Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

Preface

This booklet offers some facts about the Bible and about historic

Christianity that many will find considerably different; quite distinct

from the traditional doctrines and dogma that have come to be accepted

as truth by most Christians, truth that was to be treated as real, reliable

and inerrant.

We are instructed that this inerrancy stems directly from Divine control and as a consequence, nothing has changed within its covers since it was compiled. Such an attitude became ingrained within the Christian world over the centuries and from this sense there grew the impression that the Clergy and their formal Organizations were justified in how they interpreted and translated the Bible.

Yet, few Christians really understand just how the Bible emerged over the ages or how many different languages formed the basis and the source of the Bibles of today. Nor do they recognize or understand how, in the process of these many translations over the centuries, the hand of man managed to devise options to reshape and twist the words of the Bible -- to accommodate and skew doctrines that blended with the edicts and demands from the "Powers in High Places" – Secular in purpose.

Today’s theological schools, seminaries and churches that once promoted discipline and attachment to the Laws of God, now fit modern views into their sermons and instructions as ‘objectively’ as the Courts of today approach our once Common Law basis - with disdain. And those aspects of the Bible that set the standards for man are ignored in favor of accommodation—with their Congregants.

The Shepherds of today do not understand or even believe that the Bible is history and treat its contents as being ‘formerly’ applicable; not fit for today’s man; its instructive guidance easily ignored.

Yet, God made a clear statement about the Bible that cannot be ignored: In Isaiah 28, when criticizing the Tribe of Ephraim for similar moral failures, He stated:

"Whom shall He teach knowledge? And whom shall He make

to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and

drawn from the breasts."

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line

upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For

with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this

People."

JRN

 

 

 

 

 

The Mistaken Heart of Two Seedline Theory!

Genesis 3:1 and 3:15

By

J. Richard Niemela

(Revised –1 April 2004)

Background:

Over the past 7-8 decades, a few confused, and "blinded in part," Christians became enamored of an unusual theory related to Adam and Eve: a theory that evolved into a doctrine called the "Serpent Seed," or as it is commonly called, the "Two-Seedline" doctrine. This theory promotes the assumption that Eve; as the perpetrator or instigator of original sin, submitted to a "Serpent" that these theorists claim was in reality, Satan; and as a result, this contact produced Cain. From this thesis, they then expand and associate all progeny of Cain, particularly the Esau/Edomite Jews of the world, as being serpent seed progeny.

Now, it is well understood that considerable symbolism is found in the Bible, but these promoters of the Serpent Seed have taken symbolism to other levels, into the realms of the occult or to a mystical world dominated by evil beings. The principle, the "Goat," is called Satan, the Devil or Lucifer, and is assumed to possess omniscient, supernatural qualities that shape the actions and defile the religious hopes of Christians. The convoluted assumption that emerged is that evil beings have control of the world and stand in the way of salvation.

Such views violate the Commandments, by the giving of such credence to an unknown, distorts the realities of the Faith and the "Common Sense" considerations that define the Word. If the Word is to be understood, it must be seen as logical and its contents arranged in a natural order or sequence, but we must also recognize, unfortunately, that it contains induced distortions fomented by Translators over the centuries, who modified or reworded the Texts. This point is overlooked by most Christians, because they simply have not been made aware of the many changes made to the Bible texts by those seeking to use its instructions for living, for their own purposes.

Translators:

I hope to show that these early Bible Translators were mistaken in some cases, and but otherwise, were intentionally devious, mainly to insure Church/Synagogue dominion and control over the lives of their adherents; by creating a "fear" of the unknown, of occult powers and beings that could only be overcome by continued association and reliance upon principles and doctrines provided by Church leadership, by the Priests, who alone it was thus implied, possessed the ability to absolve sin and insure salvation for their churchgoers.

The Serpent Seedline proponents extend this view by insisting that considerable power and omniscience must be attributed to Satan and his underworld elements; by dictating to Christians, shaping their thoughts; but who; in reality, never does appear in the Book of Genesis.

Much of this Satan/Eve theory is extrapolated from both false and distorted symbolism and confusion injected into the Word by Translators. Further, the Serpent seed theory, by its basic premise, distorts established processes of nature; and disrupts the scheme of life established by the Creator that cannot be abridged, genetically or politically.

Indirectly this theory is accommodated by the current Judeo-Christian belief in the traditional, age-old, creation of man; wherein Adam is erroneously seen as the sole progenitor of all races. It is important to note that the translators, both in the Catholic Church and the Talmudists, promoted these ideas about a Satan, Eve and the resultant, Cain.

But, when a Common Sense evaluation is applied to the Bible, the Great plan of the Ages that the Lord established emerges from the pages of the Word to reveal His true overall plan for Man. While Genesis indicates that there were two separate and distinct "Creations" - that of a "man and woman" in Genesis 1, and of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, religions sought to cloak such views in favor of doctrines of multiculturalism and universalism—despoiling the facts within the Word, that a separate "chosen" element, a People specially chosen by God, is the main theme of the Word. They deny the implication that a single race of people could be the main focus of the Word. Yet, when we examine the Bible, we can see that it is the Book to, for and about, the People of Israel almost exclusively!

A brief evaluation of the two separate Biblical creations is necessary to confirm the ‘Common Sense" aspects in the Two Creations as they were created: first by the plural Elohiym, the ‘us" of Gen. 1, and then by Yahovah, in Gen. 2, acting alone when He "formed" Adam. Such a "common sense" approach makes the Serpent Seedline theory, remote, deviant, man-made and is in reality, the product of the Talmud of Judaism and related extra-biblical writings like the Targums.

The Two Creations:

In Genesis One, we can see that the Elohiym; the plural, Us, "created" the "man and woman" together and directed only that they procreate and "replenish" the earth. No other demands were levied on them, other then to achieve dominion over the animals of the earth. For food, they were instructed to gather nuts and fruit, which were openly available; nor were they assigned to occupy a specific geographic region in which to live or otherwise maintain. They simply became hunter-gatherers, created in the "image" of their creators, the plural, Elohiym. The word, "Image" in this creation, is applied to the man and woman of Genesis one, but its original Hebrew meaning is revealing.

This original Hebrew meaning of the word "Image" derives from the Hebrew word "tselem" (#6754-Strongs Con.) meaning "to shade", but it then refers back to another, primary Hebrew root word, "tsalal,"(#6751) whose meaning is also to shade, but also to, "begin to be dark, shadowing." Telling us how the dusky races came about.

When the first creation was completed, God, as if speaking to Himself, noted that it was "very good," and then we find Him resting and musing about those past events in the first 6 verses of Genesis 2. They are difficult to fathom, but are some of the most important Bible verses. They conclude and summarize what was done earlier by the Elohiym. Verse 4 simply concludes God’s musings by referring to the "generations of the heaven and earth when they were created," implying that an unknown period of time is contained within the context of the word, "generations." A period of unknown duration.

Then the text of Gen.2:5 shifts to God discussing plant growth and a new, or different process of supplying life giving water, along with a major modification to nature and the natural order of events for the earth. God then concludes His musings and adjustments of the prior earth processes with this unusual statement, that: "there was not a man to till the ground." This change of style or type of man begins the transition to Adamic man.

Major implications for all Creation derive from that one simple statement about tilling the ground! These few words of God begins the historic re-shaping of His Great Plan for mankind, in Adam: "In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him."

Here, in these words applicable to this 2nd creation, we can distinguish a different man: one not created in the "image" or "shadow" of the Elohiym but, in a "likeness" of God.

The Hebrew word for this unique distinction, this "likeness," is "demuwth" (#1823 Strongs) meaning "resemblance, fashion, like, model," but it further defers to a Hebrew primary root word, "damah" (#1819 Strongs). "Damah" translates as: "to compare, to resemble, devise." This choice of words is far more personally associated with God the Creator, then the word "image", the process that portrays the earlier creation by the Elohiym.

When we examine the original word that depicts this Adam in the ancient Hebrew, the word, "aw-dam" (#119-Strong’s Conc), it depicts a man that "shows blood in the face, i.e., flush or turn rosy, be dyed, made red (ruddy).

Yet, when we examine the many times that the word Adam appears within the King James Bible; which is the basis for Strong’s Concordance word selections; No. 119 never appears!

But the different physiognomy of Adam, as we can see from the words used to depict his creation, stands in stark contrast to the words used to depict the man and woman created in Gen.1, in the image of the Elohiym, those who were depicted as: shaded, dark, shadowy.

Strong’s, however, without any explanation, arbitrarily adds a separate word to depict Adam; adding #120; the word "aw-dawm," and then states that it derives from #119! This No. 120 "aw-dawm" is depicted as: a human being, the species of mankind, another, common sort, low man, mean, of low degree.

Yet, when the word Adam appears within the text of the KJV, Strong’s never assigns the number 119 to depict any of the many Adam’s shown in the Bible, even from the very beginning in Genesis. Only the number 120 is used, or a third number, 121, which Strong’s claims is the same as #120, being only the name of the first man!

If it was the editorial intent of the staff of Strong’s Concordance to set the stage that Adam was the first man, and then to define the fallen man, Adam, as #120, that depicts him as a common sort, low man, mean, of low degree, such an adjustment to this man, it must be considered as "editorializing," for the depictions in Strong’s Hebrew concordance of both #119 and #120, apply solely to their physical physiognomy and not to their societal or religious status in relation to God the Creator.

This begs the question, Why the failure to show Adam as he was formed? We know that the two separate creations produced two distinct and separate types of "man", as their physiognomy and other features confirm; i.e., the breath of life was blown only into the nostrils of Adam man; we must see in this editorial action of Strong’s and others as a deviation from the truth! Thus setting the stage, or following the traditional doctrines of organized, established religions that failed for reasons of their own, to truthfully examine the Word!

This failure to show #119 is not explained by the editors of Strong’s, nor is any explanation for this omission found in the original commentary of James Strong himself.

The translators could have applied the Hebrew word "isyh", meaning champion, great, mighty man, steward, worthy, (376-Strong’s) to Adam as was applied to Noah, who was called a "just" man, but such a reverence does not emerge from the texts, and Adam is never defined as being equivalent to Noah and other men.

The meaning of Adam further distinguishes just how the "forming" of Adam was done: by God alone, yet distinguishable in this process is the different countenance and physiognomy of Adam from that of the man and woman of Genesis 1, as well as the different demands levied by God on Adam, the first assignment of His Law and a fixed geographic residence; issues that stand in clear opposition to the instructions given to the first creation by the Elohiym.

Adam, as we read, is to be sustained by agriculture, a necessary "work" project, but bringing with it, a much different, more sedentary lifestyle, something that would further distinguish the two creations and separate the ultimate purpose of both.

The principle focus or reference in God’s agricultural comment infers that an agricultural growth process was being promoted that encompassed all of the domesticated processes necessary to insure the sustenance needed for mans survival. The hunter-gatherer process of the "first created" may have needed adjustment for reasons not stated; perhaps they were increasing in numbers beyond supportability or lacked mental or physical qualities not in accord with God’s purposes.

When we know that there have been Cro-magnon and Neanderthal humanoids on the earth, we must see in His purposes, an intent to change the lifestyle of man. This remote aspect of man’s history is easily validated by the words of the Elohiym; who had instructed the man and woman, in Gen.1:28, to "replenish" the earth. Such a demand indicates a prior creation or existence of man!

We will see however, from the following steps in the creation of man in Gen.2, of Adam, that it is now Yahovah, or God Himself, working alone as He "forms" Adam and assigns him to the agricultural Garden. This view is confirmed by God himself when speaking of the flood, in the use of the first person, ‘I,’ as is clear from Gen.6:7: " I will destroy man whom I have created…for it repenteth me that I have made them." Gen.6:13 & 17 similarly make reference to the distinguishing, ‘I’..

This stated "need" for another, "different" man to perform the complex tasks associated with agricultural processes, changes the entire life style of all created as it necessarily infers an established and prepared geographic location, requires the unique knowledge of seasons, seeds, germination time, harvest processes and soil preparation. The work of gardening implies as well, the need for peculiar physical attributes of man; physical features, as hands, feet and all his senses, with a reasoning ability and his unique mobility.

All of these special qualities, the needs and processes, are contained in God’s comment that understood and defined a different man; as these implications are contained within that single line in which God states that "there was not a man to till the ground."

We can then see from God’s words in Gen.2:6, that a new, different life giving watering process for the whole earth was established; necessary apparently to accommodate the agricultural processes established in Genesis 2, qualified in that phrase, about the need for a "man to till the ground," Adam.

So, here we find God "forming" this new man "of the dust of the earth:" formed in the "likeness" of God, but not in the "image" as was the man and woman of Genesis 1. To illustrate this difference, would be to stand in the sunshine and notice the shadow. The "likeness’ outlines the image of the shadow, but the shadow, or image is opaque. (See the book, "The Two Creations"by Lloyd Palmer-Gabriel’s Enterprises-P.O. Box 513, Albert Lea, MN. 56007)

Then this newly ‘formed’ creation of Yahovah, God, is also given a distinctly unique feature; one not given to those of the earlier creation; given to Adam it would seem, in anticipation of what God was planning -- along with the Garden of Eden and the production of agricultural food. This critical and unique distinctive grant occurs when God "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul." (v.7)

This "breath of life" is the most distinguishing feature of Adamites, and will figure into the life of Adam’s progeny, some of whom subsequently became His specially chosen People,

"But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and He that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name, thou art Mine." (Isaiah 43:1)

"You only have I known of all the families of the earth:…" (Amos 3:2)

A people purposely kept separate and aloof by the mandates of the Law, from those of the first creation by God lest they defile their genetic qualities.

Noah and the Flood.

But, this admonition to refrain from this association was not followed by the Adamites and the punishment for these adulterous multicultural deviations were applied by God, when He "…saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil, continually." We are advised that only Noah remained "perfect in his generations" when the flood destroyed the Adamites.

With the coming of the flood, its application was targeted to Adamites specifically, as Gen.7:22 confirms; saying only Adamites died from its effects: Consider this verse:

"All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." (Gen.7:22)

That obscure, but highly definitive statement confirms that only Adamites were being punished for their violation of the Law, for interracial marriages and defilement of their genetic structure.

But, that statement addressing Adamites, also confirms as well, that there were "others," different humans, pre-Adamites, extant at the time. The distinguishing implication of the word, "only" viz. "all" emerges from verse 22. That distinction establishes the fact that there were "others" with whom the Adamites had intermarried.

Thus the cause of the flood confirms again, God’s insistence upon keeping the physical and other qualities of human life separate, as God insisted man must remain genetically sacrosanct, undefiled by intermarriage with the pre-Adamic, "Others," lest the Spiritual qualities blown into the nostrils of the Adamites become diluted and eventually bred out of His chosen people.

This fact is confirmed when we find God saying: My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh:…" (Gen.6:3) What God is saying here, is that this race mixing would eventually destroy His spirit breathed into Adamites, as children came from these mixed unions. Consider this quote:

"The word "strive" in verse 3 is interesting. It means contend, or plead the cause, so we can see that the Lord (Yahovah) was saying: My spirit shall not always plead the cause in man, (Adamites) because he is also flesh, (and will yield to the lust thereof). And by yielding to interracial marriage Yahovah’s Spirit, the breath of life, would be eventually bred out of Adamic man." (The Two Creations p.21)

When Adamic man’s situation had reached such a state of deprivation, God made the decision to destroy him, and what God says next also confirms that He alone, by Himself, had created Adamic man.

Consider this verse very carefully, as the pronoun, I, proves this point:

"I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and creeping things, and fowls of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made him." (Gen.6:7)

The reason why God made the decision resulted from man’s actions. "For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." (Gen.6:12) Read that verse again, to see what man had done, it corrupted His way, or God’s way that He had ordained that they should live, most likely in more ways then one.

There we can confirm the principle reason for God’s repetitive insistence upon racial purity for all, especially the Adamites, whom He alone had formed and assigned to establish a formal life style that insisted upon association with kinsmen—only. The dictum of kind after kind was formalized genetically, but in humans, dependent upon free will, but more particularly, on the conscience imbedded in Adam when the Spirit was blown into his nostrils.

Now, continuing with the process of creation -- Gen.2:8 shows that God "planted a garden eastward in Eden." There, God established agricultural fields that required man to tend them, and in these agricultural fields, God established Adam. In the texts that follow His comments about planting the Garden, is a description of the land of the Garden of Eden; its location, contents and a reference to the several important trees that were to figure into the life of Adam; and into ours as well.

Unlike the Gen.1 first man and woman given free rein among all trees, several trees of the Garden formed the basis for God’s instructions to His newly formed Adam and how they would shape his future, as well as the course of the world to come. God used these silent trees, prohibiting him their fruit, to test the will and conscience of His formed man, limiting his choices, restricting his actions; thus testing the mind and heart of this new man by applying limits on his freedom of independent action. The First Law!

This was a simple Law to determine how and if Adam would obey while adjusting to his surroundings; to his status in dominion over all created, but a law that also could and would separate Adam from his Creator. A law designed to test the will of man whom He made only a bit below the angels, a man possessing such qualities of free will that he was called, a "son of God." ( See Gen.5 , Luke 3:38 & Rom.8:19-"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.")

In summary, we have seen that God’s forming of Adam is also associated with God’s decision to change the world and the life style of all created, as well as the natural processes that govern the earth. Agriculture is the defining process by which man was now to be identified, as it enhanced his ability to survive, for his survival now hinged upon the abilities of man himself. God sets this process in motion, by "planting" the first crops in the Garden of Eden - a site perfected to accommodate the new man, Adam.

God next provides Adam with instructions for how he is to exist, describing the location of Eden and its special qualities, as well as the limitations on his freedom of action. He is taken into the garden, to "dress it and to keep it."

Help, Meet for Adam:

Having established Adam within the Garden, and restricting his choices, God makes a blanket statement that it is apparent that Adam needs help. "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him." (Gen.2:18)

What happens next, has often been ignored, or simply bypassed, but it figures most importantly in the history of Christianity and particularly in defusing the Serpent seed theory. In the next verse, 19 we find that God then forms " . . .every ‘beast of the field." As well as the birds and domestic animals, who were brought to Adam to be named. No time element emerges from these events, but time must be considered, as there is a definite sequence to these events of Gen.2.

Adam’s need for assistance in working the Garden’s "fields" is thus resolved when God forms the beasts of the field to assist in the agricultural functions, to work the land and the "Fields," of Eden.

Continuing in sequence, after Adam has named the animals and beasts of the field, God once again reiterates that Adam is still in need of help: "but for Adam there was not found help meet for him" (Gen.2:22) Some sources translate this statement as needing someone "fit for him."

A more realistic translation. The Greek Septuagint, the Bible used by Jesus and His disciples,(and thus authenticated) reads more appropriately, as "but for Adam there was not found a help like unto himself."

Following this acknowledgement, God "makes" Eve from Adam’s "flesh" or as Adam states; "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh."

There is also an important distinction seldom noted, between these two Adamites-- in that the flesh of Adam came from the earth, possessing none of the deleterious qualities that the Bible assigns to "Flesh;" its capacity for lust. But Eve was made from the "flesh" of man as we all are, and she was subject to the same inducements or temptations that all flesh must face: even that of Jesus when He took upon Himself, our humanity.

This fact about Eve being sourced from "flesh" may account for why it was Eve who was induced, or as she acknowledged, "beguiled," into violating God’s instructions to avoid the Trees in the Garden. Yet, her flesh qualities, subject to sin, capitulated; while that of Adam, could not, yet his submission as an accessory after the fact, led to equal guilt.

Yet, the why of its happening, this admitted "beguiling" of Eve, does not emerge from the texts. Only that it happened and that it warranted punishment. Did the Lord know that it would happen? Was there a purpose in how it was handled? Did God have a "need" for having "death" introduced or to appear on earth? Did the earth have a limited capacity for the numbers of pre-Adamite beings whose sustainability may have been limited? Did God then, forge a system that would also put His creations through a selection process to insure that quality and not numbers became the defining factor in His choices of men?

Such answers can only come with the restoration of Israel and the restitution of all things that we anticipate emerging when He returns to establish His kingdom on earth.

 

Beasts of the Field:

Once again, we must shift to considerations of "Common Sense" issues that define God’s plans. From His forming of these useful, beasts of the field, we can determine from their name alone, that it implies a possession of physical attributes that are applicable to the processes of agriculture, simply from the word "field." Fields in the Garden of Eden that had been prepared by God for the cultivation and growth of crops. Clearly, what God was making reference to in verse 18, about help, meet for Adam, was the inherent abilities of these formed, beasts of the field. Their "forming" is done immediately after God determines and states that Adam was in need of help in the agricultural tasks that were beyond his own abilities. Had God planned that Adam would be exempt from this work and aloof from the "beasts of the field," and separate?

Again, we come to another point wherein the "Common sense" applications of the Word come into play. It applies to the many biblical attributes that define these "beasts of the field." Their physical and other qualities that have been ignored by politically correct, but misguided "Christians" especially by those who promote the current "Universalist" views, but who refuse to admit what the Word has to say about these "formed’ beasts of the field. Purposely refusing to admit, or otherwise, ignoring the true meaning of the Hebrew word, beast and its many Biblical connotations and references to the qualities of these "beasts of the field." We do know however, that the early translators did set the stage, so to speak, in their confused wording of some Bible texts, and as a consequence, many have been led down paths of confusion about the Word.

In ancient Hebrew, the word, "Chay," #2416 of Strong’s Concordance, is applied to these biblical "beasts of the field," but of the several multiple meanings assigned to the word, "chay," only the words, "living creature" emerges as the most appropriate. The English word, ‘animal’ does not appear among them as a definition. (An ‘animal’ is defined by the Hebrew word, "Cheyva," #2423.)

However, when all of the Biblical references to these "beasts of the field" are considered, what these references reveal, and very few Bible students are willing to state, accept, or even infer, is that these "Chay" have many qualities akin to those of humans, in that they are capable of speaking, reasoning, rational thought, walking upright, have hands and feet, wear clothes and live in dwellings (Dan.4:25,32)

In Genesis 3:1, are the words that depict the first activities of these beasts of the field when Eve is confronted by one of them; this one noted as the smartest of them all: "the most "subtil."

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden?"

Here, let’s get Dr Bullinger involved in this discourse. . This renowned Bible Scholar appears to have reached a similar conclusion about these verses, except, he, like many others, failed to see the correlation between the human qualities of these "beasts of the field" and what the translators did to this most important sentence in Gen.3:1. This failure stems from his not realizing that Genesis offers two separate and distinct creations. Here are Bullinger’s words on this chapter of Genesis.

"In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend nor fable but literal historical facts set forth and emphasized by the use of Figures of Speech. All the confusion of thought has arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of Speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to and emphasizing the reality of the truth of historical facts.

When Satan is spoken of as Nachash, it no more means a serpent then it does when Dan is similarly called one in Gen.49:17, or when Herod is called a ‘fox’ or Judah is called a ‘lion’s whelp’. It shows something much more real is intended. The Hebrew word translated ‘serpent’ is Nachash from a root meaning to ‘whisper,’ as do enchanters, an artful malicious person."

He fails to note here however, that the Hebrew word "nachash" for "serpent or snake," is the very same Hebrew word used for the words "whisper" or "hiss."

Now, lets get back to the issue of the Hebrew, "Chay." There are 33 Biblical references to the activities of these "Chay", and most of them depict them as being located among the Adamites, but subordinate to them, as we can determine from Psalm 8:5-7 wherein David refers to the dominion that God gave to man over the animals, and these "beasts of the field." In Jeremiah 27:6, & 28:14 God states that He has given Nebuchadnezzar the ‘beasts of the field,’ to serve him. This act denotes God taking them away from Israel to give them to Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon. Here