Cain, the Kenites, and Strong's Concordance

Extract taken from False Beliefs: The Serpent Seed Doctrine & Kenite Myth by C.L. Shaffer

Available at: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DFNXWCV

Thus far, we have shown the source for the Kenite Myth’s emotional power. Next, we will
examine the so-called factual evidence that supporters use to conclude that the Kenites are Satan’s
children. To summarize, supporters believe that Satan had a sexual encounter with Eve who brought
forth Cain. This concept is generally known as the Serpent Seed Doctrine. Cain then supposedly became
the patriarch of the Kenites, an idea that has been referred to as the Kenite Myth in this writing.

One main difficulty with the Kenite Myth is that there is no ancestral link within the biblical text
between Cain and the Kenites. This should be troubling for supporters who are convinced that the Bible
does not provide any genealogical connection between Adam and Cain and because of this, Cain must
not be Adam’s son. Apparently, this absence of a tie between Cain and the Kenites is of no concern. To
show an association, those who follow this myth turn instead to their concordances.

Supporters base their entire Kenite Myth on the definitions that they find within their concordances.
They point out that the words Cain and Kenite just so happen to be the same word in Hebrew, Qayin.1
Once supporters see that the same Hebrew word is used for both Cain and the Kenites, they conclude
that the Kenites are descended from Eve’s son Cain. This is an assumption made by supporters because
it fits their narrative. However, there is no genealogical record within the Bible of the Kenites being from
Cain. Simply because the same Hebrew word is used does not necessarily mean there is a familial
connection. There are other possibilities. However, let us first examine the prospect that there is a
familial connection.

The Business of Metalsmithing

1
Strong, Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Qayin, 7014. According to Strong’s
Concordance, Qayin means, “the name of the first child, also of a place in Pal., and of an Oriental tribe.”
To promote a familial link between the Kenites and Cain, supporters point out how certain scholars have
shown that the word Kenite means ironsmith in Arabic.2 The Hebrew word qayin can also mean a lance
and is translated to spear in the KJV in 2 Samuel 21:16.3 As such, some theorize that the Qayin, the
Kenites worked with metals. Supporters combine this with the fact that one of Cain’s descendants,
Tubal-cain, was “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron.”4 Supporters then conclude that the
Kenites were descended from Tubal-cain since both worked in metals.5

There are other possibilities for why the Kenites may have worked in metals other than a familial
connection to Cain. In fact, the text informs us that Tubal-cain was an instructor and not the father of
those who worked in these metals. In other words, it was likely that Tubal-cain trained people other
than his children to be metalsmiths. Some in Seth’s family, for example, may have come looking for
instruction.

Obviously, the skill of metalworking was not exclusive to Cain and his line. During Israel’s conflicts with
the Philistines, specifically during Saul’s reign, there were no blacksmiths in Israel. However, outside of
this time, the Israelites did have iron tools. The Bible indicates that, at some point, they had the
knowledge of forging iron.6 Bezaleel, the son of Uri, who decorated the tabernacle as per God’s
instruction through Moses, was a worker of some metals such as gold, silver, and, like Tubal-cain, brass.
Bezaleel received his skills of working with these metals directly from God.7

However, the Israelites apparently did not receive their expertise of working with iron from God so they
would have gotten their skills by some other means. It is possible that the skill could have been passed
down to them from Shem through Noah, whose ancestors prior to the flood received it from Tubal-cain.
Therefore, this idea that one had to have been a direct descendant of Tubal-cain to acquire the skill of

2
James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Bible, Kenites,
www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hdb/k/kenites.html.
3
Strong, Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, qayin, 7013.
4
Gen. 4:22.
5
“Research Papers Proving Two Seedline Seduction of Eve,”
https://israelect.com/ChildrenOfYahweh/Emahiser/two_seedline.htm.
6
Job 28:2 and Isa. 54:16.
7
Ex. 35:30–34.
metalworking does not play out since Bezaleel worked in at least some metals and the Israelites also had
objects made of iron8 that they may have forged themselves.

This supposed familial connection of the Kenites to Tubal-cain, which is based on metalsmithing, is not
very convincing when we look at the larger picture. The Kenites could have received their metalworking
skills from some other source other than from a familial connection with Tubal-cain. This, of course, is
based on the presumption that they were, in fact, even predominantly metalworkers to begin with. The
Bible does not describe them as such.

The Lifestyle of the Tent-Dwellers

Another connection supporters attempt to make to show a familial heritage between the Kenites and
Cain is done through the Rechabites and one of Cain’s descendants, Jabal. In 1 Chronicles 2:55, we are
told that the Rechabites do share a familial connection to the Kenites. Supporters then point out that
the Rechabites received a command from their father, Jonadab, the son of Rechab that “all your days ye
shall dwell in tents.”9 So far, this much is true. But then supporters turn to their imaginations and
attempt to provide a direct link to Cain’s descendant, Jabal, who is described as “the father of such as
dwell in tents,”10 to say that the Rechabites (Kenites) are descended from Jabal since both were tent-
dwellers.11

8
Now, some supporters may attempt to further their foundational argument by saying that only
ironworkers were the children of Cain since Bezaleel was not knowledgeable concerning iron. The use of iron
amongst the Israelites was then a kind of corruption highlighted by the fact that God did not want iron tools used
in, at least, constructing the altar.
This negative view of iron is apparently found in the Mishnah where it is explained that God did not want
iron tools used on the altar because it was the same material used in weapons of war. (Metals & Mining –
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org).This explanation, however, not only has an unbiblical, pacifist bent to it, it also
ignores the basic concept that God commanded that only natural stones, untouched by any tool of sinful man,
should be used in building the altar.
God made this command in Deuteronomy 27:5-6 concerning His altar not because He had something
against iron as a metal, but because He had something against men using tools in general on His altar. Exodus
20:25 makes this clear where it does not explicitly mention iron tools in forming an altar. The use of these iron
tools, however, is perhaps implied since iron tools would have been the best kind of equipment to cut stone for
even softer rock like limestone. Nevertheless, the point was that God wanted natural stones used for the altar, not
stones carved by human hands. God is making a comparison here regarding His altar. The comparison is between
the sinfulness of man and God’s holiness. This is why He decreed that “whole stones” be used as recorded in
Deuteronomy 27:6, not “hewn stone” as Exodus 20:25 has it. Furthermore, as 1 Kings 6:7 tells us, the Israelites
carved the stones for the Temple offsite with iron tools.
9
Jer. 35:7.
10
Gen. 4:20.
11
“Genesis Chapter 4: After the Fall,” http://www.theseason.org.
What supporters neglect is that Jabal raised cattle, for the rest of the verse says, “and of such as have
cattle.”12 The Rechabites eventually took up the tent-dwelling lifestyle for a very specific reason, which
will be discussed later, but there is no indication that the Rechabites raised cattle, and it is of little
matter if they did. This so-called connection completely ignores others who could also be connected to
Jabal and then Cain simply by the type of habitation they kept. Noah lived in a tent (Genesis 9:21). We
are also told that his son Japheth would “dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27). Jacob “was a plain
man, dwelling in tents” (Genesis 25:27). Abram also lived in tents (Genesis 13). He also raised cattle. In
fact, the text informs us that Abram was “very rich in cattle” (Genesis 13:2). For this reason, if we use
supporters’ logic, Abram makes a great connection to Cain/Jabal. And we cannot forget about Jubal,
another of Cain’s descendants, who is described as “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ”
(Genesis 4:21). Of course, David played the harp, so by supporters’ estimation he too must be a
descendant of Cain. In the end, attempting to make a familial link between the Kenites and Cain’s
descendants by way of the kind of habitation they had falls short.

Cain and the Kenites Share the Same Hebrew Word

Supporters claim that there is an older version of a concordance that defines the Kenites as “sons of
Cain.” Already presupposed to the Serpent Seed Doctrine, supporters believe that this older definition
for Kenites is further proof for the doctrine. However, this definition does not do this work. It only gets
supporters as far as saying that the Kenites were possibly Cain’s descendants. After all, the meaning this
source provides for the Kenites is not “sons of Satan.” Certainly, if Dr. Strong and his fellow contributors,
or the author who wrote the more direct meaning of “sons of Cain,” had shared the same perspective as
supporters do, they would have been astounded. However, the reason why this was not shocking was
that one needs to accept the false teachings of the Serpent Seed Doctrine in order to get this definition
to mean the physical children of Satan.

Cain’s Line Survives

If we accept the definition provided by the older concordance where Kenites means “sons of Cain,” then
the answer seems simple enough for a non-supporter. Cain’s line could have become absorbed into

12
Gen. 4:20.
Seth’s line without much fanfare. Those having an ancestral connection with Cain could then have
continued the name onward thus becoming the Kenites.

Intermarriage between Cain’s and Seth’s descendants would explain why there existed similarities
between the names of their offspring. (See the names of Cain’s descendants in Genesis 4:17–18 and
compare them to the names of Seth’s descendants in Genesis 5:7–30.) These similar names could be the
result of a close community of the offspring of these two brothers. It would also provide a reason why
Seth’s line lists an individual by the name of Cainan,13 a name very similar to Cain, which gives us yet
another possibility as to why the name Cain shows up again after the flood.

Cain’s Line Does Not Survive

Others do not think that Cain’s descendants made it past the flood by intermarriage. To these
individuals, it is not that there would be anything wrong with it if they had, but to them, the Bible just
does not seem to indicate this. Cain’s line ends at Genesis 4:22. Before the conclusion of his line, the
text discusses Lamech’s three children: Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-cain. These children apparently go on to
father children themselves, according to the text. However, the Bible never mentions the names of
Lamech’s grandchildren. The line ends abruptly, and one could assume that either Cain’s line dies out
prior to the flood or that it perishes in the flood. However, Seth’s line continues with his descendant
Lamech through Noah. The text seems to make a comparison here by drawing out Lamech in Cain’s line.
Where Cain’s descendants die off, Seth’s line goes on to survive the flood and become all of us today.

For those who believe that Cain’s line did end prior to or during the flood, there are several options as to
why the name Cain shows up again after the flood. One reason may be that Noah and his descendants
simply carried with them the oral history concerning what occurred before the flood. One of these
stories concerned Cain and Abel. These stories spread to such an extent that even a city was named
after Cain as recorded by Joshua 15:57. Cain’s line may have ended prior to or during the flood while
stories concerning him continued and influenced the naming of a city and/or a people group. After all,
Cain, although a murderer, was the firstborn son of all time, a highly prized position in Middle Eastern
societies.

13
Ibid., 5:9.
Another possibility is found when we look at the root words for Kenite and Cain, which seem to be
related to cities. During his wanderings, Cain builds a city, according to Genesis 4:17. First Samuel 30:29
records that the Kenites had cities themselves that they probably built. Part of the definition for Qayin
(Kenite/Cain) is “a play upon the affinity to 7069.”14 This refers to the word qânâh, which has as part of
its meaning the definition “to erect, i.e. create.”15 Now, supporters will say that this shows a familial link.
Perhaps it does. It would not be a big deal unless you subscribe to the Serpent Seed Doctrine. This
author agrees that this is not conclusive evidence, but it is interesting that the Kenites may have been
called the Kenites simply because they shared an attribute of building cities (i.e., city-builders) just as
Cain had done—with no familial link intended in the meaning.

Whatever position we take concerning Cain’s line, the one conclusion we cannot draw from the fact that
the same Hebrew word is used for both Cain and Kenites is that the Serpent Seed Doctrine is true.
Supporters go wrong in attempting to use this as evidence for the doctrine. This fact only suggests that
the Kenites may have been the descendants of Cain. Although there are other possibilities as has been
shown. Pointing out that Cain and Kenites are the same word in the Hebrew language does not get
supporters where they need to go. It does not describe Cain’s heritage. It may tell us something about
the heritage of the Kenites: that they were possibly from Cain, but it does not tell us that Cain was of
Satan.

Notice again the heavy emphasis on the Serpent Seed Doctrine. Supporters must believe in it. If thought
false, then the fact that the Kenites are a tribe of Cain would be unexceptional since it was common
practice to name your tribe after a patriarch. For this reason, the Serpent Seed Doctrine must be drilled
into followers’ minds. Otherwise, the fact that the Hebrew word for both Cain and Kenite is the same is
hardly noteworthy.

14
Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Qayin, 7014.
15
Ibid., qânâh, 7069.