I. Genesis 3

(B) Ye shall not eat of it,

Eat has sexual connotations.

1) to eat (‘akal): devour (it is used not only of men but also of beasts, Isa 11:7; to enjoy any thing as good fortune, the fruit of good or evil actions, sexual pleasures, Pro. 30:20; to eat has sexual connotations; also, to lay with. Proverbs 30:20: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she EATETH, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness."

(C) neither shall ye touch it,

Touch has sexual connotations.

1) touch (naga): euph. To lie with a woman

(D) 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Apron is H2290 chăgôwr, a belt (for the waist):—apron, armour, gird(-le). The apron covered their private parts (from the waist with a belt to the groin or gird(le)), not their mouths. If they were ashamed from eating a piece of fruit, such as an apple, they would have covered their mouths.

(E) 13 - And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? 

Done is H6213

Had it been a mental crime the question would have been, “What is this that thou hast thought?” The word “done”... in both Strong’s and Gesenius’ has nothing to with anything mental, but everything to do with “to produce or create.” In fact, Gesenius’ includes a definition with sexual connotations:

“PIEL, to work, or to press immodestly the breasts of a woman, i.e., Ezek. 23:3, 8, and in Qal [Ezek. 23:21] ... So Gr. poieo, and Lat. facere, perficere, conficere mulierem, as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, see Fesselii Advers. Sacra, lib. ii. Cap. 23.” Pastor Eli James quoting Clifton Emahiser.

(F) And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

Beguiled has sexual connotations.

Beguiled is nāšā' H5377 Hiphil (2) to seduce, to corrupt Gen 3:13; Jer 49:16;

Beguiled is exapataō G1818 to seduce wholly. 2 Co.11:3

(G) 15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

(1) Proof that the Serpent has seed resulting from the liaison with Eve. And alludes to the fact that Eve may have been impregnated by the serpent and was carrying his seed.

Seed has sexual connotations.

Seed H2232 zeraʻ, seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity (offspring):carnally, child (children), fruitful, seed(-time), sowing-time.

(2) Yahweh did not put Cain to death because the enmity prophesy had to be fulfilled. Yahweh did not put the Serpent to death because he only tricked Eve and did not “murder” her.

(H)16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

Conception has sexual connotations.

conception H2032 herayon  pregnancy:—conception.

Yahweh informed Eve (and us) that she had conceived.

Yahweh said he was going to multiply Eve's conception/pregnancy and in fact she had twins due to continuing in labor and bearing Abel after bearing Cain.

II. Genesis 4

A) 1 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain and said, I have gotten a man (Iysh) from the LORD. She did not say she had gotten a man from Adam

man is Iysh H376

I have gotten an Ish - “the word ‘man” is NOT translated from the Hebrew word for ADAM, which means “to show blood in the face.” It is translated from the Hebrew word {#376} ‘iysh,’ which has a distinctly different meaning. Iysh simply denotes maleness. Eve would have used the word ADAM, if, looking upon Cain, he actually resembled Adam. If Cain were Adam’s son, she would have called him an 'āḏām , giving him the distinction of one who shows blood in the face. It is quite probable that the reason she chose the word iysh was because Cain did NOT show blood in the face, as Seth did. Quoted from Pastor Eli James, Enmity, Part 5. B) And she again bare his brother ABEL

again yasap H876 - to add or augment, to continue to do a thing

Cain and Abel were fraternal twins from 2 different fathers.

(C) The word “from” is 'ēṯ . One definition of et or eth is "against".

ʼêth probably from H579; properly, nearness (used only as a preposition or an adverb), near; hence, generally, with, by, at, among, etc.:—against, among, before, by, for, from, in(-to), (out) of, with

III. Genesis 5

(A) 1 - This is the book of the generations of Adam.

Cain is not found in Adam's genealogy. To quote Eli James, id.:

Cain is given a completely SEPARATE AND DISTINCT genealogy from that of Seth. Cain is not counted in this genealogy either. The descendants of Cain became the very Kenite/Cannanite /Edomite/Pharisee/Jewish line of descent. This is the very line of descent, which has been at enmity with the seedline of Adam and Eve since Gen. 3:15.

IV. Matthew 13

Parable of the tares; children of the wicked one

39 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, ​He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

The Serpent of Genesis 3 is also called a dragon, the Devil, and Satan. See Rev. 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

V. John 8

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

Christ told the pharisees that they were of their father the devil.

The Devil is another name for the Serpent. See Rev. 12:9 above. So Christ was saying that they were the offspring of the Serpent, i.e., the Serpent's seed from Gen 3:15.

No place in the word other than in Genesis 3:15 is the Serpent's seed mentioned. Again, no place in the word is the Serpent's seed mentioned other than in Genesis 3:15.

That he was a murderer from the beginning is referring to Cain, who was the 1st murderer. The definition of murder is to dash or cut into pieces.

Murderer râtsach'; H7523, a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er)

slew hârag, H2026, a primitive root; to smite with deadly intent:—destroy, out of hand, kill, murder(-er), put to (death), make (slaughter), slay(-er), × surely.

Smite  Nâkâh, H5221, a primitive root; to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively):—beat, cast forth, clap, give (wounds), × go forward, × indeed, kill, make (slaughter), murderer, punish, slaughter, slay(-er, -ing), smite(-r, -ing), strike, be stricken, (give) stripes, × surely, wound.

Slew / murdered Spház G4969,a primary verb; to butcher (especially an animal for food or in sacrifice) or (generally) to slaughter, or (specially), to maim (violently):—kill, slay, wound.

The Serpent only tricked Eve by and deceiving her and did not murder A&E because they still lived after their fall. Instead, they became mortal from being cut off from the Tree of Life and would eventually die like other mortals. Thus, Christ revealed that their father was Cain and that they did not descend from Abraham via Jacob/Israel. The Jews who claimed they were of Abraham could have descended from Abraham via Esau so the fact that Christ said they were of their father the Devil tells us that the Edomites were the offspring of the serpent via Cain.

VI. 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.

of - ek G1537 – to proceed from, out of

wicked one -- a reference to the devil, also known as the Serpent. See Rev. 12.9 above.

Pastor Eli James, Enmity, Part 5: I John 3:12 tells us that Cain was not of Adam, but of “that wicked one.”

Bertrand Comparet, in his essay, “The Cain/Satanic Seedline,” says that the word of, in the Greek, is the filial ‘of,’ meaning “son of.”

So John says in I John 3:10, "In this the children (teknon) of God are manifest, and the children (teknon) of the devil". Remember, John has talked about us as the born teknon of Yahweh and the others as the born teknon of the devil. [Comparet is assuring us that these words are not meant to be taken “spiritually,” but, literally, as referring to children in the flesh. – Eli]

So where it says, "not as Cain who was of that wicked one", in Greek it means he was the son of that wicked one.

In Greek, if you say John was of William, in English it would read, John was the son of William. The better English translations recognize this. For example in the Weymouth translation, this same verse, John 3:12 reads, "We are not to resemble Cain who was a child of the evil one and killed his brother." Phillips' translation reads, "We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain who was a son of the devil and murdered his brother." The New English Bible, a magnificent job of translation reads, "Unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one and murdered his brother".

Great job, Bertrand Comparet! Here are a few more samples;

"We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil.." - The New Testament in Modern English.

"Do not be like Cain who belonged to the Evil One." - New Century Bible.

"..not to be like Cain, who was from the Evil One.." - New Jerusalem Bible.

Many mainstream commentators affirm this meaning:

"He (Cain) is said to have belonged to the family of the wicked one." - Wycliffe Bible Commentary page 1473

"Which showed him (Cain) to be of that wicked one, of the serpent's seed: so early was such seed sown, and so ancient the enmity between seed and seed." - Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, volume 3, page 936

"It showed that he (Cain) was as the firstborn of the serpent's seed.." - Matthew Henry's Commentary, volume 6 page 1077. id.

VII. Matthew

3:7  But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers

12:34 - O generation of vipers,

23:33 - Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers,

Christ called the Pharisees a “generation of vipers.” Vipers are serpents. Thus, Christ was calling them the descendants of the Gen. 3 Serpent. This is part of the fulfillment of the prophesy where the serpent pharisees, which were Jews, would bruise the heel of Christ. As the word tells us, the Jews killed Christ.

Bertrand Comparet asks:

In Matthew 23:29-35 it is recorded, "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." Here again is the Greek word huios. "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye genema (ye offspring, children) of vipers. How can ye escape the damnation of hell? That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar." Was Yahshua so unjust that He was going to punish these Jews for the murder of Abel, if they weren't descendants of Cain? Of course not. Yahshua was tracing the children of the serpent, the enchanter Satan, Tracing those who had murdered the righteous, including all the prophets, right down the line. So Yahshua said, "Upon you (upon this race) these descendants of the serpent, will come the responsibility for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel even unto the blood of Zacharias."

VIII. Targums

New evidence was brought forth from the Aramiac Targums that an omission in Genesis 4:1 occurred. When the Targum evidence is added to Genesis 4:1 in italics it would read:

“ And Adam knew his wife Eve, who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan], and she conceived and bare Cain, and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly beings, and she said, I have gotten a man from the angel of the Lord.”

Hebrew scholars have been aware for years that there is a problem with Genesis 4:1. The Interpreter’s Bible, a twelve volume collaborative work of 36 “ consulting editors ” plus 124 other “ contributors ”, makes the following observation on this verse,vol. 1, page 517:

“Cain seems originally to have been the ancestor of the Kenites ... The meaning of the name is ‘metalworker ’ or ‘ smith ’; here, however, it is represented as a derivation of a word meaning ‘ acquire ’, ‘ get ’ — one of the popular etymologies frequent in Genesis — hence the mother’s words I have gotten a man From the Lord (KJV) is a rendering, following the LXX and Vulg., of ’eth Yahweh, which is literally, ‘with Yahweh ’, and so unintelligible here ([the words] ‘the help of ’ [RSV] is not in the Hebrew). It seems probable that ’eth should be ’oth — so, ‘the mark of Yahweh ’ — and that the words are a gloss ...” Two Seedline Taught in Dead Sea Scrolls, #1. Source: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/site/other-two-seedline-papers/303-two-seedline-taught-in-dead-sea-scrolls-1

IX. LASTLY

Eli James, Enmity, Part 5: My hat is off to Clifton Emahiser for discovering this gem:

Most of you are aware of the extensive research I have done on the subject of Two Seedline. I will now present solid evidence that Two Seedline is no new doctrine as some so cocksurely insinuate. I get this testimony from the book The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge, in a chapter entitled “ The Role of the Scriptures ”, page 48. Though Hardinge does not trace the Celtic Church back to the Church set up at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea about five years after the Passion, he does, however, quite well after 400 A.D., and proficiently documents his material. In this chapter he demonstrates the various methods of teachings used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses):

“Who died but was never born? (Adam) y Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk) y Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch) y Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth) y How many languages are there? (Seventy-two) y Who spoke with a dog? (St. Peter) y Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet) y Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent) y How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet).” (Hardinge cites R. E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages, 38-9, a translation of Ms. 908, “ The Ioca monachorum ”, an eighth-century Celtic text.)