…Genesis 4:1. "And Adam knew his wife, and she conceived
and bare Cain." Notice that what is not said is more significant that
what is said, the Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain…there are
literal children of Satan surviving in the world today…
—Bertrand L. Comparet
With this series, which I herein continue, I will consider Bertrand L. Comparet, A.B., J.D.’s The Cain/Satanic Seed Line. You can find the series on Comparet here.
For some reason after referencing the flood he goes backwards in time and refers to Genesis 6 and the intermingling of the sons of God Angles and human women. He notes that “double race mixing took place…the rulers of the pre Adamic races and the fallen angels took wives of the fair Adamic women.”
He states that “male descendants of Adam were not allowed, by Yahweh's law, to marry anybody but the daughters descended from Adam” which is something he simply invented as biblically all humans are from Adam (and Eve).
He notes that sons of God“beni-ha-elohim, also means sons of magistrates or mighty men of the earth and angels” and he applies both definitions as per the above reference to the rulers of the pre Adamic races. He then uses this to push his “racial line” racism and asserts that this is the reason that such mixing is “spoken of with disapproval” which, again, is something he invented. Interestingly, he tell sus that “the beni-ha-elohim are evidently those of the pre Adamic darker races and the fallen angels” and that “details of this event are found in the book of Enoch.” Well, that apocryphal texts knows nothing of pre Adamites or darker races having anything to do with it in fact, it defines the sons of God as “Watcher” fallen Angels, see Billy Meier, OT III, Gen IV & 1 Enoch IV.
Bertrand L. Comparet states, “Here we have the spreading of the satanic bloodline. Genesis chapter 6 goes on to trace many of these descendants of the fallen angels” for example, “southeast of the Dead Sea…there are these various people with the satanic blood in them.”
So apparently, Comparet wants to argue that Noah and family were pure Adamite and “the flood wiped out the mongrelized Adamites” but the flood did not wipe out the mongrelized offspring of Angels mixed with humans.
Recall my identification of Satan a Cherub as per Ezekiel 28. Well, Comparet references Isaiah (chap 14) and Ezekiel and rightly notes that they refer to “a king or a prince” yet, “in language, which could not possibly apply, to anybody except Satan.” This is a complex and detailed issue about which you can read in Fallen angel? Just what is lucifer (contra Jim Brayshaw).
In any case, Bertrand L. Comparet utterly misreads the texts and claims that “this indicates that at some time or other, Satan had incarnated in the form of these various kings.” He then offers up some undercooked red herring by telling us “Don't think this is so impossible because many times the Old Testament tells of these angels appearing in very solid form.” Well, that is because we have no indication that Angles are anything but solid in form: they appear to inhabit that of which we would think of as glorified bodies just as Jesus had post resurrection. They are physical but can, as we may term it, traverse dimensions to which we have no current access. He also claims that Angels, “came and talked with Abraham on several occasions” but, of course, offer no quotations or citations because this is biblically unknown.
Comparet then claims that “Yahshua [Jesus] plainly says, in a number of places, that the devil has children, not merely followers” and appeals to some of the parables. Well, I have dealt with these in detail and they pertain to actions and not genetics. For details, see Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics journal.
Comparet writes “Speaking to the Pharisees, who as you know were Jews, Yahshua said in Matthew 12:34…O generation of vipers…Matthew 23:29-35…Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...Ye serpents, ye genema (ye offspring, children) of vipers…” Since he is an anti-Semitic racist Comparet focuses on the juicy parts but neglects to point out that Jesus does affirm that the Pharisees were of Abraham but that they were committing sinful Satanic actions. This is why he refers to them as hypocrites as that denotes actions, “I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me” (John 8:37): their genetics are Abrahamic but their actions are not. Comparet actually notes that Jesus “called them hypocrites and they were” but he ignores this action based statement in favor of his genetics based theory.
Comparet then claims, “Throughout the Bible it records the two seed lines, Yahweh and Lucifer's. The Bible makes no reference as to what your religious point of view may be; it is talking about literal descendants.” Actually, the Bible makes many references to “religious point of view” from commanding that the ways of the Pagan not be followed to Paul urging us to “watch” both our “life and doctrine” (1 Timothy 4:16) and many more such statements. Comparet just wants to make it about genetics.
We then run into another error into which Comparet falls by claiming that the Bible does not teach that which it teaches. He write, “Romans 8:16 tells us, ‘The spirit itself bears witness, that we are the children of God’. The word children there, the Greek word teknon, means one born a child, not adopted.” Wait, so now God had sex with someone and His wife had children (is Comparet a Mormon?). He follows directly with “Nothing is more fallacious than this church doctrine about being adopted children of Yahweh…Only the churchmen are stupid enough for that.”
I wonder if being adopted children of God is a church doctrine because the Bible states, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” well, we do not need to “become” something which we are already at birth due to genetics. In fact, the statement goes on to note, “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13).
And what about Ephesians 1:5 which states, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”?
Thus, according to Comparet “Nothing is more fallacious” and “stupid” than that which the Bible actually teaches. He had claimed that “the Greek word teknon, means one born a child, not adopted” but that was when commenting on Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Yet the key Ephesian term is huiothesia (Strong's G5206) and means adoption as in adoption.
Bertrand L. Comparet next, and again, gets close to the biblical facts of the matter in writing, “the existence of these two seed lines. I John 2:29 tells us, ‘If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him’…I John 5:9-10 ‘Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.’” Need I emphasize the emphasis? It is about actions, “does righteousness…commit sin…cannot sin.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #BertrandComparet, #Seedlines, #Racism
Facebook: #BertrandComparet, #Seedlines, #Racism