How to Read the Bible posted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 04/09/2013 – 12:24
How to Read the Bible
By Pastor Eli James
Introduction
“For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, MY KINSMEN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, WHO ARE ISRAELITES, to whom pertains the adoption [placement as sons or heirs] and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” – Romans 9:3-4.
I am often asked the question, “Which is the best version of the Bible for Identity believers?” To this question, I have replied: “All ancient and modern translations suffer from two main problems: Jewish deceit and Roman Catholic meddling.” Catholicism has always been a universalist doctrine; and this policy of universalism began to be established, “ordained” by the translations of Jerome and institutionalized by his successors. Even before Jerome, the teachings of Paul were butchered by an enthusiastic religious zealot and self-promoter named Simon Magus, a universalist deceiver if there ever was one! In short, the writings of Paul have been misrepresented by many agents, all of whom were working either for themselves or for the Anti-Christ. It is, in fact, fair to say that all of these universalistic doctrines are outright invention, complete fabrication by the translators, who, by a process of editing by translation, have made the Word of God of none effect. These catholic doctrines are not contained in the original autographs of either the Hebrew prophets or the Christian disciples.
It has been stated by many commentators that Paul “reinvented” Christianity. I submit that this statement is absolutely false. It was, in fact, his translators, false interpreters and false promoters, who reinvented Christianity. And, if Christianity was REINVENTED, then it behooves us to understand why and by whom it was reinvented!!! If the original writings are not understood, then the REINVENTION cannot be understood either. In many cases, the changes are blatant; but most of them are very subtle, noticeable only to the most assiduous scholars, who, like private detectives, leave no suspicious stone unturned.
While the early Catholics were busy reinventing the New Testament, the Jews were busy reinventing the Old Testament. The Jewish scribes who began that process were the Masoretes, who produced an edited Hebrew version of the Old Testament, the Masoretic Text, which, unfortunately, became the basis of the King James translation of the Old Testament.
Between these two diabolical sources (Jewish and Catholic), they have infected Scripture with their distortions, license, mistranslations, additions, subtractions, and outright invention. Worse yet, by virtue of an assumed authority over Scripture, not appointed by Yahweh God, the Bible has become a mumble and jumble of perplexing, often contradictory terms and doctrines, having no legitimate basis or conception in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. By redefining words and by inventing “history” that never happened, Catholicism and Judaism have created false contexts for Scripture. Add to this malaise the fanciful, modernist misinterpretations of Evangelical Christianity, and – Voila! – we have discovered the Great Apostasy, which was also prophesied by Paul in 2 Thes. 2. This collection of false priests and false religion is also referred to as the “False Prophet” in the Book of Revelation.
Of course, none of these misguided groups will ever admit that they are preaching apostasy; but they most assuredly are, for they totally misrepresent what Paul said in Romans 9:3-4 (just quoted above), and just about everywhere else in the New Testament. In that passage, Paul clearly teaches that the Ordination/Placement/”Adoption,” the Covenants, the Giving of the Mosaic Law, and the GLORY are given to flesh and blood Israelites. No other people are mentioned. As will be demonstrated later, True Israel’s commission is to set a national example for the heathen nations. This national message has been distorted into the “Gospel of Personal Salvation,” with its focus on “evangelizing” individuals of all races.
Both the Jewish rabbinate and the Roman Catholic Church have responded enthusiastically to the lesser god of universalism. Both have been motivated by rigid dogma coupled with this agenda. It goes without saying that neither priesthood encourages questions or criticism. Rather than deal in open discussion, both religions have practiced excommunication of critics. In the case of Judaism, the double standard of Jewish religio-cultural exclusivism for themselves is contrasted with their doctrine of multiculturalism for the non-Jewish masses. While actively promoting this multiculturalism and racial integration for Whites, the Jews have declared themselves to be EXEMPT from the very amalgamation that they wish to force upon others! According to them, everything else, including your culture and mine, is subject to change and, furthermore, needs to be changed according to Jewish “values,” while Jewish religion and culture must be preserved for eternity, as the Jews see fit! In other words, the Jews reserve the right to butt into our business, while they cry foul if we dare to even criticize their own ideas and tactics. Now, isn’t that just a bit self-serving? Yet, few Catholics or Protestants dare to criticize this self-serving theology! “For fear of the Jews!” (John 7:13, 9:22, 19:38, 20:19.) And for fear of being called an “anti-Semite”!
Few scholars have ever bothered to analyze or appreciate this double standard. It was with purpose and intent that this double standard was built into the “Chosen People” philosophy, as practiced by the Jews. It is, in fact, hypocrisy personified in the rabbis. “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Luke 12:1.) But Christian Zionists pay no heed to this Scriptural statement, and the many other statements throughout the New Testament, which condemn Judaism (the religion of the Pharisees) as the religion of the Synagogue of Satan. (Rev. 2:9, 3:9.) Following the lead of their various denominations, the Judeo-Christians typically refuse to acknowledge Bible verses that contradict the rigid dogma that has been so cynically and masterfully fed to them.
The Priests of Apostasy
“After the 5th Century AD, when the Bible was compiled by the Ancient Church of the East, theologians in Urhai, the serious distortion of the Scriptures began. The Roman church drove out the Ancient Aramaic theologians, who were the masters of the language. The Ancient church of the East thrived in Persia, under the protection of certain Zoroastrian kings and they spread the Gospel to the East. They went to India and China and built many churches. To this day there can be found the inscriptions in the Ancient Aramaic language all along the path the missionaries of this church travelled.
Now that I’m translating the Old Testament, I’ve discovered that the distortions of the Scriptures by the modern churches have been consistent and deliberate. I asked myself why it is that the Jewish theologians didn’t maintain the Ancient Aramaic Scriptures more faithfully? –
“The Distortion of the Scriptures,” by Vic Alexander.
Mr. Alexander’s question gets to the heart of the problems with the King James and other versions: Jewish and Catholic distortion of the Scriptures.
Like the Pharisees, the Roman Catholic Church used a well-educated priesthood to manipulate an illiterate and superstitious populace. In both cases, the priesthood exploited and still exploits the people by inventing doctrine that is not found in Scripture.
Worse still, the priesthoods of modern Protestantism have borrowed very liberally from both of these false traditions. The Fundamentalists and Evangelicals rival the rabbis and the Catholic theologians with their wholesale invention of doctrine, plus their far-fetched, modernistic interpretations of Scripture, with equally disastrous results. The “Rapture Theory,” “Born Again,” and “Once saved, always saved” doctrines are three examples. Another is the “God loves everyone” doctrine. I would ask these same people, “Does God love Satan?” Or does God intend to make an END of Satan? Does Jesus love everybody, or does He intend to cut evildoers asunder? The Bible teaches the latter, not the former. If God “loves everyone,” would someone please explain these verses to me: Mal. 4:1; Matt. 15:13-14; Luke 12:51, 19:27; John 17:9; Acts 3:23; 2 Peter 3:7; 1 John 2:15?
Thanks to these three priesthoods (Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and modern Protestantism the three “unclean spirits” of Revelation 16:13?), the Bible has been turned up-side-down, from a record of the exploits and promises Yahweh made exclusively to His People, Israel, into a self-serving, priesthood-empowering manual for people control, a template for religious tyranny. The pew occupants are none the wiser, mistaking this iniquity for the “will of God.” The sheep eat the sweetened poison that the false shepherds feed them, and they relish the sweet-tasting lies. Believing themselves to be spiritual, righteous, and wise, they hypnotically return every “Sabbath” for more religious entertainment.
Given the liberal flow of slithery sweet talk coming from the rabbis and pulpitmasters, the pew occupants have become nothing more than lobotomized sheeple, drifting along with the latest anti-Biblical fads and trends of the clergy.
“Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ; and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them.” (Luke 21:8.)
Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing! Despite the fact that the New Testament issues repeated warnings about the deceiver-priests, the Judeo pulpit rarely quotes such passages. Even more scarce is the exegesis of such passages. The reason for this is obvious. The modern apostates are the very deceivers that have been prophesied to appear in these End Times.
The purpose of this essay is to explain some of the most common errors of translation, so that the reader can take this information and apply it to the KJV, in order to correct these errors of translation and get the proper sense of questionable passages. Until a more accurate translation of the Bible becomes available, I am providing here a set of guidelines for avoiding the greatest pitfalls.
The Westminster Confession of Faith
“Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures.” – Augustine of Hippo.
The Westminster Confession, composed in 1646, is a very detailed document explaining the principles of Protestantism. The relevant portion for our study is Chapter 1, Paragraph VIII:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
Paragraph 8 is very clear in telling us that, when controversies arise about the true meaning of certain verses, we are to appeal to the original languages for a resolution of the controversy. Implicit in the above statement is the idea that the KJV is not inerrant. The WC declares that the original languages are authentic, not any particular translations. It is interesting that, except for certain independent theologians, the Judeo churches rarely employ this test. Only in Christian Identity is this test used on a regular basis. Identity theologians, such as Dr. Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet, Howard B. Rand and Arnold Kennedy routinely use this rule to demonstrate that the KJV has been badly translated. I have dubbed this technique as the Word Study Method. By using the Word Study Method, we can determine whether a particular word has been correctly translated or not. Having employed this technique in my own writings now for thirty years, I can say that I have uncovered hundreds of bad translations simply by referring to the original meanings of words in the Hebrew and Greek. With this simple technique, which any Christian can perform with a Strong’s Concordance, we will now examine the most common errors of translation from the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament.
Problems in the Old Testament
The translational problems in the Old Testament are not as many as in the New Testament. Essentially, about a dozen or so words have been either redefined or misrepresented to make the Jewish people seem to be the Israel of Yahweh. Once these few terms are understood in their Hebrew context, the Old Testament is quite easy to decipher. It is just a matter of replacing a few bad definitions with the correct ones. The words that require discussion are listed below. Just like the word gay’ used to mean happy, today it means an unhappy homosexual.
Distorted Hebrew Terms
For the purpose of unraveling the deceitful prose of the Masoretic Text, as translated in the KJV and other versions, a few common terms must be analyzed. In every case, we will find that if we stick to the actual Hebrew meanings of the words, the confusion contained in the translations falls away. In the case of the Old Testament, the list of systemically mistranslated words is actually quite short, although the occurrence of these words is quite large.
LORD. The English word, LORD, is translated from the Hebrew word YHWH. This word should never have been translated into an English word at all. It is commonly accepted translational practice that proper names in the source language are never translated. At best, such proper names are transliterated, meaning that they are spelled out in the new language so as to phonetically represent the same sounds as in the source language.
For example, the name of Giuseppe Verdi, the Italian composer of operas, is never translated as Joe Green, especially when the discussion is about classical composers. There is no reason to translate his name, because we don’t want to confuse Giuseppe Verdi with someone else, such as Joe Green, the football player. Since Verdi was an Italian, we retain the Italian spelling and pronunciation of his name to make it exactly clear of whom we are speaking.
The only reason for changing YHWH to LORD is that the Jewish rabbis have invented their own law, by which they claim that the Name of Yahweh should not be written or pronounced. Since the Psalms repeatedly say that we should honor His Name with song and praises, this Talmudic Jewish tradition should be considered scripturally unfounded and illegitimate, which it is. Yet, the Judeo-Christians never question rabbinical traditions, no matter how anti-Mosaic and unscriptural they are!
Exo. 3:14-16 states that His name is I AM THAT I AM, which is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, YHWH (commonly pronounced Yahweh); and no rabbi has the authority to change Scripture. (Deut. 4:2.) Therefore, whenever the ALL CAPS word LORD is encountered in the Bible, it should be read as YHWH, Yahweh.’
JEW. In the Old Testament, the English word Jew’ is always translated from the Hebrew words Yehud’ or Yehudi.’ Yehud’ is the name of the patriarch, Judah. Yehudi’ is the plural form designating the Judahites of the tribe of Judah. Since the modern Jews of this world are, by their own admission, a mixture of non-Shemitic Edomites and Khazars, plus many other non-Hebrew peoples, it is absurd to say that Jew’ = Judah.’ It would be like saying Turk’ = Deutsch.’ The two ethnicities are fundamentally different and distinct, having no religion or history in common. This means that the modern Jewish people are completely unrelated by race or religion to the Judahites of the Bible. The rabbis of Judaism know this, but it is the main feature of their religious charade of impersonating True Israel, who are, in fact, the Caucasian people.
Consequently, whenever the word Jew’ is encountered in the OT, it should be read as “Judah” or “Judahite,” depending on whether it is a reference to the patriarch or the people of that tribe, who are directly descended from Judah. Knowing this one fact will clear up many dubious passages, especially in the Book of Esther, wherein Esther and Mordecai are clearly identified as Benjamites of the House of Judah (two-tribed House of Judah). This means, unequivocally, that Esther was NOT a Jewess but a Benjamite woman of the House of Judah, a White Aryan Adamic Shemitic Hebrew Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin.
There is never any justification for using the word Jew to designate a Judahite, either in the OT or the NT, since the Old Testament Judahites never used such a nickname to refer to themselves. As long as we give these non-Israelite Jews credit for being something they are not, you will never understand the difference(s) between a Jew and an Israelite/Judahite. If you accept vague definitions for precise designations, you will be hopelessly confused, ad infinitum.
ISRAELITE. Simply put, an Israelite is a direct descendant of Jacob/Israel. All Israelites are racial Adamites, Hebrews, and Shemites, who possess no DNA other than that of Israel on their father’s side and only Adamite DNA on their mother’s side. This is how Scriptural descent is reckoned and recorded in the Bible. No other person can qualify as an Israelite. It is simply a matter of DNA. An Israelite should never be confused with a Jew. Jews are the modern descendants of the Biblical Edomites and Canaanites, plus an even larger non-Israelite mixture (95%) of non-Shemitic Khazars, who converted to Judaism in the year 740 AD.
GENTILE. This word simply has no place in the Bible. Wherever you see this word in Scripture, cross it out. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew goy’ should have been translated as “nation.” In the New Testament, the Greek word, ethnos, almost always refers to the “Israelites of the Dispersion.” That is the literal, historical reference designated by this word in virtually every instance in the New Testament. Depending upon the context, ethnos can also refer to non-Israelite nations, so the passages have to be read very carefully, as the context will always reveal what nations are being discussed.
The primary definition of the Greek word, ethnos, in Strong’s (#1484) is RACE, TRIBE. Following these two correct definitions, we see more Jewish deception at work, where Strong’s has, “spec. a FOREIGN, (NON-JEWISH) ONE (usually, by implic. PAGAN): — Gentile, heathen, nation, people.” This is the same false definition that is given for the Hebrew word, goy.
Obviously, some devious rabbi invented this idea of foreignness and shoehorned it into Strong’s definition. As with the Hebrew goy, the Greek ethnos is primarily a reference to a nation of homogeneous people. The correct designation of the word nation can easily be determined from the context of any Scripture passage under consideration. With the word gentile, we have another instance of Jewish meddling with the Scriptures, causing false definitions and false interpretations to destroy the intended meaning of the author. There is NO WORD IN EITHER THE HEBREW OR THE GREEK LANGUAGE, WHICH MEANS “NON-JEWISH.” The Bible designates Israelites and non-Israelites; but it NEVER designates anyone or any nation as either “Jewish” or “non-Jewish.” If you think it does, then you are one of millions who have been fooled by the various, sloppy translations. More about this in the NT section.
GENERATION. This English word is translated from two different Hebrew words. One is DOR (#1755), which can mean an age or a generation of people living during that age. At Gen. 6:9, the King James Version reads as follows: “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations.” In Gen. 6:9, the word generations’ comes from the Hebrew toledaw, which means “descent.” There is only one possible meaning here: Noah was pure in his genealogy, perfect his RACIAL DESCENT from Adam.
Gen. 5:1. “This is the book of the generations (toledaw, family tree, descendants of) Adam. In the day that God created Adamkind, in the likeness of God (elohim) made He him.”
DNA is like a computer program. Any geneticist will tell you that mutations invariably cause disease and death. DNA is exclusive to every species. DNA replicates its own kind and none other. Wheat seed produces wheat. Corn seed produces corn. If this were not true, farmers would not know what crop to expect. Adamic seed produces more Adamites. Negro seed produces more Negroes. Oriental seed produces more Orientals. That’s how it works. Every scientist knows this. Only when somebody deliberately messes with the genetic programming is there a different result.
The KJV, as translated, makes no distinction between DOR and TOLEDAW, but their meanings in the Hebrew are quite different and important for understanding what is being stated.
SEED. “But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the SEED of Abraham my friend.” (Isa. 41:8.) “Now to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made. He saith NOT and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy SEED which is Christ [anointed, Strong’s #5547].” (Gal. 3:16)
The Hebrew word zerah (seed) is used of Abraham and Israelites repeatedly. It is never used in a spiritual sense. It is always used for physical offspring, descendants, and children in the flesh. Isa. 41:8 clearly states that a SEED, a RACE of people has been chosen. Gal. 3:16 affirms the statement made in Isaiah. Paul goes even further, explaining that only ONE SEED (one particular Race, not many races) has been anointed, and no other race. (The last word, being Christ,’ in the Galatians quote is a poor translation, the KJV translators assuming that the word anointed is a reference to the individual, Christ. The Bible clearly states, hundreds of times, that the Covenants were made to Abraham’s descendants, namely, the children of Israel, in their entirety, not to just one person, Jesus Christ. What Paul is actually saying is that OUR ONE AND ONLY RACIAL SEED is anointed, meaning all Israelites have been dedicated to His service. It is still up to us as individuals to perform as those anointed/predestinated. As translated, the KJV is falsely saying that only Jesus Christ is the recipient of the promises; but that is clearly ridiculous. The Redeemer came to redeem the SEED of Israel, the people of Israel. He did not come to redeem Himself, as this absurd translation implies! As the Sinless One, He had NO NEED of redemption! The Redeemer was promised to the ANOINTED SEED, the children of Israel!) The distortionists use this verse to proclaim that Jesus Christ came to save all “seeds,” by which they mean “all races.” But Paul is actually affirming the exclusivity of Israel. One of the promises made to Abraham’s SEED (direct descendants) was that they would become an innumerable multitude. (Gen. 22:17.) Was Jesus Christ an “innumerable multitude”? This is just another example of how sloppy scholarship and deliberately false translation has made mincemeat of the Bible. Since True Israel has been prophesied to become a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS, every one of us will have the opportunity, as the head of a household of Israelites, to become anointed as a King-Priest.
In the Greek, the word seed is translated from sperma (#4690), the meaning of which should be obvious to everyone. It is not a term that has any spiritual connotations, unless you believe in “spiritual sperm“! Zerah and sperma are biological, genealogical words, having no spiritual connotations whatsoever, proving that the Bible is talking about literal progeny, offspring, NOT “SPIRITUAL Israel.”
Gen. 3:15 represents one of the most important prophecies of the Old Testament. In this verse the devil’s SEED, or offspring, the first in line being Cain, is foreseen as being in constant ENMITY with Eve’s SEED, or offspring, the first in line being Seth, until the Day of Resolution/Judgment. The entire Bible is a record of the constant struggles between the devil’s SEED (the Cainite {Kenite}, Canaanite, Edomite, Shelahite, Idumean, Jewish people) and Adam and Eve’s SEED, which is the Adamite/Shemitic/Hebrew/Israelite/Caucasian race. Gen. 17:7-9 declares that the Covenants are established between Yahweh and the SEED OF ABRAHAM, not to any mythical church or multicultural cast of “believers. COVENANT. “Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will sow the HOUSE OF ISRAEL and the HOUSE OF JUDAH [both of which references are exclusive genealogical, family references to the SEED of Israel, not to any so-called “spiritual Israel,” nor are they references to mongrelized Jews] with the SEED OF MAN [Adamites not of either House], and with the SEED OF BEAST [meaning non-Whites; therefore, this means that it will be a time of pervasive race-mixing, i.e., TODAY]. And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up [the good Israelites], and to break down [the disobedient Israelites], and to throw down, and to destroy, and to affllict [We are most certainly afflicted today!]; so will I watch over them [Israel, NOT all nations or “believers,” or any apostate “church”], to build and to plant, saith Yahweh. In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten the sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity [refuting the false doctrine of universal reconciliation]: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL, and with the HOUSE OF JUDAH: not according to the COVENANT that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which COVENANT they brake [a reference to the Ten Commandments and to the Levitical priesthood’s sacrificial laws], although I was an husband unto them, saith Yahweh, But this shall be the COVENANT that I will make with the HOUSE OF ISRAEL; After those days, saith Yahweh, I will PUT MY LAW IN THEIR INWARD PARTS and WRITE IT IN THEIR HEARTS.” (Jer. 31:27-33; Heb. 8:8-12.)
A Covenant is an EXCLUSIVE COMPACT between two or more parties. Anyone who is not named in the agreement has no legal claim to it. Thus, the Dispensationalists are making an illegal claim when they say their churches have inherited the promises of the Covenants. That is another distortion of the language of Scripture. They have, in effect, signed THEIR NAME in place of YOUR NAME on the inheritance document!! Like Judaism, Dispensationalism is also a counterfeit doctrine.
It is an irrefutable fact that all of the Covenants in Scripture are made exclusively with Abraham and his direct descendants, the children of Israel. Get a Concordance and look up the word covenant (Strong’s #1285 BERITH, or BRITH), and you will find that what I am saying is true. When two people make a compact between each other, it applies to no one else. Nowhere in Scripture is there ANY STATEMENT that can be construed or misconstrued as implying that the Covenants were made or expanded to include non-Israelites, or transferred to some metaphorical/allegorical “church,” consisting of mere “believers” or a non-existent “spiritual Israel.”
One of those covenants is the Law itself. It was established at Mt. Sinai where OUR ANCESTORS took an oath to obey the Law (Ex. 19:3-8 and Deut. 29:29). “That he may establish thee today for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God ” (Deut. 29:13.) However, we broke our national Covenant, our promise to keep the Law. That is why we, as a people, continue to suffer the curses outlined in Chapter 28 of Deuteronomy. It is now up to us to perform the Covenant that our ancestors failed to keep. The Judeo churches must redefine the terms of the covenants, which, in effect, is overruling the Creator.
ADAM. The very first thing that must be realized is that the Hebrew word, AWDAWM, means “to show blood in the face.” This literally means “to be able to blush.” Only the White Adamic race has ever had this ability. Hence, Gen. 1:26-27 is declaring that only the White Race was made in the image of Elohim. The other races were already created at Gen. 1:24-25, as the “beast of the earth.” This includes the Orientals, the Blacks, the Amerindians and all non-Whites. In the biblical narrative, the Covenants were continuously narrowed down to an ever smaller group of people, from the Adamites down to Noah’s eight souls. From Noah, the Covenants were transmitted, exclusively, through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Only the direct descendants of this genealogy were ever made a party to these promises and covenants. Note that a Covenant is a legal contract, which cannot be disannulled, just as Paul says. (Gal. 3:15, 17.) Yahweh has sworn by His own Name that these Covenants will never be altered or abolished.
Jonah 3:8 describes the fact that Nineveh had “beasts” (non-Whites) and “men” (White Adamites), both of whom were dressed in sackcloth and repented of their sins. There is no such thing as a four-legged “beast” capable of repenting. Only two-legged non-Whites can perform what is required here.
Gen. 1:28-30 declares the Dominion Mandate, which is given exclusively to the Adamic Race and to no one else. History proves that the White Race has always been the Dominion Race, exactly as Yahweh had intended. Likewise, our current decline was prophesied. Fortunately, our eventual re-emergence as God’s Chosen People was also prophesied (Hosea 1:10; Rom. 9:25-26); and nothing can stop this prophecy from being fulfilled.
Satan perfectly understood that the creation of an immortal seedline would overthrow his rebellion (Rev. 12). Hence, he understood that the only way he could thwart Yahweh’s Plan to overthrow this rebellion was to adulterate Eve’s offspring, by seducing her. That is exactly what Gen. 3 is about. All of the punishments that were inflicted upon Adam and Eve in that chapter are sexual in nature, from covering their sexual organs with loincloths to Eve’s conception being cursed with exceptional pain. The resultant offspring of this seduction was Cain, while Abel was actually the son of Adam. Eve had a dual pregnancy (superfecundation) by two different males. Although superfecundation was rare among the Israelites, it is very common today, as more and more women have become promiscuous, sharing their beds with different men on different nights, and sometimes with men of different races. In this way, a woman can be pregnant by two different men at the same time.
Gen. 4:1 records Eve’s surprise at Cain’s appearance, where she says, “I have gotten a man (IYSH, not AWDAWM) from Yahweh.” The meaning of the Hebrew word IYSH is “a male of any species.” Moreover, the root word from which IYSH derives is ENOSH, meaning “mortal.”
Eve was twice surprised: by Cain’s appearance and by the fact that she perceived he was a mortal. Eve’s statement is one of surprise and shock! Given Yahweh’s promise that Adam and Eve would be immortal if they refrained from sin, Eve was very surprised that she would have produced a non-Adamic, mortal offspring, such as Cain. (As genetic studies and pregnancy studies increase our knowledge of fetal development, scientists are finding that the mother retains some of the cells of the offspring in her body, including her brain, after delivering the child. These pregnancy cells suggest that there is a biochemical mechanism for telegony, or the cross-contamination of future offspring from a previous pregnancy. This article even suggests that such cross-contamination can occur between twins in utero: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain ) In this way, both Eve and Abel would have been affected by the presence Cain’s aberrant DNA. Cain was not capable of being immortal because his DNA was already sinful, on his father’s side.
The fact that Cain killed Abel is proof that there was something seriously wrong with Cain. We in Christian Identity understand why: Adam was not Cain’s father. Nachash, the “serpent,” was Cain’s father. The “Serpent” having thus polluted Eve’s womb, Abel, through cross-cntamination, was also born a mortal; and Eve, because her error had made herself no longer immortal, could no longer produce immortal offspring. She never got the chance, because Nachash impregnated her about the same time that Adam did. This is the true meaning of the FALL of Adam and Eve. Rather than ask Yahweh for a replacement, Adam chose to do what Eve did. He fraternized with the other races and apparently bore hybrid offspring as well. He should have asked Yahweh for a replacement for Eve; but this idea never occurred to him. Either that, or he loved Eve so much that he could not bear to lose her. Another possibility is that neither one of them were able to comprehend the consequences of their sin.
Gen. 5:1 records Adam’s satisfaction with Seth, Abel’s replacement, because Seth was born in Adam’s own image, just as the Adamic race was conceived in the image of Elohim, the angelic host which effected the Creation, under Yahweh’s direction (Gen. 2:4). Since Cain was not Adam’s son, Cain was never even considered as part of Adam’s genealogy. Even the New Testament genealogy leaves Cain out. Had Cain been the elder son of Adam (as he was older than Seth), he would have had the rights of the elder son over Seth. But since he was not Adam’s son, Cain had no such claim. (This theme was repeated later, when Esau, the elder, despised his birthright, transferring it to Jacob-Israel, the younger.)
The KJV makes no distinction among several different Hebrew words, which are all translated as “man.” This indiscriminate type of translation fails to capture the true meaning of the Hebrew. Besides AWDAM, IYSH and ENOSH, several other words are indiscriminately translated as “man,” and this lack of discernment allows the multi-culti pastors of race-mixing to make false assertions about the universality of the meaning of the word MAN in the Bible. For this reason, I advocate the use of the word ADAMKIND wherever we the Hebrew word AWDAWM is used to refer to our Race.
KINDRED. Gen. 24:1-7, 36-38: “My kindred” refers to the Shemitic nation of Abraham. No Canaanite wife is permitted for Isaac. Rebekah is the pure White Shemite that Yahweh has selected for Isaac. She is blessed by Yahweh at Gen. 24:58-60. Gen. 25:1-6: The sons of Keturah (the Brahmins of India) are sent away so as not to interfere with Isaac’s inheritance, circa 1800 BC. These are the Indo-Aryans. They are still a kindred people to the Shemitic sons of Isaac (Saxons), but they are not Israelites.
HOLY, SEPARATE, SEVERED. “Holy” means “called out.” It is only in modern times that the word holy’ has developed the strictly RELIGIOUS meaning of saintly” or “non-sinful.” Even so, these modern meanings are derived from “called out.” Obviously, the Israelites were hardly ever a non-sinful people, so that definition makes no sense at all. Yahweh has constantly struggled with us because of our sinfulness. Only the Elect, or Remnant, ever achieves righteousness to the degree acceptable to Yahweh for governance of the Kingdom. We are the Elect, in spite of our faults, because Yahweh intends to purge the sin out of us.
Ex. 19:5-6: “Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.
Isa. 6:12-13: “And Yahweh has removed men [#120, AWDAWM] far away [into the wilderness of Europe, which became the regathering place for all White Israelites], and a great forsaking [of His laws, way back in Palestine and the Great Apostasy today] in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth [a remnant], and it [the remnant] shall return [to Me, Yahweh], and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the HOLY SEED shall be the substance thereof.“
The Israelites will yet bear holy fruit, which can be “eaten” when the harvest is ripe. The other 90% are so rotten that they cannot be “eaten.” This is also confirmed by the prophetic Church of Laodecia, the End Time Apostasy of “Judeo-Christianity,” which is so foul that it literally nauseates Yahshua! (Rev. 3:16.) Only the Israelites are spoken of in this manner. None of the historical escapades undergone by Israel apply to any other race. The exclusivity of the Bible is unmistakable, once the fog of universalism is removed from one’s eyes. Segregation is not an option. It is mandatory.
“For I am Yahweh your Elohim, the HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL, your Savior: I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia are for you. Since you (Israel) were precious in My sight, you have been [somewhat] honorable, and I have loved you: therefore will I give men for you, and people for your life. Fear not: for I am with you: I will bring your seed from the east, and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.” – Isa. 43:3-5.
These words are spoken exclusively to Israel and to no other people. In fact, these words are part of the dominion Mandate given to the Adamic race way back in Gen. 1:26-31. Yahweh will present the other races and nations to us, once the Remnant has mastered righteousness.
The Hebrew word for holy’ is qadash. More than anything else, it means “appointed, dedicated, consecrated.” The dedication ceremony was the placing of Isaac on the sacrificial altar by Abraham. Only by virtue of this ceremony are Isaac’s descendants intended to be “sacred,” or “non-sinful.” Certainly a priest and God’s people Israel should be non-sinful; but that is not what the word means. It means that Yahweh has dedicated us exclusively, setting us apart from the heathen, in order that we might refrain from sin, so that we could provide the world with a holy example, so that we might be the City on the Hill.
Peter confirms this dedicated state for Israel. I Peter 2:9-10: “Ye are a chosen [selected out of many races] Race, a royal [kingly, above all others] priesthood, a holy [dedicated exclusively to Yahweh] nation, a peculiar [different from all other peoples] people, that ye should show the praises of him [to the rest of the world, as in Gen. 12:3] who hath called you out of darkness in to his marvelous light. Such in time past were not a people, but now are the people of God.”
Because the Israelites had been already scattered throughout the Greco-Roman world, Peter is simply stating that the New Covenant has again made us One People, via the common forgiveness, healing the division that had occurred between the two houses. Because Israel was broken up into two houses after the death of Solomon, we were no longer ONE PEOPLE. And because we had forgotten His Covenants with us, we were no longer a cohesive culture. But Christ’s forgiveness of our past sins made us one people again.
Yahweh is speaking to His people through the apostle Peter, referring to us, using the exact same exclusive language that is contained in the Old Testament, declaring that we are a “chosen” or elect” race, as a “holy nation” and as a “people for God’s own possession.” By God’s grace we occupy a very favored position in His universe. This is what it means to be CHOSEN. If every group, race and nation were likewise “chosen,” the word would have no meaning.
Now, True Israel, what are you going to achieve with this very favored status? Are you going to do as the Judeo-Christians do and destroy your own talents by wasting them on this evil world; or are you going to use your peculiar talents to bring in the Kingdom?
STRANGER. The multiculturalists of Judeo-Christianity like to quote OT passages that seem to permit race-mixing. That these “theologians” are practicing deliberate deceit is unquestionable, as they systematically ignore those passages which prohibit intercourse, both sexual and social, between Israelites and strangers of other races. Some of the words that are indiscriminately translated as “stranger” are GER, ZUWR, NEKAR and NOKRI.
Here is a quick survey of the exact meanings of these words, as used in the Hebrew text:
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT there are eight words which are translated as stranger, strangers, foreigner, sojourners or aliens and some clarification is necessary. Without this clarification we have translations which make the Bible appear contradictory and inconsistent.
Gur [H1481] are strangers who are Israelites travelling in foreign lands. A primitive root; properly to turn aside from the road (for a lodging or any other purpose), that is, sojourn (as a guest); also to shrink, fear (as in a strange place); also to gather for hostility (as afraid): – abide, assemble, be afraid, dwell, fear, gather (together), inhabitant, remain, sojourn, stand in awe, (be) stranger, X surely
Examples: Gen 12:10. And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. Exo 6:4. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. Psa. 105:12. When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it.
Ger [H1616] are strangers or guests who are always fellow Israelites.
Examples: Gen 15:13. And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land [that is] not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; Exo 12:19. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Exo 18:3. And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange [nokri, #5237] land: Exo 23:9. Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Zur [H2114] are strangers who are always undesirable to or enemies of Israelites.
Examples: Num 1:51. And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. Exo 29:33. And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate [and] to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat [thereof], because they [are] holy. Lev 22:12. If the priest’s daughter also be [married] unto a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things.
Magur [H4033] are strangers who are either Israelites or non-Israelite travellers.
Examples: Gen. 17:8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Gen 28:4. And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.
Gen 37:1 And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a stranger, in the land of Canaan.
Nekar [H5236] are strangers or foreigners who are non-Israelites who are put away.
Gen 17:12. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed. Neh 9:2. And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers. Eze 44:7. In that ye have brought [into my sanctuary] strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, [even] my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.
Nokri [H5237] are strangers who are adulterous, or foreigners, non-Israelites who are not brothers.
Examples: Deu 17:15. Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother. Deu 23:20. Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
Ezr 10:2. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, [one] of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
From the above examples, we can see that certain types of strangers must be killed if they touch the holy implements of the Israelites or have sexual intercourse with them. The universalists of Judeo religion make no distinction among these various types of “strangers.” Typically, they never quote the negative passages about strangers; and they deceitfully use positive statements about strangers to argue that race-mixing is permitted in the Bible.
When these verses are correctly translated, we can see that their meaning is often the exact opposite of what the Jews and Judeos preach. The blanket declaration that the Israelites were allowed to race-mix because certain “strangers” were allowed into their company is proven false by this word study. Furthermore, if anyone argues that the KJV is infallible, the contradictory verses concerning the word stranger’ are proof that the translators had little accuracy with regard to biblical strangers.
[Examples taken from “Stranger.” http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/stranger.htm ]
Problems in the New Testament
Translational problems in the New Testament also include poorly defined words, mistranslations, misinterpretations, but with the added problem of deliberately implanted universalism. This latter tactic has been accomplished by the most subtle means. In addition to poorly translated words and definitions which have changed over time, the pulpitmasters of antinomianism and Paulianity (elevating Paul above Yahshua and the other Apostles) have mastered the art of taking key verses out of context and reassembling them, from this epistle and that epistle, into a completely fabricated theology.
Genealogy and Racial Segregation
The Book of Matthew opens with Yahshua’s genealogy. The whole point of this genealogy is to prove that Jesus is a direct, racial descendant of David. The prophets declared that the Messiah must be a son of David. (II Sam. 7:11-16; Isa. 9:6-7; Isa. 11:10-13; Matt. 1:1; Acts 2:29-30; Romans 8:29-32.) Matthew and Luke provide proof of this line of descent. Jesus did NOT come to redeem all races. He came to redeem the nation of Israel only.
The Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:23-38) gives a more extensive genealogy of Jesus Christ, giving His line of descent, through David, all the way back to Adam and Yahweh. Messiah is also called “Son of Man,” which means that He is also a pure-blooded descendant of Adam, the one who shows blood in the face.
John 7:35. The Pharisees acknowledge that the Lost Tribes still exist and are scattered throughout the Greco-Roman world. The Greek word translated as LOST is APPOLUMI, which means “put away in punishment.” Only the Israelites were ever put away in punishment. Therefore, it is a tribally exclusive word that cannot be applied to non-Israelites. The best one-word translation of appolumi is EXILES or EXILED.
John 8:32-47. “You shall know the truth; and the truth shall set you free.” The Edomite Jews expose their non-Isaelite sperma. ( Seed’ comes from the Greek word sperma.) There is no such thing as spiritual sperm. John 8 cannot be spiritualized. The discussion here is about literal descendants and the false Jewish claim to being the descendants of Abraham. Since these Pharisaic Jews admit that they were “never in bondage to any man,” Christ tricked them into admitting that they are the descendants of Esau, since all the tribes of Israel had been in bondage in the past.
While Christians slumber in the pews, the Judeos preach “pie in the sky” while the Edomite and Khazar Jews rape the earth and genocide our people through perpetual proxy wars, communist revolutions, weaponized immigration and race-mixing. Satan himself has entered into the pulpits, where the forbidden homosexuals, pagans, wiccans, pedophiles, usurers, and globalists spout their version of Satanic “Christianity.”
The above are a small sampling of distorted and mistranslated passages. I could write a dozen books on the subject of horrible translations and misinterpretations the KJV NT.
Some Common Misperceptions of Paul’s Epistles Corrected
In this section, I will deal with some of the horrible translations of Paul’s epistles (letters) in the King James Bible. King James “authorized” this version with the explicit intention of negating the influence of the Geneva Bible, and other earlier versions, such as the Tyndale Bible, which were not approved by the Anglican Church. His motivation was to unify church and state under himself, so as to have authority over both. Englishmen who did not buy into his version were severely persecuted. In fact, the Pilgrims and Puritans were Britishers who fled from the tyranny of King James. The Bible they brought with them to America and the Bible that they preferred was the Geneva Bible. Also, it was in response to this ecclesiastical tyranny of King James, still fresh in the memory of the Founding Fathers, that they created the misnamed “Separation Clause” of our Constitution, which states that, “Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.”
Space and time do not permit a thorough analysis of the deliberately universalistic and spiritualized passages contained in the New Testament of the KJV. A few important pericopes will be considered.
The Gospel of “Personal Salvation”
The world of evangelism today makes a great to-do about the phrase, “born again.” In fact, it has become the major theme of the televangelists, as if being “born again” has some powerful, life-changing influence for the individual Christian. But there is no evidence that “born again Christians” are making this world a better place. As a matter of fact, this theology is part of the “gospel of personal salvation,” which is nowhere emphasized in Scripture. The Bible’s emphasis is on personal morality, not upon some “spiritual” experience. The Bible emphasizes the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is righteous government. The people in this Kingdom are motivated by the Golden Rule (Matt. 7:12), not by some emotional experience by which the believer declares oneself to be “saved.”
It is a fact that, up until the era of the televangelists, most preaching was fire and brimstone preaching, which included lots of warnings about unrepentant sinners going to hell and damnation. Today’s preachers, instead, emphasize “salvation,” but on purely “spiritual” terms, not moral terms. Hence, they teach that we should not judge others, lest they be offended. Christians should stand aside and should not involve themselves in politics, etc. Thus, sinners are not to be warned about the consequences of their sins. Rather, they, such as homosexuals and wiccans, are invited into the churches to spread their diseases among the Christians. Somehow, the good intentions and spiritual pronouncements of these apolitical Christians are supposed to replace morality.
Of course, the devil himself invented this idea of inoffensiveness, so as to neutralize the moral impact that Christianity has had throughout the ages. Western jurisprudence comes directly from the Bible. According to today’s false priests, the law “has been done away with.” The so-called gospel of personal salvation has, in fact, undermined Christian civilization by telling Christians that they should not impose Christian morality upon an evil world.
In my youth, growing up in a Catholic community in Chicago, it was common for me to hear the expression: “A Christian should make a difference in the world. He should leave the world a better place than how he found it.” Thanks to the “gospel of personal salvation,” which places the emphasis on the self, taking it away from interpersonal morality, modern Christianity has contributed immensely to this world’s moral collapse. The modern churches, in their attempt to increase their numbers by accommodating those who do evil, have utterly forgotten the words of Jesus Christ: “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” – John 14:15.
“Born Again?” – Or Born From Above?
John 3:1-21 is the story of the discussion between Yahshua and Nicodemus, the Pharisee. Nicodemus came to Jesus during the night, so that no one could see him. He was afraid that the other Pharisees would find out about his visit. The world of evangelism today uses this expression, “born again,” as a linchpin of theology. This expression is usually associated with the idea that “You must accept the Holy Spirit into your heart.” And there is no doubt that this must be done; however, that is not the end of the story. The evangelistic world, as usual, takes these words out of context, and fails to reveal the morality tale that is being told by Yahshua.
First of all, “born again” is a bad translation of John 3:3. It should read “born from above.” Also, the point of the story is to contrast the Pharisaic view of the world with the Christian view of the world. Observe:
– You Must Be Born From Above –
The conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 is the climax of a rejection that was announced in the first chapter. “He came to his own and his own received him not” (verse 11). Luke tells us that Jesus’ contemporaries “hated him” (Luke 19:14), but as representatives of the realm of darkness, the Jews were not able to quench his light (John 1:5). John the Baptist witnessed that Jesus was the Son of God (John 1:15-34), and Jesus’ identity was evident in his miracles (as in turning water to wine, John 2). Some Jewish rulers and teachers (3:10) knew that he had divine powers, but they rejected his message. Samaritans, ironically, accepted his teaching (4:39-42).
John’s intent in chapter 3 was to highlight the Jewish rejection in terms of a confrontation between two representative individuals (Jesus and Nicodemus). Nicodemus represented Judaism in this account; this is evident from John’s description of him as a Pharisee, a teacher, a ruler of the Jews (John 3:1, 10). This is also shown by the plural personal pronouns used by Nicodemus and by Jesus in the claim “we know” (3:2), in which Nicodemus refers to Judaism, and in Jesus’ response “I told you [plural] but ye…” (3:12). These pronouns present Nicodemus as the embodiment of Judaism, speaking on its behalf.
In addition to the hints mentioned above, John has included another reference to the blindness of the Jews in his mention of night (3:2). Nicodemus’ preference for the night echoes the thought that the Jews loved darkness because their deeds were evil (3:19-21). Jesus could have praised Nicodemus for coming to him, but the issue in this account is Judaism, not Nicodemus’ personal attitude toward the truth.
Nicodemus approached Jesus with a comment that is often misread. He began with an acknowledgment that Jesus was a man “come from God: for no one can do these miracles that you do, except God be with him” (John 3:2). This admission did not grant that Jesus was the Son of God, but only that he had been commissioned by God, as the prophets of the Old Testament had been. At best, the Jews represented by Nicodemus were prepared to allow a divine mission for Jesus. In John’s terms, however, the status of a divinely-commissioned teacher does not capture the truth concerning Jesus.
Nicodemus could see that miracles were being performed, but he was not able to perceive their full importance or purpose. For this reason, Christ pointed out to him that these were only signs, a visible manifestation of a higher power, and could not be experienced through the senses. Sense experience is what John meant by “see” (John 3:3), as can be surmised from expressions like “see life” (3:36) and “taste death” (Mark 9:1). The kingdom of God would be in view only if the missing condition were present, namely an internal change that would bring about an entirely new outlook. The person who undergoes this internal change is so drastically changed that he could be described a new being. Since the new being would see things from a higher perspective God’s he is described as born from above.
Meaning of gennao and tikto
Gennao derives its meaning from the root genna (birth). It means “to produce through birth.” Whether the agent is male or female, the meaning of the verb is the same, “to bring a child into the world.” Some clear passages that illustrate the meaning of this verb are:
Matthew 2:1: “Jesus was born [gennao] in Bethlehem.”
Matthew 19:12: “…eunuchs, which were so born [gennao] from their mother’s womb.”
Luke 1:13: “Your wife Elizabeth shall bear [gennao] you a son.”
Greek has other verbs for describing birth specifically as an act of a woman. One of these verbs is tikto. This verb cannot be applied literally to a father because he is not bodily equipped for this function, but a figurative application of the verb to a man can be done. In this sense, Onesimus became Paul’s son “who became my son [tikto] while I was in chains” (Philemon 10, NIV). Some clear passages in which tikto is used literally (to describe parturition) are:
Matthew 1:21: “She shall bring forth [tikto] a son.”
Luke 1:57: “Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered [tikto].”
Hebrews 11:11: “…and was delivered of a child.”
In John 3:3, the verb is gennao which describes coming into the world, not a birth in
the sense of parturition.
Again or from above?
In John 3:3, the verb gennao is accompanied by the adverb anothen. Depending on the context, this adverb can mean “again” or “from above.” The nearest expression in English is “from the top” (ano = above, then = from). Christ’s tunic was “woven from the top [anothen] in one piece” (John 19:23). John uses the expression only in the sense of “from above” (see also John 3:31, 19:11).
When John wants to say “again,” he uses other terms. One such term is palin (John 1:35, 4:3, 13, 46, 54, etc.). John 3:3, therefore, should be rendered “born from above,” not “born again.” Of course, if someone is born from above when he is old, he is also born again. John’s meaning is a birth from God, not merely a second birth. Only a birth from God would enable Nicodemus to perceive that the kingdom of God was at work in the miracles that the Jews had witnessed. In fact, John states clearly that those who receive Christ (1:12) are born (gennao) “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (1:13).
– http://www.wcg.org/lit/gospel/born/bornabov.htm
An entirely false theology has been created around this expression, “born again.” The idea that one’s life can be instantly changed by some emotional experience is entirely contrary to the Gospel of the Kingdom, which requires the ability to overcome tribulation and create a moral world order. Completely lost on these evangelists is the concluding verse of the conversation:
“And this is the condemnation, that the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone that does evil hates the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought of God.” – John 3:19-21.
Completely absent from the bogus theology of the “born again” crowd is that evil deeds must be condemned. Those who are born from above teach the true gospel of condemning evil, because truth and righteousness do indeed come from above, from Father Yahweh and enter into us through the Holy Spirit. Those who preach the gospel of personal salvation completely miss the point, the very point that Nicodemus apparently failed to understand, that those who are born from above will reject evil in favor of good. This is a commitment to the Kingdom, wherein all evil will be destroyed. Those who preach “born again” do not have the Holy Spirit, because they do not understand or accept the context of John 3.
The simplistic notion that being “born again” punches your ticket into some spiritual realm, where evil must not be confronted by good, is totally far-fetched and absurd. The gospel of personal salvation, and its various false doctrines are, in reality, escapism. Such doctrines allow the Christian to escape the moral responsibility of making the word a better place. Our thoughts and actions must be wrought from above, from the moral order that Yahweh intends to install at the Judgment Day, which is the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Modern Churchianity is at odds with this moral order, especially when its false priests promise easy salvation.
“Enter you in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because narrow is the gate and narrow is the way which leads to life, and few there be that find it.” – Matt. 7:13-14.
Do you really believe that an “altar call” can save you?
“Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” – Acts 3:19.
The idea that salvation is guaranteed by claiming to be “born again” is a mockery of the True Gospel. The “born again” crowd studiously avoid the idea of repentance, because that would suggest that we are still sinners. The fact is that this doctrine has contributed greatly to the decline of Christian civilization, because it is the widest path of all: salvation by “claiming it.” This dubious doctrine is born of a contrary spirit, a spirit from below.
Romans, Chapter 9.
Because of the false definition of the word Gentiles,’ many Christians falsely believe that Jesus came to redeem non-Israelites. Contrary to this notion, Paul, in Romans 9 is actually confirming the exclusivity of the Covenants (Rom. 9:3-5) and confirms that Esau is excluded from the Covenants (Romans 9:7-15. “Esau I have hated.”). Romans 9 is a confirmation of John 8, where the racial distinction between Israelites and Edomites is declared. The Israelites are the “vessels of mercy,” (Verse 23) while the Edomite Jews are the “lump of dishonor.” (Verse 21.)
The correct translation of Verse 24 is this: “Even US, whom He has called, not of the Judeans [meaning the Judahites who resided in Judea] only, but also of the Race [ethnos]” Verse 25 confirms that he is speaking exclusively about the race of Israel (including the Judahites of the country of Judea).
Endless Genealogies
The genealogies that Paul criticizes at I Tim. 1:4 and Titus 3:9 are NOT references to Israelite genealogies. Paul is here criticizing the endless genealogies among the Greeks and other Dispersed Israelites. The Dispersion (James 1:1) consisted of many estranged Israelites. “I am not sent but unto the estranged [or exiled] sheep of the House of Israel.” – Matt. 15:24. Many of these estranged Israelites had adopted heathen practices and claimed to have descended from the “gods’ of the various nations within which they lived. This is what Paul is criticizing in these passages. He is not challenging the genetic code of True Israel. In fact, Paul goes out of his way to assert that he is an Israelite of the Tribe of Benjamin. (Romans 11:1-2.)
The reference in Titus 3:9 and 1 Timothy 1:4 in which Paul denies the need to search out one’s own genealogy, does not conflict with Isaiah’s call to Israel. Herod the Tetrarch had ordered the burning of those genealogical records of Israel which were kept in the archives of the Temple, to protect his own rulership. He himself was an Idumean, and therefore he feared any investigation into ancestral records. At that time, of course, the Pharisees were frantically trying to retrace their genealogies in order that they could continue to boast about their ancestry. Paul was also well aware of the class distinction, which would arise when the “heathenised” Israelites, having lost all their records in the captivity, would be joined to the Assembly. –
This discussion of endless genealogies shows that the subject is not the genealogies of the Israelites, but the genealogies of the pagan Greek Israelites:
Some even claim that people who believe in British-Israel “… give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:” (1 Tim 1:4; Titus 3:9). Is this true?
Answer: First, the Bible is loaded with genealogies. All one has to do is look into the books of Genesis, Numbers, 1 Chronicles etc. and even the New Testament Gospels to see all the genealogies of the people of Israel, and the world in Genesis. Doesn’t this contradict what Paul is saying? Absolutely Not!
The genealogies that Paul is speaking of are not the Biblical genealogies, but are, “…found in Philo, Josephus and the book of Jubilees, by which the Jews [sic, Judahites and Israelites – Eli] traced the descent from the Patriarchs and their families, and perhaps also to Gnostic genealogies’ and orders of aeons and spirits. Amongst the Greeks, as well as other nations, mythological stories gathered around the birth and genealogy’ of their heros [hence Paul’s reference to fables’]. Probably Jewish genealogical’ tales crept into the Christian communities” (Vines Expository Dictionary, p.262). Clearly these are not the Biblical genealogies Paul was speaking of. Josephus “appeals to the priestly registers and is proud of the royal descent of his mother; he shows that even the priests residing in Egypt had their sons registered authentically in Jerusalem, so as to safeguard their priestly prerogatives (C. Apion., I, vii).” (The Cathloic Encyclopedia, under article “Genealogy”). Philo, “to the various stories and fables told about Moses and the Patriarchs” (ibid).
As for the Gnostics, “[These were] genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, “Lists of Gnostic emanations” [ALFORD]. So TERTULLIAN [Against Valentinian, c. 3], and IREN US [Preface]…Endless” refers to the tedious unprofitableness of their lengthy genealogies (compare Tit. 3:9). – Peter Salemi, http://www.british-israel.ca/answers.htm
Hence, Paul’s condemnation of genealogies concerns the existing mythical genealogies of the Dispersion as well as those of the emerging anti-Gospel sects, whose “genealogy” was traced back to the Gnostic aeons, i.e., gods and goddesses. Not all of the Gnostic sects were anti-Christian, but most of them added ideas and ideology that were either spurious or anti-Gospel. Thus, serious scholarship proves that Paul had no intention of negating the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Nor do these passages have anything to do with denying the racial genealogy of the Israelites, past, present, or future.
Circumcision Versus Uncircumcison.
Contrary to the doctrine of the Judeo-Christian sects, Paul, in Romans 2-4, is NOT asserting that the “uncircumcision” refers to “Gentiles,” or non-Israelites. Rather, Paul is distinguishing between the Israelites of the House of Judah, then living in Palestine (the “Circumcision”), versus the Dispersed Israelites (House of Israel) scattered throughout the Greco-Roman world (the “Uncircumcision”).
Remember that the rite of biblical circumcision was made exclusively with the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No other peoples are included in this Covenant. The Circumcision are the Israelites who still practi