Near Similarities between sons of cain and sons of Seth

[refugeeguru]

Will Cain kill Abel? Tune in next week for the next exciting instalment! I have endured sermons that were as bad as that, but . . . there is a LOT sitting just below the surface of the Cain and Abel saga:
em

There are also some similarities between Lamech and Cain; not sure of the significance:a

1. Cain killed Abel whereas Lamech killed a young man

2 "If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”

3. Lamech named one of his sons Tubal-Cain meaning "the offspring of Cain".

4. There was the "bad" Lamech from the lineage of Cain and there was the "good" Lamech from the lineage of Seth.

5. Genesis 5: "Altogether, Lamech (from the line of Seth) lived a total of 777 years, and then he died" seems related to "If Cain is avenged 7 times, then Lamech (from the line of Cain) 77 times.”. Lamech (from the line of Cain) seemed to be able to predict when Lamech (from the line of Seth) would die at age 777. They were probably contemporaries.

Many Blessings.

For very basic starters, Cain's death was what triggered Adam and Eve getting back together - after 130 years of separation.

Noach is Chen (grace, favour) spelled backwards - a reference to Noach found grace (chen) in the eyes of the Lord -- an eye inverts an image.

Noah's wife was descended from Cain. The accounts of her vary -- mostly she gets a pretty good rap, but not always. The consensus seems to be that she was at least, the best of a bad bunch. Her evil ancestry came through in a sense in one of her sons, Ham who fathered Canaan, the kid that Noah loathed so much when he hit the bottle - the kid responding by castrating his sozzled tormentor -- which finally got Noah's attention sufficiently to sober up and get off the booze.

"The kid" had a thing for boats, having spent so much of his pregnancy while his mother was on the boat. His descendants have always had a thing for low lying land close to water, and running a trading business based on shipping -- something of a racial memory perhaps. They developed a mythology around their mythical bird, the Phoenix, and renamed themselves, the Phoenicians.

One of their great military leaders was named Chen-Baal (ie favour of Baal, as in Noach above), or as we know him, Hannibal -ie the guy with the elephants. They were, and are, a bad bunch, into perversion and child sacrifice, then and now. They still are notorious, pompous arrogant paedophiles, just as they were when Lot and his stuck-up social climbing wife joined the legal fraternity in Sodom.

She was so bent on climbing the social ladder in Sodom that even after one of her daughters was tortured to death for the crime of feeding the hungry,the vacuous snob didn't have the brains to bail out. The word the angels brought to her in Sodom was along the lines of "Put one toe, maybe even a toenail out of line again, you stuck-up stupid snob, and you are going to get fried!"

But the vacuous tart did just that, and was very reluctant to give up her "social position" and upper class lifestyle as a judge's wife in sunny Sodom - so she was still stopping and looking back. So God and the angels did what they had threatened, and zapped her into a pillar of salt.

I think she got off lightly -- any woman who stood back and let her daughter be executed on the orders of a bent judge, and wouldn't speak out, lest it upset her status in the Sodom socialite circuit should have been more than NUKED. Ditto for her when she went along with the idea of her two remaining daughters being given to the mob to be raped. God was so disgusted by her behaviour, and that of her husband, that He plastered the story all over the Bible, so as she and hubby could be objects of loathing and disgust for all time.

Her daughters, not surprisingly, held both their parents in complete and utter contempt. So again, not surprisingly, when after the drunken incest caper, one of the girls called the baby "From Dad" (ie Moab), that chick was making a statement to posterity about what useless evil pathetic social climbing snobs her parents were.

The Canaanites have not changed. they are still in the shipping business, and are still attracted to the law - and they are still passing laws making it a crime to feed the homeless (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...l-over-america)

[duxrow]

a[QUOTE=refugeeguru;45489]

Noah's wife was descended from Cain. The accounts of her vary -- mostly she gets a pretty good rap, but not always. The consensus seems to be that she was at least, the best of a bad bunch. Her evil ancestry came through in a sense in one of her sons, Ham who fathered Canaan, the kid that Noah loathed so much when he hit the bottle - the kid responding by castrating his sozzled tormentor -- which finally got Noah's attention sufficiently to sober up and get off the booze.

Could be, but can't support with scripture. Real question why Canaan was blamed for his father's act (maybe of sleeping with Noah's wife?) Think Noah "not drunken as we suppose", like those in Acts2, because he didn't know about fermentation following the Flood had produced alcoholic grape juice...

"The kid" had a thing for boats, having spent so much of his pregnancy while his mother was on the boat. His descendants have always had a thing for low lying land close to water, and running a trading business based on shipping -- something of a racial memory perhaps. They developed a mythology around their mythical bird, the Phoenix, and renamed themselves, the Phoenicians.

Sounds like 100% mythology to me.. I agree about much more to the story than what appears, but don't see any profit in following your line of 'maybe'..

[refugeeguru]

Pearl Harbor 1941 - Mythology and the Beastie [QUOTE=duxrow;45556]a

Could be, but can't support with scripture. Real question why Canaan was blamed for his father's act (maybe of sleeping with Noah's wife?) Think Noah "not drunken as we suppose", like those in Acts2, because he didn't know about fermentation following the Flood had produced alcoholic grape juice...



Sounds like 100% mythology to me.. I agree about much more to the story than what appears, but don't see any profit in following your line of 'maybe'..

Alcohol has be been known since the Garden of Eden - it was the forbidden fruit. That is part of the reason that Jesus used it at the Last Supper - using what man had misused, as part of a ceremony to bring man back to God. So in the festivities described in the book of Numbers (for teh inauguration of the Tabernacle), teh section on teh Nazirite (no alcohol etc( is included with it.

Noah re-enacted the original sin or man (or the alcohol part of it) soon after humanity got its new start, ie post flood.

As for Noah's wife, she IS in scripture:

And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah

There is a complete Oral Tradition that went with the Torah -- which the Christian world stays away from - they would rather guess, than take any info from a Jewish source.So they ponder, and debate, then wonder some more,because what Canaan did to his abusive, boozing grandfather is unknown to them. Or as someone in one of my audience said to me "Why would I listen to the opinion of a bunch of stupid ignorant Jews?"

Ham's "sin" was getting his wife pregnant on the boat - when God's instructions were that the sexes were to be separated. Noah hated the product of that union, ie Canaan. Ham (as father of the victim of the abuse and assaults) could not turn a blind eye (the point of the story in the Bible) like his two brothers, to Noah's drunken episodes, and the abuse of his hated grandson, Canaan - who is the first born human after the flood and still wields the power and inheritance of the first born to this day.

Our dumb old Christian Bible scholars read the Book of Revelation, and say "Ooh, it's the Pope, it's the Vatican, it's a United Europe, it's the Roman Empire resurrected again . . etc" - yet they remain completely blind to what Jesus said to John, while John was a prisoner, exiled to Patmos by the Romans:

I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ

The description given in the prophecy included:

1 The beast that was, and is not,

Presuming Jesus and his angel were not high on magic mushrooms or something similar, I read the "IS NOT" to refer to an empire which NO LONGER existed at the time a full strength Roman empire had exiled John to Patmos.

In my part of the world, some of the churches have the national flag stored, or even displayed, somewhere in the church. They sit and debate about the identity of the beast, talking about the future great leader who will destroy three kings soon after he rises to power - while in the corner of their national flag is the flag of a kingdom which rose up to replace three kingdoms. Putting it kindly, people are D_U_M_B !!

As for mythology, and the love of low lying cities close to water and a trading maritime empire, the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre, Sidon, Carthage, Venice, London, Amsterdam are more in the realm of reality than mythology. Ditto for Fremantle the port of the city of Perth - and major centre for a string of black magic occult murders - the Canaanite religion is still very much alive and well!

And any connection between the names Venicia and Phoenicia . . . no, just a myth ..!!

People mix up the references to the great whore and the seven hills with one of the beasties. Yet the Book of Revelation describes two beasties, one numbered 666, and the other numbered 1702, both hiding under or behind Christianity - ie under the name of Jesus Christ. Further (much) confusion is added because people associate the 666 with the Beastie that has the 7 heads and the ten horns, rather than the other one that rose in a previously (relatively) unpopulated area, and has the computer technology, the barcode technology, the space program ("fire from heaven"), the drones, that stated out nice (like a lamb) burt turned into a dragon, and became the willing flunkie of the bigger beastie - Jeesh, I wonder who that lamb turning into a police state could be . . . .

One of the greatest myths we have all been deceived by — is that the British Empire, (temporarily known as the Commonwealth), and now re-emerging, is an English empire. IT ISN’T!

The Anglo Saxons came into Britain as the Roman were pulling out — on my arithmetic, that is about 1600 years ago, give or take a bit. 1100 years after that, there was still no British Empire.

All of that (the empire, Britannia rules the waves etc) only started after the Portuguese opened up sea routes to India and Asia around Africa, and the guys in Venice(Marco Polo’s bunch) realised that their monopoly on trade with Asia was under threat. They had two options – build a Suez Canal, or shift their trading and banking empire to an Atlantic port where they would have access to the new trade routes.

They opted for the new port option — and over the next hundred years, shifted their base to London (and Amsterdam). The Bank of England, the Dutch East India company, the British East India company, the “plantations” om Virginia and Ireland – all emerged once the Venetians were set up in their new HQs in Britain and Holland.

They have been posing successfully as “Poms” ever since, just as they had posed successfully as Italians for the previous 1300 years or so — ie since they, as refugees hid in a swamp in the north of Italy after Rome had almost annihilated them along the North African coast.

So generations of Scottish nationalists, and Irish republicans have believed they were the victims of English tyranny, while generations of English have willingly oppressed Ireland and Scotland, thinking they were fighting for England.

They weren’t — they were fighting for a Venetian bankster empire that now controls the greatest financial centre in the world London.

The greatest enemy of the USA, since its inception has been London. THE USA won World War I for the British -- most of us would expect that gratitude was the result -- it wasn't - Britain threatened war with the USA unless THE USA scrapped its big navy ships. That same old Canaanite longing for dominance of the world's shipping was coming through -- that lust for shipping dominance was a factor in triggering the colonists' rebellion and declaration of independence in 1776, and there it was popping up again after World War I. cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

In exchange for Britain (the Canaanite empire) not building some more ships, the USA agreed to scrap some of its existing ships -- not much of a deal for the USA - it set up the US Navy for what would happen at Pearl Harbor.

[refugeeguru]

The "highlighting" made the name of Noa's wife almost unreadable in the previous post -- can't so far, edit the post to change it.

The full quote from Genesis 4 is :

22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

The name of the chick Noah married was Naamah.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The "highlighting" made the name of Noa's wife almost unreadable in the previous post -- can't so far, edit the post to change it.

The full quote from Genesis 4 is :

22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

The name of the chick Noah married was Naamah.

Are you saying that there is a Rabbinical tradition that says Naamah was Noah's wife? If so, why should anyone believe it? The Rabbis are notorious for making up stuff you know.

[refugeeguru]

Saving ALL humans, including the cross-breeds.

Are you saying that there is a Rabbinical tradition that says Naamah was Noah's wife? If so, why should anyone believe it? The Rabbis are notorious for making up stuff you know.

Yeah, but it goes beyond the "just made something up" level - there is some deep teaching on the significance of God opting to preserve something of the line of Cain for the future -- similar in a sense to what happened with Lot's wife, whom I aptly describe as a vacuous tart and a social climbing snob in some of my other posts.

For whatever reason, God tried to extract what was good in that marriage - ie the vacuous tart and her pathetic husband (Lot) -- and tale what was good and inject it into the line of the Messiah -- ie the story of Ruth, the Moabitess.

I don't claim to fully comprehend what the Almighty is up to, but there is a message of hope in the story - especially for those who carry non-human genes in their ancestry (The Genesis 6 story -- it was still happening in South East Asia quite recently -- and no, that is not rumour, I am speaking from personal knowledge).

God has made it clear that he intends to save ALL humans, including those who are cross-breeds.

cf - from Jesus' brother:

6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode,

The New King James Version. 1982 (Jud 5–6). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

I would have enjoyed listening to the family conversations around the dinner table - ie between Jesus and His brothers and sisters, on that one!!

AND, of course, the well known Genesis 6 story:

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

[duxrow]

Presuming Jesus and his angel were not high on magic mushrooms or something similar, I read the "IS NOT" to refer to an empire which NO LONGER existed at the time a full strength Roman empire had exiled John to Patmos.

Sounds like pure baloney to me, even though plausible about Naamah maybe being on the Ark. Still, you don't get good fruit from a thorn bush, and this looks like it's leading to a farce.

[duxrow]

Still possible, but Naamah may have been more of a Grandma than a chick, seeing as how she was 8th generation and Noah was 10th. You think?

IMO the Lamech in Cain line killed Enoch the 7th -- perhaps because that preacher told him he shouldn't have two wives? Enoch was a 'young man' of only 365; middle-aged maybe? :

[refugeeguru]

Still possible, but Naamah may have been more of a Grandma than a chick, seeing as how she was 8th generation and Noah was 10th. You think?

Yeah, we got the bad fruit from Naamah's bad genes - the evil in her ancestors came out in one of her sons, and especially in one of her grandsons.

His descendants, like teh rest of Noah's descendants knew where the "holy ground" was, and moved in, contrary to Divine orders, to occupy the Promised Land - from which Joshua partially evicted them much later in history.

As for "grandma", when people live for centuries, the ageing cannot happen very quickly - so she would not have looked like a granny when she walked down the aisle.

[refugeeguru]

Sounds like pure baloney to me, even though plausible about Naamah maybe being on the Ark. Still, you don't get good fruit from a thorn bush, and this looks like it's leading to a farce.

Yeah, you are right about the farce - we know it as Wall Street, and the London Stock Exchange, If the bailouts aren't "farce", then what is?