+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Bertrand Comparet Sermons

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    170

    Default Bertrand Comparet Sermons

    The Comparet and Swift Project


    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...1434#post11434
    http://christian-identity.net/forum/...1434#post11434


    Hi Martin,

    Thought I'd let you know I have finished a project. I didn't like seeing that almost all the Swift and Comparet recordings online were monopolized by that jew pig Fink so I have uploaded all of them to archive.org.

    Bertrand L. Comparet Audio Teachings In Dual Seedline Christian Identity - Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

    In these dark days of knowledge being stolen and history being re-written, we are uploading all the audio works of Dual Seedline Christian Identity (DSCI) teacher, Bertrand Comparet. When this project is done, we will upload the recordings of fellow DSCI teacher, Wesley Swift.

    We will later attempt to upload as many of their written materials as we can. Unfortunately, these materials often come to us through false teachers who would not be above altering their works. That is why, today, we recommend first listening to their audio materials as tampering with those teachings would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to do. Both men had a ministry to the true Israelites of Yahweh God who are not to be confused with the false and self-professed "chosen people" of God that are being peddled to the false "judeo-christianity" in the false "churches" of today.

    About Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet, A.B, J.D.

    Upon reading these most interesting discussions one will quickly recognize that the author is an ardent student of the Bible and particularly escatology or the study of the prophecies of the things which have already taken place, the things that are now taking place, and the things that are yet to take place in the future. He is an ordained minister. His studies in this area of thought extend back over a period of thirty years.

    One will quickly appreciate also the straight forward manner of factual presentation and logical thinking. This is due to his professional training and occupation as a well recognized Attorney at Law. He not only writes in a clear, convincing style, but is distinguished in the pulpit, on the lecture platform, and over the air for his clarity of thought and profound logic.

    Bertrand L. Comparet is a native Californian, born in San Diego. He was graduated from Stanford University with the degree of Bachelor of Arts and Juris Doctor. He was admitted to the California Supreme Court or California Bar in 1926 and by the United States Supreme Court in 1956. From 1926 to 1932 he was a Deputy District Attorney in San Diego County and from 1942 to 1947 was Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Diego.

    After that time he was in private law practice.

    Quite obviously, he is a tried and true Christian and a loyal and patriotic American, a believer in a Sovereign America under Constitutional government.

    Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet started teaching in 1933 and continued for over 40 years. He returned to the Father in August of 1983.

    .

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_

    .

    Part 1: (14 Recordings)

    The Complete Comparet





    Hail Victory!!!

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



  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default Bertrand Comparet Sermons

    Bertrand Comparet Sermons




    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3418#post3418
    http://www.thebeerbarrel.net/showthr...2367#post22367
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...319#post300319

    Bertrand Comparet was the foremost scholar and definer of Dual-Seedline Christian Identity (DSCI) Orthodox Doctrine. As a result of Comparet's defining work, 80% of DSCI Doctrine has already been codified and settled. Anyone claiming to be a DSCI scholar who doesn't recognize the settled work of Bertrand Comparet is almost certainly a baal-priest or jew trying to subvert settled DSCI doctrine.

    For those who are looking for what is and what is not DSCI, then I shall endeavor to place Bertrand Comparet's known work in order according to understanding the DSCI basics for beginners.

    Hail Victory!!!

    Pastor Martin Luther Dzerzhinsky Lindstedt
    Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri

    .

    ===================

    .



    About Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet, A.B.,J.D.

    http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/co...aboutcomp.html


    Upon reading these most interesting discussions one will quickly recognize that the author is an ardent student of the Bible and particularly escatology or the study of the prophecies of the things which have already taken place, the things that are now taking place, and the things that are yet to take place in the future. He is an ordained minister. His studies in this area of thought extend back over a period of thirty years.

    One will quickly appreciate also the straight forward manner of factual presentation and logical thinking. This is due to his professional training and occupation as a well recognized Attorney at Law. He not only writes in a clear, convincing style, but is distinguished in the pulpit, on the lecture platform, and over the air for his clarity of thought and profound logic.

    Bertrand L. Comparet is a native Californian, born in San Diego. He was graduated from Stanford University with the degree of Bachelor of Arts and Juris Doctor. He was admitted to the California Supreme Court or California Bar in 1926 and by the United States Supreme Court in 1956. From 1926 to 1932 he was a Deputy District Attorney in San Diego County and from 1942 to 1947 was Deputy City Attorney for the City of San Diego.

    After that time he was in private law practice.

    Quite obviously, he is a tried and true Christian and a loyal and patriotic American, a believer in a Sovereign America under Constitutional government.

    Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet started teaching in 1933 and continued for over 40 years. He returned to the Father in August of 1983.


    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 02-04-2011 at 11:57 PM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default Adam was not the First Man

    Adam was not the First Man

    Pastor Bertrand Comparet




    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3419#post3419
    http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/comparet/comp5a.html -- Defunct Link
    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 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 Librarian; 06-16-2012 at 03:57 AM. Reason: Defunct Link
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Granby, State of Missery, ZOG
    Posts
    5,015

    Default Adam was not the First Man -- Annotated

    Adam was not the First Man -- Annotated

    Pastor Bertrand Comparet

    Annotation by Pastor Martin LD Lindstedt



    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3422#post3422
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...463#post300463


    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 European Cro-Magnon 'men' may have been White in color as well. While DSCI Orthodox Doctrine holds that 'Adam' means 'He who blushes' this doesn't mean that pre-Adamite populations couldn't have blushed -- if they found something to be ashamed of doing, something sinful. Thus if there was no sin because there were none under YHWH's Law, it might well have been possible for Adam to be the very first 'White Man' who was able to blush because Adam was capable of sinning -- and acknowledging the error!!!

    The Bible says that Adam was the first man formed and breathed life into and given a soul by YHWH, cf. Genesis 2:7. Thus there shouldn't be any conflict with true archeology which says that 'ape-men' have been around for 2 million or more years and that Cro-Magnon man has been around for 40,000 years. Adam was the First Man to be formed by YHWH and given a 'living soul.' This 'living soul' is something which under the New Covenant of Jesus Christ was to be expanded and all of Israel which was called and saved by Christ would be expanded towards eternal life as a reward for both works and faith. The original Covenant under Moses said that obeying YHWH's Law as given by Moses from Sinai only promised long and relatively happy life anf good government. The Slave [De]Generation saw that all of them died out during the 40 years wandering in the wilderness that only Joshua and Caleb lived to reach old age.

    As speculation only, I think it is possible that Adamites who migrated towards Europe and did not race-mix as in the Adamite Nation and thus were flooded out in the Tarim Basin, may well have married into Cro-Magnon white stock. However, this is speculation on my part, not doctrine.

    However, in any case, the pre-historic record just before the first writings and advancement in the neolithic era begins roughly 7,000 years ago, when there seems to have been not only civilizational changes, but actual physical changes as well. The Septuagant adds another 1,000 years to the Masoretic King James [Per]Version of Creation being Sept. 1, 4004 BC @ 9:00 a.m.
    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.
    Pastor Bertrand Comparet understood that there were cities and civilizations of some sort altogether outside Adamic man, which rose, fell and died out. Pastor Comparet also understood that eons ago that there were dinosaurs and other pre-Biblical life forms and Comparet took the course that pretty much all Protestant scholars took: That Satan rebelled and that the Earth became chaotic and disordered after the ArchAngel Michael threw Satan and Satan's fallen angels/demons to Earth and imprisoned them there. Thus there is no real fight with Dual-Seedline Christian Identity (DSCI) and evolution, although DSCI pastors should note that evolutionist retards will beller that if evolution is directed, as it was by YHWH, that it then becomes 'Creationism' as opposed to 'Evolution.' Everything, be it for good or be it for evil, is by YHWH's Design to make the Remnant stronger and thus worthy of YHWH's Kingdom. Nothing outside the purview of the Bible should matter to the Christian Israelite.
    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.
    Cain found plenty of non-Adamites and non-white Beasts of the Field to rule over and sway in order to try to get back into Adamite society. Cain in DSCI doctrine became known as Sargon the Great of Sumeria and Akkad. Cain was the spawn of Satan and became the first jew. This is DSCI Orthodox Doctrine and the foundation of the modern as well as ancient Christian Church.
    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.
    Again, Comparet makes it clear that Adam was not the first man on this Earth as postulated by the jewdayos. These other races were known as the 6th Day Beasts of the Field, and presumably the niggers because the gooks and casino injuns are not mentioned in the Bible at all. Other white races, such as the Philistines, were perfectly acceptable to marry or interbreed with as spoils of war, cf. Deut. 20:10-15. Yet the Canaanites, who were 'white' as jews, were in that same chapter to be utterly destroyed, cf, Deut 20:16-18. Thus you see how the Israelite race spread to where it became mighty nations able to inherit the world. What was never allowed or permitted was intermarriage with non-white 6th Day Beasts of the Field or with the jews, who were not to be allowed to live amongst us in the first place.
    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.
    Again, Bertrand Comparet lays down the basics of DSCI. Satan seduced Eve, she gave birth to Cain, the older fraternal twin of Abel, Adam's son. Cain was the first jew, and found a wife amongst these non-Adamites, some of whom may have well been white Cro-magnons. However, even the blondest, blue-eyed jew has 5-15% negro marker genes, as the jew is the ultimate mamzer abomination.
    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.
    Dual-Seedline Christian Identity NEVER steps on itz theological tail. Some pastors may not know of whence they speak, yet all that means is their own ignorance. DSCI has more than its share of mamzer and jew baal-priests trying to infiltrate the above-ground Church, trying to get at the DSCI Church's massive underground Congregation. DSCI has 99.999% of its believers underground where none can see who isn't bending their knee and bowing to ZOG/Babylon. Only YHWH knows His own. For every DSCI pastor I know of, cf. I Kings 19:14, there are at least 7,000 who follow YHWH, cf. I Kings 19:18. If there were 7,000 Faithful Israelites and Elijah did not know who was who out of a population of 3 million, would there not be 701 thousand that not even I do know of of The Remnant in a population of 300 million?

    The task at hand is to make the underground Church into Comparetian Dual-Seedline Christian Identity Orthodox.


    Last edited by Librarian; 06-16-2012 at 04:36 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default Bryan Reo & Commandork McFagg

    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


    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.


    Last edited by Librarian; 06-16-2012 at 03:59 AM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default The cain / satanic seed line

    THE CAIN / SATANIC SEED LINE

    Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet, A.B., J.D.



    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/sh...=3445#post3445
    http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/co...cainsatan.html
    http://stumbleinn.net/forum/showthre...994#post300994
    http://www.thebeerbarrel.net/showthr...3022#post23022


    It has been brought to my attention many times, that there are preachers and teachers in the world who don't recognize there are literal children of Satan surviving in the world today. Since this is one of the central themes of the Bible, the fight for supremacy between the children of Yahweh and the children of Lucifer, I wonder what Bible these preachers and teachers are reading and studying.

    In these studies we will be using the proper name of our God, which is Yahweh and Yahshua for Christ. For documentation read, "Who Is Your God?”

    The battle lines are drawn by Yahweh in Genesis 3:15, where He states he is going to put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

    Let's start at the beginning; of course Satan wasn't a serpent. The entity that deceived and seduced Eve wasn't a scaly thing wriggling along on the ground. Serpent was translated from the word nachash, which means enchanter or magician. A fallen angel, still retaining a lot of his angelic powers, no doubt could be very much of an enchanter or magician.

    Lucifer's children, and I do mean children not just followers, through the centuries used a serpent as a symbol or emblem of their ancestor, until they attached a secondary meaning of serpent to the word nachash. In Genesis 3:1-3 Satan said to Eve, "Is it really true that Yahweh said, You can't eat of any tree in the garden?" As it reads in the Hebrew, Eve replied to Satan, "And the woman said unto the enchanter, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden". Now I am going to switch to the King James translation and I will correct it as I go.

    "Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Let's see what it actually said in the Hebrew. Fruit is the Hebrew word pirchach, meaning progeny, brood, children or descendants. Do you talk about the children of a walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don't!

    Of the pirchach, of the descendants of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, Yahweh has said, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it". 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.

    Yahweh had millions of the pre Adamic, Asiatic and African people 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 purpose.

    Satan had been the governor of this planet until he forfeited the right to this position by rebellion. Yahweh sent Adam here and it is recorded in Luke chapter 3 that Adam was the son of Yahweh. It doesn't record that about any of these pre Adamic people mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. Adam was the son of Yahweh and Yahweh 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 weren't supposed to intermingle with these people. If Negroes and Asiatics were all that Yahweh wanted, He already had them. What He created was a different and separate being who was to be a different sort of person, whom the Negroes and Asiatics 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 not to mongrelize their race with these pre-Adamic people that were in the world.

    When you come to Genesis 3:13, Yahweh has called Adam, Eve and Satan before Him to give an accounting of their misdeeds. According to the King James Bible Eve said, "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat thereof". Here again is the Hebrew word nachash, meaning enchanter. Then there is the use of the word beguiled; the Hebrew word there is nawshaw, which means seduced.

    Beguiled means 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. The word nawshaw means seduced, not in any way or sense can it mean beguiled. "And Yahweh God said unto the woman, what is this thou hast done? And the woman said, the enchanter seduced me." This is what it says in the Hebrew and Cain was the product of this seduction.

    In reply in Genesis 3:15 Yahweh says to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed". The same word zehra was used for both the seed of Satan and the seed of Eve. Zehra literally means seed; there is no other meaning. It also could be used as grains of wheat but it is used throughout the Bible as meaning the descendants of a person. Satan was to have just as literal children in this world as Eve was to have. The same word zehra is used for Satan's seed and Eve's seed.

    The reply of the churchianity preachers is usually to quote Genesis 4:1. "And Adam knew his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain." Notice that what is not said is more significant that what is said, the Bible nowhere says Adam begat Cain. As you have read in the Old Testament, the monotonous regularity with which it always says, and so and so begat whosis and whosis 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 citizenship because your ancestors, for over twenty generations, were Israelites and no other way.

    So Adam knew his wife and she conceived. 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. I didn't say the one caused the other. I said two things happened, one happened first and the other happened second. I never said they were cause and effect. The Bible never says there was cause and effect here. If you want further proof of this, go right on to Genesis chapter 5 where you will find the list of Adam's descendants. Cain's name is nowhere to be found. Neither Cain nor Abel is mentioned among the descendants of Adam.

    If you say Abel might have been omitted because he was probably killed before he left any descendants of his own, we don't really know. However, this isn't true of Cain because the Bible traces Cain's descendants for six generations, naming them right down the line. Never once does it record that Cain was a descendant of Adam, never in any way, shape, forms or manner. The first time it records that 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." This child Adam begat was not named Cain it was named Seth.

    The satanic bloodline crept in through Cain, possibly earlier, among the pre Adamic people. There were pre Adamic people who were not necessarily satanic. There were some pre Adamic people into whom the satanic bloodline came, and there were even some of the descendants of Adam who probably mongrelized. In fact, it is evident they did mix their bloodline for the fact that those living around Noah were wiped out by the flood. The Bible tells us that Noah was perfect in his ancestry, with no mongrelization. He and his family were the ones in the area that were still pure in their bloodlines.

    This is why the flood wiped out the mongrelized Adamites around Noah. As I documented in "Noah's Flood Was Not Worldwide", this flood did not cover the whole earth as is falsely taught in the churches of today.

    The pure descendants of Adam multiplied and then you come to the fact of the satanic bloodline getting in there. Remember, Yahweh had announced His purpose; He was going to take back the world from Satan's domination. Yahweh was going to rule it according to His purposes. He was going to rule it through His children, through the pure descendants of Adam. What would be the obvious move on Satan's part to thwart this plan? The obvious thing to do would be to mongrelize the descendants of Adam, then he could sneer in Yahweh's face and say, "These are my children but where are yours? All these have my blood in them." This is exactly what Satan set out to do.

    Genesis 6:2 records, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men (Adam) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all they chose". You don't get the full significance of it in this translation, "the sons of God" (beni-ha-elohim, also means sons of magistrates or mighty men of the earth and angels).

    A double race mixing took place here; both the rulers of the pre Adamic races and the fallen angels took wives of the fair Adamic women. It is written with obvious disapproval. The male descendants of Adam were not allowed, by Yahweh's law, to marry anybody but the daughters descended from Adam. If they were marrying within their own racial line in this instance, it couldn't have been spoken of with disapproval. So the beni-ha-elohim are evidently those of the pre Adamic darker races and the fallen angels who followed Satan into rebellion. Greater details of this event are found in the book of Enoch.

    Go on to Genesis 6:4 where it is speaking of the same subject, again it is botched up in the King James Bible. "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 (enowsh) 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. Jude 1:6 records, "Angels who had not kept their first estate," who had fallen from heaven and from their former powers. "When the sons of God", and again it’s the beni-ha-elohim, "came in unto the daughters of Adam...” so it's the same thing.

    Here we have the spreading of the satanic bloodline. 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 through Mount Seir, the rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea where Esau and his family lived, all through this area there are these various people with the satanic blood in them.

    There are two different places, one in Isaiah the other in Ezekiel, where it speaks of what it calls a king or a prince. In the one case it speaks of Babylon and the other case of Tyre. Nevertheless it speaks of him in language, which could not possibly apply, to anybody except Satan. Therefore this indicates that at some time or other, Satan had incarnated in the form of these various kings, one king of Babylon and one king of Tyre.

    Don't think this is so impossible because many times the Old Testament tells of these angels appearing in very solid form. They came and talked with Abraham on several occasions, one of them wrestled with Jacob almost all night.

    Another of these angels 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 a 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".

    Let's take Isaiah 14:12-21 and note that these verses could not possibly apply to anyone except to Satan himself. We will quote from the King James Bible. "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." Lucifer then said, "I'm going to be the ruler over Israel (Yahweh's people). I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High".

    Yahweh our God then told Lucifer the devil, "Yet thou shall 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 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 foot. 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 this about any kings of Babylon. The only one, who may possibly have failed to get burial and an elaborate tomb, might have been Belshazzar. Belshazzar 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, because he was drunk all the time.

    These passages are speaking of none other than Lucifer. Note how it goes on in 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." The word translated as children is from the Hebrew word Beni meaning sons. 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? Of course it is, now let's see what the New Testament has to say about it.

    Yahshua plainly says, in a number of places, that the devil has children, not merely followers. Remember the parable of the tares and the wheat. Yahshua spoke of the farmer who sowed good seed in his field and his enemy came along during the nighttime and sowed these poisonous weeds, the tares among the wheat. When the farmer's servants saw the tares growing among the wheat they asked him if they should go and pull them up now.

    The farmer 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 Yahshua explains this parable to His disciples. In Matthew 13:38-39 Yahshua says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom (the Greek word used here in the plural is huios meaning sons, the good seed are the sons of the kingdom); but the tares are the children (huios) of the wicked one. Satan has just as true children in the world as does Yahweh.

    Speaking to the Pharisees, who as you know were Jews, Yahshua said in Matthew 12:34 (the King James Bible botches this up to an extent that seems to me often to be willful), "O generation of vipers, how can ye being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh".

    The word is not generation at all. A generation is a number of people of not too different an age, living at the same time. You, for example, constitute one generation. Yahshua wasn't talking just about the people living then. They weren't any more wicked than the generation that lived before them or the generation that lived after them. What Yahshua said was, as we will paraphrase it (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 they were vipers. Yahshua knew who they were.

    In Matthew 23:29-35 it is recorded, "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." Here again is the 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."

    Was Yahshua so unjust that He was going to punish these Jews for the murder of Abel, if they weren't descendants of Cain? Of course not. Yahshua was tracing the children of the serpent, the enchanter Satan, down through the centuries. Tracing those who had murdered the righteous, including all the prophets, right down the line. So Yahshua 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."

    Throughout the Bible it records the two seed lines, Yahweh and Lucifer's. The Bible makes no reference as to what your religious point of view may be; it is talking about literal descendants. Romans 8:16 tells us, "The spirit itself bears witness, that we are the children of God". 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 Yahweh.

    Read what Paul said on this subject and nothing in it can justify the mistranslation of that as adoption. Paul states that before the coming of Christ we were held in bondage under the law. He then says the law just like an heir under age strictly governed us. The heir has inherited from his father, who has died, all the estate but he is still a minor and cannot take control of it.

    The heir is under the control of trustees and governors, appointed guardians, appointed by his father, until he comes of age. Paul continues that all the time the heir is owner of it all and yet he is controlled as though he is just a servant. 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, Paul wasn't stupid enough to think he was. Only the churchmen are stupid enough for that.

    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. As I said before, Romans 8:16 tells us, "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 reads (Paul is quoting from Hosea 1:10), "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it is said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God". It is the Greek word huioi, meaning sons. We are the born, not adopted, children of Yahweh. As to the born, not adopted or converted, children of the devil, read Acts 13:8-9. This tells about a Jew sorcerer Elymas, who opposed Paul when Paul was trying to make some, converts. "Then Saul (who was also called Paul) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him and said, O full of sublimity and mischief, thou son of the devil (the same Greek word huios, meaning son), thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"

    The offspring of a cat is another cat, isn't it? The child of a Negro is a Negro and a child of Yahweh is what? He is not as wise and not as powerful or important as his Father, but nevertheless he partakes. Within his limitations, of a godly nature. This is what the Bible tells us about and this is exactly why we of Yahweh's people Israel are held to so much greater responsibility than other people. After all, you can't expect a Negro to act like anything but a Negro, but a child of Yahweh is expected to act like one.

    The child of a devil is what, another devil isn't he? John 6:70-71 is part of a very important passage which began in this manner. Yahshua asked His disciples who were all gathered together, "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."

    Yahshua didn't say He was going to found the church on Simon Peter (petros), a little stone. In Greek petros means a little stone, just barely bigger than a pebble. Was Yahshua going to found His church on a pebble that anybody could kick out from under it? No, Yahshua said, "I will found it upon petra." the solid bedrock of the earth.

    Remember the example Yahshua 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. Another man built his house upon the rock (petra, 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 to Yosemite Valley and have seen that enormous cliff El Capitan, you have seen a good example of what the Greeks meant by the word petra. You could build a castle on El Capitan 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 records, "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Escariot, (the son) of Simon, for he it was that would betray Him, being one of the twelve". Our Savior was not just being vulgarly abusive by calling people names He never did that. He denounced these Pharisees, He called them hypocrites and they were. Yahshua wasn't abusing them with lying epithets, they were hypocrites and He was accurate.

    When Yahshua called these Jews children of serpents, they acknowledged the statement was true, for that was the emblem they had used from ancient times. When He said that one of them was a devil, He wasn't being abusive, He was speaking the literal truth.

    The First Epistle of John again states the existence of these two seed lines. I John 2:29 tells us, "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that does righteousness is born of Him". I John 3:2 continues, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God". Here we have the Greek word teknon meaning a born child, not adopted, thus a child born of Yahweh. Let's continue with I 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."

    By this John didn't mean that none of us commit any sins at all. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed the sacrifice of Yahshua on the cross. We all have our sins but people are divided into two classes. There are the one who are only sorry because they don't get a chance to sin more and the others who are sorry because they have sinned only a little. What John means is, whoever is born of Yahweh doesn't habitually sin. So John says in I John 3:10, "In this the children (teknon) of God are manifest, and the children (teknon) of the devil". Remember, John has talked about us as the born teknon of Yahweh and the others as the born teknon of the devil.

    I John 3:12 records that as for those that are our brothers, not the children of Satan, we should love them and not be as Cain. The King James Bible says, "...who was of that wicked one and slew his brother." The people that have churchianity rather than Christianity say, "Oh well, 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 a reprobate and so on."

    There weren't two separate Greek languages in those days. There wasn't one language to write the Gospel according to Luke and a different one to write the First Epistle of John. As you well 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 translation of the Bible and you know that in most editions of it, some words are printed in italics. Those words in italics are the words which the translators added because they thought it was necessary to give the English the same meaning the Hebrew or the Greek had, without these added words.

    Luke chapter 3 traces the genealogy of Yahshua, starting with Yahshua and going all the way back to Adam. Let's start with Luke 3:23 as it is translated in the King James Bible. "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 (the words "the son" are in italics showing they were not in the Greek and the translators added them), which was the son of Matthew (the son is in italics), which was the son (italics) of Levi, which was the son (italics) of Melchi, which was the son (italics) of Janna," and so forth. All "the son" were in italics so were added.

    Some people would read Luke 3:23-24 as follows: "...the son of Joseph, who was as big a reprobate as Heli, who was morally no better than Matthew, who was as bad as Levi..." Is this the way some people think Luke wrote this? If this is not the meaning of the Greek here in Luke, it is not the meaning of the same Greek phrase in 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, in English it would read, John was the son of William. The better English translations recognize this. For example in the Weymouth translation, this same verse, John 3:12 reads, "We are not to resemble Cain who was a child of the evil one and killed his brother." Phillips' translation reads, "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 reads, "Unlike Cain who was a child of the evil one and murdered his brother".

    The verses that people use, as proof positive there isn't any basis for the belief that the Jews are the descendants of Cain and therefore from the devil, is John 8:31-33. Yahshua was talking to the Judeans who were the people we know of as Jews today. It isn't simply that Yahshua was behaving like a petulant spoiled child because somebody didn't believe in Him, because it says, "those Judeans who believed in Him". Check Strong's Concordance, the word Jew is mistranslated from the word meaning Judean. Yes so called converted children of the devil.

    Yahshua said to these Judeans (Jews), "If ye continue in My doctrines indeed, then ye shall be My disciples; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. They answered Him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man". Anybody that knows their Bible knows that all of Abraham's children had been in bondage at one time or another. Here is evidence that these people weren't descendants of Abraham. Who is it who could say he was descended from Abraham and had never been in bondage to any man?

    If these Jews were of any of the twelve tribes of Israel at all, they would have been in bondage the first time in Egypt. If they belonged to the ten tribed northerly kingdom of Israel, they would have been in bondage the second time in Assyria. If they belonged to the two tribed southern kingdom of Judah, they would have been in bondage the second time in Babylon. Yet the Jews admitted they had never been in bondage to any man, thus demonstrating they weren't of Israel or Judah.

    Who could say that 1,800 years earlier that Abraham was one of his ancestors, Esau? Remember Esau and Jacob were twin brothers, born with (presumably) the same bloodline. However, Esau married two Canaanite women in violation of Yahweh's law. Esau couldn't leave anything but mongrelized satanic descendants, because among these Hittite Canaanites there was the satanic bloodline.

    When the Bible records Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew, this isn't when he lost his birthright. This was only a formal ceremony by which he gave up any claim to it. Esau lost the birthright when he did the thing that rendered it impossible for him to continue as the head of the clan.

    Esau's descendants from then on would be mongrelized. Recognizing he was already out of the line for leadership, Esau sold his inheritance for a bowl of stew. The Bible records that Esau and his two Canaanite wives moved down to Mount Seir, a very rugged mountain range southeast of the Dead Sea. Mount Seir is exactly where some of these people lived who were descendants of the fallen angels. Read Genesis chapter 6, among the people who had the blood line of the fallen angels were these Horites. They were the cave dwellers who were known as Horim.

    Suppose a white man married two Negresses here and then moved to the interior of the Congo. For the next 18 centuries his descendants lived there with nobody they could marry except the Negroes around them. Of course the last trace of white blood would have vanished. Nevertheless, after 18 centuries they could still say they had a white ancestor.

    These weren't Negroes, they were satanic Canaanites, but the principle is the same. These Jews talking with Yahshua had identified themselves as Edomite Jews. Genesis 36:20-30 lists Esau's descendants. Listed are all the various chieftains among the family of Seir, the Horite satanic line, including his daughter Timna. Genesis 36:12 records that Timna was a concubine to Esau's son Eliphaz and bore him a son Amalek. What a pestilential lot the whole tribe of Amalek was, they all behaved according to their satanic bloodline. You will find a good deal about this in Exodus 17:8-16 and Numbers 20:14-21.

    This same satanic conduct, on the part of the Edomites, was repeated as the opportunity arose. Remember when the people of Israel came out of Egypt in the exodus, they wanted to march up to Palestine, they were then attacked by the Edomites. The Israelites were driven back so they had to detour around, down through the wilderness, in the Sinai Peninsula.

    When the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, they looted and burned the city and massacred a lot of the inhabitants. Then 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. This book also predicted their eventual slaughter and punishment for what they did. Obadiah verse 10 records, "For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou shalt be cut off forever".

    Obadiah verse 15 continues, "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; for there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for Yahweh has spoken it."

    Exodus 17:14-16 continues, "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."

    How did these satanic, mongrel, Edomite Jews get up there into Judea? They came in two principle waves. During the time the southern kingdom of Judah was practically empty during the Babylonian captivity, the Edomites were driven out of Mount Seir by a heavy invasion by the Arab people, the Nabateans from the east. So the Edomites were driven westward. 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. Consequently they went slightly northwest and took over the southerly half of what had been the kingdom of Judah and settled there.

    When the small remnant of Judah came back from the Babylonian captivity, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah record that 42,600, or something like that, came back. It lists them by their families and when you run those down you find that slightly over 8,000 of these people were not from any tribe of Israel or Judah. Only 34,000 of the 42,000 that came back were Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and a few Levites among them.

    Since they were too few to drive out these numerous and warlike Edomites, all they could do was settle in the little territory left vacant. To give you an idea of the size of this territory, the entire area of the twelve tribed nation of Israel, before it broke up, picture it as follows. If it were set down here in southern California, it would extend from the Mexican border to the southern part of Los Angeles and inland from the coast it was never more than 40 miles wide.

    Now divide this into thirds, the northern two-thirds of that comprised the kingdom of Israel, the ten tribed northern kingdom. Only the southerly one-third of that was the kingdom of Judah. Of that one-third, take out the southern half of that now occupied by the Edomites. This little strip of land is all that remained for the true Judaites and Benjamenites to settle in.

    Before the captivity, the tribe of Judah had been in the south, the tribe of Benjamin in the north, with the city of Jerusalem lying right on the boundary line between them. They sorted themselves out as well as they could, the way they were before. Judah was in the south and Benjamin pushed to the north. However, 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 tribed territory into thirds, the middle third constituted Samaria.

    Isaiah, Kings and Chronicles record that when the Assyrians captured the northern kingdom of Israel and deported its entire people, they brought other people from Assyria and settled them in Samaria. It purposely failed to say the Assyrians settled anybody in Galilee, the northern most portions, because they didn't, they left it vacant. Now the Judahites pushed the Benjamenites to the north, as they returned from the captivity. They couldn't just move up into Samaria that was fully settled. So Benjamin had to leapfrog over Samaria to the vacant land of Galilee, to the north.

    In Galilee was Yahshua's own hometown of Nazareth. He was born in Bethlehem, down close to Jerusalem, but His family home was up in Nazareth. Remember, Yahshua got almost all of His converts up in Galilee and of the twelve disciples only Judas was a Jew. In Bible translations Judas is called Judas Iscariot. There is no such word as Iscariot in any language known to man. This is a corruption of the Hebrew word Ish Kerioth, meaning a man of Kerioth. Kerioth was a little village in the southwestern portion of Judea, down in the territory occupied by the Edomites. Judas was an Edomite Jew and the only Jew of the twelve disciples. The other eleven were all Galileans, therefore Benjamenites. If a Jew could walk with Yahshua for three years and still betray Him, is there any Jew we can trust?

    When Yahshua was arrested and taken into the high priest's home for illegal questioning, Peter followed Him in. The servant said "Well, you're one of them, you're a Galilean, your accent shows it". You certainly don't have any trouble telling the southerners from a northern Yankee here in this country do you. They speak English with a different accent and the Galileans spoke the Aramaic of the day, with a little different accent from the Judeans down around Jerusalem.

    When the people were gathered at Pentecost, and the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, they were all there except Judas Escariot. The disciples began speaking to this assembled multitude in a multitude of different languages. How astonished the people were when they heard the disciples speaking in all these different languages, which obviously they didn't know. The people said, "Aren't these Galileans?" All the remaining disciples were.

    Down to the south of what was left of the territory of Judah, these Edomite Jews settled. They were always a pestiferous people and were constantly raiding the southern boundary of Judea. Their descendants are raiding the Arab's territory the same way today. A leopard doesn't change its spots. For a long time, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the people in Judea were a conquered province of one empire or another, Syria, Egypt and finally Rome. They got their little flare up of independence under the Maccabee kings beginning about 150 B.C. and about 120 B.C.

    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. So, Hyrcanus marched down south and defeated these Jews thoroughly. Saul, the first king of Israel, had been told by Yahweh, "You go down there and absolutely exterminate these Edomites, don't you leave one of them alive". Saul made a big mistake, as it is always a mistake to disobey Yahweh's commands and instructions, he didn't exterminate these loathsome people. When Saul came back the prophet 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. He offered the Edomites a choice; he would spare them if they would accept the religion of Judaism. This was not the religion of the Old Testament ever; it was what was brought back from Babylon with the Babylonian Talmud. The late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise said it briefly and accurately; I have never been able to improve on his words.

    The learned Rabbi 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 Yahweh had given them could well be called Hebrewism. This Talmud/Judaism began as the Jews destroyed the religion of the Old Testament. In Yahshua's time they had not yet given it the name of the Talmud, they called it "the tradition of the elders". Remember how often Yahshua rebuked them for following their tradition. "Why have ye by your tradition set aside the laws of Yahweh?" Yahshua was referring to the Talmud.

    So, John Hyrcanus was going to be the Billy Graham of his day, he was going to make converts. Hyrcanus told them, "If you will adopt the religion of Judaism, I will give you full citizenship in the kingdom of Judea. If you don't, I will cut your throats". As you well know, this is the most effective missionary technique that has ever been developed. Even Billy Graham doesn't make converts that fast. Naturally the converts made by the sword are of doubtful validity. So the Edomites adopted the religion of Judaism and were accepted in full citizenship in the kingdom. You will find this 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 chieftain Herod conquered and became king of Judea, under the Roman Empire. Herod was a very able and very evil scoundrel. He raised a large sum of money by taxation and by raiding his neighbors. With this money he bribed Mark Anthony, who was over in Egypt with the Roman legions at this time, to lend him a couple of the Roman legions to add to his own Edomite troops, for the conquest of Judea. With the Roman troops and his own, Herod did capture Judea.

    In 40 B.C. the Romans recognized Herod as governor with the title Ethnarch. In 37 B.C., Rome formally recognized Herod as the local king of Judea. He was still subject to Roman foreign policy but he had complete self-government at home. Herod had come in with a conquering army and his Jewish Edomite followers came in with him for the sake of the plunder they could get, they overran the area. They have also gone back to Germany for the same reason. You can learn much about these events in Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" books 14-18.

    In his other history, the "Wars of the Jews", book 4 chapters 4-5, book 5 and chapter 6 and thereafter, Josephus writes 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 A.D. 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 the first time when John Hyrcanus gave them full citizenship. The second time they came in was as a wave of conquerors under Herod. This is the same Herod that tried to murder Yahshua as a baby. They had overrun the land. They had control of the entire civil and religious government until the death of Herod.

    By will, Herod left the kingdom of Judea to his son Herod Archelaus. The Romans were too wise to trust somebody with the kingdom when they didn't know anything about him. The Romans gave the new Herod a trial period as governor, under the title Ethnarch. For ten years he gave the country the most miserable misrule that any nation ever had. The people finally petitioned Rome to send a Roman to govern them.

    The people didn't like the tyranny of Rome at all but conditions were so bad, anything was better than what they had. When a Roman would rather govern the people, you can understand how bad the situation was. The Romans put Herod Archelaus on trial, found him guilty of misrule and banished him to Vienne.

    From that time on there were a series of Roman governors called procurators, Pontius Pilate was number 6 in that series. The military government was entirely in the hands of the Roman procurators. They were also in full charge of the tax collections for Rome.

    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.

    When the priests were getting greatly upset about Yahshua's teachings they said, "If we let Him alone, all men will believe on Him. The Romans will take this kingdom away from us." The way the clergymen have taught it, this is meaningless stupidity. The clergy picture Yahshua as a whining, cringing milksop, going around whimpering to people they ought to be good. If this was all Yahshua did, these Jews would not have bothered with contempt for Him, much less worry about His teachings.

    Yahshua was explaining to the people the utter evil of the Jewish economic and religious system under which they were living. Let's paraphrase what the Jews might have said, based on what is recorded in the Bible. "Look, if we let Him alone, He is going to awaken the people to these controls we have over them. They will petition Rome just as they did about Herod Archelaus and the Romans will kick us out of here. We will lose control of the money and might have to pay fair wages. The people might rebel against the usury we charge them for use of their own money." This is what they were talking about.

    Here were these Edomite Jews, who told Yahshua they were descendants of Abraham. However, they revealed they really couldn't be true Israel when they said they had never been in captivity to any man. They might have had some Israelite ancestors but, no alien blood was allowed in those called Israel. As we read in John 8:31-44, we will come to the place where Yahshua tells these Jews they were the children of the devil. They would do the lusts of their father who was a murderer from the beginning.

    Yahshua recognized the two seed lines. He didn't say these Jews had only adopted some of the bad principles of the devil, He said they were the children of the devil. The Old Testament as well as the New Testament recognizes the two seed lines. The Adamic seed line, Yahweh's children, came down through a carefully selected best one in each generation from Abraham, Isaac, Israel, then on down through the twelve tribes of Israel. So there are the two seed lines, that of Yahweh's children through Israel and the children of Satan, some of the most pestiferous of which have come through the line of Cain.

    People have asked me if I thought the Jews know of their descent from Cain. They certainly do, and here is how they proved they know. The Jews have given the owner of the radio station on which I broadcast, a very bad time. As some of you may know, a radio-broadcasting station license is good for only three years. If it is renewed on a regular basis, you have a going money making business of considerable value. If the license isn't renewed, all you have is some used equipment. It makes a great deal of difference to the owner whether he gets his license renewed or not.

    The Jews put pressure on this radio station owner to put two programs off the air. One of the programs was Richard Cotten, a conservative commentator and the other program was mine. Much to the owner's credit, he refused to take us off the air. His reply to the Jews was, "I have no authority to censor any of these programs, besides, this is the United States of America and I believe in free speech." They told him, "You've got to put these programs off the air." The owner of the station answered them, "If either one of them has said anything that you think is untrue, although they are paying for their time, I will give you an equal amount of free time for you to answer them."

    Surprise, surprise, the Jews didn't take the station owner up on his offer. Neither Richard Cotten nor I go off the deep end with any statement we can't prove. The Jews still insisted the station owner put us off the air. When he refused, the Jews filed objections to the renewal of his radio station license, which came up for renewal about this time. They kept the matter before the Federal Communications Commission for more than a year so the owner operated his station on a day to day basis, not knowing if his license would be renewed or not.

    During this time the Jews terrorized the station owner into to making an agreement. The agreement was the station owner would hire a Jew who would censor my program and Richard Cotten's. This Jew could cut out whatever material the Jews objected to.

    I have never sent any cut and spliced tapes to the radio station. When I am paying $100.00 an hour for broadcast time, tape is the cheapest thing you use. 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 for broadcast are complete, without splices. When these tapes are returned to me, they are cut and spliced in a number of places where this Jew censor has cut portions of them out.

    I don't like a Jew, to remove matters of essential Christian doctrine, can censor it one bit that a Christian broadcast. However, this station owner doesn't have to carry my program. The owner of the station still has to fight the Jews and this is three years later. He finally won before the Federal Communications Commission. The Jews appealed to the U.S. District Court of Appeals and the station owner won there also. The Jews then appealed to the Supreme Court. This radio station owner undoubtedly has spent somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 in legal expenses fighting to retain his radio station license and indirectly to preserve my right of free speech. If I make myself too troublesome to him, he may just decide he doesn't want to carry my program any further so I don't argue with him about it.

    On one of my broadcast tapes, I quoted the Bible verses telling that after Cain killed Abel, Cain had been a farmer up to that time, Yahweh said, "Cursed is the ground for your sake. I will not hereafter yield you its strength." Cain's reply was, "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." Then I went on to say that I suppose you have noticed that the children of Cain are not farmers today. You find them in financial and money lending institutions. I didn't use the forbidden word Jew, I just said the children of Cain. Guess what the Jew censor cut out of my tape! As a Jew he knew exactly whom I was talking about. Yes, they know who they are.

    The Bible records Cain saying he was being driven out of the land where the descendants of Adam would be. He complained that wherever he went, whomever he met would kill him. In those days there were a lot of places that weren't too hospitable to strangers. If, as the preachers teach, Adam and Eve were the parents of the only people on earth who were these other people? The only other child of Adam and Eve, at this time, was Abel and he was dead.

    With Cain driven away from Adam and Eve, out into some other part of the earth, who was Cain going to meet that would kill him? Remember, the Bible records Cain very speedily found enough people that with them he built a city. The Bible records these pre Adamite people. Yahweh told Cain He would put a mark on him so the people would recognize him and not kill him. Just what was that mark? Did Yahweh tattoo something on the sole of Cain's foot or where Cain would sit down on it? No, long before any hidden mark could possibly be seen, Cain would have been killed.

    Yahweh had to put this mark where it was the first thing others would see, He put it in the exact geometrical center of Cain's face. This big Jew nose they have borne ever since, as the sculptured monuments of the ancient empires show.

    The ancient kings were extremely vain of the conquests they had made. The pharaohs of Egypt, kings of Babylon, Assyria, and Persia, all left elaborately carved monuments telling how they had captured this city or that. They recorded the massacre of so many of its inhabitants and made slaves of the others, plus how much loot they took and so forth.

    In addition to the inscriptions, there was almost always a carved panel illustrating this, showing some of the captives. Wherever any of these panels showed an Israelite, it is invariably a straight nose, typical of what we would call an Anglo Saxon, Scandinavian or Teutonic type of face. Where it shows these Canaanite people, it is always a typical hook nosed Jew.

    The evidence of the Bible, and the evidence of archaeology all show one thing. There is definitely two different seed lines, the satanic seed line and the other seed line of Israel, Yahweh's own children.



    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default What Happened to Cain?

    What Happened to Cain?

    by Pastor Bertrand L. Comparet
    Clairfied by Pastor Willie Martin



    http://white.org/forum2/showthread.php?p=3456#post3456



    "What happened to Cain?" is a question in the minds of many believers and non-believers as well. 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 the 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 Tarim Basin, in what is today called Sinkiang, in the extreme southwestern part of China. The migration undoubtedly took a considerable period of time; as it was a very long way to walk, but they had time in those days, for Adam lived over 900 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.

    It is also a history of our Israel people. 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."

    Aryan Ancestors on the Silk Road

    Political correctness has gotten a slap in the face recently from a number of archaeological discoveries in the Orient which indicate that the founders of many Eastern civilizations, which are so revered by trendy New Age types who despise anything White and European, were in fact racial Aryans. One famous example is the country of Iran, which takes its name from its original conquerors; until 1978 one of the many formal titles of the Shah was "Lord of the Aryans."

    It has long been known that around the first century A.D. the northwestern part of China was inhabited by a Caucasian people who spoke a language called by scholars Tocharian.

    In the early part of this century, French and German archaeologists excavating in the northwest provinces discovered extensive written manuscripts in this language, and when they cracked the code, so to speak, they were astonished at the similarities between this supposedly isolated Oriental tongue and ancient Germanic and Celtic languages.

    Now the PC academic and scientific establishment who want to rewrite history to make it "Afrocentric" and get rid of "dead White European males" have gotten another kick in the pants from the truth. Recent excavations in the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang province have uncovered more than 100 naturally mummified corpses of people who lived there between 4,000 and 2,400 years ago, INDICATING THAT THE ARYAN INCURSION INTO ASIA WAS IN FACT FAR EARLIER AND FAR MORE EXTENSIVE THAN ANYONE PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED.

    The bodies were amazingly well preserved by the arid climate, and according to the New York Times "...archaeologists could hardly believe what they saw." The mummies had long noses and skulls, blond or red hair, thin lips, deep-set eyes, and other unmistakably Aryan features.

    Dr. Victor H. Mair of the University of Pennsylvania said, "Because the Tarim Basin Caucasoid corpses are almost certainly representatives of the Indo-European family, and because they date from a time period early enough to have a bearing on the expansion of the Indo- European people from their homeland, it is thought that they will play a crucial role in determining just where that might have been." [Our own understanding is that the ancient homeland of Cain's people was by the shores of Lake Baikal in what is now Russia, from whence Cain began his migrations untold millennia ago when his people were all one nation known as "The Children of the Sun". As to where he came from before he was hanging around the lake; We believe that these people were descendants of Cain who was the son of Adam, who was also a white man]

    One such mummy of a teenaged girl with blond hair and blue eyes, found in a cave, has become quite a tourist attraction in Beijing. She has been nicknamed "The Lady of Tarim" and she is on display to throngs of museum visitors in the Chinese capital.

    Apparently she was a princess or a priestess of some kind over 3,000 years ago, for she was buried in fine embroidered garments of wool and leather, along with beautiful jewelry, jars and ornaments of gold, silver, jade and onyx. Her remains are in such a remarkable state of preservation that the dead girl looks as if she were just sleeping.

    "Diffusionism can now be taken seriously again," chortled one historian, Michael Puett of Harvard. Diffusionism is the theory that the ostensibly advanced Middle Eastern and Oriental civilizations of the ancient world all benefitted from contact with Aryan migrants, merchants, wandering tribes, etc. and acquired much of their knowledge and attributes from these contacts; this theory can actually explain quite a lot about history, from the Indo-European roots of the Hindustani language to the Quetzalcoatl legend of the Aztecs to the mysterious ruins of Zimbabwe which were so clearly never built by blacks.

    Diffusionism has been replaced over the past twenty years by the new, Politically Correct dogma of "independent invention," which holds that there was no contact at all between White people and any Asian or pre-Columbian civilization, or if there was it was bad because all White males are "imperialist exploiters".

    The PC theory teaches that EVERYTHING in ancient non-White societies was invented by the indigenes, EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION, no ideas or influence from European contact, nothing good or beneficial at all even if there was any White contact, which there wasn't because White males are not the world-exploring hotshots they are supposed to be, so there! I guess we made up Leif Ericson and Magellan was really a monkoid. Don't laugh; We have heard both of those idiocies advanced seriously by "Afrocentric historians."

    According to the independent invention theory, the list of things non-Whites have independently invented includes the dozens of Asiatic dialects from Hindu to Punjabi to Uighur, all clearly based on a common Aryan root language; pure coincidence, say the PC profs! The agricultural techniques of the Aztecs and Incas such as crop rotation and terrace farming, so similar to ancient Roman and medieval European practices; bah, say the intellectual gangsters of liberalism, the Indians made it up themselves!

    The Mayan pyramids and calendar and astronomy, almost duplicates of Greek and Egyptian knowledge (Egyptians who were NOT in any way, shape or form Negroes!) those are all products of the brilliant Maya civilization alone, according to the official line. The same Mayas' predilections for cannibalism and sacrificing young children by drowning them in sacred wells is ignored.

    The blue eyes and broken Welsh language of Missouri's Mandan Indians; the Celtic-style megaliths and stone round towers of New England; the Viking ruins of L'Anse Aux Meadow in Newfoundland; the runic inscriptions on Connecticut's Dighton Rock and the Minnesota Kensington stone; Shaka the Zulu's organization of his impis based on Napoleon's system which he got from a French hunter and trader who was a Napoleonic veteran; the stone ruins of Zimbabwe so utterly unlike anything ever found anywhere else in black Africa and resembling nothing so much as a Bronze Age Celtic fort; the long Aryan features of the Easter Island statues --- nyet, no, nada, nein, no way! According to the left-wing academic establishment, NOTHING was ever learned by non-Whites from contact between Third World cultures and Aryan man. How PC academia will explain away those hundred blond-haired, blue-eyed mummies from China I don't know, but I'm sure it will be good. Looks like us Children of the Sun got around in the old days.

    The Mummies of Xinjiang

    In the dry hills of this central Asian province, archeologist have unearthed more than 100 corpses that are as much as 4,000 years old. Astonishingly well preserved - and Caucasian. One glimpse of the corpses was enough to shock Victor Mair profoundly. In 1987, Mair, a professor of Chinese at the University of Pennsylvania, was leading a tour group through a museum in the Chinese city of Urumqi, in the central Asian province of Xinjiang, when he accidentally strayed into gloomy, newly opened room.

    There, under glass, lay the recently discovered corpses of a family - a man, a woman, and a child of two or three - each clad in long, dark purple woolen garments and felt boots. "Even today I get chills thinking about that first encounter," says Mair. "The Chinese said they were 3,000 years old, yet the bodies looked as if they were buried yesterday."

    But the real shock came when Mair looked closely at their faces. In contrast to most central Asian peoples, these corpses had obvious Caucasian, or European, features - blond hair, long noses, deep-set eyes, and long skulls."I was thunderstruck," Mair recalls. "Even though I was supposed to be leading a tour group, I just couldn't leave that room.

    The questions kept nagging at me: Who were these people? How did they get out here at such an early date?" The corpses Mair saw that day were just a few of more than 100 dug up by Chinese archeologists over the past 16 years. All of them are astonishingly well preserved. They come from four major burial sites scattered between the arid foothills of the Tian Shan ("Celestial Mountains") in northwest China and the fringes of The Taklimakan Desert, some 150 miles due south.

    All together, these bodies, dating from about 2000 B.C. to 300 B.C., constitute significant addition to the world's catalog of prehistoric mummies.

    Unlike the roughly contemporaneous mummies of ancient Egypt, the Xinjiang mummies were not ruler or nobles; they were not interred in pyramids or other such monuments, nor were they subjected to deliberate mummification procedures. They were preserved merely by being buried in the parched, stony desert, where daytime temperatures often soar over 100 degrees.

    In the heat the bodies were quickly dried, with facial hair, skin, and other tissues remaining largely intact. Where exactly did these apparent Caucasians come from? And what were they doing at remote desert oases in central Asia?

    Any answers to these questions will most likely fuel a wide-ranging debate about the role outsiders played in the rise of Chinese civilization. As far back as the second century B.C., Chinese texts refer to alien peoples called the Yuezhi and the Wusun, who lived on China's far western borders; the texts make it clear that these people were regarded as troublesome "barbarians."

    Until recently, scholars have tended to downplay evidence of any early trade or contact between China and the West, regarding the development of Chinese civilization as an essentially homegrown affair scaled off from outside influences; indeed, this view is still extremely congenial to the present Chinese regime. Yet some archeologists have begun to argue that these supposed barbarians might have been responsible for introducing into China such basic items as the wheel and the first metal objects.

    Exactly who these central Asian outsiders might have been, however - what language they spoke and where they came from - is a puzzle. No wonder, then, that scholars see the discovery of the blond mummies as a sensational new clue.

    Although Mair was intrigued by the mummies, the political climate of the late 1980s (the Tiananmen Square massacre occurred in 1989) guaranteed that any approach to Chinese archeological authorities would be fraught with difficulties. So he laid the riddle to one side as he returned to his main area of study, the translation and analysis of ancient Chinese texts.

    Then, in September 1991, the discovery of the 5,000 feet. Photos of the Ice Man's corpse, dried by the wind and then buried by a glacier, reminded Mair of the desiccated mummies in the Urumqi museum. And he couldn't help wondering whether some of the scientific detective methods now being applied to the Ice Man, including DNA analysis of the preserved issue, could help solve the riddle of Xinjiang.

    With China having become more receptive to outside scholars, Mair decided to launch a collaborative investigation with Chinese scientists. He contacted Xinjiang's leading archeologist, Wang Binghua, who had found the first of the mummies in 1978. Before Wang's work in the region, evidence of early settlements was virtually unknown.

    In the late 1970s, though, Wang had begun a systematic search for ancient cites in the northeast corner of Xinjiang Province. "He knew that ancient peoples would have located their settlements along a stream to have a reliable source of water," says Mair.

    As he followed one such stream from its source in the Tian Shan, says Mair, "Wang would ask the local inhabitants whether hey had ever found any broken bowls, wooden artifacts, or the like. Finally one older man told him of a place locals called Qizilchoqa, or ~Red Hillock.'"

    It was here that the first mummies were unearthed. This was also the first site visited last summer by Mair and his collaborator, Paolo Francalacci, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Sassari in Italy.

    Reaching Qizilchoqa involved a long, arduous drive east from Urumqi. For a day and a half Mair, Wang, and their colleagues bounced inside four- wheel-drive Land Cruisers cross rock-strewn dirt roads from one oasis to the next. Part of their journey eastward followed China's Silk Road, the ancient trade route that evolved in the second century B.C. and connected China to the West.

    Finally they reached the village of Wupu; goats scattered as the vehicles edged their way through the back streets. Next to the village as a broad green ravine, and after the researches had maneuvered their way into it, the sandy slope of the Red Hillock suddenly became visible. "It wasn't much to look at," Mair recalls, "about 20 acres on a gentle hill ringed by barbed wire. There's a brick work shed where tools are stored and the visiting archeologists sleep. But you could spot the shallow depressions in the sand where the graves were."

    As Mair watched, Wang's team began digging up several previously excavated corpses that had been reburied for lack of adequate storage facilities at the Urumqi museum.

    Mair didn't have to, wait long, just a couple of feet below the sand, the archeologists came across rush matting and wooden logs covering a burial dumber chamber with mud bricks. Mair was surprised by the appearance of the logs: they looked as if they had just been chopped down. Then the first mummy emerged from the roughly six-foot-deep pit. For Mair the moment was nearly as charged with emotion as that first encounter in the museum. "When you're standing right next to these bodies, as well preserved as they are, you feel a sense of personal closeness to them," he says. "It's almost supernatural - you feel that somehow life persists even though you're looking at a dried- out corpse."

    Mair and Francalacci spent the day examining the corpses, with Francalacci taking tissue samples to identify the genetic origins of the corpses. "He took small samples from unexposed areas of the bodies,' says Mair, "usually from the inner thighs or underarms. We also took a few bones, usually pieces of rib that were easy to break off, since bone tends to preserve the DNA better than muscle tissue or skin."

    Francalacci wore a face mask and rubber gloves to avoid contaminating the samples with any skin flakes that would contain his own DNA. The samples were placed in collection jars, sealed, and labeled; Mair made a photographic and written record of the collection.

    So far 113 graves have been excavated at Qizilchoqa; probably an equal number remain to be explored. Based on carbon-14 dating by the Chinese and on the style of painted pots found with the corpses, all the mummies here appear to date to around 1200 B.C.

    Most were found on their backs with their knees drawn up - a position that allowed the bodies to fit into the small burial chambers. They are fully clothed in brightly colored woolen fabrics, felt and leather boots, and sometimes leather coats.

    The men generally have light brown or blond hair, while the women have long braids; one girl has blue tattoo marks on her wrist. Besides pottery, resting alongside them are simple items from everyday life: combs made of wood, needles of bone, spindle whorls for spinning thread, hooks, bells, loaves of bread, and other food offerings. The artifacts provide further proof that these were not the burial sites of the wealthy: had the graves been those of aristocrats, laden with precious bronzes, they probably would have been robbed long ago.

    However, Wang and his colleagues have found some strange if not aristocratic, objects in the course of their investigations in Xinjiang. At a site near the town of Subashi 310 miles west of Qizilchoqa, that dates to about the fifth century B.C., they unearthed a woman wearing a two-foot- long black felt peaked hat with a flat brim.

    Though modern Westerners may find it tempting to identify the hat as the headgear of a witch, there is evidence that pointed hats were widely worn by both women and men in some central Asian tribes. For instance, around 520 B.C., the Persian king Darius recorded a victory over the "Sakas of the pointed hats"; also, in 1970 in Kazakhstan, just over China's western border, the grave of a man from around the same period yielded a two-foot-tall conical hat studded with magnificent gold-leaf decorations.

    The Subashi woman's formidable headgear, then, might be an ethnic badge or a symbol of prestige and influence. Subashi lies a good distance from Qizilchoqa, and its site is at least seven centuries younger, yet the bodies and their clothing are strikingly similar.

    In addition to the "witch's hat," clothing found there included fur coats and leather mittens; the Subashi women also held bags containing small knives and herbs, probably for use as medicines.

    A typical Subashi man, said by the Chinese team to be at least 55 years old, was found lying next to the corpse of a woman in a shallow burial chamber. He wore a sheepskin coat, felt hat, and long sheepskin boots fastened at the crotch with a belt. Another Subashi man has traces of a surgical operation on his neck; the incision is sewn up with sutures made of horsehair.

    Mair was particularly struck by this discovery because he knew of a Chinese text from the third century A.D. describing the life of Huatuo, a doctor whose exceptional skills were said to have included the extraction and repair of diseased organs.

    The text also claims that before surgery, patients drank a mixture of wine and an anesthetizing powder that was possibly derived from opium. Huatuo's story is all the more remarkable in that the notion of surgery was heretical to ancient Chinese medical tradition, which taught that good health depended on the balance and flow of natural forces throughout the body Mair wonders if the Huatuo legend might relate to some lost Asian medical tradition practiced by the Xinjiang people. One clue is that the name Huatuo is uncommon in China and seems close to the Sanskrit word for medicine.

    THE WOOLEN GARMENTS WORN BY THE MUMMIES MAY provide some clue to where exactly the Xinjiang people came from. A sample of cloth brought back by Mair was examined by University of Pennsylvania anthropologist Irene Good, a specialist in early Eurasian textiles. Examining the cloth under a low-power microscope, she saw that the material was not, strictly speaking, wool at all.

    Wool comes from the undercoat of a sheep; this material appeared to have been spun from the coarse outer hair (called kemp) of a sheep or goat. Despite the crudeness of the fibers, they were carefully dyed green, blue, and brown to make a plaid design.

    They were also woven in a diagonal twill pattern that indicated the use of a rather sophisticated loom. The overall technique, Good believes, is "characteristically European" and, she says, the textile is "the easternmost known example of this kind of weaving technique." Similar textile fragments, she notes, have been recovered from roughly the same time period at sites in Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia.

    Another hint of outside connections struck Mair as he roamed across Qizilchoqa. Crossing an unexcavated grave, he stumbled upon an exposed piece of wood, which he quickly realized had once belonged to a wagon wheel.

    The wheel was made in a simple but distinctive way, by doweling together three carved, parallel wooden planks. This style of wheel is significant: wagons with nearly identical wheels are known from the grassy plains of the Ukraine from as far back as 3000 B.C.

    Most researchers now think the birthplace of horse drawn vehicles and horse riding was in the steppes east and west of the Urals rather than in China or the Near East. As archeologist David Anthony and his colleagues have shown through microscopic study of ancient horse teeth, horses were already being harnessed in the Ukraine 6,000 years ago. The Ukraine horses, Anthony found, show a particular kind of tooth wear identical to that of modern horses that "fight the bit."

    The world's earliest high-status vehicles also seem to have originated in the steppes; recent discoveries of wooden chariots with elaborate spoked wheels were reported by Anthony to date to around 2000 B.C. Chariots do not seem to have appeared in China until some 800 years later. A number of artifacts recovered from the Xinjiang burials provide important evidence for early horse riding.

    Qizilchoqa yielded a wooden bit and leather reins, a horse whip consisting of a single strip of leather attached to a wooden handle, and a wooden cheek piece with leather straps. This last object was decorated with an image of the sun that was probably religious in nature and that was also found tattooed on some of the mummies.

    And at Subashi, archeologists discovered a padded leather saddle of exquisite workmanship. Could the Xinjiang people have belonged to a mobile, horse-riding culture that spread from the plains of eastern Europe? Does this explain their European appearance? If so, could they have been speaking an ancient forerunner of modern European, Indian, and Iranian languages?

    Though the idea is highly speculative, a number of archeologists and linguists think the spread of Indo-European languages may be linked to the gradual spread of horse-riding and horse-drawn- vehicle technology from its origins in Europe 6,000 years ago. The Xinjiang mummies may help confirm these speculations. Intriguingly, evidence of a long-extinct language belonging to the Indo- European family does exist m central Asia.

    This language, known as Tocharian, is recorded in manuscripts from the eighth century A.D., and solid evidence for its existence can be found as far back as the third century. Tocharian inscriptions from this period are also found painted in caves in the foothills of the mountain west of Urumqi, along with paintings of swash-buckling knights wielding long swords. The knights are depicted with full red beards and European faces.

    Could the Xinjiang people have been their ancestors, speaking an early version of Tocharian? "My guess is that they would have been speaking some form of Indo-European," comments Don Ringe, a historical linguist at the University of Pennsylvania, "but whether it was an early form of Tocharian or some other branch of the family, such as Indo-Iranian, we may never know for sure."

    Perhaps a highly distinctive language would help explain why the Xinjiang people's distinctive appearance and culture persisted over so many centuries. Eventually they might well have assimilated with the local population - the major ethnic group in the area today, the Uygur, includes people with unusually fair hair and complexions.

    That possibility will soon be investigated when Mair, Francalacci, and their Chinese colleagues compare DNA from ancient mummy tissue with blood and hair samples from local people. Besides the riddle of their identity, there is also the question of what these fair-haired people were doing in a remote desert oasis. Probably never wealthy enough to own chariots, they nevertheless had wagons and well-tailored clothes. Were they mere goat and sheep farmers? Or did they profit from or even control prehistoric trade along the route that later became the Silk Road? If so, they probably helped spread the first wheels and certain metalworking skills into China.

    "Ultimately I think our project may end up having tremendous implications for the origins of Chinese civilization," Mair reflects. "For all their incredible inventiveness, the ancient Chinese weren't cut off from the rest of the world, and influences didn't just flow one way, from China westward."

    Unfortunately, economics dictates that answers will be slow in coming. The Chinese do not have the money to spare for this work, and Wang and his team continue to operate on a shoestring. Currently most of the corpses and artifacts are stored in a damp, crowded basement room at the Institute of Archeology in Urumqi, in conditions that threaten their continued preservation. If Mair's plans for a museum can be financed with Western help, perhaps the mummies can be moved. Then, finally, they'll receive the study and attention that will ultimately unlock their secrets.

    We find the following from the Second College Edition, New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 1300: 1. A snake, esp. a large or poisonous one. 2. A sly, sneaking, treacherous person. 3. Bible Satan, in the form he assumed to tempt Eve. 4. Music an obsolete, coiled, brass wind instrument of wood covered with leather. The American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster 1828, Facsimile First Edition, published by the Foundation For American Christian Education relates that serpent means among others: a subtle or malicious person.

    Remember that while Satan was expelled from heaven and his wings clipped considerably, he nonetheless retained possession of a good deal of his angelic powers. We do not doubt in the least that he could qualify as an enchanter or magician. He could probably do card tricks, and the like of that, better than our stage magicians of today. 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.

    One can be misled, if they do not know the correct meaning, should you read in American history that in the latter 1870's a battalion of cavalry of the American Army under the leadership of General Custer were all massacred by a male bovine animal, a cow's husband, who remained in a seated position throughout the battle. In other words, "Sitting Bull." On the contrary, you know he was an Indian Chief, but you wouldn't guess it from the name. Similarly, you can get mixed up in some of these things when inaccurately translated in the Bible, unless you know their true meaning.

    Cain murdered Abel and was expelled from that region. Referring back to Genesis 3:15 (and this is before Comes on the scene) God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed..,"
    Seed:

    Srtrong's Number:- 2233 zera` (zeh'-rah); from 2232; seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, POSTERITY: KJV-- X carnally, CHILD, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing time.
    Brown-Diver-Brig



    Last edited by PastorLindstedt; 09-24-2011 at 02:21 AM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default What Happened to Cain?

    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 Librarian; 12-03-2011 at 04:11 AM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default Who are the Gentiles? - by Bertrand L. Comparet

    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 Librarian; 06-16-2012 at 04:13 AM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,048

    Default WHO ARE THE JEWS? -- By Pastor Bertrand 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.

    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".


    Last edited by Librarian; 06-16-2012 at 04:15 AM.
    ____________________________
    I am The Librarian
    http://whitenationalist.org/forum/
    http://www.pastorlindstedt.org/forum/

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 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