Sunteți pe pagina 1din 106

BIBLE STUDY

Introduction/Primer to Christian Identity


When completed, e!in readin! the Bile "rom #enesis$ %a&e sure to ha'e an
E(hausti'e Concordance handy
P)*T I + Dispellin! the ,udeo+Christian %yths
LESS-. /
%an 01ue+%an2, )dam 3 E'e, Satan4s deception, Punishment, Conse5uence, Cain
3 )el, *ace+%i(in!, .oah 3 the 6lood7
)$ Was )dam Yah8eh4s "irst creation9
1. Gen. 1:26 --- first creation.
2. Gen. 1:28 --- first creation multiplies.
3. Gen. 2:7 --- Yahweh forms man from dust
& breathes breath of life! into nostrils.
". Gen. 2:1# --- $dam is placed in %den to
&eep it.
#. Gen. 2:1'-2# --- Yahweh searches for a
suitable mate for $dam. (one were
found)%*e is created.
6. Gen. ":1" --- +ain tells Yahweh ,..whoe*er
finds me will &ill me.,
7. Gen. ":16-18 --- +ain is banished to (od
where he marries and has %noch- and
builds a cit. in his son!s honor.
B$ Did E'e eat an apple9
1. Gen. 2:16-17 --- Yahweh tells $dam from
which trees he ma. ha*e fruit from.
2. Gen. 3:6 --- %*e sees that the forbidden
fruit is desirable. /he. both eat.
3. Gen. 3:7 --- /he. reali0e the. are na&ed for
the first time.
". Gen. 3:1"-1' --- Yahweh punishes all
parties: $dam- %*e- and the 1erpent.
#. Gen. ":1 --- /he results of the apple
eatin2! are re*ealed.
C$ Cain 's$ )el, E'il 's$ #ood$$$$Was Cain and )el
"rom )dam9
1. Gen. ":1 --- +ain is born).a manchild
came from the woman.
2. Gen. ":3-# --- Yahweh fa*ors $bel-
disre2ards efforts of +ain.
3. Gen. ":8 --- +ain &ills $bel.
". Gen. ":2# --- 1eth is born to $dam and
%*e.
#. Gen. #:3 --- 1eth was of $dam!s li&eness
6. 1 3ohn 3:12 --- +ain is from the e*il one.
D$ .oah$$$the last decent )damite$
1. Gen. 6:1-3 --- Yahweh!s creations mi4
w5the offsprin2 of men.
2. Gen. 6:7 --- Yahweh wishes to destro. all
because of such wic&edness.
3. Gen. 6:8 --- (oah and his sons are fa*ored
b. Yahweh.
". Gen. 7:1 --- (oah is seen as ri2hteous to
Yahweh...
E$ The )r&, the animals, the "lood$
1. Gen. 6:1" --- (oah is commanded to build
the ar&.
2. Gen. 6:1#-16 --- 6nstructions on the
construction of the $r&. 1 cubit 7 18 inches
8later reference as well9.
3. Gen. 6:18 --- Yahweh establishes :is
co*enant with (oah.
". Gen. 7:2-" --- 6nstructions on how to ta&e
the clean and the unclean. +lean 7 and a
mate 71"- unclean 2 and a mate 7". ;irds 7
and a mate 71".
#. 3osh. 2":2-3<1" --- proof flood was (=/
world wide.
6. Gen. 8:2> --- (oah releases the animals-
e4cept those he sacrifices to Yahweh.
7. Gen. ':1 --- :am- 3apeth- and 1hem fill the
land with $damic people.
LESS-. :
-ld Testament7 8as 8ritten "or Israelites not ,e8s$ ,esus7 not a ,e8$ Baptismal
8as not created y ,esus$ ,e8s are .-T the Chosen People$ ,esus did .-T come
"or all$ Literal 'erses99
)$ Who 8as the -ld Testament 8ritten "or9 Did ,esus
;do a8ay 8ith4 the -ld Testament9
1. Gen. #:1 --- +learl. states who the =ld
/estament was written for.
2. ?att. 1#:2" --- 3esus states who :e has
come for.
3. 3ohn 8:#6-#' --- 3esus re*eals :e &new
$braham and that :e is the 6 am 8Y:@:9.
". ?att. ":1"-16 --- 3esus fulfills prophecies
of 6siah. AA -- one of man. e4amples.
#. 3ohn #:3' --- 3esus sa.s it is the =ld
/estament that spea&s of :im.
6. +ol. 2:1" & %ph. 2:1# --- Baul tells both
that it was =CD6($(+%1 that were done
awa.. AA -- ordinances were the feast da.s-
sacrifices- and offerin2s . /hese were the
=ld /estament 8prior to 3esus! d.in2 for
our sins9 wa.s of for2i*eness. AA -- $6/
reference +hapter 2
B$ Was ,esus a ,e89
1. ?att. 2:23 --- 3esus was a (a0arene
2eo2raphicall..
2. 3ohn --- /he whole ;oo& of 3ohn is 3esus
tellin2 the 3ews that the. are not of :im
and :e is not one of them.
C$ ,ohn the Baptist
1. ?att. 3:6 --- 3ohn the ;aptist is ;apti0in2
people.
2. ?att. 3:8-12 --- 3ews wish to be ;apti0ed.
3ohn let!s them &now how he feels and of
their impendin2 doom. AA-- parallel with
;. 6f 3esus were a 3ew li&e those wishin2
to be bapti0ed before :im- then wh. did
3ohn the ;aptist not admonish :imE
3. ?att. 3: 13-17 --- 3esus is ;apti0ed b.
3ohn. /hrou2h 3ohn- 3esus! life is re*ealed
to :im.
D$ ,e8s ein! Yah8eh4s Chosen, )BSU*D<
1. Deut. 7:6-8 --- $ people are chosen.
2. ?att. 1#:2" --- 3esus has come for :is lost
sheep of the :ouse of 6srael
3. 3ohn 1>:2"-3> --- 3esus outri2ht tells the
3ews ,...because .ou are (=/ of ?. sheep
,.
". Gen. 17 --- Yahweh ma&es a lastin2
co*enant with $bram. :e chan2es $bram!s
name to $braham. Gi*es him a son with
1arah 8formerl. 1arai9- 6saac. /he
co*enant his passed to him.
#. Gen. 2#:21-26 --- Cebe&ah and 6saac ha*e
twins- %sau and 3acob. AA -- %sau was born
with red hair- first account of this.
6. Gen. 2#:3>-3" --- 3ust as the Ford told
Cebe&ah- %sau now ser*es 3acob. %sau
sells 3acob his birthri2ht for a bowl of
soup.
7. Gen. 26:3-# --- Yahweh re-affirms :is
+o*enant with 6saac and his children.
8. Gen. 27:6-2' --- Cebe&ah tells 3acob to
brin2 6saac!s meal first- so as to fulfill
Yahweh!s messa2e to her before the birth
of her twins 8Gen. 2#:239. 3acob has now
claimed %sau!s abandoned birthri2ht 8Gen.
2#:31-339.
'. Gen. 28:13-1# --- Yahweh re-affirms :is
+o*enant with 3acob.
1>. Gen. 2'- 3>:1-21 --- 3acob!s relations with
Feah- Cachel- and Cachel!s maid ;ilhah
and Feah!s maid Gilpah. /hese are the
recordin2 of 3acob!s children. 8heirs to the
+o*enant9. Cueben- 1imeon- Fe*i- 3udah-
6ssachar- Gebulun 8these si4 b. Feah9-
3oseph- ;enHamin 8these two b. Cachel9-
Dan- (ephtali 8these two b. ;ilhah9- Gad-
and $sher 8these two b. Gilpah9. 8Gen.
3#:36-269
11. Gen. 3#:'-13 --- Yahweh chan2es 3acob!s
name to 6srael and re-affirms :is +o*enant
.et a2ain with him.
12. Gen. 3#:'-13< Duet. 7:6-8< ?att. 1#:2"<
?att. 1>:2"-3> --- %stablished who 6srael
is- Yahweh!s +o*enant with them- Yahweh
has an elect people- 3esus is for them and
onl. them- 3esus tells the 3ews that the. are
not 6srael.
E$ Is the Bile to e ta&en literally9
1ome parts .es- some parts no. Don!t Hust
ta&e one *erse and deri*e a whole theor.
from it. Cead the entire chapter to see what
the character- prophet- disciple- +hrist- or
Yahweh is sa.in2. 1ome parts are literal-
some parts are fi2urati*e and ma&e
references to other parts in the ;ible. Ie
will loo& at two e4ample:
1. ?att.. 16:23 --- +hrist tells Beter ,..Get
thee behind me 1atan.., Ias +hrist reall.
sa.in2 that Beter was 1atanE =f course not.
6f we read the entire chapter we will learn
that +hrist chan2ed Beter!s name from
1imon ;arHona to Beter. Ie also learn that
+hrist bestows upon him one of the
2reatest responsibilities a soul can ha*e in
the Jin2dom of :ea*en..he is made the
Gate Jeeper! of :ea*en. Ihat happens
ne4tE +hrist then tells his disciples that he
is 2oin2 to 3erusalem to be &illed and then
be raised on the third da.. Beter!s response
to this is found in *erse 22. +hrist!s
response is in *erse 23. Iho is 1atanE
1atan was Yahweh!s most beautiful-
belo*ed $n2el. 1atan was Yahweh!s ri2ht
hand man. 1atan tried to o*erthrow
Yahweh. 1atan was cast out of :ea*en-
2i*en dominion o*er the %arth- and 2i*en
his own world 8:ell9. :ere .ou ha*e Beter-
who was Hust basicall. made +hrist!s ri2ht
hand man- who now see&s to ,C%;KJ%,
+hrist. +hrist references Beter to the li&es
of 1atan as a stern warnin2. 1o- *erse 23 is
not to be ta&en literal.
2. 3ohn 8. :ere we ha*e an entire +hapter of
+hrist ar2uin2 with the 3ews 81cribes-
Bharisees- 1adducess9. /he 3ews &eep
tellin2 +hrist that the. are of $braham
82randfather to 6srael9. +hrist indul2es
them. :e shows them that if the. were
trul. of $braham- the. would belie*e :im
and not do :im harm. ;ut what is his final
retort to themE 3ohn 8:"" ,..You are of
.our father the de*il.., /he entire Gospels
of the (ew /estament is full of +hrist
tellin2 the 3ews who the. came from and
what their purpose is on %arth. Ie can
conclude from prior scriptures that 3ohn 8
is to be ta&en literall.L
Mood for thou2ht: read 1 +or. # 8ponder that9 then read ?att. 16:1-12. 6f .ou need the
*erses- clic& here.
1upplemental 6nformation: Was Jesus Christ a Jew? b. Dr. Iesle. $. 1wift- +lic&
:ere.
P)*T II
)$ %oses married a ni!!er9
Whom Did %oises %arry9
y
Bertrand L$ Comparet
You are familiar with the sa.in2- ,$ little &nowled2e is a dan2erous thin2., /his is
true- a little &nowled2e is ne*er enou2h. 6t ne*er 2ets be.ond half truths which mislead
people into false beliefs. /his is consistentl. true in the field of reli2ion- more than in
all other areas. 6 am freNuentl. challen2ed on some point b. someone who has Hust this
little half truth of &nowled2e. /he. thin& that the. ha*e found a fallac. in the ;ibleOs
2reat truth that YahwehOs people 6srael are &nown toda. as the $n2lo 1a4on-
1candina*ian and /eutonic people. 6srael is- and alwa.s has been- under YahwehOs
command to &eep their race pure.
=ne challen2e 6 freNuentl. 2et is- ,Ih. shouldnOt whites marr. ne2roes- ?oses
married an %thiopian womanE, /he. base this on the wa. (umbers 12:1 reads in the
Jin2 3ames ;ible. ,$nd ?iriam and $aron spa&e a2ainst ?oses because of the
%thiopian woman whom he had married< for he had married an %thiopian woman.,
+hristianit. has ne*er labored under a 2reater curse than the man. mistranslations
in the Jin2 3ames ;ible. 1ome of these mistranslations are e*en followed in some
other translations because these errors ha*e become traditional. ;ible scholars &now
that there are man. thousand mistranslations in the Jin2 3ames ;ible.
/he eminent scholar Cobert Youn2- author of Youn2Os $nal.tical +oncordance to
the ;ible and of Youn2Os Fiteral /ranslation of the ;ible- sa.s in the preface to his
Fiteral /ranslation- ,6n the Jin2 3ames bible- there are scarcel. two consecuti*e *erses
where there isnOt some departure from the ori2inal. /hese *ariations ma. be counted b.
the tens of thousands- as admitted on all hands.,
Ihen .ou thin& .ou ha*e found some discrepanc. in YahwehOs word- some
contradiction which can be used as the foundation for conflictin2 doctrines- .ou can
ne*er safel. rel. upon what .ou find in the %n2lish translation- until .ou ha*e chec&ed
it in a 2ood le4icon. /he best reference is the :ebrew and Gree& dictionaries included
in 1tron2Os %4hausti*e +oncordance- which is more thorou2h than most of the others.
You will often find that defecti*e scholarship in earl. translations- has become accepted
as doctrine. 6t is continued- althou2h the ori2inal word will not support the meanin2
2i*en it in the translation.
FetOs 2et bac& to ?oses and his wife. 6n (umbers 12:1- the :ebrew does not say
%thiopian it sa.s +ush- a descendant of +ush- or a resident of the land of +ush.
Cemember that (oah had three sons- 1hem- :am and 3apheth. Genesis 1>:6 tells us the
sons of :am were +ush- ?i0raim- Bhut and +anaan- (oah and his wife were both
white- so their children naturall. were of the same race.
=ne of :amOs sons was ?i0raim- meanin2 %2.ptian. Ie &now from all the
%2.ptian art includin2 their mar*elousl. fine portrait sculpture- durin2 all the man.
centuries of %2.ptOs 2reatness- the. were a pure white people. 6n fact durin2 this time-
an. ne2ro found in %2.pt- other than a sla*e wor&in2 in chains in the fields- was
summaril. &illed on si2ht. :amOs other son +ush was- without Nuestion- also white.
Ihat about the land of +ushE
/here were two different countries named +ush in ;ible times- one was %thiopia-
l.in2 south of the 1udan in $frica. :owe*er- there was another +ush in ancient times- it
was in eastern ?esopotamia- or what at other ties was part of the ;ab.lonian empire.
/hese people certainl. were not a blac& race at an. time. /his +ush flourished about
1#>> ;. +.- durin2 the time of ?oses- the e4odus from %2.pt occurred in 1"86 ;. +.<.
Iho can we e4pect to find li*in2 in this +ush- on the east side of the /i2ris and
%uphrates ri*ers- from what people that li*ed there did ?oses ta&e his wifeE 6n the first
place- note that there is absolutel. nothin2 an.where in the ;ible which sa.s- or e*en
hints- that ?oses was e*er in %thiopia or an. place else- where he could ha*e found a
ne2ro woman to marr.. /he ;ible does tell us where ?oses 2ot his wife- and who she
was. Cemember ?oses had &illed an %2.ptian who was beatin2 an 6sraelite.
6n %4odus 2:1#-21 we read- ,(ow when Bharaoh heard this thin2- he sou2ht to sla.
?oses. ;ut ?oses fled from the face of Bharaoh and dwelt in the land o" %idian< and
he sat down b. a well. $nd the priest of ?idian had se*en dau2hters: and the. came
and drew water- and filled the trou2hs to water their fatherOs floc&. $nd the shepherds
came and dro*e them awa.: but ?oses stood up and helped them- and watered their
floc&. $nd when the. came to Ceuel their father- he said- :ow is it that .e are come so
soon toda.E $nd the. said- $n %2.ptian deli*ered us out of the hand of the shepherds-
and also drew water enou2h for us and watered the floc&. $nd he said unto his
dau2hters- Ih. is it that .e ha*e left the manE +all him- that he ma. eat bread. $nd
?oses was content to dwell with the man: and he 2a*e ?oses Gipporah his dau2hter.,
Ie &now positi*el. from this- that ?oses married the dau2hter of the priest of
?idian. :is name Ceuel means- friend of God- it is 2i*en in the *ariant form of Ca2uel
in one or two places. 1ometimes he called 3ethro. 3ethro is the :ebrew word Yithro
and means his e4cellenc.- this is a title of respect- not a name. Iho were the
?idianites- from whom ?oses 2ot a wifeE
6n Genesis 2#:1-2 the ;ible tells us that after the death of his wife 1arah- ,/hen
a2ain $braham too& a wife- and her name was Jeturah. $nd she bore him Gimram- and
3o&shan- and told b. Yahweh that the 2reat promises would be fulfilled throu2h his
descendants b. his son 6saac- not throu2h an. of his other sons. /herefore he 2a*e his
inheritance onl. to 6saac- but he lo*ed his other sons also and dealt fairl. with them.
Genesis 2#:6 tells us- ,;ut unto the sons of the concubines which $braham had-
$braham 2a*e 2ifts- and sent them awa. from 6saac his son- while he .et li*ed-
eastward into the east countr..,
Fo2icall.- he would want them to mo*e more than Hust a few miles awa.- as the
whole idea was to send them far enou2h awa. that the. would not be nei2hbors of
6saac- and perhaps Nuarrellin2 with him o*er the inheritance. /he ne4t place of an.
importance to which the. could 2o was +ush. +ush was in the *alle.s of the /i2ris and
%uphrates ri*ers- the same countr. which at other times was part of the important
;ab.lonian empire.
1o ?idian and his descendants became +ushites- people li*in2 in the &in2dom of
+ush. Cemember thou2h- that y race they 8ere descendants o" )raham, closel.
related to 6saac and his descendants the 6sraelites. :owe*er- the. remained a separate
nation and ne*er became part of 6srael. 1ince this is the onl. wife the ;ible tells us
?oses had- it is clear she was a ?idianite- whose famil. li*ed in +ush in the /i2ris and
%uphrates *alle.s. /his is where ?oses would lo2icall. ha*e found his wife.
?oses fled for his life because the Bharaoh of %2.pt wanted to &ill him. ?oses
could not ha*e 2one to Hust some tin. nei2hborin2 &in2dom to sta.. $ nei2hborin2
&in2dom would not ha*e dared to 2i*e ?oses shelter- but would ha*e turned him o*er
to Bharaoh as soon as the %2.ptians learned he was there and made a demand for him.
/herefore- ?oses fled a safe distance- to a land where the people did not li*e in fear of
the powerful %2.ptian empire. :e went to +ush- amon2 whose people were the
?idianites.
Ie ma. be certain that ?oses ne'er married a ne!ro$ Cemember that he was
brou2ht up in BharaohOs palace as the adopted son of BharaohOs dau2hter. :e was
educated as an %2.ptian of the ro.al famil.. /he %2.ptians considered the ne2roes as
merel. wild animals- to be &illed on si2ht. /he son of ro.alt. would not ta&e a wife
from the ne2ro +ush in $frica. 6t was while ?oses was 2uardin2 the floc&s of his
father-in-law- the priest of ?idian- that Yahweh appeared to him in the burnin2 bush.
/his was when ?oses was commissioned b. Yahweh to 2o to %2.pt- and set YahwehOs
people 6srael free.
Ihen ?oses returned to his own people- he tau2ht them their proud herita2e as
YahwehOs people 6srael. :e also tau2ht them that the. must &eep their race pure. :is
brother $aron and his sister ?iriam taunted ?oses about his marria2e outside the
strictl. limited 2roup of 6srael.
6t is true that he had married a woman who was not an 6sraelite. :owe*er- she was
not onl. a white woman- but a descendant of $braham- a close relati*e of the 6sraelites.
1o this matter of the wife of ?oses canOt be used as a Hustification for race mi4in2-
?oses did not marr. outside the white race- Hust outside his nation.
?on2reli0ation is eNuall. a sin a2ainst both races. Yahweh had :is own purposes
in mind when :e made the different races. %ach was made suited to the purpose
Yahweh had planned for it. /o lose that suitabilit. b. mi4in2 it with another race is to
def. Yahweh- the results of that are alwa.s bad.
The End
+lic& here to return to the ;ible 1tud..
B$ .oah=s 6lood Was .ot World Wide
.oah=s 6lood Was .ot World Wide
y Pastor Bertrand L$ Comparet
$mon2 the man. mista&en and un1criptural notions commonl. tau2ht in nearl. all
churches is the idea that the ,flood,- mentioned in the ;ible- co*ered all the earth and
drowned e*er.bod. on earth e4ceptin2 onl. (oah and his famil. who escaped death b.
bein2 in the $r&. 1ome churches ha*e firml. insisted that the ;ible sa.s this- when
there is ample proof that the ,flood, was not world wide. Iith this teachin2 the
churches ha*e destro.ed the faith of multitudes of people in the ;ible. /he. ha*e made
atheists or a2nostics out of hundreds of thousands of people who mi2ht ha*e become
+hristians if the. had onl. been tau2ht the truth about the ;ible.
Bart of this mista&en idea about the ,flood, is due to the man. mistranslations found in
the commonl. used Jin2 3ames *ersion of the ;ible. $lso- part of it appears plainl. to
be false if .ou merel. carefull. read e*en the Jin2 3ames *ersion. FetOs ha*e a loo& at
it.
6n Genesis chapter 6- we read that God found the people so corrupt that :e re2retted
that :e had e*er created them- so :e decided to wipe them out b. a flood. :e warned
ri2hteous (oah of the comin2 flood and told (oah to build a 2reat boat- or ar&- in which
he and his famil. mi2ht find safet. and where the. mi2ht preser*e a few of each &ind of
the animals from that area.
6n +hapter 7- it tells how (oah recei*ed the final warnin2 that the time was now at hand
and he should mo*e into the art. /hen it sa.s- accordin2 to the Jin2 3ames *ersion-
,$nd it came to pass after se*en da.s- that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
6n the si4 hundredth .ear of (oahOs life- in the second month- the se*enteenth da. of the
month- the same da. were all the fountains of the 2reat deep bro&en up and the windows
of hea*en were opened. $nd the rain was upon the earth "> da.s and "> ni2hts. $nd the
waters pre*ailed- and were increased 2reatl. upon the earth< and the ar& went upon the
waters. $nd the waters pre*ailed e4ceedin2l. upon the earth< and all the hi2h hills that
were under the whole hea*en were co*ered. 1# cubits upward did the waters pre*ail<
and the mountains were co*ered. $nd all flesh died that mo*ed upon the earth- both of
fowl and of cattle- and of beast and of e*er. creepin2 thin2 that creepeth upon the earth<
and e*er. man. $nd the waters pre*ailed upon the earth 1#> da.s. $nd God
remembered (oah and e*er. li*in2 thin2- and all the cattle that was with him in the ar&<
and God made a wind to pass o*er the earth and the water assua2ed. $nd the waters
returned from off the earth continuall. and after the end of the 1#> da.s the waters were
abated. $nd the ar& rested- in the 7th month- on the 17th da. of the month- upon the
mountains of $rarat. $nd the waters decreased continuall. until the 1>th month< in the
1>th month- on the 1st da. of the month- were the tops of the mountains seen.,
(ow- first let us see what the translators ha*e done to what ?oses ori2inall. wrote. You
remember that the Jin2 3ames *ersion sa.s that the rain was upon ,the earth, and the
waters increased 2reatl. upon ,the earth,: and that ,all flesh died that mo*ed upon the
earth,E Definitel. notL Cemember that in Genesis ":1"- when God has dri*en +ain awa.
in punishment for his murder of $bel- the Jin2 3ames *ersion Nuotes +ain as sa.in2-
,;ehold- /hou hast dri*en me out this da. from the face of the earth., 1o what did +ain
do- climb into his roc&et ship and ta&e off for outer spaceE =f course notLL :e was not
dri*en from the face of ,the earth,- and he ne*er said so- onl. the translators said so.
/he word +ain used was ,ad-aw-maw, meanin2 ,the 2round,: God had told him that
his farmin2 would no lon2er be successful- so +ain said ,/hou hast dri*en me off of the
2round., 8You ha*e probabl. noticed that +ainOs descendants toda. are not farmers.
/he. run pawnshop and other mone. lendin2 institutions.9 Ihen we come to Genesis 7-
where it is tal&in2 about the ,flood,- where*er it sa.s that the flood co*ered ,the earth,-
the :ebrew word used in the ori2inal writin2 b. ?oses was ,eh-rats,- meanin2 ,the
land,. /he flood did co*er the particular land where it occurred. /hat is- it was a local
flood which co*ered one particular re2ion or land- not the whole earth.
$2ain- notice that it specifies that ,1# cubits upward did the waters pre*ail< and the
mountains were co*ered., 6n ancient times two different len2ths of the cubit were in
use- the sacred cubit of 2# inches and the common cubit of 2>-#58 inches. /herefore- the
waters rose abo*e the tops of the mountains it is spea&in2 of b. either 2# feet ' inches
or 31 feet 3 inches accordin2 to which cubit .ou use. 6f this meant that all the mountains
on earth were co*ered- the waters would ha*e to co*er ?ount %*erest- which is nearl.
si4 miles hi2h- therefore- all the earth would be co*ered b. water si4 miles deep. 6n that
case- where could it ha*e run off to when the flood subsidedE (o- 6 donOt mean that the
;ible was that badl. mista&en- onl. the translators made this mista&e.
/he translators too& the :ebrew word ,eh-rets, which means ,that land, and
mistranslated it to mean the whole world. $ little later- we shall loo& o*er the e*idence
which pro*es where ,that land, was. 6f the whole earth was co*ered b. si4 miles of
water- then all nations must ha*e been completel. e4terminated. Yet ;ab.lon- %2.ptian
and +hinese histor. runs ri2ht throu2h this period without a brea&. /he ;ible 2i*es the
date of the flood as commencin2 in 23"# ;.+. and endin2 in 23"" ;.+..
6n lower 1umer- later called ,+haldea, 8and which occupied the same ,Blains of 1hinar,
to which (oahOs famil. Hourne.ed after the flood9- the cit. of Kr of the +haldees was the
leadin2 cit. from about 2">> ;.+. until about 2-28# ;.+. and its histor. is not bro&en
b. an. flood in this period. Marther to the north- ;ab.lon was risin2 to power from
about 2-">> ;.+. on and reached a 2reat hei2ht of ci*ili0ation under the famous Jin2
:ammurabi- who li*ed at the same time as the :ebrew patriarch $braham 8about 2-2#>
;.+.9- and a2ain there is no brea& in this histor. due to a flood.
6n %2.pt- the %le*enth D.nast. be2an to rei2n about 2-37# ;.+. o*er a 2reat and
powerful nation. /he %le*enth D.nast. ruled to about 2-212 ;.+.- and were followed b.
the /welfth D.nast.- which ruled to about 2>>> ;.+.. /here was no brea& in the
%le*enth D.nast. at the time of (oahOs flood- 2-3"# ;.+.. /he nation continued to be
lar2e and powerful throu2hout this period.
$ccurate histor. of +hina be2ins nearl. 3->>> ;.+.. /he 1hu-Jin2 historic record of
+hina- shows that Jin2 Yao came to the throne in 23#6 ;.+.- 11 .ears before the start of
(oahOs flood- and ruled +hina for man. .ears after the flood. Durin2 the rei2n of Yao-
the 1hu Jin2 reports that the :wan2 :o Ci*er 8which drains mountains and a 2reat
basin in 1in&ian2 pro*ince9 had e4cessi*e floods for three 2enerations. :ere a2ain- there
was no brea& in histor.. /he +hinese nation was not wiped out. 6ts own records show
that it continued in e4istence ri2ht throu2h the period of (oahOs flood. /herefore- the
;ible is correct in statin2 that the Mlood co*ered onl. ,eh-rets,- ,that land,. /he
translators are wron2 when the. chan2e the meanin2 of what ?oses reall. wrote in
Genesis 7- and sa. that the flood co*ered all ,the earth,.
/his lea*es us read. to inNuire where the flood did occur. Mor this- we will ha*e to start
with $dam and %*e and trace where the. and their descendants went. /he. started out
in the Garden of %den. Genesis 2:1>-1" tells us that a ri*er went out of %den and this
ri*er di*ided into four streams. 6t names these four ri*ers: Bison and Gihon 8(either of
which can be identified amon2 the ri*ers e4istin2 toda.9- and :idde&el 8which is the
ancient name of the /i2ris Ci*er9 and the %uphrates. /he /i2ris and %uphrates rise in
what is toda. e4treme southeastern /ur&e.- a little north of modern 6raN. ?a&in2 some
allowances for the fact that man. ri*ers ha*e chan2ed their courses considerabl. in the
course of se*eral thousand .ears- this still placed the Garden of %den at the northern end
of ancient $&&ad. Ihen $dam and %*e were dri*en out of the Garden of %den- Genesis
3:2"- tells us that God placed cherubim with a flamin2 sword at the east side of the
Garden of %den- to &eep $dam and %*e from returnin2 and ha*in2 access to the tree of
life. 6f this 2uard was to accomplish an.thin2- it must ha*e been placed between $dam
and the Garden of %den.
1o we see that $dam and %*e were dri*en out to the east. Mrom %den- $damOs course
would naturall. ha*e led him across northern 6ran- around the southern end of the
+aspian 1ea- into what was formerl. called +hinese /ur&istan and toda. is &nown as
1in&ian2 pro*ince in the e4treme west of +hina.
6n the southern part of 1in&ian2- there is a 2reat basin- rimmed b. hi2h mountains on all
sides- but with an outlet on the eastern end of it- throu2h the mountains where the
headwaters of the :wan2-:o Ci*er- the Yellow Ci*er rises. /his basin is toda. nearl.
all desert- but it bears e*idence of a fertile and hea*il. inhabited past. %4plorers ha*e
found ruins of ancient cities- unco*ered b. the driftin2 sands of the desert. $lso the
&nown 2eolo2ical structure shows that- in ancient times at least- beneath this desert la.
an enormous under2round natural reser*oirs- ca*erns filled with water. 6t is the same
2eolo2ical structure which furnishes artesian water in man. parts of the world toda..
/hese under2round reser*oirs were co*ered b. waterproof la.ers of roc&- which &ept
the waters beneath from o*erflowin2 out on the land surface abo*e them. 6n this
mountain rimmed basin- then a fertile- well populated land- $dam and %*e- or at least
their descendants of a few 2enerations later- settled. You who listen to this pro2ram
alread. &now that $dam was not the first man. :e was onl. the first man in the present
Ihite Cace. $dam and %*e found this land to which the. had come alread. populated
b. an $siatic people- amon2 whom the. had to li*e. /hrou2h the followin2 2enerations-
the ine*itable happened.
Ihere*er there is inte2ration- intermarria2es and mon2reli0ation of the races follows. 6f
God had no purposes in mind which could not be properl. ser*ed b. the $siatic and
ne2ro races- there would ha*e been no reason for :im to create $dam. (either could the
purposes which $dam and his descendants were intended to ser*e be fulfilled b. a
?=(GC%F6G%D race. /he conseNuences of this mon2reli0ation are described in
Genesis 6:#- ,$nd God saw that the wic&edness of man was 2reat in the earth and that
e*er. ima2ination of the thou2hts of his heart was onl. e*il continuall.., $2ain we find
the word there mistranslated ,earth, is the :ebrew word ,eh-rats,- which onl. means
,the land,- that particular land< and there is reason for usin2 that :ebrew word- for this
was the place where inte2ration and mon2reli0ation had ta&en place- with its
de2enerati*e effects as compared to the Nualities possessed b. each race separatel..
Ie find confirmation of this in the reason wh. God spared (oah. 6n Genesis 6:'- .our
Jin2 3ames *ersion ;ible tells .ou that (oah was ,perfect in his 2enerations, a
meanin2less phrase. Ihen an.thin2 in the Jin2 3ames *ersion of the ;ible fails to
ma&e 2ood sense- it is a si2n that .ou should 2o behind the mistranslation and see what
the words were in the ori2inal :ebrew or Gree&. /he word here translated ,2enerations,
was the :ebrew word ,to-lad-aw,- which means ,ancestr.,. /hat is- (oah was ,perfect
in his ancestr.,- a pure bred- not a mon2rel. (oah and his famil. were the last
remainin2 pure blooded $damites in the world- therefore- God needed to sa*e them to
carr. out the purposes :e had planned for the $damic people. /he ?=(GC%F6G%D
people amon2 whom (oah and his famil. li*ed must be remo*ed- or the. would be a
trap which would e*entuall. lead to the complete end of the pure blooded $damites.
:a*e we an. other e*idence to support our *iew that this was the re2ion where $dam
and %*e and their descendants settledE Yes. Cemember that $dam and %*e were dri*en
out of %den to the eastward. Fater- when +ain murdered $bel- and as a punishment was
banished from the land where $dam and %*e li*ed- Genesis ",16 tells us that +ain
,went out from the presence of the Ford and dwelt in the Fand of (od- on the east of
%den., /he :ebrew word ,nod, means ,wanderin2,. /hat is- in the upper /i2ris and
%uphrates *alle.s- at the north of %den- these ri*ers were runnin2 swiftl. downhill from
their mountain sources. /herefore- the. cut themsel*es deep channels in the 2round.
%*en toda. we can find the traces of the ancient di*ersion dams- built b. the ancients to
raise the water le*el up close to the surface of the 2round- so the. would not ha*e to
pump it so hi2h to 2et it into their irri2ation canals. Marther to the south- in the lower
/i2ris and %uphrates @alle.s- where the slope was no lon2er steep- the accumulation of
silt pic&ed up b. the ri*ers where the. ran swiftl. was now settlin2 to the bottom of the
ri*er beds- constantl. raisin2 the le*el- so that e*er. hi2h water season the ri*ers
o*erflowed their ban&s and flooded the *alle.s.
/his is e4actl. the same as we ha*e in our own ?ississippi @alle.. /hese annual floods
washed awa. the peopleOs houses and sent them fleein2 far awa. to hi2h 2round.
/herefore it was correctl. called ,the land of (od,- ,the land of wanderin2,. :ere +ain
settled- and tau2ht the people to build hi2h di&es alon2 the ri*er ban&s- Hust as we ha*e
done alon2 the ban&s of the ?ississippi ri*er. /his enabled them to stop the annual
floods- so the. could now build permanent cities of 2ood houses in the lower /i2ris and
%uphrates @alle.s- the land then called b. its own inhabitants ,1umer,- and later called
,+haldea,. 6n a *er. few places the ;ible calls it ,the Blain of 1hinar,. /hat is- +ain
went bac& westward from where $dam and %*e li*ed. 6t was thus that +ain started his
2reat empire. Yes- +ain is a well &nown historical character- found not onl. in the ;ible
8but he is &nown in histor. under another name9.
+ain established an empire which e4tended from the Bersian Gulf to the ?editerranean
1ea and e*en too& in some of the lar2er islands in the ?editerrean 1ea. 1ome da. 6 will
tell .ou about +ain and his empire but- that is another stor.. $nother bit of e*idence is
found in Genesis 11:2- which tells us that after the flood- (oahOs descendants ,Hourne.ed
MC=? the east,- until the. came to the land of 1hinar. /herefore- the. must ha*e come
from some place east of the /i2ris and %uphrates @alle.s. /he onl. place where such a
flood as the ;ible describes could ha*e occurred- eastward from the /i2ris and
%uphrates @alle.s- is this mountain basin in 1in&iand which 6 ha*e been tal&in2 about.
$nother bit of e*idence is found in the hi2h water mar& found in man. places alon2 the
mountains which rim this basin- showin2 that at one time this basin was a la&e-
e4tendin2 to this well mar&ed shoreline. /he mountains which rim this *alle. were not
full. co*ered- for man. of them ran2e from 16->>> to 2#->>> feet in hei2ht and one
e*en rises o*er 28->>> feet. ;ut- within the basin are se*eral smaller mountains which
could be full. co*ered b. a flood held within the hi2her rim of the *alle..
6n short- this basin- throu2h which flows the /arim Ci*er and which is sometimes
&nown as the /arim basin in southern 1in&ian2- is identified as the site of (oahOs flood.
6n .our Jin2 3ames *ersion ;ible- Genesis 7:11-12 reads: ,6n the 6>>th .ear of (oahOs
life- in the 2nd month- the 17th da. of the month- the same da. were all the fountains of
the 2reat deep bro&en up and the windows of hea*en were opened. /he rain was upon
the earth "> da.s and "> ni2hts., ?ore careful translation ma&es clear what reall.
happened- 6n moffattOs ?odern %n2lish translation we read- ,the fountains of the 2reat
ab.ss burst- and the sluices of hea*en were opened,. 6n 1mith and GoodspeedOs
$merican translation- it sa.s- ,the fountains of the 2reat ab.ss were all bro&en open- and
the windows of the hea*ens were opened,. /hat is- a 2reat earthNua&e bro&e up this
waterproof la.er of roc& o*er the immense- water filled ab.ss or ca*ern beneath this
/arim ;asin- causin2 the floor of the *alle. to settle and allowed the enormous
under2round reser*oir to o*erflow and submer2e the *alle. floor.
/he 2reat earthNua&e in the :imala.a ?ountains a few .ears a2o produced similar
effects in some places. =f course- the "> da.s of torrential rains added to the flood. /his
filled the *alle. hi2h enou2h to submer2e the low mountains which were inside the
*alle.- e4actl. as Genesis 7:1'-2>- sa.s. DonOt be misled b. the mistranslation- ,all the
hi2h hills that were under the whole hea*en were co*ered,. /he word mistranslated
,:ea*en, is merel. the :ebrew word ,1haw-meh,- meanin2 ,the s&.,. 1ince this /arim
;asin is somewhat more than 3#> miles wide b. more than 6#> miles lon2- all the s&.
*isible from an.where near the center of this *alle. would co*er onl. this *alle. and
therefore onl. those lower mountains which were within the *alle. itself. ;ut what
about Genesis 8:"- readin2 ,$nd the ar& rested in the 7th month- on the 17th da. of the
month- upon the mountains of $rarat,E 1ometimes failure to translate can be as
misleadin2 as mistranslation. ?ost people understand this to mean ?ount $rarat- in
$rmenia- some 1-6>> miles west of the /arim ;asin.
/his is (=/ what the ;ible sa.s. Mirst of all- note that it sa.s ,mountains of $rarat,-
mountains bein2 in the plural- while ?ount $rarat- in $rmenia- is onl. a sin2le pea&.
:owe*er- ?ount $rarat in $rmenia was &nown until comparati*el. recent times as
?ount ?assis,- and nobod. had e*er heard of it bein2 called ,?ount $rarat, in ;ible
times. Murthermore- the :ebrew word ,ararat, means onl. ,the tops of the hills.,
/herefore correctl. translated- Genesis 8:" merel. sa.s that the ar& came to rest upon
the tops of the hi2h hills- some of the lower mountains which were within the *alle.. $
recent newspaper report mentions an e4pedition- eNuipped with the latest electronic
eNuipment- which is 2oin2 to ?ount $rarat in $rmenia to find the ar&. /he e4pedition
will melt the ice- which co*ers the ar&- b. coatin2 it with blac& powdered carbon. /he.
wonOt find the ar& because it is not there. 1e*eral e4peditions ha*e 2one to ?ount $rarat
to find the ar&. 1ome of them 2ot within si2ht of a mass on the side of the mountain
which- from that particular point of *iew- loo&ed to be shaped somewhat li&e a ship.
/hat point has been *er. carefull. inspected from the air- b. airplanes fl.in2 o*er it
*er. close and it has pro*ed to be nothin2 but a led2e of roc& which does 2i*e a
silhouette shaped li&e a ship- when seen from the ri2ht direction. 6 need not mention the
man. places- such as the Grand +an.on etc.- where similar ,ship roc&s, can be seen and
none of them are (oahOs $r&.
1o- when we carefull. e4amine the whole affair- and correct mistranslations- we find
that there is no conflict between what the ;ible reall. sa.s and either science or histor..
6n fact- there ne*er is an. such conflict- it is onl. the preachers who find themsel*es
contradicted b. either science or histor.< and that is onl. because the. either wonOt ta&e
the trouble to find out what the ;ible reall. sa.s- or the. ha*e made the mistranslation a
supposedl. sacred church doctrine and now the. are stuc& with it. DonOt let an. church
sha&e .our faith in the ;ible. /he ;ible is alwa.s ri2ht- e*en if the preachers are often
wron2.
Fet us remember another thin2- the +hinese historical record. /he 1hu-Jin2 records that
durin2 the rei2n of Jin2 Yao- at a time be2innin2 about the date of (oahOs flood- the
:wan2 :o Ci*er carried e4cessi*e floods for three 2enerations. Draina2e out of the
/arim ;asin to the eastward would ha*e been carried off in the :wan2 :o Ci*er and
would account for this. (ow we come to another false doctrine tau2ht in man.
churches. 1ince nobod. sur*i*ed in all the earth e4cept (oah and his famil.- e*er.bod.
now li*in2 is a descendant of (oah and related b. blood- no matter what race the.
belon2 to. Ie ha*e alread. seen that the Mlood did not co*er the whole earth but onl.
one *alle. about 3#> b. 6#> miles in si0e. +hinese histor. was not interrupted b.-
althou2h the. do report purel. local floods in the :wan2 :o *alle. where the waters
were drainin2 off. Ie ha*e seen that %2.ptian histor. is not interrupted b. the flood- so
the continent of $frica was not touched b. it and the (e2ro Cace continued unaffected
b. it. 6t would be absurd to thin& that (oah and his wife- both of them bein2 white-
could ha*e one white child- one (e2ro child- and one +hinese child.
Cemember that in Genesis 1:11-2#- when God created the world and its inhabitants and
made the laws 2o*ernin2 their reproduction- :e did not ma&e it absurd chaos- with
whales 2i*in2 birth to cattle and fish hatchin2 out of birdsO e22s. :is law- se*eral times
repeated for emphasis- is alwa.s that each creature must brin2 forth strictl. ,after his
own &ind,. /he churches that teach this false doctrine of e*er.bod. bein2 descended
from (oah ne*er 2ot it from the ;ible- that is in an. true translation of the ;ible. $s
?oses wrote it in the :ebrew lan2ua2e- under di*ine inspiration- the ;ible correctl.
tells that (oahOs descendants went out into a world alread. populated b. people who
had li*ed ri2ht throu2h the time of the flood and were still 2oin2 stron2. Merrar MentonOs
?odern %n2lish translation 2i*es this correctl.. 6n Genesis 1>:1-#- we read of the
descendants of (oahOs son 3apheth- and it sa.s- ,Mrom these the. spread themsel*es
o*er the sea coasts of the countries of the nations- each with their lan2ua2e amon2st the
2entile tribes., Genesis 1>:2> tells of the descendants of (oahOs son :am- ,/hese were
the sons of :am- in their tribes and lan2ua2es- in the re2ions of the heathen,. Genesis
1>:31 completes it: ,/hese are the sons of 1hem- b. their tribes and b. their lan2ua2es-
in their countries amon2 the heathen., 1o ne*er let an.bod. tell .ou that the ;ible
consists of the fables of a primiti*e people. 6t is perfectl. consistent with all true science
and all true histor.. 6t is the histor. of our race- the $n2lo-1a4on- 1candina*ian and
/eutonic Ihite Cace.
P)*T III
)$ Your 1erita!e
Your 1erita!e
Part / o" :
By Bertrand L$ Comparet
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - Israel's Fingerprints
Chapter 2 - Who Are the Jews?
Chapter 3 - Was Jesus Christ a Jew?
Chapter 4 - Who Are the Gentiles?
Chapter 5 - We Are Israel, What Suppose Diference Does it Make?
Chapter 6 - Historic Proof of Israel's Migrations


INTRODUCTION
Much is heard in this day of the word ANTI-SEMITIC The word is a
creation of the modern Pharisees who are anti-Christian. The purpose of the
creation was to "smear" or blacken the name or reputation of Christians
seeking to protect and defend their faith from the onslaughts of those who
would destroy it.
The word "Semitic" is derived from the patriarch Shem, and is correctly
applied to people descended from him. All true Israelites (NOT Jews, as this
booklet shows) are therefore Semites; and today these are the great White
Christian nations of the Western World. The Jews (as the second half of this
booklet shows) are not Semitic at all, as their Canaanite and Khazar
ancestors were not descendants of Shem. Their smear accusation "anti-
Semitic" against all who oppose Jewish seizure of Palestine is, therefore,
false. (Indeed, the Arabs - who are half Semitic - can truthfully accuse the
Jews of anti-Semitism!)
That fact is quite obvious. It has been said that Communism seeks to make
black white and white black. The word anti-Semitic is just one example of
such mis-use and intended opposite meaning, in an efort to attach an ill-
sounding term which should be self-applied, to him or them who are actually
quite the opposite in viewpoint.
It is one purpose of this booklet to bring to the reader accurate Biblical and
historic proof of the error applied in the use of the term anti-Semitic.
It is hoped that much confusion, purposely created as camoufage, will be
clarifed in the minds of Christians by the careful reading and study of the
material so excellently presented by the author.


ISRAEL' S FINGERPRINTS
The Bible is written about, and addressed to, God's people, "Israel." It is the
history of their past, the prophecy of their future, the law of their relation to
their God, and the promise of God's eternal care of them, The common
misconception, that "the Jews are Israel, or all that remains of them," has
made the Bible meaningless, and most of it apparently false, to those who
hold this mistaken belief. It is just as though you took a good history of the
United States, but wherever the name "United States" appeared therein,
you erased it and wrote "China" in its place. As a history of China, it would
be obviously false; but if you applied it to me right nation, it would be clearly
true.
The Bible's history of Israel's past is known to be accurate; and its
prophecies of Israel's future have been fulflled in every detail, down to the
present day. When the police have the fngerprints of a wanted man, they
know that the man whose fngerprints match those they have is the man
they seek. Likewise, when we fnd the people to whom God has fulflled all of
His promises and prophecies to Israel, we have found Israel! Today, the
Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian and Germanic nations have Israel's fnger-prints
in every detail.
When we realize that WE ARE ISRAEL, the Bible becomes full of meaning
for us: it is our history, it contains God's promises to us. It gives us courage
to face the. terrible upheaval into which all the world is being drawn. If you
will only read the Bible with an open mind, taking no man's word for it, but
proving for yourself what the Bible says, then comparing that with what you
know of present-day history, you will see that WE are God's People Israel,
and that, however terrible the trial ahead, we will be brought safely through
it when we turn to God.
FIRST - Let us briefy review the ancient history of Israel God frst made
His promises of wonderful blessings to Abram, changing his name to
"Abraham," meaning "Father of Nations." Note that this is in the plural -
nations. God repeated His promises to Abraham's son, Isaac; and again to
Isaac's son Jacob, whose name God changed to ''Israel,'' which means ''He
will rule with God.''
Israel had twelve sons. The descendants of each son became in time a Tribe,
under its ancestor's name: thus, all the descendants of Dan became the
Tribe of Dan, all the descendants of Benjamin became the Tribe of
Benjamin, etc. For many centuries, all members of all the twelve tribes
collectively were known as the "children" - that is, descendants of Israel.
However, do not confuse this with the later "House," or Kingdom, of Israel,
about which I will have more to say later.
Israel and his twelve sons, with their families, went into Egypt, as you will
remember; and after about 2 1/2 centuries, their descendants left Egypt in
the Exodus, under the leadership of Moses. For several generations they
were ruled by "Judges" appointed by God. Later, they unwisely copied the
customs of the surrounding nations and demanded a King; so Saul became
their frst king, ruling the twelve tribes as a single nation. This unifed
nation of twelve tribes (like the United States of ffty states) continued until
the death of Solomon, in 975 BC., when it broke into two nations, Israel and
Judah
1
st
Kings 11-12 tell us how Solomon fnally fell into idolatry, mis-governed
the people and burdened them with excessive taxes. (Yes, they babbled about
"New Deals" and "Great Societies" in those days, too!) When his son
Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as King, in 975 BC. the weary people
petitioned him to ease their burdens; but being vain and arrogant, and
surrounded by a lot of "bright" young Jewish advisors (even as today!), he
threatened to make their load heavier. The exasperated people of the ten
Northern tribes revolted, and set up their own. independent kingdom under
Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which is told in detail in 1
st
Kings, Chapters 11
and 12 and 2
nd
Chronicles 10 and 11 Rehoboam, the son of Solomon had left
in his Kingdom only the two Southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin, with
some of the Levites, who were the priests: and this Southern Kingdom was
never thereafter known as "Israel," but only as the House (or Kingdom) of
Judah. The Northern, ten-tribed kingdom was thereafter called the House
(or Kingdom) of Israel. Just as the Southern kingdom Judah, took its name
from the Tribe of Judah. which WiL5 the ruling Tribe, so also the Northern
Kingdom of Israel was sometimes called "Ephraim" in the prophecies, be-
cause the Tribe of Ephraim was the most powerful tribe in it. The histories
and destinies of the two kingdoms were thereafter separate: they engaged
separately in foreign wars and treaties, and were sometimes at war with
each other, as the Book of Kings and Chronicles record.
From the time of this separation, 975 BC., the Bible very carefully
distinguished between the Southern, two tribed nation of Judah and the
Northern, ten-tribed nation of Israel. This distinction is kept clear, both in
the historical record of what is past and the prophetic record of what is to
come. It would take another volume to cover them all; but for a few
examples, see the following: the distinction is made historically in 2
nd

Samuel 19:40-43; 1
st
Kings 14:19-21; 15:1-33; 16:b; 2
nd
Kings 3:1-9; 2
nd

Chronicles 16:1; 25:5-10; and many others. The distinction is kept clear in
prophecies in Isaiah 7:1-9; 11:12-13; Jeremiah :3:6-18; 5:11; 11:10-17; 13:11;
18:l-6; 19:1-13; Ezekiel 37:16-22; Daniel 9:7; Hosea 1:11; 4:15; 5:9-15; Amos
1:1; Micah 1:5; Zechariah 8:13; 10:6-8; and many others.
Just as we must carefully distinguish between the two nations of Israel and
Judah, so also we must carefully distinguish between the nation of Judah
and the Jews.
Both Israel and Judah were carried into captivity - but separately, and at
diferent times, by diferent conquerors, and taken to diferent places. Israel
was conquered by Assyria between 740 and 721 BC., and by 715 BC. all of
its people had been deported and resettled in what we now know as
Armenia, northwestern Iran, and the region near Baku, around the
southern end of the Caspian Sea. The Assyrians brought in other people and
settled them in Samaria, the southern halt of Israel's old Palestinian land,
to which the people of Israel never returned. See 2
nd
Kings 17. From this
time onward, the historical parts of the "authorized" or King James version
of the Bible do not record the further history of Israel; but in the
Apochrypha, 2
nd
Esdras 13:39-46 records their further journey to "Ar Sereth"
(the valley of the River Sereth, a northern tributary of the Danube River, in
modern Romania, which still bears the name Sereth.") At the conclusion of
this deportation of Israel from its Palestinian home, the Assyrian king
Sennacherib also invaded the southern kingdom of Judah and captured all
the smaller Cities in it, everything except Jerusalem. The people of these
smaller cities were deported, along with the people of the northern Kingdom
of Israel. Sennacherib's own record of this invasion says that he deported
200,150 people from the southern Kingdom of Judah. 2
nd
Kings 18:13 and
Isaiah 36:1 mention his capture of these cities. Thus the Assyrian
deportation of Israel included the entire population of the northern
Kingdom of Israel and a considerable representative share of the southern
Kingdom of Judah. From this time on, these people became the so-called
"Lost Ten Tribes of Israel." (As we shall see, God took good care of them, as
lie had promised, and you who are reading this are among their
descendants.)
The Kingdom of Judah on the other hand, did not go into captivity until 606
to 585 BC., and was conquered by Babylon, not Assyria. They were deported
to the City of Babylon and settled nearby, a little south of Bagdad, in what is
now southern Iraq. Not quite all of them were deported, a few of the poor
being left behind to cultivate the land, and no other people were brought in
to settle the land. (See 2
nd
Kings 24-25.) This Babylonian captivity of Judah
lasted 70 years, as had been prophesied by Jeremiah 20:4-5; 25:11-12; 29:10.
After the fall of Babylon, King Cyrus allowed all who wished to return to
Palestine, beginning in 536 BC. (See 2
nd
Chronicles 36:20-23.) Ezra1-2
records that only 42,360 returned, and their descendants (who have never
been called "Jews" until their Babylonian conquerors gave them that name)
lived in Palestine until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under
Titus in AD. 70. This reconstructed nation, sometimes called "Jewish" was
the "70 weeks" nation with the evil destiny "to fnish the transgression,"
prophesied in Daniel 9:24. In AD. 70, those who had survived the terrible
wars ceased to be a nation at all, and became scattered wanderers in all
lands.
There is not one word in either the Bible or secular history to suggest that
Israel either was destroyed or that they went (town to Babylon and joined
Judah in the Babylonian captivity; and the Jews themselves testify that the
genealogy of those who returned from Babylon shows no one from any tribe
but Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, the members of the Kingdom of Judah. To
the contrary, it was well known at the beginning of the Christian era that
Israel THEN EXISTED IN GREAT NUMBERS: Josephus' great history,
"Antiquities of the jews" Book 11, Chapter 5, speaks of them as "an immense
multitude, beyond the Euphrates River." The prophetic parts of the Bible
still continue to prophecy the great future of Israel several generations after
they had vanished into the Assyrian captivity: Isaiah prophesied until 698
BC., Jeremiah until 588 BC. Ezekiel to 574 BC., and Daniel to 534 BC.
Jesus Christ was well aware of the existence of Israel, separate and apart
from Judah and the Jews; see Matthew 10:5-6. Again, compare John 7:35;
11:49-52, which cannot refer to Judah or the Jews, as the Jews were not yet
"dispersed" or "scattered abroad" and would not be for another 40 years; only
Israel was "dispersed" out of its own land.
The complete and permanent destruction of the Jewish nation by the
Romans under Titus, and their subsequent troubles as outcasts in every
land, are not a failure of the prophecies and promises to Israel, but an
accurate fulfllment of the prophecies about the Jews. With the history of
these nations in mind, let us examine God's promises and prophecies about
Israel in the Bible.
God's promises to Abraham were unconditional. God must fulfll them or
break His word. Consider what God said, in Genesis 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 17:3-7,
19; and 22:16-18: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will
make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust
of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. As for Me, behold, My
covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of MANY nations. And I
will establish MY covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee in
their generations, for an EVER-LASTING COVENANT. Look now toward
heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to number them; and He said
unto him, so shall thy seed be. BY MYSELF HAVE I SWORN, saith the Lord
. . . that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy
seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore;
and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies."
God did not say that He would do this "IF" or "PERHAPS" - these were all
UNCONDITIONAL promises. Those promises which were made at Mt. Sinai
on condition that men should obey Cod's laws, were the promises made
through Moses, relating to health, prosperity, peace, etc. The promises to
Abraham were UNCONDITIONAL and absolute; and in the New
Testament, Paul tells us that these "the law, which was 430 years after,
cannot disannul, that It should make the promises of none efect."
(Galatians 3:17.) If the Bible is true, if God's word is good, then these
promises must be good.
God repeated these promises UNCONDITIONALLY to Isaac, in Genesis
26:3-5: "Sojourn in this land and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for
unto thee and thy seed I will give all these countries; and I WILL
PERFORM THE OATH WHICH I SWORE UNTO ABRAHAM, THY
FATHER. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and
will give unto thy seed all of these countries; and in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed."
Again, in the 28
th
, and 35
th
chapters of Genesis, GOD REPEATED HIS
PROMISES, UNCONDITIONALLY, to Jacob, Israel our ancestor; "I am the
Lord God of Abraham, thy father, and the God of Isaac, the land wheren
thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the
dust of the earth; and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east,
and to the north, and to the south; and in thee and in thy seed shall all the
families of the earth be blessed. And Behold, I am with thee, and will keep
thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this
land, FOR I WILL NOT LEAVE THEE UNTIL I HAVE DONE THAT
WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN TO THEE OF. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation
and A COMPANY OF NATIONS shall be of thee, and kings shall come out
of thy loins."
There can't be any evasion of these promises; and God has always honored
them. Even when the children of Israel worshiped the Golden Calf while
Moses was on Mt. Sinai, receiving the ten commandments, God did not
destroy them, for the sake of these promises. (See Exodus 32:7-14.) In many
places, the New Testament recognized these promises as being still in full
efect; for example, in Hebrews 6:13,17, "For when Cod made promise to
Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He swore by Himself . . .
Wherein God, being willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of
promise the immutability of His counsel, confrmed it with an oath." Again
in Romans 11:1-2; 9:4-5; and 15:8 Paul tells us "I say then, Hath God cast
away his people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of
Abraham, of the Tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away His people
which he foreknew... Who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption,
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service
of God, and the promises; whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning
the fesh Christ . . . Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confrm the promises made unto the
fathers.
SO THESE ARE THE PROMISES OF GOD: IF THEY ARE FALSE, THEN
THE BIBLE IS FALSE: BUT IF THEY HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, THEN
THE PEOPLE TO WHOM THEY WERE FULFILLED ARE THEREBY
IDENTIFIED AS ISRAEL. But the separate, and very diferent prophecies
relating to the Jews show that the promises and prophecies to Israel had no
reference to the Jews. Let's look at a few of them.
ISRAEL WAS TO HAVE A CHANGE OF NAME, WHILE THE JEWS'
NAME WAS LEFT TO THEM AS A CURSE. In Isaiah 65:13-15, God tells
the Jews: "And ye shall leave YOUR name FOR A CURSE TO MY
CHOSEN: FOR THE LORD GOD SHALL SLAY THEE, and CALL HIS
SERVANTS BY ANOTHER NAME." Who are God's servants? In many
places God repeats this: "But thou, ISRAEL, are MY servant . . . Thou art
My servant: I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away." For example, see
Isaiah 41:8-10; 43:1, and 10; 44:1-2, 21-22; etc. This has been fulflled,
ISRAEL is no longer called by its old name; but the Jews have retained their
name for "a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse," as Jeremiah 24:9
says.
AGAIN, THE JEWS WERE TO BE KNOWN BY THEIR FACES. Isaiah 3:9
says: "THE SHOW OF THEIR COUNTENANCE DOTH WITNESS
AGAINST THEM, and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe
unto their soul! For they have rewarded evil unto themselves." To this day,
the Jew is known by his face, and even getting his nose bobbed can't always
hide it: IT IS A WITNESS AGAINST HIM - While Israelis not so marked.
ISRAEL WAS TO BECOME A GREAT NATION AND ALSO A COMPANY
OF NATIONS, AND TO BE A NATION FOREVER, AND TO HAVE A KING
FOREVER. See Genesis 35:11; Jeremiah 31:35-37; 33:17; Psalm 89:3-4;
Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; etc., which say, "A nation and a company of nations
shall be of thee . . . Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by
day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night . . .
If those ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of
Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me forever . . . For thus saith
the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne of the House of
Israel." Since the sun, moon and stars still shine, these promises must be
still in efect; and they cannot possibly apply to the Jews, who never were "a
company of nations" and who ceased to be a nation at all in AD. 70. On the
other hand, Israel has fulflled all of this, as we shall see.
GOD SAID THAT THE JEWS WERE TO BE DESTROYED AS A NATION,
AND TO BECOME SCATTERED OUTCASTS IN ALL LANDS. In the 18
th

Chapter of Jeremiah, God used the parable of the potter making a clay
bottle on the potter's wheel; and on the frst trial, the bottle was spoiled; so
the potter mashed it back into a lump and tried again, and on the second
trial he made a perfect bottle. God said that He would re-make Israel into
the kind of nation he wanted, just as the potter had done with the soft clay.
But in the next chapter, Jeremiah 19, God told the prophet to get an earthen
bottle which had been burned hard, and to assemble the elders and
important men of Jerusalem. Then God said; "Then shalt thou break the
bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shall say to them, Thus
saith the Lord of hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one
breaketh a potter's vessel that cannot be made whole again." Again in
Jeremiah 15:4 and 24:29, God said of the Jews. "And I will cause them to be
removed into all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of
Hezekiah, the King of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem. And I will
deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt,
to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all the places whither
I shall drive them:" In fulfllment of this, after the 70 weeks (or 490 years) of
Daniel 9:24 were completed, Titus the Roman General destroyed Jerusalem
in AD. 70; The Jews were broken as a nation, and have had no king of their
own. In John 19:15 they spoke truly. "we have no king but Caesar."
Israel was to become a very numerous people: besides the many statements
of this in Genesis chapters 13, 15, 22, 26, and 28, it is repeated in Hosea
1:10: "yet the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot
be measured or numbered. The Jews on the other hand, were to be reduced
to a remnant. In Ezekiel 5:11-12 God said: "Wherefore, as I live, said the
Lord God, Surely because thou hast defled My sanctuary with all thy
detestable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will I also
diminish thee: neither shall Mine eyes spare, neither will I have pity. A
third part of thee shall die with the pestilence, and with famine shall they
be consumed in the midst of thee; and a third shall fall by the sword round
about thee: and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw
out a sword after them." See also Jeremiah 15:4-9, etc. The total Jewish
population of the world is estimated to be about 16 million people, today -
almost exactly what it was estimated to be just before Hitler's completely
mythical massacre of six million Jews who were not killed at all. They are
not so prolifc that in 20 years they could increase their numbers by 60%, as
would have to be the case if the alleged massacre was true. To conceal this
fact, the Jews now seek to falsify the records: you will remember that in our
1960 census, it was not permitted to ask anyone his religion, so you couldn't
fnd out that 5,000,000 of the supposedly dead 6,000,000 had been illegally
admitted to the United States. But this 16 million is certainly NOT "as the
stars of tile heaven or as the sand which is upon the seashore" for numbers.
For another thing, ISRAEL WAS TO BECOME BLIND TO ITS IDENTITY.
In Romans 11:25, paul comments that "blindness in part is happened to
Israel." This is fulfllment of Isaiah 42:19-20, "Who is blind, but my servant?
Or deaf, as My messenger that I sent? . . Seeing many things, but thou
observeth not: opening the ears, but he heareth not." You remember that
God's servant is Israel. The Jews, on the other hand, are not blind to their
identity: they know their origin and their history - although they try to fool
you into thinking that they are Israel - and they generally have succeeded in
this deception.
AGAIN, Israel WAS TO RECEIVE THE NEW COVENANT -
CHRISTIANITY: Jeremiah 31:33 prophecied it, and in Hebrews 8:10 Paul
quotes it in proof of this: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make
with the House of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law
in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God
and they shall be My people." Have the Jews received the new covenant? Of
course not?. As the beloved Apostle John said, in I John 2:23, "Whosoever
denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." And in John 15:23, Jesus
Christ Himself said, "He that hateth ME hateth My Father also."
The Jews DO NOT FULFILL ANY OF THE PRINCIPAL PROPHECIES
CONCERNING ISRAEL. THEREFORE, THE JEWS ARE NOT ISRAEL.
DOES ISRAEL EXIST TODAY? OR HAS GOD VIOLATED ALL OF HIS
PROMISES?
YES, ISRAEL EXISTS TODAY: FOR THE ANGLO SAXON,
SCANDINAVIAN AND GERMANIC PEOPLES HAVE RECEIVED THE
FULFILLMENT OF GOD'S PROMISES AND PROPHECIES.
FIRST: THEY ARE A GREAT NATION AND A COMPANY OF NATIONS,
ALL OF THE SAME RACE. The United States is the largest civilized nation
in the world; its population is exceeded only by China, India, and Russia; it
is the richest, the most advanced, the most benevolent in its policies, and
has the greatest degree of liberty of any large nation. Between the two world
wars, the former British Empire was ofcially reorganized into the "British
Commonwealth of Nations;" Canada and Australia are independent nations.
The Scandinavian and Germanic nations arc of the same blood, have largely
the same customs, and can be identifed historically as the peoples who
furnished most of the population of the British Isles and its colonies and the
United States.
SECOND: THEY ARE VERY NUMEROUS, as the prophecies said Israel
would be. In the last two centuries, the population of the United States has
increased from a mere handful to over 200,000,000 of whom about
150,000,000 are WHITE CHRISTIANS of Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian
Germanic stock. In the last three centuries, the population of the British
Isles and their colonies of Canada and Australia increased from about 5,
000,000 to over 70,000, 000 Anglo-Saxons. The nations of Germany, Austria,
Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland add about 96,000,000
more. So the total number of the Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian-Germanic
peoples is well over 300 million.
THIRD: THEY ARE A MARITIME PEOPLE, Of the descendants of Israel,
Numbers 24:7 prophecies: "His seed shall be in many waters:" and Psalm
89:25 says: "I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the
rivers." The world's greatest navies are those of the United States and
Britain: the greatest merchant marine feets are those of Britain, and
Norway (and until recently, the United States.)
FOURTH: THEY ARE THE GREATEST MILITARY POWERS. Jeremiah
51:20 gives God's word: "Thou art my battleaxe and weapons of war: for
WITH THEE will I break in pieces the nations, and WITH THEE will I
destroy kingdoms." Throughout history this has been true. A century after
being taken captive by Assyria, the peoples of Israel (then generally known
as Scythians) had bled Assyria white by their constant warfare against it, so
that Assyria was an easy push-over victory for the Medes and Persians, just
before they turned their attention to Babylon. It was the Israel tribes on
their march to Europe, as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals who
crushed the Roman Empire. In 713, at Tours, Anglo-Saxon Israel destroyed
the invading hordes of Muslins, Jews and Moors. In the 13
th
Century they
defeated the Tartar, Mongol, "Jewish" Khazar hordes under Genghis Khan.
Later they conquered Turkey and Japan. Not without heavy cost - for the
promises of EASY Victory were made through Moses and were conditional
upon keeping the law. But the promise of FINAL Victory to shatter the
enemy (even with heavy cost) is unconditional. This has been fulflled
consistently to only one people, those whom we identify as Anglo-Saxon
Israel.
FIFTH: "THEY POSSESS THE GATES OF THEIR ENEMIES." You will
remember that this was one of God's promises we found in Genesis 22:17.
Obviously, this doesn't mean a wooden gate in some person's front yard, but
the "gateways" of hostile nations the great water-ways of the world. Consider
the fact that the Anglo-Saxon nations, and THEY ALONE, have power to
close EVERY important water "gate" in the world. American and British
feets based at Scotland, the Orkney Islands, Gibralter, Malta, Aden,
Capetown, Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hawaii, San Francisco and
Puget Sound, Panama, the Falkiand Islands, Hampton Roads, and Iceland -
these dominate and can close the Skagerrak and Baltic Sea, the North Sea,
the English Channel, the Straits of Gibralter, the Mediterranean, the Suez
Canal, the Indian Ocean, the waters around Southeast Asia and the East
Coast of Asia, the coasts of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope, the
coasts of North and South America, the Straits of Magellan and around
Cape Horn, and all trade routes acrbss the Atlantic, Pacifc and Indian
Oceans. They have proved this by actually doing it in two world wars.
SIXTH: THEY "POSSESS THE DESOLATE HERITAGES" OF THE
EARTH. In Isaiah 49:8 God says: "Thus saith the Lord: In an acceptable
time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I
will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish
the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages." No one else has so
successfully developed the colonies which were desolate when they frst
occupied them. Compare what the United States has done in its
Southwestern States with Mexico, similar land, with fully as great
undeveloped riches, separated from us by only an imaginary line. Compare
British Africa with the African colonies of all other nations -and especially
compare it with the dismal savagery of the Negroes! Compare the
development of Palestine and Iraq while under British rule, with Turkey,
Arabia, Iran, etc.
SEVENTH: THEY HAVE EXPANDED IN COLONIES IN ALL
DIRECTIONS. Deuteronomy 32:8 says: "When the Most High divided to the
nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the
bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
Genesis 28:14 says, "Thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the cast,
and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the
families of the earth be blessed." Isaiah 54:2-3 tells us, "Enlarge the place of
thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of habitation; spare not,
lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes: for thou shalt break forth on
the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the nations, and
make the desolate cities to be inhabited:" Their colonies were established in
every sea, in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia-New
Zealand, and Asia. Who else has ever had such colonies? All the ancient
empires were insignifcant compared to this. Since we have allowed the Jews
to teach us to turn our backs on God, we have unwisely abandoned our
colonies; and the chaos in the world today is largely a result of our failure to
obey God's commands to occupy and rule the uncivilized peoples. However,
even this was also prophetic (though that is another subject.)
EIGHTH: THEY HAVE MAINTAINED THE CONTINUITY OF THE
THRONE OF DAVID. David's descendants continued on the throne in
Jerusalem until King Zedekiah was taken prisoner to Babylon, at which
time all his sons were slain. But the prophet Jeremiah took the king's
daughters, frst to Egypt (as we read in Jeremiah 43:6) and from there, by
way of Spain to Ireland, where Zedekiah's daughter, Tea Tephi, was married
to Eochaidh, the Heremon (or Chief King) of Ireland. Eochaidh was a
descendant of Zarah, one of the twin sons of Judah, while David was a
descendant of Pharez, the other twin. Killing all of Zedekiah's sons did not
end the dynasty, as it was established law in Israel ever since they frst
entered Palestine, that when a man died leaving no sons, his daughters
received the entire inheritance. The two king lines of the Tribe of Judah
were united in this marriage; and the lineage is clearly traced in the
histories of Ireland, Scotland, and England, unbroken down to the present
British Queen Elizabeth. Thus the prophecy that David's descendants
should always be on the throne over an Israelite nation has been fulflled -
and by the Anglo-Saxon nations ONLY.
---------------------
This has covered but a tiny fraction of Biblical proof that the Anglo-Saxon-
Scandinavian, and Germanic people are the Israel of the Bible. Scholars
have found nearly 100 prophecies concerning Israel which have been fulflled
by this one group of, people. When you consider that the United Nations now
recognizes over 100 member nations, the odds against any one nation
fulflling the frst of these prophecies is obviously 100 to 1. The odds against
that same nation fulflling both the frst and second prophecies again
multiplies this by 100, making ten thousand to one; and the odds against
the same nation fulflling the frst, second, and third prophecies becomes.
one million to one. Well, you fgure it out; keep on multiplying by 100 - oh,
even 50 more times. But even that isn't all; a group of nations all the same
blood have done this. Not a random assortment, like China and Spain, or
Egypt and Brazil; but all of the same racial group. So this again multiplies
the odds. Do you think that this could have happened by mere accident?
And if you do think that this was pure accident, then WHAT HAS BECOME
OF GOD'S PROPHECIES AND PROMISES? Was he too ignorant to know
that he couldn't make good on His word, that all the things He had promised
to Israel never got there but were all taken by other people? No, I don't think
that God made any failures or any mistakes. He promised and Prophesied
many things about Israel. They have all come to pass; and they have all been
made good to the same racial group of nations.
---------------------
THIS PEOPLE HAS ISRAEL'S
FINGERPRINTS
There is also the other line of proof of the identity of these people, by tracing
historically their migration into Europe, and from there Into their colonies.
But that is another subject, much longer than the one just covered.


WHO ARE THE JEWS?
The identifcation of the Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian Germanic peoples as the
surviving members of the peoples of Israel, leaves us with two other
questions to answer:
1. WHO ARE THE JEWS?
2. WAS JESUS CHRIST A JEW?
To answer these questions, we must frst defne what we mean by "Jew." The
muddled thinking of most people on this subject is due to the fact that they
never know just what they do mean by "Jew" - sometimes they mean a Jew
by religion, regardless of his race (for Negroes, Chinese and Japanese have
all been converted to Judaism); or sometimes they mean a Jew by race,
regardless' of his religion (for example, Premier Ben Gurion of the Jewish
nation in Palestine is a Buddist by religion, though a Jew by race) - and
usually people don't know which of these they do mean.
Since it can be answered quickest, let us frst take the question - was Jesus
Christ a Jew by RELIGION? The answer is clearly "NO." Jesus had the true
religion of the Old Testament, found in the Law and the prophets: and He
constantly rebuked the Jews for having abandoned this for Judaism under
the Babylonian Talmud (which in His day was called "The Tradition of the
Elders.") In Matthew 5:17-18, he said: "Think not that I am come to destroy
the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfll; for verily I
say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the Law till all be fulflled.
Jesus constantly rebuked the Jews for their apostasy, for setting aside the
Laws of God in favor of the Tradition of the Elders. This Talmudic Judaism
was very diferent from the religion which we fnd in the Old Testament. The
late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Chief Rabbi of the United States, expressed it
so clearly that I cannot improve on his words. He said: "THE RETURN
FROM BABYLON, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE BABYLONIAN
TALMUD, MARKS THE END OF HEBREWISM, AND THE BEGINNING
OF JUDAISM."
Since the true religion of the Old Testament was the religion of the real
Hebrews (NOT JEWS), the learned Rabbi was quite right in calling it
"Hebrewism" and noting that it came to its end when the Talmud (then
called the Tradition of the Elders) was adopted; and that this WAS THE
BEGINNING OF A NEW RELIGION - "JUDAISM," (or
BABYLONIANISM.)
So we read in Matthew 15:1-9: "Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees
which were of Jerusalem, saying,
1
Why do Thy disciples transgress the
Tradition of the Elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them Why do ye also transgress the
commandment of God by your Tradition? Ye hypocrites! Well did Isaiah
prophecy of you, saying this people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth,
and honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain
do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."'
(The same incident is found also in Mark 7:5-13.) In John 5:37-46, Jesus told
the Jews: "The Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of . .
. Search the Scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and it is
they which testify of Me . . . For had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed Me: for he write of Me." Again, in John 8:54-55, lie said: "It is My
Father that honoreth Me: of whom ye say that He is your God: yet ye have
not known Him." In John 15:23, Jesus said: "He that hateth Me hateth My
Father also." In the 21
st
Chapter of Matthew, Jesus summed up their
position by saying that even the Tax Collectors and the harlots could enter
the Kingdom of God before the Jews. Surely, Jesus Christ's entire ministry
was a complete demonstration that He was not a Jew by RELIGION.
Was Jesus a Jew by RACE? To answer this, we must trace the racial
ancestry of both Jesus and the Jews. Jesus Christ was a pure-blooded
member of the Tribe of Judah-and no true Judahite was a Jew by race, as
we shall see. Jesus ancestry is given in both Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Both of
them show that He was a descendant of the Patriarch Judah, through one of
his twin son Pharez; by His mother Mary, He came through the line of
David, and Nathan, the brother of Solomon, as traced in the 3
rd
. Chapter of
Luke. Jesus Christ was therefore a pureblooded Israelite, of the Tribe of
Judah as Paul says in Romans 9:4-5.
Now, let us trace the racial descent of the Jews. First, let us note that the
Jews were not - and are NOT - Israelites. Yes, I know that you have been
taught that "Jew" and "Israel" as we shall see. Let us get the frst proof of
this from Jesus Christ himself. He stated plainly, in Matthew 15:24: 'I am
not sent but unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. "Therefore, He was
sent to those who were of Israel - but not to others. Accordingly, when he
sent his 12 disciples out to preach His gospel, Matthew 10:5-6 records that
He told them this: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of
the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the Lost Sheep of the House of
Israel." And He added, "Ye shall NOT have gone over the cities of Israel till
the Son of man be come. (Matthew 10:23.) They could have gone over all the
cities of Judea in a month; so it was obvious that the cities of Israel, to
which he referred were the cities of the so-called Lost Tribes who had
already entered Europe in their long migration. But take careful note of
Jesus Christ's own words: "I am not sent but unto the Lost Sheep of the
House of Israel." If the Jews were any part of Israel then they would have
been some of His sheep; but He says that they are not.
In the 10
th
chapter of John, Jesus says: "I am the good shepherd, and KNOW
MY SHEEP, AND AM KNOWN OF MINE." But he tells the Jews - and it
says "Jews" - "But ye believe not, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF MY SHEEP,
as I said unto you. MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE, AND I KNOW THEM,
AND THEY FOLLOW ME." Note carefully those words: He does NOT say
that the reason that the Jews are not His sheep is that they don't believe,
and that they could become His sheep just by changing their minds: to the
contrary, He says that the reason they don't believe is that THEY ARE NOT
OF HIS SHEEP: He knows His sheep, and knows that the Jews are not of
His sheep.
Since the Jews are not any part of any Tribe of Israel, then WHO ARE THE
JEWS? Let's trace their ancestry. We fnd that the true line of His people
must be kept free from mongrelization with the neighboring Canaanite
Accordingly, Genesis 24:3-4 records that Abraham took great pains to see
that his son Isaac, should marry of only a woman of his own people likewise
Genesis 27:46 -28:1 records that Isaac also required that his son, Jacob (the
father of the Israelites) should also marry only within his own race line.
This law had been obeyed for several centuries, to keep the race line pure.
But one of the sons of Israel, the patriarch Judah, father of the tribe of
Judah, violated it by marrying a Canaanite woman, who bore him 3 sons, of
whom only one, Shelah, survived and left descendants. (See Genesis 38:1-5.)
This half-breed, mongrel line must be distinguished from Judah's pure-
blooded descendants by his twin sons Pharez and Zarah. Judah fathered
Pharez and Zarah by his daughter-in-law Tamar; although born out of
wedlock, they were of pure, Israel stock on both sides; and from one of them,
Pharez, Jesus Christ was descended. The descendants of these twins are the
real tribe of Judah.
The half-breed son, Shelah, accompanied Judah into Egypt, and in the
following centuries left many descend-ants. They were in the Exodus, and
accompanied the armies of Israel into the promised land. (See Genesis 46:12
and Numbers 26:20.) However, they bred true to type: they were half-breed
Canaanites, lacking the spiritual insight which God gave to his own people,
so they remained idolaters, Baal-worshipers, In 1
st
Chronicles 4:21, you will
fnd them referred to as "the House of Ashbea." "Ashbea" is a corruption of
"Ishbaal" - "man of Baal" and shows that they were still idolaters, unable to
perceive the God of Israel. So these Shelanites, half-breeds, formed one of
the peoples of the land, who made up the Jews in the time of Jesus Christ.
Another alien racial group who became part of the Jews were the "mixed
multitude" which Exodus 12:38 says left Egypt along with the children of
Israel The Hebrew word here translated "mixed" is the word "EREB,"
meaning half-breed or mongrel. During the two centuries in Egypt, many
had violated the divine law against race-mixing, and these were the result.
On the Exodus, when the going became hard in the wilderness, the Bible
records that this "mixed multitude" made a lot of trouble, and led some of
the Israelites into rebellion. (See Numbers 11:4-6.) This mongrelized group
was still in the land after the return from the Babylonian captivity; for we
fnd them listed in Nehemiah 13:3 as still in the land, and still a source of
trouble. They also were among the Jews in Christ's time.
Then there were the various Canaanite peoples who were still in the land,
chief of whom were the Jebusites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites,
and the Amorites When the Israelites were about to enter the Promised
Land, God gave them specifc instructions to completely drive out or
exterminate all of these Canaanites, saying: "When the Lord thy God shall
bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out
many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Gergashites, and the
Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord
thy God shall deliver them before thee: THOU SHALT SMITE THEM AND
UTTERLY DESTROY THEM; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor
show any mercy unto them . . . But of the cities of these people which the
Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hitties, and
the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites: as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee." (See Numbers 33:50-
56; Deuteronomy 7:1-6; 20:16-18.)
I know that it is fashionable among the "liberal" church members of today to
look down their noses at God, and say, "I just can't believe in that cruel God
of the Old Testament." However, I think He will manage very well with-out
their belief. He always was a good reason for what He does or tells us to do.
The Bible never argues with you about the reasons for its rules, it just states
the rule: but there is always a good reason, if you will look for it, For about
2,000 years, the Canaanites had worshiped Baal and Ishtar - the most
immoral religion in the world, with the possible exception of some Hindu
religions even today. Part of the worship of Baal and Ishtar consisted of the
compulsory prostitution of all the women. On certain festival days of the
year, all the women of the village had to sit in the feld outside the village
gate: and any wandering camel-driver who came along could select the
woman of his choice, hand her the coin which she must pay over to the
temple, then take her aside and leave with her his syphilis or gonorrhea, as
the case might be. This funneled into Palestine the venereal diseases of all
western Asia, Any Doctor can tell you that one infection of syphilis, not
cured, can produce degenerative changes in the children for as many as four
generations. But the Canaanites had been replenishing the disease with
new infections every generation for 2,000 years; they were not physically,
mentally, morally, or spiritually ft to marry or even associate with our
people. Therefore, God warned the Israelites to exterminate them; if you do
not, He warned them, you will have "integration;" your children will grow up
with theirs as playmates, they will intermarry, until you become as badly
polluted as they are, and I will have to destroy you as I am commanding you
to destroy them.
But the Israelites are often soft-hearted and soft-headed. While they did
exterminate the people of Jericho and a couple of other cities, the Bible
records that they left most of the others alive, merely making them pay a
heavy tribute tax. For example, the city of Jerusalem was inhabited by the
Jebusites at the time the Israelites came in. The Bible records that the
Jebusites were neither killed nor driven out, but continued to live among the
people of the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin. (See Joshua 15:63; Judges
1:21,27-35; and 19:10-12; and 2
nd
Chronicles 8:7-8.) Even after the people of
the southern Kingdom of Judah returned from the 70 years captivity in
Babylon, the Jebusites were still in the land, and some of the people were
intermarrying among them. (See Ezra 9:1-2 and Nehemiah 13:23-29.) And
the Bible records the same thing as to the other Canaanite peoples, Further
proof of this is found in various places, such as Ezekiel 16:1-3: "Again the
word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 'Son of man, cause Jerusalem to
know her abominations, and say thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem;
Thy birth and thy Nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an
Amorite. and thy mother an Hittite." God could not have said this truth-fully
to any real Israelites: BUT He was NOT saying it to Israelites: He said it to
the city of Jerusalem and her people. 'They were in large part Canaanite
Jews: and they had gained power in the manner by which Jews usually gain
it: hence Jerusalem was becoming more and more corrupt, as most of the
prophets record. They surrounded, and because the infuential advisors of,
the Kings of Judah: just as today they surround and are the principal
advisors of our President, We fnd clear proof of this in Isaiah 3:8-9, where
he says: "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their
tongues and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of His
glory. THE SHOW OF THEIR COUNTENANCE DOTH WITNESS
AGAINST THEM; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe
unto their soul I For they have rewarded evil unto themselves."
Now in China, where their rulers were Chinese you couldn't say that "the
show of their countenance doth witness against them" - their faces would be
just like those of the rest of the Chinese; and in Sweden, where their ruling
class were Swedes, you couldn't say that their faces were witness against
them, for they had the same kind of Swedish faces as the rest of the people
had. But in Jerusalem, the faces of the Canaanite-Jebusite Jews identifed
them, "were a witness against them." The true Israelites were not hook-
nosed. The ancient kings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia were very
vain about their military conquests, and left carved stone monuments
telling how they captured this city and that one, killed so many people and
enslaved the others, etc.; and on these monuments they usually had carved
in the stone pictures of the captive people. Whenever they showed Israelites,
the faces had straight noses and were generally of Anglo-Saxon type; but
when they showed Canaanites, the faces were those of typical hook-nosed
Jews. Therefore, the faces of the Canaanite-Jebusite Jews who had gained
controlling power as merchants, bankers, advisors of the King, the wealthy
ruling class, identifed them as separate from the real Israelites - "the show
of their countenance doth witness against them." They had brought ruin
upon the Kingdom of Judah. Now go back and read the many places where
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel condemn the wickedness which was found in
Jerusalem; don't you fnd the same conditions existing in New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington DC., where large numbers of the
same people have gained power through their wealth?
So we fnd that there were still large numbers of Canaanites in the land,
"integrated" with the real Israelites and Judahites, and bringing the
lowering of standards which integration always brings: look at the City of
Washington, DC. for example. Besides the Jebusites in Jerusalem, the Bible
records that the other Canaanite peoples - the Hittites, the Hivites, the
Perizzites, and the Amorites -were not exterminated or driven out, but
merely conquered and made to pay a tribute tax, and left in the land to be
integrated with the people and corrupt them. So these Canaanites were
another element of the Jews in the time of Jesus Christ.
You will remember that when the people of Israel left Egypt, they were
accompanied by a "mixed" - mongrel multitude. The same is true of the
return of the remnant of the people of the Kingdom of Judah from their
captivity in Babylon. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah record the return.
They show that the total number who returned was 42,360; but they also
show that among these were many who were not Israelites of any tribe; they
were Babylonians who had come with them, in order to "get in on the ground
foor" as the saying is; and they had even infltrated into the priesthood. But
it says that "these sought their register among those that were reckoned by
genealogy, but they were not found:" When you add up the total of all these
other elements listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, they equal 8,381 of these alien
Babylonians - about 1/5 of all the people who returned from Babylon to
Palestine. So they also formed another element of the Jews in the land of
Jesus Christ's time.
One more, and we complete the list; that is the Edomites. You will remember
that Esau and Jacob were twin brothers; but Esau was a man of such low
character that we have God's own testimony, in Malachi 1:2-3: "Was not
Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau."
Jacob kept the race-line pure, and God changed his name to Israel and made
him the father of God's own chosen people, Israel. But Esau married two
Canaanite wives and one Ishmaelite wife, and left only half-breed, mongrel
children. (See Genesis 26:34-35; 27:46; and 36:2.) As his mongrel
descendants could not marry into the true Semitic line, he moved out from
among them, and went down to Mount Seir, the rugged range of mountains
south-east of the Dead Sea, and this land was called "Edom" (or occasionally
by the Grecianized form of the word, "Idumea"); thereafter, his descendants
were called "Edomites." (See Genesis 33:16 and Genesis 36:1-9.) There they
had a long and troublesome history. Esau's grandson was Amalek, father of
the Tribe of Amalek, who were such an evil lot that, in Exodus 17:14-16, God
said that He would have perpetual war with Amalek until they were all
destroyed. The Edomites constantly harassed tile southern portion of Israel
until King Saul beat them of, about 1087 BC. But Saul disobeyed God's
command to EXTERMINATE them, and for this disobedience, God deposed
him as king, in favor of David. See 1
st
Samuel 15:1-26. But even David didn't
exterminate them, and there was a long history of wars between Edom and
Israel (later with Judah.) (You will fnd It in 2
nd
Kings, Chapters 8 and 14,
and 2
nd
Chronicles, Chapters 20 and 25.) The whole book of Obadiah is
devoted to God's condemnation of Edom's treacherous at-tack upon the
Kingdom of Judah when Judah was being conquered by Babylon.
During the Babylonian captivity of Judah, the land lay practically empty;
and during this period, the people of Edom, partly from opportunity and
partly from pressure against them from the east, moved into the vacant
southern half of the old Kingdom of Judah. (See article "Edom,"in Funk &
Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, pages 198-199, and Scribner's
Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, pages 644-646. From this new area, they
continued to harass the little nation which returned from Babylon. By about
142 BC. the returned exiles of Judah won complete independence under the
Maccabean line of Kings; and about 120 BC. John Hyrcanus, one of the
Maccabean kings, conquered the Edomites. He, too, instead of
exterminating them, took them into his kingdom, ofering them full
citizenship if they would give up their paganism and adopt the religion of
Judaism. This they did, and from 120 BC. they were full citizens of the
kingdom. (See Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," Book 13, Chapter 9, and
see also The Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Edom," Vol. V, page 41.)
By 69 BC. incompetent leadership and intrigue within the Maccabean
monarchy, together with the rising power of Rome in western Asia, gave
opportunity to Antipater (also called Antipas), an Edomite chieftain,
founder of the Herodian family, to rise to power. By bribery, boldness, and
military skill, he gained the favor of Rome, and the Romans made him
Procurator (Governor) of Judea. His -son, Herod I, beginning as Governor of
Galilee, used the same methods to secure appointment as King of Judea in
40 BC.; and by 37 BC. he had gained complete control of Judea. He
maintained himself in power by extreme ruthlessness and by bribery, for
which he taxed the people very heavily. (The New Deal, Raw Deal and Great
Society are not so new, after all!) This is the same Herod who had all the
little male children in Bethlehem murdered, trying to murder Jesus Christ.
His son Herod Archelaus, held the Governorship (the Romans didn't trust
him with the crown) for ten years of astonishingly evil misrule, from 4 BC.
to 6 AD.; after which the Romans convicted him of crimes and removed him:
and thereafter Judea was governed by Roman Procurators (of whom Pontius
Pilate was No. 6.) Nevertheless, the Romans left practically complete power
of local government in the hands of the Herodian Edomites, who had
complete control of the Temple and power to enforce all their local laws.
(Remember how Pontius Pilate tried to get out of condemning Jesus Christ,
telling the Jews: "Take YE Him, and judge Him according to YOUR law."
(John 18:31.)
These Edomite Jews could say that Abraham was an ancestor of theirs,
through Esau, as they did in John 8:33; but this Hebrew blood through Esau
had been diluted to the vanishing point by 1700 years of marrying only
people of Canaanite racial stocks. Therefore, Jesus Christ rebuked them for
falsely claiming to be still of Abrahamic (and therefore inferentially of
Israelite) lineage, for He told them, in John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him." You
should very carefully observe the 8th chapter of John, verses 31-47. These
were Jews to whom Jesus was speaking, and the Bible identifes them as
Jews. In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the article on Edom concludes with the
words "The Edomites today are found in modern Jewry."

Continue on to Part 2 of 2
Your 1erita!e
Part : o" :
By Bertrand L$ Comparet
W)S ,ESUS C1*IST ) ,EW9
(ow- let us re*iew for a moment what we ha*e co*ered. Ie ha*e seen that 3esus +hrist
was (=/ a 3ew b. reli2ion- for the 3ews based their reli2ion on the ;ab.lonian /almud-
which was at that time called ,/he /radition of the %lders-, and 3esus +hristOs whole
ministr. was one constant battle a2ainst the e*ils of 3udaism. Ie ha*e seen that 3esus
+hrist was a /CK% 61C$%F6/%- of the /ribe of 3udah- ;Y C$+%. $nd we ha*e seen
that the 3ews of :is time included the mon2rel descendants of 1helah- the mon2rel
,mi4ed multitude, which followed the 6sraelites out of %2.pt- the *arious +ananite
peoples in Balestine- includin2 the 3ebusites- the :ittites- the :i*ites- the Beri00ites and
the $morites- (=I do .ou understand wh. 3esus +hrist- who said that :e was sent
onl. to ,the lost sheep of the :ouse of 6srael, told the 3ews that ,6 &now ?. sheep- and
the. &now ?e. ;K/ Y% 8the 3ews9 ;%F6%@% (=/ ;%-+$K1% Y% $C% (=/ =M ?Y
1:%%B- $1 6 1$6D K(/= Y=K. ?Y 1:%%B :%$C ?Y @=6+%- $(D 6 J(=I
/:%?- $(D /:%Y M=FF=I ?%, in the 1>th chapter of 3ohnE
/he tin. remnant of 3udah and ;enHamin which came bac& to Balestine from the
;ab.lonian +apti*it. did lea*e some descendants in Balestine< but /:%1% were 3esus
+hristOs sheep- and :e himself said :e &new them- the. &new :im- and the. followed
:im. $ll those in Balestine who became +hristians were true members of the /ribe of
3udah or the /ribe of ;enHamin- but the. were (=/ 3ews. $nd the 3ews were not
members of 3udah- ;enHamin- or an. other 6sraelite tribe- for 3esus +hrist :imself said
the. were (=/ of his sheep.
(ow we &now who it was who constituted the 3ews in 3esus +hristOs time. 6f .ou want
to brin2 it down to date- and find out who are the 3ews in our own da.- we must add one
more racial element. =f course- the descendants of the 3ews of 3esus +hristOs da. are
amon2 them: but there is also another element: the J:$G$C1. /hese ma&e up the
1la*ic 3ews of toda..
?eanwhile- we must return to the 3ews of Balestine for a few words. $s .ou &now- b.
$D. 68- the Comans had found the rascalit. of the Balestinian 3ews so intolerable that
the. be2an the campai2n which resulted in the fall of 3erusalem in $D. 7>. /he 3ews
were then e4pelled from Balestine- and most of them mi2rated in lar2e numbers to what
was then called ;.0antium- later called +onstantinople- and toda. is &nown as 6stanbul-
facin2 the ;osphorus- outlet of the ;lac& 1ea. :ere- the. a2ain demonstrated the truth
of the ;ibleOs lesson- that +=(DK+/ 61 /:% BC=DK+/ =M +:$C$+/%C: or in
3esus +hristOs own words- ,Ye are of .our father the de*il- and the lusts of .our father .e
will do., ;. about the .ear 3>> $D. their rascalit. had a2ain become so intolerable that
the. were a2ain e4pelled< and the. mo*ed northeast- into the Jha0ar &in2dom.
$bout the .ear 1#> $D. the Jha0ars- an $siatic people related to the /ur&s- mi2rated
westward from +entral $sia- and established a 2reat empire which co*ered what is
toda. southwestern Cussia- north of the $ral 1ea- the +aspian 1ea- and the ;lac& 1ea-
includin2 the Don and Dnieper @alle.s and the +rimea. $bout 7"> $D. ;ulan- the
Ja2an or Jin2 of the Jha0ars- was con*erted to the reli2ion of 3udaism- to2ether with
some "->>> of the most powerful nobilit. of the &in2dom. 6n those da.s- it was not
healthful for a subHect to be in a reli2ion in conflict with that of the &in2 or with the
baron on whose land he li*ed< so in due course- most of the Jha0ars became 3ews b.
reli2ion. 6n fact- it became part of the &in2domOs constitution that no one but a 3ew b.
reli2ion could be &in2. /he principal lan2ua2es spo&en were the Jha0ar 8called
,Yiddish, toda.9 and /ur&ish. Durin2 the 2reat in*asion b. the ?on2ols under Gen2his
Jhan- man. of the 3udai0ed Jha0ars were dispersed into what is now Boland and
Fithuania. /hese Jha0ars- 3ews b. reli2ion- constitute the 1la*ic 3ews of toda.- those
with names such as ?ins&. and ;arano* and ?oscowit0< 8the latter often shortened to
,?os&,9 also- since much of the western part of this area has been at one time or
another ruled b. $ustrian or Germanic peoples who brou2ht in their own lan2ua2e-
these Jha0ars also too& Germanic names- such as Gold or Goldber2- Cosenber2- %isler-
and so forth. if .ou are wonderin2 how the. can be so much li&e the other 3ews-
historical documents written at the time the Jha0ar empire was at its 2reatest hei2ht
refer to their tradition that their ancestors ori2inall. came from the re2ion of ?t. 1eir-
which is %dom- the home of the %domite 3ews.
6f .ou wish to loo& up further details- .ou will find brief articles on the Jha0ars in
*arious enc.clopedias such as the ;ritannica- the 3ewish %nc.clopedia has 6 pa2es on it
6n some it is spelled ,Jha0ar, and in other +ha0ar and e*en other *ariations. 6t is also
discussed in ,$ :istor. of the 3ews,- b. 1olomon Gra.0el- and ,$ :istor. of the 3ews-,
b. Brof. :. Graet0- both wor&s bein2 published b. the 3ewish Bublication 1ociet. of
$merica. /he most thorou2h discussion of the whole problem is found in that
ma2nificent bit of historical research- ,/he 6ron +urtain =*er $merica-, b. +ol. 3ohn
;eatt.. +ol ;eatt. is an :istorian and Brofessor of :istor.- whose wor&s are used as
te4t boo&s in more than 7>> colle2es and uni*ersities. ,6ron +urtain =*er $merica, is
one of the most thorou2hl. documented and accurate wor&s e*er put in print. 6t should
be in the librar. of e*er. patriotic $merican and 2ood +hristian.
Berhaps .ou are wonderin2- ,Ih. does m. ;ible some-times spea& well of the 3ewsE
1uch as Baul sa.in2 in Comans that ,the 2ospel of +hrist . . . is the power of God unto
sal*ation to e*er.one that belie*eth< to the 3ew first- and also to the Gree&:, and in $cts-
Baul sa.in2 that he was ,a 3ew of /arsus.OO 6f .ou will loo& up these few instances in a
2ood concordance- such as 1tron2Os .ou will find that in each instance the translators
ha*e written the word ,3ew, in %n2lish- where it was not used in the ori2inal Gree&
from which the. ?61-translated it. 6n such in-stances- in the ori2inal Gree&- the word
used was ,6oudaiosO which does not mean ,3ew-, but simpl. a ,3udean-, a person whose
home is in the land of 3udea- or southern Balestine. 6t has no reli2ious connotation- and
it has no racial connotation either< it is purel. a 2eo2raphic term- li&e ,+alifornian., $
,+alifornian, could be white- blac&- brown or .ellow b. race< and he could be
+hristian- 3ew- ;uddist or atheist. 1o also a ,6oudaios, was merel. a person who li*ed
in 3udea- where- as we saw- there were some few 6sraelites of the tribe of 3udah and
;enHamin< but there were far more +anaanite 3ews- and also a 2eneral mi4ture of
Comans- Gree&s- 1.rians- %2.ptians- etc. 6t is true that +hristian sal*ation was first
offered in the land of 3udea- hence to those who were li*in2 there- the 6oudaios< and
later- as the $postles tra*eled from cit. to cit.< it was soon offered to the Gree&s. ;ut it
was ne*er offered to the 3ews as a preferred class- for .ou will remember that 3esus
+hrist tau2ht onl. in hard-to-under-stand parables when there were 3ews around- and
e4plained them pri*atel. to :is Disciples- e4plainin2 that :e spo&e amon2 the 3ews
=(FY in parables ,Fest at an. time the. should be con*erted- and their sins should be
for2i*en them., ;oth ?atthew 13:1>-1# and ?ar& ":1>-12 record this. 3esus was ta&in2
2reat pains to see that the 3ews could not understand +hristianit. and be con*erted. :e
was preachin2 onl. ,to the lost sheep of the :ouse of 6srael, the members of the /ribes
of 3udah and ;en3amin- which :e said were his sheep- who &new :is *oice- and
followed :im. /he 3ews :e reHected as the children of ,their father- the de*il.,
(ow to sum it up< the 3ews are not- and ne*er were an. part of an. tribe of 6srael< the.
include *arious mi4tures of %2.ptians- ;ab.lonians and +anaanites- the %domites- and -
later - the Jha0ars. +hrist was a pure-blooded 6sraelite of the /ribe of 3udah- without
an. 3ewish ancestr.< and :e was (=/ a 3ew b. reli2ion.
(ow thin& this o*er carefull.< the 2roup of nations which we loosel. 2roup under the
term ,$n2lo 1a4on-, 8includin2 the people of the ;ritish 6sles- the 1candina*ian
nations- nearl. all of German.- :olland and some few of the people of Mrance and
;el2ium- with the closel.-related people found in $ustria- some of the 1wiss- +0echs-
some of the :un2arians- (orth 6talians- and 1panish- and their descendants now li*in2
in the Knited 1tates- +anada- $ustralia- and 1outh $frica9 are the li*in2 descendants of
the 6srael of the ;ible- blood brothers of our 1a*iour- 3esus +hristL
6f .ou are descended from these- the true ,people of the ;oo&-, - ,the Fost 1heep of the
:ouse of 6srael, - accept 2ladl. the 1al*ation and Feadership of .our Cisen 1a*iour and
Jin2- the Ford 3esus +hrist. You are called as 6sraelite +hristians to stand up for
ri2hteousness and decenc. in the home- the church- the communit.- the nation- and the
world- as 3esus directed- ,. . . teachin2 them to obser*e all thin2s whatsoe*er 6 ha*e
commanded .ou . . ., DonOt .ou appreciate .our $ncestr.- .our 1al*ation- and .our
+allin2E /hat trul. is Y=KC :%C6/$G%.


W1- )*E T1E #E.TILES9
6t is unfortunate that most people ha*e so man. mista&en ideas about their reli2ion- due
lar2el. to the man. mistranslations of words in the commonl.-used Jin2 3amesO @ersion
of the ;ible. =ne of these mista&en ideas is that most of the people of the Knited 1tates
and Iestern %urope - in fact- nearl. all the +hristians in the world - are ,Gentiles,. You
hear man. of them - e*en cler2.men- who should &now better - sa.- ,6Om Hust a Gentile-
sa*ed b. 2race., 6 thin& it is hi2h time that we learned somethin2 about one of the most
mis-used words- ,Gentile.,
Mirst- .ou mi2ht be surprised to &now that there is no such word in the ;ible- in its
ori2inal lan2ua2es. =h .es- 6 &now that .ou are now rifflin2 the pa2es of .our Jin2
3amesO @ersion- loo&in2 for some of the man. places .ou will find ,Gentile, in it. ;ut 6
said that there is no such word in the ;ible 6( 6/1 =C6G6($F F$(GK$G%1. /he
word was put into it b. translators- who chan2ed the wordin2 of the ;ible centuries
after the last boo& in the ;ible was written. 6f .ou are a 2ood +hristian- .ou will surel.
a2ree with me that what the prophets ori2inall. wrote in the boo&s which ma&e up our
;ible was inspired b. God. 6t was correct as the prophets wrote it. ;ut not one of them
wrote in %n2lish- remember- because no such lan2ua2e as %n2lish e4isted until man.
centuries after the prophets li*ed. 6t was written in :ebrew- as to the =ld /estament< and
the (ew /estament was ori2inall. written in the lan2ua2e which 3esus +hrist spo&e-
$ramic- a 1emitic dialect somewhat similar to- but not the same as- :ebrew. ;ut
$ramaic was not 2enerall. understood outside of Iestern $sia< so when +hristianit.
be2an to spread into southern and southeastern %urope- the (ew /estament had to be
translated into a lan2ua2e which was widel. used in %urope. Gree& ser*ed this purpose
nicel.- for it was understood b. well-educated men o*er nearl. all of %urope. /herefore-
the (ew /estament was first translated into Gree&. Brotestant %n2lish-lan2ua2e
translations of the ;ible- toda.- are nearl. all translated from :ebrew manuscripts of the
=ld /estament and Gree& manuscripts of the (ew /estament. 1o- letOs start at the
be2innin2- with the =ld /estament.
/he word ,Gentile, is not e*en once used in an. :ebrew manuscript of the =ld
/estament- for the 2ood reason that there is no such word in :ebrew- nor an. word
which corresponds to it. %*er.where .ou find the word ,Gentile, used in the =ld
/estament- it is a mistranslation of the :ebrew word ,Goi-, which means ,($/6=(,.
/he plural form of it is ,G=Y6?,. 1ince it means ,nation-, wh. didnOt the. translate it
correctl.E 1ometimes the. did< but for the most part- the. translated it to fit the official
doctrines of the church of their da.- no matter what *iolence that did to the true meanin2
of the word. /he church hierarch. had lon2 since determined what its doctrines should
be: and if the ;ible didnOt a2ree with them- so much the worse for the ;ible. ?en were
still bein2 burned at the sta&e for heres.- in those da.s: and ,heres., meant an.
reli2ious idea which differed from the official doctrines proclaimed b. the ;ishops. 1o
the translators did the best the +hurch would allow them to. FetOs ta&e some e4amples.
6n Genesis 12:2- God said to $bram- ,6 will ma&e of thee a 2reat nation,. 6n :ebrew-
God said ,6 will ma&e of thee a 2reat G=6., 6t would ha*e been too sill. to translate this
,6 will ma&e a Gentile of .ou-, so the. correctl. translated it ,nation,. $2ain Genesis
2#:23. Cebe&ah was pre2nant with the twins- %sau and 3acob< and while still in her
womb- the unborn children were stru22lin2 a2ainst each other< so she wondered at this-
and as&ed of God what was the meanin2 of thisE God said to her- ,/wo G=Y6? are in
th. womb., +ertainl. God was not tellin2 her- ,You are an adulteress- pre2nant with
two Gentile children- when .our husband is not a Gentile., God said ,/wo ($/6=(1
are in th. womb-, and that is the wa. it was translated: but it is that same word-
,G=Y6?,- which elsewhere the. 2enerall. translate as ,Gentiles.,
(ow letOs ta&e some e4amples from the (ew /estament. :ere the word mistranslated
,Gentile, is nearl. alwa.s the Gree& word- ,%/:(=1, which means Hust e4actl.
,($/6=(,- the same as the :ebrew word ,G=Y,. Fu&e 7 be2ins with the incident of a
Coman +enturion who appealed to 3esus +hrist to heal his ser*ant who was sic& unto
death. /he %lders of the 3ews praised him to 3esus- sa.in2 ,:e lo*eth our %/:(=1-
and hath built us a s.na2o2ue,. /hese 3ews would ne*er praise an.one for lo*in2 the
Gentiles< and the +enturion would not ha*e built a s.na2o2ue for Gentiles. 1o- to a*oid
complete absurdit.- the translators were forced to translate ,%/:(=1, correctl.- as
,($/6=(,. $2ain- in 3ohn 11:#>- we find that the 3ewish :i2h Briest- +aiaphas- was
plottin2 with the chief priests and Bharisees- to murder 3esus +hrist< and +aiaphas told
them- ,it is e4pedient for us that one man should die for the people- and that the whole
%/:(=1 perish not., (othin2 could ha*e pleased this e*il 3ew more than for all the
Gentiles to perish - usin2 the word ,Gentile, as we do toda.. /herefore- the translators
had to translate ,%/:(=1, correctl.- as ,nation., Yet in man. other places the.
mistranslate it ,Gentile,.
/he Gree& word ,%/:(=1,means simpl. ,nation,- nothin2 more or less. 6t has no
pa2an- or non-6srael- or e*en non-Gree& connotation. /he Gree&s distin2uished between
Gree&s and all non-Gree& peoples- whom the. called ,;arbarians,. $ll educated men of
that da. &new this- and the $postle Baul was a *er. well-educated man- who was Nuite
familiar with the Gree& lan2ua2e and its idioms. :e reco2ni0ed this distinction in
Comans 1:1"- where he said- ,6 am debtor both to the Gree&s and to the ;arbarians,.
Baul- therefore- ne*er wrote the word ,Gentile, in an. of his %pistles.
Ihat does this word ,Gentile, mean- and from what is it deri*edE 6t is deri*ed from the
Fatin word ,G%(/6F61,- which means ,=(% I:= 61 (=/ $ C=?$( +6/6G%(., 6f
.ou use the word correctl.- then .ou would ha*e to sa. that 3esus +hrist and his twel*e
disciples were all Gentiles- because none of them was a Coman +iti0en. =nl. Baul
could sa. that he was not a ,Gentile-, because in the 22nd chapter of $cts- Baul sa.s
that he was a Coman citi0en b. birth.
:ow- then- is it used at present when /he spea&er means to sa. that someone is non-
3ewishE $bout the fourth centur. $D.- its use was loosel. e4tended to co*er more than
its ori2inal meanin2. 6t was applied especiall. to those who were heathen- pa2an< it
became a term for those who were neither +hristian nor 3ewish- for +hristians and 3ews
were 2enerall. called Hust that- 8+hristian< or 3ew9. ;ut this was centuries after the last
boo& in the (ew /estament had been written.
/he word ,Gentile, was ne*er used b. the writer of an. boo& of the =ld /estament-
because none of them bad e*er heard it- as the. had ne*er come in contact with Come.
6t was not used b. the writer of an. boo& of the (ew /estament- for there is no such
word in the :ebrew- $ramaic or Gree& lan2ua2es. /he. did not borrow the word from
the Fatin- for if .ou will loo& up e*er. place it is used in .our Jin2 3amesO @ersion- .ou
will see that it is ne*er used in the correct sense- to sa. that someone is not a Coman
citi0en< and that is the onl. meanin2 it had- the onl. wa. an.bod. used it- in those da.s.
6t was put in b. the translators in an effort to ma&e the ;ible sa. what the /ranslators
thou2ht it should ha*e said. /herefore- it has no authorit. at all.
6n short- where*er .ou see the word ,Gentile, in the ;ible- remember that the correct
word is ,nation-, ,race-, or ,people,. 1ometimes it is used when spea&in2 of 61C$%F
nations or the 61C$%F6/% race- as we ha*e seen in the e4amples 6 ha*e 2i*en .ou in
other instances- the conte4t will show that it is bein2 used of a nation which is non-
6sraelite. =nl. the conte4t in which it is used will show .ou which meanin2 to 2i*e it.
Ihen used of non-6sraelite race perhaps ,Gentile is as 2ood a word as an.- for we seam
to ha*e no other in 2eneral use. ;ut ne*er be decei*ed b. readin2 the word ,Gentile, in
.our ;ible- for its onl. correct meanin2 is ,nation, or ,race.,


SUPP-SE WE )*E IS*)EL
,

W1)T DI66E*E.CE D-ES IT %)>E9
Ihat would .ou sa. to me- or of me- if .ou &new 6 had disco*ered that 6 was the heir to
*ast estates- 2reat wealth- power and responsibilit.- and that- instead of reHoicin2 in the
2reat pri*ile2e and turnin2 to the wor& with all its 2reat issues- 6 simpl. said ,Iell- and
what if 6 am the heir< what difference does it ma&eE, 6 &now what .ouOd thin&- e*en if
.ou didnOt sa. it.
Yet- when we show from the ;ible- and from histor. and archaeolo2. that the $n2lo-
1a4on and &indred peoples are the modern descendants of the :ouse of 6srael- to whom
God has pled2ed with :is oath so man. 2reat pri*ile2es and blessin2s- man. sa.
indifferentl. ,what difference does it ma&eE,
/he. want onl. personal sal*ation. (ow the man who has the blessin2 of personal
sal*ation is the recipient of a mar*elous 2ift of God in 3esus +hrist. ;ut that doesnOt
warrant his despisin2 and reHectin2 the other God 2i*en birthri2ht - the birthri2ht of
race.
/he ;ible- as 2i*en b. God- is a complete whole. 6t stands or falls in one piece. 6t
declares the whole counsel of God and it reNuired nothin2 short of the whole boo& to
declare it. =therwise- much of it would not ha*e been written. 6t is not for man to 2o
throu2h the ;oo& sortin2 and pic&in2- decidin2 what he wishes to accept and then sa.
about the rest- ,what difference does it ma&eE, /o do so is the hei2ht of presumption.
God- in :is wisdom- chose 6srael to be used b. :im in :is 2reat plan for the
transformation of a lost world. :e wrote a lar2e portion of the ;ible to tell us about
6sraelOs part in that plan. $llowin2 ample space in the ;ible for the presentation of the
Gospel to the indi*idual- God wrote about fi*e-se*enths of the ;oo& as his messa2e to
the nations. $nd related to almost e*er. phase of this re*elation- is the 2reat nation
6srael- promised b. God to $braham.
6nfidel critics are bus. all the time &nifin2 the 1criptures- cuttin2 out a bit here and a bit
there - but the ,what difference does it ma&e, fol&s throw awa. fi*e se*enths of the
;ible in one lump. Mi*e-se*enths is a lot of ;ible to scrapL
$ctuall. the 6srael /ruth is the &e. which opens up the ;ible from the first promise
made at the Mall- until 3esus deli*ers up the finished Jin2dom to the Mather. 6t ma. be
li&ened to a spiritual thread which runs throu2h almost e*er. chapter of ;ible histor.-
e*er. doctrine- s.mbol- promise and co*enant. /he thread which- when found- ma&es
possible the unra*elin2 of most of the m.steries of the Iord. /his is wh. the people
who see this truth ha*e declared the ;ible to be a ,new boo&<, consistent- harmonious
and satisf.in2 to mind and soul.
+enturies a2o God made an unconditional- irre*ocable- co*enant with $braham to
increase and preser*e his posterit. throu2hout all 2enerations. $nd now- here we are- the
man. nations of 6srael- ri2ht here on the planet after almost "->>> .ears - doin2 the
wor& he said 6srael would do. Bsalm 1>#:8 sa.s: ,:e remembers his co*enant fore*er-
the word he has commanded- to a thousand 2enerations: /he co*enant he made with
$braham- and his oath to 6saac. Mor he confirmed it to 3acob as a statute- /o 6srael as an
eternal co*enant.,
/he writers of the four Gospels constantl. call attention to GodOs faithfulness to
$braham. /he $postles- e*er. one of them- 2loried in it: but .ou sa. ,what difference
does it ma&eE,
6t made Nuite a difference to %sau who despised his birthri2ht of race. $fterwards he
found no place for repentance- thou2h he sou2ht it with tears. /he birthri2ht of race
made Nuite a difference to 6shmael- the son of the bond woman- :a2ar. /he birthri2ht of
race also ma&e Nuite a difference to the sons of Jeturah.
,1uppose we are 6srael,- then we are the descendants of $braham throu2h 1arah- 6saac
and 3acob. /here is a world of difference in the blessin2s of race- countr.-
enli2htenment and opportunit. bestowed upon the descendants of these than that which
was bestowed upon the others. Does the fact that a man is sa*ed eternall.- preclude the
possibilit. of his appreciatin2 the ci*il blessin2s which he enHo.s under the $brahamic
co*enant in these 6srael countriesE $ short sta. in the lands of the dictators would show
the difference and be Nuite con*incin2.
6n 6saiah #1:2- God sa.s ,:ear&en unto me- .e that follow after ri2hteousness- .e that
see& the Ford: loo& unto the roc& whence .e are hewn- and to the hole of the pit whence
.e are di22ed. Foo& unto $braham .our father- and unto 1arah- that bare .ou: for 6
called him alone- and blessed him- and increased him., ,Ye that follow after
ri2hteousness,- are certainl. tbe +hristians and we see that God wants them to see that
the. are $brahamOs seed.
6n Genesis 17:7- God sa.s- ,6 will establish m. co*enant between me and thee and th.
seed after thee in their 2enerations for an e*erlastin2 co*enant- to be a God unto thee-
and to th. seed after thee., +an it be possible that it means nothin2 to the belie*er to be
chosen of God as an heir of that co*enant- which in all of its ramifications- God unfolds
throu2h the remainder of the 1cripturesE
,1uppose we are 6srael,- then we are members of the Jin2dom of God on earth. :e
established that Jin2dom at 1inai. +onstitutin2 that Jin2dom was twel*e tribed 6srael.
?atthew 21:"3 tells us plainl. that :e too& the Jin2dom from the 3ews and turned it
o*er to a ,nation., /he Gree& word is ,ethnos,. DonOt tell me it was 2i*en to a church -
for the Gree& word for church is ,e&&lesia,. /hat nation was to brin2 forth the fruits of
the Jin2dom. /hose fruits are both political and reli2ious.
/rue to +hristOs assi2nment- the 6srael nations lead the world in e*an2elistic wor&-
missionar. wor&- ;ible translation- publication and distribution. /he Knited 1tates and
the ;ritish +ommonwealth holds the record for '>P of this wor&.
6t is not 2ood ;ible +hristianit. to hu2 the co*enant of 2race so close to our heart and
that we ha*e no room for GodOs co*enant of race. /hat spurns the honors conferred b.
God. 6t does not reNuire much research to find man. te4ts in which God re*eals the
e4alted position 2i*en to his chosen race. $ few of them are:
,;ut now thus saith the Ford that created thee- = 3acob- and :e that formed thee- =
6srael- for 6 ha*e redeemed thee- 6 ha*e called thee b. th. name- thou art mine . . . 1ince
thou wast precious in m. si2ht- thou hast been honorable and 6 ha*e lo*ed thee., 6saiah
"3:1-"
,/hou didst separate them from amon2 all the people of the earth- to be thine
inheritance., 6 Jin2s 8:#3
,Mor the Ford hath chosen 3acob unto himself- and 6srael for a peculiar treasure., Bsalm
13#:"
,Mor thou art a hol. people 8meanin2 set apart9- the Ford th. God hath chosen thee to be
a peculiar people unto himself abo*e all the nations that are upon the earth.,
Deuteronom. 7:6
(ote the honors conferred: :e chose them- redeemed them- claimed them for his own-
separated them- calls them precious- his peculiar treasure- his special people- his
inheritance abo*e all the peoples on the earth. /hin& of an. belie*er readin2 all of that
and then turnin2 upon his heel and sa.in2 ,suppose we are 6srael: what difference does
it ma&eE,
6t reHects GodOs comfort for the last da.s. God was an4ious that :is 6srael people should
ha*e a clear *ision of all that was to come to pass in these tr.in2 times- and
conseNuentl.- sent prophet after prophet- tellin2 of world conditions which we would
e4perience in our da.. ;ut ri2ht alon2 with the catacl.smic uphea*als foretold- there is
alwa.s a word of cheer- consolation and encoura2ement to his people 6srael. :e wanted
us to ha*e the benefit of &nowin2 what :e is doin2 in the world- what the world e*ents
actuall. mean- how :e is 2oin2 to ma&e it all wor& out to the 2ood of :is people 6srael-
and throu2h all that is happenin2 brin2 in the Jin2dom of God on earth. /he Jin2dom
of God on earth is the one theme of the ;ible. 6t is the theme 3esus preached. 6n Comans
1#:8 Baul tells us that 3esus +hrist came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
Ihat is the worth of our identit. with 6sraelE 6t pro*es God to be unchan2eabl. faithful.
6t pro*es the ;ible to be literall. and historicall. true. 6t pro*es that God is wor&in2
toda.- as the prophets ha*e all foretold he would- in and throu2h and for his people
6srael - who are the $n2lo 1a4on- 1candina*ian and Germanic peoples. Fastl.- but b.
no means least- it pro*es that 3esus +hrist did what he came to do- confirm the promises
made to the fathers.


1IST-*IC P*--6 -6 IS*)EL=S %I#*)TI-.S
6n m. lecture called ,61C$%FO1 M6(G%CBC6(/1,- 6 ha*e s&etched briefl. for .ou
some of the ;ibleOs e*idence that the $n2lo-1a4on- 1candina*ian and Germanic people
of toda. are the li*in2 decendants of the 61C$%F of the ;ible. /his e*idence was in the
form of man. ;ible prophecies of 6sraelOs future which ha*e been accuratel. fulfilled b.
these nations- and b. no others. 6f the people who ha*e actuall. done all the thin2s
which God said 6srael would do- and who ha*e recei*ed the e4act blessin2s which God
said :e would 2i*e to 6srael - if the. are not 6srael- how could God be so 2reatl.
mista&enE (o- God was not mista&en: :e &new what :e would do- and for whom :e
would do it< and b. ma&in2 2ood all :is prophecies and promises- :e has identified
these nations as 6srael.
;ut there are some people who wonOt belie*e God- and will not accept :is identification
of these nations. 6n fact- one cler2.man with whom 6 discussed this- minister of a church
in this count.- wrote to me demandin2 to &now ,what other historians of the time-
inwhat boo&s- chapters and *erses- record theirmi2rationinto(orthem and Iestern
%urope and the ;ritish 6slesE, :e is but one of man. s&eptics who as& this< and to these
s&eptics- the answer is- ,Yes- *arious historians of those centuries ha*e traced *arious
steps of this mi2ration., Ihat 6 propose to do for .ou now is to race this mi2ration
historicall.. Cemember that- within the time limits which must necessaril. be fi4ed on
such a tal& as this- 6 can onl. ,hit the hi2h spots, - .ou &now how lar2e a librar. can be
filled with histor. boo&s- so 6 canOt Nuote them all *erbatim. ;ut 6 will ha*e time enou2h
to show .ou that the historians ha*e traced this mi2ration from 6sraelOs old Balestinian
home intotheir %uropean homes as the $n2lo-1a4on- 1candina*ian and Germanic
peoples. (ot under their old names- of course but that- also is the fulfillment of GodOs
prophec. that :e would ,call :is ser*ants b. another name-, and surel. .ou now &now
that the ;ible identifies 6srael - and onl. 6srael - as GodOs ser*ants.
/he mi2ration of the 6sraelites co*ered about 12 centuries- durin2 which time the. were
mentioned b. *arious historians- writin2 in different lan2ua2es- durin2 different
centuries - and therefore mentioned under different names. %*en toda.- if .ou were to
read a Fondon newspaper
1
a Baris newspaper- and a ;erlin newspaper- all dated about
the end of 1'">- .ou would find that the ;ritish newspaper said that in that .ear Mrance
was in*aded b. ,the Germans- O the Mrench newspaper said that the in*asion was b. ,les
$llemans<, and the German newspaper said that the in*asion was b. Oder Deutsch, - .et
all three were tal&in2 about the same people and the same in*asion. Fi&ewise- we must
not be surprised to find that the 6sraelites were 2i*en different names in the $ss.rian-
Gree& and Fatin lan2ua2es. Fi&ewise- e*en in the same lan2ua2e- names chan2e from
centur. to centur.- Hust as toda. we ne*er spea& of ,;ohemia,- as it was called onl. a
centur. a2o- but onl. of ,+0echoslo*a&ia.,
You remember that the ori2inal 12 - tribed nation of 6srael bro&e up into two nations
upon the death of &in2 1olomon- about '7# ;+. /he northern 253 of the land- containin2
ten /ribes- &ept the name ,6srael-, while the southern 153- containin2 the /ribes of
;enHamin and 3udah- with man. of the Fe*ites- too& the name of ,3udah, after the ro.al
/ribe. Mrom that time on- the. &ept their separate e4istence until the. were finall.
mer2ed into a *ast mi2ration- as we will see.
?ost of the &in2s of the 1> tribed northern &in2dom of 6srael were distin2uished more
for their wic&edness than for an. abilit.. :owe*er- =?C6- who rei2ned from 88# to 87"
;+.- was a *i2orous and able &in2 - althou2h as wic&ed as the others - and his rei2n was
re2arded amon2 the other nations of western $sia as the foundation upon which the
national identit. thereafter rested. /he lan2ua2es of that da. spo&e of a famil.- a /ribe-
or e*en a whole nation as a ,house, or household. 6f .ou ha*e read .our ;ible much-
.ou must surel. remember GodOs man. references to the ,:ouse of 6srael, or ,:ouse of
3udah, - meanin2- in each case- the Jin2dom of 6srael or the Jin2dom of 3udah. ;ut the
phrase was also used in those da.s to refer to a nation as the ,:ouse, of a 2reat &in2
who ruled it. /he $ss.rians- amon2 others- be2an callin2 the 1> tribed Jin2dom of
6srael ,the :ouse of =mri,. 6n :ebrew- ,house, was ,bah.ith, or ,ba.th, - in %n2lish
usuall. spelled ;%/: and pronounced ,;%/:,. 6n the related 1emitic lan2ua2e of
$ss.rian- this was ,;6/,. /he :ebrew ,=?C6, was in $ss.rian sometimes written
,:K?C6,- sometimes ,JK?C6.,
Iith this preface in mind- letOs start tracin2 the 6sraelites from their Balestinian
homeland- in the $ss.rian conNuest and deportation. 6n 66 Jin2s 1#:2' we read- ,6n the
da.s of Be&ah- &in2 of 6srael- came /i2lath-Bileser- &in2 of $ss.ria- and too& 6Hon and
;el-beth-maachah and 3anoa and Jedesh and Ca0or and Gilead and Galilee- all the land
of (aphtali- and carried them capti*e to $ss.ria., 6n 1
st
+hronicles #:26 it sa.s- ,$nd
the God of 6srael stirred up the spirit of Bul- &in2 of $ss.ria- and the spirit of /i2lath-
Bileser- &in2 of $ss.ria- and he carried them awa.- e*en the Ceubenites and the Gadites
and the half-tribe of ?anasseh- and brou2ht them unto :alah and :abor and :ara and
to the Ci*er Go0an- unto this da..,
+onfirmation of this is found in inscriptions of /i2lath-Bileser which archaeolo2ists
ha*e du2 up and are in our museums toda.. =ne of these sa.s: ,/he cities of GalaO0a
8probabl. $ss.rian for Galilee9- $bil&&a 8probabl. $ss.rian for $bel-beth maacha9-
which are on the border of ;it-:umna AA the whole land of (aphtali in its entiret.- 6
brou2ht within the border of $ss.ria. ?. official 6 set o*er them as 2o*ernor. AA /he
land of ;it :umna AA all of its people- to2ether with all their 2oods- 6 carried off to
$ss.ria. Baha&a their &in2 the. deposed- and 6 placed $usi as &in2., 6n confirmation of
this chan2e of &in2s- we read in 66 Jin2s 1#:3>- ,$nd :oshea the son of %lah made a
conspirac. a2ainst B%J$C son of Cemaliah and smote him and slew him- and rei2ned
in his stead.,
/he conNuest thus be2un in the northeastern and northern parts of the &in2dom about
7"> ;+. wor&ed southward- down to the hea*il.-fortified capital cit. of 1amaria- which
was captured about 721 ;+. $nother &in2 of $ss.ria rei2ned- b. that time. 2
nd
Jin2s
18:'-11 records it as follows: ,$nd it came to pass in the "th .ear of Jin2 :e0e&iah 8of
3udah9- which was the 7th .ear of :oshea- son of %lah- Jin2 of 6srael- that
1halmane0er- Jin2 of $ss.ria- came up a2ainst 1amaria and besie2ed it. $nd at the end
of 3 .ears the. too& it- e*en in the 6
th
.ear of :e0e&iah- that is the '
th
.ear of :oshea-
Jin2 of 6srael- 1amaria was ta&en. $nd the Jin2 of $ss.ria did carr. awa. 6srael unto
$ss.ria- and put them in :alah and in :abor b. the Ci*er of Go0an- and in the cities of
the ?edes., Ie &now that &in2 1halmane0er died toward the latter part of this sie2e-
and the final conNuest and deportation were carried on b. his successor- Jin2 1ar2on 66.
6n confirmation of this- an inscription of 1ar2on 66 sa.s- ,6n the be2innin2 of m. rei2n-
the +it. of 1amaria 6 besie2ed- 6 captured. AA27-28> of its inhabitants 6 carried awa..,
/he deportation of a whole nation naturall. too& a considerable period of time. /he
Hourne. had to be or2ani0ed- with adeNuate supplies for each con*o. on each sta2e of
the Hourne.- and proper or2ani0ation of the places selected to recei*e them. Ie &now
that 1ar2on 66 did not hold ,the cities of the ?edes, east of the Ga2ros mountains until a
few .ears after 721 ;+.- so about 71# to 712 ;+. is the correct date for the deportation
to ?edia. /he places to which 6srael was deported b. the $ss.rians can be summed up
in brief as constitutin2 an arc or semi-circle around the southern end of the +aspian 1ea.
/his deportation too& in the entire population of the ten northern /ribes constitutin2 the
nation of 6srael. Mrom this point on- the separation into /ribes is apparentl. most- and it
is as a nation that the Jin2dom of 6srael mo*ed into its $ss.rian capti*it..
/his left the other 2 tribes still li*in2 in the southern Jin2dom of 3udah. $ss.ria and
%2.pt were the two 2iant empires of that da.- each see&in2 domination o*er all the
smaller and wea&er nations. $ss.ria had dri*en %2.ptian influence out of western $sia-
bac& to the continent of $rica- and had made all the smaller nations surroundin2 3udah
into *assal states pa.in2 hea*. tribute to $ss.ria. /he brutal arid rapacious character of
the $ss.rians made them no friends- and their *assal states were alwa.s hopefull.
loo&in2 for an. means of escape from $ss.rian power. %2.pt &ept the hope of re*olt
ali*e b. offers of militar. assistance to those who would rebel a2ainst $ss.ria. /he
death of a &in2 seemed the most opportune time for re*olt- since his successor would
need time to 2et his power or2ani0ed- and mi2ht e*en face some competition at home
for his throne- /herefore- when &in2 1ar2on 66 of $ss.ria died- about 7># ;+.- re*olts
be2an in western $sia- the Jin2dom of 3udah under &in2 :e0e&iah ta&in2 part in it- in
the hope of militar. aid from %2.pt 8althou2h the prophet 6saiah warned that the re*olt
would fail9.
/he new &in2 of $ss.ria- 1ennacherib- set about reco*erin2 his empire< one rebellious
cit. after another was reconNuered- with the hideous cruelt. characteristic of $ss.ria<
and in 7>1 ;+.- 1ennachenibOs hu2e arm. in*aded the &in2dom of 3udah< midwa.
throu2h it- the. paused briefl. to defeat the %2.ptian arm.- then mo*ed on to besie2e
3erusalem. (one of the smaller cities of 3udah were able to resist. 2
nd
Jin2s 18:13 and
6saiah 36:1 sa. that ,6n the 1"
th
.ear of Jin2 :e0e&iah- 1ennacherib came up a2ainst all
the fortified cities of 3udah- and captured them., /hen followed the sie2e of 3erusalem-
which was ended when the an2el of the Ford &illed 18#->>> $ss.rian soldiers in onQ
ni2ht- and 1ennacherib 2a*e up the sie2e and fled bac& to his own land. 6n confirmation
of this- 1ennacheribOs own record of this sa.s- ,6 then besie2ed :e0e&iah of 3udah- who
had not submitted to m. .o&e- and 6 captured "6 of his stron2 cities and fortresses- and
innumerable small cities which were round about them. with the batterin2 of rams and
the assault of en2ines- and the attac& of foot-soldiers- and b. mines and breaches made
in the walls. 6 brou2ht out therefrom 2>>-1#> people- both small and 2reat. AA:e0e&iah
himself- li&e a ca2ed bird- 6 shut up within 3erusalem his ro.al cit.., $ncient &in2s were
boastful of their *ictories-but ne*er of their defeats: so &in2 1ennacherib tactfull. fails
to state how the sie2e of 3erusalem ended. ;ut he does confirm the capture of all the
other cities of 3udah- and the deportation therefrom of 2>>-1#> people.
Cemember that all the people of the 1> northern tribes were alread. settled around the
south end of the +aspian 1ea- in the $ss.rian deportation of 6srael< now to them was
added a lar2e portion of the 2 southern /ribes of ;enHamin and 3udah< so that the
$ss.rian deportation included all of the ten /ribes and a substantial representation from
the other 2. /hese were the people who became .our ancestors and mine- whenthe*
mo*ed into %urope.
=*er the .ears- the increasin2 numbers of the 6sraelite tribes e4panded northward alon2
both sides of the +aspian 1ea. /he. were not basicall. cit.-builders but farmers and
herdsmen. Brobabl. in the earlierpart of their sta. here-the $ss.rians sternl.
discoura2ed the buildin2 of cities- which would naturall. be fortified centers of
resistance. $s the. were mo*ed into this area- herded alon2 as prisoners- robbed of all
their belon2in2s- the. had to ma&e themsel*es brush shelters or booths where the.
stopped for an. len2th of time- :ere in the southwest our 6ndians call such a brush
shelter a ,wic&iupOO< the :ebrews called it a ,soocawOO - appl.in2 the name also to a tent.
6t was the onl. house a nomad owned. /he plural of ,soocaw, was ,succoth,. Graduall.
this was slurred o*er into ,1cuth,- used of a ten-dweller or nomad- and finall. became
,1c.thian.,
/he 2reat car*in2 on the ;ehistun Coc& made about #16 ;+. carried inscriptions
showin2 the man. different nations who were tributar. to Jin2 /arius 6 of Bersia. /hese
inscriptions were written in =ld Bersian. in ?edian- and in $ss.rian. /he* showed that
amon2 these were a 1c.thian nation called in $ss.rian and ;ab.tonian ,Gimiri,- which
means ,/he /ribes Mrom ,Gimiri, was deri*ed the name of the ,+immerians,- who
settled somewhat to the north and into the K&raine. ;ut the ;ehistun 6nscriptions also
stated that these people were called ,1a&&a, in Bersian and ?edian. $lread. the later
names are be2innin2 to e*ol*e.
/he 2reat Gree& historian :%C=D=/K1- who li*ed from "8" to "2# ;+.- and who is
2enerall. called ,/he Mather of :istor.,- spea&in2 of these people- sa.s- ,/he 1acae- or
1c.ths- were clad in trousers- and had on their heads tall- stiff caps- risin2 to a point.
/he. bore the bow of their countr. and the da22er< besides which the. carried the
battle-a4e or sa2aris. /he. were in truth $m.r2ian 1c.thians- but the Bersians called
them 1acae- since that is the name which the. 2i*e to all 1c.thians., 6ncidentall.- some
of the ma2nificent car*ed walls of the ancient ruins of the Bersian palace at Bersepolis
show illustrations of those 1acae- in their trousers and pointed caps- brin2in2 tribute to
the Bersian &in2.
Ie are now 2ettin2 further clues to these people. :erodotus sa.s that the 1c.thians or
1acae first appeared in that land in the se*enth centur. ;+.- which is the same period in
which the /ribes of 6srael were settled there b. their $ss.rian conNuerors. /heir use of
the battle-a4e as aweaponisacarr.-o*er from their histor. as 6srael. 6n 3eremiah #1:2>
God sa.s of 6srael- ,/hou art ?. battlea4e and weapons of war- for with thee will 6
brea& in pieces the nations- and with thee will 6 destro. &in2doms,. Ie will see later
that the name e*ol*ed from 1$JJ% to 1$R=(< and it is noteworth. that the battle-a4e
was the 2reat weapon of the 1a4ons.
/hese 1c.thians or 1acae li*ed up to GodOs description of 6srael as :is battlea4e and
weapons of war. /he. became a militar. people of 2reat power- who did much to brea&
up ancient nations. /he Gree& 2eo2rapher and historian- 1/C$;=- who li*ed between
63 ;+. and about 21 $D.-sa.s: ,?ostof the 1c.thians- be2innin2 from the +aspian 1ea-
are called ODahae 1c.thaeO and those situated more towards the east- O?assa2ataeO and
O1acaeO< the rest ha*e the common name of O1c.thiansO- but each tribe has its own
peculiar name. /he 1acae had made incursions similar to those of the +immenans and
/reres- some near their own countr.- others at a 2reater distance. /he. occupied
;actriana- and 2ot possession of the most fertile tract in $rmenia- which was called after
their own name- 1acasene. /he. ad*anced e*en as far as the +appadocians- those
particularl. situated near the %u4ine 1ea 8/oda. called the ;lac& 1ea9- who are now
called OBontici.O,
/his was but the earl. part of their e4pansion- howe*er. when a centur. had elapsed
since their deportation to this land of 1c.thia- the. had 2rown stron2 enou2h to be2in
the lon2 series of harassin2 wars a2ainst their conNuerors- the $ss.rians. /he. lac&ed
the stren2th to capture the powerfull. fortified 2roup of cities about the $ss.rian
capitol< and in turn- their nomadic habits made it eas. for them to retreat before a too-
powerful $ss.rian arm.. ;ut 2enerations of this constant warfare wore down the
$ss.rians- ,bled them white,- so that when the ?edes finall. o*erran $ss.ria and
captured (ine*eh in 612 ;+.- their *ictor. was a fairl. eas. one a2ainst the e4hausted
$ss.rians.
Mrom this point on- 6 could refer .ou to Hust one historical wor& which full. traces the
1c.thians on to their settlement in %n2land as the $n2lo-1a4ons. ,$ :istor. of the
$n2lo- 1a4ons,- b. 1haron /urner does a ma2nificent Hob of this. $s most of .ou &now-
6 am a law.er b. profession: and a law.er soon learns to distin2uish between the man
who actuall. &nows the facts and the man who is merel. repeatin2 hearsa. - that is-
2ossip and rumor he has heard from others - and how do we &now whether these others
actuall. &now what the. are tal&in2 aboutE Knless a man has seen the occurrence with
his own e.es- his ideas on the subHect are no better than the accurac. of the information
he has recei*ed. (ow no historian li*in2 in our times can ha*e an. personal &nowled2e
of what happened 2->>> .ears a2o- so his writin2s can be no better than the source
material he has obtained from people who li*ed and wrote at a time when accurate
information could still be had. ?ost modern histor. boo&s are based on rather scant.
documentation from an. sources- as it is so much easier for one historian to cop. from
another. ;ut 1haron /urnerOs ,:istor. of /he $n2lo-1a4ons, is one of the most
thorou2hl. documented historical studies e*er produced- and its reliabilit. is be.ond
Nuestion. :e traces the $n2lo-1a4ons cf ;ritain bac& to the 1c.thians< unfortunatel.- he
doesnOt 2o the one step further and trace the 1c.thians bac& to 6srael< but we can do that
from other sources.
;ut let us 2o bac& to the 1c.thians- as the people of 6srael became &nown in the land to
which the. were deported. Diodorus 1iculus- a Gree& historian who li*ed in the times of
3ulius and $u2ustus +aesar- sa.s this: ,/he 1c.thians ancientl. enHo.ed but a small
tract of 2round- but 8throu2h their *alor9 2rowin2 stron2er b. de2rees- the. enlar2ed
their dominion far and near- and attained at last to a *ast and 2lorious empire- $t the
first- a *er. few of them- and those *er. despicable for their mean ori2in- seated
themsel*es near to the Ci*er $ra4es. $fterwards- one of their ancient &in2s- who was a
warli&e prince and s&illful in arms- 2ained to their countr. all the mountainous parts as
far as to ?ount +aucasus. AA1ometime afterwards- their posterit.- becomin2 famous
and eminent for *alor and martial affairs- subdued man. territories. AA/hen turn m2
their arms the other wa.- the. led their forces as far as to the Ci*er (ile- in %2.pt.,
=ther historians record that ;F=(D 1+Y/:6$(1 made an e4pedition a2ainst
Balestine and %2.pt about 626 ;+. /he town of 1c.thopolis- in the 3ordan *alle.- is
named for a settlement made on this raid. ;ut to continue with Diodorus 1iculus- he
sa.s- ,/his nation prospered more and more- and had &in2s that were *er. famous< from
whom the 1$+$(1 and the ?assa2etae and the $rimaspians- and man. others called
b. other names deri*e their ori2in. $mon2st others- there were two remar&able colonies
that were drawn out of the conNuered nations b. those &in2s the one the. brou2ht out of
$ss.ria and settled in the countr. l.in2 between Baphla2onia and Bontus< the other out
of ?edia- which the. placed near the Ci*er /anais which people are called
1auromatians.,
(ote how GodOs destin. for these people wor&ed. /he. would not lea*e behind an.
poc&ets of their people in the lands where their conNuerors had settled them< but when
the. had 2ained 2reat power- the. came bac& and pic&ed up an. who remained- ta&in2
them into the mi2ratin2 mass. Fi&ewise- histor. records that the. raided ;ab.lon- after
its o*erthrow b. the ?edes and Bersians- carr.in2 off with them such of the people of
3udah and ;enHamin as were not 2oin2 bac& to 3erusalem.
%*en in earl. times- before the final mass mo*ement into %urope- the 1c.thians had
be2un their march to their new homelands- where some of them had alread. arri*ed
before the be2innin2 of the +hristian %ra. Blin. the %lder- a Coman historian who li*ed
from 23 to 7' $D.- sa.s this: ,/he name O1c.thianO has e4tended in e*er. direction- e*en
to the 1armatae and the G%C?$(1< but this ancient name is now onl. 2i*en to those
who dwell be.ond those nations- and li*e un&nown to nearl. all the rest of the world.
AA;e.ond 8the Danube9 are the peoples of 1c.thia. /he Bersians ha*e called them b.
the 2eneral name of 1acae- which properl. belon2s onl. to the nearest nation of them.
/he more ancient writers 2i*e them the name of $ramii 8$rameans9. /he multitude of
these 1c.thians is Nuite innumerable< in their life and their habits the. much resemble
the people of Barthia 8Bersia9. /he /ribes amon2 them that are better &nown are the
1acae- the ?assa2etae- the Dahae- AA, etc.
=thers ha*e noted this earl. mi2ration into German.. Mor e4ample- :erodotus mentions
a mi2ration and settlement of a people he calls the 1i2.nnoe- who them sel*es claimed
to be colonists from ?edia- and who mi2rated as far as the Ci*er Chine. 8Cemember
that amon2 the places the 6sraelites were resettled were ,the cities of the ?edes,E9
$lso note that Blin. the %lder said that ,/he more ancient writers 2i*e them the name of
$ramii, - that is- ,$ramean,- in modern lan2ua2e called ,1.rian., 6n Deuteronom.
26:#- e*er. 6sraelite was commanded to confess and soHourned there with a few- and
became a nation- 2reat- mi2ht. and populous., :ence- such ancient writers could
correctl. identif. the 6sraelite 1c.thians as ,$rameans,- for the. had come from a land
which was part of 1.ria.
$mon2 the /ribes of the 1c.thians- the ?assa2etac attracted the notice of all the ancient
historians- b. their numbers and warli&e abilit.. /hose who described them in more
detail di*ided them into the ?assa2etac and /h.ssa2etae< and the ,2etae, part of the
name soon e*ol*ed into ,Goth,< the ?assa2etae were the Greater Goths and the
/h.ssa2etae were the Fesser Goths. /hus we alread. find amon2 the 1c.thians names
we can identif. as the people who later conducted the 2reat mi2rations into %urope. /he
Goths- as we &now- were later called ,=stro2oths-, meanin2 ,%ast Goths-, and
,@isi2oths-, meanin2 ,Iest Goths.,
;ut to 2o bac& a few centuries- the 1acae were allies of the ?edes and Bersians in the
attac& upon ;ab.lon- in #36 ;+. Cemember that God had said that 6srael was ,?.
;attlea4e and weapons of war< for with thee will 6 brea& in pieces the nations- and with
thee will 6 destro. &in2doms., 1o God had used 1c.thian 6srael to maintain constant
war a2ainst $ss.ria for nearl. a centur.- until $ss.ria was too wea&ened to resist the
?edes and Bersians< then God used 1c.thian 6srael- the 1acae- to help in the conNuest of
;ab.lon- when its time had come. Fater- Jin2 +.rus of Bersia was foolish enou2h to tr.
to conNuer his former allies- the 1acac< but he was &illed in the battle. Jin2 Darius also
tried to conNuer them- but the. bein2 a nomadic people- retreated before his massi*e
armies until he 2a*e up and retired.
Brofessor Geor2e Cawlinson sa.s that the ori2inal de*elopment of the 6ndo-%uropean
lan2ua2e too& place in $rmenia - which- .ou will remember- was at that time occupied
b. ,1c.thian, 6srael. +ertainl. from these people we can trace the introduction of this
lan2ua2e into %urope.
/his powerful and increasin2l. numerous people thereafter spread further north- both
east and west of the +aspian 1ea. /o the west of it- the. penetrated into the @ol2a and
Don Ci*er @alle.s as the 1auromatians and the Co.al 1c.ths- nomadic peoples. /o
reach these lands- the. had come up throu2h the +aucasus ?ountains b. a 2reat pass
which is toda. occupied b. the Geor2ian ?ilitar. Coad. Berhaps the +ommunists ha*e
chan2ed the name of this pass in recent .ears- but from ancient times until without our
own lifetimes this pass was &nown as ,/he Bass of 6srael., /he white Cace of %urope is
often called ,+aucasian, because the ancestors of man. of them did thus come out of
the +aucasus ?ountains.
Ihen $le4ander the Great be2an his 2reat maraudin2 e4pedition across western $sia
and as far as 6ndia- he had to s&irt the ed2e of the lands held b. the 1c.thians. 6n his
limitless *anit. and ambition- he wanted also to conNuer them< but it is recorded that
their ambassadors said that the. would ne*er surrender to him< that the. were nomadic
peoples who- if the. could not resist- could retreat indefimtel. before his armies< and
the. had no wealth. cities for him to occup. and loot. $le4ander in*aded their lands
lon2 enou2h to fi2ht one se*ere battle with them- defeatin2 the 1c.thians forces he met<
but this was e*identl. Hust as a lesson to them not to attac& the flan&s of his forces- for
he led his forces out of their territor. and ne*er returned to the attac&.
Cemember that 6srael is ,GodOs battlea4e and weapons of war., /he. had alread.
wea&ened $ss.ria- and as allies of the ?edes and Bersians had helped o*erthrow
$ss.ria and ;ab.lon. /he. had beaten off attempts of the Bersians to conNuer them. 6n
the article ,1c.thians,- +hambers %nc.clopedia 81'279 records that ,/he 1c.thians-
after about 128 ;.+. o*erran Bersia- routed se*eral Bersian armies- and le*ied tribute
from the Bersian &in2s. Durin2 the first centur. before and the first centur. after +hrist-
hordes of 1c.thians- ha*in2 o*erthrown the ;actrian and 6ndo-Gree& d.nasties of
$f2hanistan and 6ndia- in*aded northern 6ndia: and there the. maintained themsel*es
with *ar.in2 fortune for fi*e centuries lon2er. AA/he 3ats of 6ndia and the CaHputs ha*e
both been assi2ned the 1c.thian ancestr.., ?adison Grant writes that ,$ncient ;actria
maintained its (ordic and $r.an aspect lon2 after $le4anderOs time- and did not become
?on2oli0ed and recei*e the sinister name of /ur&estan until the se*enth centur. 8$D.9.
AA /he 1a&a were the blond peoples who carried the $r.an lan2ua2e to 6ndia.,
$ land so *ast- and not the ori2inal home of the 6sraelite 1c.thians- but alread. ha*in2
some inhabitants when the. were settled there- must of course show *ar.in2 t.pes of
people. /he (ordic or $r.an 6sraelite 1c.thians conNuered these other races. while
some spea& of a ?on2oloid t.pe found in some parts of 1c.thia- ancient writers prett.
well a2ree that the dominant 1a&&a or ?assa2etae 1c.thians were a (ordic people. Dr.
:ans Gunther- professor at ;erlin Kni*ersit.- in his ,Cacial %lements of %uropean
:istor.-, published in the 1'2>s- sa.s: ,/he in*esti2ations into the traces left behind
them b. that wide-spread (ordic people- the 1acae 81c.thians9- with its man. tribes- are
well worth. of attention. 6t had been li*in2 on the steppes of southeastern %urope- and
spread as far as /ur&estan and ?2hanistan- and e*en to the 6ndus. /he ancient writers-
such as Bolemon of 6lium-Galienos- +lement of $le4andria- and $damantios- state that
the 1acae were li&e the Jelts and Germans- and describe them as rudd.-fair. /he
1c.thian tribe of the $lans are also described as ha*in2 a (ordic appearance.
$mmianus 8$bout $.D. 33>-">>9 calls them- Oalmost all tall and handsome- with hair
almost .ellow- and a fierce loo&.O,
Ie ha*e seen that the names of the ?assa2etae and the /h.ssa2etae e*ol*ed into Goths-
the =stro2oths 8or %ast Goths9 and @isi2oths 8or Iest Goths9. /he historian Btolem.-
who died about 1#> $D.- mentions a 1c.thian people- descended from the 1a&ae- b. the
name of 1$R=(1- who had come from ?edia. $lbinus- who li*ed in the first centur.
;+.- also sa.s- ,/he 1$R=(1 were descended from the ancient 1acae in $sia- and in
process of time the. came to be called 1$R=(1., Brideau4 reports that the +imbrians
came from between the ;lac& and +aspian 1eas- and that with them came the $(GF6.
Ie are now well into established %uropean histor.. ;. the be2innin2 of the "th centur.
$D.- man. of the Goths were alread. +hristians. 6n the "
th
centur. there were se*eral
collisions between @isi2oths and Come- and in "1> the @isi2oths became the masters of
6tal. and captured Come. Fater- the. mo*ed on into 1outhern Mrance and northern 1pain
where the. settled permanentl.. /he =stro2oths settled in what is modern :un2ar.
about "## $D.< under /heodoric the Great- the. conNuered 6tal. about "'3- and set up
an =stro2oth &in2dom in 6tal.- which- howe*er- was short-li*ed. /heir descendants are
the fair-s&inned and blond 6talians of northern 6tal.. ;ut the Goths had ended the Coman
%mpire: ,GodOs battlea4e, a2ain destro.in2 the &in2doms of the ;ab.lonian order of
empires.
/he $n2li and the 1a4ons mo*ed up the Danube @alle. and settled in German. and
alon2 the ;altic shores- as is well &nown< and from there- the 3utes- $n2les and 1a4ons
coloni0ed %n2land after the Coman le2ions were withdrawn in $D. ">8.
$ctuall.- the earliest wa*es of mi2ration penetrated to the farthest ed2es of the
%uropean continent - partl. because the. could mo*e throu2h nearl. empt. lands-
without meetin2 an. peoples stron2 enou2h to effecti*el. resist them- partl. because
the. were pushed farther b. the later wa*es of 6sraelite mi2ration comin2 behind them.
:ence- we find the settlement of the 1candina*ian Beninsula prett. well completed
before the arri*al of the 3utes- $n2les and 1a4ons alon2 the southern shore of the ;altic
1ea.
/he /ribes which settled alon2 the shores of the ;altic were a 2reat maritime people - as
some of the 6sraelites had been
1
e*en when still in Balestine- and as God had prophesied.
/he 3utes- $n2les and 1a4ons came from within the ;altic 1ea- but their ocean-borne
raids on %n2land were hea*. and continuous< later- b. in*itation of the ;ritish- the.
settled alon2 the eastern shores- in %ast $n2lia- ?ercia- (orthumbria- 1usse4- Iesse4-
%sse4- and Jent.
Iilliam the +onNueror in*aded %n2land in 1>#6- with the (ormans< the. were actuall.
(orse @i&in2s who had settled on the coast of Mrance in the pro*ince of (ormand.:
,(orman, bein2 reall. deri*ed from ,(orseman.,
1o we see that the mi2rations of 6srael- first into 1c.thia- e4pandin2 there- then 2ainin2
the names of Goths- $n2li and 1a4ons- and under those names mo*in2 into their present
%uropean homelands- is a well established historical fact. /here is also the fascinatin2
stor. of the earl. mi2rations b. sea- but that is another subHect in itself.

The End
+lic& here to return to the ;ible 1tud..
B$ Cain=s Satanic Seedline
The Cain-Satanic Seed Line
By Bertand L. Comparet
Foreword
This booklet contains the talk which Dr. Bertrand L. Comparet
delivered to a group of friends attending one of his regular Bible
studies, and is reproduced in this printed form, for the beneft of
those who would like to preserve the message, and those who did
not attend the meeting but would like to know what was said.


The Cain-Satanic Seed Line
Ordinarily I don't let anybody else afect the course of what I talk
about. Tonight I'm going to, because I feel it is time to reply to a
certain minister. This gentleman has quite an extensive radio
ministry, head quartered in Minneapolis. He publishes a magazine
which reaches a great many people. He has been on many occasions
a distinct force for good, and because of his large following he can be
an equally disastrous force for evil.
In the April issue of his magazine, he launched an attack against
me: not by name, but by the things you know we have been learning
out of the Bible. He sneers at the name of God, "Yahweh." He says,
"Now we are being told we must address God as Yahweh, and that
the word Lord is a heathen term." This is my answer to his
nonsense. He quotes a few non-applicable scriptures. He says, "To
insist we must use the Hebrew word Yahweh is not scriptural." And
he sneers, "I suppose soon someone will also insist we must pray in
the Hebrew language." He says, "The Mofatt Bible refers to God by
the words, the Eternal. Ferrar Fenton uses the term, The Ever-
Living. Both of these expressions are scriptural and proper."
As I think most of you know, in the Old Testament the true name of
God, Yahweh, is used several thousand times. The Jews, the same
ones who tried to get it out of the Bible, admit in their own
publications that Yahweh is used over 5,000 times in the Old
Testament. And I have seen the statement made by a Christian
writer, of considerable ability, that the number is nearer 7,000
times. I haven't bothered counting it. But take it on either basis,
when you say that the Bible itself is not scriptural, it seems to me
that is about as absurd a statement as I have heard. Now, if you will
read the preface in the Mofatt's Bible, Mofatt admits he knows
better. He admits that the name of God should be given in the
Hebrew form, Yahweh, but he goes on to explain, of course for
general sale, it is easier to sell it, than if he used the real name.
Now if it were for students, he says he would use that term, but he
wants the wider sale. He says, "I know it loses some of the force of
the original, but I hope that even those who do not approve of what
I do will understand."
I took the trouble to look this up: Never once in the Bible are either
the words "The Eternal" or "the Ever-Living" used, as God's name,
in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New
Testament -not once. I suppose a good Nazi might have chosen to
put in the words, Adolf Hitler if he had wanted to, but that would
not have made it so; and somebody else, substituting some other
word, doesn't make it so either. In the Old Testament only two
Hebrew words have been translated "Eternal." Two variant forms of
the same word, "kedem," which literally means, in the forefront
either of space or of time. In space they generally apply it to the
east. In time they say "the forefront of time, that is way back in
antiquity." The other is "olam" the basic meaning of which is
"conceal." Applied to time they say, "so far in the past or so far in
the future that the actual time we can't fnd out." So in a vague way
it could be used as a long time.
In the New Testament, three brief words have been translated,
everlasting or eternal: "adios" - everlasting, never used as the name
of God; and "aion" meaning an age, and translated on very doubtful
authority as "eternal" when literally it speaks of an age. The Bible
speaks of several ages: one of them isn't, for that reason, eternal. It
is used only once with reference to God. First Timothy 1:17 uses the
phrase, "The King Eternal," not as a name but as a descriptive title.
The other word "aionios" - "age abiding," is never used as a name of
God. Neither can you say the Eternal or The Ever-Living can be
considered as a translation of Yahweh. You will fnd an excellent
discussion of it in the preface to Rotherham's translation. He points
out that Yahweh is the third person, singular, masculine form
derived from the root "Hawah," an older form of the root Haya. The
one and only meaning of Hawah is "become." Therefore, Yahweh,
derived from that, has no possible meaning assign able to it in the
Hebrew but this: "He will become" or "He who becomes." You
remember, in your King James Version among the various "botched"
mistranslations (which make it, at times, very difcult to
understand), God said to Moses, "I am that I am," which is a
meaningless phrase. Go back and check it in the Hebrew. It is
"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" and the verb Ehyeh - "I will become." So
"Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" means "I will become whatever I will
become." You have heard such expressions as "I will go where I will
go," meaning nobody is going to stop me or I will make my own
choice. And similarly, there in the Hebrew, God says "I will become
whatsoever I choose to become" - I will become the leader of My
people to bring them out of Egypt - I will become the Savior and
Redeemer who saves them on the cross - I will become whatever it
is My will to become.
The other thing this same pastor attacks, and this seems to bother
him greatly, is the matter of the Satanic-Cain seed line. This
gentleman has gotten along notably well with the descendants of
Cain. I have never seen any indication of any ill feeling between
them on either side, and he becomes violently incensed that some of
us have pointed out that the descendants of Satan through Cain are
in the world today. He says that this is one of the most vicious
among scriptural doctrines: so I thought it was time for us to review
it. You have known of the fact of the Satanic origin of the Jewish
people; but I don't know whether many of you have seen how much
proof there was in the Bible. I thought it was just about time to get
down to that proof.
Now let us start in the beginning. Satan, of course, was not a
serpent. The thing that deceived Eve and seduced Eve was not a
scaly thing wriggling on the ground. The Hebrew word Nachash
means "enchanter'' or ''magician.'' A fallen angel, retaining still a lot
of his angelic powers, no doubt could be very much of an enchanter
and magician. Now his children, (and I mean children, not just
followers) through the centuries used a serpent as a symbol or
emblem of their ancestor, until fnally they attached a secondary
meaning of serpent to the word. But it is not in the root meaning of
the word at all. The Bible was never so ridiculous as to suggest that
a snake accomplished all this. In Genesis 3:1-3, you remember
Satan has said to Eve, "Why, is it really true that God said, You
can't eat of any tree in the Garden?" And she replies to him, (here is
how it reads in the Hebrew): "And the woman said unto the
enchanter, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the Garden," but
(now I am quoting from the King James Version and I am going to
correct it as I go) ". . . of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of
the Garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch it, lest ye die." Now let us see what it actually says in the
Hebrew: "Fruit" is the Hebrew word "pirchach" meaning progeny,
brood, children, descendants. Do you talk about the children of a
walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don't. Now, of the
pirchach, of the descendants, of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, God has said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
it." And that word "touch" is the Hebrew word naga, which is a more
polite expression, meaning, "to have sexual intercourse with." Do
you need to be warned not to have sexual intercourse with an apple?
Of course not. It isn't that kind of a tree.
God had millions of the pre-Adamic Asiatic and African peoples
around; if he just wanted somebody wide between the shoulders and
narrow between the eyes, to spade up the Garden, he had them. He
didn't have to create a special being for that. Satan had been the
Governor of this Planet until he forfeited the right to it by rebellion.
God sent Adam here (and you remember that the last verse in the
third chapter of the Gospel of Luke tells you that Adam was the Son
of God: it doesn't say that about any of these pre-Adamic peoples
mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Adam was the son of God) and God
sent Adam here to take over by force, kick Satan out and govern
this Planet. The trees in the Garden of Eden were the family trees
of nations and races.
Adam and Eve were supposed NOT to intermingle with these
people. If these Negroes and Mongoloids were all that God wanted,
He already had them. What He created a diferent and separate
being for, was to have a diferent sort of person, whom the
Mongoloids and the Negroids could never produce. The Hebrew
word Awdawm, which we translate Adam, means "of a rosy, fair
complexion." Adam was the frst person of a specifcally created new
race. Adam and Eve were told, "Do not mongrelize your race, with
these pre-Adamite peoples in the world." Now when you come to
Genesis 3:13 God has called Adam, Eve and Satan before Him to
give an accounting of their misdeeds; and according to your King
James Version, Eve says, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat
thereof." Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning
enchanter, but instead of "beguiled" the Hebrew word nawshaw
means "seduced." Now "beguiled" is no more than "deceived."
Somebody who sells you some mining stock, in a mine that doesn't
have any good ore in it, beguiles you; but this word means seduced.
And Yahweh God said unto the woman, "What is this (that) thou
hast done?" And the woman said, "The enchanter seduced me." That
is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof. So
in reply, in Genesis 3:15 God says (speaking to Satan): "I will put
enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed." Now the same Hebrew word, "zehra," literally
meaning "seed" (and it could be used as grains of wheat for
example, but it is used throughout the Bible as meaning the
descendants of a person too - children, posterity), between Satan's
seed (zehra) and the woman's seed (zehra). In other words Satan
was to have just as literal children in this world as was Eve,
because the very same word with the very same meaning is used for
it.
Our minister back in Minnesota says, "Oh that doesn't mean
anything, because he quotes Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Cain." Now you notice, what is not said
is more signifcant than what is said. The Bible nowhere says Adam
begat Cain. Remember now, as you have read in the Old Testament,
the monotonous regularity with which it always says, "And so-and-
so begat whozis and whozis begat what's-his-name and what's-his-
name begat somebody-else," and so on. It was important to know
your ancestry in those days, because you didn't get your citizenship
for two box tops and a dime: you got it because your ancestors for
twenty generations back were Israelites, and no other way.
So Adam knew his wife, and she conceived. Now I can tell you
something, and I can prove every bit of it by witnesses: I went to a
movie one night and the next morning the sun rose in the East.
Now I did not say the one caused the other. I said two things
happened, one of them frst and the other second; and they did, but
I never said they were cause and efect. The Bible never says there
was cause and efect here. Now if you want further proof out of this,
you go right on to the ffth chapter of Genesis which gives the list of
Adam's descendants, and you notice that Cain is not mentioned.
Neither Cain nor Abel are mentioned among the descendants of
Adam. And if you say Abel might have been omitted, because we
don't know, but he was probably killed before he left any
descendants of his own. But that is not true of Cain, because the
Bible traces Cain's descendants for six generations, naming them
on down the line. But never once does it say that Cain was a
descendant of Adam: never in any way, shape, form or manner. The
frst time it says Adam begat a child is Genesis 5:3: "And Adam
lived 130 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image;
and called his name Seth." Not Cain.
So the Satanic blood line crept in, defnitely, with Cain - possibly
earlier among the pre-Adamic peoples. Now there were pre-Adamic
peoples who were not necessarily Satanic. There were some pre-
Adamic people into whom the Satanic blood line came and there
were even some of the descendants of Adam who probably
mongrelized. In fact, it is evident that they did from the very fact
that those living around Noah were wiped out by the food because
the Bible tells you that Noah was perfect in his ancestry (no
mongrelization) and he was the only one left in that area who was.
That is why the mongrelized Adamites around him were wiped out
by the food. The real descendants of Adam were multiplied, and
then you come to the fact of the Satanic blood line getting in there.
Remember, God had announced His purpose, that He was going to
take back the world from Satanic domination, He was going to rule
it according to His purposes, and He was going to rule it through
His children, going down through Adam. Now, what is the obvious
move on Satan's part to thwart that? Mongrelize the two blood
lines, so he can sneer in God's face and say, "These are my children;
and where are Yours? All these have my blood in them." And that is
exactly what he set out to do.
Genesis 6: 2 says, "The Sons of God saw the daughters of men that
they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose." Now you
don't get the full signifcance of it in that translation, "the sons of
God" (beni-ha-elohim, the sons of the Elohim). Now you remember
the Hebrew word El (the mighty) is used as a title of God derived
from it, eba (singular) is practically always translated God or a God,
and is a correct translation. And elohim is the plural, meaning
Gods. In the 82nd Psalm it says, "God standeth in the congregation
of the Gods." He says to them, "I have said Ye are all Elohim, and
children of the Most High." Your King James Version just says
"Gods" but it is a correct translation of "the Elohim." "The sons of
the Elohim saw the daughters of Awdawm that they were fair." Now
the Elohim are the children of God, and to that extent distinct from
the angels, who are merely servant spirits. Now we are not given
too much detail on the rebellion that took place in Heaven, but the
Bible very defnitely suggests that along with a number of the
angels some even of the Elohim (sons of God) followed Satan into
rebellion. Now some people have tried to say, Well, since the
Adamite is spoken of as the sons of God, this is merely the
Adamites here. But "the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam
that they were fair and took them wives of all whom they chose."
And it is written with obvious disapproval. The male descendants of
Adam were not allowed by God's law to marry anybody but the
daughters of Adam; so if they were marrying within their own
racial line here, it couldn't have been spoken with disapproval. So
the "beni-ha-elohim" are evidently of those Elohim who followed
Satan into rebellion.
Now you go on into Genesis 6:4 speaking of the same thing, and
again it is botched up in your King James Version. "There were
giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons
of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to
them. The same became mighty men which were of old, men of
renown." This is what it says in the Hebrew: "There were Nephilim
(the fallen ones) in the earth in those days." They were fallen
angels. That is what the Bible calls them in so many places. "angels
who had not kept their frst estate," who had fallen from Heaven
and from their former powers. ''When the sons of God and it's again
the beni-ha-elohim, "came in unto the daughters of Adam . . ." -so
it's the same thing. So here you have the spreading of the Satanic
blood line, and the Bible in Genesis chapter 6 goes on to trace many
of these descendants of the fallen angels. You fnd that all through
Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, clear down into Mount
Seir, the rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea where
Esau and his family lived, all through there you have these various
people with the Satanic blood line in them.
Now there are two diferent places, one in Isaiah, the other as I
remember it in Ezekiel, where it speaks of what it calls a King or
Prince, in the one case of Babylon, and the other case of Tyre; but
nevertheless it speaks of him in language which could not possibly
apply to anybody except Satan: indicating therefore that at some
time or other, Satan had incarnated in the form of these various
kings - one king of Babylon, one king of Tyre. Now don't think that
that is so impossible, because, remember the many times that your
Old Testament tells of these angels appearing in very solid form.
They came and talked with Abraham on several occasions - one of
them, you will remember, wrestled with Jacob almost all night.
Another came when the people of Israel were about to cross the
Jordan River and take over Palestine. Joshua, making a scouting
trip around his camp, saw this armed man standing there in armor
and with sword, and Joshua asked, "Are you with us or for the
enemy?" And the man said, "I am the Captain of the Hosts of
Yahweh." So, let us take Isaiah 14:12-21 and note that this could
not possibly apply to anyone except to Satan himself; and then,
taking it out of the King James Version too, for the beneft of my
friend back in Minnesota, "How art thou fallen from the heaven, O
Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations: for thou hast said in thine heart, I
will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of
God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides
of the north." He says, "I'm going to be the ruler over Israel (God's
people). I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like
the most High." But Yahweh God told Lucifer, the devil, "Yet thou
shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see
thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee, saying, Is this
the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms,
that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities
thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of
the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own
house; but thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch,
and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a
sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden
under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because
thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people; the seed of
evildoers shall never be renowned."
You could not say that about any kings of Babylon. The only one
who may possibly have failed to get burial and an elaborate tomb,
and all that, might have been Belshazzar: but he was nothing but
an incompetent drunkard, and nobody ever could say of him that he
was the one who shook kingdoms, and so on. He didn't even rule
Babylon. He stayed drunk.
These passages are speaking of none other than Lucifer. Note how it
goes on (I am reading from the same passage, Isaiah 14:21):
"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers;
that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fll the face of the
world with cities." And that word translated as "children" is from
the Hebrew word "beni" (sons). So, Satan obviously was to have
children who could be slaughtered, to keep them from multiplying
to the point where they would take over and rule the world. Old
Testament? Sure. Now let us see what the New Testament has to
say about it.
This gentleman back in Minnesota claims to be a Christian: so I
want to call his attention to the words of Jesus Christ and see
whether he is going to say Jesus Christ was a liar or mistaken, or
whether he is willing to admit perhaps he himself was mistaken,
because you cannot reconcile the two. Jesus plainly, and in a
number of places, says the devil has children, not mere followers.
You remember the parable of the Tares and the Wheat: He spoke of
the farmer who sowed good seed in his feld, and his enemy came
along during the night time and sowed these poisonous weeds - the
tares among the wheat; and when the farmer's servants saw the
tares growing among the wheat they asked him, "Should we go out
and pull them up now?" And he said, "No, you might pull up some of
the wheat with them. Let them grow together until the time of the
harvest, and then the reapers will frst gather the tares into
bundles to be burned, and then put the wheat in my barn." Then He
explains this parable to His disciples. In Matthew 13: 38-39 He
says, "The feld is the world; the good seed, are the children of the
kingdom (and He uses here the Greek word which is plural of
"huios," meaning sons - the good seed are the sons of the kingdom);
"but the tares are the children (same Greek word, huios) of the
wicked one." So Satan has just as true children in this world as does
God.
Again, speaking to the Pharisees (who, as you know, were Jews), in
Matthew 12:34 (your King James version botches it up to an extent
that seems to me often to be willful), Christ says, "O generation of
vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the
abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." But the word is not
"generation" at all. A generation is a number of people, of not too
diferent age, living at the same time. You for example constitute
one generation. He wasn't talking just about the people living then.
They were not any more wicked than the generation that lived
before them or the generation that lived after them. What He said
was (it's the Greek word genema which means "children" or
"ofspring"): "O children of vipers . . . sure, all these centuries you
Jews have used the serpent as the emblem or symbol for your
ancestor. All right, taking you at your word, You children of
serpents," right down the line - vipers. He knew who they were.
Again Matthew 23:29-35: "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish
the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days
of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the
blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children
of them which killed the prophets." And here again is that Greek
word "huios." "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye
serpents, ye genema (ye ofspring, children) of vipers. How can ye
escape the damnation of hell? That upon you may come all the
righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew
between the temple and the altar.''
Now does my friend back in Minnesota say that Jesus Christ was so
unjust that He was going to punish these Jews for the murder of
Abel if they weren't even descendants of Cain? Of course not. He
was here tracing the children of the serpent - the enchanter -Satan,
down through the centuries, who had murdered the righteous,
including all the prophets, right down the line. So He said, "Upon
you (upon this race) these descendants of the serpent, will come the
responsibility for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from
the blood of righteous Abel even unto the blood of Zacharias."
Now, throughout, the Bible speaks of two seed lines (and I do not
mean merely somebody who has been converted to good views or
bad). The Bible makes no reference here as to what your religious
point of view may be; it is talking about literal descendants. We
read in Romans 8:16: "The Spirit itself bears witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God." Now, the word children
there - the Greek word "teknon" - means one born a child, not
adopted. Nothing is more fallacious than this church doctrine about
being "adopted" children of God. You read what Paul said on this
subject, and nothing in it can justify the mistranslation of that as
"adoption." He says that before the coming of Christ we were held in
bondage under the law, governed strictly by the law, and he said we
are just like an heir under age. He has inherited from his father,
who has died, all the estate: but he is still a minor, and he is not
allowed to take control of it. He is under the control of trustees and
governors, appointed guardians, appointed by his Father, until he
comes of age. And Paul says, all the time he is the owner of it all,
and yet he is controlled as though he is just a servant. Now you
couldn't say that about anybody who was adopted. If you take
somebody else's illegitimate child and decide you are going to adopt
him, is he already the owner of your property before you adopt him?
Of course not. And Paul wasn't stupid enough to think he was. Only
the churchmen are stupid enough for that.
Now, what Paul was talking about was the coming of age ceremony
by which they marked the fact that the heir had now become of full
age and his property was put into his hands to control as an adult.
So here in Romans 8:16: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God" - teknon -one born a child,
not adopted. Romans 9:26 (and he is quoting from Hosea 1:10): "And
it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them,
Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the
living God" - and it is that Greek word Huioi - sons. We are the born
- not adopted - children of God. Now as to the born - not adopted (or
converted) children of the devil, read Acts 13: 8 which tells about a
Jew sorcerer, Elymas, who opposed Paul when Paul was trying to
make some converts. "Then Saul (who also was called Paul) flled
with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him and said (in verse 9): "O
full of all subtility and mischief, thou child of the devil (that Greek
word Huios - son) thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all
righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the
Lord?" Paul was under no illusion. He knew them to be children of
the devil, by perfectly legitimate ancestry, for what it's worth.
Now the child of a cat is another cat, isn't it? The child of a Negro is
a Negro; and a child of God is what? Now he is not as wise, and he
is not as powerful, and he is not as important as his Father: but
nevertheless he partakes (within his limitations) of a godly nature.
And that is what the Bible tells us about; and that is exactly why we
of God's people Israel are held to so much greater responsibility
than other people. After all, you cannot expect a Negro to act like
anything but a Negro; but a child of God is expected to act like one.
Now the child of a devil is what? Another devil, isn't he? Now John
6:70-71 is part of a very important passage which began in this
manner: Jesus asked His disciples who were all gathered there,
"Whom do men say that I am?" and they said "Oh some say that you
are this prophet or that one who has been reincarnated and come
back here." Then Christ said, "Whom do you say that I am?" and
Peter spoke up and said, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living
God." Christ then said, "Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah:
because fesh and blood didn't tell you that fact: it was my Father in
heaven who told you that." And He said, "Upon this rock (Petra, the
solid bed-rock of the earth) I will found My church." Now He didn't
say He was going to found it on Simon Peter (Petros), a little stone.
In Greek, Petros means a little stone, just barely bigger than a
pebble. Was He going to found His church on a pebble that anybody
could kick out from under it? No. "I will found it upon Petra," the
solid bed-rock of the earth.
You remember the example He gave, the parable wherein He said
one man had built his house on the sand and when the storm came
along, the food washed the sand out from under it and it collapsed;
but another man built his house upon the rock (Petra - the bed-rock)
and the storm beat upon it and couldn't do anything to it, because it
was founded on a rock (Petra). If any of you have ever been up to
Yosemite Valley and seen that enormous clif, "El Capitan," you've
seen a good example of what the Greeks meant by the word Petra.
You could build a castle on that and nothing could blow it of or
wash it away. So upon this fact, that you have recognized who I am:
the Christ, the Son of the Living God; upon that I will found My
church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it." John
6:70-71 says, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve,
and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Iscariot, (the son) of
Simon, for he it was that would betray him, being one of the twelve."
Now our Savior was not just being vulgarly abusive and calling
people names. He never did that. Oh, He denounced these
Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, and they were. He wasn't
abusing them with lying epithets. They were hypocrites, and He
was accurate. And when He called them children of serpents, they
acknowledged the statement was true, for that was the emblem
they had used from ancient times. And when He said that one of
them was a devil, He wasn't being abusive, He was speaking the
literal truth.
Now the First Epistle of John again states the existence of these
two seed lines. First John 2: 29: "If ye know that he is righteous, ye
know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him." First
John 3:2: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God (and here we have
that Greek word teknon - a born child, not adopted - a born child of
God). First 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." Now by that, he didn't mean that none of us commit
any sins at all; because, if that is the case, we wouldn't have needed
the sacrifce of Jesus Christ on the cross. We do all have our sins:
but you know people are divided into two classes: the ones who are
only sorry because they don't get a chance to sin more, and the
others who are sorry because they have sinned a little. So what he
means there, is, whoever is born of God doesn't habitually sin. So he
says, in verse 10, "In this the children (that Greek word teknon), the
children of God are manifest, and the children (and again it is that
same Greek word teknon) of the devil." Remember he has talked
about us as the born teknon of God, and the others as the born
teknon of the devil.
Now First John 3:12 says that as for those that are our brothers, not
the children of Satan, that we should love them and not be as Cain.
Your King James version says, ". . . who was of that wicked one, and
slew his brother." So the people who have churchianity rather than
Christianity say, "Oh well now, you know it doesn't say that he was
a son, it just means that Cain was morally associated with Satan
and was bad and reprobate, and so on. "Well I believe my friend
back in Minnesota will concede that there was just one Greek
language at that time; and so they didn't have two separate Greek
languages: one to write the Gospel according to Luke, and a
diferent Greek language in which to write the First Epistle of John.
As you know, diferent languages have their diferent idioms. In
many languages one word may have a meaning that can only be
expressed by a phrase of several English words. I think nearly all of
you have a King James Version of the Bible and you know that in
most editions of it, some words are printed in italic and those words
in italic are the words which the translators added because they
thought it was necessary to give the English the same meaning that
the Hebrew or the Greek had, without these added words. Now the
third chapter of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, starting
with Jesus Christ and running back all the way to Adam. So let us
start with Luke 3:23 as it reads in the King James Version: "And
Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was
supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (but those
words "the son" are in italic showing that they were not in the
Greek and the translators added them) which was the son of
Matthat, (again added in italic), which was the son of Levi (in
italics), which was the son of Melchi (italics), which was the son of
Janna," and so forth - all in italics. Now let us read this the way my
friend would read Luke 3:23-24: ". . . the son of Joseph who was as
big a reprobate as Heli, who was morally no better than Matthat,
who was as bad as Levi . . ." Is that the way that he thinks Luke
wrote this? And if that is not the meaning of the Greek here in
Luke, it is not the meaning of the same Greek phrase over in First
John 3:12. So where it says "not as Cain who was of that wicked
one," in Greek it means he was the son of that wicked one. In Greek,
if you say John was of William, you will say John was the son of
William. Now the better modern translations recognize this. For
example, in the Weymouth translation, this same verse, First John
3:12 reads, "We are not to resemble Cain who was a child of the evil
one and killed his brother." Phillips' translation: "We are none of us
to have the spirit of Cain who was a son of the devil and murdered
his brother." The New English Bible, a magnifcent job of
translation, by the way: "Unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one
and murdered his brother."
The thing which this gentleman cites in his magazine as the fnal
proof positive that there isn't anything at all to this "Jews are the
children of Cain and hence of the devil" theory, is found in the 8
th

chapter of John, beginning with verse 31. You know how often I've
cited that for you: but the man in Minnesota shows his ignorance.
You remember Jesus Christ was talking to Jews (and it says Jews
too, comes right out with the word). And it isn't simply that He was
behaving like a petulant spoiled child because somebody didn't
believe in Him, because it says, "these were Jews who believed in
him." Yes, so-called "converted Jews." You know all about these
missions to the Jews. So these were converted Jews. He says to
them (and you can just hear the ring of sarcasm in His voice), "If ye
continue in my doctrines indeed, then you shall be my disciples; and
you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." And
immediately they bristle up at this and ask, "What do you mean -
make us free?" They say, "We are Abraham's seed and we have
never been in bondage to any man." And He says, "I know you are
Abraham's seed." Now to anyone who knew his Bible (and of a
minister it is utterly inexcusable that he does not know it: because,
remember, this is the blind leading the blind into the ditch, when
an ignorant minister is leading his congregation). Who was it who
could say that he was descended from Abraham and had never been
in bondage to any man?
If these Jews were of any of the twelve tribes at all, they would have
been in bondage the frst time in Egypt, wouldn't they? If they
belonged to the ten tribed northerly kingdom of Israel, they would
have been in bondage a second time in Assyria, wouldn't they? And
if they belonged to the. two tribed southern. kingdom of Judah, they
would have been in bondage for the second time, Babylon, wouldn't
they? And they said "We have never been in bondage to any man,"
and Jesus Christ admitted the truth of that. He didn't deny that. So
they were not of any tribe of Israel whatsoever. Now who could say
that, nevertheless, 1,800 years earlier than that, Abraham was one
of his ancestors - Esau? Remember Esau and Jacob were twins,
born with (presumably) the same blood line: but Esau married two
Canaanite women in violation of God's law. Now he couldn't leave
anything but mongrelized half-Satanic descendants, because among
these Hittite Canaanites you had the Satanic blood line. What the
Bible tells you about Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl
of lentil stew: that isn't when he lost it. That was merely a formal
ceremony by which he gave up any claim to it; but he lost it when he
did the thing that rendered it impossible for him to continue as the
head of the clan. His descendants from then on would be
mongrelized, half Satanic. So recognizing that he was already out of
the line for leadership, he sold it for a bowl of stew. Now the Bible
tells you that Esau and his two Canaanite wives moved down to
Mount Seir, a very rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead
Sea. But Mount Seir is exactly where some of these people lived
who were descendants of these fallen angels. Go back to Genesis,
chapter 6, and among the people who had the blood line of the fallen
angels were these Horites - the Horim, the cave dwellers who lived
in Mount Seir.
Now suppose a white man married two Negresses here, and then he
moved to the interior of the Congo; and for the next 18 Centuries
his descendants lived there with nobody they could marry except
the Negroes around them; so of course the last trace of white blood
would have vanished. Nevertheless, after 18 centuries of breeding
into the Negroes they could still say, "18 centuries ago we had one
white ancestor." Now these weren't Negroes: these were the Satanic
Canaanites, but the principle is the same. These Jews talking with
Jesus Christ had identifed themselves as Edomite Jews. Genesis
chapter 36 lists Esau's descendants. Verses 20 to 30 specifcally list
all the various dukes or chieftans among the family of Seir, the
Horite, Satanic line, including his daughter Timna. And Genesis
36:12 shows that Timna was a concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz and
bore him a son Amalek. And you remember what a pestilential lot
the whole tribe of Amalek were. They behaved, throughout,
according to the Satanic blood line. You will fnd a good deal of that
in Exodus 17:8-16 and Numbers 20:14-21.
This same Satanic conduct on the part of the Edomites was
repeated as opportunity arose. You remember that when the people
of Israel came out of Egypt in the Exodus and they wanted to march
on up to Palestine, they were attacked by the Edomites and driven
back so they had to detour around, down through the wilderness in
the Sinai Peninsula. Again, when the Babylonians under
Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and looted and burned the
city and massacred a lot of the inhabitants, the Edomites came
rushing in to help in the massacre and plunder. The whole book of
Obadiah is just one continuous condemnation of the Edomites, for
the way they acted, and predicting their eventual slaughter and
punishment for it. Obadiah, verse 10: "For thy violence against thy
brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut of for
ever." Obadiah, verse 15: "For the day of Yahweh is near upon all
the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy
reward shall return upon thine own head." Obadiah, verse 18: "And
the house of Jacob shall be a fre, and the house of Joseph a fame,
and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them,
and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house
of Esau; for Yahweh has spoken it." Amen, say I. Exodus 17: 14-16:
"And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,
and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the
remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an
altar, and called the name of it Yahweh-Nissi (Yahweh-our banner).
For he said, Because Yahweh hath sworn that Yahweh will have
war with Amalek from generation to generation." Now, how did
these Satanic, mongrel, Edomite Jews get up there into Judea?
They came in two principal waves.
During the time that the southern kingdom of Judah was
practically empty during the Babylonian captivity, the Edomites
were driven out of Mount Seir by a heavy invasion of an Arab
people, the Nabateans, from the east. So the Edomites were driven
westward. Now they couldn't go southwest or straight west: they
would then be getting into Egyptian territory, and they weren't
strong enough to fght the Egyptians. So they went slightly north of
west and took over the southerly half of what had been the kingdom
of Judah, and settled there. Now when the little remnant came back
from Babylon, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah show that 42,600,
or something like that, came back. But it lists them by their
families: and you run those down and you fnd that slightly over
8,000 of these were not from any tribe of Israel. In other words, only
34,000 of the 42,000 that came back were Israelites of the tribes of
Judah, Benjamin, and a few Levites among them. Now they were
too few to drive out these numerous and warlike Edomites; all they
could do was settle in the little territory left to them. To give you an
idea of the size of that - the entire territory of the twelve tribed
nation of Israel before it broke up, set down here in Southern
California, would extend from the Mexican border to the southerly
part of Los Angeles; and inland from the coast it never was more
than 40 miles wide.
Now divide that into thirds. The northerly two thirds of that
comprised the kingdom of Israel - the ten tribed, northern kingdom.
So only the southerly one-third of that was the Kingdom of Judah.
Now of that one-third, take out the southerly half of that, now
occupied by the Edomites, and the little strip left is all that remains
for the true Judahites and Benjamites to settle in. Before the
captivity, the tribe of Judah had been on the south, the tribe of
Benjamin on the north, with the city of Jerusalem lying right on the
boundary line between them. Well, they sorted themselves out as
well as they could, the way they had been before - Judah on the
south - and Benjamin pushed to the north. But Benjamin couldn't
just move up to the north a little bit, because north of them was
Samaria (remember I said, you divide this twelve tribe territory
into thirds) - the middle third constituted Samaria. Both Isaiah and
Kings and Chronicles tell you that when the Assyrians captured the
northern kingdom of Israel and deported all its people, they
brought other people from Assyria and settled them in Samaria.
Now it purposely failed to say they settled anybody in Galilee, the
northern most portion - because they didn't - they left it vacant.
Now the Benjamites were pushed to the north by the Judahites, as
they returned after the captivity. They just couldn't move up into
Samaria: that was fully settled. So they had to leap-frog over
Samaria to the vacant Galilee, to the north of that.
Now remember, up in Galilee was Christ's own home town of
Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, down close to Jerusalem, but
his family home was up in Nazareth. You remember He got nearly
all of his converts up in Galilee; and of the twelve disciples only
Judas was a Jew. Your Bible calls him Judas Iscariot: and there is
no such word as "Iscariot" in any language known to man. It is a
corruption of the Hebrew word "Ish Kerioth," meaning, a man of
Kerioth - and Kerioth is a little village down in the southwesterly
portion of Judaea, down in the territory occupied by the Edomites.
So Judas was an Edomite Jew, and he was the only Jew of the
twelve. The other eleven were all Galileans, therefore, Benjamites.
You remember, that when Jesus was arrested and taken into the
high priest's home for illegal questioning and Peter followed Him in,
the servant said, "Well, you're one of them, you're a Galilean, your
accent shows it." Sure, you don't have any difculty telling the
Mississippians from a Maine Yankee here in this country, do you?
They speak English with a diferent accent, and the Galilean spoke
the Aramaic of the day, with a little diferent accent from the
Judaeans down around Jerusalem.
Now, again, consider Pentecost. When the people were gathered
there and the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples (and remember
they were all there except Judas Iscariot), they began speaking to
this assembled multitude in a wide number of diferent languages.
And how astonished the people were, when they heard the disciples
speaking all these diferent languages, which obviously they didn't
know. They said, "Aren't all these Galileans?" They were. All the
remaining disciples were.
So, down to the south of what was left of the territory of Judah you
have these Edomite Jews settled, and of course, pestiferous people
always, they were constantly raiding the southerly boundary of
Judaea, the way their descendants are raiding the Arabs' territory
today. A leopard doesn't change his spots, you know. And for a long
time after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the people in
Judaea were a conquered province of one empire or another - Syria
or Egypt, and fnally Rome. But they got their little fare-up of
independence under the Maccabee kings, beginning about 150 BC.,
and about 120 BC. John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabee kings (who
had by that time a good disciplined army) got tired of these Edomite
Jew raids on his southern border, and he marched down there and
defeated them thoroughly. Remember that Saul, the frst king of
Israel, was told by God, "You go down there and you absolutely
exterminate these Edomites: don't you leave one of them alive. "But
he didn't do it, and when he came back the Samuel said, "Because
you have disobeyed God, God has deposed you from being king, and
He is going to put a better man in your place."
Approximately 900 years later, John Hyrcanus made the same
mistake. After he had defeated the Edomites, he then decided he
was going to be a missionary: he would convert them to the religion
of Judaism. So he ofered them the choice: he would spare them if
they would accept the religion of Judaism (which was not the
religion of the Old Testament, ever - it was what they had brought
back from Babylon with the Babylonian Talmud). - The late Rabbi
Stephen S. Wise said it so briefy and accurately, I have never been
able to improve on his words. He said, "The return from Babylon
and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of
Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism." - The people of the Old
Testament were real Hebrews and the religion God had given them
could well be called Hebrewism. And of course, the Talmud-Judaism
began as they destroyed the religion of the Old Testament. But in
Christ's time they had not yet given it the name of Talmud: they
called it "the tradition of the elders." Remember how often Jesus
Christ rebuked them for following their tradition. "Why have ye by
your tradition set aside the laws of God?" He was referring to the
Talmud. So John Hyrcanus was going to be a Billy Graham of his
day: he was going to make converts. He said, "If you will adopt the
religion of Judaism, I will give you full citizenship in the kingdom of
Judaea. If you don't, I will cut your throats." Well, you know that is
the most efective missionary technique they have ever developed.
Even Billy Graham doesn't make converts that fast. Of course the
converts he makes with the sword are of doubtful validity So the
Edomites adopted the religion of Judaism and were accepted in full
citizenship in the kingdom. Now you will fnd that described in
great detail in the one reliable history of that period - Josephus, in
his history, "Antiquities of the Jews, Book 13, chapter 9.
The second wave of Edomites came in when the Edomite chieftan
Herod conquered and became king of judaea, under the Roman
Empire. He was a very able, very evil scoundrel. He raised a large
sum of money by taxation and by raiding his neighbors, and with it
he bribed Mark Anthony who was over in Egypt with the Roman
legions at that time. He bribed Mark Anthony to lend him a couple
of the Roman legions, in addition to his own Edomite troops, for a
conquest of Judaea. And, with the Roman troops and his own, he
did capture Judaea. In 40 BC. the Romans recognized him as
governor with the title, Ethnarch, and in 37 BC. they formally
recognized him as the local King of Judaea. Of course, he was
subject to Roman foreign policy but he had complete self-
government at home. Now he had come in with a conquering army
and, of course, his Jewish Edomite followers came in, for the sake of
the plunder they could get (just as they are already going back to
Germany, now, for the sake of the plunder they can get). So they
overran the place. You may learn much about these events by
reading Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," Books 14 to 18. In his
other history, the "Wars of the Jews," Book 4, chapters 4 and 5,
Book 5 and chapter 6 and thereafter, he tells of the horrible conduct
of these Edomite Jews within the besieged city of Jerusalem while
it was undergoing siege by Titus in the year 70 AD. Their robbery
and massacre of the inhabitants inficted probably more casualties
than the Roman army did. In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the article
"Edom," (in the edition I used to look it up, it was Volume 5, page
41), the article "Edom" concludes with these words: "The Edomites
are found today in modern Jewry."
These Edomites had come in frst, when they were given full
citizenship by John Hyrcanus; second, they had come in as a wave
of conquerors under Herod (that is the same Herod who tried to
murder Jesus Christ as a baby). They had overrun the land. They
had the entire civil and religious government, until the death of
Herod in 4 BC. Then Herod left the kingdom of Judaea, by will, to
his son Herod Archelaus. The Romans were too wise to trust
somebody with the kingdom when they didn't know anything about
him. They gave him a trial period as governor, under the title,
Ethnarch; and he gave them 10 years of the most miserable misrule
that any nation ever had, 4 BC. to 6 AD. - and the people fnally
petitioned Rome to send a Roman to govern them. Now remember
the people didn't like the tyranny of Rome a bit: but when this was
so bad they said, "We would rather be governed by a foreigner, a
Roman," you can understand how bad it was. The Romans tried
Herod Archelaus, found him guilty of misrule, banished him to
Vienne; and from that time on there were a series of Roman
governors called procurators: Pontius Pilate was number six in that
series. So the military government was entirely in the hands of the
Roman procurators. The collection of taxes for Rome was entirely
under the supervision of the Roman procurator. On the other hand,
these Herodian Jews had control of the entire religious government
and the temple. They also had control of the civil government, in all
respects concerning purely local self-government - could collect their
own taxes, and so on.
You remember, when the priests were getting greatly upset about
Jesus' teachings they said, "If we let Him alone, all men will believe
on Him; and the Romans will take this place, this kingdom, away
from us." Now the way the clergymen have taught it, that is
meaninglessly stupid. They pictured Jesus as a whining, cringing,
milk-sop, going around, whimpering to people that they ought to be
good. If that was all He did, these Jews would not have honored
Him even with their contempt, much less be worried about Him. He
was explaining to the people, the utter evil of the Jewish economic
and religious system under which they were living. The Jews said
look, if we let Him alone, He is going to awaken the people to these
evils. They will petition Rome just as they did with Herod
Archelaus, and the Romans will kick us out of here." That is what
they were talking about. So here were these Jews, these Edomite
Jews, who said to Jesus Christ, "We are descendants of Abraham."
They were illegitimate descendants of Abraham but, nevertheless,
descendants of Abraham, and they said, "We've never been In
bondage to any man." And Jesus Christ said, "That's right." - Now
continue that same passage through John 8:31-44, and you will
come to the place where Christ tells them that they were the
children of their father, the devil, and they would do the lusts of
their father, who was a murderer from the beginning.
Christ recognized the two seed lines. He didn't say, "Well, you have
adopted some of the bad principles of the devil." He said, "You are
the children of your father the devil." So the entire Bible, Old
Testament and New Testament, recognizes the two seed lines. The
Adamic seed line coming down through a carefully selected best one
in each generation, right on down to Abraham, Isaac, Israel and
then on down through the twelve tribes of Israel. The seed, the
children of God and the seed, the children of Satan; some of whom,
the most pestiferous of them, have come down through the line of
Cain.
Somebody asked me, "Do you think these Jews know of their
descent from Cain?" They certainly do, and here is how they prove
it. Jews have given the owner of the radio station on which I
broadcast, a very bad time. As some of you know, a radio
broadcasting station license is good for only three years. If it is
renewed you have a going, money-making business of considerable
value. If it is not renewed, all you have is some used machinery. So
it makes a great deal of diference to the owner, whether he gets his
license renewed or not, and the Jews were putting pressure on this
radio station owner to put two programs of the air - mine and
Richard Cotten's - and he refused. He said, "I have no authority to
censor any of these programs" - and he said, "besides, this is the
United States and I believe in free speech." They said, "No, you've
got to put those programs of the air." So he said, "If either one of
them has said anything that you think is untrue, although they are
paying for their time, I will give you free time, an equal amount of
free time, for you to answer them." But they wouldn't take him up
on that, because neither Cotten nor I go of the deep end with any
statement we can't prove. So they insisted that he put them of.
When he refused, they fled objections to the renewal of his license
which came up for renewal about that time. They kept the matter
before the Federal Communications Commission for more than a
year, and the owner operated his station on a day-to-day basis, not
knowing whether his license would be renewed or not. In that time
they fnally terrorized him into making this agreement: he would
hire a Jew employee who would censor my program and Richard
Cotten's, cutting out whatever material the Jews objected to.
Now, I don't send any tapes to that station that have been cut and
spliced. When you are paying $100.00 an hour for broadcast time,
tape is the cheapest thing you use; and while I have never known of
one of my splices to come apart, I don't take any chances on it. The
tapes I send in are complete, without splices. But when they come
back, they are cut and spliced in a number of places where this Jew
censor has cut portions of them out. Now I don't like one bit the idea
that a Christian broadcast can be censored by a Jew, to remove
matters of essential Christian doctrine. But nevertheless, this
station owner doesn't have to carry my program. They are still
fghting and this is now three years. He won before the Federal
Communications Commission. They appealed the thing to the
Federal Court and he won before the Federal Court. And they
appealed to the U.S. District Court of Appeals and he won there,
and they have appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court. This radio
station owner undoubtedly has spent somewhere between $50,000
and $100,000 in legal expenses, fghting to preserve his station
license (and indirectly to preserve my right of free speech). Now, if I
make myself too troublesome, to him, he may decide he just doesn't
want to carry my program any further; so I don't argue with him
about it: I let the thing go on that way.
On one of my broadcast tapes, I mentioned the fact that, as the
Bible tells you, after Cain killed Abel, Cain up to that time had
been a farmer, you remember, and God said "Cursed is the ground
for your sake. I will not hereafter yield you its strength." And Cain
said, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. You have driven
me of the face of the land, and I'll be a wanderer and a vagabond."
And I said, "I suppose you have noticed that the children of Cain are
not farmers today. You fnd them in the fnancial, money lending
institutions." Now, I didn't use the forbidden word "Jew." I just said,
"The Children of Cain" - and the Jew cut that out of my tape. As a
Jew he knew exactly Who I was talking about. Yes, they know it.
You know, the Bible says that Cain said, "Why, you've driven me out
of this land where the descendants of Adam would be." And he said,
"Wherever I go, whoever meets me will kill me." And in those days
there were a lot of places that weren't too hospitable to strangers. If
as the preachers say, Adam and Eve were the parents of the only
people on earth (the only other child had been Abel and he was
dead); now with Cain driven away from Adam and Eve, out into
some other part of the earth, who was he going to meet there to kill
him? And you remember, it says that he very speedily found enough
people, that with them he built a city. So the Bible recognizes these
pre-Adamite races. But God said, "Well, I'll put a mark on you, so
that people will recognize you and not kill you." Now, what was this
mark? Did God tattoo something on the sole of his foot or where he
would sit down on it? No. Long before any hidden mark could
possibly have been seen, he would have been killed. God had to put
it where it was the frst thing they would see, and He put it right in
the exact geometrical center of his face: that big Jew nose which
they have borne ever since, and the sculptured monuments of the
ancient empires show it.
The ancient kings were extremely vain of the conquests they had
made. The pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Babylon, the kings of
Assyria, the kings of Persia, all left elaborately carved monuments
telling how they had captured this city or that, and massacred so
many of its inhabitants and made slaves of the others, and took so
much loot, and so forth. In addition to the inscriptions they nearly
always had a carved panel illustrating this, showing some of the
captives. Now wherever any of these show an Israelite, it is
invariably a straight nose, typical, what we would call an Anglo-
Saxon, Scandinavian or Teutonic type of face. But where it shows
these Canaanite peoples, it is always a typical hook-nose Jew.
The evidence of the evidence of archaeology all show one thing,
defnitely, right down the line: the existence of the Satanic seed line,
and the existence of the other seed line of God's own children.

The End
-PTI-.)L I6 Y-U 1)?E )CCESS T- T1E )IT
STUDY #UIDE+Who is Your #od 0)IT Chapter @A2
I" you 8ould li&e to purchase the )IT Study #uide,
'isit http7//888$&in!identity$com/ait$htm
P)*T I?
)$ 6ood La8s
6--D L)WS7 1E)LT1 3 SEPE*)TI-.


/$ /$ 6--D L)WS #I?E. T- %-SES BY Y)1WE17 Le'$ //
:$ :$ T1E L)WS -6 #-D 0handout2$ 6ocusin! on the "irst B
pa!es$ *e"erence the rest$
@$ @$ ?erses "or separation7 Le'$ /C7@+A, Le'$ :D7::+:B 0read :E2$
F$ F$ Le'$ :B$ 6irst /@ 'erses tell o" 8hat happens 8hen 8e oey
Yah8eh$ /F+FB tells o" 8hat happens 8hen 8e turn "rom 1im$



B$ The La8s o" #od
The LAWS of GOD
by Bertrand L. Comparet
THE LAWS OF GOD
Tonight I am going to talk to you about the laws of the kingdom of God. That
is a subject which the churches have botched up, maybe more than most
things, and nearly everything you were taught on this subject in the
ordinary churches you can discount as being partly or wholly false, because
of the way they have messed it up.
The Bible speaks of four kinds of divine law: the commandments, the
judgments, the statutes, and the ordinances. And today's ministers, with
rare exception, have no idea that there is any diference between these at all.
The commandments are the major rules of conduct for the responsibility of
man to his God. The Ten Commandments in the twentieth chapter of
Exodus, of course, are the outstanding examples of this: Thou shalt not
steal, thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, and so
forth. And contrary to what a good many of the churches teach, they are still
in full efect.
Now the judgments: The use of that word is a bit misleading. Today we
understand judgment to mean the decision of a court after it has heard the
case, but, as used in the Bible, it is the rules by which a court is to decide
the case. In other words, following the rules set up in what your King James
Version cal Is judgments, a court will know how to decide the case. It is used
sometimes in the Bible in the modern sense of the decision also, but from
the point of view of Bible law, consider it as the rules by which a court
decides a case; but not all cases. The commandments need no rules of this
sort; they are clear enough. But what the Bible classifes as judgments are
the cases between man and his fellow man; it includes the laws in regard to
property rights, master and servant, and that sort of thing.
Here is an example, in the twenty-frst and twenty-second chapters of
Exodus: "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If
thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he
shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by
himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him." Here is
another: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in
his hand, he shall surely be put to death" - for kidnaping! No threat of a slap
on the wrist, and probation; but, for kidnaping, always the death sentence,
even if the victim is rescued.
Here is another: "If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it;
he shall restore fve oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep... If the theft
be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he
shall restore double." That takes all the fun out of theft, doesn't it? Why do
people steal? They steal to make a proft. And if the result of stealing is that,
at the very minimum, if you are caught with a stolen article and the owner
gets back his original property, you still have to pay him back an amount
equal to the value of what you took; and if you disposed of it, then you may
have to pay back four to fve times what you stole; there is no protit.
Likewise, there wasn't much thievery under those rules either.
Now if you are wondering, how do you enforce that sort of thing? Suppose a
thief just laughs in your face and says, "Well, I am broke; what are you going
to do about it?" The law had something to do about it. He was simply sold
into slavery, for enough to make the required restitution. Now suppose that
he would have to pay back $500.00. He would be put upon the auction block
and the auctioneer would ask, "Who will bid $500.00 for a month of this
man's services, as a slave?" If he isthat sort, nobody could rely on him. "Well,
who will bid $500.00 for three months of his services?"
This shows you how scientifc God's laws are: The man's own attitude
determined his punishment. If he was really sorry, anxious to make good,
maybe he would be a willing worker and maybe you would get a bid of
$500.00 for three months of his time. But if he was sullen and defant and
obviously wasn't going to work except when you stood over him with a bull
whip, it might take three years of his time to get a $500.00 bid. In other
words, he made his own punishment as severe as was needed. And the
victim of the crime got his reimbursement. Now, the best thing we know how
to do, if we fnd the criminal, usually, is just put him in jail. If we fnd the
criminal, usually, he doesn't have anything to repay the victim with. When
we put him in jail, that doesn't repay the victim; it is an expense on the
public. And if, instead of that, we just put him on probation, he goes back to
crime the next day. But under God's law, there was a good solution to the
situation. You see, the professional sob-sisters were not drawing up God's
laws. The third class of these laws, the statutes: These were general rules of
conduct for the government of the nation as a whole, for general good order
and prosperity. They were of less magnitude than the commandments, but
they were the rules for the civilization that separated the people of Israel
from all the other nations. Living according to these statutes, the nation of
Israel was to give a demonstration of what prosperity and peace and good
order can come, from living under the rules of the laws of God. They covered
the dietary laws, the agricultural laws, the social, and the fnancial laws.
For example, Leviticus 3 verse 17: "It shall be a perpetual statute for your
generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat norblood."
Well, it took us 3,500 years plus a doctor's bill to fnd out that the animal
fats are the heaviest in cholesterol which builds up in your arteries, leading
to hardening of the arteries and heart attacks. And if you cut out the animal
fats, get the necessary fats and oils for your diet from vegetable oils, which
are as they say primarily unsaturated fatty acids, you get whatever beneft
there is from the oil and fat, but without the bad part of it. Only Moses
didn't charge anybody a fee, as a doctor, for giving this advice.
As to the eating of blood, dietitians know that there are a number of very
unfavorable factors there: certain diseases that are transmitted through
eating of blood, besides other unwholesome chemical factors in blood as a
food. Now this, as you can see, wasn't intended for your salvation or for your
beneft in heaven afterward. If you didn't eat animal fats, it wasn't in heaven
that you had a good, healthy heart, it was here in this life.
Here is another: Leviticus 10 verses 8 to 11: "And Yahweh spake unto Aaron
[Moses' brother the high priest], saying, "Do not drink wine nor strong
drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the
congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute forever throughout your
generations: And that ye may put diference between holy and unholy, and
between unclean and clean; And that ye may teach the children of Israel all
the statutes which Yahweh hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses."
There were to be no drunken priests on duty. Now the Bible did not forbid
the priests to drink beer or wine; it was simply, that when they were to be on
duty as such, they were to be clear headed; no drinking then. Their duties of
course included not only service in the temple, ofering the sacrifces, but
also the instruction of the people in the laws of God; and there was to be no
thickheaded, drunken, stumble-bum doing the instructing.
Now the fourth class: The ordinances were the rules which governed the
religious rituals, the ceremonies, the religious holidays, and soon. Note now
that this is a distinct, separate class - it has nothing to do with the general
conduct of the people or the nation - these are strictly religious laws. For
example, in speaking of the Passover, Exodus l2verses42to45: "It is a night
to be much observed unto Yahweh for bringing them out of the land of
Egypt: this is the night of Yahweh to be observed of all the children of Israel
in their generations. And Yahweh said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the
ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof." The Passover
was something between God and His people Israel; and while immigrants
from other races could come in as merchants and travelers, and that sort of
thing, nevertheless, they were not to say, We are now part of Israel and
entitled to all of God's special protection. "But every man's servant that is
bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat
thereof. A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof." Defnitely,
that was between the Israelite and his God.
Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, another one: Exodus 13 verses 5 to 10:
"And it shall be when Yahweh shall bring thee into the land of the
Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land fowing with
milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month. Seven days
thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to
Yahweh. Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no
leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with
thee in all thy quarters. And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying,
This is done because of that which Yahweh did unto me when I came forth
out of Egypt. And it shall be so a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a
memorial between thine eyes, that Yahweh's law may be in thy mouth: for
with a strong hand hath Yahweh brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt
therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year."
I suppose all of you know, in a general way, how most of our American law
originated. We started with the Common Law of England, and that was not
in the form of statutes passed by parliament, but it was the fact that the
recognized customs of the people had been recognized as having the force of
law by the courts. And since they kept a record of all the major cases that
were decided, you had therefore the record of the British courts setting up
what was called the Common Law. Now gradually, even in England, that
was modifed and added to, by statutes adopted by parliament. And over
here, while we started with the basis of the English Common Law, the bulk
of our law, now, is statutory.A number of the states, California among them,
have tried to organize the law, so that all statutes pertaining to a particular
subject are found grouped together. You have for example your motor vehicle
code; and you have the civil code of general regulations; you have the code of
civil procedure, to govern the courts; you even have a separate evidence code,
the rules of evidence to be received in court, and so on.
When Moses was given the law upon mount Sinai, it wasn't the origin of
divine law, but it was what you might call a codifying of the law, reducing it
to a systematic statement. The Bible recognizes that God's law was to some
extent known earlier than that. Genesis 2 verses 16 and 17 records the frst
commandment: "And Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die."
In Genesis 26 verses 3 to 5, God says this to Isaac: "Sojourn in this land, and
I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I
will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto
Abraham thy father" - now note this -"because that Abraham obeyed my
voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
So it shows that there was a good deal of divine law known before the time of
Moses, although quite obviously not as well organized.
Now, you know how, almost without exception, our so-called churches teach:
"Well now, you are not under law, you are under grace; the law is all done
away with."
It is interesting to ask one of these ministers, "Do you really mean that? that
the law is all done away with?"
He will reply, "O, yes, yes, surely!''
Then you can say, "Well now, by that you mean I am perfectly free, so far as
divine law is concerned, I am perfectly free to commit as many murders and
thefts and adulteries as I want to? because, if all the law is done away with,
that was part of it."
Then watch your minister stammer around and try to fgure out what he
does mean, if anything. The trouble goes back to how they are instructed in
the seminaries. They are taught: "These are your church doctrines -and if
you are asked for something to support them, you can fnd a few words here
and there in the Bible that can be given the appearance of supporting it.
Why, you ought to be able to talk half an hour on any comma or semicolon in
the Book." They are not taught the Bible systematically, because church
doctrine takes frst place; the Bible tags along a poor second.
This is what they base their mistake on: Paul in two places said that Christ
had done away with the ordinances,nailing them to His cross, and so on.
Here are the two, and you note that they do not say that the law is done
away with; only that portion of the law contained in the ordinances: the
rituals, the ceremonies. Ephesians 2 verses 14 and 15: "For he is our peace,
who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition
between us. Having abolished in his fesh the enmity, even the law of [now
note this] commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself
of twain one new man, so making peace" - only those commands that were in
the ordinances.
Colossians 2 verses 13 and 14: ""And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your fesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses; Bloting out the handwriting of ordinances that
was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing
it to his cross."
When you limit Paul to what he actually said, and not to the large amount of
territory some of the ministers want to take in on this thing, Paul is right.
All these ordinances were symbolic of Jesus Christ, what He was going to
do, what He was going to accomplish for us; they were to keep alive the
memory, the understandmg, the hope, until He came. And, after He had
come and performed these things, then you are supposed to put your
attention to the reality, and not the mere symbol.
The ordinance of the Passover, for example: that, by the death of the
passover lamb, His blood being shed and put on your front door - public
proclamation of your faith - by that you would be spared from death. Well
obviously that is symbolic of Christ, and in the Book of Hebrews the
symbolism is explained. Now we don't go through the old ritual of the
Passover.
In the Old Testament, in giving the Passover, it says, "This is to be an
ordinance for eternity." Now we no longer kill a lamb and put its blood on
the outside of the front doors, as they did then, not because we are
neglecting it, but because we have a diferent form of it. By the old Passover
you proclaimed your faith, that at some time in the indefnite future, the
Messiah Who had not yet come, would come and make the real sacrifce for
you; that, by the shedding of His blood, your sins would be forgiven, and the
death penalty which your sins had earned would not have to be paid by you,
because it had been paid for you.
Now, after He had come and ofered His life on the cross, we can't go through
the old ritual of saying, Well, the One we are waiting for hasn't come yet; it
is still in the future - that would be a rejection of Christ. So the form of the
ceremony has been changed, and we have the Communion, the Lord's supper
today, with the bread substituted for the fesh of the lamb, the wine
substituted for the blood; yet still you have the essential meaning of the
Passover.
It didn't take long for the symbolic meaning of all these ordinances to be
completely lost. It is the sort of thing you would naturally expect when you
set up a professional priesthood, with rituals to go through, when they can
give them the air of a certain amount of magic hocus-pocus. "Now you poor
dumb laymen, you don't understand this, and you couldn't do any of this
yourself, but now, if you come to me and pay me well, have me perform the
magic ceremony that you can't understand, then I can get you the beneft of
it." And when you want to put that over, when you want to increase your
infuence and importance, and so on, the only way you can do it is to cause
the general laity to forget what the meaning of this is, and make a mystery
out of it; and they speedily did so. The history of organized religion has
never been anything but the history of organized corruption, for that reason.
You look over the books in your Bible: now aside from the merely historic
ones, Ezra and Nehemiah, Kings and Chronicles [you will fnd some history
in some of the others too, but those could have been written by any well
informed agnostic or atheist; they are not stating doctrine; they are
recording what happened], but you turn to those which contain "thus saith
Yahweh," you will fnd, with the two exceptions of Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
when God needed a man to go out and say "thus saith Yahweh," He had to
go outside of the priesthood to fnd him. So you fnd, today, the churches
teaching their people that the law was all done away with.
Go to a church social-supper, what do you have almost invariably? Baked
ham. "You are of course supposed to violate the laws of God in order to show
that you are under grace." Jesus Christ had some rather critical comments
to make on that, you know. Well, it is true that if a man lived up to all of the
law -the moral law as well as the merely practical parts of it, like the dietary
law, the agricultural law, fnancial laws - if he lived up to all of it, yes, he
would live on the strength of that. It would take an awful lot of ingenuity to
fgure out how to commit a sin without violating some of the laws of God.
But that wasn't the real object of the thing.
It is very true that Leviticus 18 verses 3 to 5 says, "After the doings of the
land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the
land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in
their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to
walk therein: I am Yahweh your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes,
and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them."
Of course, the great bulk of the law, ninety-eight percent of it, probably, had
nothing to do with these moral phases of it. The dietary law pointed out
which foods were wholesome, good for you, which were unwholesome and
bad for your health. If you ate unwholesome food, you weren't going to have
a stomach-ache in heaven after you died; you would get your ill health here
in this life. If you violated the agricultural laws, you weren't going to have
poor crops in heaven, later: you would have poor crops here and now, on this
earth. And those things are every bit as true as they ever were.
You weren't forfeiting your chance at salvation, if you were foolish enough to
violate the dietary laws; that wasn't the object of them. Here is what Jesus
Christ said in the ffth chapter of Matthew, beginning with verse 17: "Think
not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfll. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulflled.
Now when do heaven and earth pass away? Well, it is not until after the
millennium, the thousand year reign of Christ. Revelation 21 verse 1 is the
frst time where you fnd a statement that the frst heaven and the frst
earth are passed away. So, not only all the time from Christ's lifetime down
to now, but at least the next thousand years to come, the law is in efect. So
He goes on, saying this, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven" [Matthew 5:19].
The laws of God are still in efect. Now nobody ever succeeded in living up to
them fully, and in the Old Testament times, when you realized you had
broken one of these laws, you took your animal sacrifce to the temple and
were assured of God's forgiveness. And today, you don't ofer an animal
sacrifce, you. pray to be forgiven, because the real sacrifce has been made
for you, by Jesus Christ.
But these ministers who teach that the law is all done away with, and has
no power today, you can see where they are going to wind up, even if they get
their salvation. In fact, in Proverbs 28 verse 9, it says, "He that turneth
away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination."
So much for the general four categories of the law. Now let us take a little
look at what they are, in some of these groups. The law of military training
and military service: There is no pacifsm whatever in the Bible; God not
only authorized war, He expressly commanded it, in certain instances. For
example, God commanded the literal extermination of the Amalekites. This
is Exodus 17 verses 14 to 16 [and see also Deuteronomy 25 verses 17 and
following]: "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a
book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the
remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and
called the name of it Yahweh-nissi fYahweh is my banner]: For he said,
Because Yahweh hath sworn that Yahweh will have war with Amalek from
generation to generation."
The Canaanites who lived in the land that the people of Israel were to
occupy, they were commanded to be exterminated: not that we should
simply, like we are doing in Viet-Nam, say, "We don't want to win the war;
we just want to convince them that they should be reasonable." Listen to
this [this is Deuteronomy 7 verses 1 to 4]: "When Yahweh thy God shall
bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out
many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the
Amorites, and the Canaan ites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when Yahweh
thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly
destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto
them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou
shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other
gods: so will the anger of Yahweh be kindled against you, and destroy thee
suddenly."
Wars of liberation, to drive out oppressive tyrants, were favored: Numbers
10 verse 9: "And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that
oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall
be remembered before Yahweh your God and ye shall be saved from your
enemies." And these aggressors who made war against our people were not
to be left in condition to keep on repeating it over and over again. The people
had been warned, they were not themselves to be aggressors, attacking
others who were peacefully inclined toward them; but, if any other nation
made aggressive war on them, here was the rule: "When thou comest nigh
unto a city to fght against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if
it make thee answer of peace, and open its gates unto thee, then it shall be,
that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and
they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make
war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when Yahweh thy God
hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with
the edge of the sword" [Deuteronomy 20 verses 10 to 13]. A little of that sort
of thing in Viet-Nam would restore peace in a hurry Exodus 15 verse 3:'
'Yahweh is a man of war." Psalm 144 verse 1: "Blessed by Yahweh my
strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fngers to fght." One of
the Psalms of David, you know; and you remember that David is the only
man of whom God said, "This is a man after My Own heart."
The rule was universal military training. Numbers 26 verses 1 and 2: "And
it came to pass after the plague, that Yahweh spake unto Moses and unto
Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, saying, Take the sum [and that is not
merely the total, but it means the names, the registration] of all the
congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward,
throughout their fathers' house, all that are able to go to war in Israel." So
they were all registered for the draft, from the age of twenty.
Has Christianity done away with all this sort of thing? Has it revealed that
everything that God said before that time was a mistake, that has to be
thrown out? No, of course not. Jesus Christ confrmed all this. Luke 12 verse
51: "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but
rather division." Mix us all up with our enemies in the United Nations, in
one great, happy, satanic family? No; division, separation. "Come out from
among them, and be ye separate..." It is a command from the beginning. [II
Corinthians 6:17.]
Luke 22 verse 36 [Jesus speaking to His disciples]: "Then said he unto them,
But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his script: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Matthew 10
verse 34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
send peace, but a sword."
You cannot have real Christianity, uncompromising resistance to satanic
evil, without war, because the satanic organization of the earth isn't going to
let you get away with it, without war. You have to do one of two things: you
have to either desert your God and join Satan's forces, or you have to stand
by your God and have war with Satan's - one or the other - there is no
intermediate ground.
The Bible makes it very clear that God is not a pacifst, in the sense of
today's pacifsts, at all. Now does that mean that God doesn't like peace? No,
not at all. He wants a true peace, which can only be had under His own
rules. The kind of peace that the people of Czechoslovakia are getting today
and the kind of peace that the people of China are getting today - that is not
peace in the eyes of God.
In Leviticus 26, God says this: "If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my
commandments, and do them; . . . I will give peace in the land, and ye shall
lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the
land, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall chase your
enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And fve of you shall
chase an hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to fight:
and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword." Instead of which we
turn our back on God, in order to get the votes of minority groups; and we
have got over 35,000 American dead in South Viet-Nam, against an enemy
that isn't even ffth rate.
It is hard to fnd anything in which we have not perverted the laws of God.
Now take for example the laws of citizenship and eligibility for public ofce.
Anybody from a country whose people are not of our race, whose civilization
is not of our sort, whose ideals are not like ours at all, can come in here and
after a relatively brief period be naturalized and given full citizenship, equal
to someone born here. Now, that is completely contrary to God's law.
You will fnd God's law explained in detail in Deuteronomy 23 verses 3 to 8.
Those who are of the same race as ours, but not of Israel: Remember that
there were descendants of Abraham by a number of sons, only one of whom
was Isaac; those who are racially the same, although not of our Israel
nations, they were not permitted citizenship until the third generation born
in the land. By that time, they could have pretty well absorbed our way of
looking on things. But as to those who are racially not the same, they could
not be admitted to citizenship even to the tenth generation.
Aliens were not permitted to hold any public ofce. Deuteronomy 17 verse
15: ". . . thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."
Now that word "stranger" doesn't mean somebody to whom you have not
been formally introduced; it is the Hebrew word "nokriy," which means a
person of a diferent race. When any non-Israelite is able to gain public
ofce, that is plainly stated in the Bible as being a curse upon us and a
punishment for our wickedness.
Deuteronomy 28 verses 15 and 43 to 45: "But it shall come to pass, if thou
wilt not hearken unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to observe to do all his
commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that these
curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee." Then He goes on to list a
number of them, and you come to this [in Deuteronomy 15 verses 43-45]:
"The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou
shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to
him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.. .because thou
hearkenedst not unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to keep his
commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee."
The very fact that you can have this Negro Bradley running for mayor in Los
Angeles [and with excellent prospect of getting it, apparently] shows to what
an extent we have sunk in the eyes of God. Now you notice that this is
something that is always promoted by those who like to call themselves
"liberal" - and that also is taken up in the Bible. In the thirty-second chapter
of Isaiah, he starts out talking about what it is going to be like in the
kingdom of God, when all our present troubles are done away with, and we
are living under the reign of God. And in Isaiah 32 verse 5, he says that then
"...the vile [v-i-l-e] the vile person shall be no more called liberal..." He knew
his liberals!
As to foreign policy: You hear stupid people always parroting, "O, you must
love your enemies." You remember, the Bible is very careful to say "your
enemy" and to distinguish between your enemy and God's enemy. If your
fellow Israelite is your enemy, he is your enemy for one of two reasons.
Either you actually have done something wrong to him, in which case you
should make amends, or he mistakenly thinks you have done something
wrong to him, in which case you should try to get him to understand that
you didn't do it. But now, God's enemy is a very diferent thing.
You remember that on the break-up of Israel, on the death of Solomon, the
northern kingdom went into idolatry immediately, and of course God
naturally took away His favor from the northern kingdom of Israel on that
account. A little while after that, one of the kings of Judah, who was making
a half-hearted attempt to be good, sent military aid to help the king of Israel
in some battle or other, and he was given this rebuke: "Shouldest thou help
the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee
from before the Lord" [II Chronicles 19: 2].
When you help God's enemies, when you arrange yourself on their side, you
yourself become the enemy of God and can expect to pay the penalty
accordingly; and parroting, "love your enemy, love your enemy," isn't going to
change the facts a bit. You don't fool God with catch phrases.
In Psalm 139, King David says this: "Do not I hate them, 0 Lord, that hate
thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them
with a perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies." Now did God look down
His nose at David and say, 0, you are one of those awful hate mongers? No!
Two places in the Bible, in Acts 13 verse 22 and in I Samuel 13 verse 14, you
fnd God said this: "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine
own heart..."If any of us could get that much approval, it would be
something!
Now, as to the economic laws governing business: Of course the strictest of
honesty was required; no false measures, no false weights. You will fnd that
in Deuteronomy 25 verses 13 to 16 and Leviticus 19 verses 35 to 36.
The labor laws have their foundation in the Bible. There must be no
oppression of the workmen who work for you; servants they are called in the
Bible, but most people employed today wouldn't take kindly to the use of
that word. However, as used in the English language of three and a half
centuries ago, one who was hired to do work for another could be classifed
as servant.
There must be no oppression of them [Leviticus 25 verses 39 to 42 and
verses 47 to 55] and wages must be paid when due. In those days, wages
were paid daily. The average working man didn't have enough, that he could
go along for a month or a week without pay, so wages had to be paid not
later than sunset every day. [Deuteronomy 24 verses 14 to 15.]
On loans, no interest whatever could be charged, except from aliens. To your
fellow Israelite, you could not charge any interest. Now today we say, Well,
usury is anything above 42 percent a year. As the word usury is used in your
King James Version, it means a trillionth of one percent a century, or
anything above it. Anything whatsoever, anything that is paid for the use of
money or thing of value is usury, in that sense. In other words, the borrower
must pay back to you the principal of what he borrowed, but not interest.
Now you were under no obligation to try to make the people of other races as
prosperous as Israel. If they wanted to borrow from you to get some of your
prosperity, it was fair enough that they pay you something for it, and you
could charge interest to any non-Israelite. See Deuteronomy 23 verses 19 to
20; Leviticus 25 verses 35 to 38.
They had mortgages in those days, and if a person became hard up and had
to mortgage the family homestead, the farm, or had to sell it, he had the
right of redemption. In other words, you could not lose the farm that was the
source of the family's living, permanently. Now a house within a walled city
was in a little diferent classifcation. If you sold a house within a walled
city, you had one year in which to redeem it; and if you didn't redeem it
within a year, it was gone permanently. But the people within the city were
not depending on that house, primarily, for their living. If you were a saddle
maker or a silversmith, or whatnot, living in town doing your work, you
could move to another house, someplace else, and do your work just as well.
But as to the farm, which was the source of the family's living, every fftieth
year, the Jubilee year, whatever property had been sold or taken on
mortgage foreclosure, if it had not been redeemed before that, it came back
to its original owner without the payment of anything. That doesn't mean
ffty years from the time you sold it, it was every fftieth year on the
calendar. If last year was the Jubilee year, you could mortgage or sell your
property this year for ffty years. If next year was the Jubilee year, you could
only mortgage it or sell it for the remainder of this year. When that time
came, the property came back without payment of anything.
You remember what happened to the Roman empire? When they were a
nation of sturdy, independent farmers, they became a powerful empire that
ruled most of the known world. Then the inevitable happened. Farmers of
course are subject to the vagaries of bad weather and insect plagues, and
that sort of thing. They have a bad year, get no crop, and the average
farmers don't have enough saved up to coast over another year, so they
mortgage their farms and lose them in foreclosure or they have to sell them.
They drift into town to become a landless city rabble: and there you have the
beginning of the fall of the Roman empire - as you can fnd it described in
great detail in Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."
That was not to happen to God's people Israel. Every seventh year, the year
of release, the Israelites were freed from the burden of unpayable debts. Now
it was the obligation of every man, who was in debt, to make every honest
efort to pay of his debt. But it was bound to happen to many, that with all
honesty and good faith, they just couldn't do it. You know how it is today,
when a man owes some money: the creditor won't wait, he gets a judgment,
then he levies an attachment on the man's wages, a garnishment on his
wages, and gets him fred from his job. And whenever he gets a new job, the
creditor again levies a garnishment on the wages, and gets him fred from
that job also.
That sort of thing couldn't be, under the rules of the kingdom of God.
Whatever remained unpaid, after all fair and honest eforts were made to
pay it, when the seventh year came around, was canceled. Then you got a
fresh start. Now God promised that if the nation would live up to that, if the
creditors would recognize the release of debts on the seventh year, that God
would send such prosperity, that they would not sufer any loss from not
continuing to extract every penny from their debtors. It is something of
course that just an individual, here or there, couldn't put into efect,
probably. In other words, you are more or less the prisoner of the sort of
social system you live under, or economic system. But if the nation would
adopt it, we were promised prosperity, and we would have it.
Then, after seven of these year-of-release periods, you came to the Jubilee
year. Now where you had sold your property, or lost it in foreclosure, no
further proceedings could be taken to try to collect a defciency judgment
after that seventh year, but the property didn't automatically go back to you
on the seventh year; it was only returned to you in the Jubilee year.
In the agricultural laws, you had the rules which we violate constantly and
pay the penalty. One of these rules was this: that when you plant trees, you
cannot wait eagerly to grab the frst apple or orange, or what have you, that
the tree can produce. For the frst three years, you are not permitted to
allow any fruit to form on the tree at all; you have to go around and nip of
every bud, so that no fruit forms. The fourth year, if you wish, you are
permitted to let fruit form on the tree, but none of it is for you; every single
bit of it has to be taken to the temple as an ofering. The ffth year's crop,
and thereafter, is your own.
It so happened that I had a chance to see this demonstrated. Most of you, I
guess, know where Escondido is, about twenty miles north of San Diego. A
friend of mine bought some land there, and planted on it an orange grove.
And the very same year, his next door neighbor did likewise. Cn the same
slope of the same hill, the same exposure to sunlight and to weather, the
same soil - no diference except a wire fence separating the two properties -
his neighbor also planted an orange grove, and at the very same time. It so
happened that I was out there and I looked them over when the ffth year's
crop was forming on the trees.
On the neighbor's land, the trees were not particularly big or high, but the
branches were thin and spindly. There were some oranges on them, not a
great many; and under every one of these little, thin, spindly branches, there
was a wooden prop - so that the branch wouldn't be broken by the weight of
these oranges.
Now my friend had obeyed God's law. For four years, no fruit was allowed to
form, and here was his frst crop, the ffth year, forming on the trees. His
trees were pretty nearly double the size of his neighbor's, with thick strong
branches. His crop was considerably more than double the number of
oranges, and there wasn't a prop under one of these branches, and there
wasn't one needed. At the end of that ffth year, my friend would have more
proft, a more salable crop, than his neighbor had for the entire fve - and
from then on, pure velvet, because his trees were always going to be that
much better than his neighbor's.
God doesn't bother arguing with you, why you should do these things. He
tells you, this is the best way; do it. If you are curious enough to look into it,
you will fnd out that there is a good reason for it. From the time this
neighbor's trees were very little bigger than weeds, he was trying to coax
every possible orange of of them, and the strength of the growing plants
were being too much diverted into the production of fruit, and too little left
for growing big, strong, sound wood. My friend followed God's law: not a bit
of the strength of the growing plants was wasted on fruit; it all went into
making sturdy trees; big, strong, healthy trees. Then when its proper growth
period was completed, then let it bear fruit, and you will get fruit in
abundance.
Another one of these agricultural laws is that your land must get its sabbath
of rest, the same as you do. One year in seven the land must be allowed to lie
fallow. You plant and harvest your crops for six years, and the next year you
let it alone - and we are too greedy to do it. Now you remember the dust bowl
conditions of around 1932 or 1933, in there? Well, we followed our customary
greed: we were constantly planting and re-planting the land, and you know
the Bible: it says, if you do not follow these agricultural laws, God said, "I
will make the sky like brass, and your rain shall be powder and dust" - and
it was! They had to let the land alone or it would have blown away
completely.
Why the one year of rest in seven? A plant has to get out of the soil two
things: it has to get the humus, the nitrogen bearing remains of former
plant life there, and it has to get minerals. You know how much you are
reading now about what they call the hidden hunger: you eat plants grown
on worn out soil, and they are lacking in vitamins, and especially they are
lacking in minerals because they can't get them out of a worn out soil.
A grain of sand is all mineral, and it isn't of any use to the plant, because
that quartz is completely insoluble in water, and the plant can't get anything
but what dissolves in water. Now there are bacteria that grow in the soil in
great numbers, and as a by-product of their existence they produce certain
acids, and these acids c6rrode away the surface of the sand grains, breaking
them down into water-soluble salts which dissolve in the water. And the
roots of the plant draw that water out of the ground and they get the
minerals for a healthy plant. Now you can pour ammonium sulfate
fertilizers on the land, in any amount you want, and sure, it is sort of a shot-
in-the-arm to the plant - it makes it green the same way green paint would -
but it doesn't make it healthy. You have to have those soluble minerals.
For thousands of years we bred our food plants for heavy yield, meaning,
that they feed heavily on the soil. At the end of six years you have, as you
might say, overdrawn your bank account of soluble minerals in the soil.
Whatever reserve was there, you have used up, and you are taking it out
faster than the bacteria can replace it. Now if you will let it alone, the
seventh year, not grow anything, the. bacteria continue working and you
have one whole year's production of soluble mineral salts there, ready to
start out with. Your bank account has replenished with a new deposit. So
the eighth year, when you plant your crops, they have one whole year's
production, in addition to the current year's production, and they draw a
little bit on the one year's reserve that is there, and.that will carry you
through for six years. Then you start out with another year of rest.
A few years ago I saw some fgures put out by someone who unquestionably
knew nothing about divine law, on this, but he was just recording what the
statistics showed. The Agriculture Department knew of course exactly what
the yield had been per acre on those dust bowl areas, when they were
planted to wheat, before the dust storms fnally compelled giving the land its
rest. Well, they had to allow the land to lie fallow for several years, and
fnally they began cautiously planting some areas, and he reported this:
"The frst year's crop they took of, after several years rest, the yield was as
high as 400 percent what it had been before the dust storm period started."
Now let us see what you can do by violating the laws of God. For most of our
prairie states of the Midwest, we have pretty exact statistics on what the
yield per acre of wheat and corn, and so on, has been, from the time they
were frst put under cultivation, and you do not get as high production per
acre now, as you did 75 to 100 years ago; it has gone down. But let us
assume that you got a steady level of production. So you get a year's crop, we
will say, as one unit. You get one unit for each of eight years; that is eight
units. Now suppose you follow the law of God: you get one unit for each of
the frst six; then you skip the seventh, getting nothing; and in the eighth
you get four units. Six and four are ten; as compared with eight, if you didn't
give the land its rest. We think we are too smart, when we are merely too
greedy, to follow God's laws. But there is a good reason for all of God's laws,
and if you follow them, they pay of.
As to the dietary laws: I read you one: Deuteronomy 12 verses 23 to 25, that
you were not to eat fat of the meat, nor blood. Leviticus 7 verses 23 to 24
also discusses it. Another rule is that you are not to eat any kind of
contaminated meat, meat that has been in contact with things that might
put some sort of bacterial infection into it, or any other poisonous thing. Also
read Leviticus 7 verse 19.
Now as to what meats are ft to eat, you are given the rule: You could eat the
fesh of those animals which had acloven hoof and chewed the cud. Now a
rabbit or hare chews the cud, but it has paws and not hoofs at all. A pig has
cloven hoofs, but it does not chew the cud. Pork and rabbit are therefore
forbidden; camel likewise. A camel chews the cud, I believe, but it does not
have hoofs. Cattle with cloven hoofs, sheep with cloven hoofs, deer with
cloven hoofs, are all permitted foods, because these animals, I believe, have
the double stomach, and they chew the cud.
Why shouldn't you eat any of these other things? Aren't the rules arbitrary?
No. You can disregard God's law, eat port and get trichinosis. There are
hundreds of thousands of cases of it every year in the United States, much of
it not diagnosed. You see, these are tiny little worms that are very small,
almost microscopically small, and they work themselves all through the
muscles of the meat, and each one settles down and chews out a little hollow
where it settles down, and the body sort of walls it in with a membrane
around it; and there they stay. They are thriving on the nourishment carried
to them by the blood. So you eat the meat of an infected pig that isn't
extremely well cooked. In your stomach the meat digests, and that means
the sacks around these little worms also digest, setting them free. They
burrow through the walls of your intestines into the blood vessels there, and
they drift with the blood throughout your body, and wherever the idea occurs
to them and they decide this is far enough, they burrow through the wall of
the blood vessel into the muscles and set up housekeeping.
If some of them do this in the liver, you have jaundice and maybe you are
suspected of having cirrhosis of the liver. But without an autopsy, cutting up
your liver to see, the doctors can't be sure; they can't know whether it is
trichinosis or not. If they get into the heart muscle, you really have troubles,
and so on. So many of these are not diagnosed.
Rabbits are subject to a good many diseases such as tularaemia, which is
often fatal. Now, even if you cooked pork well enough that you kill all these
trichinosis worms in the thing, that doesn't make it a wholesome food; there
is too much else wrong with it. There are a number of other diseases you can
get from pork; and even if the bacteria themselves are killed, remember that
what it has done to the fesh of that diseased animal, the chemical condition
that is set up there, which is causing the sickness of the animal, that is what
you are taking into your body.
Fish: Any kind of fsh with fns and scales is permissible as food. A lot of
people in the south like to eat catfsh. Catfsh has fns, but it has no scales;
it has just a skin. And the catfsh is a carrion eater; it eats dead and rotting
things that it fnds in the water.
Now among the birds, there is a long list of forbidden birds. Of course the
vulture and buzzard, and so on, carrion eaters, are forbidden. But also, in
general, the carnivorous birds, the eagle, the hawk, and so on, are forbidden;
as also among the four-footed animals. All the carnivorous animals are
forbidden. Some people like to eat bear meat, but of course it is strictly
forbidden. These things are unwholesome. Snails, mice, lizards are also
forbidden, but some people will eat anything. However, all these things are
forbidden.
Eat no fesh of any animal that has died of disease. Now if you go out into
the feld and fnd the carcass of a cow that died of hoof-and-mouth disease,
and you cut a steak of of it, and take it home and eat it, you are probably
not going to lose your salvation; in fact, you may wind up in heaven a lot
quicker. You are going to lose your health immediately and quite probably
your life.
All of the laws which make up the practical group do not deal with your
spiritual salvation; they deal with your practical life here and now. Why then
did God do more than just make suggestions? Well, He said in substance, "I
want a healthy nation to serve me; I don't want you flthy with trichinosis or
these other diseases that you can get. Don't defle yourself with these things
when you are going to be My people, My demonstration of what a nation
should be. I have said that if you obey My laws, you will have good health,
long life, peace, and prosperity. Now don't spoil the demonstration by
making yourself sick, by violating the very laws that I have given you for
your guidance."
So these laws were enforced. In fact, in the Old Testament days, they were
enforced even by the death penalty, because God wanted this nation to have
a chance to show the world what obedience to His law would do. Anytime we
are ready to get back on the ball and live up to the laws of God, we can get
all the benefts of them.

The End
P)*T ?
)$ The Sheep and the #oats 0*acial Separation2
B$ Yah8eh Commands *acial Se!re!ation
Y)1WE1 C-%%).DS *)CI)L
SE#*E#)TI-.
By
BE*T*).D L$ C-%P)*ET
6n the ;ible Yahweh repeatedl. warns us a2ainst an. mi4in2 of races- and
especiall. a2ainst intermarria2e and mon2reli0ation. 1ome of this has been
o*erloo&ed because of imperfect translation out of the :ebrew and Gree&
lan2ua2es- in which the ;ible was written. Fet us e4amine some of these
passa2es- carefull. notin2 the e4act meanin2 of the words used in the ori2inal
ton2ues.
Mrom the *er. be2innin2- the commandment not to permit mon2reli0ation is
stron2l. emphasi0ed. Mor e4ample:
%4odus 33:16 ,1o shall we be separated- 6 and all of /h. people- from all the
people that are upon the face of the earth.,
Fe*iticus 2>:2" ,6 am Yahweh the. God- which ha*e separated .ou from other
people.,
3oshua 23:12-13 ,6f .e do in an. wise 2o bac& and clea*e unto the remnant of
these nations- e*en these that remain amon2 .ou- and shall ma&e marria2e
with them and 2o in unto them and the. unto .ou: &now for a certaint. that
the. shall be snares and traps unto .ou and scour2es in .our sides and thorns
in .our e.es- until .e perish off from the 2ood land which Yahweh .our God
has 2i*en .ou.,
Deuteronom. 7:3 ,(either shalt thou ma&e marria2es with them: th. dau2hter
thou shalt not 2i*e unto his son- nor his dau2hter shalt thou ta&e unto the.
son.,
?an. warnin2s are 2i*en in the ;ible not to mate with the stran2er. /he
:ebrew words translated stran2er in these *erses are 0uwr- ne&ar- and no&ri-
each one means a person of a different race from ours. /here are other :ebrew
words- 2er and toshab- meanin2 persons who are aliens onl. in a political
sense- but of our race. /he warnin2 a2ainst race mi4in2 is alwa.s a2ainst
those stran2ers who are 0uwr- ne&ar or na&ri. Mor e4ample Bro*erbs 23:27
tells us- ,Mor a whore is a deep ditch< and a stran2e 80uwr9 woman is a narrow
pit.
/he reason for the warnin2s is clear. ?on2reli0ation is the worst form of
2enocide. 6f .ou &ill ''P of a race- but lea*e the other 1P pure blooded- the.
will in time restore the race. ;ut- when .ou mon2reli0e them- .ou ha*e
destro.ed that race eternall.. =nce mi4ed with the blac& or .ellow races- the
white race would be totall. and fore*er destro.ed- hence Yahweh has
forbidden it. /he followin2 *erses illustrate this point.
Bsalm 1"":11-12: ,Cid me and deli*er me from the hand of stran2e 8ne&ar9
children- whose mouth spea&eth *anit.- and their ri2ht hand is a ri2ht hand of
falsehood: /hat our sons ma. be as plants 2rown up in their .outh- that our
dau2hters ma. be as the polished cornices of a place.,
3eremiah 2:21-2#: ,Yet 6 planted thee a noble *ine- wholl. a ri2ht seed. :ow
then- art thou turned into the de2enerate plant of a stran2e 80uwr9 *ine unto
?eE Iithhold th. foot from bein2 unshod- and th. throat thirst: but thou
saidest /here is no hope: no- for 6 ha*e lo*ed stran2ers 80uwr9 and after them
will 6 2o.
:osea #:6-7: ,/he. shall 2o with their floc&s and their herds to see& Yahweh-
but the. shall not find :im: :e hath withdrawn :imself from them. /he.
ha*e dealt treacherousl. a2ainst Yahweh: for the. ha*e be2otten stran2e
80uwr9 children., (oah was sa*ed because he was pure blooded- while those
around him were mon2reli0ed. Genesis 6:2-"-#- records the forbidden mi4in2
of races and the e*il results thereof. (oah was a different stor.- he obe.ed
YahwehOs law a2ainst the mi4in2 of the races.
Genesis 6:': ,(oah was a Hust man and perfect 8taw-meem- without blemish9
in his 2enerations 8to-led-aw- descent- ancestr.9., :ence- (oah and his famil.
were sa*ed while the mon2rels were wiped out. ?on2reli0ation is the sin for
which 1odom and Gomorrah were destro.edLLL
3ude 1:7: ,%*en as 1odom and Gomorrah- and the cities about them in li&e
manner- 2i*in2 themsel*es o*er to fornication and 2oin2 after stran2e flesh-
are set forth for an e4ample- sufferin2 the *en2eance of eternal fire.,
/hose who see& to force inte2ration in the schools and churches are now
be2innin2 to admit that their real purpose is to brin2 about racial
intermarria2e. /he. ha*e e*en decei*ed certain well meanin2- but i2norant
cler2.men into helpin2 them. %*en without inter-marria2e- Hust allowin2
ne2roes into the white churches is disobedience to Yahweh. Do .ou sa. .ou
didnOt see that in .our ;ible- that is onl. because mistranslation conceals it
from .ou. (o doubt .ou were pu00led when .ou read the followin2 in
Deuteronom. 23:2. ,$ bastard shall not enter into the con2re2ation of
Yahweh: e*en to his tenth 2eneration shall he not enter into the con2re2ation
of Yahweh.,
You wondered at this- because an ille2itimate child is not to blame for the sins
of its parents. Ih. should the penalt. e4tend for ten 2enerations- the. mi2ht
all be le2itimatel. bornE
/he :ebrew word mistranslated bastard is the word mam0er. 6t means a
mi4ture- a half breed or mon2rel. 6t has nothin2 to do with whether a childOs
parents were married- but it refers to the forbidden mi4ture of races. /hat is
wh. the penalt. e4tends for ten 2enerations- it shows how seriousl. Yahweh
treats this sin. 6t is true the mulatto child is not to blame for his parentsO sins-
but he5she is still a mulatto. /he first 2eneration would be a half-breed- the
second would ha*e at least a Nuarter of the blac& blood. /he third at least
158th< the fourth 1516th< and so on. 6n the tenth 2eneration- the ne2ro blood
ma. be as small as one part in 1->2"- .et Yahweh sa.s that this is too much to
be allowed to enter into the con2re2ation of Yahweh.
6f .ou admit that .our church is not worth. to be called the con2re2ation of
Yahweh- hadnOt .ou better obe. YahwehOs own commandment concernin2 itE
+all this to the attention of .our minister.
/he unfortunate children of such marria2es are not the 2uilt. ones- the sin is
that of their parents. /he fact the. cannot help what the. are does not chan2e
the permanent fact the. are what the. are. /he e4perience of thousands of
.ears has demonstrated that the dar& races do not ha*e what it ta&es to
produce the white manOs hi2h ci*ili0ation. /he. ha*e ne*er had it in their own
lands and the. onl. ha*e it here because we- the white maHorit.- ma&e it so.
/he mi4ed breed is the same- the. do not ha*e in proper measure- those
Nualities which Yahweh so carefull. implanted in the white race to carr. out
certain purposes which :e has assi2ned to them. Ceco2nition that Yahweh
made the races different does not impl. hatred or contempt for an. of them.
Difference has its purposes- which must be respected. 6 do not e4pect the
famil. cat to sin2 li&e a canar.- nor the canar. to &eep mice out of the &itchen.
6f 6 went Nuail huntin2- 6 would not e4pect a horse to point Nuail for me-
neither would 6 tr. to saddle and ride the best huntin2 do2 in the world. $ll the
famil. pets are eNuall. lo*ed and none are despised because he canOt do what
some other does. %ach has his own purpose and tr.in2 to mi4 them up or
interbreed them can onl. harm them.
6 &now that there are man. people to whom these facts are new. /here are also
man. who ha*e learned the e*il lesson that the. can 2et more mone. or more
political popularit.- b. *iolatin2 these laws of Yahweh than b. obe.in2 them.
1ome of .ou mi2ht not li&e bein2 reminded of these thin2s- but remember- 6
did not write the ;ible- Yahweh wrote it throu2h :is prophets. :is
commandments are alwa.s ri2ht. Mor our own 2ood- for the *er. sur*i*al of
our white race upon the earth and that we ma. face Yahweh with a better
conscience- we had better obe. these laws of Yahweh.
;elow are some other *erses about this subHect that we ha*e found. Ie thin&
that %0ra ' & 1> e4plains the best as to wh. we should be separated from
other races.
Ie hope that this lesson will help an. of .ou who ha*e been concerned or had
Nuestions about this subHect.
Deut. 23:2>< 23:3< 2":1"-21< 2#:#< 26:1>-13
Gen. 23:"
%4. 23:'
Bs. 6':8-
Fe*. 2#:""- "#
2 +orinthians 6:17
%0ra ':1-12
%0ra 1>-""
(ehemiah ':
(ehemiah 1>:28-3>
(ehemiah 13:3

The End
-PTI-.)L I6 Y-U 1)?E )CCESS T- T1E )IT
STUDY #UIDE + Does #od Command *acial
Se!re!ation9 0)IT Chapter :/2
I" you 8ould li&e to purchase the )IT Study #uide,
'isit http7//888$&in!identity$com/ait$htm

S-ar putea să vă placă și