to wit, _men and women_, the “Lords of Creation.” One has but to read the above‐mentioned verse in the original Hebrew text and by the light of the Kabalah, to find that, instead of the words as they now stand translated, the correct translation should be: Then began men to _call themselves_ Jehovah; and not: Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord the latter being a mistranslation, whether deliberate or not. Again the well‐known passage: I have gotten a man from the Lord, should read: I have gotten a man, even Jehovah.(299) Luther translated the passage one way, the Roman Catholics quite differently. Bishop Wordsworth renders it: Cain—_I have gotten—Kain_, from _Kâ’nithi, I have gotten_. Luther: I have gotten a man—even the Lord [Jehovah]. And the author of _The Source of Measures_: I have _measured a man_, even _Jehovah_. The last is the correct rendering for—(_a_) a famous Rabbin, a Kabalist, explained the passage to the writer in precisely this way, and (_b_) this rendering is identical with that in the Secret Doctrine of the East with regard to Brahmâ. In _Isis Unveiled_,(300) it was explained by the writer that: Cain ... is the son of the “Lord” not of Adam. The “Lord” is Adam Kadmon, the “Father” of Yod‐Heva, “Adam‐Eve,” or Jehovah, the son of sinful thought, not the progeny of flesh and blood. Seth, on the other hand, is the _leader and the progenitor of the Races of the Earth_; for he is the son of Adam, exoterically, but Esoterically he is the progeny of Cain and Abel, since Abel or Hebel is a female, the counterpart and female half of the male Cain, and Adam is the collective name for man and woman: Male and female (_zachar va nakobeh_) created he them ... and called _their_ name Adam. The verses in _Genesis_ from Chapters i to v, are purposely mixed up for Kabalistic reasons. After the “Man” of _Genesis_ i. 26, and Enos, the Son of Man, of iv. 26; after Adam, the first Androgyne; after Adam Kadmon—the sexless (the first) Logos—Adam and Eve once separated, come finally Jehovah‐Eve and Cain‐Jehovah. These represent distinct Root‐Races, for millions of years elapsed between them. Hence the Âryan and the Semitic Theo‐anthropographies are two leaves on the same stem; their respective personifications and symbolic personages standing in relation to each other in the following way: