- Christogenea Internet Radio
It has been nearly a month since my last presentation here, which was the last monthly End Times Update with Don Fox back on October 6th. I am still not ready to produce much new material, still having far too many tasks to attend to, but here I am in spite of the circumstances caused by the recent hurricane.
As for Melissa and I, we are fine. Our house is badly damaged, but Yahweh has blessed us with another place to live. My library, computer equipment, and most of our other possessions are all safe, and we suffered relatively minimum losses which should be fully covered by our insurance. So I fully expect my work and ministry to be back on a regular schedule as soon as I can finish getting moved and settled in and getting my other affairs in order, such as dealing with the insurance companies and smaller chores such as obtaining a new PO Box.
The building where we had our post office box, which was actually a UPS store, was badly damaged in the storm. A large portion of the roof caved in and several stores were destroyed in the strip mall where it was located. So I have not been able to get my mail in nearly a month. If anyone has sent me anything, including the payments which we await for new book orders, I probably won’t have it at least until the end of next week. Soon I will publish a new PO Box address on the Contact page at Christogenea.
Christogenea book orders have not shipped for five weeks, as we were just getting off a road trip when we received news of the developing hurricane. We are finally, as of last night, ready to ship books, and back orders will be filled and shipped over the next few days.
Christogenea CDs are no longer available. Evidently Paypal has forced Trepstar, the CD fulfillment service which we have used for the past four years, to drop our listings because of so-called “offensive content”. So Paypal is now the self-appointed arbiter of “acceptable” speech on the Internet, and they will continue to be until someone with pockets deep enough can sue them. The CEO of Paypal is a Jew from New Jersey, a life-long civil rights and LGBT activist who is apparently unmarried, so he is probably also a Sodomite himself. No wonder he hates us, and he is using his corporation to advance his political and social agenda. He too will fail in the end.
I plan to do at least one presentation on our experiences with Hurricane Michael, so here I have limited my conversation to our immediate circumstances, and I will save the rest. Now to get on to more important matters…
Just yesterday I learned that I am arrogant for thinking that I am intelligent enough to translate the New Testament by myself. Sorry, my bad. I couldn’t have even realized that. Something I learned working in the corporate world of the early 1990’s is that when you are incompetent, you lack the basic tools which are required to recognize your own incompetency. But I also realized that in the corporate world, incompetent people can get by for a long time before being discovered, and even then they often keep their jobs so long as the company is making a profit. Managers do not like to admit that they made a mistake and hired someone who is incompetent.
But as for myself and my New Testament translation, I am just being sarcastic. I would contend that it is my accusers who are incompetent. These men who are impugning me are Orthodox White Nationalists and, sadly, they are now also former members of the League of the South. I pray they are not quitters on my account. One reason why I went to Tennessee last month was to give them the opportunity to speak to me face-to-face, but beyond a casual greeting they neglected to take advantage of that. Instead, they criticize me behind my back or behind their keyboards.
But the League of the South has not changed just because I joined it, and when I attend its functions, my purpose is not to force anyone to accept Christian Identity, or any of my own opinions about history or Scripture. As Dr. Michael Hill has often said, the League is not the Church. The policies of the League in relation to these things are spelled out on its own website, and I am in agreement with them, otherwise I would not have joined the organization in the first place. But if these men joined an organization that they cannot agree with, or if they do not accept its stated policies, who is it that is truly incompetent?
But apart from the League of the South, and concerning these same men, the greater and sadder reality is this: the New Testament informs us that Christ alone is the mediator between God and man. Paul makes that very clear in his epistle to the Hebrews. And Christ alone, as a priest after the manner of Melchizedek, has supplanted the old Levitical priesthood. The same New Testament admonishes us to call no man “father”, and informs us that none of us are masters, because we are all like brethren with one Master, which is Christ. So if a man thinks that he needs a priest to intervene for him, or to mediate for him in place of Christ, he himself is too incompetent even to be a Christian. Therefore my Orthodox Nationalist critics are incompetent on two counts, and now I will explain a third.
In the Core Beliefs Statement of the League of the South, we find the following:
I. Cultural Independence
The League of the South believes that Southern culture is distinct from, and in opposition to, the corrupt mainstream American culture. Therefore, we stand for our own sublime cultural inheritance and seek to separate ourselves from the cultural rot that is American culture. We believe that:
• The South still reveres the tenets of our historic Christian faith and acknowledges its supremacy over man-made laws and opinions; that our Christian faith provides the surest means of securing the welfare of all mankind; and that our primary allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Church.
• Our strongest and most enduring earthly affections and allegiances are to those people and places closest to us-family, friends, neighbors, villages, towns, cities, counties, and States. Conversely, our weakest attachments are to far-off abstractions such as “the nation,” “the environment,” or the “global community.”
The so-called “Orthodox Church” formed out of a protestant division of the Roman Catholic Church, and now it claims for itself to be the “one true apostolic church”, just like any other denomination makes similar claims. It may be predominant in Eastern Europe, where apostolic Christianity first blossomed, but most of the people of those lands are not even the original inhabitants. They are a mixture of Turks and Arab mongrels. It was introduced into the South relatively recently by immigrant Syrians, Greeks and Russians, people who in the first place were only able to settle here by the dictates of the American empire.
But except for a very few anomalies, it is not a part of historical Southern culture, or even of the broader culture of any of the European colonies in America, and most importantly, it is not a part of the Appalachian Scots-Irish or lowland Southern English cultures around which the Old South was formed. In my opinion, Orthodoxy in the South is a neo-carpetbagger religion and its adoption is not consistent with the desire to preserve Southern culture. In Medieval Europe, when our Scot-Irish, English and German ancestors, through the propagation of the written Word made possible by the development of the printing press, realized that it was necessary to break from the Roman Catholic Church, they were not compelled to turn to Eastern Orthodoxy. None of them thought Constantinople to be any better than Rome, and most of them also despised the idolatry of saints and icons – the creations of men – which are found in Orthodoxy.
A submission to and domination of foreign influences will not win any sort of independence for the Southland, nor will it lead to the preservation of Southern culture. We may not agree with some of the things practiced by Southern Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or other traditional American Christian denominations which have a real historical presence and an actual and substantial role in the cultural development of the South, but if we are Southern Nationalists, we should all be able to agree on what is traditionally and historically Southern, on what did and did not belong to our own ancestors.
If you are a White Southern Nationalist and my Biblically-based independent protestantism is an offense to you, the problem is yours. It is I who am acting in accordance with traditional Southern values, by encouraging small local Bible Studies and churches, and it is you who have deviated from your own culture and heritage to embrace a foreign ideology. If you claim to be upholding Southern culture, once again you are found to be incompetent.
Furthermore, as I have said in recent weeks, Eastern Orthodoxy is not Christian. Rather, it is based on 4th century political objectives and just like the Roman Catholic Church, it is an orthodoxy of imperialism, not of Christianity. It claims to be founded upon the writings of so-called “Church Fathers”, but in our last discussion here I demonstrated from Greek Orthodox literature that it is only founded on those “Church Fathers” who wrote from the time of the Council of Nicaea and later. By their own admission, it is not founded on the Ante-Nicene fathers, those which survive from the two-hundred-and-fifty-year period before the Council of Nicaea, and it is certainly not founded upon the teachings of the apostles of Christ.
With this, we shall now present:
Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 6
In part 5 of this series, Clifton strengthened the evidence he had presented that in the most ancient times, reflected by definitions of terms in Hebrew, Arabic and Greek, by ancient art, and by certain statements in Scripture and ancient history, it is apparent that those of the other or non-White races, who only existed on the outside fringes of the general society, were considered “tailless apes” and devils, half animal and half human.
Now Clifton returns once again to the subject with which he began this series, which is the contention that the other races are described in the Hebrew of the Bible as chay, or cheva, when indeed they are not, as Clifton had also studiously elucidated. Rather, on the few occasions in Scripture where references to beasts may be interpreted as references to non-White hominids, or so-called people, the Hebrew always uses the term behemah, the same word which often refers to beasts of burden such as oxen, camels or horses.
So he begins by once again referring to the man who seems to have begun this confusion, which is the Irish British-Israel pastor, Allen Campbell, in:
IDENTIFYING THE “BEAST OF THE FIELD”, #6
by Clifton A. Emahiser
This investigation of the Beast Of The Field is turning into quite a detective story. In part #1 of this series, I told you: “About two years ago, a very good friend of mine gave me a copy of a video presentation by pastor Allen Campbell of Belfast, Ireland entitled Who Are The Beast of the Field?” As I explained in that first paper on this subject, initially I was very much in agreement with Campbell’s premise. However, upon checking out the Scripture references and the meanings of the Hebrew words he used to substantiate his thesis, I found he really didn’t establish solid Biblical evidence for his sermon on this topic! Therefore, for the sake of Campbell’s general – but not entirely correct premise – I would not discourage anyone from studying his presentation if done while, (1) scrutinizing the Hebrew or Greek words, (2) keeping in mind the context of the rest of the Bible, and (3) taking into account the meaning of Hebrew idioms, of which many people don’t have the slightest clue as to whether the text is literal or figurative.
Here once again, Clifton shows that it is his desire that his readers actually study behind him, rather than merely taking for granted what he is saying. This is how, as it says in the Proverbs, we “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.” So Clifton also studied behind Campbell, checking out his assertions, and found that they were not entirely true. Even a pastor must accept correction when he is found to be wrong, and if we fail to correct any man, we ourselves become followers of men, rather than being followers of God. Clifton continues to explain the process that he himself went through:
After I had listened intently to Campbell’s spoken presentation on this subject, I was very pleased, as it was much in line with my own findings. I was excited to the point that I decided to write my own paper on the topic, hoping to find even more evidence in Holy Writ to display just who these “beasts of the field” are.
However, I was not about to write a single word until I had checked all of the references which Campbell cited, along with the key words of those citations, whether Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. It is hard for me to describe how disappointed I was when Campbell, in almost every instance, identified the wrong Hebrew word, and in many cases his definitions didn’t match the word he cited. While consulting with my numerous lexicons and realizing his many inconsistencies, I asked within myself, “What kind of Bible lexicon does this man use?” To say the least, I put my goal for writing a composition on “the beast of the field” on the back burner until I had done some serious contemplation, and I was better prepared!
What Clifton describes here should be practiced by all Identity Christian pastors and writers, and we would all be a lot better off for it. But rather, too many so-called Identity pastors take something they read which sounds good to them, and they run with it without ever checking out the veracity of it. Then when they are criticized, instead of repenting they defend themselves and dig themselves into an even deeper hole. This is one significant reason why we cannot all get along.
Continuing with Clifton:
In order to understand this sixth paper, it would be advisable for the reader to get copies of the first five, especially part #1, as the first one is where I addressed the problems with Campbell’s contribution to this topic. He telegraphed the origin of his sources where on a couple of occasions, he spelled out the individual alphabetical letters of “cheva”, or c-h-e-v-a, and “behema”, or b-e-h-e-m-a.
Here Clifton informs us that Campbell’s spelling of the transliterations of these Hebrew words are not the spellings found in the traditional sources, such as Gesenius’ Lexicon or Strong’s Concordance. Therefore, if an older document espousing the same ideas and using those same odd spellings can be identified, that is very likely to be the source for the error which Campbell repeated. So Clifton continues:
As it turned out, a very shrewd lady in the United Kingdom caught this – whom I will not name as material like this is not entirely safe to mention over there – sent me an e-mail stating:
“In your paper Beast of the Field Part 1, when you wonder where Alan Campbell obtained his information from, I think I have the answer.
“In Nord Davis’ Star Wars series, Lesson Six, written I think before Alan Campbell’s sermon, he too spells bhema ‘behema’ and makes the identical mistakes which Alan Campbell makes. Too much of a coincidence?
“This is pure speculation on my part and there could be an earlier source, of course. Anyway, it gives me the opportunity of saying how excellent the Beast of the Field papers are and enjoyable.
“Also, I am pleased you undertook the exposure of Ron Wyatt. I always thought his claims were such rubbish that I never bothered to look into the subject. However, now I have useful ammunition for which I am grateful.”
Going back to 2010 and 2011, when Clifton published these papers, during this same time the great impersonator Eli James, whose real name is Joseph November, had been promoting the claims of both of these sources – Nord Davis’ Star Wars series and the fraudulent pretend archaeologist Ron Wyatt. With all certainty, Eli is one of those who latch onto information because it suits their own agenda, and runs with it regardless of whether or not it is true. Years ago, while I was still in prison, a friend sent me a copy of Davis’ Star Wars series, and I found it to be full of inaccuracies, and even some outright lies concerning ancient and Biblical history, which fit Davis’ own agenda at the time, which was wholly political.
Continuing again with Clifton:
After looking into this evidence sent to me, I also believe it is too much of a coincidence! Upon contemplating the matter further, I returned an e-mail answer back to this very astute lady in the United Kingdom, stating:
“Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I did a search on the Internet for the words ‘behemeh’ and ‘chay’, and sure enough these words brought up Nord Davis’ Star Wars. I have an original printing press hard copy of Davis’ Star Wars lessons 1 through 15. In lesson #6, Davis made a major error by making the assumption that both ‘behemeh’ and ‘chay’ had essentially the same meaning. I also found out that ‘behemeh’ had another spelling, ‘behemah’. Interestingly, the Internet took me to Eli James’ website in my search. It is quite clear now that Eli has a lot more confidence in the late Nord Davis’ ability than in me. But that is the way things go!, Clifton”
I too know this woman in Britain of whom Clifton speaks, and she continues to be a dear friend and of great value to our ministry. However neither can I name her, as Clifton said, because it is not safe for British subjects to be involved in our Christian Identity cause.
In lesson six of his Star Wars, [on] page 46, Nord stated:
“Here you see that these Beasts are described as having hands, not paws or hooves. The context, if you will examine it, indicates that these Beasts of the earth would be aware of man’s origin, made in God’s Image, and therefore could be commanded to abstain from murder or forfeit his life. Such a Beast would have to have sufficient intellect to be morally responsible for his actions. As we have stated in the Footlight [of lesson five], the best word for these Negro people would be Chay, Strong’s Hebrew word #2416. However, a more generic word for Beast, used in Exodus 19:11-13 and 23:10-11 are from the Hebrew word behemah, Strong’s Hebrew word #929, and discuss Beasts which eat grapes and olives. No farmer in his right mind would turn their cattle, sheep and horses into their vineyards and among their olive trees to trample and destroy them. So, these behemah Beasts can also refer to mankind who are not of the Adamic race. If you ask your pastor, he will probably tell you that the Beasts of the field are domesticated animals, but none of these are flesh-eating animals. Yet, as stated in 1 Samuel 17:42-44, and 2 Samuel 21:10, the Beast of the field is a cannibal, a man-eater.”
Here Davis’ Biblical interpretation is basically childish. Both passages in Samuel mention birds of the air and beasts of the field togather, so if the birds are literal birds, the beasts are literal four-footed beasts which are also carnivores, canines and felines and other flesh-eating animals.
In 1 Samuel 17 Goliath is speaking to David, and we read: “44 And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field.” Then in 2 Samuel 21 we read: “10 And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.”
There is no record of large numbers of negros wandering around Palestine and sleeping on people’s blankets at night, or eating those fallen in battle. Nord Davis is clearly a contriver of tales which suit his lies about the use of these words.
To his credit, Nord Davis at least mentioned the term behemah, which I do not remember Allen Campbell mentioning in his own Beast of the Field presentation. But he also denies that behemah refers to domesticated animals, when many times in Scripture it can refer to nothing but domesticated animals, as Clifton has studiously demonstrated in the earlier parts of this series. Now Clifton responds and says:
Here Nord introduces the Hebrew terms “chay” and “behemah”, but in lesson five under the heading “Footlights”, [on] page 45, he attempts to merge the meanings of these two words to mean the same thing, so read his following words very carefully:
“You cannot get that understanding from studying Strong’s Concordance. James Strong was a contemporary of Cyrus Scofield, preparing his concordance in the late 1800’s. He apparently based his lexicon upon the misleading King James which he took as an infallible standard. Another modern authority used by Bible students is Vine’s Expository. William E. Vine was born in 1873 and did his work during the Scofield revolution. The problem I have as a teacher presenting the great overview of Scripture, and suggesting word meanings, is that the doubting student quickly goes to some of these ‘authorities’ and from their work properly questions the thesis and thrust of my teachings. We make no apologies. The very fact that these ‘authorities’ are sold on the same shelves as the Scofield Reference Bible should tell you something. I will present more examples as we go along, but here is one that we will be using in the next Lesson [#6]. I want you to look at Jonah 3:8. It is written in my King James:
We can indeed question the definitions provided by mainstream Bible dictionaries and lexicons, as they are often infected with Judaized church doctrines. But if we do so, we need solid literary evidence from a time at least closely contemporary to the writing that we question. Saying “Oh, he wrote at the same time as Scofield” is certainly not evidence enough to dispute the alleged meaning of a term. The evidence must be original to the language in question, and based on actual literature and the use of the term, or related terms, from the period in question. Clifton continues with his citation of Davis’ commentary on Jonah 3:8:
“‘But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let every one turn from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.’
“Here, this beast is going an evil way; he has hands, and is supposed to put on sackcloth and ashes, and to cry mightily unto God. The word for beast here is Strong’s word #929, behemah. Strong’s says that this is a ‘large four-legged animal.’ Vine’s Expository defines it the same way. Young’s Concordance also says the same thing. Therefore, I suppose we must believe that the beasts in Jonah 3:8 must be knowledgeably sinful cows which have hands and can cry mightily unto the Lord wearing sackcloth and ashes. Nonsense! The original Paleo-Hebrew word here could be interpreted as a large animal of either the two or four-legged variety. In this case, because these beasts have hands, are
sinners [sic, evildoers] cover themselves with sackcloth and ashes, and cry unto the Lord, they must be men which are identified elsewhere in Scripture as one of the various versions of beast such as chay, chevah, cheyva.; and cheveh. The true Biblical meaning of beast, whether as behemeh or chay, being a nonwhite person, has been deliberately hidden from us in Scofield-type reference materials. Isn’t that interesting? We see the plague of ‘boils’ on man and beast in Exodus 11:9 because of sin. We see that the beasts of Exodus 19:14-15 should not let their hands touch the mountain or they would die. Exodus 22:19 states that those who have sex with a beast are to be executed. Jeremiah, in Chapter 31 at verse 27, states that the sin of the last days will be that Adam’s children will mix their seed with that of the beasts. That is going on all across America and the churches do not preach against it. Exodus 23:29 shows concern that the beasts would multiply against God’s Israel people. We find that the behemah, translated beasts, in Zechariah 8:10 are unemployed. These beasts cannot find jobs to do, and so forth. One of the judgments of God for ignoring His Laws, Statutes and Judgments, is that His Word would be hidden from you. This is how it has been done.”
Now, in 2011 Clifton did not quite agree with me on the interpretation of this passage of Jonah, or perhaps he had not yet heard it because I did not do a commentary on Jonah until December of that year. This is what I said at that time, in reference to Jonah 3:7-9, and where I mention a “universalist pastor” I am once again referring to Eli James:
The king of Assyria, once he heard Jonah's warning, evidently took it to heart, and issued a proclamation demanding that his entire kingdom repent from any and all wickedness. We see that the proclamation of the king was made for both man and beast, but also herds and flocks. It was also commanded that both man and beast wear sackcloth as a sign of repentance. These are general statements indicative of the gravity of the situation and the king's order: that no matter your station or position in the empire, you had better heed the king's order.
As the historian Herodotus and others often relate, in Mesopotamia transgression against authority was treated very seriously, and justice dispensed harshly. Citizens who crossed their rulers often lost their noses and ears, and were then released back into society in disgrace. Crucifixion was a common form of execution. If a man betrayed his nation, quite often his entire village and all of his kin were exterminated in vengeance. Therefore such proclamations as this by the king were taken very seriously.
While it cannot be proven that the king of Assyria distinguished Adamic men in his empire from those of non-Adamic or mixed racial lineage by this order that “man and beast” wear sackcloth, it really does not matter. Neither does it really matter, as some would assert, that beasts repent. What does matter, is that the people of the land are not tempted into sin, and therefore everyone in the land must follow the same laws. For this reason, Yahweh commanded that even the strangers in Israel must obey the Sabbath. In Exodus 20:10 it says “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." [Note that cattle, or behemah, are distinguished from the stranger.] Of course, this does not mean that the cattle, or the stranger, are under the covenants, or that they are somehow “saved” and go to “heaven” because they were compelled to obey the Sabbath. Rather, it only assures that the children of Israel would not be tempted into defiling the Sabbath, if aliens were permitted to work within the environs of their habitations. It is quite certain that most of the people of the Assyrian empire, and especially of Assyria itself, where indeed White Adamic people. For they sprung from Asshur, the son of Shem and brother of Arphaxad who was the ancestor of the sons of Aram and Eber, the original White Syrians and Hebrews. However there was a population of Hittites and Amorites and others of the mixed Kenite and Canaanite peoples living within the bounds of the empire, and certainly also in its capital city.
A certain universalist so-called pastor recently made the assertion, that because beasts were ordered to repent of their sin by the king of Assyria, that means that at the end of days beasts would be judged by God, based upon their good or bad behavior, and rewarded accordingly in His kingdom! Yet those promises are made not to beasts anywhere in Scripture, but only to our Adamic race. Such thinking or total lack of thinking on the part of the universalist is absolutely disgraceful, and betrays a motive which is absolutely contrary to both Scripture and to our national well-being. We must be careful, when creating doctrines from Scripture, to assess not only what is being spoken, but also who the speaker is, what the context is, and who it is being spoken to. The Bible contains both the words and ideas of men, and the Word and intentions of God. We must be able to divide the Word correctly.
Of course, Jonah 3:7-10 express the ideas of a pagan king, and not of God, so we cannot formulate any doctrine from them. Furthermore, as we noted, Davis overlooks the command of the king concerning herds and flocks, so the beasts he makes reference to certainly can be four-legged animals. Finally, of all the thousands of Assyrian inscriptions which have been discovered and deciphered by archaeologists, apparently not one of them makes any distinction between races of men such as Davis insists upon here. But Clifton, not having yet heard what I would say about this passage, agreed in principle with Davis, although not in detail.
So continuing with Clifton, where he responds to what Nord Davis said about Jonah 3:7-10:
Like I said about Allen Campbell, I have no problem with Campbell’s premise, but the Hebrew words simply don’t support all of his conclusions. Likewise with Nord Davis, and it should be noted that Campbell followed Nord Davis’ references, and commented, in some cases, almost word for word! Hence, this is more evidence that Campbell was following Davis’ outline, making the same errors that Nord made.
You should have observed here that Davis said: “The true Biblical meaning of beast, whether as behemeh or chay, being a nonwhite person, has been deliberately hidden from us ...”
This is also the error which Eli James followed. Just because, at some point late in Scripture, a word for beast may be used to describe people, that does not mean that the beasts created by Yahweh in Genesis were people! To look at this another way, just because Christ called the Canaanite woman a dog in Matthew chapter 15 does not mean that the dogs who ate the flesh of Jezebel were really Canaanites! Rather, the word beast was on occasion used idiomatically, as a pejorative, to refer to people, as many other Hebrew terms also were used at various times in Scripture. While chay can refer to any living creature depending upon the context in which it is used, it identifies no particular creature precisely, and behemah generally refers to beasts of burden and other large creatures. But neither of these terms is a biological label for people of any sort.
Clifton continues, and will eventually repudiate the lie that Davis had espoused here:
Then in lesson #6, [on] page 46, Nord states in part: “... I want to direct your attention to the Book of Beginnings, Genesis. Here we will also find out about the beginnings of that Great Star Wars of Scripture. Read again Genesis, Chapter 1:25:
“‘...And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.’
“Please note that the Beast rendered above is singular. It does not say Beasts, as it might if the Word was speaking of elephants, lions or tigers. Note the his and their in the text. The remainder of this text refers to all of these other animals of creation. This Beast is a different creature, and the Hebrew word for him is Chay. While there are several variations of this word, Chay, we will use Chay for this race of non-white people mentioned throughout Scripture in these lessons but let the student realize that I am aware of the variations. Chay is a Beast having hands and feet, one who is described as from a ‘lively troop,’ and who works as a servant, etc.”
Davis’ argument here that the beast of Genesis 1:25 is singular is dishonest. In Genesis 1:26, the word man is also singular, yet referring to man as “male and female” and as “them” using a plural pronoun, we see that the singular noun man refers to a collective plural entity. So it is with beast in verse 25. Furthermore, the early 17th century English of the King James Version often has a masculine pronoun where today we would expect the neuter form of pronoun, or its rather than his.
Clifton continues from another perspective:
Contrary to Nord Davis, at Genesis 1:25, “chay” does not support the rendering of “non-white people”. Charles Thomson in his The Septuagint, translates [Genesis chapter 1,] verses 24-25 thusly:
“ Then God said, ‘Let the earth produce animal life according to kind; four-footed beasts and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to kind.’ And it was so.  God indeed made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to kind. And God saw that they were good.”
Thomson was writing in late 18th-century English, which is often closer to what we expect today than the archaic English of the King James Version. Now Clifton notices this, and also comments on Thomson’s understanding of the Greek words which were used to represent those Hebrew words for beasts:
Notice the word “his” is not there! Notice also, “their” in this rendering is used for both “beast” and “cattle”! Rather the word “chay”, or the word “behemah” (normally four-footed cattle), is used secondarily as an idiom for “nonwhite people”! Until one comprehends that the nonwhites are half-members of a primate family such as apes, one will not grasp that a negro or mongol fall into the category of “behemah”, Strong’s #929!
A good example of four-footed/quadrupeds #929, “behemah” being idiomatic of the nonwhite races is found at Leviticus 20:15-16: “15 And if a man lie with a beast , he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast . 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast , and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast : they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
I would not think that passage from Leviticus is exclusively referring to non-White hominids, but non-White hominids would certainly fall into that same category, since they are not truly “people”, and certainly not of Adam. Instead, the passage refers to them and to any other animal regardless of how many legs it has. Both men and women have been performing sexual acts with four-legged beasts since time began. Again, returning to Clifton:
This race-mixing is referred to as “eating sour grapes” at Jeremiah 31:29; Ezekiel 18:2 & Hosea 4:18, which the King James Version [renders] in part, “Their drink is sour: they have committed whoredom ...”, while Thomson’s Septuagint says, “They addicted themselves to the Canaanites ...”. This is evidence that the term #929, “behemah”, can be, and often is an idiom!
Actually, Clifton probably did not notice, or Thomson did not inform him, that the order of chapters in Jeremiah differs from the Masoretic-based versions, such as the King James, and the Septuagint. In the Septuagint, Jeremiah 31:29 is found at Jeremiah 38:29, which Brenton renders to say: “In those days they shall certainly not say, The fathers ate a sour grape, and the children's teeth were set on edge.” [Clifton’s copy of Thomson’s Septuagint is among the few hundred books which I have not yet moved to our new home. Perhaps I will remember to make a note of this next week when presenting Part 7 of this series.]
Clifton continues speaking of Nord Davis’ error, from the viewpoint of our own research in apocryphal literature and our unique perspective on the other races, which is admittedly, after 15 years since we came to these conclusions, still relatively new in Christian Identity circles:
Evidently, Nord was not aware of new evidence, such as from The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation © 1996 by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 and 6: “1 [... two hundred] 2 donkeys, two hundred asses, two hund[red ... rams of the] 3 flock, two hundred goats, two hundred [... beast of the] 4 field from every animal, from every [bird ...] 5 [...] for miscegenation [...]”. Here, “miscegenation” implies the mixing of angel-kind with animal-kind, and one’s eyes are not lying to himself, for if it looks like an ape, chances are it is some relation to the ape family, and does not fall into the category of “good” or “very good!”
Clifton first learned of and published this passage when he published my essay, The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4, in his Watchman's Teaching Letter #114, while I was still in prison in October 2007. Of course, we believe that the other races resulted from these sins of the fallen angels, and we provide many Biblical passages which help establish the veracity of that assertion. Now Clifton continues speaking of Nord Davis, who could not have had the perspective which we have on the non-White races most likely because he did not have the source information which we were able to study, and he says:
While I have a lot of respect for Nord Davis, there is another area where I have a problem with his teachings. I have his 64 page 1990 8½x11 inch format booklet, Desert Shield. In it he promotes king Hussein of Jordan as being a pure-blooded Shemite, but his own words betray him on page 54 thusly:
“King Hussein is one man who represents two different entities [I would rather believe that he is a crypto-Jew - WRF]. First, he is the acknowledged Royal Arab King over the lands and kingdoms of the sons of Joktan and the Queen of Sheba. Thus, he has the right and the duty to speak prophetically for the Queen of the South. Second, he is descended from both Father Abraham and Islam’s Prophet, Muhammad. Thus, he has the right and the duty to speak for the Christian Arabs, the ancient seed of Jacob living in the Middle East.”
Clifton is about to go on a long digression, rightfully taking offense at this remark. But British-Israel as a whole, and many early Christian Identity pastors and teachers repeat the errant assertion that the Arabs are of Ishmael to this very day. In truth, many of the Arabs are in part from Ishmael, and in smaller part from other Shemitic tribes which Scripture describes as having dwelt in the land later identified as Arabia. But they are all just as much, if not more, descended from the Canaanites and Edomites and other accursed tribes of antiquity, for which reason they have been called Arab for several thousand years. If Nord Davis and others did some research on that word, they may have discovered that arab is from a Hebrew term which means mixed, which in turn comes from a Hebrew verb which means to grow dark, and the only way White people become dark with any degree of permanency is to mix themselves with the non-White races! Where it says “mixed multitude” in Exodus 12:38 and in Nehemiah 13:3, passages which with all certainty refer to people of diverse tribes or races, the word for mixed is ereb, Strong’s # 6154, which Strong’s pronounces as ay-reb, the ultimate source of our word Arab. Every Arab is a bastard, without exception, and no bastard can claim to have a birth of distinction in the eyes of our Christian God. So Clifton continues with astonishment:
“Christian Arabs”! Really? In my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #55, I researched the racial background of Mohammed, and came up with the following:
“Probably one of the more important aspects we should consider about Mohammed is that, reportedly among some authors, his mother was a ‘Jewess.’ If that account is true, apparently we have an added element to the equation. Once that added detail is brought to light, we can better understand his satanic motivated aspirations. Conceivably, he had the “seed of the serpent” flowing in his veins. With this added data, we can begin to acquire an idea of what Mohammed was all about. Before we get into the story of his escapades, let’s document this apparent “Jewish” connection. For this, we will use Alzog’s Universal Church History, © 1902, volume 2, page 192:
“Mohammed, who was the only son of Abdallah, a Pagan, and Amina, a Jewess, and was descended from the noble but impoverished family of Hashim, of the priestly tribe of Koreish, who were the chiefs and keepers of the national sanctuary of the Kaaba, and pretended to trace their origin to Ismael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, was born at Mecca, August 20, A.D. 570 .…
The Kaaba, a large cube-shaped black granite construction, houses a black stone, apparently a meteorite which had fallen in the desert and which the arab bastards are prone to worshiping, believing it to be the house of their god. They make pilgrimages from around the world in order to pay homage to this rock, which all Muslims are required to make at least once during their lifetime, or perhaps they will be deprived of their seventy five virgins. Clifton continues with evidence that this Mohamed character was really a Jew:
“The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, vol. 5, page 205 (speaking of his grandfather and father), although debated, also witnesses to this: ‘The glory of Abdol Motalleb was crowned with domestic happiness; his life was prolonged to the age of one hundred and ten years; and he became the father of six daughters and thirteen sons. His best beloved Abdallah was the most beautiful and modest of the Arabian youth; and in the first night, when he consummated his marriage with Amina, of the noble race of the Zahrites, two hundred virgins are said to have expired of jealousy and despair. Mahomet, or more properly Mohammed, the only son of Abdallah and Amina, was born at Mecca, four years after the death of Justinian, and two months after the defeat of the Abyssinians, whose victory would have introduced into the Caaba the religion of the Christians ...’ Then, in a footnote on page 205 we read this: ‘Amina was of Jewish birth.’ [citing] Von Hammer, Geschichte der Assassin [which is The History of the Assassins], p. 10 ...”
Finished with his historical citations, Clifton now comments:
I must now make known some little-known-facts concerning traditional arab beliefs; about half of them claim descent from Ishmael while the other half claim descent from Joktan, who is recorded as being the brother of Peleg, (first mentioned at Gen. 10:25), an ancestor of Abraham. Like most poorly informed Christians, I was aware of the Ishmael connection but totally oblivious to that of Joktan. I first gained the information on Joktan by reading some of Nord Davis’ literature. I then discovered that Nord was correct when I found the same data about Joktan (Yoktan) in The History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz, vol. 3, pp. 60-63. Since these two finds, I have found many references to Joktan being the father of the arab people. But it is parallel to a similar claim by the bad-fig-jews to be Israelites. It is evident that alien peoples dwelt in and/or moved into the geographic area which the descendants of Joktan once occupied, in what is now southern Arabia, and have absorbed – or been absorbed by – Joktan’s descendants, claiming Joktan’s heritage. Of course, it cannot be told whether Joktan’s descendants did themselves, through raids, pillage and rape, gradually absorb the genetics of various alien peoples, or whether they were victims of such. The Sabeans, as recorded at Job, were descendants of Joktan, who was a White man, but one can read in Job the pillage they did of Job’s possessions. In those ancient times, usually rape was part of the plunder. All we know today is that the arabs are NOT White, so it is glaringly apparent that something drastic happened to their genetic makeup along the line somewhere.” Nord Davis said the following in his 1990 booklet Desert Shield on page 49:
“My teacher’s historical panorama of Arabia, with its people descending from Shem through Joktan, the brother of Peleg, began to open the eyes of those who make a study of racial backgrounds and peoples.
“About three years ago, my friend made a whirlwind tour of America, speaking to 50 groups in 36 states telling these Christian Americans the story of Joktan, and the Queen of Sheba. One of his stops was at Northpoint Team headquarters here in the Smoky Mountains. He spoke to us regarding the urgency of getting a pro-Arab public relations effort going to prevent the upcoming war in the Middle East.”
The Smoky Mountains are probably our favorite place in the whole world, and if anyone from that area wants to hear me straighten out Nord Davis’ errors on the arabs in person, we would be glad to visit! All kidding aside, Clifton continues:
About six years after this publication, Nord died of cancer. [Davis died in 1997, the same year I was introduced to Christian Identity and a year before Clifton began his ministry - WRF] Nord was a tremendously gifted Two Seedline Bible teacher, but I have often wondered whether or not Yahweh took him home to prevent his involvement with the multi-breed arabs. I will now cite the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica under the topic “Arabia” and subtopic “Origins of Koreysh”, where one of the editors scoffingly remarked:
“In this assembly the immediate local proximity of the Koreysh chiefs, joined to their personal wealth, courage, and address, assigned them a predominant position.
“Of their pedigree, which, as is well known, includes that of Mahomet himself, we have a carefully – too carefully, indeed, for authenticity – constructed chronicle, bringing the family tree up in due form to Ishmael, the son of Abraham, of whom the Koreysh figure as the direct descendants. In the same artificial annals the Yemenite or genuine Arabs appear under the cousinly character of the children of Joktan, the son of Heber. On these points all Mahometan annalists are equally positive and distinct; all other Arab testimony equally adverse or silent. That a fable so utterly defiant of reasonable chronology, and even of the common sense of history itself, should have been adopted as matter of fact by Arab vanity and ignorance, is less surprising than that it should have found favor in the eyes of not a few, indeed of most, of our own European writers.”
In truth, Mohammad was a Jew, his scribes were Jews, and Islam was developed in order to militarize the masses of Arab bastards as canon fodder for Jewish wars against the Byzantine empire, the White Christian world of the time. Today they are still used as fuel in the Jewish war against Christ and Christianity, perhaps even more successfully than they had been thus used in the past.
But the more important lesson is this: Nord Davis purposely confounded the meanings of words to make us believe in many places that the Bible was discussing beasts that were “people”, and that they were also the beasts which Yahweh God created. In turn, Allen Campbell and many other Christian Identity teachers took his allegations for granted, errantly believing that they were true. In truth, many presumed people may actually be beasts, but Yahweh God did not create them. To believe so is to lead our White race into a multitude of errors, some of them very costly indeed.