currency is no less "fiat" than currency backed by nothing. It should be readily apparent that the Rothschilds have controlled and manipulated the gold market from their beginning. And any currency backed by manipulated gold is just as fake as any form of currency. The Rothschilds can destroy any gold-backed currency simply by driving the price of gold down, forcing a sell off, then buying back all the gold at rock-bottom prices, which is what they've been doing for centuries. On top of that, there have been stories floating around that much of the gold bars that China and India has been buying up are actually fake. I seriously doubt the Rothschilds would ever let the Chinese to amass so much gold as to lose their control over it.

[MichaelAllen]

There is a China connection to the seed of the serpent, but it is not found in Cain directly. Rather, it is evident that the Edomites, the "bad figs" of Judah who mixed with them and set themselves up in Babylonia, and possibly even others of the sort earlier, had been running the trade routes through India for a long time. In addition, it is apparent that Arab traders had been running African slaves into India, China and elsewhere as far back as 750 BC. There is apparently Edomite, Arab and African negro blood in India, Indonesia and Southeast Asia for a long time, and some of it is in the Chinese as well.

Bill, where can I research this?

Thanks.

[Kentucky]

Mark, thanks for your further explanation of some of the points at issue. Personally, I think it's a stretch for Wikipedia to call the Chinese Peiligang a "culture" any more than the Africans ever had what I would call a "culture". From my perspective, culture cannot exist without a written language to transmit it, which is what separates White culture from all others. And I don't see any evidence that the Peiligang had any written language at that point.

It may be semantics, but from an anthropological view, culture is distinguished from social structure. I said it was a "semblence of civilization" very loosely in regards to the biblical application of what constitutes a "city." But, you're right, there's all other permutations that make the ancient world a mystery, compared to the Adamic Creation.

Also, gold-backed currency is no less "fiat" than currency backed by nothing. It should be readily apparent that the Rothschilds have controlled and manipulated the gold market from their beginning. And any currency backed by manipulated gold is just as fake as any form of currency. The Rothschilds can destroy any gold-backed currency simply by driving the price of gold down, forcing a sell off, then buying back all the gold at rock-bottom prices, which is what they've been doing for centuries. On top of that, there have been stories floating around that much of the gold bars that China and India has been buying up are actually fake. I seriously doubt the Rothschilds would ever let the Chinese to amass so much gold as to lose their control over it.

I anticipated something along those lines. However, the dirty little secret is that there are internecine conflicts within the realm of jewry and their dominions. And yes, I agree that gold is also a con game. The point is that the Rothschilds will not stand forever IF God has anything to do with it. And that was what I was getting at, drawing a parallel to ancient Babylon. Whoever or whatever "the kings of the east" can be identified as, will be an integral factor in the fall of Babylon. I'm seeing China as the most likely candidate irrespective of he who thinks he has the most gold, rules the world. "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof" I Cor. 10:26.

Mark

[Nayto]

I would esteem that from among these came those "sons of heaven" (not "sons of God" as we see in the Masoretic Text and some manuscripts of the LXX) who again attempted to corrupt the Adamic race in Genesis chapter 6.

That's interesting. Although the Septuagint I normally use says "sons of God" as well. Does anyone know how I could verify this myself?

[wmfinck]

That's interesting. Although the Septuagint I normally use says "sons of God" as well. Does anyone know how I could verify this myself?

http://christogenea.org/essays/problem-genesis-61-4

[Nayto]

Thanks for the link. I read it now.

What I struggle to reconcile with the essay is the words of Christ in Mark 12v25:

For when they should arise from among the dead they shall neither marry nor do they give in marriage, but they shall be as the messengers in the heavens.

He seems to be saying that not marrying or giving in marriage is necessarily a trait of the messengers in heaven. Does this imply that they able but choose not to? If it implies that they are not able to, then I don't see much room for the interpretation of angels themselves taking wives.

Going with the implication that they can but choose not to, obviously marriage covenants are nullified in death making the original question quite redundant, but it could explain why Christ says "they shall neither" i.e. future tense. Bill I'm assuming by your translation in the CNT that the "shall" was future tense.

Assuming that the messengers in heaven have married and given in marriage, but now are held up to the standard of choosing not to, would this not make Christ's words ambiguous? Let's assume that it was common knowledge that the messengers of heaven were in fact lustful at some point. To my knowledge there is no reconciling event where they went from lustful takers of Adam's daughters to being the pictures of virtue. Wouldn't these factors make Christ's comparison lose its effect? It would be like saying, "They will be as chaste as priests." But we all know there are some priests who are perverts, sodomites and pedophiles. In this way I still struggle to reconcile this with angels taking women as wives.

It has been some time since I heard your presentations on the book of Mark, so please forgive me if I'm missing anything. Are there maybe some notes on the presentation I could scan through?

[wmfinck]

Nayto, please listen to Pragmatic Genesis, LOL

First, Christ is talking about angels in heaven.

But what if the ancients understood the angels of Genesis chapter 6 to have been the already fallen angels?

In other words, what if the ancients identified pre-Adamic races (and the corruptions they created) with the fallen angels, as the Revelation also identifies the serpent of Genesis 3?

In that manner the entire Scripture is reconciled, with a practical interpretation that does not require visions of angels with wings descending to violate Adamic women.