+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 143

Thread: Understanding Dual-Seedline Christian Identity Podcast

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    173

    Default Understanding Dual-Seedline Christian Identity Podcast

    Understanding Dual-Seedline Christian Identity Podcast


    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=6969#post6969


    What with the above-ground DSCI Church being full of jews and mamzers teaching lies and baal-priest heresies about what exactly is Dual-Seedline Christian Identity, a new Talkshoe Show in which these basics are posted -- then read in the original -- by Pastor Doctor Bertrand Comparet. Then there is an upgrade by Pastor Martin LD Lindstedt.

    This show will consist of people being invited to listen as the pre-recorded show is played live with Pastor Lindstedt listening in on the chatroom and being available to answer questions brought up by the Congregation.

    The show should be set on Tuesday evenings around 9:00 pm Eastern/8:00 pm Central at the following link:

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc

    Hail Victory!!!



    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 10-23-2012 at 01:48 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI: Comparet: Adam was the first man of a NEW White Race

    Understanding DSCI:


    Comparet: Adam was the first man of a NEW White Race



    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=6970#post6970


    Adam was not the First Man

    Pastor Bertrand Comparet




    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3419#post3419
    http://web.archive.org/web/200901141...et/comp5a.html -- Library of Congress Archive
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...320#post300320


    Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven science, not just unproven theories. One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact that science knows that human beings have lived on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the Bible and the common belief that the Bible says that Adam was the first man. Yes, I know that most of the preachers say that, but the Bible doesn't! It merely says that Adam was the first WHITE man. Let's look at the record.
    The transcriber misquoted Bertrand Comparet: Comparet said that Adam was the first man of a NEW White Race!


    In later sermons, Comparet says that there were Egyptians and Mesopotamians and Chinese living in their respective nations at the time of Noah's Flood. That the purpose of that Flood in the Tarim Basin was to flood out the miscegenating Adamites who had race-mixed with yellows and with demon-Watchers incarnate.

    Bertrand Comparet made it clear that Adam was not the first White man, but rather the First White Man with a Soul breathed into Adam-kind by YHWH after the Creation. Thus all pre-Adamites, including the White Cro-Magnons from 43,000 B.C.E., were the 6th Day Beasts of the Field, able to build cities and nations, but without any hope of future life after death because they had no soul, nor Law, nor Covenants with YHWH. Until Adam was created after the Sixth Day of Completed Creation and after until YHWH took the Seventh Day for Rest, then in effect Adam was created on the 'Eighth Day.' All of which is Dual-Seedline Christian Identity Comparetian Orthodoxy.

    Those who claim to be Dual-Seedline Christian Identity who deny the Comparetian Orthodoxy are almost always Sephardic jews like Eli James/jewseph Stalin Kutz-November or papist-preterist Ashkenazi jews like Rabbi MildSwill Finck-el-sheenie and the Sicilian guido-jew mamzers like Captn' Senility Clifton Emahiser and Bryan Reo/SwordBrethren.

    The DSCI Comparetian Orthodoxy has no fight either with geologic science or the Bible. The timeline in which hominids are millions of years old, that there was homo erectus and before which 'evolved' into niggers and gooks, and that there were Neanderthals which might have been part proto-kike and Cro-Magnons from 43,000 to 5500 BC which were supplanted by Adamites is not at odds with DSCI Comparetian Orthodoxy.

    Someone mistranscribed Bertrand Comparet's actual words, and I think that it was on purpose.

    The purpose of this Talkshoe DSCI podcast is to get back to the basics as taught by the Founders of DSCI like Comparet, and not the baal-priest and jew lies of ignorant whiggers and jews and mamzers playing at being part of "The Wandering Mamzers of WikiPedia-Talksjew Christian Identity."

    Back to Bertrand Comparet's sermon now that the mis-transcription has been cleared up.


    The many mistranslations in the King James versions obscure much of the truth. For example, Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In the Hebrew it says, "Now the earth had become chaotic and empty."

    (See Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) That is, some early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not "without form and void" before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations, for their wickedness. Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision of it. "I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains and lo, they trembled and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord and by His fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, 'The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.'" Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam and skeletons which can be dated by the carbon 14 process as many as thousands of years older. But, the Bible itself tells us about this.

    Next the Bible tells us about the creation of men, in the plural, in Genesis 1:26-28, saying, "Male and female created He THEM" (1:27), and God told these people, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (1:28). "Plenish" is an obsolete English word meaning "to fill"; and you cannot replenish what was never plenished, or filled, before. In the next chapter, Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion", a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the White Race.

    Bible scholars know that Genesis 3:20 - "And Adam called his wife's name 'Eve': because she was the mother of all living" - is a later interpolation, which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt's translation.)

    The Fourth chapter of Genesis records the birth of Cain and Abel; in the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth, when Adam was 130 years old, certainly long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over 100 years earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to God that "any one that findeth me shall slay me." Genesis 4:14. Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. You don't build a city for just two people. These were the pre-Adamite races, mentioned in the latter part of Genesis 1.

    The "Garden of Eden" was not a plantation of ordinary trees and shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation, just to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears, when He already had millions of pre Adamites available for that type of work. We are told that the "Garden of Eden" contained "the tree of the knowledge (or experience) of good and evil". No tree of the forest has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. Ezekiel 31, says "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough and of an high stature; Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field and his boughs were multiplied and his branches became long; all the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; NOR ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD WAS LIKE UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE TREES OF EDEN THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD ENVIED HIM". Obviously, the trees in the Garden of God in Eden were "family trees" of races and nations who admired and envied the early Assyrian Empire. These made up the "garden" that Adam was to cultivate. That is, Satan had been what we might call the Superintendant of this planet, to rule it in obedience to God's will, until he forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to take his place. It was Adam's job to rule the various nations and races of the earth as God's representative here, educating them in God's laws and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and nations had been here long before Adam.

    Therefore the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all descended from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth, already old, already numerous, when Adam was created. Among these other races there are the several who are simply pre-Adamic and one at least, which is Satanic. If you will read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that, immediately after the fall of Adam, when God required them to answer what they had done, God condemned Satan. The word mistranslated "serpent" is the Hebrew word "naw-khash", which literally means "enchanter" or "magician" and, no doubt Satan still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter or magician. It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original Hebrew. Cain was the son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word "begat" with monotonous regularity but, the first time the Bible ever says that Adam ever "begat" anyone is Genesis 5:3 where it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image: and called his name Seth. But to get back to Genesis 3:15, God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between THY SEED and HER SEED." The same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both cases. Satan was to have just as literal "seed", or descendants as Eve. God's own word being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually happening and we do. Jesus Christ, Himself, tells us of it.

    In Matthew 13:38-39, explaining the Parable of the Tares Among the Wheat, Jesus says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children OF THE KINGDOM: but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED THEM IS THE DEVIL." Again, in John 6:70-71, Jesus had been talking with His twelve deciples and we read: "Jesus answered them, 'Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?' He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the twelve." And again you should read carefully the eighth chapter of John, where Jesus told those who hated Him, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was not being vulgarly abusive in either of these cases, for He never resorted to name calling so His statement was precisely accurate. He did call some of them "serpents, children of vipers" which again, was accurate. Long before this, they had adopted the serpent as a symbol of Satan. That is why their tradition had given the word naw-khash" the translation "serpent", when it really means "enchanter". Jesus therefore was telling them that they were of their father the devil (or serpent, if they preferred that word). In this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision and identifying the persons of this ancestry.

    Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what modern science has proved true, don't you believe it. The things that many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth, as we all know, but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go back to the Bible, not to any man made doctrines and double check it for accuracy of translation. You will find that what the Bible really says, in its original languages, is accurate with a precision our scientist have not yet achieved.



    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 10-23-2012 at 05:52 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,096

    Default Understanding DSCI #2 -- Comparet: Man and Beast

    Understanding DSCI #2 -- Comparet: Man and Beast

    by Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet


    http://web.archive.org/web/200906120...et/comp4a.html -- Library of Congress Archive Link
    http://www.whitenationalist.org/foru...=4482#post4482
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7021#post7021


    Comparet Annotated:


    Whoever transcribed the Bertrand Comparet sermons didn't do it correctly. Listening to the actual sermon of Comparet we see numerous places where Comparet said some things differently, like last week wherein the transcription says that Adam was the first White man and Comparet's actual spoken words say that Adam was the first man of a new White race. Thus Comparet understood that there were white Cro-Magnons approximately 40,000 B.C. whereas Adam was created as 'one-of-a-kind approximately 5,000 BC (Septuagint Dating) or 4004 B.C. (Masoeretic King James Version). Thus Adam was not the first white man, but rather the first White Man with a soul and a Covenant with YHWH. Big difference there.

    As a result of this mistranscription, sundry mamzers and jews like Clifton Emahiser, MildSwill Finck-el-sheenie, and Eli[ar] James/jewseph Kutz-November have gotten in with their marrano jew and mamzer 'papist preterism' in which the baal-cult of Cybele and the Roman 'Catholic' Babylonian/Nimrodian Mystery Religion is grafted onto the Comparetian Orthodox Dual-Seedline Christian Identity True Faith.

    So, as time permits, the original spoken word shall be transcribed in blue so that the listener can see what they hear as the original words of Pastor Comparet.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum


    .


    .



    Pastor Doctor Bertrand Comparet:

    On this program, it has been our custom to frequently review current events in detail, because these show the fulfillment of Bible prophesies in our day. However, in covering the subject I now want to discuss, I shall not have much occasion to list these events in detail and this for a definite reason. There are times when it is not so important to count every bead on the string, as it is to see whether they are all strung on the same string. When you learn that, you will know where to look for the next bead. My purpose is to show the existence of certain definite principles, which govern the events which we see happening, as these principles have governed them for thousands of years.

    For ages, it was well understood by everyone that various nations and races had certain characteristics, which usually would be demonstrated in the actions of these people. National and racial policies and conduct developed out of national and racial character. There were, of course, the rare exceptions and these, a certain type of mind seizes upon as proof that there was no general rule. "The exception merely proves the rule." Similarly, we can note that among crows, one bird in every 38 million is white, an albino. But this only emphasizes the rule that all of the other 38 million crows are black. Therefore, reasonably consistent conduct can be identified as the rule, notwithstanding an occasional exception which surprises us when we find it.

    Among the ancients, nobody pretended to be ignorant of the characteristics of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Romans, or what they were likely to do in order to execute their purposes. Roman military ability in war and harshness in rule over conquered peoples were well understood and nobody was surprised to meet them. The extreme ferocity and cruelty of the Assyrians was known to all. Centuries of history demonstrated a consistency in these characteristics which only a fool could ignore.

    In our own times, everyone understood that the Japanese were a warlike people and had been for two thousand years. Therefore, only the ignorant or the stupid were surprised to learn that Japan wanted to conquer many other nations. (However, we had to learn by terrible, first-hand experience that the Japanese also had the Asiatic characteristics of treachery and senseless cruelty for its own sake. This cruelty was not just typically Japanese, it was typically Asiatic, for we see the same traits displayed by the Red Chinese in their treatment of the people of Tibet, as well as their cruelty to our soldiers when they were captured.)

    During both the First and Second World Wars, those strange, alien people called Jews, who are so busily brain-washing us today to suit their own purposes, then propagandized us into believing many hideous lies about the Germans and from these lies, we were expected to believe that the Germans were so inherently wicked that they were about to invade Beverly Hills or Las Vegas! Then they taught us that inborn racial characteristics would be manifested in conduct whenever the situation called for it. But now this alien Minority Group teaches us (by corrupting most of our schools, our newspapers, our news commentators, even many of our churches) that there are no longer any racial characteristics or tendencies, no fixed, long range national purposes. In short, that all people in the world, white, black, yellow or brown, civilized or savage, are exactly alike, as interchangeable as Ford parts. They have spent many millions of dollars on a high pressure propaganda campaign, designed to blind us to the racial and national characteristics and purposes which are molding the course of history today, as they have molded history throughout all time. (It might be well to ask ourselves, "What makes this worth so much money to them? Just how are they planning to get back this enormous investment?")

    We can get a better perspective on present-day affairs if we view them as a continuation of thousands of years of uninterrupted history: and if we look not only for what happened, but also why it happened. Nothing important is a true accident. For every occurrence there is a cause. History is usually written as merely a list of effects; that is why we learn so few lessons from it. We will never really understand history until we list the causes also.

    Past history, current events and the coming events of the future, all consist of the actions of people. Whether their actions are good or bad, people do what they do because they are what they are, the kind of people who do good or bad things. Conduct is the product of character. The man who is kind and trustworthy by nature doesn't become a Jack the Ripper or a kidnapper of children. His own nature prevents it. The man who is by nature cruel or dishonest will, sooner or later, act like what he is. The dull do not become brilliant merely because they receive legal permission to do so. And, since nations and races are just great numbers of individual people, they will display those traits which are characteristic of most of their people. Therefore, if we can learn something about what kinds of people there are, this may help us to understand their actions, even to learn what to expect from them in the future.

    For their own purposes, men make various classifications of things and of people. But usually, the conclusion they wish to reach dictates the classification which will best support it. Wishful thinking vitiates the result. On the other hand, God, who views all eternity with a single glance, has His other truths revealed to man, we must look to the Bible. There we will find that God has classified several different kinds of beings, all of whom we lump together indiscriminately, under one term "man". But, God distinguishes between them by using distinctive names for the different kinds of beings. Let's examine them and see if the different words used have any significance as to the kind of people they denote, the level of character and spiritual understanding to be found in the different kinds of beings this identified by their different names.

    Several different Hebrew words have all been indiscriminately translated "man" or "men" in the King James version of the Bible, although some very important differences of meaning show clearly on the face of these words. First, let us consider the word which denotes our White Race. The Hebrew word "AWDAWM", called "Adam" in your Bible, is from the root word meaning "To be of a ruddy complexion, to show blood in the face", something obviously not applicable to negroes or mongolians, but only to the White Race. When used to denote the first White Man, Adam, the Hebrew always says "THE Awdawm". When used of his descendants, the Hebrew just says "Awdawm." But your King James version translates it "man".

    Another word used in contrast to "Awdawm" is "ENOSH'. It is always used in a derogatory sense. Its root meaning is "mortal" and implies weakness, physically or morally; wretchedness. It is applied to NON-ADAMIC races, which are, of course, all PRE-ADAMIC. It should be noted that the pre-Adamic races are not limited geographically to just certain parts of the earth, but some of them are found mingled among the Adamites.

    A third Hebrew word translated "man" is "Ish" (Eash). Literally, it means "a male person" or "a husband." It is used for mankind in general and can be applied to either an Adamite or a pre-Adamite. The feminine form is Isha (eesh-shaw); the plural of which is "naw-sheem." This is so similar to the plural of "Enosh" Anashim", that they have often been confused, leading to many mistakes in translation.

    There are three other closely related words, "gheh-ber", "gheb-ar" and "ghib-bawr", which are all derived from a root meaning "to be strong"; and these are usually translated "mighty man" or "warrior". These last three can cause no confusion, so they need not concern us further.

    Now, let us note a few examples of the use of these words in the Bible. In place of the English word "man", I will use the Hebrew word used in the original. Ezekiel 34:31, "And ye my flock, the flock of My pasture, are AWDAWM, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." Psalm 115:116, The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's; but the earth hath He given to the children of AWDAWM". But note how God uses AWDAWM and ENOSH in contrast: take Psalm 90:93, "Thou turnest ENOSH to destruction; and sayest, 'Return, ye children of AWDAWM.'" While destruction is visited upon the pre-Adamite ENOSH for their persistent wickedness, God leads the children of AWDAWM back to Himself in repentance.

    He distinguishes between AWDAWM and ENOSH in many places: for example, Psalm 8:4, "What is ENOSH, that Thou are mindful of him? And son of AWDAWM, that Thou visitest him? Note that while God is mindful of what the ENOSH do, it was the sons of AWDAWM that God visited when Jesus Christ came to earth. Both racial groups must be disciplined, but the distinction is kept clear even there. Isaiah 2:11 says, "The lofty looks of AWDAWM shall be humbled and the haughtiness of ENOSH shall be bowed down and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." In II Samuel 7:14 we read, "I will be his Father and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of ENOSH, and with the stripes of the children of AWDAWM." If these were not distinctly different races, there would be no point in using the different words.

    The ENOSH were wicked and are so spoken of. Deuteronomy 13:13 warns that "Certain ENOSH, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, "Let us go and worship other Gods, which ye have not known.'" When they gain power, they are brutal oppressors; so Psalm 10:17-18 says, "Lord, Thou hast heard the desire of the humble: Thou wilt prepare their hearts, Thou wilt cause Thine ear to hear: to judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the ENOSH of earth may no more oppress." The ENOSH have no spiritual understanding: that is the reason for their continual wickedness. Proverbs 29:5 says, "Evil ENOSH understand not judgment: but they that seek the Lord understand all things." This distinction is still in effect today: for Daniel 12:10, speaking of the Time of the End (which is our own time), says, "None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

    But this is not all, some races God classifies as animals. Their nations are symbolised as beasts in numerous prophesies. Do you say that this isn't what you have been taught to believe? Then let's look into this a bit and see what the Bible says about it. For example, when Jonah finally went to Ninevah with his prophecy that God intended to destroy the city for its people's wickedness, they believed him. This is not as surprising as it may seem for the people of Ninevah worshiped Dagon, the fish god. Since they had heard that a great fish had delivered Jonah on the shore, they thought he must be a prophet sent from Dagon and they were ready to believe him. The 3rd chapter of Jonah says that the king was worried, "And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Ninevah by decree of the king and his nobles, saying, 'Let NEITHER MAN NOR BEAST, herd nor flock taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let MAN AND BEAST BE COVERED WITH SACKCLOTH AND CRY MIGHTILY UNTO GOD: YEA, LET THEM TURN EVERY ONE FROM HIS EVIL WAY and from the violence that is in their hands.' - And God saw THEIR works, that THEY TURNED FROM THEIR EVIL WAY and God repented of the calamity that He said that He would do to them and He did it not. Now what kind of "BEASTS" were these, who put on sack-cloth, cried to God, and turned from their evil way? It says that this was the command for "Man and BEAST" and that they did so. Is your dog that well trained? Then who was the Bible calling "BEASTS"? Let's look into this a bit farther. In the 9th chapter of Genesis, God promises Noah and his family protection. In the 5th verse God says, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the HAND of every BEAST will I require it and at the hand of man;" These "BEASTS" have hands, like a man! But, there were no monkeys in that region, so these beasts with hands must have been men.

    Again in Exodus 19:12-13, when the people of Israel were gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai while Moses climbed the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments from God, God warned him, "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, 'Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall surely be put to death." There shall not a HAND touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; WHETHER IT BE BEAST OR MAN, it shall not live." Again, we find that, whether it be beast or man, it must not touch the mountain with a hand.

    The second chapter of Genesis tells us that God is looking for a suitable wife for Adam and brings in review before him what your King James version calls "every BEAST OF THE FIELD" to see if a good wife for Adam could be found among them. Do you really think that an all wise God had to carefully look over a female scorpion, a female toad, a female giraffe or a female elephant, to decide whether one of these would be a suitable wife for Adam? Of course not! Moses didn't write any such foolishness when he wrote the Book of Genesis, this is purely the work of translators. In the original Hebrew, the account makes good sense and tells us much about the other races.

    There are two closely related Hebrew words used here, KHAH-EE and KHAW-YAW, each of which means "a living creature". The meaning is far too broad to be translated merely "beast" or "animal", for it includes all living creatures, from microbes to men. Where the King James version says "beast of the field", the word is always either KHAH-EE or KHAW-YAH; so a correct translation would be "THE LIVING BEINGS IN THE COUNTRY." That these "living beings" include men is clear from the same word being applied to Adam. You have read Genesis 2:7, and the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In the Hebrew it read, "Then YAHWEH GOD FORMED THE AWDAWM out of dust from the ground and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In the Hebrew it read, "Then YAHWEH God formed THE AWDAWM out of the dust of the ground and breathed in his nostrils breath of life; and THE AWDAWM BECAME NEPHESH KHAW-YAH ("a breathing creature having life") So "the beast of the field", "the KAW-YAW of the field", or more correctly "the living beings in the countryside", actually included the pre-Adamic races.

    Now Genesis 2:18-20 makes sense. God saw that Adam needed a wife and, not condemning anybody without a fair chance to make good, God carefully looked over the pre-Adamic races (African and Asiatic) to see if one of them could be found who was suitable to be Adam's wife and the mother of the new race. But, he couldn't find one. In the Hebrew this reads thus: "And YAHWEH God said, 'Not good for THE Awdawm to be alone. I shall make him a helper, AS HIS COUNTERPART.' and YAHWEH God formed from the ground every living being of the fields and every fowl of the heavens and bringeth in unto THE Awdawm to see what he doth call it; and whatever THE Awdawm calleth a NEPHESH KHAW-YAW, (a breathing creature having life), that is its name. And THE Awdawm calleth names to all the cattle and to the fowl of the heavens and to every living being of the fields; and to him hath not been found an helper AS HIS COUNTERPART." That is God recognized that Adam's wife must be his COUNTERPART, having the same qualities of spiritual understanding, to be able to transmit to her descendants the same qualities for which God specially placed Adam in the world; but God could not find even one out of these pre-Adamic peoples who was Adam's COUNTERPART, having these necessary qualities.

    Before someone gets the idea that I hate other races, let's look at this thing a little closer. The Black Race has been on earth at least 40,000 years, for identifiable negroid skeletons have been discovered which can be scientifically dated as that old. Yet in all those 40,000 years there has never been a negro civilization. Yes, I know that a few negro tribal chiefs have conquered other tribes and built themselves up a larger kingdom. But, it takes more than the brutal tyranny of a successful war-chief to make a civilization and that was all they had. Don't speak of Egypt, Egypt was in Africa but never negroid. The beautiful portrait sculptures left by the ancient Egyptians show them to have been clearly a pure white people. In the days of Egypt's greatness, any negro found north of the first cataract of the Nile River was summarily killed on sight to protect the racial purity of the Egyptians.

    We don't hate negroes. We want them to be well fed, well clothed, comfortably housed and in no danger of being eaten by other negroes, something they have never had except in a civilization created and maintained by White Men. Despite all propaganda, every negro in the United States is far better off than those in Africa. Just try to find any who want to go back to any black nation in Africa! But neither negroes nor Whites will have the blessings of civilization in a nation reduced to black standards of thinking. If the negroes were capable of producing a civilization at all, 40,000 years is long enough to do it.

    Yes, I know that in Asia, 2,300 years ago, Confucius taught some high ethical principles, but without a word of religion in them. I know that the Ming Dynasty saw the production of some nice pieces of porcelain. But, what did either of these do for the Asiatic people? Did it ever teach them how to produce enough food to fill those fine porcelain bowls? Shouldn't 2,300 years of Confucian philosophy be enough to develop something more than poverty, disease and misery? Again, the Asiatic mind lacks the true spiritual understanding which God saw was needed. Aren't the Asiatics who live in the United States better off than those who live in Red China, Korea or Southeast Asia? We don't hate them but, we don't want them to reduce us to their level. This is what God was talking about in the second chapter of Genesis when He said that the other beings living in the country 'round about could not produce a suitable wife for Adam, "AS HIS COUNTERPART."

    Because of the spiritual understanding which God put in the AWDAWM, today the White Race has the highest civilization, the greatest freedom, the highest standard of living in the world. They are the so called "have" nations. We have not hated the other races, we have tried to help them, to show them our ways. In spite of all this, all of them have hated us. In the centuries when we were very few against their many, they repeatedly tried to conquer and destroy us, but God's watchful care over His people didn't allow that to happen, although several times they came dangerously close to success.

    In lands rich with minerals, they sit in wretchedness and poverty too lacking in enterprise to mine the enormous wealth beneath their feet. In lands where the fertile soil and ample rainfall cover the land with lush growth, they live in perpetual hunger because they are too dull to clear the land and plant it to food crops. If we provide the capital to pay them for clearing their land and planting and harvesting useful crops, or for digging and refining the minerals in their soil, they curse us for "exploiting" them. But if we don't, they curse us for being indifferent to their misery. Now, through the United Nations where they outnumber and outvote us, they plan to rule us, plunder us, enslave us and reduce us to their level. Well did God classify them as "ENOSH", lacking utterly in the spiritual understanding necessary to follow God's ways.

    Perhaps you may say, "All these were quoted from the Old Testament; but in the New Testament, God changed His mind and changed all that." So, let us see what the New Testament says about them. In his Epistle to Titus 1:12, Paul says "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, 'The Cretins are always liars, EVIL BEASTS." The word "beast" here is the Greek word "THERION", meaning "a dangerous animal" Jude 10 says "But these speak evil of those things they know not: but what they know naturally, as BRUTE BEASTS, in those things they corrupt themselves." And Peter 2:12 says, "But these, as natural brute BEASTS, made to be destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption."

    These ENOSH were commonly called "DOGS", both in the Old and New Testaments. For example, Psalm 22 is recognized by all Bible scholars as prophetic of Jesus Christ's first coming and crucifixion. In the 16th verse it says: "For DOGS have compassed Me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed Me: they pierced My hands and My feet." God is certainly not complaining that some four footed dogs barked at Him; and there is no record that any ever did. He is speaking of those who delivered Him up to be crucified. The use of this word is common, in the New Testament. In Philippians 3:2, Paul says, "Beware of DOGS, beware of evil workers." The four footed dogs are no more "evil workers" than cats and cows. Paul and those to whom he wrote knew that these "dogs" were the two footed kind.

    If you say, "this is discrimination between races!" you are exactly right. Has someone told you that monstrous falsehood that, "It isn't Christian to discriminate between races"? Let's see what Jesus Christ Himself did. In Mark 7:15-19, we read "For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of Him and came and fell at His feet: the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation; and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, 'Let the children first be filled: for it is not right to take the children's bread and to cast it unto the DOGS.' And she answered and said unto Him, 'Yes Lord: yet the DOGS under the table eat of the children's crumbs.' And He said unto her, 'For this saying, go thy way: the devil is gone out of thy daughter.'" Jesus Christ certainly did discriminate; and not until the woman recognized the righteousness of the discrimination did He help her.

    She had first asked help of Him on the same basis as the Israelites, true AWDAWM. On that basis, she was not entitled to it. Jesus told her, "Let the children first be filled with the Bread of Life; then they will establish the Kingdom of God on earth and from this God's blessings will be extended to such others as can understand and receive them in the proper spirit. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ did not hesitate to openly call the ENOSH "dogs". When the woman indicated that she understood that the blessings would come to others out of the abundance which God gave to His own children, then He told her that for this saying, He had healed her daughter.

    Again, Jesus Christ carefully warned His disciples never to make the mistake of failing to discriminate, never to try to bring the ENOSH, who lack understanding, into the Kingdom of God on the same terms as the AWDAWM. In Matthew 7:6, He warned them, "Give not that which is holy unto the DOGS, neither cast ye your pearls before SWINE, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you." Strong words? Yes, but the direct command of Jesus Christ, Himself. We have disobeyed Him and WE ARE NOW FACING THE TRAGIC PENALTY. We have tried to treat the other races as equals. We have expected them to learn the same lessons from our religion that we do. We have expected them to behave with some self-restraint when they find power in their hands. But this is exactly what Jesus Christ warned us not to do, "Lest they trample our pearls under their feet and turn again and rend us." Of our advanced technology, they want only to learn how to make weapons to use against us. In fact, they are even using the very food we send them as a weapon against us, for the surplus food will allow them to take more men off the farms and put them into armies and weapon factories. To thus strengthen our enemies is only a fool's method of suicide.

    To His disciples, Jesus said (in John 14:16-17), "And I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever: even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seethe Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you." Therefore, it was logical to speak of those whose minds lacked the spiritual understanding as "beasts", because of their nature.

    In the Book of Daniel, the prophet traces the rise and fall of four great world empires ruled by these people. First he interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, whose head was of gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and thighs of brass, his legs of iron, as prophesying the successive dominance of four great empires. Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of these, the golden head and the others being Medo-Persia, Alexander's and Rome. But in chapter 7, Daniel had a vision of four remarkable beasts, rising one after the other out of the sea. We know that, in prophecy, the sea is symbolic of mankind in general, all people the great majority of whom are the ENOSH, the pre-Adamic races. Out of them came the four beasts: the first, a lion, symbolized Babylon, like the golden head of the image; the second, a bear, symbolized the great empire of Media and Persia; the third, a leopard, for the swift striking empire of Alexander the Great; and the fourth, a very terrible beast with iron teeth, ten horns and great strength, symbolized Rome. This was exactly the same series, in the same order, as the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Its repetition was to confirm the first one as true prophecy.

    As further confirmation, in the Book of Revelation we again find a beast, representing these world empires, rising out of the sea. In Revelation 13, we are told this strange beast had the mouth of a lion, the feet of a bear, yet was otherwise like a leopard, but it had ten horns, like the fourth beast which Daniel saw. The fact that the qualities of all four are now combined in one beast is to show that the four great world empires were all of one origin, all manifestations of Satanic power, all arising out of the sea of non-Adamic races. They came to power in succession; each gained enormous power over the peoples who lived in great areas; but the rule of each was harsh, tyrannical, brutal, each one more so than those before it. Man's planning, man's skill in putting his plans into effect, man's ability to judge what was needed in ruling an empire, these they had. But the spiritual understanding, the capacity to receive the thoughts of God, the capacity to organize and rule a nation under God's laws, this they lacked.

    Revelation 13 shows that this composite "beast" gained its power from the dragon, Satan. Surely, these empires demonstrated their Satanic character. Finally, to make sure that the symbolism of the vision would not be misunderstood, Revelation 13:18 concludes, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the BEAST: for it is the number of a MAN."

    If these "beasts" were nations of men, why symbolize them as "beasts"? We have seen that God's prophets and even Jesus Christ Himself, bluntly called certain races "beasts". A nation made up of Chinese people must be a Chinese nation; a nation made up of negroes must be a negro nation; then a nation made up of those whom the Bible calls "beasts" must be a beast nation and it is so stated.

    The fall of the Roman Empire ended only the vast extent of power in the hands of those who served Satan. It has not ended their desire to regain that power, nor their struggle for it. So the Book of Revelation shows a continuation of the struggle for power, carried on by a new beast, right down to the time of the Second Coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when the beast makes war against Him, but is conquered by our Lord. We see this struggle for power going on in the world today. The non-Adamic peoples, now organized into many nations so as to multiply their voting power in the United Nations (where just the cannibal tribes of Africa alone, are recognized as about 30 nations, having 30 votes to our one!)

    There is not one of them that stands reliably on our side. Once in awhile, they find it to their advantage to seek something which we also want to accomplish and on that one issue they vote with us. But next day, they either proclaim their "neutrality" in our struggle for the survival of the free world (with which they have no sympathy), or they actively support Russia against us. It is inevitable that those who are of the same race, the same origin, having the same qualities, the same ambitions and ideals, should align themselves together, working for their common purpose. In the great world empires of the past, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander's short lived empire and finally Rome, they had what they wanted, a system which expressed their own true character. They want to restore this system and the United Nations is made to order for their purpose, as God prophesied. In Revelation 13:14, we are told that the new beast "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of the miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image of the beast which had the wound by the sword and did live." They seek to make the United Nations a worldwide empire, like that of Babylon and Rome, only greater. An empire which crushes and dominates all nations, enforcing its will by bestially brutal forces, as we have seen in the Congo. An empire which repudiates the one true God, where the name of Jesus Christ cannot be mentioned because it offends those who hate Him and where the only reference to any divinity is the statue of the pagan god Zeus, in the lobby.

    An empire ruled by those whom the Bible calls "beasts", for they now outnumber the whole White Race by 8 to 1 in voting strength. Though we have 1/6 of the world's population, by this juggling of voting power we are reduced to 1/9 of its voting strength. When we see their plans for world rule developing, we can begin to understand the dreadful prophecy of the coming day when "no man might buy nor sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the "beast".

    Nevertheless, the return of Jesus Christ will overthrow their plans. Their power will be destroyed and they will be put in their proper place. This place emphatically does not include rule over the nations. That has brought too many thousands of years of misery and sorrow. In the final end, when God's New Jerusalem is set up on earth, we are told (in Revelation 22:14-15) "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the Tree of Life and may enter in through the gates into the City. FOR WITHOUT ARE DOGS, and various others. This doesn't mean that you can have your pussycat, canary and goldfish but faithful Fido is excluded. These "dogs" are the ones Jesus Christ names.

    "Discrimination!" do you say? Yes, indeed! But from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation, God Himself had commanded discrimination. I would not oppose it if I could.




    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-124251/TS-682351.mp3 Original Sermon Audio Broadcast on Talkshoe


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 10-30-2012 at 05:22 PM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  4. #4
    WilliamB's Avatar
    WilliamB is offline Mamzer Fruit Loop Veteran Member WilliamB has a little shameless behaviour in the past
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cali United States
    Posts
    265

    Thumbs up I don't have permission to post in the JCCAN section. But I have a request.

    Just a small one. Can we perhaps cover this essay by Bertrand Comparet?

    http://www.israelect.com/reference/B...r%20Savior.pdf

    That would be great.


    Hello WilliamB:

    I'm trying to make these programs follow some sort of order by Pastor Comparet and this one is towards the end. I'm probably going to work my way from Genesis through Revelation and what is next is either about Cain or more about the Sixth-Day Beasts of the Field.

    However, I do do requests and I'll keep this request of yours in mind.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin LD Lindstedt CJCC/AN



    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7023#post7023
    Last edited by Librarian; 10-30-2012 at 03:53 AM.

    Never take seriously anonymous tards that sport jewess avatars.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI #2 -- Comparet Annotated: Man and Beast

    Understanding DSCI #2 -- Comparet: Man and Beast

    October 30, 2012 10:00pm EST/9:00pm CST

    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7025#post7025


    by Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet


    http://web.archive.org/web/200906120...et/comp4a.html -- Library of Congress Archive Link
    http://www.whitenationalist.org/foru...=4482#post4482
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7021#post7021


    Comparet Annotated:


    Whoever transcribed the Bertrand Comparet sermons didn't do it correctly. Listening to the actual sermon of Comparet we see numerous places where Comparet said some things differently, like last week wherein the transcription says that Adam was the first White man and Comparet's actual spoken words say that Adam was the first man of a new White race. Thus Comparet understood that there were white Cro-Magnons approximately 40,000 B.C. whereas Adam was created as 'one-of-a-kind approximately 5,000 BC (Septuagint Dating) or 4004 B.C. (Masoeretic King James Version). Thus Adam was not the first white man, but rather the first White Man with a soul and a Covenant with YHWH. Big difference there.

    As a result of this mistranscription, sundry mamzers and jews like Clifton Emahiser, MildSwill Finck-el-sheenie, and Eli[ar] James/jewseph Kutz-November have gotten in with their marrano jew and mamzer 'papist preterism' in which the baal-cult of Cybele and the Roman 'Catholic' Babylonian/Nimrodian Mystery Religion is grafted onto the Comparetian Orthodox Dual-Seedline Christian Identity True Faith.

    So, as time permits, the original spoken word shall be transcribed in blue so that the listener can see what they hear as the original words of Pastor Comparet.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum


    .


    .



    Pastor Doctor Bertrand Comparet:

    On this program, it has been our custom to frequently review current events in detail, because these show the fulfillment of Bible prophesies in our day. However, in covering the subject I now want to discuss, I shall not have much occasion to list these events in detail and this for a definite reason. There are times when it is not so important to count every bead on the string, as it is to see whether they are all strung on the same string. When you learn that, you will know where to look for the next bead. My purpose is to show the existence of certain definite principles, which govern the events which we see happening, just as these principles have governed them for thousands of years.

    For ages, it was well understood by everyone that various nations and races had certain characteristics, which usually would be demonstrated in the actions of these people. National and racial policies and conduct developed out of national and racial character. There were, of course, the rare exceptions and these, a certain type of mind seizes upon as proof that there was no general rule. But to the contrary it is well known that "The exception merely proves the rule." Similarly, we can note that among crows, one bird in every 38 million is white, an albino. But this only emphasizes the rule that all of the other 38 million crows are black. Therefore, reasonably consistent conduct can be identified as the rule, notwithstanding an occasional exception which surprises us when we find it.

    Among the ancients, nobody pretended to be ignorant of the characteristics of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Romans, nor of what they were likely to do in order to execute their purposes. Roman military ability in war and harshness in rule over conquered peoples were well understood and nobody was surprised to meet them. The extreme ferocity and cruelty of the Assyrians was known to all. Centuries of history demonstrated a consistency in these characteristics which only a fool could ignore.

    In our own times, everyone understood that the Japanese were a warlike people and had been for two thousand years. Therefore, only the ignorant or the stupid were surprised to learn that Japan wanted to conquer many other nations. (However, we had to learn by terrible, first-hand experience that the Japanese also had the general Asiatic characteristics of treachery and senseless cruelty for its own sake. This cruelty was not just typically Japanese, it was typically Asiatic, for we see the same traits displayed by the Red Chinese in their treatment of the people of Tibet, as well as their cruelty to our soldiers whom they captured.)

    During both the First and Second World Wars, those strange, alien people, the Jews, who are so busily brain-washing us today to suit their own purposes, then propagandized us into believing many hideous lies about the Germans and from these lies, we were expected to believe that the Germans were so inherently wicked that they were about to invade Beverly Hills or Las Vegas! Then they taught us that inborn racial characteristics which they claimed existed would be manifested in conduct whenever the situation called for it. But now this alien Minority Group, the Jews, teaches us (by corrupting most of our schools, our newspapers, our news commentators, even many of our churches) that there are no longer any racial characteristics or tendencies, no fixed, long range national purposes. In short, that all people in the world, white, black, yellow or brown, civilized or savage, are exactly alike, as interchangeable as Ford parts. They have spent many millions of dollars on high pressure propaganda, designed to blind us to the racial and national characteristics and purposes which are molding the course of history today, as they have molded history throughout all time. It might be well to ask ourselves, "What makes this worth so much money to them? Just how are they planning to get back this enormous investment?"

    We can get a better perspective on present-day affairs if we view them as a continuation of thousands of years of uninterrupted history: and if we look not only for what happened, but also why it happened. Nothing important is a true accident. For every occurrence there is a cause. History is usually written as merely a list of effects; that is why we learn so few lessons from it. We will never really understand history until we list the causes also.

    Past history, current events and the coming events of the future, all consist of the actions of people. Whether their actions are good or bad, people do what they do because they are what they are, the kind of people who do good things or bad things. Conduct is the product of character. The man who is kind and trustworthy by nature doesn't become a Jack the Ripper or a kidnapper of children. His own nature prevents it. The man who is by nature cruel or dishonest will, sooner or later, act like what he is. And since nations and races are just great numbers of individual people, they will display those traits which are characteristic of most of their people. Therefore, if we can learn something about what kinds of people there are, this may help us to understand their actions, even to learn what to expect from them in the future.
    (6:03:84)

    For their own purposes, men make various classifications of things and of people. But usually, the conclusion they want to reach dictates the classification which will best support it and give the results they want. Wishful thinking vitiates the result. On the other hand, God, who views all eternity with a single glance, has His own classifications based upon the eternal reality. For this is for all other truths revealed to man, we must look to the Bible. There we will find that God has classified several different kinds of beings, all of whom we lump together indiscriminately, under one term "man". But, God distinguishes between them by using distinctive names for the different kinds of beings. Let's examine them and see if the different words used have any significance as to the kind of people they denote, the level of character and spiritual understanding to be found in the different kinds of beings will be thus identified by their different names.

    Several different Hebrew words have all been indiscriminately translated "man" or "men" in the commonly used King James version of the Bible, although in the Hebrew some very important differences of meaning show clearly on the face of these words. First, let us consider the word which denotes our White Race. The Hebrew word "AWDAWM", called "Adam" in your Bible, is from the root word which means "To be of a ruddy complexion, to show blood in the face", something obviously not applicable to negroes or mongolians, but only to the White Race. When used to denote the first White Man, Adam, the Hebrew always says "THE Awdawm". When used of his descendants, the Hebrew just says "Awdawm." But your King James version translates it merely "man".

    Another word used in contrast to "Awdawm" is "ENOSH'. It is always used in a derogatory sense. Its root meaning is "mortal" and implies weakness, physically or morally; wretchedness. It is applied to NON-ADAMIC races, which are, of course, all PRE-ADAMIC. It should be noted that the pre-Adamic races are not limited geographically to just certain parts of the earth, but some of them are found mingled among the Adamites.

    A third Hebrew word translated "man" is "Ish" (Eash). Literally, it means "a male person" or "a husband." It is used for mankind in general and can be applied to either an Adamite or a pre-Adamite. The feminine form is Isha (eesh-shaw); the plural of which is "naw-sheem." This is so similar to the plural of "Enosh" Anashim", that they have often been confused, leading to many mistakes in translation.

    There are three other closely related words, "gheh-ber", "gheb-ar" and "ghib-bawr", which are all derived from a root meaning "to be strong"; and these are usually translated "mighty man" or "warrior". These last three can cause no confusion, so they need not concern us further.

    Now, let us note a few examples of the use of these words in the Bible. In place of the English word "man", I will use the Hebrew word used in the original. Ezekiel 34:31, "And ye my flock, the flock of My pasture, are AWDAWM, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." Psalm 115:116, The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's; but the earth hath He given to the children of AWDAWM". But note how God uses AWDAWM and ENOSH in contrast: take Psalm 90:93, "Thou turnest ENOSH to destruction; and sayest, 'Return, ye children of AWDAWM.'" While destruction is visited upon the pre-Adamite ENOSH for their persistent wickedness, God leads the children of AWDAWM back to Himself in repentance.

    He distinguishes between AWDAWM and ENOSH in many places: for example, Psalm 8:4, "What is ENOSH, that Thou are mindful of him? And son of AWDAWM, that Thou visitest him? Note that while God is mindful of what the ENOSH do, it was the sons of AWDAWM that God visited when Jesus Christ came to earth. Both racial groups must be disciplined, but the distinction is kept clear even there. Isaiah 2:11 says, "The lofty looks of AWDAWM shall be humbled and the haughtiness of ENOSH shall be bowed down and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." In II Samuel 7:14 we read, "I will be his Father and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of ENOSH, and with the stripes of the children of AWDAWM." If these were not distinctly different races, there would be no point in using the different words.

    The ENOSH were wicked and are so spoken of. Deuteronomy 13:13 warns that "Certain ENOSH, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, "Let us go and worship other Gods, which ye have not known.'" When they gain power, they are brutal oppressors; so Psalm 10:17-18 says, "Lord, Thou hast heard the desire of the humble: Thou wilt prepare their hearts, Thou wilt cause Thine ear to hear: to judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the ENOSH of earth may no more oppress." The ENOSH have no spiritual understanding: that is the reason for their continual wickedness. Proverbs 29:5 says, "Evil ENOSH understand not judgment: but they that seek the Lord understand all things." This distinction is still in effect today: for Daniel 12:10, speaking of the Time of the End (which is our own time), says, "None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

    But this is not all, some races God classifies as animals. Their nations are symbolised as beasts in numerous prophesies. Do you say that this isn't what you have been taught to believe? Then let's look into this a bit and see what the Bible says about it. For example, when Jonah finally went to Ninevah with his prophecy that God intended to destroy the city for its people's wickedness, they believed him. This is not as surprising as it may seem for the people of Ninevah worshiped Dagon, the fish god. Since they had heard that a great fish had delivered Jonah on the shore, they thought he must be a prophet sent from Dagon and they were ready to believe him. The 3rd chapter of Jonah says that the king was worried, "And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Ninevah by decree of the king and his nobles, saying, 'Let NEITHER MAN NOR BEAST, herd nor flock taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let MAN AND BEAST BE COVERED WITH SACKCLOTH AND CRY MIGHTILY UNTO GOD: YEA, LET THEM TURN EVERY ONE FROM HIS EVIL WAY and from the violence that is in their hands.' - And God saw THEIR works, that THEY TURNED FROM THEIR EVIL WAY and God repented of the calamity that He said that He would do to them and He did it not. Now what kind of "BEASTS" were these, who put on sack-cloth, cried to God, and turned from their evil way? It says that this was the command for "Man and BEAST" and that they did so. Is your dog that well trained? Then who was the Bible calling "BEASTS"? Let's look into this a bit farther. In the 9th chapter of Genesis, God promises Noah and his family protection. In the 5th verse God says, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the HAND of every BEAST will I require it and at the hand of man;" These "BEASTS" have hands, like a man! But, there were no monkeys in that region, so these beasts with hands must have been men.

    Again in Exodus 19:12-13, when the people of Israel were gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai while Moses climbed the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments from God, God warned him, "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, 'Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall surely be put to death." There shall not a HAND touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; WHETHER IT BE BEAST OR MAN, it shall not live." Again, we find that, whether it be beast or man, it must not touch the mountain with a hand.

    The second chapter of Genesis tells us that God is looking for a suitable wife for Adam and brings in review before him what your King James version calls "every BEAST OF THE FIELD" to see if a good wife for Adam could be found among them. Do you really think that an all wise God had to carefully look over a female scorpion, a female toad, a female giraffe or a female elephant, to decide whether one of these would be a suitable wife for Adam? Of course not! Moses didn't write any such foolishness when he wrote the Book of Genesis, this is purely the work of translators. In the original Hebrew, the account makes good sense and tells us much about the other races.

    There are two closely related Hebrew words used here, KHAH-EE and KHAW-YAW, each of which means "a living creature". The meaning is far too broad to be translated merely "beast" or "animal", for it includes all living creatures, from microbes to men. Where the King James version says "beast of the field", the word is always either KHAH-EE or KHAW-YAH; so a correct translation would be "THE LIVING BEINGS IN THE COUNTRY." That these "living beings" include men is clear from the same word being applied to Adam. You have read Genesis 2:7, and the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In the Hebrew it read, "Then YAHWEH GOD FORMED THE AWDAWM out of dust from the ground and breathed in his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." In the Hebrew it read, "Then YAHWEH God formed THE AWDAWM out of the dust of the ground and breathed in his nostrils breath of life; and THE AWDAWM BECAME NEPHESH KHAW-YAH ("a breathing creature having life") So "the beast of the field", "the KAW-YAW of the field", or more correctly "the living beings in the countryside", actually included the pre-Adamic races.

    Now Genesis 2:18-20 makes sense. God saw that Adam needed a wife and, not condemning anybody without a fair chance to make good, God carefully looked over the pre-Adamic races (African and Asiatic) to see if one of them could be found who was suitable to be Adam's wife and the mother of the new race. But, he couldn't find one. In the Hebrew this reads thus: "And YAHWEH God said, 'Not good for THE Awdawm to be alone. I shall make him a helper, AS HIS COUNTERPART.' and YAHWEH God formed from the ground every living being of the fields and every fowl of the heavens and bringeth in unto THE Awdawm to see what he doth call it; and whatever THE Awdawm calleth a NEPHESH KHAW-YAW, (a breathing creature having life), that is its name. And THE Awdawm calleth names to all the cattle and to the fowl of the heavens and to every living being of the fields; and to him hath not been found an helper AS HIS COUNTERPART." That is God recognized that Adam's wife must be his COUNTERPART, having the same qualities of spiritual understanding, to be able to transmit to her descendants the same qualities for which God specially placed Adam in the world; but God could not find even one out of these pre-Adamic peoples who was Adam's COUNTERPART, having these necessary qualities.

    Before someone gets the idea that I hate other races, let's look at this thing a little closer. The Black Race has been on earth at least 40,000 years, for identifiable negroid skeletons have been discovered which can be scientifically dated as that old. Yet in all those 40,000 years there has never been a negro civilization. Yes, I know that a few negro tribal chiefs have conquered other tribes and built themselves up a larger kingdom. But, it takes more than the brutal tyranny of a successful war-chief to make a civilization and that was all they had. Don't speak of Egypt, Egypt was in Africa but never negroid. The beautiful portrait sculptures left by the ancient Egyptians show them to have been clearly a pure white people. In the days of Egypt's greatness, any negro found north of the first cataract of the Nile River was summarily killed on sight to protect the racial purity of the Egyptians.

    We don't hate negroes. We want them to be well fed, well clothed, comfortably housed and in no danger of being eaten by other negroes, something they have never had except in a civilization created and maintained by White Men. Despite all propaganda, every negro in the United States is far better off than those in Africa. Just try to find any who want to go back to any black nation in Africa! But neither negroes nor Whites will have the blessings of civilization in a nation reduced to black standards of thinking. If the negroes were capable of producing a civilization at all, 40,000 years is long enough to do it.

    Yes, I know that in Asia, 2,300 years ago, Confucius taught some high ethical principles, but without a word of religion in them. I know that the Ming Dynasty saw the production of some nice pieces of porcelain. But, what did either of these do for the Asiatic people? Did it ever teach them how to produce enough food to fill those fine porcelain bowls? Shouldn't 2,300 years of Confucian philosophy be enough to develop something more than poverty, disease and misery? Again, the Asiatic mind lacks the true spiritual understanding which God saw was needed. Aren't the Asiatics who live in the United States better off than those who live in Red China, Korea or Southeast Asia? We don't hate them but, we don't want them to reduce us to their level. This is what God was talking about in the second chapter of Genesis when He said that the other beings living in the country 'round about could not produce a suitable wife for Adam, "AS HIS COUNTERPART."

    Because of the spiritual understanding which God put in the AWDAWM, today the White Race has the highest civilization, the greatest freedom, the highest standard of living in the world. They are the so called "have" nations. We have not hated the other races, we have tried to help them, to show them our ways. In spite of all this, all of them have hated us. In the centuries when we were very few against their many, they repeatedly tried to conquer and destroy us, but God's watchful care over His people didn't allow that to happen, although several times they came dangerously close to success.

    In lands rich with minerals, they sit in wretchedness and poverty too lacking in enterprise to mine the enormous wealth beneath their feet. In lands where the fertile soil and ample rainfall cover the land with lush growth, they live in perpetual hunger because they are too dull to clear the land and plant it to food crops. If we provide the capital to pay them for clearing their land and planting and harvesting useful crops, or for digging and refining the minerals in their soil, they curse us for "exploiting" them. But if we don't, they curse us for being indifferent to their misery. Now, through the United Nations where they outnumber and outvote us, they plan to rule us, plunder us, enslave us and reduce us to their level. Well did God classify them as "ENOSH", lacking utterly in the spiritual understanding necessary to follow God's ways.

    Perhaps you may say, "All these were quoted from the Old Testament; but in the New Testament, God changed His mind and changed all that." So, let us see what the New Testament says about them. In his Epistle to Titus 1:12, Paul says "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, 'The Cretins are always liars, EVIL BEASTS." The word "beast" here is the Greek word "THERION", meaning "a dangerous animal" Jude 10 says "But these speak evil of those things they know not: but what they know naturally, as BRUTE BEASTS, in those things they corrupt themselves." And Peter 2:12 says, "But these, as natural brute BEASTS, made to be destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption."

    These ENOSH were commonly called "DOGS", both in the Old and New Testaments. For example, Psalm 22 is recognized by all Bible scholars as prophetic of Jesus Christ's first coming and crucifixion. In the 16th verse it says: "For DOGS have compassed Me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed Me: they pierced My hands and My feet." God is certainly not complaining that some four footed dogs barked at Him; and there is no record that any ever did. He is speaking of those who delivered Him up to be crucified. The use of this word is common, in the New Testament. In Philippians 3:2, Paul says, "Beware of DOGS, beware of evil workers." The four footed dogs are no more "evil workers" than cats and cows. Paul and those to whom he wrote knew that these "dogs" were the two footed kind.

    If you say, "this is discrimination between races!" you are exactly right. Has someone told you that monstrous falsehood that, "It isn't Christian to discriminate between races"? Let's see what Jesus Christ Himself did. In Mark 7:15-19, we read "For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of Him and came and fell at His feet: the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nation; and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, 'Let the children first be filled: for it is not right to take the children's bread and to cast it unto the DOGS.' And she answered and said unto Him, 'Yes Lord: yet the DOGS under the table eat of the children's crumbs.' And He said unto her, 'For this saying, go thy way: the devil is gone out of thy daughter.'" Jesus Christ certainly did discriminate; and not until the woman recognized the righteousness of the discrimination did He help her.

    She had first asked help of Him on the same basis as the Israelites, true AWDAWM. On that basis, she was not entitled to it. Jesus told her, "Let the children first be filled with the Bread of Life; then they will establish the Kingdom of God on earth and from this God's blessings will be extended to such others as can understand and receive them in the proper spirit. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ did not hesitate to openly call the ENOSH "dogs". When the woman indicated that she understood that the blessings would come to others out of the abundance which God gave to His own children, then He told her that for this saying, He had healed her daughter.

    Again, Jesus Christ carefully warned His disciples never to make the mistake of failing to discriminate, never to try to bring the ENOSH, who lack understanding, into the Kingdom of God on the same terms as the AWDAWM. In Matthew 7:6, He warned them, "Give not that which is holy unto the DOGS, neither cast ye your pearls before SWINE, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you." Strong words? Yes, but the direct command of Jesus Christ, Himself. We have disobeyed Him and WE ARE NOW FACING THE TRAGIC PENALTY. We have tried to treat the other races as equals. We have expected them to learn the same lessons from our religion that we do. We have expected them to behave with some self-restraint when they find power in their hands. But this is exactly what Jesus Christ warned us not to do, "Lest they trample our pearls under their feet and turn again and rend us." Of our advanced technology, they want only to learn how to make weapons to use against us. In fact, they are even using the very food we send them as a weapon against us, for the surplus food will allow them to take more men off the farms and put them into armies and weapon factories. To thus strengthen our enemies is only a fool's method of suicide.

    To His disciples, Jesus said (in John 14:16-17), "And I will pray the Father and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever: even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seethe Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you." Therefore, it was logical to speak of those whose minds lacked the spiritual understanding as "beasts", because of their nature.

    In the Book of Daniel, the prophet traces the rise and fall of four great world empires ruled by these people. First he interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, whose head was of gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and thighs of brass, his legs of iron, as prophesying the successive dominance of four great empires. Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of these, the golden head and the others being Medo-Persia, Alexander's and Rome. But in chapter 7, Daniel had a vision of four remarkable beasts, rising one after the other out of the sea. We know that, in prophecy, the sea is symbolic of mankind in general, all people the great majority of whom are the ENOSH, the pre-Adamic races. Out of them came the four beasts: the first, a lion, symbolized Babylon, like the golden head of the image; the second, a bear, symbolized the great empire of Media and Persia; the third, a leopard, for the swift striking empire of Alexander the Great; and the fourth, a very terrible beast with iron teeth, ten horns and great strength, symbolized Rome. This was exactly the same series, in the same order, as the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Its repetition was to confirm the first one as true prophecy.

    As further confirmation, in the Book of Revelation we again find a beast, representing these world empires, rising out of the sea. In Revelation 13, we are told this strange beast had the mouth of a lion, the feet of a bear, yet was otherwise like a leopard, but it had ten horns, like the fourth beast which Daniel saw. The fact that the qualities of all four are now combined in one beast is to show that the four great world empires were all of one origin, all manifestations of Satanic power, all arising out of the sea of non-Adamic races. They came to power in succession; each gained enormous power over the peoples who lived in great areas; but the rule of each was harsh, tyrannical, brutal, each one more so than those before it. Man's planning, man's skill in putting his plans into effect, man's ability to judge what was needed in ruling an empire, these they had. But the spiritual understanding, the capacity to receive the thoughts of God, the capacity to organize and rule a nation under God's laws, this they lacked.

    Revelation 13 shows that this composite "beast" gained its power from the dragon, Satan. Surely, these empires demonstrated their Satanic character. Finally, to make sure that the symbolism of the vision would not be misunderstood, Revelation 13:18 concludes, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the BEAST: for it is the number of a MAN."

    If these "beasts" were nations of men, why symbolize them as "beasts"? We have seen that God's prophets and even Jesus Christ Himself, bluntly called certain races "beasts". A nation made up of Chinese people must be a Chinese nation; a nation made up of negroes must be a negro nation; then a nation made up of those whom the Bible calls "beasts" must be a beast nation and it is so stated.

    The fall of the Roman Empire ended only the vast extent of power in the hands of those who served Satan. It has not ended their desire to regain that power, nor their struggle for it. So the Book of Revelation shows a continuation of the struggle for power, carried on by a new beast, right down to the time of the Second Coming of our Lord, Jesus Christ, when the beast makes war against Him, but is conquered by our Lord. We see this struggle for power going on in the world today. The non-Adamic peoples, now organized into many nations so as to multiply their voting power in the United Nations (where just the cannibal tribes of Africa alone, are recognized as about 30 nations, having 30 votes to our one!)

    There is not one of them that stands reliably on our side. Once in awhile, they find it to their advantage to seek something which we also want to accomplish and on that one issue they vote with us. But next day, they either proclaim their "neutrality" in our struggle for the survival of the free world (with which they have no sympathy), or they actively support Russia against us. It is inevitable that those who are of the same race, the same origin, having the same qualities, the same ambitions and ideals, should align themselves together, working for their common purpose. In the great world empires of the past, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander's short lived empire and finally Rome, they had what they wanted, a system which expressed their own true character. They want to restore this system and the United Nations is made to order for their purpose, as God prophesied. In Revelation 13:14, we are told that the new beast "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of the miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image of the beast which had the wound by the sword and did live." They seek to make the United Nations a worldwide empire, like that of Babylon and Rome, only greater. An empire which crushes and dominates all nations, enforcing its will by bestially brutal forces, as we have seen in the Congo. An empire which repudiates the one true God, where the name of Jesus Christ cannot be mentioned because it offends those who hate Him and where the only reference to any divinity is the statue of the pagan god Zeus, in the lobby.

    An empire ruled by those whom the Bible calls "beasts", for they now outnumber the whole White Race by 8 to 1 in voting strength. Though we have 1/6 of the world's population, by this juggling of voting power we are reduced to 1/9 of its voting strength. When we see their plans for world rule developing, we can begin to understand the dreadful prophecy of the coming day when "no man might buy nor sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the "beast".

    Nevertheless, the return of Jesus Christ will overthrow their plans. Their power will be destroyed and they will be put in their proper place. This place emphatically does not include rule over the nations. That has brought too many thousands of years of misery and sorrow. In the final end, when God's New Jerusalem is set up on earth, we are told (in Revelation 22:14-15) "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the Tree of Life and may enter in through the gates into the City. FOR WITHOUT ARE DOGS, and various others. This doesn't mean that you can have your pussycat, canary and goldfish but faithful Fido is excluded. These "dogs" are the ones Jesus Christ names.

    "Discrimination!" do you say? Yes, indeed! But from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation, God Himself had commanded discrimination. I would not oppose it if I could.


    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-124251/TS-682351.mp3 Original Sermon Audio Broadcast on Talkshoe


    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc

    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 10-30-2012 at 07:29 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI #3 -- Comparet: THE CAIN / SATANIC SEED LINE

    Understanding DSCI #3 -- Comparet: THE CAIN / SATANIC SEED LINE

    November 13, 2012 10:00pm EST/9:00pm CST

    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7125#post7125

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc <----- Talkshoe Program Channel


    by Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet


    http://archive.org/stream/TheCainSat...e/CSL_djvu.txt
    http://ia700308.us.archive.org/32/it...edline/CSL.pdf
    http://biblestudy.wckkkk.org/satans_seed.htm


    Comparet Annotated:


    This sermon is the third and as I've noticed it has not been transcribed correctly according to the spoken words of Comparet. However, the audio given seems to have been a tape recording made in someone's home because you hear airplane traffic in the original sound recording and then the pdf bookle and the Library of Congress text was a correction of the spoken audio tape done later.

    So, as time permits, the original spoken word shall be transcribed in blue so that the listener can see what they hear as the original words of Pastor Comparet.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum


    .


    .



    Pastor Doctor Bertrand Comparet:


    Original Sermon Audio Broadcast on Talkshoe

    Foreword

    This booklet contains the talk which Dr. Bertrand L. Comparet delivered to a group of friends attending one of his regular Bible studies, and is reproduced in this printed form, for the benefit of those who would like to preserve the message, and those who did not attend the meeting but would like to know what was said.

    The Cain-Satanic Seed Line

    Ordinarily I don't let anybody else affect the course of what I talk about. Tonight I'm going to, because I feel it is time to reply to a certain minister. This gentleman has quite an extensive radio ministry, head quartered in Minneapolis. He publishes a magazine which reaches a great many people. He has been on many occasions a distinct force for good, and because of his large following he can be an equally disastrous force for evil.

    Below not evident in either the spoken word or the transcript other than the one done on:
    http://biblestudy.wckkkk.org/satans_seed.htm

    In the April issue of his magazine, he launched an attack against me: not by name, but by the things you know we have been learning out of the Bible. He sneers at the name of God, "Yahweh." He says, "Now we are being told we must address God as Yahweh, and that the word Lord is a heathen term." This is my answer to his nonsense. He quotes a few non-applicable scriptures. He says, "To insist we must use the Hebrew word Yahweh is not scriptural." And he sneers, "I suppose soon someone will also insist we must pray in the Hebrew language." He says, "The Moffatt Bible refers to God by the words, the Eternal. Ferrar Fenton uses the term, The Ever-Living. Both of these expressions are scriptural and proper."

    As I think most of you know, in the Old Testament the true name of God, Yahweh, is used several thousand times. The Jews, the same ones who tried to get it out of the Bible, admit in their own publications that Yahweh is used over 5,000 times in the Old Testament. And I have seen the statement made by a Christian writer, of considerable ability, that the number is nearer 7,000 times. I haven't bothered counting it. But take it on either basis, when you say that the Bible itself is not scriptural, it seems to me that is about as absurd a statement as I have heard. Now, if you will read the preface in the Moffatt's Bible, Moffatt admits he knows better. He admits that the name of God should be given in the Hebrew form, Yahweh, but he goes on to explain, of course for general sale, it is easier to sell it, than if he used the real name. Now if it were for students, he says he would use that term, but he wants the wider sale. He says, "I know it loses some of the force of the original, but I hope that even those who do not approve of what I do will understand."

    I took the trouble to look this up: Never once in the Bible are either the words "The Eternal" or "the Ever-Living" used, as God's name, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament -not once. I suppose a good Nazi might have chosen to put in the words, Adolf Hitler if he had wanted to, but that would not have made it so; and somebody else, substituting some other word, doesn't make it so either. In the Old Testament only two Hebrew words have been translated "Eternal." Two variant forms of the same word, "kedem," which literally means, in the forefront either of space or of time. In space they generally apply it to the east. In time they say "the forefront of time, that is way back in antiquity." The other is "olam" the basic meaning of which is "conceal." Applied to time they say, "so far in the past or so far in the future that the actual time we can't find out." So in a vague way it could be used as a long time.

    In the New Testament, three brief words have been translated, everlasting or eternal: "adios" - everlasting, never used as the name of God; and "aion" meaning an age, and translated on very doubtful authority as "eternal" when literally it speaks of an age. The Bible speaks of several ages: one of them isn't, for that reason, eternal. It is used only once with reference to God. First Timothy 1:17 uses the phrase, "The King Eternal," not as a name but as a descriptive title. The other word "aionios" - "age abiding," is never used as a name of God. Neither can you say the Eternal or The Ever-Living can be considered as a translation of Yahweh. You will find an excellent discussion of it in the preface to Rotherham's translation. He points out that Yahweh is the third person, singular, masculine form derived from the root "Hawah," an older form of the root Haya. The one and only meaning of Hawah is "become." Therefore, Yahweh, derived from that, has no possible meaning assign able to it in the Hebrew but this: "He will become" or "He who becomes." You remember, in your King James Version among the various "botched" mistranslations (which make it, at times, very difficult to understand), God said to Moses, "I am that I am," which is a meaningless phrase. Go back and check it in the Hebrew. It is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" and the verb Ehyeh - "I will become." So "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" means "I will become whatever I will become." You have heard such expressions as "I will go where I will go," meaning nobody is going to stop me or I will make my own choice. And similarly, there in the Hebrew, God says "I will become whatsoever I choose to become" - I will become the leader of My people to bring them out of Egypt - I will become the Savior and Redeemer who saves them on the cross - I will become whatever it is My will to become.


    The other thing this same pastor attacks, and this seems to bother him greatly, is the matter of the Satanic-Cain seed line. This gentleman has gotten along notably well with the descendants of Cain. I have never seen any indication of any ill feeling between them on either side, and he becomes violently incensed that some of us have pointed out that the descendants of Satan through Cain are in the world today. He says that this is one of the most vicious among scriptural doctrines: so I thought it was time for us to review it. You have known of the fact of the Satanic origin of the Jewish people; but I don't know whether many of you have seen how much proof there was in the Bible. I thought it was just about time to get down to that proof.

    Now let us start in the beginning. Satan, of course, was not a serpent. The thing that deceived Eve and seduced Eve was not a scaly thing wriggling on the ground. The Hebrew word Nachash means "enchanter'' or ''magician.'' A fallen angel, retaining still a lot of his angelic powers, no doubt could be very much of an enchanter and magician. Now his children, (and I mean children, not just followers) through the centuries used a serpent as a symbol or emblem of their ancestor, until finally they attached a secondary meaning of serpent to the word. But it is not in the root meaning of the word at all. The Bible was never so ridiculous as to suggest that a snake accomplished all this. In Genesis 3:1-3, you remember Satan has said to Eve, "Why, is it really true that God said, You can't eat of any tree in the Garden?" And she replies to him, (here is how it reads in the Hebrew): "And the woman said unto the enchanter, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the Garden," but (now I am quoting from the King James Version and I am going to correct it as I go) ". . . but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the Garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Now let us see what it actually says in the Hebrew:

    "Fruit" is the Hebrew word "pirchach" meaning progeny, brood, children, descendants. Do you talk about the children of a walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don't. Now, of the pirchach, of the descendants, of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it." And that word "touch" is the Hebrew word naga, which is a more polite expression, meaning, "to have sexual intercourse with." Do you need to be warned not to have sexual intercourse with an apple? Of course not. It isn't that kind of a tree.

    Now, God had millions of the pre-Adamic Asiatic and African peoples around; if he just wanted somebody wide between the shoulders and narrow between the eyes, to spade up the Garden, he had them. He didn't have to create a special being for that. Satan had been the Governor of this Planet until he forfeited the right to it by rebellion. God sent Adam here (and you remember that the last verse in the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke tells you that Adam was the Son of God: it doesn't say that about any of these pre-Adamic peoples mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Adam was the son of God) and God sent Adam here to take over by force, kick Satan out and govern this Planet. The trees in the Garden of Eden were the family trees of nations and races.

    Adam and Eve were supposed NOT to intermingle with these people. If these Negroes and Mongoloids were all that God wanted, He already had them. What He created a different and separate being for, was to have a different sort of person, whom the Mongoloids and the Negroids could never produce. The Hebrew word Awdawm, which we translate Adam, means "of a rosy, fair complexion." Adam was the first person of a specifically created new race. Adam and Eve were told, "Do not mongrelize your race, with these pre-Adamite peoples in the world." Now when you come to Genesis 3:13 God has called Adam, Eve and Satan before Him to give an accounting of their misdeeds; and according to your King James Version, Eve says, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof." Here again is the Hebrew word Nachash meaning enchanter, but instead of "beguiled" the Hebrew word nawshaw means "seduced." Now "beguiled" is no more than "deceived." Somebody who sells you some mining stock, in a mine that doesn't have any good ore in it, beguiles you; but this word means seduced. And Yahweh God said unto the woman, "What is this (that) thou hast done?" And the woman said, "The enchanter seduced me." That is what it says in the Hebrew, and Cain was the product thereof. So in reply, in Genesis 3:15 God says (speaking to Satan): "I will put enmity between thee (Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." Now the same Hebrew word, "zehra," literally meaning "seed" (and it could be used as grains of wheat for example, but it is used throughout the Bible as meaning the descendants of a person too - children, posterity), between Satan's seed (zehra) and the woman's seed (zehra). In other words Satan was to have just as literal children in this world as was Eve, because the very same word with the very same meaning is used for it.

    Our minister back in Minnesota says, "Oh that doesn't mean anything, because he quotes Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain." Now you notice, what is not said is more significant than what is said. The Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain. Remember now, as you have read in the Old Testament, the monotonous regularity with which it always says, "And so-and-so begat whozis and whozis begat what's-his-name and what's-his-name begat somebody-else," and so on. It was important to know your ancestry in those days, because you didn't get your citizenship for two box tops and a dime: you got it because your ancestors for twenty generations back were Israelites, and no other way.

    So Adam knew his wife, and she conceived. Now I can tell you something, and I can prove every bit of it by witnesses: I went to a movie one night and the next morning the sun rose in the East. Now I did not say the one caused the other. I said two things happened, one of them first and the other second; and they did, but I never said they were cause and effect. The Bible never says there was cause and effect here. Now if you want further proof out of this, you go right on to the fifth chapter of Genesis which gives the list of Adam's descendants, and you notice that Cain is not mentioned. Neither Cain nor Abel are mentioned among the descendants of Adam. And if you say Abel might have been omitted, because we don't know, but he was probably killed before he left any descendants of his own. But that is not true of Cain, because the Bible traces Cain's descendants for six generations, naming them on down the line. But never once does it say that Cain was a descendant of Adam: never in any way, shape, form or manner. The first time it says Adam begat a child is Genesis 5:3: "And Adam lived 130 years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." Not Cain.

    So the Satanic blood line crept in, definitely, with Cain - possibly earlier among the pre-Adamic peoples. Now there were pre-Adamic peoples who were not necessarily Satanic. There were some pre-Adamic people into whom the Satanic blood line came and there were even some of the descendants of Adam who probably mongrelized. In fact, it is evident that they did from the very fact that those living around Noah were wiped out by the flood because the Bible tells you that Noah was perfect in his ancestry (no mongrelization) and he was the only one left in that area who was. That is why the mongrelized Adamites around him were wiped out by the flood. The real descendants of Adam were multiplied, and then you come to the fact of the Satanic blood line getting in there. Remember, God had announced His purpose, that He was going to take back the world from Satanic domination, He was going to rule it according to His purposes, and He was going to rule it through His children, going down through Adam. Now, what is the obvious move on Satan's part to thwart that? Mongrelize the two blood lines, so he can sneer in God's face and say, "These are my children; and where are Yours? All these have my blood in them." And that is exactly what he set out to do.

    Genesis 6: 2 says, "The Sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose." Now you don't get the full significance of it in that translation, "the sons of God" (beni-ha-elohim, the sons of the Elohim). Now you remember the Hebrew word El (the mighty) is used as a title of God derived from it, eba (singular) is practically always translated God or a God, and is a correct translation. And elohim is the plural, meaning Gods. In the 82nd Psalm it says, "God standeth in the congregation of the Gods." He says to them, "I have said Ye are all Elohim, and children of the Most High." Your King James Version just says "Gods" but it is a correct translation of "the Elohim." "The sons of the Elohim saw the daughters of Awdawm that they were fair." Now the Elohim are the children of God, and to that extent distinct from the angels, who are merely servant spirits. Now we are not given too much detail on the rebellion that took place in Heaven, but the Bible very definitely suggests that along with a number of the angels some even of the Elohim (sons of God) followed Satan into rebellion. Now some people have tried to say, Well, since the Adamite is spoken of as the sons of God, this is merely the Adamites here. But "the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam that they were fair and took them wives of all whom they chose." And it is written with obvious disapproval. The male descendants of Adam were not allowed by God's law to marry anybody but the daughters of Adam; so if they were marrying within their own racial line here, it couldn't have been spoken with disapproval. So the "beni-ha-elohim" are evidently of those Elohim who followed Satan into rebellion.

    Now you go on into Genesis 6:4 speaking of the same thing, and again it is botched up in your King James Version. "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them. The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." This is what it says in the Hebrew: "There were Nephilim (the fallen ones) in the earth in those days." They were fallen angels. That is what the Bible calls them in so many places. "angels who had not kept their first estate," who had fallen from Heaven and from their former powers. ''When the sons of God and it's again the beni-ha-elohim, "came in unto the daughters of Adam . . ." -so it's the same thing. So here you have the spreading of the Satanic blood line, and the Bible in Genesis chapter 6 goes on to trace many of these descendants of the fallen angels. You find that all through Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, clear down into Mount Seir, the rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea where Esau and his family lived, all through there you have these various people with the Satanic blood line in them.

    Now there are two different places, one in Isaiah, the other as I remember it in Ezekiel, where it speaks of what it calls a King or Prince, in the one case of Babylon, and the other case of Tyre; but nevertheless it speaks of him in language which could not possibly apply to anybody except Satan: indicating therefore that at some time or other, Satan had incarnated in the form of these various kings - one king of Babylon, one king of Tyre. Now don't think that that is so impossible, because, remember the many times that your Old Testament tells of these angels appearing in very solid form. They came and talked with Abraham on several occasions - one of them, you will remember, wrestled with Jacob almost all night. Another came when the people of Israel were about to cross the Jordan River and take over Palestine. Joshua, making a scouting trip around his camp, saw this armed man standing there in armor and with sword, and Joshua asked, "Are you with us or for the enemy?" And the man said, "I am the Captain of the Hosts of Yahweh." So, let us take Isaiah 14:12-21 and note that this could not possibly apply to anyone except to Satan himself; and then, taking it out of the King James Version too, for the benefit of my friend back in Minnesota, "How art thou fallen from the heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations: for thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." He says, "I'm going to be the ruler over Israel (God's people). I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." But Yahweh God told Lucifer, the devil, "Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof, that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house; but thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcass trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people; the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned."

    You could not say that about any kings of Babylon. The only one who may possibly have failed to get burial and an elaborate tomb, and all that, might have been Belshazzar: but he was nothing but an incompetent drunkard, and nobody ever could say of him that he was the one who shook kingdoms, and so on. He didn't even rule Babylon. He stayed drunk.

    These passages are speaking of none other than Lucifer. Note how it goes on (I am reading from the same passage, Isaiah 14:21): "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities." And that word translated as "children" is from the Hebrew word "beni" (sons). So, Satan obviously was to have children who could be slaughtered, to keep them from multiplying to the point where they would take over and rule the world. Old Testament? Sure. Now let us see what the New Testament has to say about it.

    This gentleman back in Minnesota claims to be a Christian: so I want to call his attention to the words of Jesus Christ and see whether he is going to say Jesus Christ was a liar or mistaken, or whether he is willing to admit perhaps he himself was mistaken, because you cannot reconcile the two. Jesus plainly, and in a number of places, says the devil has children, not mere followers. You remember the parable of the Tares and the Wheat: He spoke of the farmer who sowed good seed in his field, and his enemy came along during the night time and sowed these poisonous weeds - the tares among the wheat; and when the farmer's servants saw the tares growing among the wheat they asked him, "Should we go out and pull them up now?" And he said, "No, you might pull up some of the wheat with them. Let them grow together until the time of the harvest, and then the reapers will first gather the tares into bundles to be burned, and then put the wheat in my barn." Then He explains this parable to His disciples. In Matthew 13: 38-39 He says, "The field is the world; the good seed, are the children of the kingdom (and He uses here the Greek word which is plural of "huios," meaning sons - the good seed are the sons of the kingdom); "but the tares are the children (same Greek word, huios) of the wicked one." So Satan has just as true children in this world as does God.

    Again, speaking to the Pharisees (who, as you know, were Jews), in Matthew 12:34 (your King James version botches it up to an extent that seems to me often to be willful), Christ says, "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." But the word is not "generation" at all. A generation is a number of people, of not too different age, living at the same time. You for example constitute one generation. He wasn't talking just about the people living then. They were not any more wicked than the generation that lived before them or the generation that lived after them. What He said was (it's the Greek word genema which means "children" or "offspring"): "O children of vipers . . . sure, all these centuries you Jews have used the serpent as the emblem or symbol for your ancestor. All right, taking you at your word, You children of serpents," right down the line - vipers. He knew who they were. Again Matthew 23:29-35: "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

    Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets." And here again is that Greek word "huios." "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye genema (ye offspring, children) of vipers. How can ye escape the damnation of hell? That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom you slew between the temple and the altar.''

    Now does my friend back in Minnesota say that Jesus Christ was so unjust that He was going to punish these Jews for the murder of Abel if they weren't even descendants of Cain? Of course not. He was here tracing the children of the serpent - the enchanter -Satan, down through the centuries, who had murdered the righteous, including all the prophets, right down the line. So He said, "Upon you (upon this race) these descendants of the serpent, will come the responsibility for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel even unto the blood of Zacharias."

    Now, throughout, the Bible speaks of two seed lines (and I do not mean merely somebody who has been converted to good views or bad). The Bible makes no reference here as to what your religious point of view may be; it is talking about literal descendants. We read in Romans 8:16: "The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Now, the word children there - the Greek word "teknon" - means one born a child, not adopted. Nothing is more fallacious than this church doctrine about being "adopted" children of God. You read what Paul said on this subject, and nothing in it can justify the mistranslation of that as "adoption." He says that before the coming of Christ we were held in bondage under the law, governed strictly by the law, and he said we are just like an heir under age. He has inherited from his father, who has died, all the estate: but he is still a minor, and he is not allowed to take control of it. He is under the control of trustees and governors, appointed guardians, appointed by his Father, until he comes of age. And Paul says, all the time he is the owner of it all, and yet he is controlled as though he is just a servant. Now you couldn't say that about anybody who was adopted. If you take somebody else's illegitimate child and decide you are going to adopt him, is he already the owner of your property before you adopt him? Of course not. And Paul wasn't stupid enough to think he was. Only the churchmen are stupid enough for that.

    Now, what Paul was talking about was the coming of age ceremony by which they marked the fact that the heir had now become of full age and his property was put into his hands to control as an adult. So here in Romans 8:16: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" - teknon -one born a child, not adopted. Romans 9:26 (and he is quoting from Hosea 1:10): "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God" - and it is that Greek word Huioi - sons. We are the born - not adopted - children of God. Now as to the born - not adopted (or converted) children of the devil, read Acts 13: 8 which tells about a Jew sorcerer, Elymas, who opposed Paul when Paul was trying to make some converts. "Then Saul (who also was called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him and said (in verse 9): "O full of all subtility and mischief, thou child of the devil (that Greek word Huios - son) thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Paul was under no illusion. He knew them to be children of the devil, by perfectly legitimate ancestry, for what it's worth.

    Now the child of a cat is another cat, isn't it? The child of a Negro is a Negro; and a child of God is what? Now he is not as wise, and he is not as powerful, and he is not as important as his Father: but nevertheless he partakes (within his limitations) of a godly nature. And that is what the Bible tells us about; and that is exactly why we of God's people Israel are held to so much greater responsibility than other people. After all, you cannot expect a Negro to act like anything but a Negro; but a child of God is expected to act like one.

    Now the child of a devil is what? Another devil, isn't he? Now John 6:70-71 is part of a very important passage which began in this manner: Jesus asked His disciples who were all gathered there, "Whom do men say that I am?" and they said "Oh some say that you are this prophet or that one who has been reincarnated and come back here." Then Christ said, "Whom do you say that I am?" and Peter spoke up and said, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ then said, "Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah: because flesh and blood didn't tell you that fact: it was my Father in heaven who told you that." And He said, "Upon this rock (Petra, the solid bed-rock of the earth) I will found My church." Now He didn't say He was going to found it on Simon Peter (Petros), a little stone. In Greek, Petros means a little stone, just barely bigger than a pebble. Was He going to found His church on a pebble that anybody could kick out from under it? No. "I will found it upon Petra," the solid bed-rock of the earth.

    You remember the example He gave, the parable wherein He said one man had built his house on the sand and when the storm came along, the flood washed the sand out from under it and it collapsed; but another man built his house upon the rock (Petra - the bed-rock) and the storm beat upon it and couldn't do anything to it, because it was founded on a rock (Petra). If any of you have ever been up to Yosemite Valley and seen that enormous cliff, "El Capitan," you've seen a good example of what the Greeks meant by the word Petra. You could build a castle on that and nothing could blow it off or wash it away. So upon this fact, that you have recognized who I am: the Christ, the Son of the Living God; upon that I will found My church, and the gates of death shall not prevail against it." John 6:70-71 says, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Iscariot, (the son) of Simon, for he it was that would betray him, being one of the twelve." Now our Savior was not just being vulgarly abusive and calling people names. He never did that. Oh, He denounced these Pharisees. He called them hypocrites, and they were. He wasn't abusing them with lying epithets. They were hypocrites, and He was accurate. And when He called them children of serpents, they acknowledged the statement was true, for that was the emblem they had used from ancient times. And when He said that one of them was a devil, He wasn't being abusive, He was speaking the literal truth.

    Now the First Epistle of John again states the existence of these two seed lines. First John 2: 29: "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him." First John 3:2: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God (and here we have that Greek word teknon - a born child, not adopted - a born child of God). First John 5: 9-10: "Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Now by that, he didn't mean that none of us commit any sins at all; because, if that is the case, we wouldn't have needed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. We do all have our sins: but you know people are divided into two classes: the ones who are only sorry because they don't get a chance to sin more, and the others who are sorry because they have sinned a little. So what he means there, is, whoever is born of God doesn't habitually sin. So he says, in verse 10, "In this the children (that Greek word teknon), the children of God are manifest, and the children (and again it is that same Greek word teknon) of the devil." Remember he has talked about us as the born teknon of God, and the others as the born teknon of the devil.

    Now First John 3:12 says that as for those that are our brothers, not the children of Satan, that we should love them and not be as Cain. Your King James version says, ". . . who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." So the people who have churchianity rather than Christianity say, "Oh well now, you know it doesn't say that he was a son, it just means that Cain was morally associated with Satan and was bad and reprobate, and so on. "Well I believe my friend back in Minnesota will concede that there was just one Greek language at that time; and so they didn't have two separate Greek languages: one to write the Gospel according to Luke, and a different Greek language in which to write the First Epistle of John. As you know, different languages have their different idioms. In many languages one word may have a meaning that can only be expressed by a phrase of several English words. I think nearly all of you have a King James Version of the Bible and you know that in most editions of it, some words are printed in italic and those words in italic are the words which the translators added because they thought it was necessary to give the English the same meaning that the Hebrew or the Greek had, without these added words. Now the third chapter of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus Christ, starting with Jesus Christ and running back all the way to Adam. So let us start with Luke 3:23 as it reads in the King James Version: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (but those words "the son" are in italic showing that they were not in the Greek and the translators added them) which was the son of Matthat, (again added in italic), which was the son of Levi (in italics), which was the son of Melchi (italics), which was the son of Janna," and so forth - all in italics. Now let us read this the way my friend would read Luke 3:23-24: ". . . the son of Joseph who was as big a reprobate as Heli, who was morally no better than Matthat, who was as bad as Levi . . ." Is that the way that he thinks Luke wrote this? And if that is not the meaning of the Greek here in Luke, it is not the meaning of the same Greek phrase over in First John 3:12. So where it says "not as Cain who was of that wicked one," in Greek it means he was the son of that wicked one. In Greek, if you say John was of William, you will say John was the son of William. Now the better modern translations recognize this. For example, in the Weymouth translation, this same verse, First John 3:12 reads, "We are not to resemble Cain who was a child of the evil one and killed his brother." Phillips' translation: "We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain who was a son of the devil and murdered his brother." The New English Bible, a magnificent job of translation, by the way: "Unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one and murdered his brother."

    The original tapes were divided into two sections at this point:


    The thing which this gentleman cites in his magazine as the final proof positive that there isn't anything at all to this "Jews are the children of Cain and hence of the devil" theory, is found in the 8th chapter of John, beginning with verse 31. You know how often I've cited that for you: but the man in Minnesota shows his ignorance. You remember Jesus Christ was talking to Jews (and it says Jews too, comes right out with the word). And it isn't simply that He was behaving like a petulant spoiled child because somebody didn't believe in Him, because it says, "these were Jews who believed in him." Yes, so-called "converted Jews." You know all about these missions to the Jews. So these were converted Jews. He says to them (and you can just hear the ring of sarcasm in His voice), "If ye continue in my doctrines indeed, then you shall be my disciples; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." And immediately they bristle up at this and ask, "What do you mean - make us free?" They say, "We are Abraham's seed and we have never been in bondage to any man." And He says, "I know you are Abraham's seed." Now to anyone who knew his Bible (and of a minister it is utterly inexcusable that he does not know it: because, remember, this is the blind leading the blind into the ditch, when an ignorant minister is leading his congregation). Who was it who could say that he was descended from Abraham and had never been in bondage to any man?

    If these Jews were of any of the twelve tribes at all, they would have been in bondage the first time in Egypt, wouldn't they? If they belonged to the ten tribed northerly kingdom of Israel, they would have been in bondage a second time in Assyria, wouldn't they? And if they belonged to the. two tribed southern. kingdom of Judah, they would have been in bondage for the second time, Babylon, wouldn't they? And they said "We have never been in bondage to any man," and Jesus Christ admitted the truth of that. He didn't deny that. So they were not of any tribe of Israel whatsoever. Now who could say that, nevertheless, 1,800 years earlier than that, Abraham was one of his ancestors - Esau? Remember Esau and Jacob were twins, born with (presumably) the same blood line: but Esau married two Canaanite women in violation of God's law. Now he couldn't leave anything but mongrelized half-Satanic descendants, because among these Hittite Canaanites you had the Satanic blood line. What the Bible tells you about Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew: that isn't when he lost it. That was merely a formal ceremony by which he gave up any claim to it; but he lost it when he did the thing that rendered it impossible for him to continue as the head of the clan. His descendants from then on would be mongrelized, half Satanic. So recognizing that he was already out of the line for leadership, he sold it for a bowl of stew. Now the Bible tells you that Esau and his two Canaanite wives moved down to Mount Seir, a very rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea. But Mount Seir is exactly where some of these people lived who were descendants of these fallen angels. Go back to Genesis, chapter 6, and among the people who had the blood line of the fallen angels were these Horites - the Horim, the cave dwellers who lived in Mount Seir.

    Now suppose a white man married two Negresses here, and then he moved to the interior of the Congo; and for the next 18 Centuries his descendants lived there with nobody they could marry except the Negroes around them; so of course the last trace of white blood would have vanished. Nevertheless, after 18 centuries of breeding into the Negroes they could still say, "18 centuries ago we had one white ancestor." Now these weren't Negroes: these were the Satanic Canaanites, but the principle is the same. These Jews talking with Jesus Christ had identified themselves as Edomite Jews. Genesis chapter 36 lists Esau's descendants. Verses 20 to 30 specifically list all the various dukes or chieftans among the family of Seir, the Horite, Satanic line, including his daughter Timna. And Genesis 36:12 shows that Timna was a concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz and bore him a son Amalek. And you remember what a pestilential lot the whole tribe of Amalek were. They behaved, throughout, according to the Satanic blood line. You will find a good deal of that in Exodus 17:8-16 and Numbers 20:14-21.

    This same Satanic conduct on the part of the Edomites was repeated as opportunity arose. You remember that when the people of Israel came out of Egypt in the Exodus and they wanted to march on up to Palestine, they were attacked by the Edomites and driven back so they had to detour around, down through the wilderness in the Sinai Peninsula. Again, when the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem and looted and burned the city and massacred a lot of the inhabitants, the Edomites came rushing in to help in the massacre and plunder. The whole book of Obadiah is just one continuous condemnation of the Edomites, for the way they acted, and predicting their eventual slaughter and punishment for it. Obadiah, verse 10: "For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off for ever." Obadiah, verse 15: "For the day of Yahweh is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head." Obadiah, verse 18: "And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh has spoken it." Amen, say I. Exodus 17: 14-16: "And Yahweh said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Yahweh-Nissi (Yahweh-our banner). For he said, Because Yahweh hath sworn that Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." Now, how did these Satanic, mongrel, Edomite Jews get up there into Judea? They came in two principal waves.

    During the time that the southern kingdom of Judah was practically empty during the Babylonian captivity, the Edomites were driven out of Mount Seir by a heavy invasion of an Arab people, the Nabateans, from the east. So the Edomites were driven westward. Now they couldn't go southwest or straight west: they would then be getting into Egyptian territory, and they weren't strong enough to fight the Egyptians. So they went slightly north of west and took over the southerly half of what had been the kingdom of Judah, and settled there. Now when the little remnant came back from Babylon, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah show that 42,600, or something like that, came back. But it lists them by their families: and you run those down and you find that slightly over 8,000 of these were not from any tribe of Israel. In other words, only 34,000 of the 42,000 that came back were Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and a few Levites among them. Now they were too few to drive out these numerous and warlike Edomites; all they could do was settle in the little territory left to them. To give you an idea of the size of that - the entire territory of the twelve tribed nation of Israel before it broke up, set down here in Southern California, would extend from the Mexican border to the southerly part of Los Angeles; and inland from the coast it never was more than 40 miles wide.

    Now divide that into thirds. The northerly two thirds of that comprised the kingdom of Israel - the ten tribed, northern kingdom. So only the southerly one-third of that was the Kingdom of Judah. Now of that one-third, take out the southerly half of that, now occupied by the Edomites, and the little strip left is all that remains for the true Judahites and Benjamites to settle in. Before the captivity, the tribe of Judah had been on the south, the tribe of Benjamin on the north, with the city of Jerusalem lying right on the boundary line between them. Well, they sorted themselves out as well as they could, the way they had been before - Judah on the south - and Benjamin pushed to the north. But Benjamin couldn't just move up to the north a little bit, because north of them was Samaria (remember I said, you divide this twelve tribe territory into thirds) - the middle third constituted Samaria. Both Isaiah and Kings and Chronicles tell you that when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel and deported all its people, they brought other people from Assyria and settled them in Samaria. Now it purposely failed to say they settled anybody in Galilee, the northern most portion - because they didn't - they left it vacant. Now the Benjamites were pushed to the north by the Judahites, as they returned after the captivity. They just couldn't move up into Samaria: that was fully settled. So they had to leap-frog over Samaria to the vacant Galilee, to the north of that.

    Now remember, up in Galilee was Christ's own home town of Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, down close to Jerusalem, but his family home was up in Nazareth. You remember He got nearly all of his converts up in Galilee; and of the twelve disciples only Judas was a Jew. Your Bible calls him Judas Iscariot: and there is no such word as "Iscariot" in any language known to man. It is a corruption of the Hebrew word "Ish Kerioth," meaning, a man of Kerioth - and Kerioth is a little village down in the southwesterly portion of Judaea, down in the territory occupied by the Edomites. So Judas was an Edomite Jew, and he was the only Jew of the twelve. The other eleven were all Galileans, therefore, Benjamites.

    You remember, that when Jesus was arrested and taken into the high priest's home for illegal questioning and Peter followed Him in, the servant said, "Well, you're one of them, you're a Galilean, your accent shows it." Sure, you don't have any difficulty telling the Mississippians from a Maine Yankee here in this country, do you? They speak English with a different accent, and the Galilean spoke the Aramaic of the day, with a little different accent from the Judaeans down around Jerusalem.

    Now, again, consider Pentecost. When the people were gathered there and the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples (and remember they were all there except Judas Iscariot), they began speaking to this assembled multitude in a wide number of different languages. And how astonished the people were, when they heard the disciples speaking all these different languages, which obviously they didn't know. They said, "Aren't all these Galileans?" They were. All the remaining disciples were.

    So, down to the south of what was left of the territory of Judah you have these Edomite Jews settled, and of course, pestiferous people always, they were constantly raiding the southerly boundary of Judaea, the way their descendants are raiding the Arabs' territory today. A leopard doesn't change his spots, you know. And for a long time after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the people in Judaea were a conquered province of one empire or another - Syria or Egypt, and finally Rome. But they got their little flare-up of independence under the Maccabee kings, beginning about 150 BC., and about 120 BC. John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabee kings (who had by that time a good disciplined army) got tired of these Edomite Jew raids on his southern border, and he marched down there and defeated them thoroughly. Remember that Saul, the first king of Israel, was told by God, "You go down there and you absolutely exterminate these Edomites: don't you leave one of them alive. "But he didn't do it, and when he came back the Samuel said, "Because you have disobeyed God, God has deposed you from being king, and He is going to put a better man in your place."

    Approximately 900 years later, John Hyrcanus made the same mistake. After he had defeated the Edomites, he then decided he was going to be a missionary: he would convert them to the religion of Judaism. So he offered them the choice: he would spare them if they would accept the religion of Judaism (which was not the religion of the Old Testament, ever - it was what they had brought back from Babylon with the Babylonian Talmud). - The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise said it so briefly and accurately, I have never been able to improve on his words. He said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud marked the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism." - The people of the Old Testament were real Hebrews and the religion God had given them could well be called Hebrewism. And of course, the Talmud-Judaism began as they destroyed the religion of the Old Testament. But in Christ's time they had not yet given it the name of Talmud: they called it "the tradition of the elders." Remember how often Jesus Christ rebuked them for following their tradition. "Why have ye by your tradition set aside the laws of God?" He was referring to the Talmud. So John Hyrcanus was going to be a Billy Graham of his day: he was going to make converts. He said, "If you will adopt the religion of Judaism, I will give you full citizenship in the kingdom of Judaea. If you don't, I will cut your throats." Well, you know that is the most effective missionary technique they have ever developed. Even Billy Graham doesn't make converts that fast. Of course the converts he makes with the sword are of doubtful validity So the Edomites adopted the religion of Judaism and were accepted in full citizenship in the kingdom. Now you will find that described in great detail in the one reliable history of that period - Josephus, in his history, "Antiquities of the Jews, Book 13, chapter 9.

    The second wave of Edomites came in when the Edomite chieftan Herod conquered and became king of judaea, under the Roman Empire. He was a very able, very evil scoundrel. He raised a large sum of money by taxation and by raiding his neighbors, and with it he bribed Mark Anthony who was over in Egypt with the Roman legions at that time. He bribed Mark Anthony to lend him a couple of the Roman legions, in addition to his own Edomite troops, for a conquest of Judaea. And, with the Roman troops and his own, he did capture Judaea. In 40 BC. the Romans recognized him as governor with the title, Ethnarch, and in 37 BC. they formally recognized him as the local King of Judaea. Of course, he was subject to Roman foreign policy but he had complete self-government at home. Now he had come in with a conquering army and, of course, his Jewish Edomite followers came in, for the sake of the plunder they could get (just as they are already going back to Germany, now, for the sake of the plunder they can get). So they overran the place. You may learn much about these events by reading Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews," Books 14 to 18. In his other history, the "Wars of the Jews," Book 4, chapters 4 and 5, Book 5 and chapter 6 and thereafter, he tells of the horrible conduct of these Edomite Jews within the besieged city of Jerusalem while it was undergoing siege by Titus in the year 70 AD. Their robbery and massacre of the inhabitants inflicted probably more casualties than the Roman army did. In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the article "Edom," (in the edition I used to look it up, it was Volume 5, page 41), the article "Edom" concludes with these words: "The Edomites are found today in modern Jewry."

    These Edomites had come in first, when they were given full citizenship by John Hyrcanus; second, they had come in as a wave of conquerors under Herod (that is the same Herod who tried to murder Jesus Christ as a baby). They had overrun the land. They had the entire civil and religious government, until the death of Herod in 4 BC. Then Herod left the kingdom of Judaea, by will, to his son Herod Archelaus. The Romans were too wise to trust somebody with the kingdom when they didn't know anything about him. They gave him a trial period as governor, under the title, Ethnarch; and he gave them 10 years of the most miserable misrule that any nation ever had, 4 BC. to 6 AD. - and the people finally petitioned Rome to send a Roman to govern them. Now remember the people didn't like the tyranny of Rome a bit: but when this was so bad they said, "We would rather be governed by a foreigner, a Roman," you can understand how bad it was. The Romans tried Herod Archelaus, found him guilty of misrule, banished him to Vienne; and from that time on there were a series of Roman governors called procurators: Pontius Pilate was number six in that series. So the military government was entirely in the hands of the Roman procurators. The collection of taxes for Rome was entirely under the supervision of the Roman procurator. On the other hand, these Herodian Jews had control of the entire religious government and the temple. They also had control of the civil government, in all respects concerning purely local self-government - could collect their own taxes, and so on.

    You remember, when the priests were getting greatly upset about Jesus' teachings they said, "If we let Him alone, all men will believe on Him; and the Romans will take this place, this kingdom, away from us." Now the way the clergymen have taught it, that is meaninglessly stupid. They pictured Jesus as a whining, cringing, milk-sop, going around, whimpering to people that they ought to be good. If that was all He did, these Jews would not have honored Him even with their contempt, much less be worried about Him. He was explaining to the people, the utter evil of the Jewish economic and religious system under which they were living. The Jews said look, if we let Him alone, He is going to awaken the people to these evils. They will petition Rome just as they did with Herod Archelaus, and the Romans will kick us out of here." That is what they were talking about. So here were these Jews, these Edomite Jews, who said to Jesus Christ, "We are descendants of Abraham." They were illegitimate descendants of Abraham but, nevertheless, descendants of Abraham, and they said, "We've never been In bondage to any man." And Jesus Christ said, "That's right." - Now continue that same passage through John 8:31-44, and you will come to the place where Christ tells them that they were the children of their father, the devil, and they would do the lusts of their father, who was a murderer from the beginning.

    Christ recognized the two seed lines. He didn't say, "Well, you have adopted some of the bad principles of the devil." He said, "You are the children of your father the devil." So the entire Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, recognizes the two seed lines. The Adamic seed line coming down through a carefully selected best one in each generation, right on down to Abraham, Isaac, Israel and then on down through the twelve tribes of Israel. The seed, the children of God and the seed, the children of Satan; some of whom, the most pestiferous of them, have come down through the line of Cain.

    Somebody asked me, "Do you think these Jews know of their descent from Cain?" They certainly do, and here is how they prove it. Jews have given the owner of the radio station on which I broadcast, a very bad time. As some of you know, a radio broadcasting station license is good for only three years. If it is renewed you have a going, money-making business of considerable value. If it is not renewed, all you have is some used machinery. So it makes a great deal of difference to the owner, whether he gets his license renewed or not, and the Jews were putting pressure on this radio station owner to put two programs off the air - mine and Richard Cotten's - and he refused. He said, "I have no authority to censor any of these programs" - and he said, "besides, this is the United States and I believe in free speech." They said, "No, you've got to put those programs off the air." So he said, "If either one of them has said anything that you think is untrue, although they are paying for their time, I will give you free time, an equal amount of free time, for you to answer them." But they wouldn't take him up on that, because neither Cotten nor I go off the deep end with any statement we can't prove. So they insisted that he put them off. When he refused, they filed objections to the renewal of his license which came up for renewal about that time. They kept the matter before the Federal Communications Commission for more than a year, and the owner operated his station on a day-to-day basis, not knowing whether his license would be renewed or not. In that time they finally terrorized him into making this agreement: he would hire a Jew employee who would censor my program and Richard Cotten's, cutting out whatever material the Jews objected to.

    Now, I don't send any tapes to that station that have been cut and spliced. When you are paying $100.00 an hour for broadcast time, tape is the cheapest thing you use; and while I have never known of one of my splices to come apart, I don't take any chances on it. The tapes I send in are complete, without splices. But when they come back, they are cut and spliced in a number of places where this Jew censor has cut portions of them out. Now I don't like one bit the idea that a Christian broadcast can be censored by a Jew, to remove matters of essential Christian doctrine. But nevertheless, this station owner doesn't have to carry my program. They are still fighting and this is now three years. He won before the Federal Communications Commission. They appealed the thing to the Federal Court and he won before the Federal Court. And they appealed to the U.S. District Court of Appeals and he won there, and they have appealed it to the U.S. Supreme Court. This radio station owner undoubtedly has spent somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 in legal expenses, fighting to preserve his station license (and indirectly to preserve my right of free speech). Now, if I make myself too troublesome, to him, he may decide he just doesn't want to carry my program any further; so I don't argue with him about it: I let the thing go on that way.

    On one of my broadcast tapes, I mentioned the fact that, as the Bible tells you, after Cain killed Abel, Cain up to that time had been a farmer, you remember, and God said "Cursed is the ground for your sake. I will not hereafter yield you its strength." And Cain said, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. You have driven me off the face of the land, and I'll be a wanderer and a vagabond." And I said, "I suppose you have noticed that the children of Cain are not farmers today. You find them in the financial, money lending institutions." Now, I didn't use the forbidden word "Jew." I just said, "The Children of Cain" - and the Jew cut that out of my tape. As a Jew he knew exactly Who I was talking about. Yes, they know it.

    You know, the Bible says that Cain said, "Why, you've driven me out of this land where the descendants of Adam would be." And he said, "Wherever I go, whoever meets me will kill me." And in those days there were a lot of places that weren't too hospitable to strangers. If as the preachers say, Adam and Eve were the parents of the only people on earth (the only other child had been Abel and he was dead); now with Cain driven away from Adam and Eve, out into some other part of the earth, who was he going to meet there to kill him? And you remember, it says that he very speedily found enough people, that with them he built a city. So the Bible recognizes these pre-Adamite races. But God said, "Well, I'll put a mark on you, so that people will recognize you and not kill you." Now, what was this mark? Did God tattoo something on the sole of his foot or where he would sit down on it? No. Long before any hidden mark could possibly have been seen, he would have been killed. God had to put it where it was the first thing they would see, and He put it right in the exact geometrical center of his face: that big Jew nose which they have borne ever since, and the sculptured monuments of the ancient empires show it.

    The ancient kings were extremely vain of the conquests they had made. The pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Babylon, the kings of Assyria, the kings of Persia, all left elaborately carved monuments telling how they had captured this city or that, and massacred so many of its inhabitants and made slaves of the others, and took so much loot, and so forth. In addition to the inscriptions they nearly always had a carved panel illustrating this, showing some of the captives. Now wherever any of these show an Israelite, it is invariably a straight nose, typical, what we would call an Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian or Teutonic type of face. But where it shows these Canaanite peoples, it is always a typical hook-nose Jew.

    The evidence of the Bible, the evidence of archaeology all show one thing, definitely, right down the line: the existence of the Satanic seed line, a part of which at least came down through Cain and the existence of the other seed line of God's own children.


    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc Talkshoe Channel: Understanding DSCI

    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-124251/TS-687180.mp3 Original Comparet spoken sermon

    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-124251/TS-685070.mp3 Re-Engineered Annotated Comparet Sermon by Pastor Lindstedt


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 11-20-2012 at 08:39 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI #4 -- Comparet: Noah's Flood Was NOT World Wide

    Understanding DSCI #4 -- Comparet: Noah's Flood Was NOT World Wide

    November 20, 2012 10:00pm EST/9:00pm CST

    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7175#post7175

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc <----- Talkshoe Program Channel

    http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-124251/TS-689420.mp3 Episode 4 - Classic Comparet: Noah's Flood was NOT Worldwide, Original Sermon

    .


    .



    Noah's Flood Was NOT World Wide

    by Dr. Bertrand Comparet



    http://web.archive.org/web/200905230...t/compbbl.html Library of Congress Archive Link
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=4113#post4113 Hour of Great Tribulation Podcast
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3819#post3819



    Among the many mistaken and un-Scriptural notions commonly taught in nearly all churches is the idea that the Flood, mentioned in the Bible, covered all the earth, and drowned everybody on earth excepting only Noah and his family, who escaped death by being in the Ark. So many churches have firmly insisted that the Bible says this--when there is ample proof that the Flood was not worldwide - that they have destroyed the faith of multitudes of people in the Bible, made atheists or agnostics out of hundreds of thousands of people who might have become Christians if they had only been taught the truth about the Bible.

    Part of this mistaken idea about the Flood is due to the many mistranslations found in the commonly-used King James Version of the Bible; but also, part of it appears plainly to be false if you merely carefully read even the King James Version. Let's have a look at it.

    In Genesis chapter 6, we read that God found the people so corrupt that He regretted that He had ever created them, so He decided to wipe them out by a flood; and He warned righteous Noah of the coming flood, and told Noah to build a great boat, or ark, in which he and his family might find safety, and where they might preserve a few of each kind of the animals. In chapter 7, it tells how Noah received the final warning that the time was now at hand, and he should move into the ark. Then it says - according to the King James Version - "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights... And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; and every man... And the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days. And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged... And the waters returned from off the earth continually, and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated. And the ark rested, in the 7th month, on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the loth month; in the l0th month, on the 1st day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

    Now, first, let us see what the translators have done to what Moses originally wrote. You remember that the King James Version says that the rain was upon "the earth," and the waters increased greatly upon 'the earth"; and that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth." But are they right in translating this "the earth"? Definitely not! Remember that in Genesis 4:14, when God has driven Cain away in punishment for his murder of Abel, the King James Version quotes Cain as saying "Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." So what did Cain do? climb into his rocket ship and take off for outer space? Of course not! He was not driven from the face of "the earth," and he never said so - -only the translators said so. The word Cain used was "ad-aw-maw," meaning "the ground": God had told him that his farming would no longer be successful, so Cain said "Thou hast driven me off of the ground." (And you have probably noticed that Cain's descendants today are not farmers: they run pawnshops and other money-lending institutions.)

    When we come to the 7th chapter of Genesis, where it is talking about the Flood, wherever it says that the Flood covered "the earth," the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was "eh-rets," meaning "the land" - the flood did cover the particular land where it occurred. That is, it was a local flood which covered one particular region or land, not the whole earth.

    Again, notice that it specifies that "15 cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." In ancient times two different lengths of the cubit were in use: the Hebrew sacred cubit of 25 inches, and the common cubit of 20-5/8 inches. Therefore, the waters rose above the tops of the mountains it is speaking of by either 25 feet 9 inches or 31 feet 3 inches, according to which cubit you use. If this meant that all the mountains on earth were covered, the waters would have to cover Mount Everest, which is nearly six miles high: therefore, all the earth would be covered by water six miles deep. In that case, where could it have run off when the Flood subsided? No, I don't mean that the Bible was that badly mistaken: only the translators made that mistake, because they took a Hebrew word "eh-rets" which means "that land" and mistranslated it to mean the whole world. A little later, we shall look over the evidence which proves where "that land" was.

    But if the whole earth was covered by six miles of water, then all nations must have been completely exterminated. Yet Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break. The Bible gives the date of Noah's Flood as commencing in 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C. In lower Sumer, later called "Chaldea" (and which occupied the same "Plains of Shinar" to which Noah's family journeyed after the flood), the City of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2285 B.C., and its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2400 B.C. on, and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2250 B.C.), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the Eleventh Dynasty began to reign about 2375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation; the Eleventh Dynasty ruled to about 2212 B.C., and was followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C. There was no break in the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's Flood, 2345 B.C.; and the nation continued to be large and powerful throughout this period.

    Accurate history of China begins nearly 3000 B.C. The Shu-King, historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 B.C. - 11 years before the start of Noah's Flood - and ruled China for many years after the Flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu-King reports that the Hwang Ho River (which drains mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province) had excessive floods for three generations. Here, again, there was no break in history, the Chinese nation was not wiped out, but its own records show that it continued in existence right through the period of Noah's Flood.

    Therefore, the Bible is correct in stating that the Flood covered only "eh-rets" - "that land"; and the translators are wrong when they change the meaning of what Moses really wrote in the 7th chapter of Genesis, and say that the Flood covered all "the earth."

    This leaves us ready to inquire where the Flood did occur. For this, we will have to start with Adam and Eve, and trace where they and their descendants went. They started out in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:10 to 14 tells us that a river went out of Eden, and this river divided into four Streams. It names these four rivers: Pison and Gihon (neither of which can be identified among the rivers existing today), and Hiddekel (which is the ancient name of the Tigris River) and Euphrates. The Tigris and Euphrates rise in what is today extreme southeastern Turkey, a little north of modern Iraq. Making some allowance for the fact that many rivers have changed their courses considerably in the course of several thousand years, this still places the Garden of Eden at the northern end of ancient Akkad.

    When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:24 tells us that God placed cherubim with a flaming sword at the east side of the Garden of Eden, to keep Adam and Eve from returning and having access to the tree of life. If this guard was to accomplish anything, it must have been placed between Adam and the Garden of Eden, so we see that Adam and Eve were driven out to the east. From Eden, Adam's course would naturally have led him across northern Iran, around the southern end of the Caspian Sea, into what was formerly called Chinese Turkestan, and today is known as Sinkiang province in the extreme west of China.

    In the southern part of Sinkiang, there is a great basin, rimmed by high mountains on all sides, but with an outlet on the eastern end of it, through the mountains where the headwaters of the Hwang-Ho River, the Yellow River, rises. This basin is today nearly all desert; but it bears the evidence of a fertile and heavily inhabited past. Explorers have found ruins of ancient cities, uncovered by the drifting sands of the desert. Also, the known geological structure shows that, in ancient times at least, beneath this desert lay enormous underground natural reservoirs, caverns filled with water - the same geological structure which furnishes artesian water in many parts of the world today. These underground reservoirs were covered by waterproof layers of rock, which kept the waters beneath from overflowing out on the land surface above them. In this mountain-rimmed basin, then a fertile, well-populated land, Adam and Eve - or at least their descendants of a few generations later - settled.

    You who listen to this program already know that Adam was not the first man: he was only the first man in the present White Race. Adam and Eve found this land to which they had come already populated by an Asiatic people, among whom they had to live. Through the following generations, the inevitable happened: wherever there is integration, intermarriage and mongrelization of the races follows. But if God had no purp(~ses in mind which could not be properly served by the Asiatic and Negro races, there would have been no reason for Him to create Adam: neither could the purposes which Adam and his descendants were intended to serve be fulfilled by a mongrelized race. The consequences of this mongrelization are described in Genesis 6:5, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Again, we find that the word there mistranslated "earth" is the Hebrew word "eb-rets," which means only "the land" - that particular land; and there is reason for using that Hebrew word, for this was the place where integration and mongrelization had taken place, with its degenerative effects as compared to the qualities possessed by each race separately.

    We find confirmation of this in the reason why God spared Noah. In Genesis 6: 9, your King James Version Bible tells you that Noah was "perfect in his generations" - a meaningless phrase. When anything in the King James Version of the Bible fails to make good sense, it is a sign that you should go behind the mistranslation and see what the words were in the original Hebrew or Greek. The word here translated "generations" was the Hebrew word "to-ledaw," which means "ancestry." That is, Noah was "perfect in his ancestry" - a thoroughbred, not a mongrel. Noah and his family were the last remaining pureblooded Adamites in (that part of) the world: therefore, God needed to save them to carry out the purposes He had planned for the Adamic people. The mongrelized people among whom Noah and his family lived must be removed, or they would be a trap which would eventually lead to the complete end of the pure-blooded Adamites. (It was part of God's plan for one of Noah's sons to produce the line of racial descent into which God would later embody Himself as the Messiah, and by His Crucifixion pay for the redemption of His people; for this reason the lineage had to be kept pure.)

    Have we any other evidence to support our view that this was the region where Adam and Eve and their descendants settled? Yes. Remember that Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden to the eastward. Later, when Cain murdered Abel, and as a punishment was banished from the land where Adam and Eve lived, Genesis 4:16 tells us that Cain "went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden." The Hebrew word "nod" means "wandering." That is, in the upper Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, at the north of Eden, these rivers were running swiftly downhill from their mountain sources: therefore, they cut themselves deep channels in the ground; and even today, we can find the traces of the ancient diversion dams, built by the ancients to raise the water level up close to the surface of the ground, so they would not have to pump it so high to get it into their irrigation canals. Farther to the south, in the lower Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, where the slope was no longer steep, the accumulation of silt picked up by the rivers where they ran swiftly was now settling to the bottom of the river beds, constantly raising the level, so that every high-water season the rivers overflowed their banks and flooded the valleys, exactly the same as we have had in our own Mississippi Valley. These annual floods washed away the people's houses and sent them fleeing far away to high ground: therefore, it was correctly called "the Land of Nod" - "the Land of Wandering." Here Cain settled, and taught the people to build high dikes along the river banks - just as we have done along the banks of the Mississippi River. This enabled them to stop the annual floods, so they could now build permanent cities of good houses in the lower Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, the land then called by its own inhabitants "Sumer," and later called "Chaldea." In a very few places, the Bible calls it "the Plain of Shinar." That is, Cain went back westward from where Adam and Eve lived. It was thus that Cain started his great empire. Yes, Cain is a well-known historical character, not found only in the Bible (but he is known in history under another name). He established an empire which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, and even took in some of the larger islands in the Mediterranean Sea. Some day I will tell you about Cain and his empire; but that is another story.

    Another bit of evidence is found in Genesis 11:2, which tells us that after the Flood, Noah's descendants "journeyed FROM the east," until they came to the land of Shinar. Therefore, they must have come from some place east of the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys; and the only place where such a flood as the Bible describes could have occurred, eastward from the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, is this mountain basin in Sinkiang which I have been talking about.

    Another bit of evidence is found in the high-water mark found in many places along the mountains which rim this basin, showing that at one time this basin was a lake, extending to this well-marked shoreline. The mountains which rim this valley were not fully covered, for many of them range from 16,000 to 25,000 feet in height, and one even rises over 28,000 feet. But within the basin are several smaller mountains, which could be fully covered by a flood held within the higher rim of the valley. In short, this basin, through which flows the Tarim River, and which is sometimes known as the Tarim Basin, in southern Sinkiang, is identified as the site of Noah's Flood.

    In your King James Version Bible, Genesis 7:11-12 reads: "in the 600th year of Noah's life, in the 2nd month, the 17th day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights." More careful translation makes clear what really happened. in Moffatt's Modern English translation we read, "the fountains of the great abyss all burst, and the sluices of heaven were opened." In Smith and Goodspeed's American Translation, it says "the fountains of the great abyss were all broken open, and the windows of the heavens were opened." That is, a great earthquake broke up this water-proof layer of rock over the immense, water-filled abyss or cavern beneath this Tarim Basin, causing the floor of the valley to settle, and allowed the enormous underground reservoir to overflow and submerge the valley floor: the great earthquake in the Himalaya Mountains about ten years ago produced similar effects in some places. Of course, the 40 days oftorrential rains added to the flood. This filled the valley high enough to submerge the low mountains which were inside the valley, exactly as Genesis 7:19-20 says. Don't be misled by the mistranslation, "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered." The word mistranslated "heaven" is merely the Hebrew word "shaw-meh," meaning "the sky." Since this Tarim Basin is somewhat more than 350 miles wide by more than 650 miles long, all the sky visible from anywhere near the center of this valley would cover only this valley, and therefore only those lower mountains which were within the valley itself, would be covered by water.

    But what about Genesis 8:4, reading, "And the ark rested in the 7th month, on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."? Sometimes failure to translate can be as misleading as mistranslation. Most people understand this to mean Mount Ararat, in Armenia, some 1,600 miles west of the Tarim Basin. But this is NOT what the Bible says. First of all, note that it says "mountains of Ararat," mountains being in the plural, while Mount Ararat in Armenia is only a single peak. But Mount Ararat in Armenia was known until comparatively recent times as "Mount Massis," and nobody had ever heard of it being called "Mount Ararat" in Bible times. Furthermore, the Hebrew word "ararat" means only "the tops of the hills." Therefore, correctly translated, Genesis 8: 4 merely says that the ark came to rest upon the tops of the high hills - some of the lower mountains which were within the valley.

    A recent newspaper report mentions an expedition, equipped with the latest electronic equipment, which is going to Mount Ararat in Armenia to find the Ark, and which will melt the ice which covers the Ark by coating it with black powdered carbon. They won't find Noah's Ark, for it is not there. Several expeditions have gone to Mount Ararat to find the Ark; some of them got within sight of a mass on the side of the mountain which, from that particular point of view, looked to be shaped somewhat like a ship. That point has been very carefully inspected from the air, by airplanes flying over it very close, and it has proved to be nothing but a ledge of rock which does give a silhouette shaped like a ship, when seen from the right direction. I need not mention the many places - such as the Grand Canyon, etc - where similar "ship rocks" can be seen - and none of them are Noah's Ark.

    So, when we carefully examine the whole affair, and correct the mistranslations, we find that there is no conflict between what the Bible really says and either science or history. In fact, there never is any such conflict: it is only the preachers who find themselves contradicted by either science or history; and that is only because they either won't take the trouble to find out what the Bible really says, or they have made the mistranslation a supposedly sacred church doctrine, and now they are stuck with it. Don't let any church shake your faith in the Bible: the Bible is always right, even if the preachers are often wrong.

    Let us remember another thing: the Chinese historical record, the Shu-King, records that during the reign of King Yao, at a time beginning about the date of Noah's Flood, the Hwang Ho River carried excessive floods for three generations. Drainage out of the Tarim Basin to the eastward would have been carried off in the Hwang Ho River, and would account for this.

    Now we come to another false doctrine taught in many churches: that since nobody survived in all the earth except Noah and his family, everybody now living is a descendant of Noah and related by blood, no matter what race they belong to. But we have already seen that the Flood did not cover the whole earth but only one valley about 350 by 650 miles in size; that Chinese history was not interrupted by it, although they do record purely local floods in the Hwang Ho valley where the waters were draining off; we have seen that Egyptian history is not interrupted by the Flood, so the continent of Africa was not touched by it and the Negro race continued unaffected by it. It would be absurd to think that Noah and his wife, both of them being White, could have one white child, one Negro child, and one Chinese child. Remember that in Genesis 1:11-25, when God created the world and its inhabitants, and made the laws governing their reproduction, He did not make it absurd chaos, with whales giving birth to cattle and fish hatching out of birds' eggs: His law, several times repeated for emphasis, is always that each creature must bring forth strictly "after his own kind." The churches which teach this false doctrine of everybody being descended from Noah never got it out of the Bible - that is, in any true translation of the Bible. As Moses wrote it in the Hebrew language, under divine inspiration, the Bible correctly tells that Noah's descendants went out into a world already populated by people who had lived right through the time of the Flood and were still going strong. Ferrar Fenton's Modern English translation gives this correctly. In Genesis 10:1-5 we read of the descendants of Noah's son Japheth, and it says, "From these they spread themselves over the sea-coasts of the countries of the nations, each with their language amongst the gentile tribes." Genesis 10:20 tells of the descendants of Noah's son Ham, "These were the sons of Ham, in their tribes and languages, in the regions of the heathen." Genesis 10:31 completes it: "These are the sons of Shem, by their tribes and by their languages, in their countries among the heathen."

    So never let anybody tell you that the Bible consists of the fables of a primitive people. It is perfectly consistent with all true science and all true history: it is the history of our Race, the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic White Race.


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 11-20-2012 at 08:47 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI #5 -- Comparet: What Happened to Cain?

    Understanding DSCI #5 -- Comparet: What Happened to Cain?

    November 27, 2012 11:00pm EST/10:00pm CST

    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7225#post7225

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc <----- Talkshoe Program Channel

    Episode 4 - Classic Comparet:

    What Happened to Cain?


    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3494#post3494



    "What Happened to Cain?" is a question in the minds of many Believers. The Bible does not trace Cain very far, and yet the fact is that Cain is a definite historical character of whom you can learn as much outside the Bible as you can from the Bible itself.

    Do not let anyone tell you that these Old Testament people are myths. They are not. They are definitely a part of history. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden; eastward, evidenced by Cherubim being placed at the east of the Garden to guard it against their possible return. If they had gone to the south or to the west, guards at the east side would not have meant a thing. Obviously, they went to the east; and, as we learned when we were studying Noah's flood, Adam's migration actually took him and Eve into the Atrium Basin, in what is today called Sinkiang, in the extreme southwestern part of China. The migration undoubtedly took a considerable period of time. It was a long way to walk, but they had time in those days. Adam lived 900 odd years.

    In the area where they settled, Eve gave birth to two children; Cain and Abel. Much is lost in the mistranslations in your King James Version. Genesis 3:15 establishes the theme of the entire Bible, and all the rest of it is a development of that theme.

    Eventually, God called before Him; Adam, Eve and Satan to give an accounting of their misdeeds. Please do not get the idea, as your King James Version and all the traditional translations tell you, that Satan was a snake; a long scaly thing, wriggling along the ground, because that is not what the Hebrew says.

    The word they mistranslated snake is "nachash', (naw‑khawsh) whose root meaning is "enchanter" or "magician." You will recall that while Satan was expelled from Heaven and his wings clipped considerably, he nonetheless retained possession of a good deal of his angelic powers.

    In the course of time, his children (and we do mean children, just as the Bible says) came to adopt the serpent as a symbol, an emblem of their father; and, over a period of centuries, the word was given a secondary meaning of "serpent," which was not its basic meaning.

    Cain murdered Abel and was expelled from that region. Referring back to Genesis 3:15 (and this is before Cain comes on the scene) God said to Satan,

    "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed," etc.


    Ferror Fenton in his translation relates the following about Genesis 3:15:

    “I will also cause antagonism between you and the woman, and between your progeny and her progeny. He shall wound your head, and you shall wound His heel.”

    In the idiom of the Hebrew language "seed" and "fruit" are used not only to literally mean grain and the fruit that grows on the tree, but is also used quite regularly to refer to the descendants of people. The same Hebrew word for "seed" was used both referring to Satan and to Eve. Satan was to have just as literal children as was Eve.

    God goes on to say

    "...it shalt bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

    In other words, you have here, in the Bible, the first recorded promise of the coming of The Redeemer. Evidently God went on to tell them a great deal more than that, which the Bible does not at that point record. Abel brought as his offering the Blood Sacrifice. Whereas, Cain, who also had flocks and herds, though he was primarily a farmer, brought fruits and vegetables and dumped them down, as much as to say to God, "Well, landlord, here's your crop rent." And then he wondered why his offering was not acceptable to God!

    Cain murdered Abel and he was driven out "from the face of the earth." In the King James Version it quotes Cain as saying to God,

    "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth" (Genesis 4:14).

    The implication here seems to be that he climbed into his rocket ship and went off into inter‑stellar space, which of course we know is not what happened. He did not say you have driven me off the face of the earth. The word earth, used there, happens to be "adamah" which means merely "the ground, "but it had little deeper significance. He had been a farmer, and God told him that as a curse upon him, the land; the ground,

    "which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.. shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength..." (Genesis 4:11‑12).

    To this day, who ever saw a Jewish farmer?

    Ferror Fenton does a much better job of translating this than does the King James, as he relates this verse in this way:

    “But Cain answered to the Lord, My punishment is heavier than I can bear. Since You drive me today out from off THE FACE OF THIS LAND, I shall be deprived of Your presence and be a wanderer and a vagabond upon the earth; and whoever meets me will kill me.”

    Another reading in the Hebrew of these verses Genesis 4:13‑17 is this,

    "And Cain said unto Yahweh, Great is my iniquity beyond bearing: behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the land and from Thy face. I shall be hidden and I shall become unsettled and wandering on the earth; and it will come to pass anyone finding me will kill me."

    If, as the Judeo-Christian churches teach, Adam was the first human being of any sort, then no one was left alive at this stage except Adam and Eve (who were not going to kill Cain) and Cain himself. Yet, he *expected to be killed in the immediate future when he ran into someone.” This is simply another instance of the Bible's recognition, in several places, of the existence of pre‑Adamic races.

    The next verse says,

    "...and Yahweh said unto him, Therefore, anyone killing Cain, sevenfold shall he be avenged, and Yahweh made for Cain a sign in order that anyone finding him not smite him. And Cain went out from before Yahweh and settled in the Land of Wandering."

    Your King James Version gives the Hebrew word "Nod;" but it means wandering, eastward of Eden.

    It goes on to read (verse 17),

    "And Cain knew his wife (where did he get a wife if there was not anyone else on earth in those days?) and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city."

    So, there were enough people on hand not only to furnish him a wife, but to build a city under his direction (a reading of Ezekiel 31 explains that many of the trees in the Garden of Eden were people and not wooden trees as we know them) "and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." Cain, in his wandering, traveled to and built his city in the Tigris‑Euphrates Valley district.

    The rivers overflowed their banks every flood season and would drive the people out. In between flood seasons, they could plant crops, anything maturing quickly enough to be harvested before the next flood season. Then the overflow would drive them out again.

    Evidently Cain was a man of great ability and great intelligence. He taught them something they probably vaguely realized they should do, but they did not have what it took to get organized and do it. He taught them to build dikes, to make embankments along the sides of the river channel, just as we have in our own Mississippi River valley; dikes which would hold the rivers within their channels even during the flood season, all of which stopped it from being a "land of wandering." This enabled them to build their cities with the assurance that they would not be washed away next flood time. To this day you can find traces of the ancient embankments by which the river channels were protected.

    There is a group of languages spoken from the Persian Gulf and the Zagros mountains west to the Mediterranean, which are all related in their origin. Aramaic was spoken over a vast area and it is even today a living language spoken by some people in Syria.

    It is also the language which Jesus Christ spoke, because that is the language the people about Him could understand. It was their contemporary language. The old classical Hebrew had become, at that time, pretty much of a dead language. The scholars knew it, like they today know Latin and Greek, but the common people did not speak it. So there was the old Sumerian, the much more important Aramaic, and Hebrew. The Phoenician Cities; spoke another dialect, a Semitic dialect, rather closely related to Hebrew.

    In Hebrew, they called the city after Cain's son's name, Enoch. An actual city was built with a name so close to that, that the only difference is the difference between the two languages.

    In the lower Tigris‑Euphrates Valley, now named Sumeria, their civilization was very ancient. In fact, it undoubtedly goes back to the first chapter of Genesis. Some of their records date the beginning of their own settlement there from about 14,000 B.C., and their records of astronomical occurrences would seem to bear this out.

    The important events were noted in the chronicles of all the ancient peoples. In fact, this is the only way we have been able to work out any kind of synchronization of ancient history. They had no general date scale like our own, as we say this is the year 1976 A.D. But in each kingdom their own records would show that something occurred on the 11th day of the 8th month of the 14th year of the reign of King somebody‑or‑other. Then, when he died, they started it all over again, with the first day of the first month of the first year of the reign of King somebody‑else. They noted in these records important events, such as their wars. This is one way in which we have been able to work out a synchronization of ancient history.

    When the records of ancient Babylonia show a war with Egypt, which the records of Egypt also show, we can learn that the 15th year of King somebody‑or‑ other of Babylonia was the same as the 8th year of Pharaoh somebody‑else of Egypt. One other thing they did was to record the major eclipses, total or nearly total eclipses, of the sun. One can calculate to the exact day when such an eclipse would be visible in that locality. This is not a matter of guess‑work.

    However, you do have to know the astronomical cycle to work it out. The fact that records go way back, thousands of years before Adam, correctly showing these cycles when the eclipses occurred, seem to lend a fair amount of truth to them. At any rate, we have their current records. I do not mean records where they say that this city was settled so many thousands of years ago. I am talking about their then current record of events of the time when they were written. We have their current records from about 4500 B.C., or about 500 years before Adam. For example, the records of Enshagkushana the King of Kengi which was a city in Sumer, mentions that he was also "patesi" (priest) of Enlil in the city of Nippur. This record it also dates back to around 4500 B.C. It also mentions the city of Kish and Gursi.

    Alusharshad the King of Kish about 4000 B.C. left records in which he claimed to be King of the World, which was, as we may note, a rather substantial exaggeration.

    So, when Cain moved into that locality, he found a civilization already in existence, with quite extensive commerce reaching clear to the Mediterranean Sea, but apparently it needed some more of his engineering skill. The geological evidences that are found indicate that the entire area there, including some of the Arabian Desert, was a luxuriant well‑watered grass land, with abundant grazing animals on it, and trees (and that sort of thing) up to around 4500 B.C., when the climatic change began over a period of perhaps 500 years or so, extending down to say, roughly, 4000 B.C.

    There was a gradual drying up of the area, and from being a Nomadic people, able to live like the American Indians when they followed the herds of the buffalo, these people had to settle down in the river valleys and see to it that their crops were planted, irrigated and harvested.

    In this lower Tigris‑Euphrates Valley, these two great rivers brought enormous loads of silt year around, carried down from their upper reaches, where they were running swiftly. The Valley of the Nile is famous for the fine silt soil. In the Imperial Valley, you find the same kind of rich silt, left there by the Colorado River. This is beautiful, fine silt soil, and perhaps nowhere in the world is there a clay so perfectly adapted to the making of tile and bricks as this clay silt of the Tigris and Euphrates Valley.

    Into this scene of ancient civilization comes a definite historical character; not just somebody that people centuries later wrote about, but a man who left his own records which are in our museums today, and that is Sargon the [Great]

    First, Sargon the Magnificent. This is not the Sargon who was mentioned in your Bible, a king of Assyria back in 722 B.C., a son of Shalmanezer and father of Sennacherib, kings of Assyria. He simply borrowed the name of this hero of many thousands of years before.

    Your Bible does not mention the original Sargon under the name of Sargon. In a single reign, somewhere in the period between 3800 and 4000 B.C., Sargon the Magnificent built up this enormous empire. In the ancient records, his name is found in several various forms, depending upon which language in which his name happens to appear; Sumerian, Akkadian or Babylonian, but definitely referring to the same man in each of these different languages.

    Sar or Shar means King and it is perhaps a basic derivation of the later forms of Shah, Czar, etc., which have persisted as titles of kings. "Sharukinu" ‑ this kinu is a Sumerian form of Cain. Genesis 4:17 tells us that Cain built the city and called it Enoch. Sargon built a city at that place, which he called in their language Unuk," a slight variation due to the difference in languages. The early bricks of this city had stamped on them; that is molded, the name "Unuk." In the latter Akkadian Babylonian it was called Erech, but in the early Sumerian it was Unuk.

    This Sargon created a very phenomenal empire. He finally established his capital city at Akkad. His own records show the remarkable size of it. His empire extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. He made three expeditions to what he called the Great Sea, which at the least was the Mediterranean (and there is good reason to believe it was the Atlantic). In at least one of these expeditions he said he crossed the sea and brought back loot from conquered lands. He brought cedar beams from the mountains of Lebanon for his temples. We know definitely that his expeditions into the Mediterranean included the islands of Cyprus and Crete. Very clear traces of his early Babylonian culture are found on the Island of Crete. For example, the tiles and sewer drainage system found in the cities of Phara and Knosos on Crete are exactly like that of Nippur in Akkad.

    In Crete, a cylinder seal inscribed with the name of Sargon's son or grandson, Naram Sin, was found. Babylonian inscribed clay cylinder records have been found in the Cretan tombs. In the ruins of the palace of Knosos, there is a rather elaborate alabaster coffer with the name of Cain carved in the lid of it. And also there was found an immense bronze sword with a golden hilt, of very beautiful workman‑ship, larger than any other ancient sword ever found, which might possibly have been his.

    The Bible tells us that Cain founded this city, the name of the city Enoch, after his son, and the Sumerian records of the city of Unuk and Akkad show that Sargon the First founded the city and called it in Sumerian, Unuk.

    Sargon the First called these Sumerians "black heads." Whether that meant a dark complexion or merely refers to a brunette people as distinguished from the blond we do not know. We do not have sufficient records. Sargon's own records, in our museums today, show that he conducted raids on nations to the east, certainly at least into Media, and quite possibly going back to pick up some of his own people from the Tarim Basin region.

    They show that he deported captured populations to make cities that he founded in the regions of Akkad. In one of his records he states "5,400 men daily eat bread before me;" the courtiers and servants of his palace. He divided his empire, which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, into districts, which were ten hours march across, and each was governed by one of "the sons of his palace," as he called them. One of his inscriptions says this: "For forty‑five years the kingdom I have ruled and the black heads I have governed. In multitudes of bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands. I governed the upper country (that would be Akkad). Three times to the Great Sea I advanced."

    We know that he had a very high degree of civilization. But a high degree of civilization does not always imply a high degree of morality; but, so far as civilization is expressed in the arts and sciences, and that sort of thing, they had it. Their art advanced to a degree greater than was found anywhere else in ancient times. Two cylinder seals of his time are among the most beautiful specimens of jewel engraving ever known.

    Evidently they did not have the secret of making paper, or if they did, they knew how perishable it was. They may have put some documents on parchment, but in the main they used this beautiful clay that they had to make thin tiles or tablets of clay. While it was still moist and soft they wrote upon the clay. Then the signature was in the form of a seal. Each man of importance had his own seal. These were in the form of a little cylinder. Back in Sargon's day, so far as we can judge by some specimens found, they were usually about the diameter of a lead pencil. I do not mean the lead, but the wood that it is made of, and would run from half or 5/8 of an inch in length to perhaps to 3/4 of an inch.

    Perhaps the most beautiful of these ancient seals, which goes back to the time of Naram Sin, is approximately 1/4 inch in diameter by 5/8 of an inch long. The engraving of the design on it is the most beautiful I have seen in jewel engraving. It was obviously done under a magnifying glass, because the details on it are so tiny and so perfect. When this seal was rolled across the wet clay, it molded an impression of the design on the seal into the clay.

    Have you noticed signet rings in jewelry store windows, which have an engraved jewel with an initial engraved in them; carnelian or some such stones? You will not find, in any jewelry store today, as perfect jewel engraving as was characteristic of this ancient empire of Sargon or Cain.

    Roads connected the principal cities. There was a postal service. In those days, to send a letter, they would first make one of these clay tablets, write the message on it while it was wet, dry it out, and burn it hard in the kiln. Then they would coat it again with wet clay for an envelope, write the address upon that and again burn it hard in the kiln. Delivered to the person to whom it was written, he would then break off this outer shell, and within was the letter sent to him.

    Today, in the Louvre Museum in Paris are some of these ancient letters, bearing a clay seal upon them, another lump of clay with a special seal design which constituted the postage stamp, showing that postage had been paid for the carrying of this letter back in this empire of Sargon the Magnificent.

    No doubt bronze and possibly iron were in use in that day, for weapons and other implements. Bronze would serve well for swords, but not for engraving tools. There was no known way to sufficiently harden copper or bronze to do that. Only within the last 50 years or so, has such a way been discovered. If they were good enough metallurgists to learn to make carving chisels out of copper or bronze, we can give them credit for that. Otherwise, they must have used hardened steel: 6,000 years of rust would have taken their toll of any iron or steel implements in that time. Babylonian art was, at this time, more highly developed than at any later time.

    Beishazzar was the man who was running the city of Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians. His father, Nabonidus, was an oddity for ancient kings. Usually they were military conquerors, people interested only in how many people they could kill or enslave, and how much loot they could steal.

    Instead, Nabonidus was a scholar, particularly an archeologist and antiquarian. In fact, he became so deeply interested in it that during his lifetime he turned over all the authority and responsibility of running Babylon to his son, Belshazzar, who was a worthless, drunken wastrel.

    Had he turned it over to his daughter Belshalti, who was quite brilliant, Babylon might possibly have had a different fate. Under Belshazzar it reached that degree of rottenness where it fell from its own internal corruption. Nabonidus made a hobby of going to the sites of the ancient cities and digging down to find the sites of their early temples and other public buildings, and in those cities which were still existent, find and restore their earliest temples.

    One of his records in our museums today says that he had restored the temple of the Sun at Sippar. Sippar, meaning book town, from its enormous libraries, is another name for the same city of Akkad which was founded by Sargon the First. He said that he had restored the Temple of the Sun, and in digging down to uncover the foundation, he had uncovered the cornerstone laid by Naram Sin, "which none of my ancestors, the kings of Babylon, had seen for 3200 years."

    Taking his own time for this, probably in the neighborhood of 550 B.C., add 3200 more to it, takes you back to 3700 B.C. as the probable time when this temple had fallen into such ruin that this foundation stone was totally covered up. This dates back to the time of Naram Sin, who was the son of Sargon, whom we can identify as Cain. Incidentally, this very same foundation cornerstone, with the inscription showing it was founded by Naram Sin, is now in the Museum at Yale University.

    We have another clue, or series of clues, to indicate that Sargon was Cain. We find this in the pagan religion that he founded. The records show that the earliest forms of Babylonian religion were monotheistic. They believed in one God. Whether it be the God we know, we are not sure; but at least they had a god, and not a multiplicity of them. Their religion contained a rather garbled, but still recognizable version of the story of creation, as given in the first chapter of Genesis. But about the time of Sargon, there developed polytheism; pagan gods. The three chief ones were Anu, Eia, and one whose name sometimes appears as Enlil, sometimes Mul‑lil. By the myths told about these gods, you can identify and determine the origin of each god. The myths about them would identify Anu as being Adam, Eia as Eve and Mtil‑lil or Enlil as Satan. Those are recognizable in these myths. Later Mul‑lil becomes Bel or Baal, who was the chief god of Babylon, and indeed became the most important of the pagan gods, from there to the West, clear to the Mediterranean coast.

    The pagan priests garbled things somewhat in their legends, possibly intentionally. In a few of them Eia is represented as male, but most of these legends have Eia as a goddess, identifiable from these myths as being Eve. Legends about the early form of Eia are exactly the same as the later legends about Ishtar. So, Cain had carried in his own remembrance the occurrences in his own early life, and then had decided to make gods of Adam, Eve and Satan.

    In Sargon's own time he was not deified. He founded pagan Satan worship, but he did not promote himself up to the top. Later he was deified. There are a few inscriptions that say "Sargon is my god." It is natural that among pagans he should become a patron god of Babylon. Babylon's patron god, whose name appears in your King James Version, usually as Merodach, although Mardach would be a more accurate translation, is derived from Marad which means "to rebel," and Cain was indeed a rebel. He is called in their legends the first born of Eia.

    Other legends say he was the eldest son of Ishtar and Anu was his father. Cain was the first born of Eve. Merodach is the god of agriculture. Cain was a tiller of the soil, whereas Abel was primarily a herdsman. The legends say that Merodach brought order out of chaos by separating land from water and founding homes for men. We say that Sargon, or Cain, reigned in this lower swamp land, and directed the building of the dikes and drainage canals that separated the waters from the land, enough so they could build more permanent cities.

    First John 3:12 recognizes that Cain was a son of the evil one. Your King James Version does not use the word "son," because the translators had to meet accepted doctrine. In your King James Version it says (in verse 12), "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother."

    If you will turn to the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke, in your King James Version Bible, you will find that it gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It starts with Jesus Christ and works backwards to Adam. As you know, in your King James Version, where you find words printed in italic type, these are words added by translators, which were not actually written in the original languages and manuscripts, because they were implied or understood in those languages.

    The English does not imply it, and therefore to make the English idiom conform to the idiom of the Greek or the Hebrew the translators have supplied the words in English which were understood in the earlier languages, and they appear in italics. Take your King James Version and look up the genealogy of Jesus Christ (in Luke 3). It begins with verse 23:

    "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Meichi,"

    and so on down through verse after verse. Note that beginning with "the son of Heli," the words "the son" are in italic type, indicating they were not written out in the Greek. In other words, if you said "John was of William" it meant in the Greek idiom "John was the son of William." I have heard people try to deny this idiom in First John 3:12, relative to Cain, stating it meant merely that Cain was morally bad, like the evil one, not referring to any father and son relationship.

    If that be a true translation of the Greek, and only referring to morality, let us apply it to Luke and see if it is correct. We do not think that they developed a completely new and different Greek language between the writing of the Gospel according to Luke and the First Epistle of John. Would it make sense to say Joseph, who was morally no better than Heli, who was just as bad as Matthat?

    Of course not. In the First Epistle of John, it is the very same Greek language, and it says "Cain, who was of that wicked one." As a matter of fact, if you look it up in Weymouth's Modern English Translation, you will find he translates it correctly: "Cain, who was a child of the evil one..." Furthermore, if you will look up the fifth chapter of Genesis, which gives the descendants of Adam, you will find that it nowhere lists Cain among them. With monotonous regularity the Bible says that so‑and‑so begat whozis and whozis begat such‑and‑such, and so forth, verse after verse.

    You cannot find any place in the Bible where it says that Adam begat Cain, because he did not. The first time it says Adam begat anyone is in the fifth chapter of Genesis, verse 3: "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth."

    People like to bring up verse one of Genesis, chapter four, and try to make it mean something it does not say, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain."

    The Bible records things that happen, but it does not once say that there was a cause in sex relationship. We could. tell you, with absolute truth, that upon a certain evening we went to a movie, and the following morning the sun rose in the east. We could prove it by witnesses, but we did not say that the fact that we went to the movie was the thing that caused the sun to rise in the east. It is true, very true that Adam and Eve had intercourse; it is very true that Eve bore Cain; but it is not true that Cain was the son of Adam, and the Bible does not anywhere say that Cain was a son of Adam.

    One of these ancient Akkadian inscriptions about Sargon says this, "The divine Sargon, the illustrious King, a son of Bel the Just, the King of Akkad and of the children of Bel."

    Bel, or Baal, was a later form of this obviously deified Satan, known in the earliest forms as Mul‑lil or Enlil. Here they recognized that Sargon was a son of him whom we know to be Satan. Other legends of Sargon's origin say that he was adopted by Akki and raised as a gardener. The basic root of Akki is found in the Hebrew word Nachash: Naka, the Egyptian word for serpent; Naga, the Hindu word for serpent, particularly serpent god; Ahhi, a serpent water god; Arriman, the Persian devil, source of all evil.

    Cain was a tiller of the soil. Sargon was raised as a gardener. One of Sargon's own inscriptions found in our museums today, says this, "While I was a gardener Ishtar loved me." Yes, he was still near the Garden of Eden; not in the Garden of Eden, but in the same part of the world to which Adam and Eve had gone. So, you can identify the Cain of the Bible as an actual historical character, the records of whose own kingdom are in our museums today.

    To further convince you, we can carry it a bit further. Sargon's own records show that at least three times he went to the Great Sea; at least once he crossed it. What was that "Great Sea?" There are indications that it was the Atlantic because in Central and South America there are legends in their mythology, which cannot be accounted for on any basis except that they were brought over there by someone who knew the early mythology of Sargon's time. In turn, you find in the Babylonian religion the use of certain words and phrases that are Mayan.

    The story of the worship of Cain appears among the Mayas of Yucatan and the Quichis of Guatemala. The Mayas say that their kingdom was found by King Can, and "Can" means "serpent" in their Mayan language; a change from Cain to Can, from one language to another, is very small. (Notice what we do today in our modern languages. The name in English we call William is in French Guillaume; in German it is Vilhelm; in Italian it is Guglielmo. We make more change from one language to another today with the same word than they did in those days.) There was a family of seven the father, mother and five children. Their serpent king, his wife and children were symbolized by a seven‑headed serpent. Incidentally, that same emblem of the seven‑headed serpent is worshiped today in India, in Indochina and in Siam, or Thailand, as it is known today.

    This person who came and brought them this form of worship was deified in their legends as Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent, a serpent having feathers instead of scales. Their legends say that out of the east, on white‑winged ships, came white men who taught these Mayans their civilization; and finally sailing away, back to the east on these white‑winged ships, saying, "Some day we will return."

    Since then, these people have worshiped Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent, as their god, the white man who taught them their civilization. A very interesting bit of more recent history is that when Cortez landed on the shore of Mexico, he was received with relatively little hostility. Out of the East, in white sailed ships, came white men. He was greeted joyously with friendship. He had practically no difficulty marching on up to Montezuma's capital city, Mexico City, where he was greeted with reverence and friendship. In the minds of the people, this was the promised return of Quetzalcoatl. We know, of course, that Cortez was nothing but a thief and a murderer, there in search of loot.

    Evidently the prisons of Spain had been emptied of the worst cut‑throats to provide him with soldiers, because they were out to steal what they could get. They were accompanied, of course, by a couple of Spanish Catholic Priests. It is a matter of record in their report that on one of the pagan festival days, these priests wandered into one of these pagan temples in Mexico Citv and they observed the pagan priests putting on a Catholic mass, perfect in every detail, except it was not spoken in Latin.

    So the Catholic priests stormed out in a furious rage, saying "These pagans are mocking us." They incited the soldiers to a general massacre of the inhabitants, promising them, in advance, absolution for all the murders, rapes and other crimes they might commit in the process. What these Catholics did not know was the fact that they had received their ceremonies from the same ancient source as did the Mayas.

    That is a very interesting study. If you want to trace it in great detail, get Hislop's book "The Two Babylon's," and you will see the Babylon origin of much of the Catholic ritual.

    Among these people are ancient legends which say that one of Cain's sons, coveting the kingdom held by another of his sons, treacherously killed him, stabbed him in the back with a spear and took his kingdom, which is probably their version of the murder of Abel by Cain, even though garbled, somewhat, down through the centuries.

    The Incas of Peru were probably Mayan colonies, because the language of Peru, which was Quichua, shows their descent of the Quichis of Guatemala, who were a branch of the Maya nation.

    Other events show how this culture was carried back and forth. In much of Central America, after the winter rains, comes the spring dry season. Then, there are summer rains. At the beginning of the month of May, at midnight, the Southern Cross Constellation stands exactly perpendicular above the southern horizon, right in the meridian, and shortly thereafter the next rainy season begins. The natives recognize this as a sign that rain is coming soon. The Cross was a very ancient symbol among all nations. The form in which we have it in Christianity today, with the cross bar going below the top of the vertical post, is a much later form.

    The earlier form of the cross was the Tau cross, with the cross bar just resting on top of the vertical bar. This cross is found in Egyptian records, as far back as you can find anything in Egypt. The very name Tau is derived from Mayan. T‑a‑u means literally "here water month."

    In other words, when this Southern Cross Constellation stood exactly vertical above the southern horizon, right on the Meridain, it indicated the beginning of the water month; the month when the rains would start.

    This is the month for rain. The month of May is named from Maia, the Goddess, the Good Dame, the Mother of the Gods. If you investigate the Catholic religion, you will find The Feast of the Adoration of the Holy Cross is May 3, beginning of the water month. It is the day also consecrated particularly to the Mother of God, The Good Lady. In other words, straight out of Babylonian and Mayan paganism, which again we trace to its source, in its beginning, to Cain or Sargon.

    From this, you can see that we can trace these ancient religions not only to Babylonia, Sumer and Akkadia, but we can trace Cain, a real person known to history under the name of Sargon, even to Central and South America. Cain is not myth!

    We trust these pages will enable you to answer, without any doubt, "What Happened to Cain?"

    (Taken, in part, from an article entitled “What Happened to Cain?” by Bertrand Comparet, Clarified by Willie Marton)


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 11-27-2012 at 09:29 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI #6 -- Comparet:

    Understanding DSCI #6 -- Comparet:

    December 4, 2012 11:00pm EST/10:00pm CST

    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7275#post7275

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc <----- Talkshoe Program Channel

    http://mamzers.org/useful/audio/TMT/...ec12-16kps.mp3 Re-Engineered 16kps Download on Mamzers.org
    .

    .


    Episode 6 - Classic Comparet: Who Are The jews?

    By Pastor Bertrand Comparet

    http://web.archive.org/web/200904300...-are-jews.html -- Library of Congress Link
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3544#post3544


    The identification of the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Germanic people, as the surviving members of the tribes of Israel, leaves us with two other questions to answer.

    1. WHO ARE THE JEWS?
    2. WAS YAHSHUA A JEW?

    To answer these questions, we must first define what we mean by Jew. The muddled thinking of most people on this subject is due to the fact that they never know just what they do mean by Jew. Sometimes they mean Jew by religion, regardless of his race, there are Negro, Chinese and Japanese that have been converted to Judaism. Sometimes people mean a Jew by race regardless of his religion. For example, Premier Ben Gurion of the Jewish nation in Palestine is a Buddhist by religion, though a Jew by race.

    Since the question of whether Yahshua was a Jew by religion, is the easiest to answer, let's answer that question first. The answer is clearly no. Yahshua had the true religion of the Old Testament found in the law and the prophets. He constantly rebuked the Jews for having abandoned the law for Judaism under the Babylonian Talmud, which in Yahshua's day was called the tradition of the elders. In Matthew 5:17-18 Yahshua said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

    Yahshua constantly rebuked the Jews for their apostasy, for setting aside the laws of Yahweh in favor of the tradition of the elders. This Talmudic Judaism was very different from the religion, which we find in the Old Testament. The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, chief rabbi of the United States, expressed it so clearly that I cannot improve upon his words. He said, "The return from Babylon, and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism, and the beginning of Judaism."

    Since the religion of the Old Testament was the religion of the real Hebrews, not Jews, the learned rabbi was quite right in calling it Hebrewism, and noting that it came to its end when the Talmud was adopted. This was the beginning of a new religion, Judaism or Babylonianism, which the Canaanites, Hittites, etc. practiced.

    We read in Matthew 15:1-9, "Then came to Yahshua scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do Thy disciples transgresseth the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of Yahweh by your tradition? Ye hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy of you saying this people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This same incident is also found in Mark 7:5:13.

    In John 5:37-46 Yahshua told the Jews, "The Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. Search the scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and it is they which testify of Me. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed Me; of whom ye say that he is your God: yet ye have not known Him." In John 15:23 Yahshua said, "He that hateth Me hateth My Father also." In Matthew chapter 21 Yahshua summed up their position by saying that even the tax collectors and harlots could enter the kingdom of Yahweh before the Jews. Surely Yahshua's entire ministry was a complete demonstration that He wasn't a Jew by religion.

    Was Yahshua a Jew by race? To answer this question, we must trace the racial ancestry of both Yahshua and the Jews. Yahshua was a pure blooded member of the tribe of Judah, and no true Judahite was a Jew by race, as we shall see. Yahshua's ancestry is given in both Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3. Both of them show that Yahshua was a descendant of the patriarch Judah, through one of his twin sons Pharez, who was an ancestor of his mother Mary. He came through the line of David, and Nathan the brother of Solomon, as traced in Luke chapter 3. Yahshua was a pure blooded Israelite of the tribe of Judah as Paul tells in Romans I: 3.

    Now, let's trace the racial descent of the Jews, let's note that the Jews were not, and are not Israelites. Yes, I know that you have been taught that Jew and Israelite were the same thing, but no greater falsehood was ever taught, as we shall see. Let's get the first proof of this from Yahshua Himself. In Matthew 15:24 Yahshua states plainly, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Therefore Yahshua was sent to those who were Israel, but not to others. Accordingly, when He sent His 12 disciples, out to preach His gospel, Matthew 10:5-6 records that He told them as follows. "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Then He added in Matthew 10:23, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come."

    The disciples could have gone over all the cities of Judea in a month, so it was obvious that the cities of Israel, to which Yahshua referred, were the cities of the so called lost tribes of Israel who had already entered Europe in their long migration. Take careful note of Yahshua's own words. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." If the Jews were part of Israel, then they would have been some of His sheep, but He says they are not of His sheep.

    In John 10:14,26-27 Yahshua says, "I am the good shepherd and know My sheep, and am known of Mine." Then Yahshua told the Jews, "But ye believe not because ye are not of My sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me." Note carefully that Yahshua does not say that the reason the Jews are not of His sheep is because they don't believe, and that they could become His sheep just by changing their minds. To the contrary, Yahshua says that the reason they don't believe is that they are not His sheep. He knows His sheep, and knows that the Jews are not of His sheep.

    Since the Jews aren't any part of the tribes of Israel, then who are the Jews? Let's trace their ancestry. We find the true line of Yahweh's people must be kept free from mongrelization with the neighboring Canaanites. Genesis 24:3-4 records that Abraham took great pains to see that his son Isaac, should marry only a woman of his own people. Likewise Genesis 27:46 & 28:1 record that Isaac also required that his son Jacob, whose descendants became known as Israel, should also marry only within his own racial line.

    This law of racial purity had been obeyed for several centuries to keep the racial line pure. However, one of the sons of Israel, the patriarch Judah, father of the tribe of Judah, violated this law of racial purity by marrying a Canaanite woman who bore him three sons. Of the three sons, only Shelah survived and left descendants, read Genesis 38:1-5. This half-breed, mongrel line must be distinguished from Judah's pureblooded descendants by his twin sons Pharez and Zarah. Judah fathered Pharez and Zarah by his daughter-in-law Tamar. Although they were born out of wedlock they were pure Israel stock on both sides, Yahshua was descended from Pharez. The descendants of these twins are the real tribe of Judah.

    Genesis 46:12 and Numbers 26:20 record that the half breed son Shelah, accompanied Judah into Egypt, and in the following centuries left many descendants. They were in the exodus, and accompanied the armies of Israel into the Promised Land. However, they bred true to type. They were half-breed Canaanites, lacking the spiritual insight, which Yahweh gave to His own people, so these mongrels remained idolaters, Baal worshipers. In I Chronicles 4:21 you will find them referred to as the house of Ashbea. Ashbea is a corruption of Ishbaal, meaning man of Baal, and shows they were still idolaters, unable to perceive the God of Israel. So these Shelahites, half-breeds, formed one of the people of the land who were part of the Jews in the time of Yahshua.

    Another alien racial group who became part of the Jews were the mixed multitude which Exodus 12:38 records left Egypt with the children of Israel. The Hebrew word translated here mixed, is the word ereb, meaning half-breed or mongrel. [Note: Perhaps this is the derivation of the word 'Arab' or mixed-race mongrel from Hebrew "ereb." --PMLDL

    During the next two centuries in Egypt, many violated the divine law against race mixing and this mixed multitude was the result. On the exodus when the going became hard in the wilderness, this mixed multitude made a lot of trouble. Numbers 11:4-6 records how they led some of the Israelites into rebellion. This mongrelized group was still in the land after the return from the Babylonian captivity. Nehemiah 13:3 lists these mongrels as still being in the land and still a source of trouble, they were also among the Jews in Yahshua's time.

    Then there were the various Canaanite people who were still living there. Chief among these Canaanites were the Jebusites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites and the Amorites. When the Israelites were about to enter the Promised Land, Yahweh gave them specific instructions to completely drive out or exterminate all of these Canaanites.

    Yahweh gave these instructions in Numbers 33:50-56 and Deuteronomy 7:1-6 & 20:16-18. "When Yahweh thy God shall bring thee into the land wither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites and the Gergashites, and the Amorites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when Yahweh thy God shall deliver them before thee: thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them, thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show any mercy unto them. * * But of the cities of these people which Yahweh thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save nothing alive that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites: as Yahweh thy God hath commanded thee."

    I know it is fashionable among the liberal church members of today, to look down their noses at Yahweh and say, I just can't believe in that cruel God of the Old Testament. I think Yahweh will manage very well without their belief. He always has a good reason for what He tells us to do. The Bible never argues with you about the reasons for its laws, it just states the laws. There is always a good reason, if you will look for it.

    For about 2,000 years, the Canaanites had worshiped Baal and Ishtar, the most immoral religion in the world, with the possible exception of some Hindu religions still practiced today. Part of the worship of Baal and Ishtar consisted of the compulsory prostitution of all the women. On certain festival days of the year, all the women of the village had to sit in the field outside the village gate. Any wandering camel driver who came along could select the woman of his choice. He would hand her a coin, which she must pay over to the temple, then he would take her aside and leave her with his syphilis or gonorrhea, as the case might be.

    This practice funneled into Palestine all the venereal diseases of all western Asia. Any doctor can tell you that one infection of syphilis not cured, can produce degenerative changes in the children for as many as four generations. However, the Canaanites had been replenishing the disease with new infections every generation for 2,000 years. They weren't physically, mentally, morally or spiritually fit to marry or even associate with the people of Israel. Therefore Yahweh warned the Israelites to exterminate them. He warned if they didn't do this, they would have integration. Their children would grow up with yours as playmates; they will intermarry until you become as badly polluted as they are. Then Yahweh warned He would have to destroy Israel as He was commanding Israel to destroy them. The Israelites are often soft hearted and soft headed, however they did exterminate the people of Jericho and a few other cities. The Bible records in Joshua 15:63, Judges 1:21,27-35 & 19:10-12 and II Chronicles 8:7-8, that they left most of the others alive, merely making them pay a heavy tribute tax. For example, the Jebusites inhabited the city of Jerusalem at the time the Israelites came in. The Bible records that the Jebusites were neither killed nor driven out, but continued to live among the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

    Ezra 9:1-2 and Nehemiah 13:23-29 tells that even after the people of the southern kingdom of Judah returned from the 70 years captivity in Babylon, the Jebusites were still in the land and some of the Israelites were intermarrying with them. The Bible records the same thing as to the other Canaanite people, further proof of this is found in various places, such as Ezekiel 16:1-3. "Again the word of Yahweh came unto me saying, Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, and say thus saith Yahweh unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite."

    Yahweh could not have said this truthfully to any true Israelite; however, He was not saying it to Israelites. He said it to the city of Jerusalem and her people, who were in large part Jews. They had gained power in the manner by which Jews usually gain it. Hence, Jerusalem was becoming more and more corrupt, as most of the prophets record.

    These Jews surrounded and became the influential advisors to the kings of Judah, just as today they surround and are the principal advisors of our presidents. We find clear proof of this in Isaiah 3:8-9 where he says, "For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongues and their doings are against Yahweh, to provoke the eyes of his glory. The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! For they have rewarded evil unto themselves."

    In China, where the rulers are Chinese, you couldn't say that the show of their countenance doth witness against them. Their faces would be just like those of the rest of the Chinese. In Sweden, where the ruling class were Swedes, you couldn't say that their faces were witness against them, for they had the same kind of Swedish faces the rest of Sweden had. However, in Jerusalem the faces of the Canaanite, Jebusite Jews identified them and were a witness against them, the true Israelites were not hook nosed.

    The ancient kings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon and Persia were very vain about their military conquests. They left carved stone monuments telling how they captured this city and that one. They told how many people they had killed and how many people they had enslaved etc. On these monuments they usually had carved, in the stone, pictures of the captive people. Whenever they showed Israelites, the faces had straight noses and were generally of Anglo-Saxon type. However, when they showed the Canaanites, the faces were those of typical hook nosed Jews.

    Therefore the faces of the Canaanite, Jebusite Jews, who had gained controlling power as merchants, bankers, advisors of the king and as the wealthy ruling class, identified them as separate from the real Israelites. The show of their face doth witness against them.

    These Jews had brought ruin upon the kingdom of Judah. Now go back and read the many places where Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel condemn the wickedness, which was found in Jerusalem. Don't you find the same conditions existing in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., where large numbers of the same people have gained power through their wealth?

    We find there were still large numbers of Canaanites in the land; they were integrated with the real Israelites and Judahites. These Jews were bringing the lowering of living standards which integration always brings, look at Washington, D.C. Besides the Jebusites in Jerusalem, the Bible records that the other Canaanite people the Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites and the Amorites, were not exterminated, but only driven out and made to pay a tribute tax. They were left in the land to be integrated with the people and to corrupt them. These Canaanites were another element of the Jews in the time of Yahshua.

    Remember when the people of Israel left Egypt, they were accompanied by a mixed, mongrel multitude. The same is true of the return of the remnant of the people of the kingdom of Judah from their captivity in Babylon; the books of Ezra and Nehemiah record the return. The records in these books show the total number who returned to Jerusalem was 42,360. They also show among these were many who were not Israelites of any tribe. They were Babylonians who had come with them in order to get in on the ground floor, as the saying goes, and they had even infiltrated into the priesthood. It says, "These sought their register among those who were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found".

    When you add up the total of all these mongrelized and Canaanite people, listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, they equal 8,381 people. This was about one fifth of all the people who returned from Babylon to Palestine, So they formed another element of the Jews in the land of Palestine during Yahshua's time.

    There is one more group we need to mention to complete the list, and that is the Edomites. You will remember that Esau and Jacob were twin brothers. Esau was a man of such low character that we have Yahweh's own testimony in Malachi 1:2-3. "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Saith Yahweh. Yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau."

    Jacob kept racial purity so Yahweh changed his name to Israel and made him the father of Yahweh's own chosen people Israel, named for their father. The other twin, Esau, married two Canaanite wives and one Ishmaelite wife, and left only half-breed, mongrel children. Read Genesis 26:34-35, 27:46 & 36:2.

    As Esau's mongrel children could not marry into the true Semitic line, he moved out from among them and went down to mount Sier, the rugged range of mountains southeast of the Dead Sea. This land was called Edom, or occasionally by the Greecianized form of the word Idumea. Thereafter Esau's descendants were called Edomites. Read Genesis 33:16 & 36:1-9.

    In this area they had a long and troublesome history. Esau's grandson was Amalek, father of the tribe of Amalek, who were such an evil bunch that in Exodus 17:14-16 Yahweh said He would have perpetual war with Amalek until they were all destroyed. The Edomites constantly harassed the southern portion of Israel until King Saul beat them off about 1087 B.C.

    I Samuel 15:1-26 tells how Saul disobeyed Yahweh's command to exterminate them, and for this disobedience Yahweh deposed him as king, in favor of David. Even David didn't exterminate the Edomites and there was a long history of wars between Edom and Israel and even later with Judah. This history is recorded in II kings chapters 8 & 14 and II Chronicles chapters 20 & 25. The whole book of Obadiah is devoted to Yahweh's condemnation of Edom's treacherous attacks upon the kingdom of Judah, when Judah was being conquered by Babylon.

    During the Babylonian captivity of Judah, the land lay practically empty. During this period, the people of Edom, partly from opportunity and partly from pressure against them from the east, moved into the vacant southern half of the old kingdom of Judah. Read the article Edom, in Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, pages 198-199 and Scribner's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, pages 644-646. From this southern half of the old kingdom of Judah, the Edomites harassed the little nation, which returned from Babylon.

    By about 142 B.C., the returned exiles of Judah won complete independence under the Maccabean line of kings. About 120 B.C., John Hyrcanus, one of the Maccabean kings, conquered the Edomites. He too, instead of exterminating them, took them into his kingdom, offering them full citizenship if they would give up their pagan ways and adopt the religion of Judaism. This they did and from 120 B. C. they were full citizens of this kingdom. Read Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" book 13, chapter 9, and The Jewish Encyclopedia, article "Edom", Vol V, page 41.

    By 69 B.C., incompetent leadership and intrigue within the Maccabean monarchy, together with the rising power of Rome in western Asia, gave opportunity to Antipater (also called Antipas), an Edomite chieftain, founder of the Herodian family, to rise to power. By bribery, boldness and military skill, he gained the favor of Rome, and the Romans made him Procurator (governor) of Judea. Antipater's son, Herod I, beginning as governor of Galilee, used the same methods to secure appointment as king of Judea in 40 B.C. By 37 B.C., he had gained complete control of Judea. He maintained himself in power with extreme ruthlessness and bribery, for which he taxed the people very heavily. The New Deal, Raw Deal and Great Society are not so new after all. This is the same Herod who had all the two year old and younger, male children killed in Bethlehem, trying to murder Yahshua

    His son, Herod Archelaus, held the governorship (the Romans didn't trust him with the crown) for ten years of astonishingly evil misrule from 4 B.C. to 6 A.D. After this the Romans convicted him of crimes and removed him. Thereafter Judea was governed by Roman Procurators; of whom Pontius Pilate was number six. Nevertheless, the Romans left practically complete power of local government in the hands of the Herodian Edomites. They had complete control of the temple and power to enforce all their local laws. It is recorded in John 18:31 how Pontius Pilate tried to get out of condemning Yahshua, telling the Jews, "Take ye Him and judge Him according to your law".

    These Edomite Jews could say that Abraham was an ancestor of theirs through Esau, as they did in John 8:33. This Hebrew blood, through Esau, had been diluted to the vanishing point by 1,700 years of marrying the people of Canaanite racial stock. Therefore Yahshua rebuked them for falsely claiming to still be of Abraham lineage and therefore inferentially Israelites. He told them in John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is not truth in him."

    You should carefully observe John 8:31-47. These were the Jews to whom Yahshua was speaking, and the Bible identifies them as Jews. In the Jewish Encyclopedia, the article on Edom concludes with the words, "The Edomites today are found in modern Jewry".

    .


    .


    Who are the Gentiles?

    by Pastor Bertrand Comparet


    http://web.archive.org/web/200905010...egentiles.html -- Library of Congress Archive Page
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3534#post3534



    It is unfortunate that most people have so many mistaken ideas about their religion, due largely to the many mistranslations of words in the commonly-used King James Version of the Bible. One of these mistaken ideas is that most of the people of the United States and Western Europe--in fact, nearly all the Christians -in the world--are "Gentiles." You hear many of them--even clergymen, who should know better -- say, "I'm just a Gentile, saved by grace." I think it is high time that we learned something about one of the most mis-used words, "Gentile.



    First, you might be surprised to know that there is no such word in the Bible, in its original languages. Oh yes, I know that you are now riffling the pages of your King James Version, looking for some of the many places you will find "Gentile" in it. But I said that there is no such word in the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. The word was put into it by translators, who changed the wording of the Bible centuries after the last book in the Bible was written. If you are a good Christian, you will surely agree with me that what the prophets originally wrote in the books which make up our Bible was inspired by God. It was correct as the prophets wrote it. But not one of them wrote in English, remember, because no such language as English existed until many centuries after the prophets lived. It was written in Hebrew, as to the Old Testament; and the New Testament was originally written in the language which Jesus Christ spoke, Aramaic, a Semitic dialect somewhat similar to, but not the same as, Hebrew. But Aramaic was not generally understood outside of Western Asia; so when Christianity began to spread into southern and southeastern Europe, the New Testament had to be translated into a language which was widely used in Europe. Greek served this purpose nicely, for it was understood by well-educated men over nearly all of Europe. Therefore, the New Testament was first translated into Greek. Protestant English-language translations of the Bible, today, are nearly all translated from H Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. So, let us start at the beginning, with the Old Testament.


    The word "Gentile" is not even once used in any Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament, for the good reason that there is no such word in Hebrew, nor any word which corresponds to it. Everywhere you find the word "Gentile" used in the Old Testament, it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "GOY," which means "NATION." The plural form of it is "GOYIM." Since it means "nation," why didn't they translate it correctly? Sometimes they did; but for the most part, they translated it to fit the official doctrines of the church of their day, no matter what violence that did to the true meaning of the word. The church hierarchy had long since determined what its doctrines should be: and if the Bible didn't agree with them, so much the worse for the Bible. Men were still being burned at the stake for heresy, in those days, and "heresy" meant any religious idea which differed from the official doctrines proclaimed by the bishops. So the translators did the best the Church would allow them to do. Let us take some examples.


    In Genesis 12: 2, God said to Abram, "I will make of thee a great nation." In Hebrew, God said "I will make of thee a great GOY. " It would have been too silly to translate that "I will make a Gentile of you," so they correctly translated it "nation." Again Genesis 25:23, Rebekah was pregnant with the twins, Esau and Jacob; and while still in her womb, the unborn children were struggling against each other; so she wondered at this, and asked of God what was the meaning of this? God said to her, "Two GOYIM are in thy womb." Certainly God was not telling her, "You are an adulteress, pregnant with two Gentile children, when your husband is not a Gentile." God said "Two NATIONS are in thy womb," and that is the way it was translated; but it is that same word, "GOYIM," which elsewhere they generally translate as "Gentiles."


    Now let us take some examples from the New Testament.


    Here the word mistranslated "Gentile" is nearly always the Greek word, "ETHNOS" which means just exactly "NATION," the same as the Hebrew word "Goy." Luke 7 begins with the incident of a Roman Centurion who appealed to Jesus Christ to heal his servant who was sick unto death. The Elders of the Jews praised him to Jesus, saying "He loveth our ETHNOS, and hath built us a synagogue." These Jews would never praise anyone for loving the Gentiles; and the Centurion would not have built a synagogue for Gentiles. So, to avoid complete absurdity, the translators were forced to translate "ETHNOS" correctly, as "NATION." Again, in John 11: 50, we find that the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, was plotting with the chief priests and Pharisees, to murder Jesus Christ; and Caiaphas told them, "it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and that the whole ETHNOS perish not." Nothing could have pleased this evil Jew more than for all the Gentiles to perish--using the word "Gentile" as we do today. Therefore, the translators had to translate "ETHNOS" correctly, as "nation." Yet in many other places they mistranslate it "Gentile."


    The Greek word "ETHNOS" means simply "nation," nothing more or less. It has no pagan, or non-Israel, or even non-Greek connotation. The Greeks distinguished between Greeks and all non-Greek peoples, whom they called "Barbarians." All educated men of that day knew this, and the Apostle Paul was a very well-educated man, who was quite familiar with the Greek language and its idioms. He recognized this distinction in Romans 1: 14, where he said, "I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians." Paul, therefore, never wrote the word "Gentile" in any of his Epistles.


    What does this word "Gentile" mean, and from what is it derived? It is derived from the Latin word "GENTILES," which means "ONE WHO IS NOT A ROMAN CITIZEN." If you use the word correctly, then you would have to say that Jesus Christ and His twelve disciples were all Gentiles, because none of them was a Roman Citizen. Only Paul could say that he was not a "Gentile," because in the 22nd chapter of Acts, Paul says that he was a Roman citizen by birth.


    How, then, is it used at present when the speaker means to say that someone is non-Jewish? About the fourth century A.D., its use was loosely extended to cover more than its original meaning. It was applied especially to those who were heathen, pagan; it became a term for those who were neither Christian. nor Jewish, for Christians and Jews were generally called just that, (Christian; or Jew). But this was centuries after the last book in the New Testament had been written.


    The word "Gentile" was never used by the writer of any book of the Old Testament, because none of them had ever heard it, as they had never come in contact with Rome. It was not used by the writer of any book of the New Testament, for there is no such word in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek languages. They did not borrow the word from the Latin, for if you will look up every place it is used in your King James Version, you will see that it is never used in the correct sense, to say that someone is not a Roman citizen; and that is the only meaning it had, the only way anybody used it, in those days. It was put in by the translators in an effort to make the Bible say what the translators thought it should have said. Therefore, it has no authority at all.


    In short, wherever you see the word "Gentile" in the Bible, remember that the correct word is "nation," "race," or "people." Sometimes it is used when speaking of ISRAEL nations or the ISRAELITE race, as we have seen in the examples I have given you. In other instances, the context will show that it is being used of a nation which is non-Israelite. Only the context in which it is used will show you which meaning to give it. When used of non-Israelite peoples, perhaps "Gentile" is as good a word as any, for we seem to have no other in general use. But never be deceived by reading the word "Gentile" in your Bible, for its only correct meaning is "nation" or "race."


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 12-06-2012 at 05:02 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,060

    Default Understanding DSCI #7 -- Comparet:

    Understanding DSCI #7 -- Comparet: Israel's Fingerprints

    December 11, 2012 11:00pm EST/10:00pm CST

    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=7336#post7336

    http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web...=124251&cmd=tc <----- Talkshoe Program Channel


    .

    .


    Israel's Fingerprints


    http://web.archive.org/web/200904231...ret/comp4.html
    http://web.archive.org/web/200905230...t/compbbl.html
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3873#post3873


    The Bible is written about, and addressed to, God's people, "Israel." It is the history of their past, the prophecy of their future, the law of their relation to their God, and the promise of God's eternal care of them. The common misconception, that "the Jews are Israel, or all that remains of them," has made the Bible meaningless, and most of it apparently false, to those who hold this mistaken belief. It is just as though you took a good history of the United States, but wherever the name "United States" appeared therein, you erased it and wrote "China" in its place. As a history of China, it would be obviously false; but if you applied it to the right nation, it would be clearly true.

    The Bible's history of Israel's past is known to be accurate; and its prophecies of Israel's future have been fulfilled in every detail, down to the present day. When the police have the fingerprints of a wanted man, they know that the man whose fingerprints match those they have is the man they seek. Likewise, when we find the people to whom God has fulfilled all of His promises and prophecies to Israel, we have found Israel! Today, the Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian and Germanic nations have Israel's fingerprints in every detail.

    When we realize that WE ARE ISRAEL, the Bible becomes full of meaning for us: it is our history, it contains God's promises to US! It gives us courage to face the terrible upheaval into which all the world is being drawn. If you will only read the Bible with an open mind, taking no man's word for it, but proving for yourself what the Bible says, then comparing that with what you know of present-day history, you will see that WE are God's People Israel, and that, however terrible the trial ahead, we will be brought safely through it when we turn to God.

    FIRST - Let us briefly review the ancient history of Israel. God first made His promises of wonderful blessings to Abram, changing his name to "Abraham," meaning "Father of Nations." Note that this is the plural - nations. God repeated His promises to Abraham's son, Isaac; and again to Isaac's son Jacob, whose name God changed to "Israel," which means "He will rule with God."

    Israel had twelve sons. The descendants of each son became in time a Tribe, under its ancestor's name: thus, all the descendants of Dan became the Tribe of Dan, all the descendants of Benjamin became the Tribe of Benjamin, etc. For many centuries, all members of all the twelve tribes collectively were known as the "children" - that is descendants of Israel. However, do not confuse this with the later "House," or Kingdom, of Israel, about which I will have more to say later.

    Israel and his twelve sons, with their families, went into Egypt, as you will remember; and after about 2-1/2 centuries, their descendants left Egypt in the Exodus, under the leadership of Moses. For several generations they were ruled by "Judges" appointed by God. Later, they unwisely copied the customs of the surrounding nations and demanded a King; so Saul became their first king, ruling the twelve tribes as a single nation. This unified nation of twelve tribes (like the United States of fifty states) continued until the death of Solomon, in 975 B.C., when it broke into two nations, Israel and Judah.

    First Kings 11-12 tells us how Solomon finally fell into idolatry, misgoverned the people and burdened them with excessive taxes. (Yes, they babbled about "New Deals" and "Great Societies" in those days, too!) When his son Rehoboam succeeded Solomon as King, in 975 B.C., the weary people petitioned him to ease their burdens; but being vain and arrogant, and surrounded by a lot of "bright" young Jewish advisors (even as today), he threatened to make their load heavier. The exasperated people of the ten Northern tribes revolted, and set up their own, independent kingdom under Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which is told in detail in 1 Kings, chapters 11 and 12 and 2 Chronicles 10 and 11. Rehoboam, the son of Solomon had left in his Kingdom only the two Southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin, with some of the Levites, who were the priests: and this Southern Kingdom was never thereafter known as "Israel," but only as the House (or Kingdom) of Judah. The Northern, ten-tribed Kingdom was thereafter called the House (or Kingdom) of Israel. Just as the Southern Kingdom, Judah, took its name from the Tribe of Judah, which was the ruling Tribe, so also the Northern Kingdom of Israel was sometimes called "Ephraim" in the prophecies, because the Tribe of Ephraim was the most powerful tribe in it. The histories and destinies of the two kingdoms were thereafter separate: they engaged separately in foreign wars and treaties, and were sometimes at war with each other, as the Books of Kings and Chronicles record.

    From the time of this separation, 975 B.C., the Bible very carefully distinguished between the Southern, two-tribed nation of Judah and the Northern, ten-tribed nation of Israel. This distinction is kept clear, both in the historical record of what is past and the prophetic record of what is to come. It would take another volume to cover them all; but for a few examples, see the following: the distinction is made historically in 2 Samuel 19:40-43; 1 Kings 14:19-21; 15:1-33; 16:8; 2 Kings 3:1-9; 2 Chronicles 16:1; 25:5-10; and many others. The distinction is kept clear in prophecies in Isaiah 7:1-9; 11:12-13; Jeremiah 3:6-18; 5:11; 11:10-17; 13:11; 18:1-6; 19:1-13; Ezekiel 37:16-22; Daniel 9: 7; Hosea 1:11; 4:15; 5:9-15; Amos 1:1; Micah 1:5; Zechariah 8:13; 10:6-8; and many others.

    Just as we must carefully distinguish between the two nations of Israel and Judah, so also we must carefully distinguish between the nation of Judah and the Jews.

    Both Israel and Judah were carried into captivity - but separately, and at different times, by different conquerors, and taken to different places. Israel was conquered by Assyria between 740 and 721 B.C., and by 715 B.C. all of its people had been deported and resettled in what we now know as Armenia, northwestern Iran, and the region near Baku, around the southern end of the Caspian Sea. The Assyrians brought in other people and settled them in Samaria, the southern half of Israel's old Palestinian land, to which the people of Israel never returned. See 2 Kings 17. From this time onward, the historical parts of the "authorized" or King James version of the Bible do not record the further history of Israel; but in the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras 13:39-46 records their further journey to "Ar Sereth" (the valley of the River Sereth, a northern tributary of the Danube River, in modern Romania, which still bears the name "Sereth"). At the conclusion of this deportation of Israel from its Palestinian home, the Assyrian King Sennacherib also invaded the southern kingdom of Judah and captured all the smaller cities in it, everything except Jerusalem. The people of these smaller cities were deported, along with the people of the northern Kingdom of Israel. Sennacherib's own record of this invasion says that he deported 200,150 people from the southern Kingdom of Judah; 2 Kings 18:13 and Isaiah 36:1, mention his capture of these cities. Thus the Assyrian deportation of Israel included the entire population of the northern Kingdom of Israel and a considerable representative share of the southern Kingdom of Judah. From this time on, these people became the so-called "Lost Ten Tribes of Israel." (As we shall see, God took good care of them, as He had promised, and you who are reading this are among their descendants.)

    The Kingdom of Judah, on the other hand, did not go into captivity until 606 to 585 B.C., and was conquered by Babylon, not Assyria. They were deported to the City of Babylon and settled nearby, a little south of Bagdad, in what is now southern Iraq. Not quite all of them were deported, a few of the poor being left behind to cultivate the land, and no other people were brought in to settle the land. (See 2 Kings 24-25.) This Babylonian captivity of Judah lasted 70 years, as had been prophesied by Jeremiah 20:4-5; 25:11-12; 29:10. After the fall of Babylon, King Cyrus allowed all who wished to return to Palestine, beginning in 536 B.C. (See 2 Chronicles 36:20-23.) Ezra 1-2 records that only 42,360 returned, and their descendants (who had never been called "Jews" until their Babylonian conquerors gave them that name) lived in Palestine until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans under Titus in A.D. 70. This reconstructed nation, sometimes called "Jewish" was the "70 weeks" nation with the evil destiny "to finish the transgression," prophesied in Daniel 9:24; in A.D. 70, those who had survived the terrible wars ceased to be a nation at all, and became scattered wanderers in all lands.

    There is not one word in either the Bible or secular history to suggest that Israel either was destroyed or that they went down to Babylon and joined Judah in the Babylonian captivity, and the Jews themselves testify that the genealogy of those who returned from Babylon shows no one from any tribe but Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, the members of the Kingdom of Judah. To the contrary, it was well known at the beginning of the Christian era that Israel THEN EXISTED IN GREAT NUMBERS: Josephus' great history, "Antiquities of the Jews" Book 11, chapter 5, speaks of them as "an immense multitude, beyond the Euphrates River." The prophetic parts of the Bible still continue to prophesy the great future of Israel several generations after they had vanished in the Assyrian captivity: Isaiah prophesied until 698 B.C., Jeremiah until 588 B.C., Ezekiel to 574 B.C., and Daniel to 534 B.C. Jesus Christ was well aware of the existence of Israel, separate and apart from Judah and the Jews; (see Matthew 10:5-6). Again, compare John 7:35; 11:49-52, which cannot refer to Judah or the Jews, as the Jews were not yet "dispersed" or "scattered abroad" and would not be for another 40 years; only Israel was "dispersed" out of its own land.

    The complete and permanent destruction of the Jewish nation by the Romans under Titus, and their subsequent troubles as outcasts in every land are not a failure of the prophecies and promises to Israel, but an accurate fulfillment of the prophecies about the Jews. With the history of these nations in mind, let us examine God's promises and prophecies about Israel in the Bible.

    God's promises to Abraham were unconditionaL God must fulfill them or break His word. Consider what God said, in Genesis 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 17:3-7, 19; and 22:16-18: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great: and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of MANY nations. And I will establish MY covenant between Me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an EVERLASTING COVENANT. Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to number them; and He said unto him, so shall thy seed be. BY MYSELF HAVE I SWORN, saith the Lord... that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies."

    God did not say that He would do this "IF" or "PERHAPS" - these were all UNCONDITIONAL promises. Those promises which were made at Mt. Sinai on condition that men should obey God's laws, were the promises made through Moses, relating to health, prosperity, peace, etc. The promises to Abraham were UNCONDITIONAL and absolute; and in the New Testament, Paul tells us that these "the law, which was 430 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promises of none effect" (Galatians 3:17). If the Bible is true, if God's word is good, then these promises must be good.

    God repeated these promises UNCONDITIONALLY to Isaac, in Genesis 26: 3-5: "Sojourn in this land and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee and thy seed I will give all these countries; and I WILL PERFORM THE OATH WHICH I SWORE UNTO ABRAHAM, THY FATHER. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all of these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."

    Again, in the 28th and 35th chapters of Genesis, GOD REPEATED HIS PROMISES, UNCONDITIONALLY, to Jacob-Israel, our ancestor: "I am the Lord God of Abraham, thy father, and the God of Isaac, the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; and thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth; and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south, and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land, FOR I WILL NOT LEAVE THEE UNTIL I HAVE DONE THAT WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN TO THEE OF. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and A COMPANY OF NATIONS shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins."

    There can't be an evasion of these promises; and God has always honored them. Even when the children of Israel worshiped the Golden Calf while Moses was on Mt. Sinai, receiving the Ten Commandments, God did not destroy them, for the sake of these promises. (See Exodus 32:7-14.) In many places, the New Testament recognized these promises as being still in full effect; for example, in Hebrews 6:13, 17, "For when God made promise to Abraham. because He could swear by no greater, He swore bv Himself.. Wherein God, being willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it with an oath." Again in Romans 11:1-2; 9:4-5; and 15:8 Paul tells us, "I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the Tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away His people which He foreknew... Who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came... Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."

    SO THESE ARE THE PROMISES OF GOD: IF THEY ARE FALSE, THEN THE BIBLE IS FALSE: BUT IF THEY HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, THEN THE PEOPLE TO WHOM THEY WERE FULFILLED ARE THEREBY IDENTIFIED AS ISRAEL. But the separate and very different prophecies relating to the Jews, show that the promises and prophecies to Israel had no reference to the Jews. Let us look at a few of them.

    ISRAEL WAS TO HAVE A CHANGE OF NAME, WHILE THE JEWS' NAME WAS LEFT TO THEM AS A CURSE. In Isaiah 65:13-15, God tells the Jews: "And ye shall leave YOUR name FOR A CURSE TO MY CHOSEN: FOR THE LORD GOD SHALL SLAY THEE, and CALL HIS SERVANTS BY ANOTHER NAME." Who are God's servants? IN MANY PLACES God repeats this: "But thou, ISRAEL, are MY servant... Thou art My servant: I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away." For example, see Isaiah 41:8-10; 43:1, and 10;44:1-2, 21-22; etc. This has been fulfilled, ISRAEL is no longer called by its old name; but the Jews have retained their name for "a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse," as Jeremiah 24:9 says.

    AGAIN, THE JEWS WERE TO BE KNOWN BY THEIR FACES. Isaiah 3:9 says: "THE SHOW OF THEIR COUNTENANCE DOTH WITNESS AGAINST THEM, as they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! For they have rewarded evil unto themselves." To this day, the Jew is known by his face, and even getting his nose bobbed can't always hide it: IT IS A WITNESS AGAINST HIM - While Israel is not so marked.

    ISRAEL WAS TO BECOME A GREAT NATION AND ALSO A COMPANY OF NATIONS, AND TO BE A NATION FOREVER, AND TO HAVE A KING FOREVER. See Genesis 35:11; Jeremiah 31:35-37; 33:17; Psalm 89:3-4; Isaiah 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; etc., which say, "A nation and a company of nations shall be of thee... Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night... If those ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall cease from being a nation before Me forever... For thus saith the Lord; David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne of the House of Israel." Since the sun, moon and stars still shine, these promises must be still in effect; and they cannot possibly apply to the Jews, who never were "a company of nations" and who ceased to be a nation at all in A.D. 70. On the other hand, Israel has fulfilled all of this, as we shall see.


    GOD SAID THAT THE JEWS WERE TO BE DESTROYED AS A NATION, AND TO BECOME SCATTERED OUTCASTS IN ALL LANDS. In the 18th chapter of Jeremiah, God used the parable of the potter making a clay bottle on the potter's wheel; and on the first trial, the bottle was spoiled; so the potter mashed it back into a lump and tried again, and on the second trail he made a perfect bottle. God said that He would re-make Israel into the kind of nation He wanted, just as the potter had done with the soft clay. But in the next chapter, Jeremiah 19, God told the prophet to get an earthen bottle which had been burned hard, and to assemble the elders and important men of Jerusalem. Then God said: "Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shall say to them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel that cannot be made whole again." Again in Jeremiah 15:4 and 24:9, God said of the Jews: "And I will cause them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, the King of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.. And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all the places whither I shall drive them." In fulfillment of this, after 70 weeks (or 490 years) of Daniel 9:24 were completed, Titus the Roman General destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70; the Jews were broken as a nation, and have had no king of their own. In John 19:15 they spoke truly, "We have no king but Caesar."

    Israel was to become a very numerous people: besides the many statements of this in Genesis chapters 13, 15, 22, 26, and 28, it is repeated in Hosea 1:10: "Yet the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered...." The Jews on the other hand, were to be reduced to a remnant. In Ezekiel 5:11-12 God said: "Wherefore, as I live, saith the Lord God; surely, because thou hast defiled My sanctuary with all thy detestable things, and with all thine abominations, therefore will I also diminish thee: neither shall Mine eye spare, neither will I have any pity. A third part of thee shall die with the pestilence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst of thee: and a third part shall fall by the sword round about thee; and I will scatter a third part into all the winds, and I will draw out a sword after them." See also Jeremiah 15:4-9, etc. The total Jewish population of the world is estimated to be about 16 million people, today... almost exactly what it was estimated to be just before Hitler's completely mythical massacre of six million Jews who were not killed at all. They are not so prolific that in 20 years they could increase their numbers by 60%, as would have to be the case if the alleged massacre was true. To conceal this fact, the Jews now seek to falsify the records: you will remember that in our 1960 and 1970 census, it was not permitted to ask anyone his religion, so you couldn't find out that 5,000,000 of the supposedly dead 6,000,000 had been illegally admitted to the United States. But this 16 million is certainly NOT "as the stars of the heaven or as the sand which is upon the seashore" for numbers.

    For another thing, ISRAEL WAS TO BECOME BLIND TO His IDENTITY. In Romans 11:25, Paul comments, "...that blindness in part is happened to Israel." This is fulfillment of Isaiah 42: 19-20: "Who is blind, but My servant? or deaf, as My messenger that I sent?... Seeing many things, but thou observeth not: opening the ears, but he heareth not." You remember that God's servant is Israel. The Jews, on the other hand, are not blind to their identity: they know their origin and their history - although they try to fool you into thinking that they are Israel - and they generally have succeeded in this deception.

    AGAIN, Israel WAS TO RECEIVE THE NEW COVENANT - CHRISTIANITY: Jeremiah 31:33 prophecied it, and in Hebrews 8:10 Paul quotes it in proof of this: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people." Have the Jews received the new covenant? Of course not! As the beloved Apostle John said, in 1 John 2:23, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father." And in John 15:23, Jesus Christ Himself said, "He that hateth ME hateth My Father also."

    The Jews DO NOT FULFILL ANY OF THE PRINCIPAL PROPHECIES CONCERNING ISRAEL. THEREFORE, THE JEWS ARE NOT ISRAEL. DOES ISRAEL EXIST TODAY? OR HAS GOD VIOLATED ALL OF HIS PROMISES? YES, ISRAEL EXISTS TODAY: FOR THE ANGLO SAXON, SCANDINAVIAN AND GERMANIC PEOPLES HAVE RECEIVED THE FULFILLMENT OF GOD'S PROMISES AND PROPHECIES. FIRST: THEY ARE A GREAT NATION AND A COMPANY OF NATIONS, ALL OF THE SAME RACE. The United States is the largest civilized nation in the world; its population is exceeded only by China, India, and Russia; it is the richest, the most advanced, the most benevolent in its policies, and has the greatest degree of liberty of any large nation. Between the two world wars, the former British Empire was officially reorganized into the "British Commonwealth of Nations"; Canada and Australia are independent nations. The Scandinavian and Germanic nations are of the same blood, have largely the same customs, and can be identified historically as the peoples who furnished most of the population of the British Isles and its colonies and the United States.

    SECOND: THEY ARE VERY NUMEROUS, as the prophecies said Israel would be. In the last two centuries, the population of the United States has increased from a mere handful to over 200,000,000 of whom about 150,000,000 are WHITE CHRISTIANS of Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian-Germanic stock. In the last three centuries, the population of the British Isles and their colonies of Canada and Australia increased from about 5,000,000 to over 70,000,000 Anglo-Saxons. The nations of Germany, Austria, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland add approximately 96,000,000 more. So the total number of the Anglo-Saxon-Scandinavian-Germanic peoples is well over 300 million.

    THIRD: THEY ARE A MARITIME PEOPLE. Of the descendants of Israel, Numbers 24:7 prophecies: "His seed shall be in many waters"; and Psalm 89:25 says: "I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers." The world's greatest navies are those of the United States and Britain: the greatest merchant marine fleets are those of Britain, and Norway, (and until recently, the United States).

    FOURTH: THEY ARE THE GREATEST MILITARY POWERS. Jeremiah 51:20 gives God's word: "Thou art my battleaxe and weapons of war: for WITH THEE will I break in pieces the nations, and WITH THEE will I destroy kingdoms." Throughout history this has been true. A century after being taken captive by Assyria, the peoples of Israel (then generally known as Scythians) had bled Assyria white by their constant warfare against it, so that Assyria was an easy push-over victory for the Medes and Persians, just before they turned their attention to Babylon. It was the Israel tribes on their march to Europe, as the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals, who crushed the Roman Empire. In 713, at Tours, Anglo-Saxon Israel destroyed the invading hordes of Moslems, Jews and Moors. In the 13th century they defeated the Tartar, Mongol, "Jewish" Khazar hordes under Genghis Khan. Later they conquered Turkey and Japan; not without heavy cost, for the promises of EASY Victory were made through Moses and were conditional upon keeping the law. But the promise of FINAL Victory to shatter the enemy (even with heavy cost) is unconditional. This has been fulfilled consistently to only one people, those whom we identify as Anglo-Saxon Israel.

    FIFTH: THEY "POSSESS THE GATES OF THEIR ENEMIES." You will remember that this was one of God's promises we found in Genesis 22:17. Obviously, this does not mean a wooden gate in some person's front yard, but the "gateways" of hostile nations - the great water-ways of the world. Consider the fact that the Anglo-Saxon nations, and THEY ALONE, have power to close EVERY important water "gate" in the world. American and British fleets based at Scotland, the Orkney Islands, Gibralter, Malta, Aden, Capetown, Australia, Singapore, the Philippines, Hawaii, San Francisco and Puget Sound, Panama, the Falkland Islands, Hampton Roads, and Iceland - these dominate and can close the Skagerrak and Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the English Channel, the Straits of Gibralter, the Mediterranean, the Suez Canal, the Indian Ocean, the waters around Southeast Asia and the East coast of Asia, the coasts of Africa and around the Cape of Good Hope, the coasts of North and South America, the Straits of Magellan and around Cape Horn, and all trade routes across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. They have proved this by actually doing it in two world wars.

    SIXTH: THEY "POSSESS THE DESOLATE HERITAGES" OF THE EARTH. In Isaiah 49:8 God says: "Thus saith the Lord: In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages." No one else has so successfully developed the colonies which were desolate when they first occupied them. Compare what the United States has done in its Southwestern States with Mexico, similar land, with fully as great undeveloped riches, separated from us by only an imaginary line. Compare British Africa with the African colonies of all other nations -and especially compare it with the dismal savagery of the Negroes! Compare the development of Palestine and Iraq while under British rule, with Turkey, Arabia, Iran, etc.

    SEVENTH: THEY HAVE EXPANDED IN COLONIES IN ALL DIRECTIONS. Deuteronomy 32:8 says: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." Genesis 28:14 says, "Thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." Isaiah 54:2-3 tells us, "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of habitation; spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes: for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the nations, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited." Their colonies were established in every sea, in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia-New Zealand, and Asia. Who else has ever had such colonies? All the ancient empires were insignificant compared to this. Since we have allowed the Jews to teach us to turn our back on God, we have unwisely abandoned our colonies; and the chaos in the world today is largely a result of our failure to obey God's commands to occupy and rule the uncivilized peoples. However, even this was also prophetic (though that is another subject).

    EIGHTH: THEY HAVE MAINTAINED THE CONTINUITY OF THE THRONE OF DAVID. David's descendants continued on the throne in Jerusalem until King Zedekiah was taken prisoner to Babylon, at which time all his sons were slain. But the prophet Jeremiah took the king's daughters, first to Egypt (as we read in Jeremiah 43:6) and from there, by way of Spain to Ireland, where Zedekiah's daughter, Tea Tephi, was married to Eochaidh, the Heremon (or Chief King) of Ireland. Eochaidh was a descendant of Zarah, one of the twin sons of Judah; while David was a descendant of Pharez, the other twin. Killing all of Zedekiah's sons did not end the dynasty, as it was established law in Israel ever since they first entered Palestine, that when a man died leaving no sons, his daughters received the entire inheritance. The two king lines of the Tribe of Judah were united in this marriage; and the lineage is clearly traced in the histories of Ireland, Scotland, and England, unbroken down to the present British Queen Elizabeth. Thus the prophecy that David's descendants should always be on the throne over an Israelite nation has been fulfilled - and by the Anglo-Saxon nations ONLY.

    * * * * *

    This has covered but a tiny fraction of Biblical proof that the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Germanic people are the Israel of the Bible. Scholars have found nearly 100 prophecies concerning israel which have been fulfilled by this one group of people. When you consider that the United Nations now recognizes over 100 member nations, the odds against any one nation fulfilling the first of these prophecies is obviously 100 to 1. The odds against the same nation fulfilling both the first and second prophecies again multiplies this by 100, making ten thousand to one; and the odds against the same nation fulfilling the first, second, and third prophecies becomes one million to one. Well, you figure it out; keep on multiplying by 100 - oh, even 50 more times. But even that isn't all; a group of nations all the same blood have done this; not a random assortment, like China and Spain, or Egypt and Brazil, but all of the same racial group. So this again multiplies the odds. Do you think that this could have happened by mere accident?

    And if you do think that this was pure accident, then WHAT HAS BECOME OF GOD'S PROPHECIES AND PROMISES? Was He too ignorant to know that He couldn't make good on His word, that all the things He had promised to Israel never got there but were all taken by other people? No, I don't think that God made any failures or any mistakes. He promised and prophesied many things about Israel. They have all come to pass, and they have all been made good to the same racial group of nations.

    * * * * *

    THIS PEOPLE HAS ISRAEL'S FINGERPRINTS

    There is also the other line of proof of the identity of these people, by tracing historically their migration into Europe, and from there into their colonies. But that is another subject, much longer than the one just covered.


    .

    .
    .
    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 12-11-2012 at 08:34 PM.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts