Who is Cain's Father? Part Three

This study is not intended for children, the immature adult or casual seeker. I recommend that you read this entire study and consider the sum of the evidence before rejecting it on some point of initial disagreement.

16 Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;

Matthew 10:16-17

Sodom - Another Echo of Eden

The link between Sodom and the Garden of Eden may have already come to your mind. Earlier, I had written: "While engaging with the serpent tree in the Garden, Adam was stimulated to orgasm through anal intercourse and his semen was subsequently spilled on the ground. If the woman's eating of the tree resulted in pregnancy, the man's eating of the tree must be of a like kind." Anal intercourse is called sodomy because of the infamous behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom and the region roundabout. Adam was sodomized in the Garden. The continuity of the "sex orgy" theme exhibited as an echo of Eden in the account of Noah's day is no less evident in the account of the destruction of Sodom. Our perception of this continuity is, I believe, essential to foster our understanding of the peculiar realities of our present time and circumstances. While there is in this account the familiar matter of sinful behavior, beyond that is the matter of two kinds of trees, the hidden matter, concealed as a great treasure.

If the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah isn't fresh in your mind you might want to pause to read Genesis 18-19 now.

As "birds of a feather flock together," family groups settle together. Who were the occupants of Sodom and Gomorrah? This was the land of Canaan, son of Ham, son of Noah. (Genesis 10:1,6,19) Canaan was kin to Nimrod, son of Cush, son of Ham, son of Noah. Nimrod, it is said, began to be a "gibborim," about which Tom Horn and Steve Quayle have had much to say. The land of the Canaanites is where, later, in the days of Moses, Joshua and Caleb went with certain others to spy out the land after the exodus from Egypt. They found giants in the land and brought back with them what we recognize today as GM produce (genetically modified) as evidence of what they found. Later yet, Goliath, the Philistine of Gath in Canaan would be slain by David. Do you understand how that the occupants of the land were fruit of the bad tree?

The Sodomites were not Adamic, even though they had the Patriarch Noah in common with Lot. How can this be? As Nimrod "began to be" a gibborim, and, as the giant-sized produce was found in Canaan, a corrupting transformation of the DNA occurred. The Sodomites were GM, genetically modified. They were as a branch cut off from the Lord God's tree and grafted into the serpent's. The graft was real and legitimate.

The fruit of the bad tree was truly purged from the face of the ground at the flood of Noah's day, whose good seed then repopulated the earth. Yet, as the Lord God had declared to Adam about the ground that was cursed because of him, both thorns and thistles it would grow for him, truly ungodly men of the bad tree. The destruction by water brought no end to this season, which must ultimately come by fire. The Sodomites were as tares, sown by the enemy among the wheat that grew of the good seed, gathered, bound into a bundle and burned. While no end to the season of bad fruit came when Sodom burned, this branch with its fruit was cut off. When Goliath was slain, that branch was cut off with its fruit, yet, the cursed ground continues to bring forth cursed fruit of the bad tree.

I hope you're beginning to realize how that when the fire and brimstone rained down upon the region of Sodom, the destruction wasn't targeting descendants of Adam and Eve who liked to party too much and tended to get carried away, who could maybe have gone through rehab and been reintegrated back into society. While sinful behavior is a lesson that should be learned from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the lesson that is the more hidden (as treasure buried and guarded) is about trees that bear fruit, reproducing after their kinds. Fire was set to this particular branch or tree of the bad tree kind.

18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 7:18-19

With confidence in our knowledge of the secret of the fruit bearing trees we can begin to recognize the more subtle clues scattered throughout the biblical text.


Romans 9:29

The lust the men of Sodom had for these visitors was far beyond any desire a natural male could have for another natural male. The visitors were not males of Lot's kind, who was of like pedigree as his uncle Abraham. Neither were the men of Sodom of Lot's kind. The visitors were angels with bodies of angelic flesh that were actual first generation beings created by the Lord God. The Sodomites' irresistible attraction to the visitors was less male to male in character than bad tree fruit to good tree fruit. In Noah's day, this was the essential nature of the attraction of the sons of god to the daughters of men, and, in the Garden, of the serpent to Eve and to Adam. The degree of the attraction the Sodomites had to the visitors was beyond that even of bad tree male to good tree female, a fact that's revealed through their rejection of Lot's offer to substitute his two virgin daughters. Even though Lot's daughters were females of the Adamic kind and of marriageable age (who could have been used to raise up more of their cursed hybrid offspring), the men of Sodom could not be dissuaded from their goal of fulfilling their lust with the angelic flesh of the first generation of the good Tree. The men of Sodom wanted to treat these angelic visitors like the serpent had treated Adam, first generation fruit of the good Tree in the Garden! They craved fornication with "strange" flesh!

6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Jude 1:6-7

Today, as bizarre as it seems, the only sober and reasonable conclusion that can be reached by those of us with our eyes open is that the wheat is not alone in the field. As surely as you can still find thorns and thistles there are such a people as that among us. As to what physical characteristics might betray their identity, or what genetic markers might distinguish them, I can't say. When some suggest evidence of reptilians or shape-shifters or point out their observations of "alien race" attributes, instead of scoffing or mocking it may wise to consider the possibilities, and even probabilities. If you now know the shocking truth of Cain's paternity and the reality of the two fruit bearing trees that compete for turf in this season, there are some things in your "world view" that might just require some radical rethinking.

It Really is About the Fruit-bearing Trees

The biblical account of the destruction of Sodom is sandwiched in a context that supports and strengthens the theme of the fruit bearing trees. It was just prior to the visitors' arrival in Sodom that they had some interaction with Abraham and Sarah. This involved the Lord Himself (also appearing as a man), who made the promise to Abraham and Sarah that He would return to them at that time the next year, and Sarah would have a son. This event is by any reckoning pivotal in the story of good Tree fruit! Then, just after the destruction of Sodom we find the curious account of Lot's daughters, who had just been spared having to raise up offspring with men of Sodom, taking it upon themselves to assure that Lot's own seed would be preserved in the earth. If what I already presented wasn't persuasive, reading the context of the destruction of Sodom probably won't help you, but if you really get what the story is about on a deeper level then what's found in the context should speak even more loudly about the focus on fruit bearing trees.

Odds are, you're already pretty familiar with the story of Abraham and Sarah so I'm not going to expand on it here. I do think it will be helpful to share some insight about Lot's offspring. After that, I'll show you how a curious element you may have noted that's common to all three of these storylines suggests looking beyond the moral character of the people for key insight.

The timing of the Lord's intervention at Sodom was perfect, of course. The reasons why He does things when He does are seldom stated directly in the biblical narrative, yet I've found time and again that He's pleased to grant insight into His purposes once we're able to read the clues that are so wondrously left for our discovery. Intervention was made when it was time to rescue Lot's seed, to keep the precious fruit of this tree from being cut off.

Moab, the son born of the union of Lot and his firstborn daughter is in the messianic lineage through Ruth, great-grandmother to King David. The two genealogies given in Matthew and Luke bear testimony about the importance of the ancestry of Mary, who conceived of the Holy Spirit and brought forth the Messiah in due time. Following the line of progeny from Adam and Eve to Seth, and so on until we arrive at Mary we can chart the course of the fruit of the good Tree. There is sometimes one line and sometimes there are two in this tracing. While the genealogies are puzzling they conceal and reveal according to their Author's purposes. In this side panel you'll find a compilation of interesting facts about the one from Matthew, which speaks to critics of the genealogy that it bears the mark of the One who watches over His fruit and the testimony of His Word.

On the genealogy found in Matthew 1 (Based on the
work of Ivan Panin)

#1. The number of words which are nouns is exactly 56, or 7 x 8.
#2. The Greek word “the” occurs most frequently in the passage: exactly 56 times, or 7 x 8.
#3. Also, the number of different forms in which the article “the” occurs is exactly 7.
#4. There are two main sections in the passage: verse 1-11 and 12-17. In the first main section, the number of Greek vocabulary words used is 49, or 7 x 7.
#5. Of these 49 words, The number of those beginning with a vowel is 28, or 7 x 4.
#6. The number of words beginning with a consonant is 21, or 7 x 3.
#7. The total number of letters in these 49 words is exactly 266, or 7 x 38-exactly.
#8. The numbers of vowels among these 266 letters is 140, or 7 x 20.
#9. The number of consonants is 126, or 7 x 18-exactly.
#10. Of these 49 words, the number of words which occur more than once is 35, or 7 x 5.
#11. The number of words occurring only once is 14, or 7 x 2.
#12. The number of words which occur in only one form is exactly 42, or 7 x 6.
#13. The number of words appearing in more than one form is also 7.
#14. The number of 49 Greek vocabulary words which are nouns is 42, or 7 x 6.
#15. The number of words which are not nouns is 7.
#16. Of the nouns, 35 are proper names, or 7 x 5.
#17. These 35 nouns are used 63 times, or 7 x 9.
#18. The number of male names is 28, or 7 x 4.
#19. These male names occur 56 times or 7 x 8.
#20. The number which are not male names is 7.
#21. Three women are mentioned-Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth. The number of Greek letters in these three names is 14, or 7 x 2.
#22. The number of compound nouns is 7.
#23. The number of Greek letters in these 7 nouns is 49, or 7 x 7.
#24. Only one city is named in this passage, Babylon, which in Greek contains exactly 7 letters

Here's the account of what happened after Lot and his daughters had fled to the mountain cave.

30 Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 Then the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32 "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father." 33 So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34 On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father." 35 So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.

Genesis 19:30-38

Lot was not going to be having any sons with his wife, who had become a pillar of salt. His daughters apparently had a good grasp of their situation, whose stated objective was to "preserve our family through our father." For the firstborn to reason that, "there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth," she had to have known that the genetic credential was crucial because there must certainly have been men around who could sire children. The record of history reveals a wonderfully significant blessing coming as a result of their deeds. The genealogy given in Matthew lists Ruth the Moabitess (Matthew 1:5, ) as the great-grandmother of King David, so the firstborn daughter of Lot who conceived by her father in order to preserve the family received the honor accorded a messianic matriarch!

I doubt this passage of scripture is taught or read very frequently without reference being made to moral issues. When we consider the accounts from Genesis 18-19 of Abraham and Sarah, the end of Sodom, and Lot with his daughters, what most of us tend to see is sin and the moral failure of people with flawed character. Sarah laughed when she heard the promise that she would bear a child. When questioned about it, she denied it, lying. The common judgment would be to disqualify her and keep looking for someone more worthy of the blessing. If we consider in the story of Lot's daughters how incest is condemned when the law is later given to Moses, and also how they had conspired to take advantage of their father by plying him with wine, our inclination is to disqualify them and any of their bastard children too. Very few of Lot's choices suggest he had either wisdom or courage in any significant amount, so in our thinking we would disqualify him from any honor due a Patriarch. Yet the Lord's wisdom in judgement is far beyond ours. The way I see it, the mercy and grace we see exhibited, as though the heavenly Father just winks at any moral or character deficiencies, draws the curious among us beyond that superficial level. Ultimately, when we come to see the enigmatic trees bearing fruit after their kinds, what is found is much more satisfying, as strong meat instead of merely the milk of the Word.

While you have been reading here, other biblical accounts may have come to mind, perhaps one involving Judah, Onan and Tamar. It has the familiar elements of; spilling seed on the ground, the destruction of ungodly men, and a woman who has to trick a patriarch into siring offspring and who ends up as a messianic matriarch. That and other passages that may have come to mind I leave to you to pursue according to your own interests.

The “Light Snack”? No. Eating? Yes!

The kind of behavior that led to Eve conceiving and Adam spilling his seed on the ground should be obvious. This behavior was addressed very appropriately when the man and woman were about to be expelled from the Garden. There were other issues addressed at that time. In review of what was noted earlier in a side panel, these issues were specifically the implied pleasure Eve experienced while conceiving with the serpent, her desire for one who was not her husband, her ruling over her husband, and Adam's hearkening to the voice of his wife. While we have given these things a fairly rigorous investigation there is more the Lord would have us to know about what happened in the Garden and the resultant effects.

I must tell you something about the writing of this study, that I would have been content to tie it off already, which I had tried to do. This was not to be. What follows must be seen as a very important adjunct. None of what you're about to read was optional in the writing, and I am fully assured when I make this statement. What you will read you will not like. You may think it's merely speculative, yet, it's my testimony that this is what the Lord gave me. We are to put on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6), so, when a point is made like it has been with the scope of content in this section we should take heed. While you are reading through to the end you will discover that it is not always easy to read, and you should know it was not easy to write. You'll probably say, "TMI - Too Much Information!" The Lord says, "No, it's not too much. It is enough." Thank you Lord, for your mercy and for your exceeding great grace to us who have the evident blessing of your love!

Whatever happened to Canaan?

Whatever happened to Canaan? Why did his tree bear bad fruit? If you read the account of Genesis 9:18-25 you will read about a curse being pronounced on Canaan by Noah. Who Canaan really is and why he is cursed is a matter that's whitewashed in the same manner as the sin in the Garden. The truth is concealed and revealed about the important adult themes in the Bible using figures of speech.

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside

Genesis 9:22

What it means when it says Ham "saw the nakedness of his father" is that he had sexual relations with his mother, the wife of his father Noah.

6 None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness; I am the LORD. 7 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, that is, the nakedness of your mother. She is your mother; you are not to uncover her nakedness. 8 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness.

Leviticus 18:6-8

Ham's act resulted in the conception of Canaan, who was identified as cursed according to Noah's prophetic utterance.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. 25 So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers."

Genesis 9:24-25

This curse resulted in Canaan, who would be born of the union of Ham and Noah's wife, being cut off from the good tree and grafted into the bad tree. Ham was influenced in an apparent bid to hijack the lineage as high up the chain as possible, branching a competing line of fruit-bearing trees off the first generation female, as the serpent had done with Eve in producing Cain.

See Noah's Nakedness by Peter J. Leithart, referencing the work of Bergsma and Hahn.

While there is little if any support in the scriptures for a "light snack" version of what happened in the Garden there is a legitimate aspect of "eating." You can read this between the lines of the biblical text and further see it reflected in the testimony of history and in the reality of our present time. Eating is part of the Lord God's response to both the serpent and to Adam in the Garden.

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Genesis 3:14, 17-19

To the Serpent: "Dust you will eat" - To Adam: "You are dust"

Let's begin with what may seem at first suggestion to be rather outrageous. Adam was told, "You are dust." The serpent was told, "dust you will eat." Could this mean that the serpent would henceforth feast upon Adam, literally consuming the flesh bodies of Adam-kind? Is there evidence of such a thing in the biblical or historical record? Indeed, there is!

You might be thinking, "Whoa! Are you going to tell me cannibalism was one of the sins in the Garden?" Uh, well, for now, just try not to run on ahead. We'll get there soon enough.

The practice of cannibalism has been documented from very early history. It has been the behavior of those who claim such an example was established by their gods, gods who fell to earth from heaven. Cannibalism continues up to the present time. It's practiced by some who openly profess to worship Satan by it. The news media has reported in just the last few years some very grisly accounts of jilted "gay" lovers who have slain and eaten their former lovers, among both men and women. If you can acknowledge there are thorns and thistles among us you must understand how this sordid behavior is inherited from the bad tree that continues to bear fruit after its kind.

Here's a biblical account of the practice that is attributed to Canaanites.

32 So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. 33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

Numbers 13:32-33

This report that was given to Moses and Israel by the spies on their return from the promised land reveals that they witnessed cannibalism. A figure of speech is used (specifically known as metonymy of the subject) where the land is put for the people of the land. The land that devours its inhabitants is where cannibalism is practiced. These "bad tree" Canaanites ate human flesh. And, no, this is not the whitewashed version most of us have become familiar with. This is the adult version.

While most versions of etymology point to Christopher Columbus' reference to the Carib people as the source of the word, "cannibal," it seems to me far more plausible that Eustace Mullins is correct. He wrote in The Curse of Canaan (p. 12) that the word "cannibal" is a combination of "Canaan" and "Baal."

Are we to think such behavior as this comes without some legitimate basis, something to which we can point as its origin? Just as I had presented the Sodom and Flood scenarios as echoes of Eden with realities that reverberate forward even unto the present time, this matter of cannibalism has a root in the Garden. Adam is dust and the serpent eats dust. If we can perceive such a theme as a long thread woven into the fabric of history, our perception of this and the continuity of similar essential themes really does foster our understanding of the peculiar realities of our present time and provide a reliable framework for the unfolding of Bible prophecy. The lust for the flesh and blood of Adam-kind didn't spring randomly out of the imagination of the Adamic. This lust compares to the lustful sexual appetite the Sodomites had for the angel men, that the sons of god had for the daughters of "the Adam" and that the serpent had for Eve and Adam in the Garden. In these lusts, in this lust, there is continuity! We just have to "connect the dots" to draw the picture and make it plain. Something happened in the Garden that led to this consequence.

How could Ham sin like that so soon after the flood?

How Ham could have done such an evil deed so early in the season following the flood is a curious matter. The influence that inspired and motivated Ham to procreate with his mother had to come from somewhere. The ability to raise up fruit that would be grafted into the bad tree had to come from somewhere. From part two of this study it was revealed how Genesis 3:18 is a prophetic declaration that thorn and thistle men would be brought forth from the cursed ground for Adam for the full duration of his abiding in the dust body. Even though the surface of the earth was purged of the seed of the serpent by the flood, the promise assured their return with little delay.

In the post-flood age, the serpent's seed must be brought forth in the same manner as before the flood, through procreation with the daughters of men. In the garden it was the serpent Tree with Eve, and afterward, the fallen angel sons of god with the daughters of men. The thorns and thistles must be brought forth, and another sire would be required.

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Romans 9:21

Ham may have been made from the same lump of clay as his brothers, but he was somehow made unto dishonour. How did this come to pass? It's easy to understand how people are who and what they are because of what's inherited from their parents, genetically. It's harder to understand how we're not simply as we were when we came into the world. What we now know from scientific study is that our genes change over time due to viral and other factors. Could Ham have mutated somehow? In the biblical narrative, immediately before we're told of Ham's sin, we're given what must be considered a clue.

Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.

Genesis 9:20-21

Some years must pass before a vineyard matures and yields grapes. More time must pass before the grapes can produce alcoholic wine. During this season, the food brought with Noah and his family on the ark ran out and they began to eat what grew from the ground. The ground had recently been purged by the flood but yet was, in fact, no less cursed than it had been before the flood. The flood did nothing to change the status of the cursed ground, or the promise that it would produce for Adam a "thorns and thistles" people! During this season, Ham also ate of the cursed ground. This son of Noah (who was "perfect in his generations") produced Canaan, who was specifically cursed, but Ham also begat Cush, who brought forth Nimrod. It's in the biblical account of Nimrod where some light appears to be shed on what happened to Ham.

Cush hath begotten Nimrod; he hath begun to be a hero in the land; he hath been a hero in hunting before Jehovah; therefore it is said, `As Nimrod the hero [in] hunting before Jehovah.'

Genesis 10:8-9 (Young's Literal Translation)

As Tom Horn points out, Nimrod didn't start out life as a hero, a giant, or, "gibborim." He "began to be," genetically changing, mutating. It seems likely to me that by a similar dynamic, Ham came to be inspired, motivated and enabled to begin fulfilling the promise of Genesis 3:17, as suggested in the clue offered in Genesis 9:20. Ham was the chosen vessel through whom those prophetic words would begin to be fulfilled in the new age.

I believe "environmental" factors had a role to play, and I'm also convinced that choices made about obedience, about sin, have an effect on one's DNA. Have you ever noticed the difference in appearance between those who habitually practice sinful deeds and those who habitually practice good deeds? It does not seem at all likely that Ham just woke up one day with the idea of procreating with his mother, then just followed through. Over time, Ham changed.

Beyond the environmental factors and those due to choices Ham must have made it seems likely to me that there were also certain genetic factors that were present from birth, and that it was the sum of all these that brought Ham to "uncover his father's nakedness" and become the father of more than one line of bad tree fruit.

That Noah was perfect in his generations we know because the Bible declares it. Whether Noah's wife, the mother of Ham and Canaan by Ham, may have had genetic corruption that transferred through her 23 chromosome contributions is not something I can say with certainty, but it seems likely. If she was not as Noah was, "perfect in her generations," there is certainly the potential for corruption in her children. As I was taught genetics, the male who contributes the Y chromosome determines the blood and therefore the soul component. What influence a mother has genetically, who can say. The Lord knows, and I just know that I don't. If Noah's wife had corrupted DNA then certainly Shem and Japheth had the potential for some degree of corruption. The wife of Ham, who was probably the mother of Cush (who begat Nimrod), may have had corrupted DNA that passed to her children. The wives of Shem and Japheth must also be considered for their potential in the repopulating the earth with genetically impure offspring.

It's really necessary in the broader context to consider the underlying spiritual nature of such matters as our behavior and genetic identity. There is always the matter of legality to be considered, which establishes the relationships and domains of the supernatural agents involved. For, truly, we wrestle not against flesh and blood as it is written in Ephesians 6, but against spiritual entities who have appointed domains of activity and authority. Angels and demons that can and do manipulate matter have a role to play in who does what and becomes what, ultimately according to the will and purposes of the sovereign God.

Ham, a vessel of dishonor made from the same lump of clay as his brothers, after eating what grew from the cursed ground for a season decided to procreate with his mother. Thorns and thistles were going to be produced for Adam. The Lord God made provision for his Word to be fulfilled.

While you're connecting the dots you should give some consideration to our culture's increasing fascination and even obsession with the vampire. Vampires feast upon the blood of men and women, which is their very life. Is this merely a legend, or perhaps the fictional invention of people like Irish novelist Bram Stoker? The vampire legend is like many others that relate to superhuman creatures. When an honest consideration is given to the facts of history there appears to be a substantial basis, a core of truth. If we let what our depraved culture craves speak to us we can hear the testimony of the supernatural realities that influence them. The masses crave books and movies about vampires. Stories like Dracula ("In the Romanian language, the word dracul can mean either "the dragon" or, especially in the present day, "the devil"" - Wikipedia) and the old TV series "Dark Shadows" now seem far overshadowed in popularity by the present phenomenon of "Twilight" and "Underworld." There should be no doubt that the obsession with the fanged vampire relates to the serpent. Connect the dots well and the vampire phenomenon can be traced back to what happened in the Garden of Eden.

We should ask whether Adam as dust and the serpent eating dust could somehow be interpreted according to the "eating as procreative act" figure we've already explored in the context. The answer has to be, "No," this is clearly different. However, when we search beyond the consequence of eating dust with a view to discover the nature of the causative offense in the Garden we have to see the "sex orgy" activity we already know took place and consider the eating within that context. The consistent application of a "tooth for a tooth" judicial model suggests that the consequence of eating dust, when Adam is dust, is in response to the serpent eating Adam in the Garden by way of oral sex. Instead of the eating of some literal apple-like fruit from a tree we can infer that the sex orgy included oral sex between the serpent and Adam, since this is an element of the address to the serpent that relates to what was addressed to Adam. This is, in a manner of speaking, the eating of the fruit from the tree, when such is understood in the context of sexual reproduction. It's no great secret what men do with men and sodomy is not the only practice.

Take another look at what Michelangelo painted of this scene.

From Part One of this study we observed how Michelangelo had painted a very astute representation of the deep primal imagery of the serpent/tree/DNA identity. Take a long and considerate look at it again. Did he or his patron (Pope Julius II) believe oral sex was practiced in the Garden? Can this be interpreted honestly in some other way? This painting must have been to them and others since then as an inside joke, who see it and understand what it really means.

Let's consider how cannibalism as a consequence might relate to oral sex as a cause. If the seed of one is consumed by another it is as though the progeny represented in that seed is consumed. This concept is biblical and is described for us in the seventh chapter of the book of Hebrews.

9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Hebrews 7:9-10

There is in this principle a connection between the consumption of a man's seed and cannibalism because the progeny can be considered to be in the loins of the father. You see, Abraham fathered Isaac, who fathered Jacob, who fathered Levi. It is considered that Levi was in the loins of his great grandfather, which is to say that progeny is represented in the seed of man. If the seed that was passed from Abraham to Isaac had instead been consumed, it would be as though Levi were consumed.

Did the serpent eat Adam's seed in the Garden? If not, for what reason did the Lord God condemn the serpent to go on his belly, eating dust? You're welcome to believe what you want about the activity in the Garden. If you deny the presence of the "dots" or refuse to "connect them" you'll have no legitimate answers at all to the hard questions that beg to be asked.

Adam, Too, is Condemned to Eat

The serpent was not alone in being condemned to eat something. Adam was condemned to eat of the ground, in toil. He was also condemned to eat the plants or herbs of the field, and, by the sweat of his face, to eat bread. Did Adam engage in oral sex with the serpent, consuming his seed? Adam had eaten of the tree, and according to the customary "tooth for a tooth" equation he is condemned to eat.

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Genesis 3:14, 17-19

There is no element here that, to me, suggests cannibalism for Adam-kind as comparing to the serpent eating the dust Adam. The thorns and thistles have been shown to represent the serpent's offspring but it must be noted that Adam wasn't condemned to eat them. The consequences due to Adam's engagement with the serpent are such that he was condemned to die, receiving the sentence of mortality. He was also condemned to eat of the ground that was cursed because of him, eating the plants of the field, and bread, with a distinct emphasis placed upon the effort that would be required of him. Whether we should infer that the sentence of death might be strictly due to the act of sodomy and the eating due to oral sex I cannot say. Neither can I say how much weight might be assigned the sin of hearkening to the voice of his wife.

Should we infer that Adam ingested the fruit of the tree that was of the kind that caused Eve to conceive? I think we can avoid such an inference if we can reject the sex orgy version altogether, or if we can deny that the three instances of eating that Adam received in his sentence relate to the literal ingestion of the food that sustains physical life, and also reject the applicability of the judicial model I've proposed. But then, what are we left with but no answer at all? If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn't a sex orgy version, I'd like that very much. However, when you see what becomes so obvious you cannot un-see it. The sex orgy version, as unappealing to "refined sensibilities" as it is, is the singular version to which the evidence points. Can't we find some reasonable alternative here, perhaps something so simple and appealing as Adam having actually eaten some apple-like fruit from a common orchard-like tree? Well, that's the approach that has been taken by most folks for a very long time. If you can make that work for you with all honesty and integrity, well, good luck with that.

While oral sex doesn't contribute to the propagation of a fruit-bearing tree, the effects going forward in time are nonetheless evident in the earth. From one perspective already addressed, cannibalism has been and continues to be a reality. The associated vampire component that represents the thirst for human blood has reached a point of phenomenal popularity. I don't know of any explicit account of oral sex in the Bible (beyond the Garden scene) to highlight as an example to present relative to Adam's sentence, and neither do I know what we might reasonably conclude from any knowledge of cultural trends in past or present times. However, I do know that the serpent loves to exalt himself, boasting of his conquests and flaunting his wicked activities, and through this I see what may be interpreted as boasting about oral sex. As I share this with you I think you'll agree that what we see makes little sense unless there's something important being pointed to beyond oral sex simply for its own sake.

Since the time when I began to blog about the meaning of occult symbols, I became more and more aware of the instances of the number 69 and the imagery of 69 and the context in which they appear. This number signifies oral sex through the graphical arrangement of the digits as heads and bodies, one as an upside down version of the other. This is also the imagery of the very popular Yin Yang symbol. The 69 also appears on the Masonic Royal Arch as engraved upon the keystone. While these can certainly be interpreted otherwise, Occult symbols have more than one valid meaning. No additional layers of meaning invalidate the reference made to oral sex. Because the Lord has been bringing instances of symbolic reference to oral sex to my awareness time and again, I've perceived the familiar pattern where the Lord prompts me to formulate and ask a specific question. This is the question He intends to answer. Soon enough, as I gather "sufficient data" and then become consciously aware of this situation, He answers! Until the Lord brought me to finally consider oral sex as an activity taking place in the Garden and I followed through with the effort of presenting the full scope of it I had no such answer, because even the question had not yet been fully formulated. Now, I'm learning what He wanted me to know.

What you'll shortly see is the serpent's bragging about his conquest in the Garden. This boast is of what's behind the 69. While oral sex doesn't contribute directly to the propagation of the bad tree, the references to it are the serpent's rejoicing in flying the banner, so to speak, boasting of his relationship with Adam in the Garden and flaunting his subsequent status as ruler over the domain presently assigned to him - while it lasts. While I can present some evidence, you will not recognize it unless the Lord Himself brings you to it. If and when He does bring you, you will know it. You will absolutely not like it, but you will know it. You may want to reread this paragraph.

What I'm about to share here will mean more to those of you who have some education and experience in these matters. I have never been directly involved with occult organizations (aside from a few "organized Christian church" Babylonian religious institutions) but I've become somewhat knowledgeable because the Lord has led me over the past year and a half to invest hundreds of hours as a student of the messaging systems of the occult. If you are familiar with the Eight Part series posted on The Open Scroll titled, Olympic Ceremony Symbolism or with The Open Scroll Blog you should catch on right away.

The Olympics are a pagan religious celebration. The gods of Olympism are the Watchers and their Nephilim offspring. The Olympics are avenues of promotion for the serpent's occult agenda through symbolic imagery that includes logos, venue architecture, ceremonies, etc. You may have noticed how the official logo created for the 2012 Summer Games to be held in London have been almost universally criticized. Likewise, so was the London Presentation performed at the closing ceremonies in Beijing, 2008. Both are misunderstood. They were not intended for popular appeal. Little consideration was given to whether they would be liked. They were intended to convey layers of precise occult messages, which they do quite well. So far, at least three layers of the meaning of the 2012 logo have been discerned beyond the obvious stacking of the digits "20" over the "12." The most popular by far is the oral sex imagery. If you search the web for Olympic logo Lisa Simpson you'll see what the fuss is about. A slightly modified image that helps us see better how it is being perceived appears on the right, showing Bart Simpson wearing blue shorts and Lisa wearing a pearl necklace. Could this cartoon imagery be unintentional? Anyone who knows the Olympic agenda knows this is no accident. Until I got insight into the Garden scene I puzzled over why oral sex was being depicted. Now I know! Bart and Lisa represent Adam and Eve, following the serpent's lead in the garden. The serpent is bragging about his conquest in the Garden. Frankly, in more crude vernacular, the message is: "Hey, daughters of men - Suck My..."

The Olympic ceremonies in Beijing were all about procreation between the gods and men and the bringing forth of offspring. Symbols conveyed the message very powerfully and effectively but few perceived it. The London Presentation that looked forward to 2012 was almost incredibly richly laden with cryptic messaging. Michelangelo and his Papal patron would surely have been proud of the effort, apparently privy to the same inside joke.

For me, the validation of my having finally discerned what the Lord was showing me came as I wrote out what I had learned then visited Safeway.com, where I had been led to get an image of their current logo and branding. When I saw it, although I had seen their logo many times before, this time something very dramatic happened. Heavy grief came over me. It was immediate, very heavy and I understood it. The message presented was received in a personal and very emotional way. I had to pull away from the work for an hour or so to work through and process this grief, then go for a long walk. This was the impartation that sealed the deal. I needed to know in the most genuine sense without any reservation that the Lord had indeed led me here and that I had been faithful to see it through, that I had learned the intended lesson. This is no mere academic exercise. My friend, this is life. I told you this was not optional or superfluous knowledge. The conclusions drawn here do not represent my suppositions or hunches or my personal interpretation. You will see it as you see it, but this is my testimony and I'm making this statement so you can seek the fuller benefit the Lord intends for you, precious saint. The Fall of Man and the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden - by Michelangelo

When you first look at this Safeway logo you might see a stylized letter S in white on a red background. The S is presumed to stand for Safeway. When you consider the negative space (the part of the logo that is not the letter S) you see two red elements that resemble the Yin Yang symbol, or, the number 69. These red elements also resemble sperm with pointy tails. The letter S represents the serpent of the Garden scene, just like the serpentine S in Superman's shield.

What is Safeway and why would they have such a logo? It's a large grocery store chain, where Adam-kind goes with what he toiled for with the sweat of his face to get the plants of the field and bread that he will eat. This will sustain him until he returns to dust because these are, as declared by the marketing slogan, "Ingredients for life." The red sperm 69 message is being broadcast. Do you perceive the message?

A reader notified me about the UK branding of Safeway (defunct since 2005) and their slogan that expresses the same innuendo. “Lightening the load.” “Load” is slang for “ejaculate.”

Sure, there's some room for "plausible deniability" here, with this and every Occult branding, but let's not be naive. Let's be wise as serpents but harmless as doves. This is no call for a corporate boycott, just a call to alertness. See what you're looking at. Really see it for what it means. The devil is bad. God is good to reveal this to us, who need to know what goes on in the enemy's camp and what is plotted against us. Consider the kind of weaponry fashioned against us in this mighty warfare that's being waged for our souls. Grow up, become mature and put on the whole armor of God.

When next you read Romans 1 and the book of Jude, read with a mature and sober perspective that acknowledges the two fruit-bearing trees and the way of Cain.

Who is Cain's Father? Part One / Part Two / Part Three