EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME VIII

 

Man

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume VIII--Man

 

 

 

 

 

by

 

an unworthy servant

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you shall know the truth,

 

and the truth will make you free.

 

(John 8:32)

 

 

Common Law Copyright, 2003, 2005 & 2010 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho.  The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States.  Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.Age-end.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

Volume VIII--Man

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part X--The Race Question 

 

      107             Evolutionary Problems I                                                                                    6

 

      108             Evolutionary Problems II                                                                                 21

 

      109             Evolutionary Problems III                                                                                30

 

      110             Evolutionary Problems IV                                                                               45

 

      111             Evolutionary Problems V                                                                                62

 

      112             Creation in the Word                                                                                       75

 

      113             More Racial Alterations                                                                                   90

 

      114             Answers in Blood Types I                                                                             103

 

      115             Answers in Blood Types II                                                                            116

 

      116             Acts 17:26 Concluded                                                                                   122

 

      117             Answers in the Torah I                                                                                  127

 

      118             Answers in the Torah II                                                                                 143

 

 

Part Y--More on Race

 

      119             Demographics, the Flood & Noah’s Ark                                                     156

 

      120             Post-Flood Demographics                                                                            164

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume eight of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.Age-end.com web site. 

 

This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world.  In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one. 

 

Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material.  It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message! 

 

The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1.  It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins:  left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers). 

                                                                                     

For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope. 

 

With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers.  May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him.  Shalom (peace) to you and yours! 

 

an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 107--Evolutionary Problems I

 

 

Maoz Israel

 

The Jun 2003 “Maoz Israel Report” (p. 1), as published by the Maoz Israel Messianic Jewish group of Tel Aviv, Israel, said:  “There are four elements that define a people:  language, religion, culture and cuisine.”  Admittedly, these four qualities are important.  But there is still one more element missed by Maoz Israel which is of far greater importance in defining a people.  It is race, as will be addressed in comments to follow. 

 

 

Science on Race 

 

In truth, perhaps one of the most important subjects of all time facing so-called humanity (at least, for worldly unconverted people, who do not turn to the Hebrew Scriptures to establish righteousness and right living) is the question of race and racial origins of people at large. 

 

Historically, there were times when some scientists and so-called scholars broached this issue.  But no one can argue with the reality that has come into play in the post WWII era when almost no one will even utter the word “race.”  The world’s peoples have been so mesmerized and zombiized on this subject that it is impossible to have any discussion about it whatsoever in any sense. 

 

Generally, when one says the word “race,” in whatever context, the immediate reaction from most modern peoples, and particularly from most modern Americans and Christian Westerners (who are the most zombiized of all), is absolute hostility and the uttering of words about racists, White supremacists, etc. 

 

Of course, the so-called scientific world is about as locked in confusion and misunderstanding as is true with the rest of so-called humanity.  In some respects, the alleged scholars and brains of the land are the worst people of all in addressing the subject of race and certainly in the Scriptural context. 

 

Yet, the Hebrew writings defining righteousness have much material on this theme which no one seems interested in, though it is crucial information that even underlies the entire New Testament and the alleged “great commission” which Christians like to quote and preach about so often (in order to raise more and more money from the dumb sheep in order to finance ever more glorious worldwide missionary campaigns--after all, money is the name of the game). 

 

While it probably is easy to appreciate that secular scientists (who completely reject the Hebrew Scriptures and the idea of A Great CREATOR) would foster and promote this ridiculous environment of ignorance and confusion, one must pause and wonder why Christian and Jewish scholars at the various “Bible colleges” and religious teaching centers would be just as ignorant and confused. 

 

Therefore, it seems that in the real world, everybody is lost on this subject.  And generally, people refuse to even address it in any aspect--Scriptural, secular or whatever.  It has become the greatest taboo subject, perhaps of all time.  What a tragedy this is for people searching for truth (because they must inevitably go out of their way to even approach a discussion on the truth about race). 

 

 

The March to World Government 

 

Part of the dilemma is that the world is largely under Satanic control right now, and it is marching full time to world government.  Anything that can impede on this march to world government has come under enormous Satanic opposition.  This influence affects everybody in the general society.  It is a rare few people who can avoid this powerful spiritual influence (either directly or indirectly). 

 

Obviously, in order to have a one world state governed by a one world rulership system, the question of race and how people interplay has fantastic implications.  Probably, it is this reality which has necessitated the extreme push by Satanic and demonic powers to influence all of so-called humanity in a certain adverse direction on this subject. 

 

In this push, no one has been purposely left out.  True, there are a few students of truth who have had brains and strength enough to not buy into the prevailing Satanic teachings.  Some of these persons probably are protected by YHWH and influenced greatly by His Spirit of Truth (in the vein of being in the election, as discussed in previous chapters).  But there aren’t many persons around in this category.   

 

Subsequent chapters herein will discuss the motion for world government and the establishment of world social “gods” which are promoted to all of the world’s people by all facets of global power and influence.  The subject of race fits precisely into this classification (as will be covered in the later chapters).  

 

 

The Official Position 

 

Consequently, Satanic powers that invented and promoted the stupid theories of evolution and the stupid evolutionary development of man have obviously played a key role in the current scientific thinking on race, now believed by perhaps all of society (other than the few exceptions, cited above, as possibly being protected or promoted by YHWH). 

 

This all of society perspective includes almost all Christian and Jewish scholars and brains at the supposed scientific levels of religious teaching and scholarship.   Thus, virtually everybody has bought into the Satanic approach--including local religious pastors, priests, elders, teachers, and so forth.  

 

Hence, the theology of Satanic evolution has designed, established, and defined the modern concepts of race.  The reason for this development and motion is manifestly a furtherance of the New World Order which is quickly developing on the global scene, right now! 

 

 

The Groundwork 

 

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 702) lays the groundwork for the present state of ignorance and confusion by offering a small paragraph of a little over one inch which discusses “race” (perhaps one of the most profoundly important themes of all time and it receives almost no space from Columbia). 

 

This encyclopedia is not much different from the others.  Virtually all modern encyclopedias and dictionaries have little to say on this issue.  Again, race is the taboo subject for people today.  In historic times, books of knowledge and learning did broach this theme--but not today. 

 

The Columbia position (p. 702) on race is that race involves biological groupings or subspecies of human beings on the basis of certain physical traits which were transmitted by heredity through genes. 

 

Supposedly, these physical traits are not always exhibited in the totality of a given race (thus, the issues of skin color, nose shapes, eyes, etc can “theoretically” vary within races--but this does not seem correct in the real world, in terms of pure thoroughbreds or complete full bloods who have not been subjected to earlier genetic alterations from some man-made or man-induced action or actions). 

 

Per Columbia, these different physical traits arose from mutations (the popular evolutionary word used to describe differences--ed), selection (also another popular evolutionary word--ed), geographic adaptation (another popular evolutionary idea--ed), and genetic drift (one more evolutionary concept--ed).  In other words, we have the different races and kinds of people in the world today because of evolution. 

 

However, the tragedy of this scientific explanation is that it does not represent the Hebrew Scriptures (either the OT or the NT).  It is all fiction and make-believe which simply will not hold up to truth and righteousness. 

 

This background on the evolutionary world of so-called scholars and brains takes the student of truth to the next point of assessing how this evolutionary thinking now permeates the entire Christian Church, with few if any exceptions. 

 

 

Thus, Christian Evolution 

 

It is amazing that so many people, including Christians, believe in, support, teach and advocate evolution (which was just described and as addressed earlier), although many hypocritically claim otherwise. 

 

Now, this statement will shock many readers of this paper.  Surely, "good" Christian people would never believe in and support evolution, one might argue.  But they do so, as can readily be seen in any discussion on the origin of the human races. 

 

For example, most Christian Churches and peoples interestingly speculate, guess, think, assume and presume that all of so-called humanity (including all of its differences, varieties, kinds and representations all over the globe) do, in fact, descend from a common pair of humans named Adam and Eve and/or as developed by evolutionary processes. 

 

This theology is, of course, the basis of Christian false worship which stresses the brotherhood of man and the need for Christian preachers, teachers and evangelists to go out in the world with their “Gospel” to convert and change all humans/humanoids to their beliefs.  Christian writer Sydney Cleveland typifies this in his view that “we are all brothers and sisters in Christ” (Nov-Dec 1997 “Sabbath Sentinel,” p. 10). 

 

However, a student of truth should pause and give this theology some careful thought and consideration before jumping on the band wagon of acceptance.  Does it really sound logical and plausible and is it genetically possible that a true, homogenous pair of human beings named Adam and Eve could produce the incredible human variation now visible on planet earth today? 

 

Despite this popular, proud, vain view, it is interesting that in the heart of Black Africa, true, 100%, Black people reproduce true, 100%, Black children, kind after kind. 

 

In some (few) places in Scandinavia or the Baltic states, 100%, pure, White people reproduce 100%, pure, White children, kind after kind.  And in some places, in perhaps Mongolia, 100%, pure Mongoloids reproduce 100%, pure, Mongolian children, kind after kind. 

 

 

A Mormon Evolutionist 

 

This writer once sat near an "educated" Mormon biologist, of sorts, on an extended airplane trip across the Pacific.  Although he was theoretically a Christian believer, he had evolutionary ideas and thinking about the source of humans/humanoids across planet earth in our time. 

 

This man believed that Adam and Eve had "evolved" from some earlier form of life (while there may have been previous life forms on an earlier earth, he allowed that the evolved Adam and Eve were themselves unique in some ways when they existed 6,000 years ago). 

 

And then, in conformity with the traditional thinking of Christendom, the Mormon dogmatically asserted that from Adam and Eve, all of the present races, varieties and kinds of humans/humanoids evolved (as found on planet earth today).  In other words, Adam and Eve produced the now present White, Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, etc peoples (in skin and hair color) across the globe. 

 

As proof of “evolution,” this person argued that alleged human beings have been and are continuously evolving, as they have never reproduced kind after kind since the time of the first pair.  In his warped mind, homogeneous married men and women, as he saw it, did not and do not necessarily reproduce copies of themselves. 

 

In his thinking, all of the fantastic varieties, kinds, races and differences in so-called human beings proved conclusively that evolution was true.  After all, they all had evolved, in his eyes, from a common, single pair (based upon mutations and natural selection, as outlined formerly). 

 

 

A Sardis Woman 

 

In another separate situation, this writer also came into contact with a Sardis, Sacred Name, Sabbathkeeping, believing woman (of sorts) some years ago, who likewise parroted the same common Christian nonsense.  This woman also assumed, guessed, thought, believed and presumed (from intellectual pride and vanity) that all humans/humanoids descended (evolved) from Adam and Eve. 

 

This Sardis woman, under discussion, predicated her great intellectual "brilliance" upon the theory that the huge varieties, kinds and breeds of domesticated dogs were all brought about through selective interbreeding from a single, common, original pair which she conceived was created in the beginning by The CREATOR. 

 

In her view that dogs had so evolved into the 100 or so modern breeds, then it stood to reason that supposed human beings had also so evolved from Adam and Eve into the huge assortment of different peoples all over earth today. 

 

Well, in both instances (with the woman and the Mormon), this writer tried (unsuccessfully) to explain that all of these varieties and different kinds of both so-called humans and dogs (in terms of the woman) did not, in fact, descend (evolve) from one, single, homogeneous, common pair. 

 

In each situation, there was more than one kind of progenitor involved to produce the assortment of dogs and humans/humanoids found on earth today.  And while the involved, original progenitors could all reproduce and interbreed, they represented distinctively separate and different creations by The CREATOR. 

 

The cases for a creation of the different species of both dogs and humans/humanoids will be addressed in some detail in comments to shortly follow below. 

 

 

The Evolutionary View  

 

The alleged evolutionary development of life on planet earth was discussed in some detail in a previous chapter.  There is no intent to repeat that presentation at this time. 

 

Suffice to say, modern scientists assert that life started in a bowl of primordial soup (actually, the latest theory is that this bowl of soup was a mud puddle or pond scum--May 31, 2002, “The Week,” p. 14).  There once was a theory that life started in the ocean, but the belief now is that the oceans were too salty to start life. 

 

From the mud puddle, bowl of soup, or pond scum (or whatever), the theory is that life evolved into the fantastic representations now visible over earth. 

 

Of course, this view has it that all hominids/hominoids descend from a common tree trunk on this theorized evolution of life.  Actually, Christianity has almost the same view on humans/humanoids--in that the huge variation seen today descend from an original common pair (thus, from an original trunk on a tree). 

 

 

Some New Science 

 

A University of California law professor named Phillip Johnson wrote a book in 1991 which seriously questioned the evolutionary theory of life; and yet, did not exactly subscribe to the creation ideas of Christians and Jews.   Johnson’s work was in the form of a book on “Darwin on Trial.” 

 

Johnson’s work was summarized in the May/Jun 2002 “Biblical Archaeology Review” (p. 16), in that “life is so complex that some sort of rational designer must be behind it.”  Going on, proponents of this new scientific thinking accept an ancient formation of the earth (billions of years ago); and believe that organisms have evolved in some limited forms ever since.  But they reject the argument of natural selection (ibid, p. 16). 

 

The April 26, 2002, “The Week” (p. 9) had a whole write up on “Another challenge to evolution” which focuses upon some of the details of the work of Johnson.  “The Week” says that Johnson’s position is that life on earth did not evolve by mutations, but from a blueprint drawn up by some intelligent outside force. 

 

Actually, over the last several years, a number of UFO buffs have toyed with the thinking that early man was transferred here from some other place in the universe.  Apparently, Johnson’s position is close to this; and even arguably, is not far from creationism, as advocated by Christians and Jews (actually, most modern evolutionary scientists dismiss Johnson’s work as being merely a rehash of creationism). 

 

While it is unclear to this writer how much evolution Johnson would allow, the fact that he spoke of blueprints raises some question about whether his scheme would agree with the Christian theory on the surfacing of a single man and woman who produced the huge variation now visible over earth by evolution or whether he would opt for several different blueprints of different forms of man. 

 

It would be logical, per both Johnson and indeed even from the UFO buffs and their theories, that man was developed on earth from different blueprints or transferred here from another place in the form of several varieties.  Thus, it might be that these new attempts to explain life on earth are more contrary to the ideas of the evolutionists than even Christian and Jewish thinking (which agrees with the evolutionists).  

 

Therefore, the presentation to follow in this and succeeding chapters will make more sense to people like Johnson than it will to most Christians who are obsessed with the theory that there was only one original pair of humans, who evolved over the ages to present the huge assortment of people now visible (this Christian view is, of course, almost precisely the same as historic evolution theory). 

 

 

More on Dogs 

 

In the case of dogs, as mentioned above, it is true that various kinds of domesticated dogs, as well as wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, etc (in the canine family), can all evidently interbreed and reproduce mongrel, mixed offspring.  But this fact does not prove, suggest or imply at all that all of this variety came from a common, single pair, as Christendom often alleges, teaches and asserts. 

 

On this point, it is interesting that in raw, undefiled (by man) nature, there are a host of different kinds and varieties of animals in the canine family which can all theoretically interbreed and bring into existence mongrel offspring.  But they don’t naturally cross in nature, though they are fully capable of crossing. 

 

And of this variety, it is enormous since there are some 35 species of wild dogs in the world (including the famous dingoes and highland dogs of Australia), 14 species of foxes, several different kinds of jackals, 19 species of coyotes and a huge assortment of wolves, including 32 species of just gray wolves, 24 in the Americas and 8 in Europe (per “Encyclopedia Americana”). 

 

None of these just cited canine numbers include earlier extinct species or subspecies which also must be considered. 

 

Admittedly, man can do so-called wonders by selectively interbreeding animals in a domesticated environment.  But that’s not the way it works in nature.  At best, in nature, breeding is done on a random basis and not on the planned, controlled breeding assumed in natural selection.  True, man has created a number of different breeds of dogs in this controlled situation.  But this is not the reality of nature and wild animals. 

 

 

Ducks 

 

In this discussion, it would be well to pause for a moment and also take a look at the world of ducks.  One encyclopedia (Americana) says that there are at least some 116 different species of wild ducks in the world today, not counting extinct species.  And this does not include the subspecies which can also be enormous (there are some 36 subspecies of river or dabbling ducks alone). 

 

But the interesting thing about all of these ducks is that, in nature, they fly near each other regularly and often inhabit nearby areas.  Yet, they never cross or mix, although they seem fully capable and able to reproduce. 

 

In nature, you never find different kinds and created orders of ducks interbreeding and selectively breeding to form new kinds and varieties of ducks.  They stick to their own kinds exclusively--just as the different canine varieties never cross. 

 

 

No Mixing in Nature 

 

Therefore, what one finds in the wilds of nature, and as obviously created in separate creations by The CREATOR, are hundreds of varieties and kinds of wild life which never seem to mix and cross in nature, although they are all of the same families and fully capable of interbreeding and reproducing.  Let it be said again, these many different species never appear to mix and cross in nature--naturally. 

 

They avoid each other like the plague.  They stick to their own created kinds and orders.  Assuredly, they do not naturally interbreed.  Of course, man has and can pen up a wolf or coyote and make it cross with a dog--just as man can forcibly cross a donkey and a horse.  But such crossings are unnatural and occur only because of man’s interference someway in the reproduction processes. 

 

There is a theory among some scientists (particularly evolutionists, but also persons advocating creation science) that varieties in nature in the different families or types capable of interbreeding (like the canine family) do selectively interbreed to produce new varieties in nature.  This is called “micro-evolution.” 

 

There is no arguing the capabilities of different species and varieties in family groups to interbreed.  But what this writer must question is the theory that in raw, undefiled nature, these different varieties do interbreed.  If there is any of this interbreeding naturally in today’s mixed-up world, logically, it must be traceable to man’s upset of nature in some way.  Otherwise, even micro-evolution seems out of the question. 

 

 

More on River/Dabbling Ducks 

 

Take the case of the just cited 36 subspecies of river or dabbling ducks.  It would be easy to account for all of these subspecies on the basis of internal crossings among themselves.  However, that theory simply won’t hold water as one can quickly perceive with a little logic.  

 

If there was just one variety of river or dabbling ducks in the beginning, then this one variety would have always produced kind after kind with no variation.  Thus today, instead of 36 subspecies, we would only have one breed or specie of river or dabbling ducks. 

 

But let us suppose that there were two, three or more varieties of river or dabbling ducks in the beginning.  In this instance, one can more easily speculate that over the ages they did cross in nature to build the present situation with 36 subspecies of river or dabbling ducks. 

 

However, even this supposition won’t hold water; because in nature, wild life simply reproduces on a random basis and without the controls needed to produce the 36 subspecies of river or dabbling ducks.  Admittedly, man could take three or so breeds or river ducks and reproduce them in a controlled, pen environment to eventually replicate 36 subspecies (or even more than 36 varieties if man so desired). 

 

Tragically, all of these attempts to justify the 36 subspecies of river or dabbling ducks fall short and won’t measure up to truth.  If there were two, three or more major varieties of river or dabbling ducks in the beginning, and if they did randomly cross in nature, over the ages, they all would mongrelize into a melting pot of confusion and particularly as they moved toward uniformity. 

 

Random interbreeding in nature of kinds that can breed and reproduce would only make for a mass of confusion with none of the resulting ducks being in definable and recognizable varieties (as is true today with the definite 36 subspecies).  Not only would they be all mixed up, but their chances for survival (in the vein of survival of the fittest) would be greatly reduced or perhaps even eliminated. 

 

The fact that there are 36 recognized and definable subspecies of river or dabbling ducks simply spells out a creation of them in the beginning.  They would have never survived in this dimension of 36 variations otherwise. 

 

 

Yes, Micro Evolution is Out 

 

Now, having made these remarks, if someone can speculate or even prove that a male of one river or dabbling duck variety did cross with a female of another variety and she produced a fertile egg from him and later it hatched to produce a mongrel duckling, this still would not alter the reality of the just made remarks. 

 

This duck would be deformed and not fit into the pattern and habits of the other ducks.  Probably, it would not survive and if it did survive and if it later further crossed with its given family of ducks (in the variety of the mother which produced the odd duck in the initial cross), its genes would be absorbed into the variety’s pool of genes fairly soon and would lose all significance. 

 

The essence here is that the 36 varieties or subspecies of river or dabbling ducks will not prove or allow for micro evolution at all.  It is impossible!  Only a creation of all of the varieties in nature makes sense. 

 

 

Exceptions? 

 

Thus, evolutionists may speculate and theorize that these different created kinds cross, interbreed and evolve, but there is no evidence of this whatsoever.  Additionally, the fact that on rare occasions in heavily populated areas, a partly wild, female coyote crosses with a domesticated dog is seemingly because of the unavailability of a male coyote mate due to man’s upset of nature and goes to prove nothing. 

 

A similar rare condition has reportedly surfaced in nature when a particular deer specie in NE Washington was almost wiped out in recent years because of man’s encroaching “civilization,” coupled with an over-hunting of bucks. 

 

In this case, it appears that an isolated female deer of such a group has on occasion accepted a male of another deer specie when she cannot find a mate of her own kind.  The resulting fawn is born defective and sterile.  Since it is genetically defective, it would become a ready prey to predators in a true natural environment (which is not what one finds today where man has killed off and altered the species of wildlife). 

 

Another rare situation surfaced in 1998 when ruddy ducks in Britain, migrating to Southern Spain, were found to be so “sexually voracious” that they mated there with European, white-headed ducks and produced hybrid offspring that were no longer true-bred birds (3-1-98 Guardian, quoted in the Oct 18-24, 1999, “Washington Times”). 

 

The ruddy ducks are not native to Europe, but were introduced there 50 years ago from America.  Therefore, if there is any problem with these ducks, it cannot legitimately be placed on the doorsteps of The CREATOR or of nature. 

 

This writer doesn’t have the details on this fear and proposals to kill the ruddy ducks before the migration.  But if these ducks do cross in nature, the reason surely must be because man did upset their natural order and habitat in moving them to Europe. In the context of (created) nature, it is hard to fathom that such a reality would take place (just like the crossing of the river or dabbling ducks is illogical and improvable). 

 

One more tragic cross arose in recent years in North Idaho, along the St Joe River.  Historically, this area had Cutthroat Trout.  Someone got the bright idea to also introduce Rainbow Trout into the area.  The Rainbow and Cutthroat crossed and have produced some hybrid fish.  But all of this arose because of man’s stupidity and not because these kinds would ever cross in raw, undefiled nature. 

 

 

Another Issue 

 

“The Week,” of Jun 15, 2001 (p. 18), had a report of some recent examples of the crossing of different animal species (like horses and zebras, lions and tigers, different kinds of owls, and different varieties of fire ants, etc).  The article said that this mingling is caused by humans who have taken wild species from their natural habitats and confined and crowded them into non-native habitats in wildlife refuges (as in Africa). 

 

Hybrid animal offspring tend to birth defects and shorter lives.  Many are born sterile, as is the case of the deer, discussed above. 

 

There is another fall-out in the man conceived efforts to cross species.  The Sep 9, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 14) noted that the Nanjing Zoo had crossed a lion and a tiger to produce a hybrid cub, born on August 22, 2002.  It was not clear whether the zoo used artificial insemination or what to produce the cub.  Interestingly, this aberration was rejected by its lion mother and soon died from an infection. 

 

Obviously, such abnormal crosses simply do not occur in nature as designed by The CREATOR.  Thus, the theory that different kinds of species naturally cross in nature is pure and simple hogwash.  It exists only as a figment in the mind of evolutionary proponents (who will not accept the simplicity that YHWH created the different, natural varieties in families). 

 

With having said that these hundreds of kinds of canines, ducks, etc. never seem to cross in nature (that is nature--undisturbed, undefiled and unaltered by man), it is interesting that all of the domesticated animals and birds we now know of “theoretically” came from man's efforts to domesticate them from earlier wild stock, as evolutionists see it.  Later comments will disprove this theory! 

 

 

Selective Inbreeding 

 

In reality, it is only man who can and does take different kinds of wild animals and birds from nature and in the man-made and man “controlled” environment, force species of different created kinds and orders to reproduce and cause new mongrel kinds which can be continuously and selectively interbred to eventually create a new breed (apparently, it takes about ten generations or so to create a new breed of dogs). 

 

Additionally, within a specific kind, man can and has selectively interbred them on the basis of some particular quality or characteristic--like size or some other factor.  Small, miniature animals are produced by this method.  But typically, this just doesn’t happen in the wilds (if undisturbed by man).  Of course, man follows this interbreeding practice “within” various species and breeds. 

 

But this is all done in the man controlled and man forced environment (where the species lack freedom to move, room about and choose their mates in the natural, random way ordained by The CREATOR).  Diet can also affect size somewhat and particularly so among humans/humanoids (within limitations).  So man can alter diet and help attain some desired end on size. 

 

Of course, any “free” animals in nature (or even in a domesticated environment) subject to crossing could and would only breed on a random, chance basis and would never ever “selectively” interbreed, as man can force them to do in a controlled situation.  But even here, this is certainly not the real world type of stuff.  In the wilds (if undisturbed), different species simply do not cross, although they physically can do so. 

 

In most animal species in nature, it appears that a female ready for mating will mate randomly with the first male of her kind to reach her. 

 

 

Strength 

 

In many instances, females end up being taken by the physically strongest and most powerful males of the kind without any regard to other physical characteristics. 

 

Take the case of wild sheep, horses, etc.  The males fight it out and the winner gets the females.  In the case of some animals, it appears that the female is the dominating sex, in contrast to the male. 

 

But again, domination or strength seems to be the primary determining quality and not something else--although there may be a few minor exceptions.  For example, chickadee males seem to compete in their world for the attention of females (May 24, 2002, “The Week,” p. 14).  Possibly, peacocks or other birds may use their feathers, strutting abilities or something else. 

 

Whether a particular male or female has a certain unique coloring or discoloration seems generally quite irrelevant, certainly in the majority of cases.  A random occurrence and/or sheer strength usually determine the breeding.  Among many species, a pecking order is established--based on strength and power to preserver.  Breeding is often predicated on this factor. 

 

Consequently, it is quite manifest from any observation of nature that wild animals do not practice selective breeding practices (so-called natural selection) on the basis of alleged variations or mutations--beyond the obvious strength (dominating) factor just mentioned.  In other words, survival of the fittest prevails (as occurring in strength). 

 

 

Separate Creations 

 

Tragically, it seems that ignorant, prejudiced, proud people have got it in their warped minds that all of the ducks (and perhaps geese and swan, too, since they are in the same family) came from a single, common pair; that all of the domesticated dogs, wild dogs, wolves, jackals, foxes, coyotes, etc came from a single, common pair; and that all of the humans/humanoids all over the globe came from a single, common pair. 

 

These dumb people predicate their ridiculous evolutionary beliefs on the fact that within the various families of the created order, reproduction is possible. 

 

These so-called scientists and thinkers then postulate that from one breed or variety, the many other varieties of a specie (capable of interbreeding) mysteriously “evolved” in nature and/or were domesticated by man over the ages.  Even many Christians believe this nonsense. 

 

They insist on wanting to believe that The CREATOR made only one pair of canine.  And from this single pair, the hundreds of varieties (capable of interbreeding), now evident, evolved.  They make the same assumption about ducks, geese, cats, mice, rats and you name it (including so-called human beings). 

 

Again, man may create new varieties in his controlled pen, but new varieties do not surface in true nature, undefiled by man. 

 

What these foolish evolutionists lose sight of is the fact that a single variety would have always reproduced “kind after kind” in raw, undefiled nature--which is the Scriptural formula.  They would have never selectively interbred in nature on some supposed quality (i.e. coloring, spots, etc). 

 

In historic times, as well as today, purebred animals in the wilds of nature reproduce kind after kind.  They never create new varieties and kinds (as can happen in the man-controlled environment where man forces different varieties to interbreed, contrary to nature). 

 

In truth, based upon what the Scriptures do say and what is readily apparent in nature, it is sufficient to make one correctly perceive that The MOST HIGH separately created all of the different kinds and varieties of life on this earth, including the hundreds of species of canines and ducks and the original, major races of man. 

 

 

Domesticated Versus Wild 

 

Before leaving this sub-topic of where domesticated dogs and ducks came from, this writer would like to acknowledge that there is some evidence from the Scriptures that The HIGHEST specifically created certain breeds and kinds of domesticated animals (like some different dogs) in a specific creation, along with various "wild" living creatures (like different wolves) in Genesis 1:21-25. 

 

The evidence for this creation distinction between domesticated animals, as opposed to wild animals, will be presented in a later section of this study.  Suffice to say, and regardless of what YHWH created in domestic animals, man has interbred them over the years with each other and wild stock (illegally) in the man controlled environment. 

 

Therefore, as there were separate creations of different breeds, kinds and varieties in domesticated and wild animals, man later crossed these creations to bring into existence new mongrel kinds also capable of further interbreeding and crossing, as has been done over the years by man to produce the enormous variations and (man-made) breeds of dogs, ducks, horses, cattle, etc now present today. 

 

 

Man-made Crosses Are Not Natural 

 

But such man-made crosses do not happen and will not survive in nature--only in the domesticated environment by selective and controlled interbreeding.  Such man-made crosses of canines, ducks or whatever are just not capable of adapting and surviving on their own in nature (that is nature undisturbed and unaltered by man). 

 

This is an important point.  Man has created a number of varieties of certain domesticated animals and birds (like dogs, ducks, etc).  But in general, these man-made “kinds” could never survive on their own in nature.  What man-made breed of dogs, cats or ducks could survive in the wilderness of raw, undefiled nature?  Most or perhaps none of them would make it. 

 

Horses may “possibly” be an exception here since some of them have apparently transitioned from man created mongrel stock into wild Mustangs, as happened in early America.  But in general, the man-made domestic varieties could not survive in raw nature if they were thrust into it and had to survive based upon their own genetic qualities.  Most could not find food or they would quickly become prey to predators. 

 

Maybe, these man-made breeds can make it with man’s help and in man’s controlled environment (where man feeds and takes care of them), but they just won’t hack it in the wilds (which are undisturbed and unaltered by man) where their survival depends upon the creative genius of The CREATOR, Who made the various natural kinds and varieties uniquely capable of survival on the basis of their own genetic merits. 

 

Thus, by selective inbreeding of certain mongrel stock, it is possible over time to create new breeds of domesticated stock, as man does (which will generally reproduce kind after kind, but with few throw backs to original stock qualities). 

 

However, all of this is artificial and man-made.  It is totally foreign in the natural order where it simply does not happen.  In nature, species do not interbreed selectively, as Charles Darwin argued. 

 

 

Man Can and Does Illegally Cross Kinds 

 

However, in addition to dogs, ducks and the few other species noted, man has domesticated a number of different animals and birds from nature and has inbred them to form various and sundry new "man-made" breeds.  But in all cases, there has been no evolution in these instances. 

 

All man has done is to take two differently created species (domesticated or wild), which are capable of reproduction, and then force or make them cross in an artificially imposed environment.  This is selective interbreeding and is not found in nature where breeding is done randomly and not selectively. 

 

And in terms of this man-made inbreeding, it should be pointed out that all such efforts are categorically illegal and sinful by YHWH's Word.  Yes, according to the Torah (Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11--which make genetic engineering totally illegal, to be later discussed), it is wrong to take two different created kinds of animals, birds, seeds or whatever, and to cross or mix them, although such reproductions are fully possible. 

 

In Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11, the issue has to be focusing upon species which physically can cross and reproduce and not on two kinds that cannot cross, although this later situation would also be covered when men try to make such reproductions--as for example, in a chicken with a turkey. 

 

Clearly, the issue in YHWH’s law involves man's rebellious efforts to cross kinds that can physically cross, as in the canine family or other groupings.  The fact that YHWH stated that law suggests that its primary focus has to be on species which could sexually cross and reproduce offspring.

 

If the different kinds could not cross (like a chicken with a fox or a chicken with a rat), there would seemingly be no point in having this law. 

 

 

An Ancient Legend

 

Incidentally, there is a Jewish legend that in Genesis 6:12, all flesh became dissolute (“The Book of Legends,” p. 26).  Per R. Azariah, in the name of R. Judah ben Simon--all flesh became dissolute--a dog mated with a wolf and a rooster with a peacock.  R. Luliani bar Tibrin said in the name of R. Isaac--Even the earth acted like a harlot--when planted with wheat, it brought forth tares. 

 

This mention of wheat and tares in this ancient parable could have some particular application over the centuries because of YESHUA’s parable about the wheat and tares (as will be described and commented upon in some detail in a later chapter). 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 108--Evolutionary Problems II

 

 

The Major Races 

 

With this backdrop, from the prior chapter, it is prudent to make mention here of the fact that from an anthropological point of view, there seems to be at least three primary or major races of man on this globe.  These three are:  White (Caucasoid), Black (Negroid) and Red (Mongoloid, which possibly can appear as Yellow after an infusion of White genes--if there is no true Yellow race). 

 

The previously mentioned “Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee” (p. 10) says for Genesis 1 that in the creation of man, “the Lord Elohim took dust from the place of the sanctuary, and from the four winds of the world, and mixed from all the waters of the world, and created him white, red, and black.” 

 

In “The Yellow Peril” (p. 399), first published in 1911, before man’s attitudes were to be contaminated with the new post WWII theories of racial integration and amalgamation, writer G. G. Rupert suggested that there were five major divisions of man--Caucasian (White), Mongolian (Yellow), Malay (Brown), African (Black) and North American Indian (Red). 

 

While a dark bronze or red color is associated with the American Indians, mention must be directed to the historic Southern Irish with their blazing red hair and sometimes red complexions and freckles. 

 

Could the red Irish be another separate race to be added to Rupert’s list or are they just a part of the White race?  Comments to follow will offer some possibilities on this phenomenon on the basis of miscegenation. 

 

 

Four Races? 

 

But more realistically, the ancient Egyptians recognized four major races (White, Black, Red and Yellow)--which are probably more logical (per Charles A. Weisman, in “The Origin of Race & Civilization”). 

 

Per this view, the Red connects to the Mongolians and not to the Irish, who are theoretically a part of the White race.  Yellow could be a Yellow-Brown presentation and particularly so in the hot areas of the earth where yellow can become brown from the sun. 

 

The belief of four major races probably has merit for reasons that will be outlined shortly in this study.  And if the four major races are correct, it must be noted that the way they came about will still allow for the correctness of the ancient Jewish Targums which suggested three originally created races in Genesis 1, of White, Red and Black. 

 

In other words, the original creation was of the three basic races, as provided for in the Targums.  But in later acts, the fourth (the Yellow race, which is usually connected to a group of small boned people across the globe) came about through acts of sin and rebellion toward YHWH’s laws (in the form of miscegenation). 

 

Nevertheless, from a historical perspective, it is these few major races and these major races only which have existed in Adam’s time, although it must be acknowledged that the prior world in pre-Adamic history (between Gen 1:1 and 1:2, elsewhere discussed herein) evidently had one or more classes of hominids/hominoids of some type, whose bones and presence has been discovered by archaeologists and anthropologists in modern digs across the planet (like those in Africa of the famous Leakey family). 

 

The fact that the pre-Adamic earth had some sort of a hominoid population is plainly suggested in Genesis 1:28 in The ELOHIM’s command to Adam to be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth. 

 

In the Jul-Aug 2002 “End Time News” (p. 3), writer Colin Deal points out that this phrase is also used in Genesis 9:1 in the commandment to Noah and his sons.  As Deal asks, doesn’t these words suggest a prior population on earth? 

 

 

Evolution is Impossible 

 

Thus, evolution has not produced the huge variety and assortment of humans, dogs, cats and ducks from a single pair each of homogeneous progenitors. 

 

No!  The truth is that there were certainly, as a minimum, two and more likely three or more separately created kinds of ancestors (fully capable of reproduction) of people, dogs, cats and ducks in order to cause the variety we behold today. 

 

Of course, with three or more different classes of basic stock of seemingly any animal class capable of reproduction, it is possible to sexually cross them in a “man-made” controlled environment and generate entire new breeds and kinds. 

 

Although man has this capability, it must be again pointed out that such acts constitute sin and are illegal by YHWH’s Word--as established in previous comments. 

 

But for a variety of new breeds and kinds, it takes "more" than one common, homogeneous pair of progenitors. 

 

The continuous random inbreeding of one specific, truly homogeneous breed, kind or specie cannot possibly generate "new" breeds, kinds and species.  All they will do is reproduce kind after kind (which is the Scriptural formula for the entire creation--Gen 1). 

 

Categorically, it takes two or more kinds to produce "new" breeds through sexual reproduction and inbreeding.  But even here, such interbreeding does not occur in nature where breeding is accomplished on a random basis (generally, with no criteria beyond strength). 

 

 

New Breeds Through Miscegenation? 

 

Beyond the pure reproductions of Blacks from Blacks, Whites from Whites, Reds from Reds, etc, it is worth noting that when males and females of the three to five human stock races mix, the resulting offspring is a mongrel or mulatto which in no way reflects the 100% characteristics of either parent.  Such reproductions do not replicate the original or full blood kind after kind (as was true with the creation in Genesis 1). 

 

How can kind after kind reproduce when both progenitors are mongrels or of different racial stock?  At best, they will only reproduce mongrel kind after kind and not true full blood kind after kind.  A mongrel or mixed breed of whatever sort is not a true kind or breed in the strict sense. 

 

Please note what happens when two dogs of different breeds are crossed.  It’s hard to be sure of what the pups will look like.  If two mongrel dogs cross, it’s even more difficult to predict the appearance of their certain mongrel offspring--which can all be different, reflecting any number of characteristics from their various ancestors. 

 

And since both Black and Mongoloid genes predominate over White genes in so-called human beings, any such mixtures mean that the children will basically be Black or Asian, but with only small possibilities of having many European characteristics.  More Black genes mean more Black characteristics.  In particular, color (and color of hair) does predominate. 

 

Also, of course, as the same mongrel children continue to breed and cross back with Whites, and as the white genes begin to displace in number and quantity the colored genes, then the succeeding generations will begin to appear to be more and more "white" over time. 

 

Admittedly, as interbreeding continues, it appears that most kinds of life forms, in at least the human/humanoid and domesticated animal kingdoms, have the propensity to breed toward a measure of uniformity (which will be assessed in the succeeding chapters). 

 

Once a proper breed is produced with some uniformity, the males and females will begin to produce a limited measure of kind after kind in their offspring. 

 

 

Understanding the Variety 

 

The great variety that one can behold among people is easily explainable in the context of miscegenation (in the world today and in terms of skin color and color of hair). 

 

White is reflected on an opaque object that reflects all wavelengths while black is produced when all wavelengths are absorbed (“Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 183). 

 

In short, the color white is made up of all colors while black is the complete absence of color.  By combining white and black in a certain ratio and certain method, it seems possible to create any desired color.  In this sense, one might build the case that it is technically incorrect to call truly 100% Black people-- “Coloreds.” 

 

On the basis of this truth, some students of the Scriptures and men have theorized that The MOST HIGH only created the White and Black races and that all other productions have surfaced because of the various mixes.  While this explanation seems plausible, this writer leans in the direction of the ancient belief in four main types. 

 

This strange reality of nature, of course, accounts for the great variety of colors of human beings and particularly in skin and in hair.   In previous comments herein, mention was made to the situation with the red coloring of the skin and hair of so many of the Southern Irish, to be later discussed. 

 

It’s not hard to perceive at all that a certain mix of Caucasians and Mongolians, Negroes or Yellows (to be later described) would produce the red complexions of the Irish.  With this background, there is no reason to speculate on any red complexioned Irish race at all.  Manifestly, miscegenation can account for these people. 

 

Consequently, it has only been man's illegal and sinful acts in defiance of Genesis 1, Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11 (as mentioned in the preceding chapter) which has brought into existence the huge assortment of domesticated dogs and ducks and the billions of mongrel peoples all over the globe. 

 

Incidentally, there are a couple of other relevant texts which need mention now, though they will be addressed in some detail in a later chapter.  Here, it should be noted that the Word prescribes that certainly in terms of Adam and perhaps all of the different major human races, man has been allocated specific areas of planet earth to live in (Deut 32:8; Acts 17:26-27). 

 

Thus, Black Africans were evidently given much of Africa; Mongoloids were given Northeast Asia; Whites were given Europe; and the small Yellow-Brown peoples (who are correctly Hamites) were allocated the hot areas of earth from Europe and North Africa to SE Asia and the Pacific Islands. 

 

Despite The CREATOR’s wisdom and thinking in apparently allocating specific land areas to the different major races, man chooses to move people around (or allow them to move) all over the globe to completely upset the creation.  Man follows this same stupid practice in terms of the other created life forms as well. 

 

 

Yes, Man Upsets Nature 

 

Consequently, African killer bees were brought into South America for some ridiculous reason.  And now, they are spreading (unchecked) all over both North and South America.  Gypsy moths were brought into North America in 1869 to make silk.  No silk was ever produced.  But the moths became entrenched over much of the continent to completely wipe out many American trees. 

 

Many years ago, some traveling circus or carnival brought some wild hogs from Europe to America to show off.  While wild pigs were once common in parts of Europe and Asia, they were not historically present in the Americas.  Some of the pigs got loose in NC and now they are running wild all over the Southern mountains.  Though some people hunt them, they have caused an absolute crisis in nature. 

 

The Japanese beetle came into North America somehow because of man’s stupidity and irresponsible actions.  Now, they are all over the US eating up vegetable gardens in an unbelievable fashion. 

 

Mediterranean fruit flies were brought into North America for some ostensible reason.  Now, they are a constant threat to destroy whole orchards (which means that man is constantly spraying poisons to try to control them). 

 

A late report from the Jul 9, 2002, “Spokesman-Review” (p. A1, A5) on “‘Frankenfish’ on the march” said that a monster snakehead fish from China was on the loose in ponds in Eastern Maryland.  This monster fish eats anything and everything and cleans a pond or water way clear of all other fish and most other aquatic life forms. 

 

The snakehead fish can live outside water for three days and can actually walk on its extended fins to move from water source to water source.  It is unclear how many of these fish are loose and where they came from in Maryland--though speculation has it that a bankrupt, closing pet store may have dumped one or more of them into a local pond. 

 

The Asian swamp eel, zebra mussel, fire ants, Asian painted turtles, Russian wheat aphids, redgum lerp psyllids and thousands of other varieties of life forms have been shifted to North America to completely upset nature. 

 

Yet, man continues shifting things around; and then never understands why nature gets completely upset. 

 

 

More Insanity 

 

Asian chestnuts were brought to the US in 1900 for some crazy reason.  They wouldn’t grow here.  But they bought with them a dangerous chestnut blight or fungus which got started and virtually wiped out the entire US chestnut population. In recent years, some Southern pine beetles were brought into the Pacific NW to create enormous ecological problems.

 

 

And More Insanity 

 

The Feb 15, 2002, edition of “The Week” (p. 18) had a news report on “Aliens are invading forests.”  The gist of this story was that modern globalization is decimating America’s forests (per a report from the “New York Times”).  What is happening is that global trade and commercialism is bringing a host of unwanted imports to the US. 

 

For example, the foreign imports have included a fungus that is killing millions of dogwood trees, a canker that affects butternut trees, and a foot disease that is destroying cedars in the Pacific Northwest. 

 

Forest ecologist Craig G. Lorimer of the University of Wisconsin notes:  “To have so many diseases cause so many problems over such a short period of time is unprecedented.” 

 

Lorimer adds that ”You get the impression that clear-cutting is the most devastating thing that’s ever happened to North American forests, and it’s not.”  Every year, some 13,000 plant diseases are intercepted by inspectors at the nation’s ports and airports.  But thousands more get through and are not detected. 

 

 

An Intensification of the Problem 

 

The May 27, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 54-55) had a lengthy story by Jackson Dykman on “Meet the Beetles” which told about the Asian long-horned beetles which were brought into New York in 1996 in wooden packing crates from China and Hong Kong.  By 1998, they were in Chicago and are now spreading out to other American towns and areas. 

 

Dykman says that the beetles are big and hungry and are going after American hardwood trees (i.e. maple, poplar, birch, elm, ash, horse chestnut, and willow) like “tree-eating machines.”  Already they have destroyed thousands of American trees.  If they get loose in the rest of the United States, damages could run as high as $650 billion. 

 

Entomologist E. Richard Hoebeke of Cornell University says that “it’s the greatest threat to U.S. forestry since the gypsy moth.” 

 

To respond to the threat, US authorities since 1998 have been using powerful insecticides and acoustic sensors.  The sensors detect the sound of the larvae chewing on the trees.  Discovered trees must be cut down and burned. 

 

Along with the Asian long-horned beetles, the Sep 9, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 66-67) assessed the problem in an article on “A long, slow autumn,” by Jessica Ruvinsky. 

 

Ruvinsky noted a whole host of pests and diseases which have been introduced into the US from abroad, primarily in the last ten years (like the citrus long-horned beetle, pine shoot beetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, beech bark disease, and in 2000, a new unidentified fungus which is spelling out something called the “sudden oak death”). 

 

Obviously, the problem is exploding all over the world as these various bugs and diseases are moved around from place to place to completely upset the delicate balance of nature. 

 

 

“The Week” 

 

The May 10, 2002, “The Week” (p. 14) had a report on another real scary development.  Dangerous marine organisms are hitching rides across the world’s oceans on an ever-expanding flotilla of trash.  Per the story, barnacles, worms, mollusks and other organisms now have more travel opportunities than ever before (in the old days, they moved about with logs, coconuts and ships). 

 

Now, these species find plastic containers (which won’t rot or decay) especially attractive.  Various forms of bacteria and life attach to plastic and other debris products which end up in the oceans.  The debris eventually floats or end up in some far away country to upset its environment. 

 

 

Uncontrollable Plants 

 

Years ago, when man was busy building roads and making cuts and fills for the roads, some supposedly intelligent bureaucrat in Mississippi imported a fast growing vine from Asia to implant along the banks where highway cuts were made. 

 

True, these Asian vines quickly took root and spread rapidly over the cut out soil.  In fact, they spread so rapidly that they got completely out of control to surge over much of the Mississippi Delta. 

 

Today, Southern states, counties, people and businesses in the South fight these spreading vines and usually end up losing--since they are so persistent. 

 

Various kinds of trees and plants have all been effectively obliterated and destroyed from man’s stupid efforts to import bugs and funguses which do not belong on the North American continent, as The CREATOR made things. 

 

 

More Recent Insanity 

 

In 2000, this writer lived in Northeast Washington near an area where a timber company owned 80 acres of forested land.  The company came in and cut the timber, leaving a few seed trees with the intention that the trees would repopulate the area over the next 20 years and allow another later cutting. 

 

Some of the timber company land covered a part of a huge mountain that ran up the valley for miles.  The rest of this mountain and valley was part of a US forest and/or involved several tracts of other private land holdings (and especially in the valley, as it adjoined Deep Lake, near the Canadian border). 

 

There was an old timber road which led up and around the mountain to the top.  This thing had been cut out long ago.  But it still was in fair shape in 2000.  Wanting to use this road for trucks to haul out the cut timber, the loggers brought in a bulldozer which re-graded the road.  Perhaps because of some minor concern over erosion (though it was very rocky), the company officials decided to seed vegetation along the road. 

 

They could have chosen any number of local grasses for this effort.  But instead, they looked at the cost involved and found an alien weed which was cheaper (though it was totally foreign to this area).  They spread these weed seeds out along the road. 

 

Sure enough, this stuff grew fast.  By the fall of 2001, it was all over much of one side of the mountain.  Given time, winds will carry the seed over the entire area. 

 

The weed involved grows to be about six to eight feet tall.  Plants grow close together and completely choke everything else out.  Deer, elk, moose, horses and cows will not eat the weed.  So it rapidly expands unchecked.  Evidently, it will soon cover the mountain and kill off any chances of more trees growing there.  In the late summer, when these weeds die, it will present an enormous potential of a fire hazard. 

 

Did any of the people involved in this effort give any thought to what they were doing at all?  No, evidently not at all.  The whole undertaking was predicated upon profits and money.  The people involved could have cared less what kind of an environmental mess that they would create. 

 

 

Genetic Engineering? 

 

Along with this incredible insanity in moving species around all over the globe, there is another motion afoot which can have extraordinary implications.  This one was spelled out in a story by Nell Boyce, in the June 3, 2002, “U.S. News & World Report” (p. 61), on “Engineered to run wild.” 

 

Boyce mentioned the DNA splicing phenomenon (which, in terms of plant foods, will be assessed in some detail in subsequent chapters herein) and said that plans are now afoot to produce genetically altered animals which “could be released to fight pests and disease.” 

 

While it will take several years of research and tests before such animals are produced, in order to be turned loose in the wilds, the thinking is now proceeding on this option.  As some environmentalists say, the first genetically altered life form may not control any pests, but it may become a pest itself.  An absolute environmental crisis could be in the making with this insanity. 

 

This thinking is even more ridiculous and incomprehensible than the situation with cloning (as it is exploding in the halls of knowledge here in the early 21st century). 

 

The subject of cloning is discussed elsewhere herein.  Suffice to say, it holds out some really dangerous possibilities for life on this planet.  Certainly, the same can be said for genetically altered animals. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 109--Evolutionary Problems III

 

 

 

Movement Toward Uniformity 

 

Based upon former comments, it is also useful to realize that over time (perhaps many, many centuries) a basic mixture of different humans/humanoids will tend toward being a homogenous society.  This strange phenomenon would apply to all varieties and kinds of wild life if they too naturally crossed in nature, as evolutionists suggest.  The result would ultimately be uniformity and not more diversity in species and kinds. 

 

Therefore, in a country, like the Philippines, where the human population is a basic mixture of Black, Red, Yellow and White and where they have practiced gross miscegenation for many centuries on geographically confined islands, they are today leaning toward some “limited” form of being a uniform population. 

 

Japan is another nation where there was originally a basic assortment of at least three races or so (evidently White, Yellow and Red).  The population there has slowly intermarried and interbred so extensively over many, many years, so much so, that today they are beginning to appear to be homogenous in some limited ways.  Parents can “almost” (but not completely) reproduce kind after kind. 

 

Southern Europeans will be discussed in some detail later in this section, and in subsequent chapters.  But for now, it should be noted that they are a basic mix of the different races.  Portugal once had a significant White population--perhaps much like the fair peoples of Northern Spain or Northwest Europe. 

 

But they brought in Black slaves (to constitute 10% of the population) and miscegenated with them (per an article on Portugal, in the 1914 “Encyclopedia Britannica”) and apparently some Hamitic peoples also living there (to be commented upon later).  The modern Portuguese are the result--now with some measure of mixed uniformity. 

 

Sweden, Denmark and other so-called White nations are presently allowing numbers of Blacks and other Coloreds into their countries.  Given sufficient time, these nations will be transformed into something like Portugal. 

 

 

Pacific Islanders 

 

The Pacific Islanders (Polynesians, Micronesians and Melanesians) are all basic mixtures of probably all four of the major races just cited.  The Melanesians have a greater preponderance of Black genes while particularly the Polynesians have lesser Black genes and perhaps more White and Yellow genes. 

 

But over the years, “some” of these populations have miscegenated, so much so, on their confined islands that they are tending toward some measure of uniformity. 

 

Having mentioned Pacific Islanders, it should be noted that this writer read in a college textbook on anthropology, years ago, that ultimately, over time, all of the world’s people will look physically like Polynesians from interracial crossings (per Webster’s, the word interracial applies between the [four] major races and not between two peoples of one race--like a White German and a White Austrian). 

 

In other words, throw all of the globe’s humans/humanoids into the melting pot and they will all come out Polynesians. 

 

Please understand that YHWH did not create the Polynesian, Melanesian, Filipino, Japanese, French, Scottish, Irish, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Mexican, Russian, Arab or English racial presentations or the other billions of racial, mongrel humans/humanoids across the globe.  YAH created the three or so basic races of perfect, wonderful, marvelous humans/humanoids--certainly Black, White and Red. 

 

 

An Example from Palau 

 

Some years ago, this writer was on a Continental Airlines plane flying over some of the Pacific islands in Micronesia.  The stewardess was an attractive young woman--slender, European bone structure and features, very light brown in skin color, and with cold black hair, which seemed straight.  She appeared to be a Southern European--perhaps like one would find in Sicily or Greece. 

 

In a discussion with her, she mentioned that she was a Palauan.  Now, the Palauans are the most Negroid of all of the peoples of Micronesia--very close to the Melanesians.  Collectively, they look a lot like the people that one finds in some of the inner American cities. 

 

For example, downtown Philadelphia has a huge Black population.  But Philadelphia has seen so much Black-White miscegenation that a vast segment of the population is mulatto and far removed from true Negroes. 

 

So, what about the Palauan Continental stewardess?  Probably, she had something around 5% or so of Negroid genes, maybe several Red and/or Yellow genes and otherwise White genes.  For two hundred years now, sailors and other visitors to the Pacific Islands have left children.  So there has been an increasing presence of White genes in the population. 

 

The young woman involved probably had parents with few Black genes.  In fact, one parent might have been a White European racially.  Obviously, she had sufficient White genes to have European features and to be slender.  Mixed Aborigine Negroes have the typical Negro bone structure, thick lips and kinky hair and the women tend to be excessively fat and particularly as they grow older. 

 

 

Admixtures In All Continents 

 

Because of some interesting reason, the three great races of White, Black and Red peoples seem to have some close affinity to the three great continents of Europe, Africa and Asia--while the small, Yellow-Brown kind has a recognizable presence in a band of hot areas from Portugal to Vietnam, as outlined in the preceding chapter (Acts 17:26-27; Deut 32:8). 

 

Actually, most of the populations in all three of these continents today involve persons of mixed races to various degrees. 

 

Take the case of Europe which supposedly is the White continent.  The closest people to being true Whites are found largely in Northwest Europe and perhaps over to the Baltic nations.  But even in parts of largely White Scandinavia, one runs the risk of finding people with some strong presentations of Asian and Hamite genes. 

 

In 1934, just about the time that Franklin Rosenfeldt/Roosevelt and Adolf Schicklgruber were becoming public figures out to try to destroy the world, a Swedish woman named Ingrid Bergman arrived on stage in Sweden to begin making movies.  By 1939, Ingrid reached the big times in Hollywood.  It is no wonder that she would go to the top because she was both an extremely beautiful woman and very talented. 

 

On the surface, Ingrid was a very fair, White, Nordic person.  However, upon a closer look, it was quite evident from her high cheek bones, facial structure, hair coloring and other features that she had some Mongoloid genes present (maybe not many, but at least enough to influence her physically in her appearance). 

 

Beyond a presence of Asian/Hamite genes in some parts of the Scandinavian population, it is a fact that the Scandinavians (and the people of the Baltic states) are otherwise some of the most pure White people in existence, as pointed out above.  Surely, the Scandinavians descend from a son of Shem--possibly Lud, who fathered the Lydians and lived in Asia Minor (Gen 10:22, per “The Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs,” p. 38). 

 

However, other than Scandinavia and the Baltic states to the East, one begins to find more and more prevalent Asian genes in any movement Eastward.  Generally, East Europeans all have heavy Mongoloid genes to different extents.  As one approaches Asia, the Mongoloid genes seem to accelerate. 

 

 

Moving South 

 

Southern Europeans have significant Black genes, as discussed above in connection with Portugal.  Southern Europe also has an extensive presence of small Yellow-Brown Hamitic peoples (which will be discussed in some detail in future chapters) which may largely predominate in some fashion in certain places. 

 

In terms of Southeastern Europe (and Southern Europe, overall, somewhat), the population consists of not only people with mixed White, Black and Yellow genes, but one finds a huge presence of Asian Red genes.  The popular Italian movie star Sophia Loren demonstrates this condition with her very obvious Asian eyes and high cheek bones. 

 

This mix is the classic situation with modern Greece.  The ancient Greeks, in Alexander’s days, were a White, blond, fair, blue-eyed population.  But as true with Portugal, Italy, Spain, etc, the ancient Greeks interbred with other peoples and slaves to form the contemporary Greeks. 

 

A similar situation exists in Asia.  If there are any peoples resembling the ancient true Mongoloids, they “might” be in Mongolia and perhaps among some few, North American, Indian tribes (which originally came from Asia).  As one moves West from Northeast Asia, the population begins to include all kinds of White genes. 

 

In going South from Northeast Asia, White genes surface in numbers for awhile with the Red ones (like in Mandarin China) before eventually merging with small Yellow (or Yellow-Brown) Hamitic peoples (like the Cantonese Chinese and Southeast Asians).  Black genes gain some significance in Southeast Asia and increase appreciably as one approaches India.  Similar distribution problems exist in Africa. 

 

The interesting thing about this distribution is that there are movements of some limited sort toward uniformity in many, many of these sub continental populations.  Thus, peoples in Burma, Armenia, Siberia, Greece, Afghanistan, Tibet, India, etc are not really as profoundly diverse as one may first suppose based on the presence of the unusual mixture of genes.  They have been breeding toward uniformity. 

 

 

Throwbacks 

 

But once parents with mixed genes conceive a child, one must be careful about concluding that the child will always be absolutely kind after kind, even if the parents are “about” the same racially.  The problem is that there can be a throwback (which some might believe to be a sudden mutation) on occasion because of the presence of the different genes in the parents from earlier ancestral miscegenation. 

 

With these many different genes present, the evolutionists (and most Christians) believe that the different species practiced a process in nature called selective breeding or natural selection of variations and mutations to create still new breeds and kinds with only a throwback problem. 

 

Although man can selectively interbreed different kinds, this process just does not happen in nature, contrary to the wishes and theories of evolutionists, as noted above. 

 

Take the case of domesticated rabbits.  There is a breed called “Checkered Giants,” which appears to be a cross of some sort between white and black rabbits.  This cross produces rabbits which are white, but with black spots on them. 

 

It is possible to interbreed those qualities (under man’s control) from black and white rabbits, so much so, that a breed is created which “normally” breeds back kind after kind.  This is a form of uniformity--limited since it is not 100% in all cases. 

 

The dilemma is that when the usual Checkered Giant rabbits are crossed there is always a remote possibility of a throw back with a pure or largely white or black rabbit being born in a litter of otherwise checkered giants.  Why the essentially black or white rabbit?  Those genes are present in the basic breed. 

 

 

Throwbacks in Humans/Humanoids? 

 

However, there are limitations on these throwbacks.  Take the black hair of Negroes and Mongoloids, both of which predominate over the true white hair of Whites.  Once Whites and Blacks cross, the resulting children will carry the Black characteristics of black hair.  Can black haired, dark complexioned, so-called White people cross and produce blond haired descendants from the throwback genes?  Rarely, if ever! 

 

While dark haired, so-called White parents may produce “some” children which have dark blond hair (typically ruddy or brownish in appearance), such hair tends to darken (like their parents) as the children grow older.  This phenomenon is particularly evident among some Anglo Saxons (who are largely White, but with some obvious presence of other genes). 

 

Some say that human (or humanoid) children will evidently not throwback in skin color.  But they can and do throw back in other characteristics.  Perhaps the child with Black genes might tend toward having a big, flat, Negro nose or kinky (curly) Negro hair.  Whites with Asian genes may sometimes have small, slanted eyes (as Roy Rogers had from his Indian ancestry) and so forth. 

 

Another interesting phenomenon occurs on some rare occasions in a basically miscegenated or mixed Negro population (like in the US).  Sometimes, distinctively red headed Negroes surface which seem out of style in the context of the predominance of the Black, kinky hair of Negroes. 

 

The first impression is that there is a clear, very-strong, red-headed, Irish person closely involved to produce a red headed Negro.  While this is probably often true, this writer would also allow that in some situations a Black-White mix could also produce this strange occurrence in a Negro child (yes, it seems possible to somehow mix black and white to produce red, as can happen when black and white cattle cross). 

 

Otherwise, a throwback could somehow be involved.  It is these throw backs (and alleged sudden mutations) which allow the evolutionists to believe that by selective interbreeding or natural selection of such throwbacks, entirely new breeds can be created.  In other words, black or white throwback rabbits (from Checkered Giant litters) can be interbred to produce a breed of black or white rabbits. 

 

But such interbreeding would be a reversal of the breeding process involved to create the throwback.  In other words, it would consist of reverse breeding and be predicated upon the premise that there was an original stock with the characteristics being selectively interbred. 

 

 

The Albino 

 

The question of the albino (lacking pigmentation) in different forms of life needs to be mentioned here.  “The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 16) says it is inherited as a recessive trait in animal or plant forms.  This source reports that albino life forms can be interbred (by man) to form a specific albino breed in some species.  But actual albino breeds do not happen naturally in nature where breeding is done at random. 

 

Albino breeds, per se, can only be produced by man in a man-controlled environment by selective breeding.  Apparently, the single albino primarily surfaces as a gene deficiency (similar to a mutation) arising because of excessive interbreeding of close relatives/families in a limited gene pool.  Most or all of the major human races are capable of producing single albinos on rare occasions because of interbreeding. 

 

Albinos are not a throwback--as discussed in the above comments.  Clearly, they seem to be an aberration or something wrong genetically.  To whatever extent they can happen in nature (in the natural order that has been undisturbed or unaltered by man), it would appear that the produced albino is so deficient that it will not survive long in nature and will not reproduce more albinos. 

 

 

Christian Evolutionary Thinking 

 

It is the throwback reality which prompts some Christian evolutionists (like the previously mentioned Mormon) to believe that Adam and Eve (and other animals as well--capable of interbreeding) evolved as mongrels with many different genes, instead of being created as perfect homogeneous full bloods. 

 

In this view, Adam and Eve evolved to be classic mongrels with Black, White, Yellow and Red genes--much like Pacific Islanders, as discussed previously. 

 

The essence of this ridiculous theory is that Adam and Eve and/or Noah and his wife were mongrels with the genes of the different human/humanoid races.  Hence, Noah and his wife produced one White child, one Mongolian child and one Black child (some Christians claim that Ham was the Black one)--either as a throwback or a sudden mutation. 

 

 

Adam and Eve? 

 

“US News & World Report” for Oct 25, 1999, had a lead story on “Is the Bible True?,” which offered a hypothetical painting of what Adam and Eve supposedly looked like on the front outside cover.  The artist did his/her level best to illustrate the famous pair as a uni-blend of the several major races now evident upon planet earth.  In the painting, Adam and Eve were a light brown-slightly yellow color. 

 

Their bodily bone structure, distribution of flesh and possible size appeared to be Caucasian.  The woman’s hair was fairly long and the man’s hair was full and almost to his shoulders.  Both were definitely kinky, black and Negroid in appearance.  The facial bone structures were clearly Asian (high cheek bones and eyes showing evidence of slants).  Finally, the pair’s noses and lips appeared to be Caucasian. 

 

This projected Adam and Eve could easily have been Polynesians.  Importantly, they represent what most of so-called humanity (certainly including Christianity) would expect genetically in the pair.  The only problem is that this conception is totally impossible since kind breeds kind. 

 

Such a couple would have only produced a race of almost Polynesians and not the major, different races now on earth.  So, instead of having the major three to five different races, the world would have been populated with a race of something very close to Polynesians.  They would have reproduced their own form of kind after kind and not the gross variety now visible in today’s world. 

 

 

The “Dawn of Man” 

 

Otherwise, Lincoln Motors sponsored a television miniseries on August 6-11, 2000, on the “Dawn of Man,” which supposedly illustrated early “man.”  Reportedly, it contained “violence, nudity and crude language.” 

 

This writer did not watch the film.  But an ad on it appeared in the Aug 7, 2000, “Newsweek” (p. 5).  The ad showed pictures of some heavily mongrelized Blacks and Whites, who must have been the alleged “early men.” 

 

 

From “Newsweek” 

 

Finally, the leftist “Newsweek” (p. 36-37), of May 21, 2001, had a related story by Kenneth L. Woodward on “Overcoming Sin,” which also focused upon Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  This article likewise had a hypothetical painting of the supposed Adam and Even in contact with the serpent. 

 

This painting showed Adam and Eve as a multi-racial, mongrelized blend of the races just as the other earlier presentations, and one much like one would find in many Christian Churches.  The most glaring feature which the “Newsweek” account presented was a much darker Adam than Eve. 

 

Otherwise, the Adam was heavily mixed with Asian and Black genes and the woman actually was much lighter in color and more European in bone structure and facial features (although she did show a very obvious presence of Asian features and particularly in the eyes).  Actually, the outlined Eve was not bad looking or repulsive (in contrast with the mongrelized Adam, who appeared to be a sickening mix). 

 

To its credit, the “Newsweek” outline of Satan was something more than just a snake.  In this production, the serpent was actually a mixed crossing of a serpent and a humanoid appearing creature.  It’s amazing that the warped “Newsweek” did not attempt to put over just a snake for this encounter with Adam and Eve. 

 

 

The Views of Herbert W. Armstrong 

 

In “Mystery of the Ages” (p. 148-149), Herbert W. Armstrong offered a slight twist on the traditional Christian theory of creation. 

 

Armstrong suggested that Adam and Eve were created “White” and that Eve was created to produce ovaries which carried White, Black and Yellow genes.  From this variety of genes, she and Adam produced Black, White and Yellow children which went on to further reproduce kind after kind White, Black and Yellow children. 

 

Armstrong also suggested that Noah, his wife and his children were all “White.”  However, as Herbert saw it, Noah’s son Ham married one of the Black women (to produce the Black race), son Japheth married one of the Yellow women (to produce the Asian race) and son Shem married one of his own White kind (to produce Europeans). 

 

What these various Christian theologians are teaching is pure and simple evolutionary theory--although they don’t know it and would be utterly shocked if they realized it.  The backbone of the so-called evolutionary development of human/humanoids is predicated upon an evolution of the many different kinds of Homo Sapiens from a beginning common pair. 

 

 

In Search of Eve  

 

Incidentally, all of these evolutionists, including the Christian evolutionists, got a shot in the arm in a 2002 news report from two scientists (Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson) doing work at the University of California in Berkeley.  Per a report in the May-Jun 2002 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 35), these two men have allegedly found “that every person on Earth came from the same mother,” evidently Eve. 

 

In doing DNA cell research, these scientists discovered the presence of some DNA material in the human cell called “mitochondrial DNA.”  DNA inside the nucleus of a cell is made up of a combined genetic material from both the father and the mother (therefore, it changes with each generation).  However, mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from one’s mother, and it does not change. 

 

The theory is that this material is common in all so-called human beings.  In terms of evolution, the story said that this finding (supposedly) refutes evolutionary theory (since it would allow that all supposed humans descend from a common mother).  However, there are some flaws in this thinking which were not discussed. 

 

The truth is that the scientists have been totally unable to examine the DNA materials of all so-called human beings on earth, now or in the past.  So much of their work is founded on suppositions, based upon whatever sample they used (which probably came from some few Americans). 

 

It is useless to look at Americans (or likely any other modern peoples) for any worthwhile conclusions since Americans in general are so profoundly and profusely miscegenated and mixed.  As already established in the above comments, the modern world faces the same problem. 

 

It would be a very hard task to find any so-called human being alive today who is racially pure.  In truth, almost everyone known is a mixture.  In this sense, the Berkeley study certainly looked at a “few” DNA samples and drew its conclusion.  The population in the sample had to be very restricted and limited since it was impossible to look at many people (since the DNA data is simply not available). 

 

Moreover, a later chapter will discuss the reality that man (in the form of the various different races) has “much” common DNA with chimpanzees and other animals.  So, even if the different races of man do have some common DNA, it goes to prove nothing because the various human/humanoid types also have much common DNA with apes and other animals and species of life. 

 

The point is that this study is interesting.  But it does not prove or disprove evolution or the allegation that all humans/humanoids descend from a common mother--Eve. 

 

Admittedly, if the DNA of all humans/humanoids was examined and studies were made of the more racially pure people (if any can be found), then it “might possibly” suggest a revelation on racial origins.  But presently, such possibilities are simply not on the table for discussion. 

 

At best, this mentioned study may only prove the wisdom and intelligence of The CREATOR in using similar or like designs and patterns of DNA in His creation of the various forms of life (to include the several different races of man).  This option will be further discussed in the later comments addressing chimps. 

 

Along with the common DNA between so-called humans and animals, it is also relevant to note that the different races and a huge assortment of animals all sexually reproduce and bear young in the same fashion.  They all have similar anatomy, respiratory, blood circulation and waste elimination patterns.  But none of this stuff proves evolution.  It just proves the wisdom of The CREATOR. 

 

 

J. Philippe Rushton, Revisited 

 

One of the excellent writers and honest researchers of modern times is Professor of Psychology J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario in Canada, previously quoted.  In his book “Race, Evolution, and Behavior” (p. 263), he recognizes the three great races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid) and suggests that they came from a common origin in Africa (as most evolutionists believe). 

 

Rushton postulates that the original African population “evolved” into the eventual Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid races. 

 

As the White and Red peoples came forth, Rushton says that they began changing (evolving) into humans with larger brains, more intelligence, slower rates of maturation, and lower levels of sex hormones with concomitant reductions in sexual potency, aggressiveness and impulsivity, and increases in family stability, forward planning, self control, rule following and life expectancy. 

 

On all of these factors and qualities as stated, there are remarkable differences between the three great races, as Rushton conclusively proves with scientific research data.  Though these differences can now be attributed to racial genetics, the evolutionary position is that they developed as a process of evolution over vast ages of time. 

 

In the form of a possible addendum to his work, a reader’s letter from Canada in the Jul/Aug 2000 “America’s Promise Newsletter” (p. 5) offered these later remarks from Rushton:  “It is really taboo to notice that blacks do better at sports like running and jumping than whites, and especially more so than do East Asians.  Blacks have narrower hips than whites or East Asians, which gives them a more efficient stride. 

 

“Blacks also have from 3% to 19% more of the sex hormone testosterone, which translates into greater muscle mass and more explosive energy.  But admitting these genetic race differences in sports opens the locked door protecting the greater taboo--race differences in brain size and crime.  That is why it is taboo to even suggest that blacks are better at many sports for evolutionary-genetic reasons. 

 

“We would all be better off by accepting the scientific facts about how biology underlies race differences in sports, crime, and school learning.” 

 

 

Black Crime 

 

Subsequent chapters hereafter will discuss the Negro crime problem in detail.  In particular, a huge assortment of statistics will be presented establishing that the American crime problem is essentially one of demographics.  Hence, there is no intent to really broach this subject now in the present discussion of race--beyond a brief acknowledgment that crime statistics do link to race. 

 

In America, from 30 to 90% of the different categories of crime are done by Blacks who only constitute some 12 or 13% of the American population. 

 

Probably, the most significant Negro crime figures surface in violent type crimes--like murder and assault.  For example, the “Spotlight” paper of Aug 23, 1999 (p. 1), had a report by James P. Tucker Jr on “Federal Stats prove Who the Haters Are” that assessed the 1997 crime statistics from the US Department of Justice, the then latest year of federal data. 

 

The story focused upon some 1,883,000 cases of aggravated assault and attacks that would cause serious injury or death.  A whopping 60% of the various types of violent crimes were done by Blacks.  Some 60% of all robberies were done by Blacks, while only 57% of persons arrested for robbery were Blacks.

 

The May 24, 2002, “The Week” (p. 5) had a news report that the nine people on Maryland’s death row are all Blacks and eight of them were convicted for killing Whites. 

 

A December 17, 1999, report on disciplinary problems in US schools said that in Phoenix, Arizona, Blacks only constitute 4% of the school population.  Yet, they are responsible for 21% of the school’s disciplinary actions. 

 

 

The Wisdom of Jesse Jackson 

 

One of the most fantastic revelations on Black crime came from the well known, Black preacher Jesse Jackson.   This Negro man seems to have far more intelligence and understanding about the real world out there than most White Americans.  In particular, Jesse seems to have some grip on the Black reality. 

 

Jackson said in 1999 that if he was walking on a street in Washington, DC at night and he heard some footsteps of someone approaching him from the rear, he hoped that if he turned around to see who it was that he would find a White person.  As he implied, it could be dangerous if he discovered that he was being followed by a Black. 

 

 

IQ Levels 

 

There is almost no need to even mention basic intelligence levels in the different humans/humanoids.  Philippe Rushton presents a whole array of statistics to show that Blacks are at the bottom of the totem pole on IQ.  There is a huge disproportionate difference between Caucasians and Mongoloids, as opposed to Negroes. 

 

If the reader has blindly and ignorantly believed the lies and deception fed the Western Christian public during the past 60 years on race, then it is easy to allow human gullibility on this subject.  But anyone with brains above the idiot level is assuredly aware of the sharp contrast between Blacks and other so-called human beings.  It is almost ludicrous to even attempt to talk about the differences. 

 

True, in a statistical bell shaped distribution of data, there may be a few Blacks with a decent IQ score.  But there aren’t many.  And most of those who do well seem to have a significant presence of other genes. 

 

Later chapters will broach more fully the linkage of demographics to crime and IQ levels.  More data will be cited from Rushton and another recent work on “The Bell Curve,” by two scientists named Herrnstein and Murray.  Suffice to say, the different races are not all the same! 

 

 

Black Rhythm 

 

One more of the important genetic features of Blacks is their inherent rhythm--along with their natural athletic abilities, as noted above (especially at running and running for short distances).  There is some quality or qualities in the ankles of Negroes (plus, those features mentioned by Rushton) which give them special attributes.  They may not have many brains.  But they make excellent musicians and can really dance. 

 

This writer has been in integrated, Pentecostal, Christian Churches and has seen some of the music get pepped up with a rock n’ roll beat.  Of course, most everybody begins clapping.  But little Negro kids are the most interesting.  As the rock beat picks up, they will inevitably start “jazzing.” 

 

In the early 21st century in Spokane, Washington, there is an inordinate presence of White women being followed about by little Black children (obviously suggesting the presence of interracial sex by the women).   The writer of this study was in a store in Spokane recently and saw one of these tragic exhibits.  The woman was fairly attractive and the child (about three or four years old) had an obvious African father. 

 

The kid was undisciplined.  So, upon entering the store, his animal instincts took over and he tried to see how much damage and destruction he could produce.  Several times, the woman told him to stop.  But he went on in his undisciplined fashion. 

 

All at once, the store started playing some rock music over the store intercom (perhaps for the supposed listening comfort and pleasure of the customers).  The wild, little brat stopped his destructive efforts and started dancing and jazzing.  For a fact, it would be unthinkable to see a little White or Asian kid do this in public.  But not so with an African.  They’ve got natural rhythm.  And it is genetic, as Rushton allowed.  

 

 

Peter Gabriel 

 

“The Week” of Jul 6, 2001 (p. 8), had a short news report on “Peter Gabriel with apes.”  This writer is unacquainted with Gabriel.  But apparently, he is a well known singer of the Rock scene (at least, the story referred to him as the “ex-Genesis singer”).  Anyway, Gabriel has a project underway to teach bonobo apes at Georgia State University to play keyboards. 

 

The article said that the bonobo apes are close genetically to chimpanzees.  Allegedly, they naturally appreciate music and rhythm and can understand 4,000 English words (this description suggests that these apes may have much in common with behemah hominoids/humanoids which will be defined in comments to follow). 

 

Possibly, the apes may even communicate telepathically (evidently with each other).  Apparently, Gabriel has undertaken a project of working with the apes and expressing concern over their future--if and when they are sent to zoos across America in coming days. 

 

Anyway, the significance of this story, as a news item in “The Week,” is that there are reasons to believe that these particular apes have some capacity for rhythm--evidently natural rhythm--much like Negroes are automatically in possession of.  Thus, it might be that Black Africans are not the only specie on earth with this unique propensity for natural rhythm. 

 

 

No Evolution in Nature! 

 

While the various evolutionary theories have found wide acceptance (even in Christendom, as noted earlier), it is interesting that these conditions can never ever happen in the real world from any two parents irrespective of their races.  The children of mixed marriages of non-homogeneous parents would merely be mongrel mixes of the two and would never create distinctively new, original races or kinds. 

 

With mixed, mongrel parents, there is no way to know exactly what the children will look like (as is also true with pups from mongrel dogs).  Conversely, true homogenous parents produce children who are totally kind after kind (omitting the gender issue).  Mongrel, non-homogeneous parents produce children who are likewise mongrels. 

 

In some few places in Scandinavia, it has been historically possible to go into a school room of six year-old children and find all of them looking exactly alike--very white skinned, blue eyed and even pure white hair (and not as dirty blondes, as arising from racial mixes or as gray haired persons from the reality of aging). 

 

It has also assuredly been true that in some parts of Black Africa, little six year old children in school have looked exactly alike.  The same observation can be made for small Mongoloid children in some early Indian tribes or in parts of Mongolia.  In these cases, the homogenous peoples produced children who were categorically full bloods--kind after kind, who all looked alike. 

 

But with every passing day, the possibilities of finding true Whites, Blacks, Yellows and Reds become increasingly more difficult since all of the earth’s populations are grossly miscegenating--as is now happening all other America (which is producing many, many, different mongrel mixes of humans/humanoids). 

 

 

Mongrels Cause Genetic Confusion 

 

In a mongrel society, as is true in modern America, it is impossible to go into the typical first grade class and find children who look alike (excepting the gender factor).  Like their mongrel parents, the typical American classroom is full of very different children.  The same occurs routinely in most sexual unions of mongrel peoples.  There is no way of knowing what children will look like. 

 

For certain, they will not be truly homogenous as is always the case in full blood or purebred species which do properly produce kind after kind (as the Scriptures ordained for the creation in Genesis 1). 

 

Since supposed White, Black and Red parents are themselves mongrels in most of today’s warped world, they do not correctly breed back kind after kind (as at creation).  True, Whites will produce White children, Reds will produce Red children and Blacks will produce Black children. 

 

But even here, the offspring are not genetically true full bloods in the sense of kind after kind.  Today, most so-called White, Black, Red and Yellow peoples are already profoundly mixed from centuries of prior miscegenation. 

 

In any case, mongrel peoples cause confusion among their offspring--in contrast to how things work out in nature among wild animals.  Offspring from any and all species should reproduce kind after kind (as is the Scriptural formula). 

 

Yet, among the offspring of both mongrel humans/humanoids and mongrel domesticated animals, confusion inevitably prevails from the vast ages of man-made crossings of kinds/species which should never have been crossed and mixed. 

 

However, it is manifestly true that as centuries of interbreeding have taken place and a modern population is fairly homogeneous (like Japan, Korea or the Philippines), the population does breed back toward a form of kind after kind to the extent that the mongrel parents are homogenous in the vein of the centuries of miscegenation and breeding toward uniformity. 

 

 

The Difference in Man and Nature 

 

Though it is almost, if not totally impossible, to find truly homogenous peoples in the world today (where parents are exactly alike and reproduce precise copies of themselves)--because of extensive miscegenation among humans/humanoids, the same thing cannot be said of wild animals in nature. 

 

Most wild animals in nature (when undefiled by man) have not faced the detrimental effects of miscegenation.  Thus, they are truly homogenous and reproduce exact copies of themselves.  Hence, one can look at and behold any number of various baby animals and they all (100%) are exactly alike in a litter (virtually indistinguishable to the naked eye) and are precise copies of their homogenous parents. 

 

While there are distinctive differences in gender or sex in some animals and especially as they grow older (certainly, male lions are distinguishable from female lionesses), wild animals (undefiled by man) are generally very homogenous and look precisely the same.  It is hard or virtually impossible to ascertain any differences in the young of any specie of wild animals, birds or fish (beyond the gender reality). 

 

Yes, in the very opening chapter of the (re)creation or (re)forming of the earth for habitation by Adam, YHWH established and ordained a great commandment in decreeing that kind are to reproduce after kind (Gen 1:11-12, 21, 24-25).  This is one of the primary commandments that was established by The ELOHIM to govern the entire creation.  As the Book says, it was “good.” 

 

Not only do miscegenated humans/humanoids fail to produce this “kind after kind” reality, but even many domesticated animals face the same plague because they have underwent illegal crossings by man in their ancestry.  As noted elsewhere herein, mongrel dogs are not going to reproduce true kind after kind in their pups. 

 

Miscegenation or illegal crossings in any specie opens the door to variety in their progeny. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 110--Evolutionary Problems IV

 

 

Evidence of the Different Genes 

 

Having mentioned previously the situation with the popular film actresses Sophia Loren from Italy and Ingrid Bergman from Sweden (with their very evident Asian genes of high cheek bones), it would be well to note a couple of relevant observations on this phenomenon.  It is a very common condition among people with heavy Mongoloid genes to produce a child with high cheek bones. 

 

Another fairly common reality of persons with heavy Mongoloid genes is to produce children with small eyes which sometimes even show a slight slant.  Popular movie actress Jane Seymour demonstrates this condition--with her very apparent Asian eyes and high cheek bones (no wonder--because she is reportedly part Asian Oriental in her racial ancestry). 

 

Famous cowboy movie star Roy Rogers had American Indian ancestry (as mentioned in some prior comments).  Rogers had small, slanted eyes which never really helped his movie career.  Sometimes, these small eyes can be beady or cat eyes. 

 

While Mongoloids and people with Mongoloid genes tend to have triangular or diamond shaped faces (which sometimes can seem to be extremely round, like a circle or ball, when seen from the front), Negroids and people with Black genes tend to have more square or blocked faces (which also can seem to be somewhat round in some cases--but in a different way [usually somewhat round at the corners of the square or block face] than as is true with Mongoloids). 

 

Significantly, there is a certain Black-White mix which produces at least male descendants who are stocky, big necked and reasonably large headed.  These persons often exhibit a very distinctive square or block face which is most recognizable--as in the case of J. Edgar Hoover, who will now be discussed. 

 

 

J. Edgar Hoover 

 

The famous John Edgar Hoover (who headed the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972) was a person of mixed blood--according to Black author Mildred “Millie” McGhee of Pike County, Mississippi, who was on the Coast to Coast AM radio show on July 30, 2000.  Her recent book was entitled “Secrets Uncovered:  J. Edgar Hoover--Passing for White?” 

 

Ms McGhee had heard all of her life that she was related to Hoover (her grandfather was said to be a second cousin to J. Edgar).  So things fell together in recent years for her to hire professional genealogist George Ott of Salt Lake City, UT to address it. 

 

Millie’s conclusions, cited on Coast to Coast, suggested that Millie’s believed ancestor, Elizabeth Allen (evidently her great-great-great grandmother--per “Secrets Uncovered,” p. 10, 216), was the great grandmother of Hoover, making him and Millie second cousins, twice removed (if Elizabeth was correctly Millie’s great-great-great grandmother). 

 

In Millie’s slave ancestry, some of the women were known as “bed warmers” in their masters’ homes. 

 

Per Millie’s family information, an apparent or accepted Black woman named Elizabeth Allen was reportedly a slave bed warmer in the household of a 19th century White Hoover family in Maryland.  Her mother before her was a bed warmer as well and had slept with a White man in Virginia to produce Elizabeth (who was taken to Maryland). 

 

Based on traditional knowledge, Millie’s book has it that Elizabeth was one-half white (ibid, p. 20).  But she might have been whiter since her line of ancestral women to Elizabeth were perhaps all bed warmers in White households for some time. 

 

Thus, there is a good chance that by the time Elizabeth came along, she had quite an array of White genes.  Thus, she was likely far removed from the typical black Negro. 

 

 

To Maryland 

 

In time, Elizabeth Allen, as a young woman, allegedly ended up warming the beds of William Hoover in Maryland or Washington city. 

 

Per Millie, her first child was a daughter named Emily (born in 1840), who was taken from her mother and removed to Pike County, Mississippi to be used as a bed warmer by both Christian Hoover and his son William Hoover (these Hoovers lived in Mississippi, but they were possible relatives of the Maryland Hoovers).  Per Millie (ibid, p. 216), she descended from Emily (born in 1840). 

 

In any case, Ott established that J. Edgar’s great grandmother was a woman named Elizabeth A. (born around 1814 in Virginia).  But Ott apparently found a marriage record for William Hoover to this Elizabeth A., suggesting that she was a Huff (which could have been her maiden name or it might have been that she was a widow named Huff). 

 

Moreover, Ott’s research with the 1870 MS census (ibid, p. 220-223) seems to suggest that the mother of Emily (born in 1840) was possibly another older Emily Allen who was born around 1814 in Maryland (Emily, born in Mississippi in 1840, was living with this Emily Allen and a Black man named Henry Allen in the 1870 census). 

 

Thus, this 1870 census record might allow that Millie’s known ancestor Emily Allen (born in 1840) was actually a daughter of this older Emily Allen who was born around 1814 in Maryland (suggesting that it was the older Emily was taken from her mother in Maryland and removed to Mississippi). 

 

This older Emily may have obtained the name Allen from Henry.  Or it’s possible that she brought it with her from Maryland, and Henry took her name on their marriage or cohabitation (since slaves took various family names when they were freed in the Civil War). 

 

In any case, this means that Millie’s believed ancestor, Elizabeth Allen, was apparently not the Elizabeth A. who was married to William Hoover. 

 

Since the tie to J. Edgar Hoover was based largely on Millie’s family tradition, it might be correct that Elizabeth A., wife of William Hoover in MD, was actually a sister to Emily Allen, born in MD near 1814.  Maybe they were both born of another Elizabeth Allen of Virginia who had been taken to MD at an early time (in which case, Millie’s grandfather and J. Edgar were third cousins instead of second cousins as reported). 

 

 

Black, For Sure 

 

J. Edgar Hoover was born in 1895.  But there are questions about the propriety of his family records.  A check of some of them seems to allow that there was perhaps some alterations (reportedly, J. Edgar used FBI agents to alter some of his family records).  So possibly, the believed ancestry of J. Edgar is false in whole or in part.  If true, his Black tie could have come from anywhere. 

 

Since Edgar was seemingly far too white to have had as much as 12.5% of Negro genes, it seems patently clear that his earliest Black ancestor (Elizabeth A., her mother or whomever) was a very white Negro (perhaps a high yellow or light brown Negro, as she was apparently desired as a bed warmer). 

 

In any case, per Ott, the Maryland William Hoover married Elizabeth A. to produce seven children in MD or DC.  One of her sons was a boy named John T. Hoover.  He evidently married a White woman and produced a son named Dickerson N. Hoover.  Dickerson became the supposed father of J. Edgar.  Thus, the reported Elizabeth A. was J. Edgar’s great grandmother. 

 

For sure, J. Edgar did show enormous signs of being a biracial person.  But whether his Black genes came from Elizabeth A. or from some other source is uncertain. 

 

Pictures of his alleged birth mother (Anna M. Scheitlin or Strilein) show her to have some of the same dominate Negro characteristics, suggesting that she also may have contributed to J. Edgar’s evident Black genes. 

 

The distinctive appearance of J. Edgar (stocky, big shouldered, thick necked, big headed, protruding chin, large jaw-bones, and square-chubby faced) is one that appears from time to time in variously mixed White-Black people (and particularly when coupled with dark coloring and/or black hair). 

 

Film star Emmanuel Goldenberg (alias Edward G. Robinson) and Communism’s Karl Marx (both Amalekites) each had this distinctive look, suggesting a certain White-Black mix of genes. 

 

While his face is not particularly chubby faced, it is important to note that popular country music star Johnny Cash has a very square shaped face with distinctive jaw bones.  As he is an accomplished musician, he surely must have a fair share of Black genes in his genealogy. 

 

While most of the Kennedy family members don’t particularly show evidence of Negro genes, certainly US Senator Ted Kennedy does with his very square or blocked face look.  When one adds in Teddy’s chubby facial attributes it makes a good case for him to have very clear Black genes (with his Irish Edomite ancestry, this makes sense). 

 

 

Not Rare At All 

 

This appearance in mixed White or Black people is actually not rare at all.  It can be easily found in many public figures. 

 

Besides Goldenberg, actors Brian Keith and Brian Dennehy both seem (or have seemed to be in the case of Keith, as he is now deceased) top heavy with very thick necks, big shoulders, big chests and narrow hips.  Their heads and faces have not been as square or blocked-type as with Hoover.  But otherwise, their faces are/were noticeably still a little chubby. 

 

This writer grew up in the 1940s.  Back in those days, there used to be a fairly popular movie series about the Bowery Boys with a ham actor named Leo Gorcey.  Gorcey was a short, small man and fairly dark in color.  His face/head was not totally block shaped, but it was not far from it.  For sure, he had a chubby face, protruding chin and distinctive jaw bones which must immediately suggest some Black ancestry. 

 

Ernest Borgnine, Robert Urich and William Bendix were other well known figures in American movies and TV who seemed to have definite Black genetic characteristics--with broad shoulders, thick necks, chubby faces and very protruding chins. 

 

Bendix furthermore had the distinctive Hittite nose (as will be described hereafter) and showed evidence of Edomite genes (evidently from an Irish-Phoenician heritage). 

 

Likewise, Danny Thomas, Ernie Kovacs, Telly Savalas and Tennessee Ernie Ford were other well known actors who definitely had more than a fair share of dark genes.  It’s hard to say whether all of their Colored genes came from Negro or Mongoloid ancestry.  But as dark as they were, the better guess would be that all four of them had a Negro ancestor. 

 

For a female representation on this theme, one can look at modern film actress Velerie Bertinelli.  She has some of these same genetic facial features (square or block type).  Likewise, popular TV personality Rosie O’Donnell (a known butch lesbian) clearly shows strong evidence of Black genes (besides her obvious Edomite genes). 

 

The former first lady of the United States, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, wife of John F. Kennedy, showed very prevalent Negro genes in the bone structure of her face (the distinctive chin and heavy jaw bones), possibly from her French ancestry (the French have been notorious for crossing with Blacks).  Mrs Kennedy (later Mrs Aristotle Onassis) was thought by many to be a very beautiful and glamorous woman. 

 

In mentioning Bertinelli, Bouvier, Kennedy, Savalas and Kovacs, it must be noted that the lineage or ancestry of these persons was all foreign and not historic American in the traditional sense. 

 

 

Many People

 

Probably, the ancestry of these individuals and multitudes more like them was Southern or Southeastern European where miscegenation profoundly affected the populations.  Thomas was an Arab-American to define the origin of his dark genes. 

 

The same genetic phenomenon also surfaces among some mixed Blacks.  The famous Fats Waller (a piano player, singer and band leader in the 1940s) was a clear Negro man (with many obvious White genes, since he was not really black in color).  Waller had this same appearance with a stocky neck, big head and square/block/chubby face. 

 

Though Waller had big eyes, manifest Negro lips and a big flat nose (all common Black characteristics), he was not that much different in appearance from J. Edgar Hoover or Emmanuel Goldenberg. 

 

It is a certainty that a particular mix of Black-White genes produces the distinctive appearance of people like Hoover, Goldenberg, Marx, Cash, Kennedy, Bertinelli, Bouvier, O’Donnell, Keith, Dennehy, Bendix, Waller and so forth. 

 

 

Anatomy 

 

While both true Blacks and Whites seem to present well proportioned and symmetric bodies, for some strange reason, a mongrel mix of Black and White genes can produce a child with very thick necks and heavy shoulders (as described above). 

 

Females with a Black-White mix of genes particularly can turn out to be stocky, big shouldered and with narrow hips.  Somehow, many of these women don’t seem to be very feminine in appearance. 

 

Apparently, Red-White mixes can also produce children with disproportionate bodies, apparently tending back the other way with thin necks and shoulders and wide hips.  In this regard, actresses Esther Williams, Ava Gardner, and Jane Russell all suggested Indian ancestry.  Gardner and Russell both could have been as much as 25% Indian.  Some Red-White mixed women are notorious for wide hips. 

 

Beyond the wide hips among some White-Red mixes, it must be noted that all supposed Blacks are not narrow hipped.  The Hottentots of South Africa were noted for being wide hipped.  The remains of one of these large hipped women (named Saarti Baartman) was brought to France for display in 1800 because she was so incredibly wide hipped (May 3, 2002, “The Week,” p. 7). 

 

While the genealogy of the Hottentots is not clear to this writer, there has to be a suspicion that there is some presence of other genes in their ancestry (possibly Red and/or something else in a mongrel mix to cause the very large, wide hips). 

 

Therefore, it does seem possible for some genetically mixed Negroes to produce these huge wide hips.  So it must be allowed that some Black and other mixes can also produce females with very wide hips (depending upon the other genes present). 

 

Also, many Negro women (especially those with mixed White genes) can tend to be exceptionally big and fat (all over). 

 

 

Another Sample 

 

The writer of this study once knew of one more especially interesting case.  There was a very Caucasian man who married a woman (who was ostensibly White). 

 

The woman had a block appearing face; a thick, protruding, lower forehead near the eyebrows (with the rest of the forehead receding back to the hair line, similar in some ways to the foreheads of chimpanzees or apes); a pronounced, protruding chin; heavy jaw bones; and other facial features that clearly showed evidence of Negro genes. 

 

The heavy, square, distinctive bone structure of her head/face was very similar to what one can readily detect among many mixed Negroes with White genes (of course, most Negroes, including those with White genes, also generally have large, flat, wide noses and thick, protruding lips). 

 

In some ways, it looks like some of these mixed persons have had their heads placed in a vise so that as they grew and developed pressure was applied from the top down and from the bottom up under their chins and jaws (like the Flattop character in the old Dick Tracy comic series) to produce a very square or block shape face/head with the protruding chins and jaw bones, and thick lower foreheads and eyebrows (this appearance is very common among Blacks). 

 

This couple under review had at least two boys.  The boys grew up with square type heads/faces (one was very pronounced) with stocky necks, big shoulders (one also had a very big chest), protruding chins, strong jaw bones and thick, protruding, lower foreheads near the eyebrows (which were similar in many ways to Hoover’s anatomy). 

 

In temperament, both of these boys were far removed from their father.  The Negro genetic influence came through to dominate much of their mentality and thinking (which was very perceiving and irresponsible--like Blacks).  The father could never understand his two sons--since they simply could not think or act like him or the other White people in his family. 

 

The protruding chins and jaw bones seemed to predominate in this woman’s other descendants (for at least several more generations). 

 

These problems have some presence in some other miscegenated Whites.  Hollywood comedian Bob Hope and actress Alexis Smith (of the 1940s and 1950s) both had such protruding chins and jaw bones.  Since Hope was such a big talking extrovert, it also makes one be very suspicious that he must have had some Negro genes. 

 

This writer has known of other persons over the ages with similar chins, and it is very easy to spot such chins in the public at large.  Large, square, blocked, protruding jaw bones are not always quite as obvious.  For sure, they seem to be a genetic disposition of some persons with Black genes. 

 

 

Other People as Well 

 

This writer could mention several other illustrations of this same basic genetic disposition in certain people.  Former US President Abraham Lincoln showed strong evidence of Negro genes in his head and facial bone structure (per an Internet report, genetic research on Lincoln’s relatives suggest that he had some genetic problems--specifically a genetic disorder called Marfan syndrome and perhaps ataxia). 

 

His black hair and dark complexion was a tip-off that he had something in his ancestry besides White genes.  Side photos of his head showed the very revealing, protruding chin and strong jaw bones and a thick, lower forehead (with large eyebrows), as found in mixed White-Black miscegenation. 

 

Lyndon Johnson was another US president who exhibited very similar physical conditions.  LBJ had a protruding chin and distinctive jaws. 

 

Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was in the news in late 2001 and early 2002 because of India’s conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir.  The controlled media was ablaze with pictures of Vajpayee.  The Jan 14, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 32) had a close-up photo of Atal which demonstrated a classic racial mixture with a heavy Negro presence.  Atal had a square, blocked, chubby face and very protruding chin. 

 

This same “Time” magazine (p. 33) had a good photo of the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.  Pervez was a much lighter colored man with heavy Mongoloid genes, as outlined in his high cheek bones.  Both the Indians and Pakistanis will be addressed at some length in subsequent chapters. 

 

In the religious field, one should take note of radio preacher Herbert W. Armstrong.  A picture of his father in “The Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong” (v. I, p. 56) shows this same square or block head features commonly found among biracial people with mixed Black-White genes. 

 

As a young man, HWA himself was very dark and showed heavy Negro genes in his facial bone structure--plus probable genes of Cain which contributed to his small size (ibid, p. 95, 192). 

 

 

More Illustrations 

 

There is another interesting realty in some Black-White mixes. 

 

This writer knows of a family with mixed genes where the appearance of some members of this family have the protruding chins, large jaw bones, thick lower foreheads and actually even an element or semblance of a black streak around the eyes (near the eyelids, just above and/or just below them). 

 

Actress Jean Harlow (of the 1930s) also seemed to have a dark coloring around her eyes (either that or Hollywood purposely colored them dark).  Moreover, Ms Harlow similarly showed strong evidence of a Black-White mix in the bone structure of her face.  It seems a certainty that she had some Negro ancestry. 

 

While former President Warren Harding (1921-1923) did not demonstrate Black bone structure in his head and facial features, photographs of him suggest that he, too, had some black coloring around his eyes.  This reality could be a tip-off that Harding had some Negro genes.  This is a most interesting condition and one not commonly found among many people. 

 

Because true Negroes genetically tend to have narrow hips, it is interesting that many so-called Whites with Black genes also tend in the same direction.  Females may not show it much when they are young girls. 

 

But as these women age, some of them lean toward being stocky with big shoulders and narrow hips (as was outlined earlier). 

 

Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was an older woman who clearly showed evidence of her African genes.  The very physique of Golda Meir was such that it is hard to imagine being married to her (stocky and narrow hips).  She was not an appealing woman physically. 

 

Conversely, so-called Whites, with significant Mongoloid genes, tend to be wide hipped, as pointed out above  Some miscegenated European-type women (with Mongoloid genes) can grow extremely broad across the bottom as they grow older (particularly after bearing children). 

 

Beyond these phenomena, it is also true that people with certain mixes of genes can lean toward being just excessively fat and obese.  This genetic disposition in numbers of modern people is a tragic reality of interracial sex.  Many such mixed people have a weight problem and it is no easy proposition to deal with it (since it is genetic). 

 

 

Heads 

 

Moreover, one of the fallouts of miscegenation is that the resulting children can be deformed and have physical, genetic blemishes which affect their health over the years.  For example, maybe the children’s heads are extra large (out of proportion) for the rest of their bodies (as noted above in some White-Black mixes). 

 

Some Mandarin Chinese (mixture of Mongoloid and other racial genes) offer classic illustrations of this reality.  Please note the proportion or size of heads among some Asians in relation to their bodies--especially Chinese. 

 

Another classic illustration of this was the cases of popular Hollywood actors Brian Donlevy and Humphrey Bogart and even TV personality Ed Sullivan to some extent (evidently now all deceased).  Their heads were disproportionate to the rest of their bodies. 

 

This problem of having a disproportionately large head in comparison with the rest of the body is a phenomenon which can surface in the production of mules from crossing donkeys with horses.  Of course, this type of a cross is totally illegal by YHWH’s Word and it results in a real aberration. 

 

In terms of size, mules can be counted upon in being larger than donkeys and smaller than horses.  And in most cases, their heads will be inevitably larger in proportion to the rest of their bodies.  Surely, there are other disproportionate aspects of their bodies.  The point is that the big headed problem is not one simply for human beings.  Manifestly, mules clearly demonstrate the dilemma. 

 

Moreover, maybe some children’s teeth are too big for the size of their mouths.  Many persons have too many, big teeth for their mouths and have to have some of them removed in order to avoid a grotesque dilemma in appearance and in eating.  Perhaps some internal organs are out of proportion, size or shape vis-à-vis their bodies and other organs and on and on in terms of genetic defects. 

 

 

Legs 

 

Moreover, there is another feature common to Orientals in general, and even among other mixed persons somewhat.  Many racially mixed people tend to have short legs in proportion to the rest of their bodies (especially in White-Red mixes).  So big heads and short legs can be a problem with some persons from the interracial mixes of humans/humanoids 

 

 

A Common Problem 

 

By the way, Ian Punnett was hosting the Coast to Coast program when Millie McGhee was on the program.  He remarked that George Ott says that 23% of White Americans have Black ancestry while some 75% of Blacks have White ancestry.  In view of the heavy Black genes in Southern Europeans and Hispanics, it is correctly true that the percentage of Whites with Black genes is substantially greater than 23%. 

 

Huge portions of the so-called Hispanic peoples have significant Black African genes.  This reality is common in both Portuguese and Spanish derived peoples--though, in fairness, the Portuguese have been much worse than the Spanish in practicing racial miscegenation.  The basic racial stock in Portugal and Portuguese linked Latinos show heavy Black genetic representations. 

 

Some Hispanic areas in the Caribbean (like Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, etc) are virtually 100% of mixed races.  All or almost all Puerto Ricans and Cubans seem to have Black genes.  As for as the rest of the Caribbean, where so-called Blacks live, one finds Negro people who almost without exception have White or Hamitic genes (Haiti, the Bahamas, Trinidad, etc). 

 

The interracial mixing in the Caribbean area is enormous.  The same thing can be said about huge parts of Central and South America.  Some areas, like Brazil (with its linkage to Portugal), are extremely mixed.  While there has been much European mixing with Indians in Mexico, it is also true that huge numbers of Mexicans have Black genes. 

 

It is also relevant to note that whereas much of the racial crossings with Blacks in American and Northern European stock have involved basically White people, the crosses in Hispanic lands lean more toward a crossing of the historic small-boned Yellow-Brown Hamitic stock with Blacks. 

 

Interestingly, Southern Europeans, with this basic Hamitic stock, have often crossed much with Africans over the years, causing a huge presence of Black genes in their populations (as will be detailed below and in later chapters). 

 

 

Big Hamites? 

 

Hamitic peoples (who are basically a mixture from their very beginnings) also have distinctive genetic characteristics and problems.  Though these persons are small boned and small sized, as cited above, they can sometimes get some size through miscegenation with other larger humans/humanoids (like with Whites and Reds). 

 

Since it is true that the presence of mixed genes may introduce some of the characteristics cited above for Black-White mixes (like being top heavy with thick necks, big shoulders and narrow hips and having block faces/heads), there is some prospect of these features appearing occasionally (at least sometimes, but not often) in Yellow-Brown Hamites mixes with persons carrying both Black and White genes. 

 

For example, this writer once met a White appearing man whose father was a Mexican (to be described in a later chapter).  His mother was evidently a very white Danish woman.  Physically, he carried many of her genes.  He was tall and appeared to be White.  However, he was a little top heavy with a thick neck, big shoulders and chest.  From the waist down, he was small. 

 

Of course, these very characteristics are reflective of Black-White racial mixes.  Obviously, in the case of this man under discussion, he took the genes of mainly his White mother and some of the Black genes from his Mexican father (while physically ignoring many of the Hamitic genes of his Mexican father, which would have made him smaller in statute and slender). 

 

 

More on Hamites 

 

Young Hamite women can be very beautiful and desirable and particularly since they are so small in stature (despite being darker in color).  Of course, it was one of these women (of the Philistines, from Ham) who enticed the historic Samson.  We all know the story of Delilah and how she caused the downfall of Samson. 

 

But these attractive women typically become fat and obese as they age (and especially, if they have a heavy preponderance of Black or Asian genes somewhere back in their genealogy). 

 

As noted elsewhere herein, film start Elizabeth Taylor is a person with apparent mixed genes.  It’s a good bet that she has some heavy Hamite genes and who knows what else (maybe Negro genes with her big eyes).  When she was young, she was pretty, slender and small.  But as she aged, she became fat.  As a friend of mine once noted, poor Elizabeth has been grossly used, misused and abused (at least, in her sex life). 

 

It is very fascinating that the common crossing of Yellow-Brown Hamites in Southern Europe and Latin America with Negroes do not produce the same physical reactions as so often occurring in Black-White mixes. 

 

As discussed above, there seems to be some propensity for Black-White mixed people to have square shaped heads and faces, protruding chins and jaw bones, thick necks, big shoulders and generally to be big and heavy from the waist up (like in the case of Emmanuel Goldenberg, Brian Keith and Brian Dennehy, cited previously). 

 

But these characteristics, so common with Black-White mixes, do not seem to always appear with any frequency in Hamite-African mixes.  However, it seems that the basic small stature of the Cainite genes often prevail even in crosses with Blacks. 

 

Take the case of the Aborigines/Australoids of Australia and the Pacific.  Despite their likelihood of several genetic mixes, many of them seem fairly slender and small, evidently from the influence of their Hamite genes (the case with Australian actress Sigrid Thornton will be broached in a later chapter to demonstrate this phenomenon). 

 

 

The Nose 

 

There is an interesting feature on the issue of the human nose in Hamite/Cainite crosses with Blacks which should be mentioned here.  This writer has seen this nose phenomenon more commonly in Polynesians who are a very racially mixed group of people. 

 

It seems to be fairly easy to spot a Polynesian who has some strong presence of Negro genes (which many of them have because of the mix of their small-boned Hamitic stock with Blacks and others over the centuries).  Some Polynesians have a very distinctive Negro nose (except it is often not quite so large or profuse, as those found among more racially pure Negroes). 

 

This writer has seen Polynesians with small Negro noses.  They can be somewhat distinct for their small sizes (in contrast to the true Black noses which tend to be big, flat, puffy and wide with large nostrils).  Some Polynesians exhibit the Negro nose, but their noses are often small--despite being wide and flat and with large nostrils. 

 

Conversely, Caucasian people have long, straight, narrow noses (with small nostrils) which tend to stick out from their faces. 

 

With much travel and presence in Micronesia, this writer has not found this small, flat, wide Negro type of small noses as being extensively prominent in Micronesia as one would first suppose since the Micronesians have far more Black genes than the Polynesians. 

 

Instead, those Micronesians with the heavy Black genes usually have the larger Negro noses (distinctively big, wide, flat and with large nostrils) than what one can sometimes find among Polynesians. 

 

Among some Whites of European extraction, it is also possible to find some small noses that sort of come to a stick up point in a perk or perky fashion. 

 

The situation with Bob Hope and his possible Black genes was mentioned in preceding comments.  His nose was certainly not formed in the traditional Caucasian manner of being straight and narrow and protruding from the head.  Hope’s nose had a definite point or tip on it which was pushed up slightly. 

 

In the immediate post WWII days, an extremely beautiful woman named Jennifer Jones arrived on the Hollywood scene.  She became a top flight star who received much favorable press over the years.  Despite her beauty, she had a small perky nose, but it was not flat or wide.  However, like the situation with Bop Hope, Jennifer’s nose definitely was not a classic Caucasian nose. 

 

This writer has seen many Chinese with the same type of small, perky noses.  Since the Chinese are a mix of Mongoloid and other genes (White and some Yellow-Brown in Southern China, as one approaches Indo-China, Burma and Thailand), it clearly suggests that these small perky noses probably are a product of Red crosses with others--perhaps Whites and/or maybe Hamites. 

 

White or Hamite crosses with Negroes can also produce small noses.  But these Black genes tend to make these noses be somewhat more flat, wider and with somewhat pronounced and distinct nostrils (as sometimes found among Polynesians, per the above comments)--in comparison with those from Hamite-Mongoloid mixes where the noses are much narrower and the nostrils are smaller. 

 

 

The Hittite Nose, Revisited 

 

While on the subject of noses, it would not be right to proceed without acknowledging the famous aquiline, eagle, hooked and/or figure six nose as found among some peoples of Hittite heritage.  This type of a nose will be addressed in some detail in later chapters which comment upon the Amalekites who seem to have a disproportionate share of this type of nose. 

 

Incidentally, on the presence of this extremely recognizable Hittite nose, it should be stated that this type of a nose is to be found in certain Europeans, along with the Amalekites (as will be described in subsequent chapters). 

 

Some years ago, this writer met a Chinese woman on Saipan Island.  She had a airplane ticket and a visa, and was in transit to Australia after a short stop on Saipan.  Importantly, she looked very Chinese in eyes and cheek bones.  But this woman had an extremely visible and distinguishing Hittite nose.  It was a classic Hittite nose.   Obviously, she had a Hittite in her ancestry somewhere.  

 

 

Eyes 

 

In terms of eyes, it seems evident that Mongoloids generally have small eyes while Whites and Blacks have larger eyes (Negroes have the largest eyes of all).  Of course, these features translate to the mixing of the races. 

 

Preceding comments have already broached the eye feature arising in some crosses (particularly those involving Asians with Caucasians).  Many people with heavy Asian genes have often very small eyes and/or slanted eyes (so-called cat eyes). 

 

Conversely, it appears that certain White-Black crosses can produce really large eyes that are very distinctive (some people take big eyes, at least with predominantly White women, as a sign of beauty). 

 

Many Negroes with White genes (like Coretta Scott King, Black politician Jesse Jackson and the previously mentioned Fats Waller) have very large eyes.  Of course, this phenomenon also appears among some Whites (apparently with some presence of Negro or other genes).  The mixed J. Edgar Hoover had noticeably large eyes. 

 

The popular actress Joan Collins (who was on TV for years) had both big eyes and high cheek bones.  Moreover, she showed her Hamite origin in size and hair.  Thus, it would seem that Joan had some Negro and Mongoloid genes, along with her Amalek-Hamite heritage (the Amalekite ties to the Hamites will be assessed in later chapters). 

 

Bob Hope clearly showed his Negro genes with his large eyes--in addition to his distinctive chin, jaw bones and facial bone structure (as allowed in preceding commentary herein).  Also, Jackie Gleason clearly showed his Negro genes in his big eyes and chubby, square face. 

 

Nothing further needs to be said on the eye theme here--beyond recognizing its presence and manifestations in particularly mixed blooded people. 

 

 

Tongues and Speech 

 

The April 26, 2002, “The Week” (p. 7) had a story from South Korea on the growing popularity of Koreans to have their children undergo surgery to supposedly help them physiologically be able to speak English better. 

 

The operation being done is a lingual frenectomy, involving the snipping of the tissue beneath an abnormally short tongue to allow it to reach the roof of the mouth.  When the tongue is too short, it adversely affects the ability of the person to pronounce the R’s and L’s used in English. 

 

While there is some argument from doctors over the source of the problem (some say that it is not physiological, but is simply the reality that the R sound is not present in the Korean language), the fact remains that numbers of Korean doctors and people believe that the problem is one of genetics.  Accordingly, they attempt to correct it by this surgery. 

 

Frankly, this writer would just suggest that the whole subject makes sense because the Koreans are an interracial mix of some sort (with White, Black, Hamite and Mongoloid genes).  It is also fascinating that the problem does not seem to surface as readily among the Japanese or Chinese.  It may largely be a Korean-Negro problem, for whatever the reason might be. 

 

Interestingly, the typical Negro also has an enormous problem in properly enunciating English and certain other European languages (they can’t pronounce the R sound in English).  This difficulty exists with Blacks from Africa, America, Europe and the Caribbean area.  This Negro problem is probably the source of the Korean problem as the Koreans have some heavy Black genes. 

 

When Blacks talk, it is usually fairly easy to recognize them as being Negroes at once (for whatever the reason might be).  In America, this Black talk is called “Ebonics.”  It will be more fully described and elaborated upon in a later chapter herein. 

 

 

Skin Coloring? 

 

Although this writer presently lacks any scientific knowledge on the subject, some source of information came to me many years ago suggesting that a child can never be darker in skin coloring than either of its parents.  In other words, brown or muddy colored parents cannot possibly produce a very Black child. 

 

This condition, if true, completely destroys the theories of most evolutionists and particularly people like Herbert W. Armstrong (as discussed previously herein with his view that Adam and Eve were White, but that she produced ovaries which carried the mixed genes of other races). 

 

In other words, a mixed couple or a couple with mixed genes cannot possibly produce a pure Black or pure Red child.  Manifestly, there is no way that two so-called White people (regardless of how mixed their gene lines could be) could ever produce a pure Black or Red child. 

 

 

Hair 

 

As pointed out in previous comments, it goes without even having to say that Black hair in people come from Negroid, Mongoloid and/or Hamite genes.  True Caucasians are white-haired persons.  Obviously, the color of black hair is an enormously strong quality in miscegenated humans/humanoids. 

 

Too, kinky hair is definitely a very strong Negro trait.  Sometimes, in miscegenated families, the kinky hair problem persists for generations--usually, in the vein of so-called “naturally curly” hair.  Some of the Edomite Khazars and Irish show this reaction from time to time.  Both Karl Marx and Edward G. Robinson seemed to have these persisting genes. 

 

 

Reproductive/Sex Organs 

 

There is a feeling among some men who have been involved in sex with non-White females that their anatomy is different from White women.  This writer has heard this view from various male colleagues over the years.  An old saying is that when the missionaries arrived in America they taught the natives to have sex face to face (whereas earlier, they had sex like dogs and other animals).  

 

This writer must confess much sex sin over the years.  Certainly, there is shame on my part, and these words are in sadness.  Anyway, after being with different Asian women (Japanese, Chinese, Filipino and Korean), this writer can verify that the sex organs of those women are different from White women.  They are not the same!  Evidently, the same is true with Black women and White women with heavy Black or Asian genes. 

 

 

More From Ott 

 

George Ott also indicated that historically mulatto/mixed blooded children born in America with Negro ancestry were commonly classified as Blacks in pertinent official records.  Any presence of Negro genes made a person a Negro in White eyes.  If these mongrels grew up in a household with so-called Negro parents, they were Blacks and irrespective of how white they may have been in color or appearance. 

 

Television host Bryant Gumbel and both Mr and Mrs Colin Powell in the modern world are all so-called Blacks, but with enormous white genes.  Even O. J. Simpson has a lot of white genes.  Obviously, OJ’s mixed children produced with a White woman have substantial white genes. 

 

With some Negroes being this white in color, it would not take many more generations of crossing back with Whites before the children could easily pass as Caucasians.  As some of these mixed children reached adulthood and left home, they often would begin to hold themselves out as Whites--if they were white enough to be accepted in the White community. 

 

Per Ott, thousands have made and do make the transition from Black to White annually in the US.  Though J. Edgar Hoover probably knew about his racial status, he obviously held himself out as a White man most or all of his adult life. 

 

Hoover was very ashamed of his Black ancestry and went to great effort to sanitize many of his records in Washington and Maryland which proved it (as pointed out in preceding comments, he used FBI agents for this purpose).  There was some concern in Millie McGhee’s immediate family about discussing the Hoover connection.  Millie’s grandfather discouraged the talk for fear of being murdered by Hoover. 

 

After Millie appeared publicly on Coast to Coast, the US Justice Department began an immediate investigation into her activities.  This department contacted her and ordered her to turn over all of her records and information to them.  So far, she has refused to do so.  This is strange that Justice would demonstrate this concern over Hoover, who has been dead since 1972. 

 

 

But They Breed Toward Uniformity 

 

Howbeit, given sufficient time, the descendants of racially mixed parents will eventually breed toward uniformity--especially in confined and limited areas (and not toward more uncalled for variation). 

 

Again, when Pacific Islanders interbreed, they collectively tend toward uniformity and not more diversity--although there can remain the rare, limited throwback question under discussion, as outlined by the checkered giant rabbit situation where this man created class of rabbits carry the mixed genes of earlier ancestors. 

 

Well maybe, animals can be interbred on the basis of throwbacks in man’s controlled environment (to produce a reversal of the throwback characteristic, as discussed earlier).  But they simply do not interbreed randomly in nature that way.  Too, there are clear limits in throwbacks and a demand that the diverse genes be genetically present to allow the throwback. 

 

Categorically, human beings at large do not practice such controlled, man-made breeding patterns.  Collective humans/humanoids all over the globe interbreed without regard to any discernible selectivity or logic (beyond occasional beauty, money, power and brawn). 

 

As noted earlier, many animals breed on the basis of the sheer strength of the most powerful males to dominate the breeding cycles.  This has nothing to do with any throwback characteristics--except in the context of power and strength. 

 

Moreover, what tends to happen, in fact, is that different kinds miscegenate toward a reduction or elimination of distinct differences, as noted above.  In other words, random interbreeding (as would typically occur in nature with kind after kind breeding) does not produce new breeds. 

 

But rather, interbreeding of different kinds eliminates diversity and results in a motion toward uniformity and a more homogeneous population.  Even different kinds of humans/humanoids (collectively left to themselves) interbreed to produce uniformity and not diversity, as the historical record conclusively proves from Japan, Polynesia, the Philippines, Iceland and the rest of the world. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 111--Evolutionary Problems V

 

 

Crossing of Kinds Is Illegal 

 

Beyond YHWH’s law at Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9-11, previously discussed, there are a host of other Scriptures which conclusively prove that man’s forced interbreeding between different kinds is sin and wrong. 

 

At the creation, YHWH’s principle on marriage is set in Genesis 1:11-31, where He stated reproduction to be kind after kind, which He defined as good. 

 

Other texts follow-up with the details on prohibiting miscegenation and interracial sex (Gen 6:1-9 [yes, Noah was perfect in his racial genealogy, kind after kind--Gen 6:9]; 24:1-4; 27:46; 28:1-2; Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23-30; 19:19; 20:15-16, 22-26; 21:14-15; Num 25:1; 36:8; Deut 7:1-3; 17:15; 22:9-11; 23:1-9; 27:21; Josh 23:11-13; Jud 3:5-8; Ezra 9:1 to 10:44; Neh 9:2; 10:30; 13:3, 23-29; Prov 5:10, 20; 6:24; 7:5; Jer 2:21-23; 31:27; Dan 2:43; Matt 24:37-39; Lu 17:26-27; I Cor 10:8; Heb 12:16 [yes, Esau was a fornicator in his marriages involving miscegenation--Gen 26:34-35; 27:46; 28:6; 36:2-18]; Rev 2:14); and for sure, it is bad for an Israelite or ger woman to marry a nokri/nekar male to rule over her (Ex 21:7-8; Deut 17:15; Joel 2:17). 

 

As suggested in previous chapters, The CREATOR did not create all of the different mongrel kinds and varieties of humans/humanoids, dogs, ducks, cattle and so forth that man has produced over the past 6,000 years. 

 

YHWH did not make the modern Filipino, Scottish, Irish, Polynesian, German, French, Italian and Ethiopian races.  He did not create the approximately six billion mongrel peoples that now inhabit planet earth. 

 

Of all of the “domesticated” breeds of animals and birds now in existence, YHWH may have created a few of them, but not all of them.  The huge variety of kinds/varieties found among so-called human beings and domesticated animals and birds did not come from the creative acts of YHWH.  They did not materialize through any supposed evolutionary actions in raw, undefiled nature.  They were largely produced by man. 

 

These thousands of varieties of humans/humanoids and domesticated animals and birds came about because man has historically refused to obey and adhere to YHWH’s laws, as outlined in preceding presentations. 

 

Man has rebelled and chosen to illegally mix not only himself with each other, but he has even taken animals and birds (both domesticated and wild) and forced them to mix and cross contrary to the natural created order. 

 

YAH created the three, basic, human/humanoid races; the total of the different kinds/varieties of wild species in nature; and some varieties/kinds of domesticated animals and birds.  YHWH made this entire creation perfect. 

 

Man has come along and done his best to illegally mix-up the creation to form a whole assortment of mongrel humans/humanoids and mongrel domesticated animals and birds (which are far removed from the original creation). 

 

 

The Fall Out of Illegal Crossings 

 

Having mentioned The ELOHIM’s Torah prohibiting the crossing of different kinds, some persons will come forward and try to argue against YHWH’s wisdom and thinking in His Torah.  Certainly, real believers and followers of YESHUA would merely accept the Torah and obey it without question. 

 

But rebellious, disobedient people (who will not follow YHWH’s Torah) do not understand that there are important, adverse, physical, genetic factors involved in unscriptural crossing and interbreeding.  Disobedience of YAH’s Torah makes for problems in the children or offspring of mixed kinds (Ex 20:4-6).  For sure, such crossings produce a curse (Deut 27:21). 

 

 

The Health Issue 

 

Thus, there are many bad fall-outs from miscegenation.  Children can be born with certain types of genetic curses.  It is important to note that genetically more-pure people in all of the major races do not incline towards the previously mentioned aberrations in physique and bone structure.  It is a product of miscegenation.  Truly, miscegenation was never YHWH’s will or way. 

 

Clearly, many (not all) genetic diseases and inherited defects seem to be the result of illegal miscegenation.  In some families, certain health difficulties tend to surface more than in other families in the general population.  For example, some family groups tend to have heart problems and heart attacks while others seem to produce other organ problems (like defective pancreases causing diabetes or something else). 

 

Of course, there is the historic problem that certain diseases identify with certain racial or ethnic groups (assuredly here, the identity is linked to certain racial or ethnic groups as developed or perpetuated in specific forms of miscegenation). 

 

Thus, diseases like Tay-Sachs and Usher Syndrome are linked to Ashkenazi Jews for some reason or reasons (Jun 16, 2003, “Jerusalem Report,” p. 32-33).  Sickle cell anemia is a problem among certain Blacks for whatever reason. 

 

The Nov/Dec 1997 “Prophecy Flash” magazine (p. 3) quoted an article from “USA Today” of Jul 18, 1997, on genetics, which noted that tests can now determine genetic predisposition to 450 different medical disorders.  The story said that some 23 members of a Goldman family in Irving, CA had a genetic abnormality which can cause irregular heart rhythms. 

 

A similar report on “Young and Bipolar” (by Jeffrey Kluger with Sora Song) surfaced in the Aug 19, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 39-51).  The bipolar or manic depression problem has been recognized for ages and reportedly affected famous people like Lord Byron, Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Schumann, Vincent Van Gogh, Virginia Woolf, Ernest Hemingway and Curt Cobain. 

 

The “Time” article made the case that the disease is genetic and may be traceable to ten different chromosomes.  Manifestly, there are all kinds of problems in people which can clearly be sourced to their genes. 

 

While uninformed evolutionists would try to account for all of these problems by alleging that they are a result of “sudden mutations” which were passed along to offspring, the truth seems to be that they are often the result of illegal miscegenation (historically, in a family and in defiance of YHWH’s Torah).  In nature, offspring with these deficiencies would not survive (where survival of the fittest prevails). 

 

 

Man-made Acts 

 

Otherwise, it is additionally allowable that radiation injuries, poisoning from toxic chemicals, or some other stupid “man-made” act or action might cause some genetic damage or sudden mutation to some person or animal which affects their offspring. 

 

In a book on “The Language of Genes” (p. 80), Dr Steve Jones notes that genetic mutations have been caused by such things as hair dyes, black pepper, Earl Grey tea and pesticides. 

 

In the case of humans with damaged genes from an irresponsible man-made act (like radiation exposure, chemical poisoning, drinking alcohol and smoking by the mother during pregnancy or something else), problems can arise in children. 

 

However, it seems out of the question for this to happen naturally (apart from man-made causes) in nature among wildlife.  And if it should happen, one can be sure that it was probably a result of a dumb act of man. 

 

 

More on Survival of the Fittest 

 

Certainly, the previously noted “survival of the fittest” idea would not allow such mixed animals, birds and fish with damaged genes to survive and successfully reproduce in nature (with the alleged genetic mutations, or correctly with damaged-altered genes from miscegenation or whatever) since most would get sick and die or be killed by predators--without reproduction. 

 

Assuredly, deformed, diseased and weak offspring from damaged genes are going to become quick prey for predators, unless man has upset nature and irresponsibly killed all of the predators off (which is one of the problems today). 

 

Some earlier comments allowed that when man upsets the balance in nature (like killing all the deer bucks off in a given specie and geographical area), animals (females) will sometimes take a mate from a different, but yet similar specie.  This usually produces a sterile offspring (like a fawn) which won’t reproduce. 

 

But whether such crosses can reproduce or not, the fact remains that these abnormal and unnatural crosses seemingly cannot survive in nature because they are inferior and would be instant prey for predators (unless man has killed all of the predators off to upset the created balance in nature, as just outlined). 

 

Anyone witnessing a mixed coyote and dog can quickly understand that in nature, such an unnatural aberration would not last long.  In other words, nature and the created wild natural orders are not normally going to allow a violation of Leviticus 19:19/Deuteronomy 22:9-11 to persist with life forms outside the purview of creation. 

 

 

Insects 

 

This discussion opens the door to the question of insects which survive after their population has been exposed to various pesticides.  As often happens, the survivors develop some genetic immunity to the used pesticides.  Such insects tend to survive, but with the altered genes.  This situation would be called a mutation.  With this alleged mutation, how can they survive? 

 

It appears that the insects that do survive and reproduce with the mutation (caused by man’s irresponsible actions) are basically not otherwise changed.  In other words, they still look the same, they still fly the same way and they still seek out their traditional food supplies. 

 

The only difference seems to be that they have acquired an immunity against a foreign agent that historically would have killed them.  It is probable that such an alteration does not fit into the category of a true mutation which would change the insect, as evolutionary scientists suppose. 

 

In other words, the bugs are designed by The CREATOR to have the ability to develop these immunities whenever they are exposed to a new environmental threat to their existence (just as humans can possess an immunity to certain diseases, based upon having that disease or being vaccinated for it). 

 

Other than the acquired immunity, the insects remain basically as they were created.  For their existence, the mutation meant nothing except survival.  The mosquito is still the same mosquito, but now having an acquired immunity like humans achieve in vaccines. 

 

 

Personality and Temperament

 

Beyond the fact that so-called White persons, with mixed genes, physically can show those genes and even manifest serious health problems because of them, there is another fall-out of the mixing condition. 

 

The Prologue of this study briefly touched upon the linkage between certain personality traits and different kinds of humans/humanoids.  One sees this phenomenon very clearly in relation to the major races.  Without repeating the former comments, a few more remarks will be shared to drive home the point. 

 

By all means, the questions of temperament and personality seem to come into play with the infusion of the different blood lines into various people. 

 

For example, take the case of many so-called Whites with mixed blood lines (which is correctly almost the entire Caucasian population).  Those with significant Negro genes can easily be big talking extroverts, feelers and perceiving types in temperament. 

 

This writer has known a number of people with heavy evidence of Black genes.  Many of these people are often dark in coloring, fat faced, big shouldered and excessive talkers.  Obviously, many of them seem to have some charisma (since they are strong extroverts and feelers) and can achieve some success in politics and religion--as preachers (some are even well known in the Christian Identity movement). 

 

Apparently, some genetic descendants of Cain can also be big talking extroverts.  It appears that the propensity for being big talkers especially surfaces in Black-Hamite mixes (to produce so-called “BS” artists, who can talk so successfully that they completely mesmerize, fool and sway gullible listeners.  Many modern, mixed Italians are experts with this genetic capability). 

 

Conversely, Mongoloids and Mongoloid mixes lean toward being introverts, just as was true with the original White stock. 

 

 

Creativity 

 

White people (and evidently the more pure Hamite stock) can be very creative--in terms of inventions, engineering and so forth.  Both Asians and Black Africans lack this creativity.  However, in fairness to Orientals, though they are not particularly creative, they can take technology and inventions produced by Whites and copy and reproduce them extremely well. 

 

This interesting fact of history is one of the reasons why the Asian economy is booming so well in the 20th and 21st centuries.  The Asians have not created much of their expertise (which has come from the White Christian West), but they have successfully copied it and have mass produced it efficiently and expertly. 

 

Through rote learning, coupled with great determination and perseverance, the Asian mind can excel in book learning and so-called evidence of intelligence.  In other discussions herein on racial differences, the Orientals are very close to Whites. 

 

 

Perceiving and Feeling Types 

 

As mentioned above and in the Prologue, in the vein of personality, the same carry forward condition manifests itself in terms of perceiving types.  Both Blacks and Mongoloids are notorious about being perceiving people (unable to make a decisive decision).  Various persons with these genes often exhibit the same characteristic. 

 

Of course, Blacks are exceptional dancers and musicians; and of course, extremely possessive of feelings and perceiving personality manifestations.  So-called Whites with Black genes, often show the same qualities.  They can be strong feelers and perceivers, as well as good dancers and musicians (like the Hispanics, Italians and Irish). 

 

Obviously, the big talking extrovert, perceiving and feeling types of people can be awful irresponsible.  Thus, these attributes which often come out in Blacks mean that Negroes and people with heavy Negro genes can be very irresponsible in terms of duties, commitments and obligations in life. 

 

Since Blacks and people with Black genes tend to be extroverts and feelers, they also frequently have much charisma and can be very popular and well liked (as pointed out above, in their ability to be successful preachers and politicians).  Being extroverts, they often talk very convincingly. 

 

Many ignorant people, unaware of the role of genetics in people, can easily be taken in and fooled by these so-called Whites with African genes.  Many such men can be highly successful in courting, marrying and sexually crossing with very White women.  It is amazing that White women with better blood lines would willingly run to such men, but they do. 

 

A later chapter herein will discuss how some of these people (with heavy Black genes) flock both to the preaching profession and the contemporary Pentecostal/Charismatic movement to successfully intermarry with very White women (which effectively destroys or damages the White seedlines).  Being extroverts and feelers, they achieve much success as Pentecostal and/or Charismatic preachers. 

 

 

IQ, Revisited 

 

The evidence is massive that the original Hamitic stock from Kain also has been fairly intelligent.  The Hamitic descendants of Cain are not typically stupid and dullards (as can be true with Blacks and people with pronounced Black genes).  Though, with Hamitic miscegenation with Blacks (as happened in North Africa, Spain, Portugal, etc), some Hamites can pick up the African mentality. 

 

The lowest IQ levels of the different racial types appear to be the Black Africans, who are typically extremely dull and often on the stupid level.  And this quality can carry forward to their descendants when they miscegenate with other bloodlines. 

 

People in the Caucasoid category with Mongoloid and Hamite genes do not seem to be adversely effected so much mentally.  But supposed Whites, with Black genes, can be awful slow on IQ and basic intelligence.  In other words, Whites, with evident Black genes, can be intellectually somewhat like Negroes (perhaps not as totally limited, as is true with many Negroes; but at least, be somewhat slow mentally). 

 

 

Black Happiness 

 

Many years ago, this writer met an elderly man who grew up on a plantation owned by his father in Mississippi.  His early life was spent there at the turn of the 20th century, following the Civil War; but before the advent of mechanical cotton picking machines and other technology which has almost rendered agricultural field hands obsolete in many instances (otherwise, illegal Mexican immigrants are used today). 

 

As a young man, this old gentlemen had much contact with the many Black field hands employed by his father.  Apparently, the plantation still had a number of old slave shacks and used them and some other more recently built buildings to house the huge number of Black workers used to hoe and pick the cotton. 

 

The Negroes were interesting.  They would work all week and when paid, they would highlight it to some African hang-out in a nearby town.  There, they would spend their money on drinking liquor or beer, copulating with Black women, enjoying Black music, eating fried chicken and/or chitterlings, and shooting craps. 

 

Their whole weekends were devoted to spending every last penny on having a good, frolicking time--usually rolling in the sack with a Black wench or laying drunk in the floor from the booze.  This was the good life in the view of the typical Mississippi Black in those days. 

 

The primary problem with this existence is that inevitably the Black men would get in knife fights and some of them would end up either dead, in the hospital or in jail.   While the case can be made that all three of these courses were normal and routine for Blacks, it was a problem of sorts for my friend’s father in trying to get his cotton hoed or picked. 

 

When the next Monday mornings would roll around, he would survey his field hands and usually be short-handed.  One day, he arrived at a solution.  He built a Negro bar or nightclub on his plantation so that the Blacks could have their rollicking good time right at home and not have to go to town and end up in jail. 

 

The plantation owner was able to be deputized by the local Sheriff.  Thus, when the knife fights did happen, he could handle the matter locally without involving the county and having his field hands thrown in jail.  Apparently, this solution worked out for awhile. 

 

My acquaintance, who was a teenager or young man at the time, was very friendly with one of the Blacks.  One day in a conversation, my friend asked his Negro friend why he wanted to go to town every weekend and spend his money on women, booze, fried chicken, gambling and so forth.

 

The Black man gave a most intriguing answer.  With the use of the normal African “Ebonics” (Black English), the Negro told his White friend that if he was ever a Black man for one weekend in town (with all of the sex, booze, eating, frolicking and having fun), he would never want to be White again.  

 

 

Another True Quote 

 

Another friend of mine was talking to one of his Negro acquaintances one day about the Black lifestyle.  The African told him-- “I’as wants ta do evva thing I’as can--cept what’s right.” 

 

And these true stories tell the tale for many Blacks and the Negro attitude in living. 

 

 

Change Today? 

 

The only change today from how it was a hundred years ago among Blacks on the Mississippi Delta is that today’s young Blacks are often involved with drugs. 

 

While they may still get in knife fights (although gun shoot-outs are increasingly more popular in the Black ghettos), it is also true that many of today’s young Black males are in style when they can go out on the streets and mug/murder some innocent White who is stupidly passing through a Black area (and especially, at night). 

 

A National Public Radio news report on March 24, 2002, noted that violence is the largest killer of young Black males in America.   Almost all of this violence comes from Negroes attacking Negroes and not involving Whites at all, as will be addressed in later chapters on modern, Western humanism. 

 

In today’s Black culture and especially in the inner cities of America, Black crime, drugs and violence dominate the Negro culture.  Most young Black males are either in jail or been in jail. 

 

The African propensity for crime and violence was visited in former comments and will be further addressed in later chapters on humanism.   Suffice to say, the basic problem with Blacks back in the plantation days on the Mississippi Delta is still around today. 

 

 

The Meaning of These Stories About Blacks 

 

And the telling of these true stories about Black people brings to my mind an observation about some of the supposed White people known to me who had obvious Black genes.  Much of the same mentality and approach to life still affects them, precisely the same way as with acknowledged Blacks. 

 

While these alleged Whites may more often frequent rock n’ roll or country music joints, may not eat fried chicken like the typical Blacks, and may not go out and mug a White, they are otherwise very much like their Black cousins in terms of pursuing a weekend of spending their money and having fun and pleasure in the so-called good life. 

 

Clearly, some of these mixed people are just as irresponsible about life, as are the Blacks.  This condition surely accounts for the explanation of why it is so easy to find irresponsible and criminal White people present in the generic White population.  Surely, the presence of these Black genes affect these so-called Whites enormously--up until the tenth generation (per YHWH’s Word). 

 

Hamitic people mixed with Black genes (as was assessed in previous comments) also tend to enjoy their weekends of frolicking and fun--sex, booze, gambling and by all means, music (but in the case of Hispanics, their music tends to be the popular Latin beat, common in the Hispanic culture). 

 

 

An Interesting Case 

 

On the mentality and temperament issues, there was an interesting case of a so-called White family known to this writer.  The woman appeared to be largely Caucasian, but her husband was darker and had a distinctive chin and some heavy jaw bones--suggesting clear Black ancestry.  The man and the children were all black headed (at least, in their younger days, before graying set in), while the woman had brown hair. 

 

One son was a classic case of the mixed White-Black genes--thick neck, big chest, huge shoulders, narrow hips, fat face, distinctive chin and large jaw bones.  A daughter was fat and stocky, but with narrow hips (the very distinctive Golda Meir look).  A third son was substantially more White, like his mother.  He was tall and well proportioned with a reasonably Caucasian nose, jaws and face. 

 

All of the children probably were affected to some extent in mentality and in personality and temperament because of the Black genes from the father.  None of them seemed to be brilliant intellectually or even noteworthy spiritually from the standpoint of a religious calling. 

 

The girl was a big talking extrovert and was probably the darkest of the lot in color.  The son with the more visible heavy physical Black genes also liked to talk excessively, but he was more noted for being lazy and unproductive--much like one will find with Negroes. 

 

The more Caucasian son (whose genes were strongly dominated by his Caucasian mother) was a very responsible person and hard worker (like his mother). 

 

This son was not spiritual and perhaps no genius in IQ, but he was very industrious and was known to be dependable and sensible.  While he talked a little, he was far more reserved and prudent than his brother and sister.  For sure, he (with his more White genes) was miles apart physically and mentally from his more Black siblings. 

 

The variation in this family allowed that there can be huge differences in the children from the way genes came together.  In previous comments, the situation among the Micronesians and Pacific Island people was noted--in that the parents of children are so mixed that it is impossible to tell what the children will look like or how they will act. 

 

 

More on This Family 

 

The man and woman in this family were both elderly in age.  The man had had a stroke late in life and had some paralysis on one side.  While the doctors and others tried to persuade him to regularly exercise and use his bad arm, he seemed to be somewhat lazy and preferred to lay around, watch TV, and have his wife wait on him. 

 

Both the man and his wife had made the mistake of trusting the American Medical Association (AMA) approach to heath, and according, were drugged up by their doctor(s).  It was unclear to me what the woman’s problem was (although she allegedly had high blood pressure), but she did take perhaps six or more pills daily as prescribed by her doctor. 

 

The subject of modern doctors and their love and push of drugs and surgery will be discussed at length in later chapters.  Suffice to say, it is not YHWH’s way for health.  But this old couple had been so drugged up that it was inevitable for them to have health problems in their old age. 

 

One of the tragedies of taking pharmaceutical drugs is that some or many of them can cause liver damage.  Possibly, this had happened to the elderly woman.  Anyway, she reached the point that could not properly digest food.  She was in a state of almost continuous diarrhea.  Over a period of a year plus, she lost something around 35 pounds and became extremely skinny.  

 

The daughter with the heavy Black genes regularly took her father and mother on a shopping trip once a week (evidently, on the second day of the week, as a routine practice following the man’s stroke). 

 

At some point in time, the daughter (around 45 years old) learned that her mother did have a health problem.  After several months, she took her mother to the local doctor or hospital and learned that her mother was supposedly “dehydrated.” 

 

The daughter had been watching TV where Gatorade was advertised for its popularity by football players when they sweat during football games.  The daughter persuaded her mother to just about give up water and instead drink Gatorade. 

 

With the huge dose of daily drugs from her doctor and the Gatorade from her daughter, the poor woman grew worse with the diarrhea.  She reached the point that she was not digesting any of her food properly.  This went on for another four months. 

 

During those four months, the daughter performed her usual task of taking her father and mother shopping once a week.  Knowing that her mother was or had been sick, it would have been totally logical for the normal daughter to be interested enough in her mother’s health that she would weekly ask about it. 

 

Also, it seems entirely logical that if a woman’s mother did have a continuing sickness that she would take immediate action to do something positive about it (and especially, if she had the money--which this daughter did have because she had just received a settlement of over $100,000 from her father and mother in a division of their land).  Anyway, the daughter did nothing further for her mother. 

 

 

The Problem 

 

The local county had a nurse who visited disabled people and did things for them.  This nurse visited the man and woman weekly and gave the man a bath and massaged him some. 

 

One day, the nurse treated the man but grew apprehensive over the appearance of the woman.  Accordingly, she called the daughter and told her that she better do something about her mother because she was quite sick. 

 

The amazing thing is that this visit from the nurse happened on a third day of the week, following the daughter’s shopping visit with her mother the prior day.  One would think that the daughter should have already been aware of the mother’s continuing problems and especially that she was growing quite ill. 

 

Eventually, the daughter took the woman back to the approved medical people and they said that she had colitis.  Rather than take her off of the existing huge number of daily pills, the doctor merely added some more drugs.  From this writer’s viewpoint, it is unclear whether the doctor prescribed pills and drugs gave the woman colitis or whether her long bout with diarrhea caused it. 

 

In any case, the significance of this story is that the daughter was so incompetent and irresponsible that she put up with the deteriorating health of her mother for over a year and did nothing.  In fact, the only apparent reason that she finally did take some action was because of some pushing from the visiting nurse.  If it not been for the nurse, this poor woman would have soon died from starvation

 

It looks like a mature, supposed White woman, in the presence of her sick mother weekly for over a year, would constantly be asking her mother about her state of health and problems.  She should have regularly been getting reports from her mother. 

 

It is almost inconceivable, that as sick as the mother was, on the shopping day, preceding the nurse’s visit the next day, that the daughter would not have known how bad her mother was. 

 

So, how does one describe this roughly 45-year old daughter who had taken her mother and father shopping weekly for over a year and still never responded to her mother’s deteriorating condition?   Didn’t the daughter have love for her mother?  Or was the daughter just incompetent?  Or was she just irresponsible?  Or maybe, she was just plain stupid? 

 

The better answer to all these questions is that the genetic profile on the daughter included a huge number of Black genes from her father.  Therefore, it was inevitable that she would be irresponsible, incompetent and stupid about the health of her own mother (and even if she did have some supposed love for her mother, in the vein of her Black genes). 

 

 

Years Ago 

 

Years ago, this writer had another neighbor family which also produced a contrast in the way the genes of the parents came together in the kids (at least, in the way that the genes come together in a supposed White family).  The man was Black headed, tall and slender and had a long thin nose and face.  The woman’s hair was blondish (with much brown present).  She was short and seemed to be a little chubby with a fat face. 

 

This couple had two daughters.  One girl was the precise image of her father, and the other girl was a copy of her mother.  The contrasting children were exact duplicates of their two parents--perhaps physically, mentally and in temperament and IQ. 

 

The point being is that once the genes are mixed, the children can come out with more dominant genes from either the father or the mother.  The more mixed the parents are, the more difficult it becomes to predict what the children will look like or what mental and spiritual levels the children will posses (except that they tend to have problems to the tenth generation, in the case of mixes with the behemah, to be discussed later). 

 

 

Stupid Christian Evolution 

 

Notwithstanding the verity illustrated above, Christians will argue to no end that a homogeneous pair named Adam and Eve produced the vast variety of distinctively different humans now apparent all over planet earth.  Of course, this nonsense is nothing but stupid Christian evolution (as proven in prior comments). 

 

Significantly, this same just mentioned theory of evolution has extended far beyond the confines of Christianity since it seems to be pretty well accepted worldwide by most other religions, philosophies and political and governmental systems (at least, since WWII).  As noted earlier, evolution is called science today, despite its lack of proof. 

 

But notwithstanding this prevalent thinking, some more recent secular scientists, medical doctors, etc are beginning to realize that "all" humans/humanoids are not the same--regardless of what has been taught as science for centuries. 

 

To support racial integration and amalgamation, the establishment has, for example, advocated free and unrestricted blood transfusions between peoples without regard to racial and ethnic factors. 

 

But recently, contemporary medical journals and other scholarly works are now beginning to be published which indicate that there are enormous differences in the bloodlines of the various different races and types of peoples. 

 

These distinctions are becoming quite relevant in any worthwhile and intellectual discussions of genetics, diseases, personality types and so forth. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

The point is--we're all not of the same blood, as will be proven in succeeding chapters.  Christendom may teach it--as she has done so for the past 2,000 years.  But it is simply not true at all.  We all are not the same! 

 

The blood type problem will be addressed and commented upon at length in subsequent chapters.  Suffice to say, this topic is quite profound because blood types exhibit a correlation to the major races and affect the genetic qualities of various human organs, as well as intelligence, personality and other qualities found in so-called human beings. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 112--Creation in the Word

 

 

Christian Theology 

 

As outlined in the earlier chapters, Christian theology is that all humans/humanoids, of whatever racial kind and classification, descend from Adam and Eve by some miraculous act of evolution; because otherwise, such a supposition is totally untenable in terms of science, history and reality.  So, what about the Scriptural truth? 

 

Before broaching the Word, it would be well to look at “The Christian Attitude to Race,” as promulgated by the Christian League of South Africa and as quoted in an article by W. Finlay on “Environment or Heredity?” --appearing in the August 1998 “New Beginnings” (p. 9). 

 

The Christian word is that The MOST HIGH “created Adam and Eve.  From this one pair, all people and all races have descended.  He did not create many races, as He did swarms of living creatures.  All Old Testament genealogies point to one common ancestor.  If we believe in the Creation and the Flood, we must believe in the Unity of Mankind, all races.” 

 

As writer Finlay perceptively pointed out-- “It should be stated with all emphasis that one can believe and accept both the Creation and the Flood and deny the ‘unity of mankind’ on very Scriptural grounds.”  This writer agrees categorically with Finlay. 

 

Believing in creation does not necessarily imply a belief in the unity of mankind at all.  Those words come from Christian theology and not from the Scriptures.  This chapter will present a belief in creation, but it is a belief in a creation of more than one category, definition or classification of so-called human beings. 

 

 

One Blood? 

 

An interesting text from Acts needs to be addressed at this point in time.  Luke wrote a comment which the KJV translates as saying that The ELOHIM “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek” The MOST HIGH that they might find Him (Acts 17:26-27). 

 

Certainly, some readers of this text will want to jump the gun and argue that all humans/humanoids of whatever kind should have been seeking The EVERLASTING to find Him during all of these last 1,970 years since we "all" are of one blood and are therefore all recipients of the Good News. 

 

While this writer agrees that the idea of "all" seeking YHWH to find Him is a noble one, there could be substantially more to this text than what first meets the eye; and particularly so, if one insists on using it to justify sending the Good News message to all kinds, races and types of peoples--contrary to what the Book says. 

 

There are many reasons to suppose that the first part of that text was mistranslated in the KJV, unless one wishes to believe in the miracles of evolution by stipulating that all of the many different forms and classes of humans/humanoids alive today "evolved" into their much diversity from a single, common, racial pair of progenitors, with one blood, named Adam and Eve. 

 

Naturally, this is blatant nonsense--despite the fact that Christendom has taught and advocated it for most of the last two millennia or so.  A single pair of humans, cats, dogs, ducks and you name it cannot produce "new" kinds and classes of progeny--if the basic pair are truly homogeneous purebreds or full bloods of one specific racial stock, as the previous chapters demonstrate. 

 

 

Translation Problems? 

 

As now established, there are important distinctions not only in the different racial humans/humanoids, but there are differences in their bloodlines (to be proven below and in later chapters from medical science).  Thus, Acts 17:26 may not be correct as the KJV has it.  Instead, maybe another translation could well apply. 

 

For example, the “Diaglott” Greek text does not show the word “blood” in the verse at all.  In an article on “Is Adam The Father Of All?” (p. 1), writer Colin Deal points out that the oldest extant Greek texts do not contain the word blood. 

 

Apparently, some later scribes added it since the syntax demands that some word be added in order to make sense.  Bullinger’s “Companion Bible” gives it as “And hath made of one dust all nations of men.” 

 

On the likelihood that the “King James Version” probably doesn’t have it right, the student of truth might be interested in how still another translator handled the problem.  For example, Ferrar Fenton's work gives this text as "because He made by one every race of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth..."  This statement seems far more likely. 

 

Moreover, there are also other factors to consider on this text as penned by Luke.  For example, the latter portion of that Scripture dealing with the establishment of the bounds of habitation for the nations of "men" bring to mind Deuteronomy 32:8 where The MOST HIGH separates the "children of men" and sets the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Yisrael. 

 

Deuteronomy 32:8 has been discussed before and there is some question about its propriety in the Hebrew Masoretic text.  This issue will be assessed in a future chapter.  But for now, the traditional rendition can be left standing. 

 

Regardless, the major races seem to have a certain affinity for places to live, as described in the previous chapters.  It must be important that Whites dominate in Europe, Reds dominate in Asia and Blacks dominate in Africa and small Yellow or Yellow-Brown peoples are present in a band of the hot areas from Portugal to Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands. 

 

 

Adam or Man, Revisited

 

While Moshe does not seem to say anything about the bloodlines of persons in this text in Deuteronomy 32:8, he does bring up another important consideration when he mentions the "children of Adam."  Yes, here, the actual Hebrew reads "Adam" and yet the KJV translates this proper noun name to "men." 

 

Tragically, this same mistake has happened and does happen often in translations of the Hebrew Old Testament to English (as well as with the Greek anthropos, discussed earlier).  Typically, most language scholars insist on translating Adam as man (rather than transliterating it as a proper noun name--which it is), as if the two terms were synonymous and can be interchanged.  But in fact, is that the truth? 

 

First, in the Hebrew language, there is already a Hebrew word meaning man, in the generic sense.  It is enosh (as will be addressed in comments to follow).  This is a very relevant fact whenever one finds the proper noun name of Adam translated as man.  Though most translators followed this prescription, it is manifestly wrong! 

 

Importantly, and contrary to what most people have been taught and have come to believe, the Scriptures do not teach the theory of evolution at all, in that the various races and nationalities of modern peoples supposedly all came totally from Adam, as was discussed previously and as results when translators incorrectly translate the proper noun name of Adam to the generic term man. 

 

Correctly, the Book quite pungently conveys the story of the creation of certain separate and distinctively different races of humans/humanoids (certainly three and perhaps four or so) which over the years have miscegenated and produced the incredible variety of peoples we behold today. 

 

 

More Than Adam in the Garden of Eden

 

The New Testament remarks on the olive tree (previously mentioned) are also quite relevant in attempting to understand the situation in the Garden of Eden.  Actually, the Scriptures make several related points to this one which are also important to comment upon at this time.  First, you may recall that symbolically, in the Book, persons are called "trees" (Ps 1:3; Isa 56:3; Dan 4:20). 

 

Thus, the evidence is that the trees in the Garden of Eden were, in fact, men (Ezek 31:3-18)--which establishes the fact that the garden of Eden surely contained "humanoids" (this word will be defined in comments to follow) besides just Adam and Eve.  Clearly, this truth alone is sufficient to make a fair minded person wonder about the propriety of the theory that "all" so-called human beings descend from Adam. 

 

 

Cain and the Land of Nod 

 

The early account of Cain/Kain and his reaction after having killed Abel assuredly  communicates the presence of other humans/humanoids on earth beyond himself and Adam and Eve.  Note that Cain was fearful that “every one” finding him would kill him (Gen 4:14-15).  Surely, he was not afraid of his own father and mother.  Thus, who was that “every one?” 

 

Very quickly, thereafter, Cain went to the land of Nod.  The Scriptures say that this land of Nod was East of Eden (Gen 4:16).  Since Eden was somewhere in the Euphrates valley, it would seem that the land of Nod was in Eastern Asia--possibly in modern China or India. 

 

There, Kain knew (if he knew her in Nod, is it not reasonable to believe that he first found her there?) his wife (was she a created chaiyah or behemah?) and soon built a city (Gen 4:17).  So, where did the wife come from whom he knew in Nod? 

 

Some 2,000 years ago, the famous Jewish philosopher Philo (who was to become beloved by Christians) asked if it was not reasonable to ask about Cain’s wife “for there had been no birth of any one other woman since that of Eve who was formed out of the side of the man” (“Philo,” translated by F. H. Colson, p. 135). 

 

Going on, Philo (ibid, p. 135) noted that “if any one says that Cain took his sister to wife, putting the impiety of such a connection out of the question, he will speak falsely; for Moshe represents the daughters of Adam as born late (per Gen 5:4, daughters were born to Adam after Seth--ed).  What then are we to say?”  Obviously, Philo had questions about the traditional beliefs which simply don’t hold water. 

 

If Kain and his wife and their baby Enoch were the only humans/humanoids in the land of Nod, why did he built a city and for whom?  This whole presentation in Genesis 4 is very clear that Adam, Eve and Cain were not the only so-called human beings on planet earth at that time. 

 

 

Behemah--Not Necessarily A Quadruped 

 

The realization that that there were other non-Adamite humanoids in existence in Adam’s day brings up a most important word used to refer to such people--called in Hebrew “behemah,” which is commonly translated as “beast” or “beast of the field” in the King James and various other English translations. 

 

Most scholars and students of the Word automatically assume that “all” behemah are quadrupeds.  Even James Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” presumes this definition.  Sometimes, the KJV and other English translations mistakenly translate this word as “cattle” which is grossly wrong since other Hebrew words are typically used for cattle and livestock--like miqneh, tson and eleph.  

 

The correct definition of the Hebrew “behemah” will be covered in the following remarks.  Suffice to say, it is not cattle, per se (as so often translated and used in the KJV). 

 

 

The Plague Illustrations from Egypt 

 

This truth on distinguishing the behemah humanoid from specifically four legged cattle (and other domesticated livestock) is brought out powerfully in the account of the plagues being placed upon Egypt. 

 

For example, in Exodus 9:3-7, The HIGHEST executes a death plague to kill all of the livestock of Egypt in the fields while not killing the livestock of Yisrael.  Please note that this sentence was upon livestock only, and not on so-called human beings. 

 

In this slaughter of the Egyptian livestock, the Book is careful to define the object as cattle (the Hebrew miqneh), horses, camels, asses, flocks (of sheep) and other herds.  Please note that in YHWH’s judgment, “all” of the cattle of Egypt were killed while none of the livestock of Yisrael died (Ex 9:6-7). 

 

Besides the exception on the livestock of the Israelites, the military horses used in the Egyptian army to pull chariots were partly or all exempted from this death cycle for some reason (as proven in Exodus 14-15, when the Egyptian military pursued Yisrael with horses and chariots, as Yisrael left Egypt). 

 

The likely explanation for this exemption is that the judgment in Exodus 9:3 was upon that Egyptian livestock which were “in the fields” (presumably, the herds and property of the Egyptian people feeding in the fields).  Clearly, the horses used by the Egyptian soldiers were not in the fields to be killed. 

 

Probably, they were protected in stables where they were likely housed and fed when not in use pulling chariots.  Possibly, there was some other Egyptian livestock also indoors which missed the death sentence.  So the death of all the cattle may have focused only on those in the fields.  If some were indoors in a barn or whatever, they evidently missed the sentence. 

 

The next major plague was of the action of the soot to bring forth boils on the Egyptian men (Adam) and beasts (Hebrew behemah) in the land of Egypt throughout the entire land of Egypt, both inside and out in the fields (Ex 9:8-12).  This plague addressed only the Egyptian Adamites and behemah.  Cattle and other animals were not included (evidently, the cattle were all essentially already dead). 

 

 

Exodus 9:18-26 

 

The next plague came in the form of hail upon the Adamites and behemah in the open fields (Ex 9:18-26).  Obviously, some of the Egyptian military horses were likely still secured indoors (in stables); and possibly some of any remaining cattle still alive from Exodus 9:6 also may have been secured inside barns or buildings. 

 

In Exodus 9:19, please note that the cattle (miqneh) were differentiated from the beasts (behemah).  Exodus 9:20, with some parallelism from verse 19, distinguished next between the servants (ebed) and cattle (miqneh).  In verse 19, the plague is to come upon the Adam, behemah and cattle in the fields.  In verses 20 and 21, the references are only to the servants and cattle. 

 

So here, in Exodus 9:18-26, are servants the same as Adam and/or the behemah? 

 

Though Yisrael was told to bring her cattle (Hebrew miqneh) and whatever else alive in from the fields, there seems to be a lack of focus upon Egyptian cattle and so-called humans--although Exodus 9:20 allows that some of the Egyptian servants feared YHWH and took their cattle and themselves inside buildings for protection.  Otherwise, all the cattle of Egypt (at least generally) were already dead from Exodus 9:6. 

 

In this Exodus 9:18-20 command to Yisrael, YAH tells the Israelites to bring their cattle and whatever they have alive in the fields to safety because He will rain hail down upon every Egyptian servant (ebed) who has not regarded His Word (Ex 9:20-21).  The parallelism in context can allow a link between the servants to the behemah.

 

Please note that YHWH would rain down hurt and/or death upon the servants (ebed, to include the behemah?) who have not regarded His Word.  Surely, the implications of behemah in this context cannot possibly refer to cattle out in the field.  After all, cattle cannot understand in any sense to allow them to “regard YHWH’s Words.” 

 

In Exodus 9:22-26, the focus is upon man (Adam) and beast (behemah) with no mention of cattle or other livestock (evidently because they all or generally all were already dead or were otherwise inside the safety of buildings). 

 

In order to reconcile the conflicts in the just cited Hebrew words and their usages (in Ex 9:18-26), two definitions are implied.  First, the Hebrew ebed was used for Adamic and/or behemah humanoid servants.  Next, the Hebrew behemah was used for cattle and/or certain humanoid servants.  In this vein, the word behemah was employed in its broad sense--like in the creation account in Genesis 1:24. 

 

 

Exodus 12:29 

 

However, the classic text is at Exodus 12:29 when YHWH announced that He would kill the firstborn of Egypt--both man (Adam) and beast (behemah).  The KJV incorrectly renders behemah here in Exodus 12:29 as “cattle.”  But this is impossible because the Egyptian cattle were all essentially already dead from earlier plagues. 

 

The essence here is that in Exodus 9:3-7, YHWH killed “all” (or almost all) of Egypt’s domesticated cattle (and evidently other livestock) in the fields.  Yet, later remarks show other plagues (including the death of Egypt’s first born in Exodus 12) coming upon Egyptian Adamites and behemah. 

 

Clearly, the Exodus 9-12 primary use of the word behemah does not refer to cattle.  In those texts, behemah seems to mean some other specie! 

 

 

More on the Behemah 

 

Therefore, in addressing this theme at hand, one must recognize that "all" behemah in the Scriptures are not four-legged quadrupeds, though some evidently are--along with possible primates as well.  Absolutely, the contextual uses of this Hebrew word by The ELOHIM allow for a vast array of created life forms which are merely lumped together under the one word (Deut 14:4-6). 

 

As already suggested, in this presentation, a lover of truth should realize early on that one of the best methods of critical study of the Book involves a review and analysis of "all" of the contextual uses of a particular Hebrew and/or Greek word used in the Scriptures.  Such a learning experience can frequently reveal some very amazing facts. 

 

For instance, the behemah "can" learn and have intellect, be judged, be punished for sin, emotionally groan and be in anguish, walk upright with two feet, have hands to touch and feel, inhabit a city with Adamites, be servants, fast for religious reasons, can lie down (in the prone position, versus the standing position of typically all animals) with both Adamite males and females to sexually cross and produce seed (children and descendants), have some of the same diseases as Adam (like boils), pray and talk audibly (with voices and intelligence), wear sackcloth clothing, bear moral responsibility for sin, receive mercy and forgiveness for sin, and on and on in terms of capabilities. 

 

Naturally, the source for these findings and conclusions is YHWH’s Word, which any interested individual can read and see for him/her self (Ex 9:9-11, 20-21; 12:38; 19:12-13; 22:19; Lev 18:23; 20:15-16, 25; Num 11:4-6; Job 35:11; Ps 36:5-6; Neh 13:3; Jer 7:20; 21:6; 27:6; 31:27-30; Ezek 29:11, 16; Jonah 3:5-10; Joel 1:18, etc).  In the NT, they can speak or talk (II Pet 2:12; Jude 1:10). 

 

Respecting the above attributes of the behemah, these findings and conclusions are not just something this writer has dreamed up to fill up space herein.  On the contrary, they represent very precise facts about, at least, one class or kind of behemah, as communicated by The CREATOR.  Possibly, too, there are other kinds of behemah, like four legged quadrupeds, which may have some other characteristics. 

 

 

Some Comment on Yonah 

 

Yonah’s words on this issue are especially profound in describing some non-Adamic humanoids of the behemah (beast) class who were ordered to fast, to wear sackcloth, to cry (pray) mightily (vocally) to The ELOHIM, and to turn (repent) from their evil ways and from the violence that was in their “hands” (Jonah 3:4-10). 

 

In the “King James Version,” please note that the word man in Jonah 3:7-8 comes from the Hebrew Adam and that beast comes from the Hebrew behemah (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 76, 635).  In running across these words in the Tanakh, they are often so translated in the KJV, as noted in a preceding discussion herein.  However, the Hebrew proper name Adam should be transliterated and not translated.  

 

In this text from Yonah, please note first that the Adam and the behemah are both distinguished from the herd (Hebrew baqar) and the flock (Hebrew tsom).  Next, also note the evil and violence that were in the hands of the Adamites and the behemah beasts.  As was pointed out in preceding comments on crime, certain racial people are especially noted for their propensity to commit violent crimes. 

 

In verse seven, it is true that the fast injunction addressed the Adamites, behemah beasts and “herds and flocks” (to seemingly take in cattle and sheep).  But in verse eight, the king did not place the other demands (wearing sackcloth, praying/crying to YHWH, and repenting for the evil and violence in their “hands”) on the herds and flocks.  These requirements were only focused upon the Adam and behemah classes. 

 

These little remarks from Yonah are profound because they reflect that the behemah involved had to have been of a human/humanoid class (from the Hebrew enosh, meaning man in general), with hands and a need to bear moral responsibility for their personal sins, violence and evil ways.  They were commanded by the king to repent, pray, and wear sackcloth. 

 

It is absolutely ludicrous to associate all of these demands with four legged animals out in a field.  They can only apply in the generic sense to so-called human beings! 

 

 

Yes, Alleged Human Beings 

 

There is one final aspect of this short dissertation which is most extraordinary and which conclusively proves once and for all that these behemah beasts were, in fact, human beings or some class of humanoids.  This kicker is in verse five where it says that the “people” of Nineveh responded to Yonah’s words by proclaiming a fast and putting on sackcloth (from the lowest to the greatest). 

 

It was then that the king of Nineveh, himself, put on sackcloth and made his proclamation to the Adam and behemah humans/humanoids in his kingdom, as cited above in Jonah 3:7-8. 

 

Clearly, Jonah 3:5 is conclusive on this in that it was the people (Hebrew enosh, a general term meaning both Adam and other created orders of men--like the behemah) of Nineveh who believed YHWH and proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth.  In verse 3:8, it was only the Adamites and the behemah who were commanded to put on sackcloth. 

 

The summation on this happened (in verse ten) when The ELOHIM saw the repentance (of the people, both Adamic and behemah beasts) from “their works” of evil and violence (in their hands) and turned from His plans of what He would do to them.  Obviously, this had to be the works of evil of the Adam and behemah kinds addressed. 

 

Incidentally, the “Soncino Books of the Bible” had a short commentary of this section of Yonah (Jonah, p. 146-147).  This source concluded that the beasts involved were “probably beasts of burden.”  On the third injunction to “cry mightily,” the “Soncino Books of the Bible” recognizes that this is a call to prayer, but then adds that it “obviously affected only human beings.” 

 

The only problem with these conclusions from Soncino is that they were not what the Book says.  The Word applies all of the injunctions to the Adam and the behemah.  The only departure on this is with the fasting requirement placed upon the herds and flocks.  Manifestly, the Soncino commentator has made some unfounded conclusions on the behemah and praying that simply are not present in the actual text.  

 

 

Behemah and Adamites Can Sexually Reproduce 

 

While there are several Scriptures which reveal the presence of different types or classes of so-called "human beings," and their respective capabilities of sexual reproduction, the most important texts on this idea were likely written by Yirmeyahu when he said that, over time, the racial "seed" of Yisrael would mix with the seed of the rest of the Adam kind and the seed of the behemah to produce offspring (Jer 2:21 and 31:27--see Dan 2:43, as cited earlier and to be further noted in comments to follow). 

 

To comprehend what Yirmeyahu had in mind, it is necessary to check a Hebrew text on these passages.  Tragically, most English translations incorrectly translate some of the words involved to such an extent that it causes confusion (i.e. Adam to man). 

 

There is also another classic illustration which very effectively communicates that the behemah can and has sexually crossed with other so-called human descendants of Adam and Noah.  This reality surfaces in a most unique way when The SUPREME instructed Yisrael (through Moshe) on the sins of the Canaanites (Lev 18:1-30). 

 

The HIGHEST started His condemnation of the wicked Canaanites by saying that the Israelites entering the promise land were not to imitate and walk in the ways of the people living in the land of Canaan (Lev 18:3)--which were in obvious conflict with His Torah (Lev 18:4-5). 

 

Thereafter, The ETERNAL went on to specify, list and describe the precise sins that the Canaanites were guilty of (Lev 18:6-23).  A reader of this list of evils and wickedness which the Canaanites were charged with must be impressed with the fact that all of them fit into the general category of various sex sins. 

 

This list of sex sins starts with incest (Lev 18:6-18), uncleanness for copulating with a woman during her period (Lev 18:19), adultery (Lev 18:20), letting their seed pass through the fire to Molech (Lev 18:21--which also seems to have had some linkage to sex with a proper study and analysis of the Scriptures, to be done in a future chapter herein) and homosexuality (Lev 18:22). 

 

 

Canaanites Had Crossed With the Behemah 

 

Finally, in this outline of Canaanite sexual transgressions, The MOST HIGH concludes His list with a complaint that the Canaanites defiled themselves by sexual copulation with beasts, the Hebrew behemah (Lev 18:23).  Of course, ignorant Christians immediately jump to the conclusion that the issue here concerns quadrupeds. 

 

Uninformed Christians will get all excited and conclude that Moshe was writing about Canaanites who had or were copulating with four legged animals like horses, cattle, sheep, dogs, and so forth.  And while some of these animals could conceivably have been involved in a limited way, that’s not the problem. 

 

No!  The behemah class clearly included humanoids, as a contextual study of that word proves.  It might also be noted that there must have been some significant presence of the behemah (probably as slaves) in the land with the Canaanites to merit this attention in the Torah.  In addition, the Word separately confirms a similar presence of some chaiyah among the Canaanites (Deut 7:22). 

 

Of course, just a minimum amount of good, old fashioned, common sense should tell the reader that the problem with the Canaanites had to have involved behemah (and perhaps chaiyah) humanoids and not four legged quadrupeds.  After all, it’s not many humans that would tend to interbreed with four legged animals or even consider it. 

 

Conversely, interracial sex has never been much of a obstacle or detriment in terms of sex with all of the various humans/humanoids.  Blacks, Whites, Yellows and Reds all seem to be willing partners in miscegenation.  Even when secular laws made it illegal (as in most of the states of the United States), many humans/humanoids continued the practice of such evil sexual activities, to include marriages. 

 

 

The Canaanite Problem 

 

By YHWH’s law, it is sin for an Adamite to sexually cross with the behemah (Ex 22:19; Lev 19:19; 20:15-16; Deut 22:9-11; 27:21) under penalty of death (Ex 22:19).  The evidence of these references is such that a student of truth must conclude that the Canaanites had greatly miscegenated with the behemah over the years. 

 

By the time that Yisrael was ready to enter the land of Canaan, it is highly probable that a sizable portion of the Canaanite population consisted of mongrel, mixed blooded individuals (as is also true with the Amalekites). 

 

Perhaps that was the situation with them that prompted The HIGHEST to place them all (men, women, the aged and even the smallest infants and babies) under a sentence of death (Ex 34:11-16; Deut 7:1-5). 

 

While incest would affect babies and infants, adultery and fornication, generally, should not particularly condemn small children to death since theoretically innocent children can be raised and taught righteousness.  One should recall that the chosen line of Avraham had close contact and even inter-marriages with pagan sun worshippers over the years without any condemnation being placed on the children. 

 

For example, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah all came from Mesopotamia where their families (of the same racial stock as Avraham) were all pagan sun worshippers (Gen 31:30-32).  In Egypt, Yosef married Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, (sun) priest of On (Gen 41:45).  His sons Ephraim and Manasseh were to eventually receive the birthright from Yakov (Gen 48:1-20). 

 

Even the incestuous Moabites and Ammonites were never under the sentence of mass slaughter (although they too had apparently miscegenated with the behemah humanoids, as will be described in comments to shortly follow), as was the Canaanites (and the Amalekites who also were to be totally destroyed-- Ex 17:14; and I Sam 15). 

 

Obviously, the problem with the Canaanite babies must have been both their ancestral genetics and the fact that they were illegally occupying the promise land and could and would eventually miscegenate with the Israelites to contaminate the line of Yisrael, as discussed elsewhere in this study (as actually happened--Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35). 

 

Were it not for the race and genetic factors, the Canaanite babies and children theoretically could have been raised in the right religious faith.  But their race would not allow it.  As discussed elsewhere herein, the behemah possibly cannot understand truth or properly obey truth until the tenth generation.  The behemah humanoids and their mamzer offspring are extremely dull--both mentally and spiritually. 

 

It is this reality that the true Hebrew religion of the Scriptures is closely linked to race that explains the several instances in the Word why that YHWH repeatedly said to not make marriages with these defiled people because they would turn your own offspring and children away from true worship (Deut 7:3-4).  Yes, there is a tie between religion and race.  This theme will be further explored in later chapters herein. 

 

 

Miscegenation Defiles the Land 

 

Returning now to YHWH’s indictment against the Canaanites, Moshe told the Israelites to not defile themselves in these stipulated sex sins for “in all these the nations (i.e. the Canaanites and evidently some others who had lived in the land) are defiled” and were being cast out of the land (Lev 18:24; 20:15-16, 22-26; Deut 7:1-3; 20:16-17).  As noted, the land was defiled from these abominations (Lev 18:27; Deut 27:21). 

 

Therefore, the Israelites were warned to not repeat this sexual wickedness and follow in the footsteps of the Canaanites--lest they, too, be spewed out of the land as the Canaanites were being expelled (Lev 18:28).  As The CREATOR says, the souls that do such things are under a sentence to be “cut off” or executed (Lev 18:29-30). 

 

Now, some people might try to argue from here to eternity that the Adam kind cannot sexually cross (miscegenate) and produce seedline with the behemah; yet, the Word is quite adamant on this fact, as just seen above.  Not only can Adam cross with the behemah, the Scriptural evidence abounds that he has crossed extensively with both the behemah and the chaiyah (Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35; Jer 2:21; 31:27; Dan 2:43). 

 

 

Moabites and Ammonites 

 

The Moabites and Ammonites are not named, per se, in Leviticus 18.  But there are important reasons to believe that they too were largely guilty of the same type of sex sins (to include miscegenation with the behemah). 

 

The primary indictment in Leviticus 18 concerns the “nations” that were spewed out of the land of Canaan (Lev 18:27).  As will be shown in later comments, the Moabites and particularly the Ammonites had illegally occupied that land once and were expelled by the Amorites (before the Israelite exodus).  In this sense, the land had already spewed them out, perhaps because of the same sex sins that plagued the Amorites. 

 

As numerous Scriptural commentators recognize (like the “Oxford Companion of the Bible,” p. 98), the term Canaanite was originally a geographical reference to the inhabitants of the land and included all of the indigenous peoples living in that land (as allowed in Ezra 9:1).  The term Amorites (a Canaanite tribe) was also accepted in the same vein in the context of the land East of the Jordan. 

 

A later discussion of Deuteronomy 23:2-8 will provide possibly the ultimate proof that indeed the Moabites and Ammonites were guilty of the sex sins outlined in Leviticus 18.  Manifestly, their whole origin involved incest.  Consequently, it’s not hard to link them to the sex sins of the Canaanites. 

 

So while the Moabites and Ammonites were once in the land, they were expelled by YHWH (via the conquering Amorites) and moved East and South to inhabit the land YHWH had programmed for them (Deut 2:9, 19). 

 

Thus, by the time of Moshe and Yehoshua, the Moabites and Ammonites were not occupying the land that Yisrael then came to inhabit.  Accordingly, YHWH did not order all of them to be killed, as He did with the Canaanites, who were illegally inhabiting the land designated for Yisrael. 

 

 

Chaiyah 

 

The chaiyah, like the behemah, was another of the creations by The HIGHEST in Genesis 1 and 2. 

 

While most translators have been confused over this term, as they have been over behemah, the fact remains that with a study and analysis of the Scriptural usages and contexts of this word, truth can become manifest (Gen 3:14; Ex 23:29; Num 16:30-38; 35:3; Deut 7:22; II Kg 14:9; II Chron 6:31; 25:18; Job 5:22-23; 12:10; 28:13; 28:21; Ps 50:10; 68:30; Isa 35:9; 43:20; 46:1; 56:9; Jer 12:9; 27:6; 28:14; Ezek 14:15, 21; 32:4; 34:25, 28; Dan 8:4; Hos 2:18). 

 

Translators tend to render chaiyah as beasts of the field or living creatures.  Thus, some persons have been tempted to claim that chaiyah addresses primates like apes, orangutans, etc.  However, Christendom has missed the point on this word just as they have on behemah.  A contextual study can lead one to perceive that the chaiyah probably includes humanoids similar to the behemah. 

 

 

Difference Between the Two 

 

Without attempting much of an explanation, the fact is that the behemah and chaiyah are not, Scripturally, "just" four legged animals (quadrupeds), as some Hebrew lexicons (like Strong's) would suggest.  While most Christians think in the context of quadrupeds, that's not necessarily the issue at all. 

 

Space is too limited in this study to cover this subject properly.  But any objective, open minded lover of truth can make a "thorough" and comprehensive study of the Hebrew words behemah and chaiyah and their contextual uses in the Old Testament and readily determine the reality of this assertion. 

 

Also, it is possible to apply a minimum amount of logic and study and determine the Greek counterparts to those words.  From there, it is easy to even address those Hebrew words in the Greek NT.  With some work and effort, one can quickly discover the truth about creation. 

 

Therefore, what is the difference between the chaiyah and the behemah?  In the “Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs” (p. 4), Dr J. H. Hertz, Late Chief Rav of the British Empire, concluded that the Hebrew behemah was used by The ELOHIM for domesticated animals while the Hebrew chaiyah was used for wild animals. 

 

Therefore, per the Scriptures, it is apparent that the behemah or domesticated animals must consist of species like dogs, horses, cows, certain humanoids, etc.  Conversely, the chaiyah or wild animals would include lions, tigers, apes, certain humanoids, etc. 

 

In short, the Scriptural uses of the words behemah and chaiyah by The CREATOR in the creation cover all forms of non-Adamic humanoids, in addition to other primates and four legged animals.  The distinction between the two is whether they can be effectively domesticated and controlled or not. 

 

The chaiyah are basically wild and extremely difficult to tame and domesticate.  Conversely, the behemah, by nature, are domesticated and make excellent life forms for work (providing that they are disciplined and controlled under some proper, strong authority). 

 

 

The Historical Record 

 

Historically, the behemah have often found themselves in a state of slavery because they can be effective workers and field hands in terms of physical hard work. 

 

It’s very likely that when Adam surveyed the garden of Eden, he found the creation of the behemah animals very good because they (the horses, dogs, oxen, donkeys, humanoid workers, etc) collectively were the life forms which were of most benefit to him and Eve in managing and working the garden of Eden. 

 

If the Garden of Eden was as huge and vast, as some have suggested, and if this fact combines with the large number of created life forms present, it is certainly manifest that Adam would have needed some humanoid workers (helpers) to assist him in taking care of the garden.  Surely, the behemah was created for this purpose.  Perhaps they were servants of some sort in the garden environment. 

 

Regarding the chaiyah, the exact reverse is true.  Wild animals are extremely difficult if not (almost) impossible to domesticate and use for hard work to any extent.  In practically every instance of recorded world history, where efforts were made to domesticate, enslave and work the chaiyah, the efforts were largely unsuccessful and often ended in failure. 

 

There are historical records presently extant which conclusively prove the differences between the behemah and the chaiyah.  Adamites have tried to enslave and/or work chaiyah humanoids over the centuries--always unsuccessfully except in a few isolated cases where the chaiyah genes had been mixed in with other racial types over the ages. 

 

Conversely, Adamites have successfully used behemah workers (whether good or bad).  Even in those cases where the chaiyah peoples were locally available, Adamites still imported behemah over vast distances and at great expense for hard work.  The chaiyah were historically rather wild and uncontrollable, in contrast to the behemah, who would immediately submit to conditions of servitude. 

 

Having mentioned this reality from history, the reader must understand that this writer has presented the truth without attempting to argue the merits of that truth one way or the other.  This clarification is needed because some prejudiced and ignorant readers might tend to become angry and upset bigots when exposed to the truth. 

 

 

Preservation During Noah’s Flood? 

 

The preservation of both the behemah and chaiyah humanoids through Noah’s flood is quite simple.  If the flood was truly universal across the planet, as many persons believe, then Noah would have taken a pair (or pairs) each of the behemah and chaiyah onto the ark.  The behemah humanoids would have been very helpful in managing the rest of the animals. 

 

Contrariwise, there is a considerable body of thought which argues that the flood was not universal and that it was limited in scope to perhaps portions of Asia.  In which case, the matter of taking the different life forms on the ark would have been considerably easier since the ark would not have necessarily carried all life forms. 

 

Obviously, some behemah and chaiyah humanoids (as well as a male line of descendants from Cain, to be broached in commentary to follow) could have survived on the ark (since Adam took pairs of the different behemah and chaiyah life forms onto the ark).  Also, they could have survived in other areas of earth unaffected by the water, if the flood was not universal. 

 

 

Sub-Species? 

 

Thus, both the behemah and chaiyah creations included humanoids, as well as other forms of animal life.  In saying that The CREATOR created behemah humanoids and chaiyah humanoids, this writer is not necessarily suggesting that these creations involved only one humanoid specie of each class. 

 

While the creation could have been limited to one each pair of the behemah and chaiyah humanoid types, it is also possible that The MOST HIGH created several sub-species of both behemah and chaiyah humanoids.  This option gains some status when one examines the world situation with particularly the behemah humanoids. 

 

An examination of the behemah humanoid reality quickly suggests that while all of them are of the same color and all have many of the same or similar characteristics, it is also true that there seems to be a number of sub-classes allowing for some very evident differences. 

 

Of course, some of the major differences in the various behemah humanoid classes could be due to miscegenation (and particularly, with the angels, as will be discussed in the following chapter); and especially, if there was at least two or three behemah humanoid classifications.  Regardless, this is an interesting phenomenon and must be left on the table as a possibility for discussion. 

 

Whether The CREATOR only created one each class of behemah and chaiyah humanoids or more than one class in the context of some sub-species, it will not alter the basic premise that The EVERLIVING ONE did create one or more humanoid life forms as a part of each of His behemah and chaiyah creations. 

 

“US News & World Report” (p. 36-41) of Jan 29, 2001, had a major story by Nancy Shute on “Where We Come From” which addressed recent DNA.  The report specifically focused somewhat upon the work of Peter Underhill of Stanford University. 

 

He has published a study which lists some 87 new Y chromosome markers which are passed on only from father to son.  Underhill accordingly published a family tree of sorts which classify and assign all of the world’s men into ten branches. 

 

Since the evidence presented earlier seems to allow for three to five major races, it seems possible that there could be some sub-types in the chaiyah and behemah terms.  Or alternatively, certain types of miscegenation between the races could account for some of these groups.  This idea will be further broached in a later chapters herein. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 113--More Racial Alterations

 

 

Messengers 

 

The mention of the probable four great races of man (in prior chapters) and of perhaps a like number of common blood types (as will be described in succeeding chapters) needs further clarification.  So far, this study has only discussed three primary creations of humans/humanoids from the Scriptures--Adamites, the behemah and the chaiyah.  So, where or how does this possible fourth one come about? 

 

To broach this idea, some further information is needed on the created order.  Here, the Book also describes created beings called in the Hebrew “malahch” (which is usually translated as angel) and the Hebrew “keroov” (commonly translated as cherub). 

 

While the word angel has become popularized, it is probable that the Hebrew malahch should more correctly be rendered messenger.  Some scholars believe that the cherub is a type of angel, but one with a higher rank or station.  This work will not attempt to broach any distinction between the two at this time. 

 

One of the problems of these created beings arises because of Christendom’s false concepts and incorrect interpretations about them.  For too long now, Christians have painted pictures and told stories about humanoid like figures called angels which have very large wings like a bird and fly around in the heavens and sky. 

 

As was discussed in a previous chapter, angels flying around with wings is pure and simple pagan theology.  There is no Scriptural basis for that nonsense at all. 

 

Perhaps the Christian problem can be laid to the Hebrew word kanaph which means “border, corner, end, covering, protecting, overspreading quarter, skirt, uttermost part” (per Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary”).  In the Book, it is quite evident that kanaph refers to the coverings with the borders and the distinctive fringes attached and worn as the outer garments of clothing as required in YAH’s law (Num 15:38-39; Deut 22:12). 

 

 

The Problem Preceding the Flood 

 

In the history of Adam, Moshe wrote an interesting story about Noah and the flood in the context that the sons of The ELOHIM saw the daughters of Adam and proceeded to sexually reproduce with them--evidently, to produce giants of some sort (Gen 6:1-7). 

 

Most students and scholars of the Word, alike, agree that these “sons” were of the messenger class just discussed.  The sons of The ELOHIM seem to be messengers or angels in other Scriptures (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:1-7; Ps 89:6).  Descendants of Adam are always called sons or daughters of Adam in the Book (except for the line of Kain, as will be described shortly below). 

 

As the Word seems to clearly communicate on this issue (Gen 6:4), this angelic miscegenation with the daughters of Adam produced a seedline of giants (Hebrew Nephilim); which, of course, were at least destroyed somewhat in Noah’s flood.  Here, reference might be made to Bullinger’s “Companion Bible” which has some excellent comments on this question. 

 

A first reading of this pre-flood miscegenation between fallen messengers and human women suggests that the women were Adamic since they are so identified (Gen 6:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).  However, that seems to have been only a part of the problem. 

 

As Genesis 6:12-13 indicates, all flesh was corrupted by these angels.  It prompted The ELOHIM to judge both Adam and the behemah guilty and worthy of destruction (Gen 6:7).  The book of Jubilees notes this instance of the angels taking wives from “all” those whom they chose (Jubilees 4:22; 5:1-11). 

 

William F. Dankenbring, in an article on “There Were Giants in the Earth in Those Days,” makes the case that this miscegenation was between the angels and women and angels with animals, quadrupeds and cattle (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 67). 

 

 

Thus 

 

With a correct understanding of the Hebrew words behemah and chaiyah, the truth is that the evil messengers copulated with both Adamic women and women of the other created orders--the behemah and chaiyah.  All of them became corrupted by these powers.  Too, they produced the just cited offspring of giants which was most profound. 

 

This extensive presence of angelic miscegenation with the female behemah offers a reasonably plausible explanation on why there could be such profoundly significant evidence of sub-species of behemah humanoids (as noted earlier).  While, of course, The ELOHIM may have created these apparent different sub-species, it must also be allowed that they could have come about through this illegal angelic interracial sex. 

 

Incidentally, the Tanakh (Gen 6:4) does not identify these giant offspring of angels as Adamic.  Instead, they are called in Hebrew “enosh” (anashim, in the plural), meaning that they were just mortal men in the generic sense, as cited earlier (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 638).  This is an important distinction. 

 

This production of giants and their later destruction in the flood has prompted a number of students of the Word to surmise that the spirits of these destroyed giants were immortal and somehow survived to torment so-called humanity as invisible demon spirits, floating through the air to inhabit innocent human bodies. 

 

William Dankenbring’s article on “There Were Giants in the Earth in Those Days” supports this conclusion (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 59).  Dankenbring quotes from the book of Enoch which says that these giants shall be called evil spirits upon the earth because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth.  Evil spirits have come out of their bodies (Enoch 15:8-10). 

 

This writer has met other people over the years who shared this belief.  And while it is interesting, there could be other explanations on so-called demons (as elsewhere addressed herein).  The better view might be that any spirits of these giants perished with them in their destruction and especially since these giants were described as enosh or mortal. 

 

 

After the Flood? 

 

But there is another feature of this subject which has largely escaped notice from theologians and lay people alike.  In his article on giants, writer William F. Dankenbring brings out the fact that right after the flood there was another possible angelic series of copulations with the daughters of men to produce giants (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 56-57). 

 

Dankenbring quotes from the “Companion Bible” (appendix 25) and Numbers 13:28-33 where Nephilim children of Anak were in the Middle East in Moshe’s day (in the plural, these Anak were evidently called Anakim, which means “those who from heaven to earth came,” per Christian media editor James Lloyd of Jacksonville, OR). 

 

Dankenbring also went on to refer to Deuteronomy 2:10-11 and 20-21, which mention the giant (Hebrew Raphah) Emims similarly in the land. 

 

Og, King of Bashan, was of this remnant of Raphah giants (Deut 3:11-13; Josh 12:4; 13:12).  While the size of Og is not given, it is interesting that the Scriptures have seen fit to describe his bed as being nine cubits long and four cubits wide (Deut 3:11).  Could Og have been almost 15 feet tall? 

 

Although Dankenbring makes the case that this post flood presence of Nephilim giants was due to post flood angelic miscegenation with human women, it must be pointed out that if the flood was not universal, as some scholars argue, then it might be that these post flood Nephilim merely survived the flood. 

 

 

Giants in the Book 

 

The Word seems to use three different words to describe a giant--the just noted Nephilim and Raphah (apparently, in the plural--Rephaim which is also associated with the deceased and dead), plus the word “gibbor.”  While it may not be totally clear on the distinction between these three words, a study of their uses may give some clues. 

 

It appears that the Nephilim were children of fallen angelic messengers and certainly Adamic women.  It might be possible that offspring of angels and the behemah and chaiyah fit into this same classification. 

 

The Raphah giants are in a different category and are a little more complicated.  They could come from chaiyah and behemah copulation with angels since they are associated with the Canaanites who miscegenated with these other created forms.  Or alternatively, they could be merely the later descendants of the Nephilim--if the Nephilim reproduced. 

 

The word gibbor is translated as giants one time (Job 16:14).  But otherwise, it is used as a mighty or strong person (heroes).  The Nephilim were gibbor.  After the flood, Nimrod was identified as a gibbor.  Later, numbers of Israelites and other persons were identified as gibbor from time to time. 

 

Hence, gibbor probably does not mean giants, per se.  In association with humans/humanoids, gibbor might could apply in some instances to big men who are physically mighty and strong. 

 

Finally, there is the case of Goliath (meaning an exile or soothsayer--per “Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 426) who was slain by David.  He was a very tall man--something around six cubits and a span (nine and a half feet tall--I Sam 17:4). 

 

Goliath (from Gath, a city of the Philistines) was perhaps not called a giant.  Yet, it is apparent that he was of that classification.  Evidently, he could have been labeled “gibbor” since he was a mighty man.  Was he a descendant from the Rephaim in some manner? 

 

Thus, the Scriptures seem to make the case that some of these giants survived in the Middle East until after the time of the Exodus.  Dankenbring notes that they were evidently near Sodom and Gomorrah in Avraham’s day, per Genesis 14:5; 15:20; Joshua 15:8; 17:15; 18:16; II Samuel 5:18, 22; 23:13 (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 57). 

 

It appears that some or all of these giants persisted as a part of or in conjunction with the Amorite peoples which Yisrael largely destroyed in their entrance into the promise land (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 56-58).  Josephus mentioned the remains of some of the bones of these giants in his day (“Antiquities,” V, ii, 3). 

 

Dankenbring quotes from “Buber’s Tanhuma, Devarim 7,” which reflected upon a meeting by R. Johanan ben Zakkai with the Roman Emperor Hadrian in c135 CE.  In this encounter, Zakkai showed Hadrian the remaining bones of some of these Amorites (defeated by Yisrael) which showed them to be 18 cubits in height (about 30 feet). 

 

 

A Remaining Presence? 

 

By the way, it is most interesting and perhaps significant that over planet earth, there seems to be some presence even in modern times of possible giants or remnants of giants in Northern China and Mongolia and in Africa (i.e. the Watutsis).  Apparently, one doesn’t find racial groupings of giants otherwise in this age. 

 

While a review and study of this account in Genesis leads one to suppose that all of these mongrel offspring from the pre-flood miscegenation died in the deluge, such appears to have not been the case at all, as demonstrated in the above comments. 

 

If the flood was truly not universal and global, as possibly could have been the case, then maybe some of these mongrel strangers or their descendants could have survived.  Also, there are the Scriptures allowing for possible more angelic miscegenation with human women after the flood, as cited above.  

 

Regardless, it is appropriate to recognize that Noah and seemingly his three sons were all of one homogeneous racial type, although Ham evidently was married to a miscegenated descendant of Cain, named Naamah, according to Jewish tradition (Gen 4:22). 

 

Thus, the children of Ham (to include Canaan) had some problems from their very beginning.  By the way, Ham was not Black (as some say), though his descendants miscegenated with all of the different created orders of humans/humanoids.  His name means hot and refers to the hot areas of earth where his descendants were to live (in Southern Europe, North Africa, Pacific Islands, Southern Asia, etc). 

 

The Hamitic linkage to the hot area around the Mediterranean Sea (in Southern Europe, Northern Africa and Southwest Asia) was confirmed by the Jewish historian Josephus.  He wrote that the children of Ham held the territory from Syria and Lebanon through Judea to Africa and the lands along the sea (“Josephus, The Essential Writings,” p. 23). 

 

 

Perfect 

 

Clearly, the Adamite Noah found grace in YAH’s eyes because he was “perfect” in his racial genealogy (Gen 6: 9).  Perhaps miscegenation was vast and extensive in those days and the other Adamites, in general, had grossly miscegenated. 

 

Incidentally, this mention of the word perfect brings up another aspect of the undesirable features of interracial copulation.  Any resulting children are, of course, imperfect.  YHWH made the original, different, created humans perfect.  As man miscegenates and produces mongrel offspring, they are not physically perfect, as were the original, created orders--as noted in previous chapters. 

 

The continued, massive miscegenation over the ages has created a situation where it is virtually impossible to find any true Adamite, behemah or chaiyah humans/humanoids alive on planet earth today.  Like the Word predicted, all have seemingly miscegenated (Jer 2:21; 31:27; Dan 2:43). 

 

 

Satan 

 

Beyond the abundant evidence of the former crossing of heavenly messengers with humans/humanoids, there is one more fascinating story in Genesis 3 where the “serpent” beguiled or seduced Eve.  Most Christians would argue to their death that Satan here (in the form of a snake) talked Eve into stealing an apple or some other piece of fruit from a fruit tree. 

 

No!  The evidence is considerably different than this children’s story.  The incident involving Satan and Eve was sex.  This reality is conclusively proven from the Word.  Actually, no other option is plausible. 

 

In the first place, the serpent is an attempted translation of the Hebrew, proper noun name of Naches, which means “to hiss like a snake” (see I Sam 11:1-2; 12:12 for an Ammonite king so named).  Thus, one is dealing with a humanoid being who talks and walks upright on two legs (Satan does both--Job 2:2).  Isaiah 14:12-18 identifies him as a male humanoid (Hebrew “ish,” but not of the Adam kind). 

 

And as the Greek New Testament plainly communicates, Satan sexually seduced Eve (II Cor 11:2-3; I Tim 2:13-14).  This seduction is likewise brought out in the Hebrew word “nasha” (meaning to “delude or [morally] to seduce,” per “Strong’s”) as used for the seduction in Genesis 3:13. 

 

 

More From Genesis 3 

 

Also, it is appropriate to note that the Hebrew word “arom” (translated as naked in the KJV) appears at Genesis 2:25 to describe both Adam and Eve’s evidently whole nude condition.  As William F. Dankenbring notes, this word arom is also used to describe the serpent’s condition (translated as subtle in the KJV) in Genesis 3:1 (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 60). 

 

Dankenbring indicates that arom actually comes from a root word meaning smooth or slick (like in the case of Slick Willy).  It describes the smooth or slick skin condition in a state of nakedness. 

 

The word eat in Genesis 3:1-13 comes from the Hebrew “akal” which means “to eat (lit. or fig.) at all, burn up, consume, devour, dine, eat, feed, food, freely, in...wise, (lay) meat, quite” (per “Strong’s”).  Though this definition points to eating food, it does allow for sex (laying).  This same word is used in Proverbs 30:20 where sex is implied. 

 

Furthermore, the word fruit in Genesis 3:2-6 comes from the Hebrew “peri” (its root is “parah”), which means to “bear fruit, bear, bring forth (fruit), (be, cause to be, make) fruitful, grow, increase” (per “Strong’s”).  Obviously, this definition can cover children.  For ages, the words and ideas associated with fruit have had sexual implications.  To this day, a person’s virginity is linked to the word “cherry.”  

 

Too, the words desired and pleasant (in Gen 3:6, the Hebrew “chamad” and “taavah”) both suggest a longing desire and lust (per “Strong’s”).  Next, Genesis 3:3 uses the Hebrew “naga” (translated as touch in the KJV) which plainly indicates lying with a woman--as at Genesis 20:6 and Leviticus 15:19. 

 

Finally, Genesis 3:15 specifically mentions both the seed of the woman and the seed of Nachash.  In both instances, seed comes from the Hebrew “zera” which categorically refers to progeny (“Young’s Analytical Concordance,” p. 853).  Thus, the connotation on sex is present throughout Genesis 3. 

 

As Dan Gayman points out in his 1977  book, “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15” (p. 14), to correctly believe that the woman produced a seedline (as she did, and as most Christians believe) demands a recognition that Satan likewise produced a seedline (which generic Christendom refuses to accept).  To be consistent, seed in both places must be interpreted in the same way (in contrast to inconsistent Christianity). 

 

 

Genesis 3:14 

 

The curse in Genesis 3:14, which stipulates that this serpent humanoid (and evidently his progeny as well) is destined to move upon his belly and eat dust (as most English translations give it), deserves some analysis--since this explanation suits neither humanoids or snakes (snakes do not eat dust, soil or earth, but life sources like flesh and eggs). 

 

In “The Serpent’s Belly” (p. 11), E. T. Tennyson correctly points out that the word “belly” comes from the Hebrew “gachown” which Strong’s “Hebrew Dictionary” defines as labor to issue forth on  a set course, like a river or stream (per Strong’s # 1512, 1518, 1821).  Hence, Tennyson says gachown means the set course or life’s work which Satan was thereafter destined to do (correctly, as a prosecutor in service of YHWH). 

 

The eating of dust, dirt or soil was actually a part of the punishment upon Adam, in that he was to eat of the ground or soil in the context of vegetables, grains, nuts and fruits grown from the soil (Gen 3:17-19). 

 

Now, while Adam (assuredly Israelites of the Adam kind) was specifically given the option of eating some clean meats in the Torah, the truth remains that plant and tree foods have always remained the primary food staples for Adam. 

 

Positively, this eating of the soil or from the soil also addresses the seedline of Satan, as well as that of Adam.  In fact, the situation with Kain (to be shortly addressed) plainly communicates that he was an ascetic vegetarian who ate from the soil, and who apparently was devoted to animal rights (Gen 4:3, as will be elaborated upon in later chapters).  This  condition is especially prevalent today in the Eastern religions

 

From the illegal sexual adultery, involving Nachash and Eve, the first born Cain was seemingly a product of his father, the Devil (as the New Testament asserts--I Jo 3:12).  An interesting fall out of this miscegenation was that Satan effectively attempted to reproduce himself with Kain--just as YHWH is doing in terms of Adam, as was described in a preceding chapter. 

 

William Dankenbring makes the case that Satan and the later sinning angels, discussed above, in connection with the flood, all attempted to reproduce themselves by copulating with human women and getting them pregnant (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 60). 

 

While there might could be some question about the extent that the giants inhabiting the earth affected later human beings from Adam; the behemah, the chaiyah and certainly the Kain line survived.  The descendants of Cain reflect much of Cain’s father Satan--physically, mentally, emotionally and so forth. 

 

Later chapters will focus on some of the Devil’s human/humanoid descendants who have survived over the ages to influence world history dramatically for the bad.  Many of these descendants of Satan-Kain assuredly have the mind set and wickedness of their fathers. 

 

 

The Early Chronology of Sin 

 

The early chapters of Genesis seem to lay out the sequence of events affecting Adam and Eve.  The couple was created on the sixth day of creation week (Gen 1:27).  Probably their marriage was consummated that day.  The next day, the Seventh day Sabbath, The ELOHIM spoke to them and gave them His Torah.  It’s probable that Satan’s preaching/instructions on sex came to them on the next day--Sunday (Gen 3). 

 

Satan’s seduction of Eve (Gen 3:6) likely occurred during his Sunday preaching effort.  At some point in time, thereafter (either immediately, just after Satan finished with her, or later in time), Adam did the same thing when he, too, surely partook of Eve’s fruit (Gen 3:6; 4:1)--which clearly was illegal in view of YAH’s Torah (Deut 24:1-4). 

 

Though it would seem that indeed Adam did partake of her fruit after Satan finished with her, the wording of Genesis 3:6 may possibly open the door that both Adam and Eve partook of Satan’s fruit--allowing that perhaps Satan seduced Eve and then engaged in a homosexual act with Adam.  This writer is not suggesting that the first homosexual act took place then.  But this possibility must be put on the table. 

 

In any case, it seems almost a certainty that Eve became pregnant there in the garden of Eden.  The birth of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1-2) came later after Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden. 

 

A reader of the lives of Adam/Eve can easily allow that Cain and Abel were, in fact, twins (the context of Genesis 4, the Targums and other ancient Jewish legends and literature allow that Cain and Abel were twins, which is a strong possibility).  In their conception, it seems plausible that Nachash initially seduced Eve and she became pregnant with Cain.  Then she next became pregnant with Abel from Adam. 

 

 

Twins From Two Men? 

 

Can a woman get pregnant with twins from two different men?  Yes, it has happened on occasion in recorded history.  It becomes evident in situations involving Caucasian prostitutes who are with both a Black man and a White man on the same day. 

 

When the twins are born, one can be an obvious Negro while the other is White.  This writer has seen newspaper pictures of such births together with background statements of the woman’s prostitution to produce the resulting different children. 

 

There is another possibility on this subject which is brought out in Genesis 4:1 that the KJV gives as Adam knew Eve (apparently sexually).  Most Christians automatically assume that the pregnancy with Cain happened when Adam knew her.  However there are problems with this text. 

 

The “Soncino Chumash” (p. 17) gives the correct reading here in the sense that Adam “had known” (Eve) before he was expelled from the garden.  Richard Elliott Friedman “Commentary on the Torah” (p. 26) text for Genesis gives Genesis 4:1 as “had known.” 

 

Since Adam and Eve were expelled after this first sin, it might be that he knew her when they consummated their marriage on the 6th or 7th days of creation week (and preceding her seduction by Satan, as probably happened on the next Sunday).  Possibly this is what the first part of Genesis 4:1 says in context. 

 

Alternatively, the case can be made that after Satan finished, Adam too partook of her fruit (as can be the explanation here, per the above discussion).  The point here is that perhaps Adam did “know” her both before and after her sex with Satan.  Thus, Genesis 4:1 with its “had known” might just be a general remark on reality.  Anyway, it provides a clear disconnect between when he knew her and when she became pregnant. 

 

 

More from Ancient Judaism 

 

In articles on angels and “Cain, Abel, and the Seduction of Eve,” writer William F. Dankenbring quotes a number of ancient Jewish authorities which establish the historic Jewish position as being that Satan seduced Eve in the garden.  He quotes the Talmud as saying that the Devil copulated with Eve.  The forbidden fruit was a symbol of illicit sex between Eve and Satan (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 61). 

 

As quoted in the Sep/Oct 2000 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 3), the Talmud is very specific in saying that “For when the serpent came upon Eve he injected lust into her” (Shabbath 146e), and “...at the time that the snake had intercourse with Eve, he introduced filth into her” (Yevamont 103b).  The Kabbalah even says that the idolatrous people of the earth are the children of the serpent which seduced Eve. 

 

Elsewhere, Dankenbring quotes (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79) from the ancient Jewish commentary “Pirqei deR. Eliezer 21” which noted that “The serpent came unto her and she became pregnant with Cain, as it says, ‘And the man knew his wife Eve.’  What did he know?  That she was already pregnant (from someone else).” 

 

The book of IV Maccabees has some observations by a virgin woman of character who reported that the Destroyer, the deceitful serpent, did not defile the purity of her virginity (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79, quoting IV Maccabees 18:7-8). 

 

The “Prophecy Flash” article also quoted from the Gnostic Gospel of Philip which said that Cain was begotten in adultery, for he was the child of the serpent (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 79, quoting the Gospel of Philip 61:5-10). 

 

A Dankenbring quotation from the “Targum Pseudo-Jonathan” (on Gen 4:1) notes that “Adam knew about his wife Eve that she had conceived by Sammael (another name for Azazel or Satan) the (wicked) angel of YHWH and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” (Jun-Jul 1998 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 78). 

 

“The Jewish Encyclopedia” (1903, v. III, p. 483-494; and 1905, v. XI, p. 69-70) states the historic Jewish position that Cain was the son of Satan and that pious men descended from Adam/Seth (“The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, p. 412). 

 

 

Cain is Not of Adam 

 

As a minimum, the context of Genesis 4 allows that Eve did not attribute Cain to Adam,  The KJV of Gen 4:1 says that with the birth of Cain, Eve said “I have gotten a man from the LORD.” 

 

The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Book of Genesis” (p. 169) gives Gen 4:1 as “And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord.”  Of course, it is entirely reasonable to believe that Eve would have concluded that Satan was a messenger of light from YHWH (as others have done--II Cor 11:14). 

 

A friend of this writer once pointed out that Cain was never called a son of Adam in the Scriptures (as was true with Adam’s descendants).  The genealogy of Cain is always separate from that of Adam--suggesting that Cain was not a son of Adam. 

 

In the NT, Cain is never linked to Adam, but is identified as being of that wicked (Greek poneros) one (I Jo 3:12).  The Greek poneros is used several other times in the NT in apparent reference to the Adversary (for example--Matt 13:19; I Jo 2:13; 5:18). 

 

In fact, this linkage of poneros to Satan is so firm that the J. B. Phillips’ translation of “The New Testament” saw fit to translate I John 3:12 as “We are none of us to have the spirit of Cain, who was a son of the devil...”  Phillips called him the evil one in I John 5:18.  On this, see also Matthew 23:33 and John 8:44. 

 

 

The Telegony Problem 

 

In order to avoid the detrimental effects of telegony (as is common among mare horses when bred with a donkey and then later with a stud horse), it appears that some time (to be shortly defined) might be needed to clean up a female’s blood line once she has been impregnated by an alien seed. 

 

While modern science and biologists can never understand the reality of telegony, it is a part of the real world in the interbreeding of animals (and humans as well).  People who have raised mules are aware that when the bloodline of the growing fetus (with the blood of the paternal parent) comes into contact with the female’s blood (through the placenta), it’s possible for blood from the fetus to enter the mother’s bloodstream. 

 

Therefore, the female’s blood stream becomes contaminated with the blood of the fetus which can come from the male.  In the case of like kinds being involved in the pregnancy, this is no big deal.  But when “unlike” kinds produce the pregnancy, it is a big deal of evil. 

 

If a mare is impregnated by a donkey (to produce a mule), her bloodline becomes contaminated by the jack.  If she is with an ass several times, her bloodline will contain many of the DNA characteristics of the jack.  If she then is bred back to a stud horse, the ensuring pregnancy can produce a colt with “mulish” characteristics, as the mare’s blood comes into contact with the fetus during the pregnancy. 

 

The same phenomenon applies to humans/humanoids.  If a woman is impregnated in a legal marriage with one of her own racial kinds, her blood will pick up some of the male, DNA characteristics (from the fetus during the pregnancy).  Obviously, if an Adamite woman is impregnated by a behemah male, she will pick up some of his DNA. 

 

The more times she’s with a behemah, the more she will have of his characteristics in her blood.  Later, if she becomes pregnant with an Adamite male, it seems evident that the resulting Adamite child can become contaminated with the behemah DNA characteristics. 

 

In the case of Kain’s conception from Satan, it is plausible that Eve’s blood became contaminated from Satan.  Perhaps this situation also had some impact on the bloodlines of Satan’s descendants (to be discussed in the succeeding chapters).

 

Hence, to the extent that Eve’s bloodline was contaminated with the blood of the developing Cain (from his father Satan), time was needed for Eve to regenerate new Adamic blood before Seth was born.  Consequently, it might be that there was “at least” a seven years lapse of time (actually longer) from Cain and Abel to the birth of Seth. 

 

Apparently, humans can regenerate all new blood in seven years (per Christian Identity leader Dan Gayman).  Actually, there seems to be some reason or reasons to believe that every molecule in the human body undergoes some change or transformation every seven years (Apr 2002 “Yavoh,” p. 3). 

 

 

Two Seedlines 

 

The point of these early chapters in Genesis is that there seems to be two seedlines from Eve which went on to produce civilizations and inhabit that early Asian portion of planet earth--ultimately Seth from Adam and Cain from Nachash (per “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” 1994 ed, by Dan Gayman). 

 

Clearly, this evidence is extremely convincing and of such substance so as to suggest that the line of Cain and his father has persisted among man to this day--surely, from Naamah (who likely married Ham) and possibly a male line as well (maybe, the Kenites--to be discussed later) that survived the flood (if the flood was not universal, but was limited to perhaps portions of Asia). 

 

If this reasoning has merit, could a fourth racial type or blood line (from Nachash) be in existence in parts of so-called humanity? 

 

Probably, the answer is yes--in the vein of the small, yellow-brown peoples inhabiting the hot portions of earth from Europe and North Africa on East to Southeast Asia and on into the Pacific Islands (as described earlier).  And that possibility gains some legitimate status from some very compelling evidence to be shown in the next chapters. 

 

Before leaving the reality of Satan producing a seedline of people (who have inhabited earth both before and after the flood), the prohibitions on interracial marriage (as cited in prior chapters herein) need recall.  It has to be important to note that the descendants of Ham are all generally stated in those prohibitions.  Thus, Yisrael was commanded to not cross with the seedline of Satan (or the behemah, chaiyah, etc). 

 

 

The Word “Humanoid” 

 

Having used this word “humanoid” several times in previous remarks, perhaps it should now be commented upon in terms of its usage herein. 

 

The 1984 “Webster’s New World Dictionary” (p. 682) says that a humanoid is (1) nearly human in appearance or characteristics; (2) any of the earliest ancestors of modern man; or (3) a science fiction usage of a creature from another planet.  More recent dictionaries now generally identify humanoids with human-like beings from other planets. 

 

These definitions are to be contrasted with a hominid, which means all forms of primates (per Webster’s, p. 672); and/or a hominoid, which means an animal that appears to be human (per Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 307). 

 

In this study at hand, this writer has faced the problem of having to refer to non-Adamic beings which have been accepted as human beings for vast centuries (though there is manifestly a clear distinction between the Adam kind and the other created beings who are called and thought to be human beings). 

 

Perhaps the problem really is that dictionaries without exception talk about a “human race,” as if the different races exist in the framework of one overall human race (but this thinking is totally contrary to reality and the Scriptures, as conclusively proven herein). 

 

Tragically, for civilization, Christendom has ignorantly and wrongly promoted this one race of man idea as a part of Christian theology--in the context of the alleged “brotherhood of man” (which thinking comes directly from the old sun worship cults--as is discussed at some length elsewhere herein). 

 

 

The Role of Evolution 

 

Atheistic evolutionists have helped Christianity enormously in promoting and popularizing this gross perplexity by teaching the ridiculous theory that all modern men (so-called humanity) descend from a common ancestor (which is certainly both wrong and stupid, as proven herein). 

 

For both Christians and atheistic evolutionists, they have jointly worked together to put their ludicrous theories over in the sense of evolution to account for the three to five major races of man.  Christians say that the first man was created and then evolved to the major races.  Evolutionists say that the first man came from an ape and then evolved to man and later to the major races.  Actually, both parties teach evolution! 

 

Anyway, since there is enormous confusion over what constitutes a human being, this writer has generally used the word humanoids to refer to the several non-Adamic races that were created by The HIGHEST (which technically can also be called hominids or hominoids).  For sure, the basis of the word humanoid is human-like or human appearing.  Thus, it seems to be a good word to describe non-Adamic peoples. 

 

In many cases herein, this writer’s usage of the words “humans” or “human beings” clearly suggests that the meaning really must be accepted in the sense of the “so-called or alleged human beings,” as believed by the world at large (this writer has found it impracticable to try to insert the humanoid (non-Adam) idea into all remarks dealing with the totality of the collective humans/humanoids in the world at large. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 114--Answers in Blood Types I

 

 

Blood Differences 

 

Some comment must be made here on the question of the blood lines of different peoples since Acts 17:26, discussed in previous chapters, mentions that word in the KJV.  While the subject of blood types is quite complex, some possible gems of truth might be gleaned about them since they clearly are inherited genetic qualities. 

 

Much confusion has persisted among so-called medical scientists and anthropologists over the presence of perhaps four primary basic blood types in the collective human population--O, A1, A2, and B.  There is also a RH negative factor that can appear in any type.  Type AB can result in children from the crossing of an A and a B parent and may not be an original type, per se. 

 

Beyond these four primary classifications, it appears that there are some sub types in each of the A and B groups.  Besides the A1 and A2 types, there are some 18 other sub types of A.  But these other A types are extremely rare and may have arisen from the messenger copulation with the daughters of man. 

 

Moreover, other blood classification and identification methods have developed over the years to conclusively prove that there are variously inherited differences in the bloodlines of different peoples (per the article on Blood Groups, in “Encyclopedia Britannica,” 1993 ed, v. 15). 

 

Just like the physical racial characteristics of the behemah and chaiyah humanoids predominate over Adamites, it is also important to note that blood group O, in particular, appears to predominate in much of the world at large--for whatever that reason may be. 

 

In fact, blood group O is called the universal donor blood since it evidently can be given to any person (A1, A2, B, AB or O) in the positive or negative groupings.  Conversely, only O blood can be given to an O person.  While positive blood cannot be given to a negative person, O negative can be given to anyone.  Clearly, something sets the O blood apart from the others. 

 

It is also important to realize that a mix of one RH positive parent (father) with a RH negative parent (mother) can produce a real problem in the resulting children.  In fact, this mix can cause death or other problems in such offspring--not so much in the mother’s first child with that mix, but more likely in later children.  This reality alone suggests fundamental differences in the RH negative and positive origins. 

 

Of course, the O, A1, A2, and B types also allow for original distinctions as well, despite their presence and diffusion across the globe.  At a first glance, it would seem that no single pair of truly homogeneous humans (truly full bloods or purebreds) could possibly produce these four or so basic types (A1, A2, B, and O).  The Rh factor further acts to create at least a fifth type of blood of relevance in blood transfusions and race as well. 

 

 

Four Races? 

 

Logically, it would require at least four different kinds of progenitors for this diversity now visible and in evidence in the modern world (and possibly five different ones if the RH factor is addressed apart from the ABO groupings).  This reality alone is sufficient to totally question existing Christian theology that all humans descend from the common pair of Adam and Eve with one homogeneous blood. 

 

Otherwise, this writer is convinced that this basic diffusion of blood types in the population at large is because of the extensive past history of miscegenation between the primary (evident) four races (White, Yellow [or Yellow-Brown], Black, and Red, as recognized and identified in the early Egyptian civilization [discussed earlier], per Charles Weisman in “The Origin of Race and Civilization”). 

 

For example, all or almost all so-called White Americans, in the generic sense, have various mixes of the racial genes of the four primary races.  The same is true of Black Negroes and Asians in America. 

 

In a book on “The Language of Genes” (p. 38), the previously cited Dr Steve Jones said that based on the Duffy blood groups alone (another blood system, beyond the ABO method), some 25% of American Negroes have White genes and some Whites carry African genes.  This compares with the comments of genealogist George Ott who put the American Blacks with White genes at 75% (as discussed earlier). 

 

Thus, the Jones’ report seems far too conservative and especially since the Duffy factors do not always seem measurable in all Blacks or Whites (“Encyclopedia Britannica,” v. 15, p. 140, “Encyclopedia America,” v. 23, p. 119).  Whether they were not present from the beginning in all peoples or whether they were just bred out by miscegenation over the years is unclear. 

 

In any case, the physical appearance of American Blacks alone is sufficient to demonstrate the vast presence of White genes in their genealogy.  Surely, most American Blacks have White or some other type of genes.  Maybe, there are a few true Blacks left in Africa; but few, if any, otherwise. 

 

Likewise, there might be a few true Whites in Scandinavia or the Baltic states; but few, otherwise, in Europe or America.  As Yirmeyahu prophesied, the races would miscegenate (Jer 31:27). 

 

To appreciate how this racial admixture came about, it should be noted that the creation of the major different races started in Central Asia in the Euphrates valley and/or resurfaced there or near there after the flood of Noah, if it was universal.  From there, White people eventually migrated into Europe and seemingly some or all essentially Blacks, Yellows and Reds migrated out from Central Asia as well. 

 

But before, during and following these migrations, there was likely a great deal of miscegenation which caused some very early racial blends.  Of course, these migrations out of Central Asia apparently were spread out over many years and didn’t occur all at once.  Moreover, miscegenation has proceeded on with no let up since creation.  So finding a purebred or full blood human/humanoid today is almost impossible. 

 

In looking at the way secular scientists view this subject, most seem to want to attribute the surfacing of some different genes in a class of people as being a “evolutionary development.”  The truth is that when a given population gains new genes, it apparently comes about because of miscegenation with other races and not from so-called evolution. 

 

 

Frequencies 

 

Incidentally, this racial mixing of blood types makes it difficult to be precise in identifying or linking a specific blood type to a specific racial group of people in a miscegenated population.  But it can be done through sufficient study and analysis.  Without being dogmatic, a few findings will be shared. 

 

“Encyclopedia Britannica’s” article on Blood Groups (v. 15, 1993 ed) has some comments on the distribution of those groups in the various populations.  This article does not attempt to conclusively link the common groups to different racial strains.  But it does offer some data on frequencies. 

 

As a start, it appears that present blood classifications are based on “inherited differences (polymorphisms) in antigens on the surfaces of the red cells” and that human red cells can carry a number of these antigens (per Britannica, v. 15, p. 134).  Going on, the article noted that there could also be other inherited differences in white cells, platelets and plasma proteins. 

 

“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” (p. 94) offers a modified explanation by saying that the A, B and AB groups have specific chemical substances on the surface of the red blood cells while these substances are absent from the O blood groups.  And while the A1 and A2 types are very similar and can be exchanged in transfusions, they are different and are passed down differently by parents (yes, an A1 parent can have an A1 child and not an A2). 

 

As the Britannica article (v. 15, p. 135) states, red cells of the A group will clump with donor blood of the B group; those of a B will clump with the A group; those of AB will clump with either the A or B groups; but those of O will not generally clump with any other group.  This is also very informative and suggestive that the As and Bs may have something in common and that the Os are somewhat different. 

 

In terms of these groups, the article (v. 15, p. 140) suggests that type A increases or is high in Scandinavians, Western Europeans, Australian Aborigines and certain North American Indian tribes.  Some 50% of the Japanese are A’s.  The A subtype A2 is primarily present in Europeans, Middle Easterners and East Africans (evidently in Ethiopia and surrounding territory).  Type B increases in Central Asia and Northern India. 

 

Type O is highest in Northern and Western Europeans, Southern West Africans and in the Indians of South and Central America.  In fact, some isolated Indian tribes in South and Central America are almost totally type O with little or no variation. 

 

“Encyclopedia Americana” (v. 23, p. 119) has an article on race which offers these approximate ranges, evidently for White Americans--Caucasoid--O (45-75%), A1 (5-40%) and B (4-18%); American Blacks--O (52-70%), A1 (8-30%) and B (10-20%); Asian Mongoloid--O (39-68%), A1 (0-45%) and B (16-25%); and American Indian--O (68-100%), A1 (0-20%) and B (0-4%). 

 

A Britannica article on genetics (v. 19, p. 723) outlines the very high presence of A’s (actually A2s) in the Hamite Lapps of Northern Europe and repeats the high frequency of Bs in India and other portions of Asia.  The peoples of India do have a significant presence of Black genes, which must be revealing in terms of these findings. 

 

The earlier mentioned Dr Steve Jones suggests that the B type is rare in England, where less than one in ten people carry it.  However, Jones says that Bs are common in Central Russia and (Black) West Africa where it runs up to one-third of the population (“The Language of Genes,” p. 204). 

 

Another Britannica report on human evolution (v. 18, p. 849) has a powerful statement that group B occurs in up to 40% of the population in parts of Africa and Asia.  Yet, group B is close to zero among American Indians (Mongoloids where type A1 predominates) and Australian Aborigines and very minor in Europe, rarely exceeding 12% there. 

 

In still one more study of this subject in other encyclopedias, this writer once found a remark suggesting the high presence of the B type of blood in certain Arab nations and peoples (about one-third of Arabs have B blood). 

 

Since the Arabs have heavy Black and White genes, this could be relevant in trying to assess the Bs.  Conversely, Islamic descendants of Esau have heavy Hamite and Mongoloid genes.  For sure, the huge presence of B type blood in Blacks in Africa and among people with heavy Black genes has to be significant, as will be shown in later remarks. 

 

 

Conflicts? 

 

At a first glance, one might be suspicious that something is wrong with the data presented in that North American Indians can be high in A types while Central and South American Indians are high in O types.  But this difference can be understood when one realizes that the two peoples are of largely different racial stocks.

 

North American Indians are typically Mongoloids, while the others are probably of Hamitic racial stock from Noah/Ham (the South America Indians are probably Hamites from Put while the Incas, Mayans and Aztecs are likely Hamites from Mizraim).  The British Isles and portions of Europe were also inhabited perhaps by some of the Hamite people (and/or Mongoloids) from a very early time, before White settlers came in to push them out or miscegenate with them, as may be the case.

 

In Britain, they were known as the Picts.  While these Picts probably were from Hamitic racial stock that migrated to Britain from out of the Middle East, a later chapter herein will open the door that they could have been a Canaanite-Edomite mixture with a preponderance of Hamitic genes and little in terms of Hebrew.  The Basques in Spain may fit into this same category. 

 

If Hamitic, it might be that the yellow-brown coloring of these people is attributable to Cain’s father or his wife when he went East and knew his mate (was she an Eastern Mongoloid?), as discussed earlier in this study.  Southern Europeans, North Africans, Pacific Islanders, South-East Asians (i.e. highland mountain peoples) and small Yellow-Brown peoples around the world all seem to fit into this same category. 

 

While Ham Cushites settled South India and some parts of SE Asia, it is possible that some Ham Canaanites could have come to SE Asia and on to the Pacific Islands following their expulsion from Canaan land by the Israelites in the 15th century BCE. 

 

It appears that the Vietnamese, Burmese, and Cantonese (Southern Han Chinese) seem to be of mixed blood lines involving Mongoloids and probably Whites and Blacks along with these small Yellow (or Yellow-Brown) peoples, who came to Southern China or the Malaysian peninsula at an early time (like the Montagnards of the Vietnam highlands and the Malays settling Malaya and probably Indonesia).  Northern Chinese (Mandarins) are a larger people with heavier Red genes. 

 

 

More on Hamites 

 

Most of the Hamites left the Middle East at an early time and moved West.  The Philistines settled North Africa and became the Berbers/Moors while the Cushite Sepharvaim (II Kg 17:24) likely settled the Spanish peninsula (In Hebrew, Sepharad is Hispania--see Oba 1:20 in the Targums; yet with the Moor invasion, Spain became primarily Philistines); Portugal probably was from Hamite Phoenician traders; Ethiopia was the domain of Ham Cushites; and the Egyptians surely formed the culture of the early Aztecs, Mayans and Incas in the Americas. 

 

Obviously, the huge movement of mixed Hamitic peoples from Spain, Portugal and Egypt into Central and South America means that most of the Latin people from Mexico South are largely Hispanic descendants of Mizraim, Canaan and Cush, sons of Ham, coupled with a lot of miscegenation with other races. 

 

Modern Egyptians are actually Arabs, but with only some “possible” gene remnants of the true Egyptians.  Dr Steve Jones charges that the Coptic Christians of Egypt are the sole descendants of the ancient Egyptians who were effectively wiped out by successive waves of invasion (“The Language of Genes,” p. 39). 

 

Some of the small, dark, Hamitic peoples (evidently the Cushite Sabines) also settled in Italy and were to be distinguished from the Romans who were a larger, blond, blue-eyed, fair, Nordic people.  In time, these Hamitic persons, the surviving Romans and slaves brought there all amalgamated to form the modern Italian peoples (now probably Babylonian in type).  It seems to be true that the Latin language and the peoples using it in Europe can largely be linked to descendants of Ham. 

 

 

Other Reports 

 

An initial impression might be that the high “A” presence among Scandinavians suggests a linkage to the White race.  Actually, many Scandinavians have either A1 or A2 blood.  The A2 blood comes about from the A2 Phoenicians who established trading posts in the Norwegian islands and at Northern Norway and Southern Sweden at early times.  The Phoenicians were traders trading for reindeer hides to ship to the Near East where they were used for boat sails. 

 

The A2 seems clear enough.  But it is also reality that many Scandinavians and Russians have Mongoloid genes from Mongoloids (with high A1s) which nomadically roamed the Northern reaches of Europe and Asia for ages before the Whites came out of the Middle East to push them North or miscegenate with them, as may be the case. 

 

The presence of another type of antigen (D1a) indicates a Mongolian origin, although all peoples with Mongolian ancestry do not necessarily exhibit this antigen.  For example, only 10% of Japanese and Chinese have it.  But remember, both the Japanese and Chinese are themselves racial mixtures with other genes besides Mongoloid ones. 

 

In fact, the original settlers in Japan were evidently the Ainu who actually had A2 and O blood; they were Hamitic boat people of the Polynesian class (the main Mongoloid Japanese came over from Asia much later).  The Ainu came in about the 15th century BCE and might be Canaanite Hamites.  These same peoples moved North to also become the Aleuts who settled the Aleutian Islands and probably spread West across Asia and Europe to become the Hamite Lapps. 

 

Otherwise, A1 seem to run high among Mongoloids.  As Os and As predominate in White Europeans, one must be suspicious that the B type is of some other racial category. 

 

Since the small Brown or Yellow-Brown people (perhaps originally yellow, but browned by the sun or from an infusion of Red or Black genes?) of South America are already linked with the O and A2 types, it might be that such peoples cannot be linked with the B type either. 

 

 

Negroes 

 

There seems to be a strange lack of much of a discussion in the encyclopedias on any linkage of the ABO system to Blacks in Africa, although there may be some presentations (like those of Americana) of American Blacks which is highly distorted because of the vast miscegenation of American Blacks. 

 

Nevertheless, the few remarks one can find (from Britannica and Steve Jones’ book) are sufficient to suggest that group B is probably the Black antigen (since it seems to be found in possibly 30-40% of the Blacks in Africa).  Beyond the huge association of Bs with Blacks, there is a similar high finding of Bs in India (with its heavy Black presence from early times) and among some Asian Mongoloids (to include Central Russians). 

 

But why this Asian Mongoloid presence when Bs are largely absent from American Indians?  Britannica (v. 18, p. 849) says that the American Indians had already crossed over from Asia to North America before Bs became established in Asia or that the later American Indians lost the B type as a part of their “evolutionary development.” 

 

Since evolution is too stupid to be discussed and can be dismissed, the explanation has to be that the B genes were not present in the early Mongoloids, but came to them in Asia as a result of later miscegenation--after the Indians had already left Asia.  This same reasoning probably applies to the Hamite Lapps (who are largely A2), who also may lack much of a presence of Bs. 

 

Consequently, it would seem that persons with a high frequency of B genes miscegenated with various Asians to cause this high modern incidence of B genes found in Asian populations). 

 

Since Blacks were in Asia at creation and/or later following Noah’s flood, there is no problem in allowing their miscegenation with Asians and particularly so when one looks at the peoples of India and the Australian Aborigines/Australiods (who came out of Asia).  By the way, the Australoids do not seem to have many B blood types for some strange reason.  They are largely Os and As. 

 

Actually, this writer has known people with ancestry from Russia and Central Asia who were very dark, showing much evidence of Black genes.  Some of these extremely dark peoples out of Eastern Europe and Asia have much more in evidence with Black characteristics than with Asian Mongoloid characteristics. 

 

Certainly, the Armenians fit into this category (they demonstrate a clear presence of Black/Mongoloid/Hamite genes with very mixed blood lines of O, A1, A2 and B plus some significant presence of Rh Negative).  The famous or infamous Khazar population of Southern Russia (however they are to be described) is another identifiable ethnic group which shows heavy influence of Black/Mongoloid/Hamite genes, plus other genetic types. 

 

Some of the Khazars (like Karl Marx) have shown much evidence of African genes (though most Khazars tend to have more pronounced Mongoloid or Hamite ancestry for their dark skin and hair).   The situation with the Khazars Golda Meir and Edward G. Robinson has been cited in an earlier chapter.  Stocky people with narrow hips often have Negro genes. 

 

 

The Arabs 

 

While many of the Edomites in South Central Asia do have a significant presence of A1 and A2 genes, the Arab populations in North Africa and the Middle East conversely demonstrate a huge proportion of Negro genes.  The Middle Eastern Arabs have traditionally been huge traffickers in Black slaves.  Even to this day, Arabs use the word slave to refer to Blacks (as a slur). 

 

Consequently, the Arabs have routinely miscegenated with these captured Black women to produce the modern Arab-Negro linkage.  In the Hebrew language (as at Dan 2:41, 43), the word arab (more correctly arav) means mingled or mixed, as will be discussed later herein. 

 

Actually, there is some complication in attempting to describe the Arabs’ physical characteristics from their mixed, mongrel state.  In the beginning, they started with Ishmael, who evidently was a mixed Shemite and Hamite (Ishmael’s mother was the famous Hamitic woman named Hagar in the Scriptures). 

 

From Ishmael forward, the Arab peoples were produced.  It is these peoples who have grossly miscegenated with Blacks over the centuries.  Thus, they are part Shemite, part Hamite and part Black.  With this strange mixture, and the way it came about, the Arabs do not display the typical physical presentations so common in Black-White mixes, as discussed in former chapters. 

 

Too, it should be noted that while the Arabs are not as creative and as intelligent as are Whites or Asians, they are manifestly not stupid or dullards, as is the case with Blacks and/or most White people with significant Black genes. 

 

 

More on the Black Asian Genes 

 

These Asian dark genes are so profound that it is easy to see that there was once a huge presence of Negroes in Central Asia, who miscegenated with other peoples in ancient times.  There can be little doubt that this huge Negroid population must have had a profound impact upon the peoples of India (who probably were once largely Yellow-Brown Hamites/Cainites). 

 

Britannica (v. 15, p. 140) charges that the B blood type was “probably” not only absent from American Indians, but Australian Aborigines/Australoids as well, before their later racial admixtures in modern times when the Whites came to Australia.  However, the Australian Aborigines/Australoids appear to have been a racial admixture (Blacks with Whites and/or Blacks with especially Yellow-Browns) from a very early time and not necessarily a distinctly separate race. 

 

Many of the Australian Aborigines/Australoids are extremely small in statute, which suggests that they carry significant Yellow-Brown Hamite/Cainite genes.  For sure, they are not totally black in color, as is true with black Africans (importantly, recent genetic research shows that these Aborigines are genetically related to the Negroes of Africa; so they are absolutely linked together). 

 

If A1 links with Mongoloids, A2 with Hamites/Cainites, and B with Blacks (meaning that the original Whites were O), and if the Black Aborigines/Australoids miscegenated with Asian Mongoloids/Hamites/Cainites at an early time, it is very plausible that Australian Aborigines’ B blood groups largely gave way to the O and A blood types from that miscegenation at a very early time and perhaps long before they reached Australia and the Pacific. 

 

 

More Specifics 

 

While Black Africans can apparently be classified by the traditional ABO system, it appears that a number of other antigens and classifications are also appropriate for them.  It is unclear to this writer whether there is any correlation between these other antigens and the ABO system.  But it could exist and blood scientists be just indifferent about studying and/or reporting it. 

 

For example, Black Africans or racial mongrels from Black Africans can have other distinct antigens like P1, Fy(a-b-), Jsa, and V which set them apart (antigens suggesting a Negro origin).  In fact, some rare antigens, like M, N, S and s, are found only in Blacks (per Britannica, v. 15, p. 140).  The S antigen is present in up to half the Blacks in some parts of Africa.  It is the source of the sickle-cell anemia problem in Negroes (ibid, v. 18, p. 849). 

 

For some unclear, but fascinating reason, a JK(a-b-) antigen has an increased presence in Filipinos and Hawaiians (plus the usual ABO classifications).  Since these peoples are classic mongrels with the apparent genes of all races, this condition is most intriguing and could be from their Yellow-Brown genes or remotely suggest a mutation.  Also, a Hh antigen runs high in the people of India for whatever the reason. 

 

 

Some O’s in Africa? 

 

One more aspect of this discussion of the ABO types would perhaps be a question on why the high O presence among the American Indians and people of Southern West Africa. 

 

A plausible answer to the O blood in West Africa seems to come from comments made by writer Yair Davidy in a discussion of how far ranging and extensive the Phoenician sea peoples traveled over the Mediterranean and other areas. 

 

Davidy notes that the early Carthaginians (a Hamitic Phoenician people) transported some 30,000 men and women in 60 ships on a colonizing venture beyond the Pillars of Hercules, evidently to West Africa (“Lost Israelite Identity,” p. 214).  These Yellow-Brown, Hamite peoples would have likely had O and A2 blood.  In time, they became lost to history--obviously miscegenating in time with the local Blacks and losing their identity. 

 

But why the big A2 presence among East Africans (evidently arising out of Ethiopia)?  The answer here likewise has to be due to miscegenation of Negroes with the early Cushite settlers of Ethiopia.  Possibly, many of these people miscegenated in Asia long before their migrations into Africa or some people with A2 blood out of Asia migrated into East Africa and miscegenated with local Negroes. 

 

 

More Movements 

 

Beyond the Asian migrations into North America, historical evidence has surfaced over the years allowing for some so-called White migrations (besides the Hamitic movements, discussed earlier) long before Columbus.  Early Phoenicians and Hebrews have left inscribed writings in various places in the US, proving that they came here centuries ago.  

 

Moreover, Norsemen came to Newfoundland and English persons came to the lost colony of Roanoke to try to settle this country.  All of these White peoples became lost to history--either having died out or more likely being absorbed and amalgamated with local Indian tribes.  Even if the Indians had massacred the males, they would have likely kept the women and interbred with them. 

 

Later, American Indians started crossing with Whites shortly after John Smith met Pocahontas.  And that fact hasn’t changed in 390 years.  The same is true in South Africa.  There are whole mulatto populations of mixed breeds in most of South Africa. 

 

Many of the African Blacks are like American Blacks.  They are mixed peoples from the centuries of miscegenation.  Dr Steve Jones asserts that the people in the Cape Colored population of South Africa are halfway between the White and Black South Africans in their genes (“The Language of Genes,” p. 96). 

 

Dr Jones also mentions how extensive Black slavery was carried on to Europe, the Middle East and even to China, from the days of the Roman Empire up to the 800s CE (ibid, p. 36).  Otherwise, Jones outlines the fondness of Europeans to forcibly import Colored peoples from around the world to their nations over the years (ibid, p. 38-39). 

 

Eighteenth century England had a significant Black population and even some American Indians.  These people were all assimilated and amalgamated to lose their identities.  Blacks, Indians, Eskimos and so forth were imported by the thousands into various portions of Europe.  While many of these persons died, others survived long enough to miscegenate and place their genes in the surviving population. 

 

 

RH Negative 

 

The RH negative condition seems to surface in about 40% percent of Europeans (per Britannica, v. 15, p. 140).  This negative quality (O or A2-negative) is especially prevalent (50%) among the Basques of Northern Spain (ibid, v. 18, p. 849); who, like many other Southern Europeans, are probably Hamitic in origin (possibly from Canaanites).  The Basques are very close in DNA and blood to the Hamite Berbers of North Africa (who were originally Philistines and who have high A2 and negative blood). 

 

The A2 and O negative features seem to be significant among both Celtic peoples in the British Isles and France and among Eastern Oriental Jews for whatever reason (the Oriental Jews miscegenated much with Hamites over the years).  With the negative quality in these two seemingly diverse peoples, it seems likely that it goes back to Satan Cain and Canaan land in First Temple days (suggesting that the Canaanites were RH negative and strong in A2 blood).  The Celtic role in the Middle East will be assessed in later chapters herein. 

 

Apparently, the negative condition is largely absent in certain East Asians (actually, in those Asians carrying the D [Rho] positive antigen, which appears to be fairly common there). 

 

Also, Black Africans do not have a high RH negative presence and their positive RH factor, cede (Ro), is actually different (more complex) than the RH positive qualities of Europeans.  Some 3% of so-called Caucasians have the cede (Ro) factor as a matter of information--probably from mixed bloodlines. 

 

Perhaps the RH negative feature is something which came about as a later addition to the initial primary three Scriptural racial types (Adamites, behemah and chaiyah).  If so, it may have surfaced from Cain’s father and probably has a high presence in some of the various Hamitic peoples carrying O and A2 blood (particularly among the Canaanites who influenced the above noted Celts, Berbers and Basques, as will be proven later herein). 

 

Alternatively, someone might argue that the positive feature came from the Kain line and that the negative quality represents the original Adamites.  However, this option makes no sense at all since the negative quality affects all blood types—A1, A2, B and O (though b-negatives are pretty rare).  This reality suggests that the four positive types were original and that the negative feature possibly came along later. 

 

Plus, it is important to note that the negative blood lines surface primarily in Hamite type peoples.  So, while Europeans carry a heavier negative presence than Mongoloids and Blacks, its strongest presence is among Berber, Celtic and Basque Hamitic peoples.  The more pure Caucasians are certainly in Scandinavia and the Baltic states where the negative quality is not as prevalent as it is in the British Isles, Spain and France.  This means that the negative feature has affected more mongrelized Europeans than the less mixed ones. 

 

Finally, an article on the Internet on RH negative blood noted that many people involved in the occult, spiritualism, etc tend to have RH negative blood for whatever reason.  This could be another indicator that RH negative could be from Satan-Kain. 

 

 

A and B Sub-Groups? 

 

It should be noted that just as Adam had at least one sub-group in the form of descendants of Cain, there are a lot of reasons to allow that there can be several sub-groups of behemah and chaiyah humanoids (as mentioned previously).  This is interesting in view of the presence of several different sub-groups of blood--especially in types A and B and among Black Africans (this may account for the ten branches of man reported by Peter Underhill, as discussed earlier). 

 

 

Some Possibilities on Blood Types  

 

Because there has been such extensive miscegenation by the three to five major races over the centuries, problems arise in defining the many mongrel children carrying the various genes in terms of blood types, as described above and earlier.  Perhaps this is the situation which allows blood scientists to “suppose” that two As can have “possible” O children, along with As; and that two Bs can “possibly” have an O child, in addition to Bs; while two Os produce only O children (according to Britannica). 

 

This possible throwback to Os can also arise from an A and a B parent.  They can cross and produce children which can “possibly” be A, B, AB or even O.  Although not stated in the story, it would be necessary for some O ancestry in the parental genes in order for A and B parents to produce an O child (as is now known scientifically).  Otherwise, if one or both parents are AB, no O seems possible. 

 

Also, a person has to wonder how frequent these “possibilities” can surface.  Surely, they are rare or otherwise, an entire population would quickly become Os in a few generations.  In any case, it seems questionable that “truly” homogenous people of any common type are capable of producing children of other blood types.  If it happens today, the parents would likely not be truly homogenous, because of the centuries of miscegenation. 

 

Not only is there a requirement for O genes to be present in those cases (where an O surfaces from A/B parents), but they probably have to be present in some number or proportion, along with their additions occurring in some definite procedural manner.  For example, this writer grew up in Oklahoma where there has been much miscegenation between Whites and Indians. 

 

Having seen many, many, half breed Indians, it is a fact that half breed Indians are Indians for all purposes--certainly physically and often mentally as well (the Indian genes start diminishing in the next generation). 

 

Years ago, this writer was acquainted with a half breed Cherokee who had been married to another half breed Cherokee.  They were physically just like other Cherokee Indians.  But they had a daughter whose eyes were small, slit like and slanted (Asian epicanthic folded).  She was not extremely dark (like Indians) and otherwise looked exactly like a Chinese.  Like her parents, she was half Cherokee.  But while both parents looked like the usual American Indians, she looked like an Asian Oriental. 

 

The point of this is that it is not only important on what kind and how many genes various persons have, but there could be some importance and relevance on how those genes surfaced (in the mix) over the years in the interbreeding process. 

 

 

A Recap on Blood Types

 

The bottom line here is that Adam and Eve and their descendants must have had O positive blood.  Negro Blacks surely had B positive type of blood.  The Mongoloids of NE Asia must have had A1 positive and the Cain line must have had A2 negative blood.   

 

Since Eve, the mother of Cain, had O positive, it stands to reason that O positive can be found in the Cain line.  In the case of Noah’s son Ham, he should have had the Adamic blood O positive and his believed wife Naamah would have had the Cain blood type A2 negative.  This combination could evidently produce children with blood types O positive, O negative, A2 positive and A2 negative. 

 

It is not clear which women Cain or his sons married (some sisters could be involved since the ancient Hamite Egyptians did marry sisters).  Too, the door is left open to also allow some presence of A1 and B positive in Cain’s descendants.  Thus, any further alteration of the Cain profile is also likely due to miscegenation. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 115--Answers in Blood Types II

 

 

The Dilemma! 

 

This writer has kicked this blood subject around mentally for some time in an effort to understand why there can be a strong A or B presence in certain White families, if these types are non-white in origin, as the evidence would seem to suggest.  The same question can be asked about the way for the high O presence in American Black and Indian families. 

 

Of course, the immediate answer is miscegenation and random chance distributions, as suggested previously.  While this chance explanation may be true in some cases, it may not be true in all cases.  Perhaps there are other factors involved in determining the blood types of children. 

 

Beyond quantity, organization and distribution of blood types and genes within specific families, there might be some relevance of what genes were passed down paternally in a male line.  Over the years, some people studying blood types have theorized that a child’s blood came from the father. 

 

If this was true, as believed and taught for years, then it would suggest that a child’s blood type is determined paternally.  However, scientists now dispute that belief.  Consequently, it appears that on some basis (random chance, gene mix or otherwise), a mother’s blood type “may” on occasion determine a child’s type. 

 

Perhaps statistically, the father’s blood does predominate.  But there surely remains the possibility of a maternal contribution.  If the mother’s blood does prevail, there is possibly some reason for this occurrence besides just chance.  Hence, it’s not to say that a child automatically will have his father’s type. 

 

Still, the father’s gene/type contribution may predominate in some fashion in some instances and particularly so when the father’s parents were both of one type (as in the case of a double M in the MN system--per Britannica, v. 15, p. 139) or if the father’s line has been entirely of one strong blood type back to creation. 

 

Scripturally, genealogical lines are determined paternally--father to son.  Thus, is it plausible that some A1, A2, B or O types exist today because they were originally established as an A1, A2, B or O type with the first male progenitors of a given line and in which this single specific type has been passed down, respectively from father to son, in this one line over the last 6,000 years? 

 

 

So Maybe 

 

In other words, the entire single paternal line from Eden to today has consisted of only A1s, A2s, Bs or Os in certain individuals?  In such a condition, it might be that such paternal A1, A2, B or O blood is more dominant in some fashion over other types/genes from any maternal ancestors in the father’s line or persons in the mother’s line. 

 

Perhaps intermarriages with women of other racial types over the centuries has changed some persons into being of a different racial group (White, Black, Yellow-Brown or Red) while still retaining the original paternal blood type.  Possibly, on some basis, some of the other descendants of this same given progenitor became of a different blood and/or racial line from various maternal contributions. 

 

It could be that once a break (that is a male son being born without his father’s type) surfaces in the male line from a maternal contribution because of chance or some other condition, maybe the line no longer has this dominant feature of one blood type back to the original paternal progenitor at creation. 

 

This writer is not trying to be dogmatic in this discussion.  These comments are being made only on the premise of trying to invite thought and offer some possibilities which may have some relevance in explaining why there can be a strong presence of Os in American Blacks and Indians and why there can be an A1, A2 or B occurrence in some American Whites. 

 

After all, in America, the early miscegenation (before Roosevelt/Rosenfeldt and his liberal philosophy gained ground in the 1930s) more often probably involved White men and Black or Indian women.  If any of these paternal domination theories have merit, then that would account for the high Os in Blacks and Indians. 

 

Thus, some Blacks with O blood might can credit that blood to their paternal lines, which at some previous point probably consisted of White males. 

 

 

More Support 

 

Incidentally, this whole discussion has a lot of support in comments made by the previously mentioned Dr Steve Jones.  He reports the high presence of Y (DNA) chromosomes (discussed in a prior chapter) of White European origin or type in the mulatto Coloreds of South Africa and in native Americans (“The Language of Genes,” p. 96). 

 

As briefly noted elsewhere herein, the Y chromosomes come from the paternal side of individuals.  Jones concludes that White males took advantage of their economic domination over Colored females in Africa and the Americas (ibid, p. 96).  He notes that many so-called Indians in Mexico are of European origin. 

 

There is no doubt in this writer’s opinion. The paternal blood types predominate in some fashion in conception. 

 

If and when (which probably is not a common occurrence) a child takes the mother’s blood type instead of the father’s blood group, there likely is some reason due to the mix of genes, in contrast to just a random chance event. 

 

This reality probably accounts for the heavy O blood presence in American Blacks and American Indians; for the A2 presence in Africans; for the A occurrence among the Australian Aborigines and Scandinavians; for the B presence among so-called White, Yellow and Red peoples around the globe; and so forth. 

 

 

Other Considerations 

 

Another interesting feature of this discussion is that beyond the question of the ABO blood types, Britannica says “There is no doubt that the antigens of the ABO system are widely distributed throughout the (body) tissues.”  Thus, the ABO system seems to extend to cells of the skin, gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys, the urinary tract, the lining of blood vessels, etc. 

 

The importance of this reality is that in addition to properly matching blood types in blood transfusions, it is also important to match the ABO system to bodily organs involved in organ transplants (per Britannica, v. 15, p. 138).  Britannica suggests that other antigen systems (besides ABO) are not relevant in organ transplants. 

 

National Public Radio has a weekly radio talk show with family doctor Zorbas Pasteur.  On the Mar 28, 2001, program, a question came up about the applicability of particular diets for particular blood types.  Apparently, some person has written a book along this line with some suggestions of a linkage.  Anyway, Pasteur, being a normal, largely uninformed MD, gave his opinion that the whole subject is just bunk. 

 

One caller into his program was told to ignore the issue.  However, despite the doctor’s AMA approved approach (which will one day be proven to be wrong), there is probably some merit in this discussion on a possible connection.  Clearly, it is true that certain people do well on a heavy use of dairy products or on meats or on vegetables or on fruits. 

 

This writer once read a remark suggesting that the suitability of a particular diet depends a lot upon one’s ancestry. 

 

Certainly, behemah and chaiyah humanoids can simply have problems with dairy products while Adamites generally do well on diary items.  Historically, certain primitive peoples have had a high meat diet.  This theory would suggest that they do better on a heavy meat diet, as opposed to Europeans. 

 

The point is that there probably is some correlation between blood types (which suggest certain racial ancestry) and the suitability of particular diets.  This writer cannot be dogmatic on this question (however, modern books are now on the market establishing this tie).  But surely, the good Doctor Pasteur needs to move away from the AMA MD approach and look at other possibilities when he is dishing out advice. 

 

A later chapter herein will note the presence of Genesis 1:29 in suggesting that a plant food diet was primarily outlined for Adam (not exclusively--since Adam is also allowed to have some variety in his diet with clean meats, honey, salt, dairy products, and so forth).  The essence here is that there probably is some correlation between a person’s blood type, his racial ancestry and what foods appertain to him. 

 

The Britannica article cited above also goes on to suggest that non-human primates carry “similar” blood group antigens. 

 

For example, chimpanzees and orangutans are most frequently type A, but can have groups B, AB and O present.  Gibbons can be of any group (A, B or AB) except O.  Gorillas have a B like antigen.  But it is not identical with the human/humanoid ones.  A and B substances have been found in various kinds of monkeys. 

 

 

DNA

 

The last several years has seen a boom in DNA research and identifications of the various DNA lines (as briefly noted in prior comments).  Though blood types are probably better forms of identifying the original races of humans/humanoids, the DNA haplotypes are also useful since the Y-chromosome types are indicative of a person’s male parentage and the Mitochondrial (mt) DNA defines the maternal line. 

 

Evolutionists and DNA scientists presume that the first man was an A which apparently still has some presence in Asians.  But the problem with Y-haplotypes is that they seem to mutate with miscegenation.  While the Y-types for Blacks, Mongoloids and Hamites seem to be limited and defined (Blacks are evidently B and E; Mongoloids are often X and possibly A [but Q is common in Mongoloids miscegenated with Whites]; and Hamites are possibly C, D, J, V and/or K), problems arise with defining Whites. 

 

Many continental Europeans are R1a (Eastern Europeans) and R1b (Western Europeans).  Yet, the most White people of all are found in Scandinavia where the Y-type I runs strong (the I type was believed to be that of the ancient Vikings). 

 

The Finns, Hungarians and Baltic state peoples have a Y-type N which is also peculiar.  Since the Finns and Baltic peoples are probably from Elam (which interestingly moved West from Siberia) there might be some ancient mixing with Mongoloids in their gene lines.  These very white Finns and Baltic states people should be of the I type, but they are not.  Whatever happened (a mutation, miscegenation or whatever), it must have changed their DNA type. 

 

The very common R1a and b Y-types in much of continental Europe remain a puzzle.  Of course, this population has been heavily mongrelized as is true with man in general.  It might be that the mixing somehow altered their genes.  But whatever happened, they lost what should be their historic Y-type genes. 

 

This possibility has merit from an article on the Internet assessing DNA.  This report suggested that a DNA Y-type P, though rare today (found only in India and Pakistan), was the ancestral line for Y-haplogroups Q and R.  This explanation would account for the huge numbers of R types in Europe and why they must be distinguished from type I.  It seems clear enough that male Caucasians miscegenated to produce the huge mongrel populations of Europe (and especially with Mongolians and Hamites). 

 

By the way, this same report noted the presence of several other Y-haplogroups in India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan, besides P--like G, H and L.  Several Y-haplogroups are also to be found in miscegenated Pacific Islanders--like B, C, O and K.  The Japanese Ainu people were originally Hamites related to the Polynesians.  They have strong type D. 

 

The K line also appears in low frequencies in Northern Africa, Southern Europe and the Middle East.  It is supposedly the source of the L, M and P types.  The K line may link to the J line and be some way connected to Satan-Kain-Ham.  The mainly Hamite Phoenicians seem to be heavy Ks.  The Berbers (with mainly haplotype V) of North Africa are descended from the Scriptural Philistines.  Both the Phoenicians and Berbers have strong A2 and negative blood which was addressed in earlier comments herein. 

 

As a minimum, the G, H, I, J and K types seem to be related and may descend from an F type which is either original; or possibly a derivative from an A, if the A was not original with the Mongoloids (thus, was Adam an A, F or I?).  It is logical that there are these linkages because it is believed that 99.9% of all human/humanoid DNA is the same (per a note on the Internet).  Obviously, it is the .1% that makes the difference. 

 

 

DNA and More Human-Animal Links 

 

The May 24, 2002, “The Week” (p. 14) had a news item that said that human beings share some 30,000 genes with mice.  With this finding, some scientists now speculate that 100 million years ago, man shared a common ancestor with rodents. 

 

A June 26, 2000, news report said that science had mapped an outline of the human DNA chain.  In remarks on this issue (on the Rush Limbaugh program), the point was made that chimpanzees carry almost the same DNA as humans.

 

These reports on chimps and mice bring to mind the previously discussed work of Vincent Sarich and Allan Wilson at the University of California and their discovery of the above noted “mitochondrial DNA,” which supposedly comes maternally to human beings.  Per that report, they alleged that all humans had this common material (based on a limited, small sample); and thus, had a common mother.    

 

This writer would just add that the work of Sarich and Wilson proves nothing since the four different major human races also share vast similar DNA with mice and chimps.  The fact that humans and mice have common DNA does not prove that they both descended from a common progenitor.  It just proves the wisdom of The CREATOR in using some common formulas/designs in the creation of the various forms of life. 

 

A later chimp report in the May 31, 2002, “The Week” (p. 9) was more precise in saying that humans and chimpanzees share 98.4 percent of the same, identical DNA; and thus, probably had a common ancestor about seven million years ago.  Many scientists now believe that chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. 

 

These comments from “The Week” came from an article on “The legal rights of man’s closest cousin.”  The article quoted primate expert Jane Goodall who said that the chimps live according to social rules, hug and hold hands and engage in gestures “uncanningly like many of our own.”  She added that they are capable of love, altruism, joy, despair and sadness. 

 

In the 1990s, a group of 34 biologists, philosophers, anthropologists, ethicists, and other so-called thinkers issued a manifesto declaring that chimps, gorillas and orangutans “have mental capacities and an emotional life sufficient to justify inclusion within the (human) community as equals.”  Some of these persons added that these apes should be accorded the same care that so-called humans accord to the young or the severely handicapped. 

 

Thenceforth, in 1999, the nation of New Zealand introduced the first ape-rights bill to supposedly protect apes and/or grant them certain privileges and rights.  Actually, this bill did not pass.  But it demonstrates that some Western, Christian governments are looking at the subject of having a closer relationship with apes.  The essence of this report from “The Week” was that some persons believe that laws must be passed to grant at least chimps (and perhaps all apes) legal status as “a person.” 

 

Under a model law now drafted, judges could appoint a human/humanoid guardian ad litem, or guardian at law, to sue medical labs, animal trainers, or other chimp owners who violate the basic rights of the chimps.  Damages could be collected from these abusers of the animals so that the money can be used to provide for the animals. 

 

Many critics of this new thinking charge that the idea of ape rights is ridiculous.  Nevertheless, the subject is now on the drawing board and is receiving some discussion and publicity. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

This writer would just add that none of this stuff about mice or chimps proves evolution.  Instead, these stories only suggest that mongrelized humans/humanoids with non-Adamic genes may have much in common with other animals and certainly primates. 

 

So the fact that stupid liberals and animal lovers get worked up over the reality that Adamites and the Hamite, behemah and chaiyah created humanoids are very close together in genetics doesn’t mean a thing.  Adamites and these other humanoids are also each very close in genetics to chimpanzees and other apes.  Obviously, much of the created animal world (to particularly include primates) are close together genetically. 

 

This phenomenon does not suggest, imply or prove a common ancestor for these various forms of life.  Instead, the obvious conclusion has to be that this evidence only goes to prove the incredible wisdom and intelligence of The Great CREATOR Who made the various forms of life. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 116--Acts 17:26 Concluded

 

 

Acts 17:26 Revisited 

 

The interesting thing about the discussed blood theme in the prior chapters is that periodic new research is rendering new data and classification methods over time, all of which are proving the presence of different racial ancestry.  The point is--we are not all of one blood.  We are not all the same! 

 

Therefore, in reality, it might well be that Luke in Acts 17:26 was referring to the "one blood" of the Adam kind and not to the incorrect one blood of all humans/humanoids (as implied in the KJV).  Additionally, please note here that the word "men" in this text is from the Greek "anthropos" --which, like the English man, seems to be used in lieu of the Hebrew Adam (as described in former chapters). 

 

Consequently, it is more evident that YESHUA was The SON OF ADAM rather than the son of man, as the KJV and various English translations of the New Testament reflect (as described earlier; also, see I Cor 15:45 which declares the same thing).  Here, in these texts, the Greek has it as "anthropos," which probably was an attempt to translate to Greek the proper name of Adam, as discussed earlier. 

 

Before leaving this word "anthropos," which seems to usually be a Greek rendition of the Hebrew "Adam," reference must be made again to Shaul's remarks that all flesh is not the same, as one kind is of men (Greek anthropos), another of beasts (Greek ktenos) and so forth, as alluded to previously herein (I Cor 15:39). 

 

In that context, the Greek anthropos (more correctly, the Hebrew Adam) is being thrust into a contrasting posture vis-à-vis other created orders, including the Greek "ktenos" which is translated as "beasts" in the KJV.  Young's "Analytical Concordance" defines ktenos as "beasts of burden or food," which clearly suggests domesticated animals. 

 

This definition then brings to mind the situation with the behemah which has been elaborated upon previously herein.  Is it not plausible that the Greek ktenos expressly stands for and is being used in lieu of the Hebrew behemah (also meaning domesticated animals, per Dr J. H. Hertz, quoted earlier).  This would have likely been at least the thinking of Shaul, a first century Jew, even if not projected in his writings. 

 

So, what we have here in Shaul's words to the Corinthians is a message that the flesh of Adam (Greek anthropos) is assuredly different from the flesh of the behemah humanoid (Greek ktenos)--despite the fact that the two created orders can sexually reproduce (Jer 2:21; 31:27; Dan 2:43).  Cloudlessly, they are different. 

 

 

Therefore 

 

The conclusion in this present dissertation is that the use of the Greek "anthropos" at Acts 17:26 more correctly could be a translation for the Hebrew Adam (or Adamites).  If so, then possibly "one blood" could indeed be the correct issue here and in the context of the Adam kind.  Otherwise, one must, in fairness, give some credence to Ferrar Fenton's translation, as mentioned earlier. 

 

But irrespective of how one may translate Acts 17:26 and whether the subject concerns all races of all peoples or merely all of the descendants of Adam, the fact remains that there is an established order or sequence in which the different elected groups of persons are called for apparent salvation (I Cor 15:23). 

 

All Adamic people are not called at the precise same time (per YHWH’s schedule).  Therefore, the persons to be chosen by YHWH will be called when their time unfolds. 

 

Clearly, there is no reason or justification for anyone to try to use Acts 17:26-27 on the pretext that this reference opens the door to all races, kinds and classes of humans/humanoids living on planet earth at this time for the Good News transmission.  Adamites are certainly being addressed.  But otherwise, there can be legitimate questions about who all might be included in the plan of salvation. 

 

 

“Search the Scriptures 

 

“Search the Scriptures” (STS) is one of the leading periodicals of the Sacred Name motion.   At least, a couple of times, STS has had an article on “Salvation of All Races?”  Its position seems to be essentially a rehash of former Worldwide Church of God theology, with only a few variations.  Tragically, for truth’s sake, the few Scriptures cited by STS are all basically irrelevant to the question of the salvation of all races. 

 

But the article did teach that The MOST HIGH allows interracial marriage, that interracial marriage is not sin (though disapproved by The ELOHIM), and that Adam (Gen 4:1; I Chron 1:1) and Eve (Gen 3:20) were the parents of all so-called humans who are all of one blood (Acts 17:26). 

 

Of course, I Chronicles 1:1 proves nothing of the sort on Adam being the father of all people in the world.  Of course, I Chronicles 1:1 does prove that Adam fathered Seth (which fact is irrelevant to the article’s thesis and one which is not in dispute in this study at hand). 

 

The sex implications in Genesis 4:1 do not prove that Adam fathered Cain.  As noted earlier, the “Soncino Chumash,” (p. 17 ) has it that Adam “had known (Eve) before he was expelled from Eden.”  This reading must have some scholarly support because the Richard Elliott Friedman “Commentary on the Torah” (p. 26) text for Genesis gives Genesis 4:1 as “had known.” 

 

Of course, this wording involves a past participle.  My “Webster’s New World Dictionary” (p. 1040) says that it expresses completed action or a time or state gone by.  Manifestly, this use of the Hebrew does not necessarily suggest a connection from this past action and the resulting pregnancy of Eve.  There may be no linkage between the two events whatsoever. 

 

Thus, this wording would allow that Adam had known her before she even became pregnant with Cain.  Actually, Adam may have known her several times in the context under discussion--while in the garden and before their expulsion. 

 

Of course, her pregnancy with Cain only involved one incident and could not possibly be related to the time or times that Adam had known her in the general sense.  Clearly, there is a disconnect between the time or times that Adam had known Eve and the singular time when she became pregnant with Cain. 

 

While Adam probably was with her both before and after her sex with Satan (as noted earlier), it does not mean that Adam fathered Cain.  For sure, Eve did not attribute Cain to Adam, and Cain is never called a son of Adam in the Word, as is true with Adam’s descendants through Seth.  The genealogy of Cain is always shown separately in the Book from that of Adam. 

 

Even if Adam copulated with her after she was pregnant with Cain (which could have happened, as covered previously herein), it only means that she was already pregnant when Adam was with her for the last time or times in the garden and before their expulsion.  Thus, as a minimum, she was already pregnant with Cain when Adam was with her this final time or times in the garden (as was broached earlier herein). 

 

Genesis 3:20 in the KJV says that Eve was the mother of all living.  But the issue is--living what?  All humans?  Or all humanoids?  Or all angels (who appear as humans)?  Or all of the animal world?  Importantly, the “Soncino Edition of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs” (p. 12) by Dr J. H. Hertz acknowledges that the translation on “the mother of all living” is incorrect.  Thus, “some word must be supplied after ‘living.’” 

 

Of course, most Christians and Jews would automatically “assume” that the supplied word should be “humankind.”  But is that the truth?  Well, not according to multitudes of other texts (as cited herein).  Hertz adds that the Hebrew word “chai,” translated as “living,” is the “primitive” Semitic word for ‘clan’” (as also used in I Sam 18:18, where it should read-- “Who am I, and who are my kinsfolk,...or my father’s family, etc”). 

 

The “Soncino Chumash” (p. 16) notes that Eve (Chawwah) is derived from chayyah, meaning living.  But per the “Chumash,” The CREATOR “did not call her ‘Chayyah’ because that is the word for ‘beast.’”  Richard Elliott Friedman’s “Commentary on the Torah” (p. 25) adds for Chawwah that its “Semitic root elsewhere can mean snake!” 

 

The conclusion here is that Eve was likely the mother of all living descendants of Adam (which fact is irrelevant to the article’s thesis and one not in dispute herein). 

 

 

More From STS 

 

And next, STS tries to make a big deal out of Acts 17:26 and the “one blood” remark.  Too bad for STS, but the word “blood” is not in the early Greek texts (plus, all men do not have the same blood, as proven by scientific analyses of blood types), as noted earlier herein. 

 

Of course, something is missing in Acts 17:26 (as already proven); and it’s more than just “blood” and an alleged Kain marriage to his sister (which seems impossible since Genesis 5:4 suggests that the daughters of Adam were born later, after Seth). 

 

Last, the article cites several texts to supposedly prove that salvation is open to all races of man in the vein of the Jews and the Gentiles (Rom 11:7-13; Gal 2:7; Eph 2:11-12; Col 3:11-12).  STS adds some texts from the OT which supposedly prove that non-Israelites can become members of or be joined to Yisrael (like Ex 12:38, 48-49; Isa 14:1; 56; Jer 12:14-17).  But in terms of the word “ger,” this fact is not in dispute in this study! 

 

As has been proven (especially in previous chapters on the Great Commission) or will be proven herein, the article has misunderstood and misused all of these texts.  STS simply did not understand the distinction between the Hebrew nokri/nekar and the Hebrew ger.  Too, STS failed to understand the difference between a racial definition and a religious or nationality definition.  For sure, the message is very bad and wrong! 

 

Incidentally, the STS author admitted that he had not heard all of the pro and con arguments on his theme.  Yet, he asserted that he was qualified to write on the subject, despite not knowing all of the arguments.  And that’s the problem in generic Christianity, to include both the Sacred Name and Identity elements.  Big shot leaders jump in and start putting out bad information while they are in a state of ignorance. 

 

Though the STS writer had access to this www.Age-End.com web site at the Internet and could have made some effort to become better qualified on his subject, he did not do so (other than produce his article to perhaps oppose this web site; which he knew about, but clearly had not read or studied).  He went on his merry way, expecting his dumb sheep followers to automatically believe whatever he wrote. 

 

Too, he claimed that he had the spirit--which presumably did make him qualified.  But what if he does not have the spirit, as he claims?  Will that reality affect his ability to write on topics which he simply is uninformed on?  Many Christians claim to have the spirit (especially the Pentecostals, Charismatic and other persons who seem to have demon spirits, to be covered later herein).  But claims do not make for truth and reality. 

 

 

Other Humanoids Besides Adam 

 

In short, the Scriptures fully communicate that the creation included and involved a class or classes of other humans/humanoids (the behemah and chaiyah), besides just Adam, coupled with a record of Adamites miscegenating with them over the years.  A contextual study of the Hebrew words behemah, chaiyah, nokri, nekar, and mamzer (to be described in the following chapters) prove this fact beyond any reasonable doubt. 

 

Now, in bringing up this fantastic and extraordinary truth, this writer is not attempting to denigrate any race or ethnic group of people on planet earth.  The HIGHEST YHWH made this globe and all the created forms of life in it.  There is no conceivable way that this writer would ever second guess The ELOHIM on what He has done.  Therefore, those beings in their natural, created states must be considered to be good. 

 

But what about those original, created forms when they miscegenate (under man’s schemes of right and wrong) and produce new mongrel, mixed blends which are far removed from what The CREATOR originally created? 

 

The problem here is over some narrow minded bigot, who might read this presentation and start crying and whining about alleged racial prejudice for daring to bring the subject even up.  Race is a profoundly prohibited taboo subject in today’s modern warped world.  It cannot be intelligently discussed without invoking fanatical anger and hate on the part of ignorant and prejudiced people. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

Consequently, the Hebrew words associated with race have all purposely been used so far herein as they are found in the Book without any interpretation on whom the words refer to as evident in the Scriptures and reality.  A reader can draw his own conclusions on this theme (however, this writer’s views will be cited in later chapters). 

 

The only deduction that has been stressed so far is that the behemah and chaiyah references include humanoids who are not correctly Adamites.  Their possibilities for reconciliation and salvation are in the same realm as any person of Adam.  In short, they will have to have an election and calling which this writer is not attempting to judge in regards to the future. 

 

Certainly, The MOST HIGH has created the different basic racial stocks of humans/humanoids for His purposes.  All of us can rest assured that these three, four or five basic different kinds or varieties of so-called human beings will fulfill YAH’s plan and receive whatever He has in store for them. 

 

Incidentally, if the above quoted STS writer would have come to the above, just cited conclusion (of leaving the issue of salvation of all up to The ELOHIM), he would be on the mark.  Instead, he followed the traditional Christian approach of asserting that the door of salvation is automatically open, right now, to all so-called human beings.  Maybe it is, but maybe it is not.  Only YHWH will decide that question. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 117--Answers in the Torah I

 

 

The Mongrels and Mixed Bloods? 

 

So, what about the mongrels and mixed bloods that man has produced with illegal miscegenation from the basic four or so different races? 

 

Well, interestingly, this consideration is also addressed to some extent in The ELOHIM’s Word in the context of the previously mentioned Hebrew words mamzer, ger and nokri/nekar, which are outlined in the Book for various types of people--to be described in this and the following chapters. 

 

Having now established that The MOST HIGH/history produced at least four or so separate species of humans/humanoids (or at least, this fact is brought out in YHWH’s Word), it would be well to Scripturally look more carefully at what happens when these separate peoples do miscegenate (which has happened over the years). 

 

Surprisingly, for the resulting children of such interracial crossings, it seems that not only do they seem legally disqualified from membership in the Assembly of Yisrael (to be next considered); but additionally, the Scriptures quite convincingly convey the idea that they also may not be able to experience the process of adoption (as will be elaborated upon in commentary to follow). 

 

 

The Torah 

 

This important concept is broached by Moshe in the Torah where he writes that a "mamzer" (in the Hebrew) cannot enter the Congregation of YHWH until the tenth generation (Deut 23:2; see also Zech 9:6 for a more clarifying use of mamzer). 

 

Moshe then goes on to address this edict by declaring that Moabites and Ammonites (of the mamzer class?) cannot enter until the tenth generation (Deut 23:3; Neh 13:1); seemingly, because they, along with the Canaanites, had miscegenated extensively with the behemah (as noted earlier and to be described in the following comments). 

 

While the Word does condemn the Moabites and Ammonites for their evil actions against Yisrael at the Exodus (Deut 23:4), the primary need for the ten generation exclusion has to be primarily something else which does directly affect the Moabites and Ammonites genetically for ten generations (because the Book declares that children cannot be punished for the sins of their parents, Ezek 18:20). 

 

Of course, the decision of the Moabites and Ammonites to follow Balaam’s advice by sending their daughters into the camps of Yisrael for fornication purposes does show their depraved, evil character--at least, in terms of sexual promiscuity (and this lack of character goes on to affect their approach to the question of illegal miscegenation with the behemah humanoids). 

 

In other words, the exclusion rule cannot be based singularly on the sins of the Moabites and Ammonites against Yisrael at the Exodus (although they were horrible sins and the Moabites and Ammonites at that time were so guilty). 

 

For sure, in order for the indictment to come against the children for the next ten generations, the primary reason has to be something that has affected their genes (their demonstrated character problems on sex did and does affect the thinking and attitude of them and their children on crossing with the behemah). 

 

Thus, YHWH revealed their sexually depraved character at the time of the Exodus which affected them and their descendants thereafter.  Yes, to this day, the Moabites and Ammonites here in 2003 are very sexually promiscuous and willingly will and do miscegenate with the behemah humanoids. 

 

Yet, Moshe seemingly qualifies an exclusion rule slightly for (apparently mamzer) Edomites and Egyptians by stipulating that their descendants can be converted to Yisrael in the third generation (Deut 23:7-8).  Based on this distinction, it is quite evident that Moshe was writing about three different classes or types of mamzer. 

 

Thus, Deuteronomy 23:2 seems to be outlining a general rule that mixed peoples are excluded from the Congregation of Yisrael for ten generations (of their descendants, as the “Amplified Translation” gives it). 

 

Deuteronomy 23:3 seems to give an example of the ten generation exclusion with the Moabites and Ammonites, as pointed out above (who not only were incestuous [which fact could also be relevant in their ten generation exclusion] and sexually promiscuous, but had mixed with the behemah humanoids, as outlined earlier herein). 

 

Then, in Deuteronomy 23:7-8, YHWH establishes a three generation exclusion for Edomites and Egyptians.  As will be later determined, the Edomites apparently miscegenated with the chaiyah.  The Egyptians (not the modern Egyptians, who are Arabs) were an ancient Hamite people (who were mixed from their beginnings). 

 

 

The Three Types 

 

Since the essence of Deuteronomy 23 concerns interracial sex to produce mixed or mongrel humans (the mamzer), it is clear that there are three classes of mamzer peoples under discussion. 

 

First, there are the Adamite and behemah crosses (i.e., the Moabites and Ammonites, as excluded to the tenth generation).  Next, there are the Adamite and chaiyah crosses (evidently with the Edomites, as excluded to the third generation).  And finally, there are the Hamite peoples (in the sense of the Egyptians, who were a mixture from their very beginning, and were, thus, excluded to the third generation). 

 

Please understand that the word mamzer does not focus upon full blooded Adamic, behemah or chaiyah humans/humanoids.  Mamzer types only concern the mixed or miscegenated peoples (of course, in today’s modern world, that condition encompasses almost all of so-called humanity because miscegenation has been so extensive). 

 

Also, it must be noted that in the case of the chaiyah (the Edomites) and Hamite (the Egyptians) mixes (which are limited to the third generation exclusion), their definitions and exclusion rules must logically change to the extent that these people may later mix with the behemah humanoids 

 

Surely, any mixture with the behemah and a later mixture with a Shemite opens the door to the exclusion for ten generations.  In other words, the chaiyah and Hamite people lose their three generation exclusion when they mix with the behemah humanoids and their required ten generation exclusion. 

 

Space in this study at hand is too limited to allow much of a look at the definitions involved in the three classes of peoples (which allow for the disparity of two being eligible for membership in three generations, while the ten generations criteria otherwise applies). 

 

Possibly, the ten generations rule is the general standard and the three generations allowance is an exception (for certain classes of mamzer peoples).  In this case, it is possible to study the genetic lines of the three peoples from the Scriptures (behemah, chaiyah, and Hamite peoples) and available history and readily perceive the points of demarcation. 

 

 

Some Thoughts 

 

Suffice to say, the question isn’t only one of the descendants having the mixed adverse genes from a physical point of view (to affect their physical appearances)--because there are other issues involved as well. 

 

For instance, these other racial genes also affect miscegenated peoples in blood types and organs--as well as mentally, temperamentally, emotionally, intellectually and likely religiously for the three/ten generations (although this writer is not totally clear on the question of these genes upon religion, there is a tie between race and religion). 

 

It is unclear to this writer what limitations might exist in total in the coming election in terms of DNA, blood types or genes.  But logically, there could be some defining genetic issues in the elect.  After all, the call (qara) and response (hineni), as discussed earlier herein, involve some form of selection which obviously has encompassed the racial people of Yisrael to some extent. 

 

This writer is acquainted with people who have very definite Black ancestry within the ten generations framework (in the vein that the ten generations exclusion applies to mixed Whites and Blacks).  Some of these persons have so many White genes that they physically appear very Caucasian (even with blond hair and blue eyes).  Yet, their minds and thinking show clear evidence of the Negro genes.

 

In other commentary herein, there is mention of a supposedly White man with B type blood (of the Sardis Sacred Name and Christian Identity religious faiths).  Though the man appears very white (from his heavy German ancestry), he often demonstrates the Black genes in his mentality and thinking.  Manifestly, his mind is heavily influenced by his apparent Negro genes. 

 

Thus, this man looks like a White man, but he often thinks and acts like a Black man.  Now, it is clear why so many supposedly White Italians and Hispanics are so crime prone and musically inclined. 

 

 

Conversion Is By Law 

 

Because most Christians know little or nothing about Moshe, the verity is that this communication on the mamzer, when used in conjunction with Exodus 12:45 and 48 and Nehemiah 13:1, goes a long way in establishing exactly "who" in terms of non-Israelites can be legally converted (as will be described in later commentary). 

 

As these words are in YHWH's law, they have extreme importance and cannot be ignored in any discussion of the recipients of the Good News, even in New Testament days.  In short, they are relevant.  Of course, many Christians will look upon all of this as a waste of time to even consider--since they have operated on the premise for years that YHWH's laws have been abolished and done away with. 

 

Actually, the issues in both Exodus and Deuteronomy focus on racial and ethnic considerations of the classifications of peoples. 

 

The words "tenth generation and third generation" seem to communicate the fact that if these particular racial or ethnic strains cross back (in miscegenation) with an acceptable line for the noted three or ten generations, then the descendants of these racially mixed persons can at last be transformed to Yisrael.  Again, the issue isn’t only one of physical appearances.  It covers minds as well (mentality, emotions, intelligence, etc). 

 

 

Blood Types, Revisited 

 

This unique Scriptural presentation may “possibly” have some parallel in the former discussion of blood types in the previous chapters.  As outlined therein, the O blood group seems to predominate in portions of the globe.  Obviously, any mix of O blood with other types opens the door to the possibility of O children and particularly as the O gene ancestry increases in some mix. 

 

As the A1, A2 and B descendants cross back with Os over time in a given population, an O line can evidently be established which will rarely produce any A1, A2 or B throwbacks when interbred.  In other words, the A1, A2 and B antigens can effectively be “bred” out.  Perhaps this is another feature of the ten and three generations rule (in that an A1, A2 or B blood type will be bred out within the defined generations). 

 

Another reason might be because even two As, two Bs or an A and B can theoretically have O children (evidently, if they carry the O genes in some prescribed proportion). 

 

This strange and probably rare occurrence would suggest that once the O gene is introduced with some level of presence in a married couple, it is possible to reach the O condition in descendants through interbreeding and particularly so with Os over time in a mixed population. 

 

In bringing up this matter of blood lines, there is no intent to necessarily link them to YHWH’s laws on the apparent importance of the three and ten generations rule, as applicable in defining whom might be legally converted to Yisrael. 

 

There may or may not be any correlation between YHWH’s law on this theme and the situation with blood groups.  If there is a linkage, it might be that it is only one small part of a larger overall set of rules or qualifications relative to conversion to Yisrael. 

 

 

A Question 

 

A later discussion on Caleb and Othniel will establish the fact that they were apparently descendants of Esau.  Yet, they both also appeared to be legal members of Yisrael's Congregation (which correctly would conflict with YHWH's laws limiting Edomite membership to the third generation). 

 

The answer here is probably that their line had crossed back with Israelites for the necessary three generations over the years, which would make them essentially Israelites (genetically). 

 

The point being from this is that for the two different classes of indicated non-Israelites, it takes either ten or three generations to "breed out" the undesirable qualities.  Now, this requirement or need may appear to be a little harsh and "old fashioned thinking" to modern Christians who are thoroughly schooled, trained and educated in the ideas of humanism and the universal brotherhood of man. 

 

But these words are from The CREATOR, and they express His will and Torah whether any of us like it or not.  So, in Deuteronomy 23:2, the Hebrew mamzer is translated to the English "bastard" in the KJV, as well as in certain other translations.  However, the issue here is not over a child that has been born out of wedlock, as some readers may conjecture. 

 

No!  This translation to bastard is actually not literally correct in today's English because the word properly means "mongrel" or "mixed blooded."  This understanding is conclusively proven at the only other Old Testament use of mamzer which occurs at Zechariah 9:6.  There, the context demands that mamzer be correctly translated to mongrel or mixed blooded person. 

 

Moreover, the Hebrew word “arab” (correctly arav) also means mixed or mingled (as used at Daniel 2:43), as cited in former chapters.  The word arab or arav will be further addressed and defined in the following chapter. 

 

 

The Law Carried Forward 

 

Naturally, it follows that this stipulation in The MOST HIGH's law was carried forward into the New Testament.  In other words, Ezra, Nechemyah, Malakhi, Moshe and the other Tanakh writers were not in “sin” when they condemned interracial sex and marriage and YESHUA and Shaul did not change anything in the New Testament, despite the uninformed wishes of the earlier mentioned Christian Sydney Cleveland. 

 

For this connection, Shaul writes that if the supposed children of The ELOHIM are without chastisement, then they are not true sons at all, but are (in Greek) "nothos" (Heb 12:8).  Again, as was true with mamzer, the KJV and others have chosen to render nothos as bastard which is not right in modern thought. 

 

Interestingly, like mamzer, the word nothos is not necessarily referring to a child born out of wedlock at all.  No!  A study of the usages of the word in other contemporary Greek writings sufficiently proves that nothos refers to a mongrel or mixed blooded person. 

 

On this, Liddell and Scott's "Greek English Lexicon" (1846 ed, per “Christian Separatist,” Jul-Aug 1992) says that nothos means "a bastard, base born, any child born of a foreign woman, spurious, counterfeit, adulterated." 

 

References like this one have promoted some students of the Word to conclude that the issue in adultery (the seventh commandment) involves interracial sex--that is that the blood line is adulterated (as any product or animal seedline is adulterated with alien additions). 

 

The Greek opposite to nothos is "gnesios" (per Bauer's "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature"), which is "belonging to the true race, legitimate, opp. (opposed to) nothos, genuine, true, lawful" (per Liddell and Scott, as cited by “Christian Separatist,” Jul-Aug 1992). 

 

In addition, various other Greek lexicons, Greek dictionaries and other early Greek writings all correctly perceive this same axiom.  Even in Latin, the comparable word, "nothus," means "of mixed or bastard breed or kind, illegitimate" (per "Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary,"  as cited in the “Christian Separatist,” Jul-Aug 1992). 

 

 

The English "Bastard" 

 

In terms of the English bastard, "Webster's Third New International Dictionary" defines it as "of inferior breed or stock; mongrel, hybrid, low breed."  Furthermore, modern English dictionaries, in general, also seem to express the view that bastard refers to a child born "illegitimately" --just as Ainsworth observed for the Latin nothus. 

 

And in following up on this English word of illegitimate, English dictionaries customarily include definitions such as "illegal; not recognized as lawful offspring; and contrary to law, rules or logic."  They then go on to specify or give as an example the situation where a child is born from parents who are not legally married. 

 

Of course, in modern, contemporary, English thought, the words illegitimate and bastard both imply a child born out of wedlock.  But historically, in most of the US states and other lands of Anglo, Saxon and Celtic heritage, miscegenation (interracial marriage and sex) was "illegal" and contrary to law. 

 

Therefore, mixed blooded or mongrel children (whether of married or unmarried parents) were clearly born in an illegal union and were therefore illegitimate in every sense of the word, even in the secular world at large.  Few persons realize this truth, but it is both factual and according to common sense as well. 

 

Despite this history of adversity toward interracial marriages and sexual unions, secular society has all of a sudden (primarily since WWII) decided that miscegenation is not "illegal."  In America, it happened in 1967 in a US Supreme Court decision (per Christian Identity leader Dan Gayman). 

 

The result of this "new" thinking is that contemporary compilers of dictionaries and indeed the public at large cannot grasp meanings of words like bastard, illegitimate, mamzer, nothos and so forth, as emanating from the minds of pre-WWII writers and historians (even the modern Israelis are confused and look upon the Hebrew word mamzer as referring to a child born from unmarried parents). 

 

Thus, in regards to modern thinking, one may wonder how in the world English translators could ever get off on a side track to mistranslate mamzer and nothos to bastard, instead of the more literally correct mongrel or mixed blooded. 

 

Actually, the truth is that in Old and Middle English, the KJV translators didn't necessarily miss the point that much at all because bastard really did mean a mongrel or mixed blooded person in those days of 1604-1611. 

 

 

More on Bastard 

 

Following up on this theme, the above quoted “Christian Separatist” periodical for Jul-Aug 1992 presents a word study of the Greek nothos and its translation to bastard in the KJV.  Though this present study effort cannot take the space necessary here to look at all of the comments by this Kodak, TN publisher, a few of its findings seem especially germane and will be cited. 

 

Tracing bastard to Webster's and other appropriate sources, the “Separatist” paper says that in English, for at least five centuries, bastard was a common term for a mongrel and that the expression comes from an old French word, "bastart," which means "a barn."  Applied to English, it came to link to animals and eventually to people in the context of them being animal-man (a cross between animal and man). 

 

Too, the Separatist source also offered some comments on the Italian "bastardo" (meaning bastard in English) which the Italians applied to an Old German typeface (as used in printing) because it was a mixing of features from two distinct typeface families. 

 

Bastardo was brought into 15th-17th century English as "bastarda" where it referred to a Gothic Script "having mixed cursive and book hand features and characterized by flourishes and hairlines" (per Webster's "Third International Dictionary"). 

 

Albeit, these English, French and Italian words are all interesting to consider, it is a fact that the Scriptures were not written in those language.  Hence, the focus must always be on the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. 

 

Thus, the man-animal idea also has some interesting support from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (v. iv, p. 729) which addresses the early Greek use of the term “moichos” (usually translated as adulterer) and its depravities.  The verbal form of this word, moicheuo, has an ancient meaning of “fig. of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races” (per this dictionary, as is also cited in some of the writings of the Tennessee publisher). 

 

 

More on the Greek Nothos

 

Otherwise, on the Greek nothos, the Tennessee Separatist article mentioned other early Greek writings which used nothos in the context of a mongrelized, mixed blooded people. 

 

First, from the Greek Septuagint-- "But the multiplying race of the ungodly shall not be of great number nor gain power through mongrels (nothon, plural of nothos) propagating, permit not that race to advance nor accomplish a secure foundation" (Wisdom 4:3, per V. S. Herrell translation). 

 

Additionally, from the same Greek Septuagint-- "Neither lives nor marriages were preserved in racial purity, but either one ambushed another, or painfully mongrelized (notheuon from nothos) in the conception of the womb" (Wisdom 14:24, per V. S. Herrell translation). 

 

For one more relevant presentation on first century CE Greek, the “Christian Separatist” turned to the early Jewish writer and philosopher Judaeus Philo, better known as Philo of Alexandria (c13 BCE--c48 CE). 

 

Not only was Philo accepted as being supposedly Jewish (though not a Hebrew speaker, he clearly knew something about Hebrew and the Torah), but he was skilled in Greek and enough so to make him a very excellent witness on this subject. 

 

Perhaps one of Philo's most important works was his writings "On the Special Laws," which was an exposition on the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Scriptures--labeled in Hebrew as the Torah or Law).  Quoting from this historical effort by Philo (III-46), as translated by F. H. Colson, the Tennessee paper once again linked nothos to mongrel--as follows: 

 

"Actually so great is the provisions made in the law to ensure that men should admit (allow) no unlawful matings, that it ordains that even cattle are not to be crossed with others of a different species (race).  No Jewish shepherd will allow a he-goat to mount a ewe or a ram a she-goat, or a bull a mare, or if he does he will be punished as an offender against the decree of nature, who is careful to preserve the primary species (race) without adulteration (mongrelization from nothos)." 

 

 

Josephus on Nothos 

 

Finally, from the writings of the Jewish scholar Josephus, the Kodak people quoted:  "Indeed they ended by actually disparaging the Hebrew race, in order to appear less impious in so treating aliens, and owned themselves, what indeed they were, slaves, the dregs of society, and the bastard (nothos) scum of the nations" ("The Jewish War," V:443, translated by J. Thackeray). 

 

This remark by Josephus goes a long way in not only establishing the usage of nothos for the mongrel or bastard, but it also seems to link this very precise condition into the racial make-up of the Jews of the first century CE. 

 

Evidently, by the time of the Jewish wars and the eventual fall of Jerusalem (c70 CE), some Jews (at least the Judeans) had largely become racial mongrels (nothos) in their assimilating treatment of aliens to the disparaging of their original Hebrew race and the ultimate termination of their own nation.  In short, the Judeans (for sure, in the first century CE) had integrated and miscegenated with other races to their own doom. 

 

Incidentally, on this problem of incorrect translations to English and other languages, it should be recognized that Scriptural translators and indeed even the producers of dictionaries and lexicons are all limited men; and to that extent, they all are filled with many of the same short-comings, prejudices and deficiencies which society at large possesses. 

 

Therefore, translators and dictionary compilers not only could make mistakes, but they did make mistakes.  So while a student of truth should not ignore these references, the best method of critical study remains to consider "all" of the contextual uses of a Hebrew or Greek word in the Scriptures to establish its meaning. 

 

 

A Focus on the Mongrel 

 

So, returning now to the Scriptural uses of mamzer and nothos, one finds that the issue involved was not one of limitations being placed on "Israelite" children born out of wedlock to Israelite parents.  No!  The restrictions mentioned by both Moshe and Shaul focused clearly upon mongrel or mixed blooded children materializing from interracial sexual unions (whether married or not). 

 

Frankly, this all makes sense and is quite logical because the Scriptures elsewhere powerfully communicate that interracial sex and marriage is "illegal" --just as much of the secular world has understood in times past (Gen 1 [yes, YHWH defined kind after kind in reproduction, as being good]; Gen 6:4-5; 24:1-4; 27:46; 28:1-2; Ex 22:19; Lev 18:23-30; 19:19; 20:15-16, 22-26; 21:14-15; Num 25:1; 36:8; Deut 7:1-3; 17:15; 22:9-11; 27:21; Josh 23:11-13; Jud 3:5-8; Jer 2:21-23; 31:27; Dan 2:43; Ezra 9:1-15; 10:2-11; Neh 9:2; 10:30; 13:3, 23-29; I Cor 10:8; Heb 12:16 [Esau committed fornication in his marriages with nokri/nekar women--Gen 26:34-35; 27:46; 28:6; 36:2-18]; Rev 2:14). 

 

In conjunction with the Hebrew behemah, chaiyah and mamzer definitions, this writer has periodically used the Hebrew nokri/nekar as also defining certain humanoids which have a questionable status here on planet earth.  Before proceeding on with the topic of race, some explanations will now be forthcoming on these words and why they have been used in this publication. 

 

In the Hebrew Scriptures, some four words (ger, toshab, zur or zar and nokri and its cognate nekar) are used which are commonly translated as a non-Israelite stranger, sojourner, foreigner, or alien.  While these words are categorically different with different meanings, they are incorrectly translated indiscriminately and interchangeably, as just indicated. 

 

The truth that one must come to on this subject is that the translators have never understood that these four words are different and have different meanings.  In their confusion, they have made poor translations to the English which have left uninformed Christians in a state of quandary and flux. 

 

Years ago, this writer heard some remarks by a man named William Finlay (quoted earlier) of the Republic of South Africa which seemed to clarify these four words. 

 

Finlay charged that the two words, ger and nokri, were related to non-Israelites from the perspective of racial and ethnic considerations; toshab referred to the residence status of a person (in Yisrael, non-Israelite legal residents [ger and possibly nokri] were toshab); and zur was limited to foreigners (ger or nokri) who were non-Israelites and legally non-residents, but were just temporarily in the land (such as some passing and transitory foreign soldiers or ambassadors). 

 

A contextual study of these four words in the Hebrew Scriptures seems to substantiate Finlay’s findings.  While space and time will not permit any extensive review of these words and their usages, a few remarks will be made to establish verity.  Of course, the real student of truth can and should spend some time on this theme in personal study. 

 

Ger (gerim in the plural) is the same type of an Adamite person (racially and ethnically) that Israelites were (as a minimum, it would appear that the gerim were essentially fellow Shemites, though the door could be left open that other Adamites, like some descendants of Japheth, might qualify if their lines had not miscegenated with other non-Adamic humanoids).  Thus, the Shemite Avraham was a ger living in the nokri land of Egypt (Gen 23:4). 

 

YHWH’s Torah generally applied to the gerim in Yisrael (in the toshab class of residency) in the same way as it applied to Israelites.  Gerim and Israelites were and are essentially the same people in terms of racial stock (Gen 23:4; Ex 2:21; Lev 25:23, 35; Deut 23:7; Ps 119:19).  They are both Adamites (largely Shemites and possibly some from Japheth).  They can easily and readily intermarry.

 

And significantly, the gerim could become circumcised with the full rights of citizenship and membership in the congregation (Ex 12:48-49; Lev 17:6-9; 24:22; I Chron 22:2; II Chron 2:17-18).  And once converted to the congregation of Yisrael and undergoing circumcision, the gerim were clearly Israelites for all purposes. 

 

The gerim were so close to being racial, rea Israelites (discussed earlier) that the law even specifically charged that Israelites were not to vex them (at least the resident gerim in the land of Yisrael), but were to love them and treat them the same as Israelites (Lev 19:33-34).  In effect, they were Israelites for all purposes and could become fully fledged Israelites by conversion and circumcision. 

 

 

The Nokri/Nekar Strangers 

 

Conversely, the nokri (used as a noun or adjective) and/or nekar (usually used as a noun) were entirely different people who could never become a member of the Congregation of Yisrael under any circumstances (Ex 12:43).  Moreover, there is not one text or suggestion in the Word that would put the nokri/nekar peoples on the level of the Israelites or the gerim in terms of overall benefits and duties. 

 

While the historic sun worship religion, culture and civilization have always practiced a concept called the “fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of all men” of whatever race, kind or origin, such thinking is totally foreign in the Book (its source is the old sun worship cults, as will be elaborated upon in some detail in later chapters herein). 

 

Simply stated, there is not and never was any Scriptural obligation for Israelites to love, respect or treat nokri/nekar aliens on the level of a fellow Israelite (a racial rea) or a ger. 

 

In terms of certain mamzer (nokri) peoples (surely of those classes produced from behemah mixes, as discussed elsewhere herein), the Word is very specific in saying that the follower of YHWH is not even to promote or wish them peace or prosperity (Deut 23:6).  The question of hating them will be covered in a later chapter.  But the hate idea does seem out of the question, per this writer’s understanding of the Book. 

 

Israelites could charge the nokri/nekar aliens interest (usury) on loans (Deut 23:20) and take from them a garment or item of necessity as a pledge (Prov 20:16; 27:13). 

 

They were not to be released from slavery in the seventh year of release, as applicable to Israelites and gerim (Deut 15:3).  And evidently, they could eat dead animals which were not properly bled--suggesting that they could eat blood and unclean animals (Deut 14:21).

 

On the application of the above cited mitzwot, as appertaining to nokri/nekar aliens, the reader may wish to check how contrary the Word addresses and mandates these same issues for Israelites and gerim.  There is no question about it whatsoever, the Book treats Israelites and gerim in an entirely different manner than how the nokri/nekar strangers are treated (Christians won’t like this, but it is the real world). 

 

Moreover, the nokri/nekar aliens were not to share in Israel’s blessings (Isa 62:8), nor could they ever in any instance legally rule over Israelites--which makes it illegal for an Israelite woman to marry a nokri/nekar alien (Ex 21:7-8; Deut 17:15; Joel 2:17). 

 

Finally, any nokri/nekar alien (who takes hold of YHWH’s Sabbaths in this life and age) will be construction workers and field hands in the future millennium (Isa 60:10; 61:5).  In short, these strangers were totally treated as outsiders, in terms of the Israelite economy, culture and religion. 

 

Both nokri and nekar come from nakar or nokra, which means to estrange or alienate (“Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon,” p. 549).  This same source also notes these relevant meanings--to gaze at, to mistake, to reject, regard, have respect to, to recognize, to acknowledge, to know, discriminate, what is strange, foreign, etc. 

 

Ben-Yehuda’s “Pocket Hebrew-English Dictionary” (p. 205) adds these pertinent definitions--to be recognized, to be discernible, to distinguish, to treat as a stranger, to ignore, to discriminate against, etc. 

 

The “Universal Jewish Encyclopedia” in its article on “stranger” makes the point that the nokri/nekar person was one who was markedly different (visually) from Israelites (and obviously as well from the gerim who looked like Israelites). 

 

Harris, Archer and Waltke, in their “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament” suggests that the nokri/nekar were identified as to their racial or ethnic origin and status by visually looking at them and inspecting their physical attributes, appearances and looks. 

 

The point of these references is that an individual (Israelite or whomever) can physically look at and behold nokri/nekar persons and immediately recognize them as such at once by their physical appearance.  In other words, their genes, which establish and define their physical appearance, allow a determination and recognition immediately without any other consideration. 

 

Physical appearances from genetic factors are very revealing in terms of racial ancestry and identification. 

 

 

The Four Types 

 

Based on the physical appearance factor, it is possible to recognize and perceive the presence of some four different types of nokri/nekar peoples.  First, there are the behemah humanoids (discussed and described earlier).  Next, there are the chaiyah humanoids (also outlined earlier).  And thirdly, there are the Hamite descendants of Cain (likewise described previously). 

 

Finally, there are the mamzer persons to the third or tenth generations, as commented upon in former remarks.  Because miscegenation has been so extensive, it is questionable that today any pure or full blood behemah, chaiyah, Hamite or Adamite humans/humanoids can be found on earth.  All of these persons have miscegenated to various degrees. 

 

Of course, it has been and is the sexual unions (mixtures) between the Adam kind and the behemah, chaiyah and descendants of Satan-Kain which produce and give rise to the mamzer mixed bloods (described previously) whom can now be further identified as nokri/nekar aliens. 

 

Apparently, limited crosses internally within the Adam kind (especially among Shemites) generate ger strangers, described as being eligible for conversion to Yisrael (Ex 12:48). 

 

In this regard, it is interesting that the Canaanites were typically referred to in the Word as nokri/nekar peoples, along with certain other humanoids (like Edomites and evidently all descendants of Ham, the behemah and the chaiyah). 

 

As established earlier, one of the problems with the Canaanites (and evidently, the Moabites and Ammonites as well) was their illegal miscegenation with the present behemah humanoids.  Thus, the nokri peoples seem to include the generic mamzer aliens in every sense of the word (as will be more fully discussed shortly below). 

 

 

More on Miscegenation 

 

In the land of Yisrael, it was illegal and contrary to The ELOHIM’s law for mongrels (plus the behemah and chaiyah races) to intermarry and sexually cross with Israelites (Gen 1:11-31; 6:1-9; 24:1-4; 27:46; 28:1-2; Ex 21:7-8; 22:19; Lev 18:23-30; 19:19; 20:15-16, 22-26; 21:14-15; Num 25:1; 36:8; Deut 7:1-3; 17:15; 22:9-11; 23:1-9; 27:21; Josh 23:11-13; Jud 3:5-8; Ezra 9:1 to 10:44; Neh 9:2; 10:30; 13:3, 23-29; Prov 5:10, 20; 6:24; 7:5; Jer 2:21-23; 31:27; Dan 2:43; Joel 2:17;  Matt 24:37-38; Lu 17:26-27; I Cor 10:8; Heb 12:16 [on this, see Gen 26:34-35; 27:46; 28:6; 36:2-18]; Rev 2:14). 

 

In short, Israelites were to be totally segregated (kodesh) from the nokri/nekar aliens in Yisrael.  Despite YHWH’s Word to the Israelites on this miscegenation theme, they proceeded to flagrantly disobey Him from the time that they entered the promise land (Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35). 

 

They have continued to rebel on this point and particularly today in 2003 when gross miscegenation now prevails across the land.  On this, one can check Jeremiah 2:21 which says that YHWH planted Yisrael as a noble vine with good seed and they turned into a degenerate (the Hebrew sur, meaning “turning aside,” per “Young’s,” p. 241) plant and strange (the Hebrew nokri, “Young’s,” p. 938) vine. 

 

Therefore, can a nokri/nekar ever enter the Congregation of Yisrael.  Well no, not until they become largely like an Adamite or Israelite racially through continuous interbreeding and crossing back with Adamites to the third or tenth generation--as provided for in YHWH’s Torah (Deut 23:2-9). 

 

Otherwise, as noted above and in previous comments, there might be some hope of salvation for some of them, but never the blessings of sonship, adoption, the New Covenant or membership in the Congregation (Isa 56:3-7). 

 

By the way, in saying that miscegenation is illegal, it is sad but the Sacred Name group at Clarksville, AR allows interracial marriages on the premise that YHWH allows it and it is not sin.  Also, the Sacred Name Assembly at Kingdom City, MO teaches interracial marriage on the premise that it is legal--per Deut 21:10-14, which allows Israelites to marry women captured in war. 

 

But what Kingdom City misses is that this text does not create an allowance for interracial sex/marriage which is already prohibited in other texts--nor does this text create an authorization for an Israelite man to marry his sister, in violation of YHWH’s laws against incest (if a sister, by chance, was captured in warfare against an enemy). 

 

Obviously, the Word is consistent and cannot contradict itself, as Christians teach.  Therefore, the truth seems clear enough that the context of that message involves captured “ger” women whom could legally be married to Israelites.  Elsewhere, a number of verses already prohibit intermarriages with nokri, nekar, behemah and chaiyah people.   There was no point in repeating those restrictions in Deut 21:10-14. 

 

In fact, in the conquest of Canaan, Yisrael was commanded to kill all of its nokri Canaanite inhabitants (Deut 7:1-3; 20:16-17).  So it would serve no purpose to allow Yisrael to capture and marry these women (or the Amalekites who also were to be destroyed, and/or the Moabites and Philistines since Neh 13:23-25 covers them). 

 

Later, conflicts surfaced with the Assyrians, Aramaeans and others (most or all of whom involved racial gerim--fellow Shemites).  Clearly, it was these gerim women whom were being addressed in Deuteronomy 21:10-14. 

 

Kingdom City also has used the situation with Ruth, Bathsheba (and David), Asenath (who married Yosef) and Timothy to justify interracial marriages.  But there was no evidence of interracial sex involved in these cases (as discussed elsewhere herein). 

 

 

Uriah, The Hittite 

 

Bathsheba’s marriage with Uriah the Hittite was an interesting example of a woman, likely of Yehudah, intermarrying with a Canaanite (Hittite) at a very early time (II Sam 11:3).  Without going into all of the details of what all was to happen over this relationship, it is sufficient to note that David took her for his own and had Uriah killed. 

 

This situation and David’s wicked actions upset The MOST HIGH.  So He sent Nathan the prophet to David to spell out His concern.  There is no doubt about it at all.  David clearly did wrong, but perhaps not in the way that most Christians typically would assume when they first read this tragic story in YAH’s Word. 

 

If Bathsheba’s marriage with Uriah was illegal (as would have been true if he was correctly a racial Hittite and she was an Israelite, which probably was the case since her son Shlomo was in the congregation and YHWH chose him to gain the throne), one might pause and wonder why David’s actions upset The ELOHIM so much. 

 

But there are several other questions about this incident which do not seem to be addressed in the Scriptures. 

 

Yet, they would be relevant for complete comprehension.  Since the Word seems to be silent in broaching this subject to any degree, it remains one essentially of speculation. 

 

Although very doubtful, but the question can be asked if Uriah was legally a Hittite or had his line intermarried with the Israelites for three or ten generations, so that his Hittite (or mixed behemah) blood had been bred out (as noted above)? 

 

Therefore, was Uriah legally married to Bathsheba?  At a first glance, it would seem so.  But then, some questions can arise which do not appear to be answered in the Word. 

 

There is no denying the fact that David’s actions were despicable whether Bathsheba was legally or illegally married to Uriah.  The fact that David acted as he did may be attributable to the situation that David knew the law and believed that Bathsheba’s marriage with Uriah was illegal.  Maybe this prompted him to be deceitful and crafty. 

 

This possibility gains credence in view of the fact that David ultimately was allowed to stay married to her after the incident was brought to his attention by Nathan.  In fact, David and Bathsheba got off pretty lightly (with only the death of their first child; and evidently, Absalom’s later rebellion)--if they had had an adulterous marriage. 

 

 

More

 

Certainly, David’s marriage with Bathsheba would have been adulterous if she and Uriah were legally married because David was intimate with her in supposed adultery even before Uriah’s death. 

 

If they were in adultery from the beginning, would Uriah’s death have then altered the adultery?  Would it not have been continuing adultery, as YESHUA seems to describe in the NT (to be elaborated upon in a later chapter)? 

 

If David and Bathsheba had an adulterous marriage and relationship, it seems possible that The HIGHEST would have dictated that it end, as He did with the Israelites who had illegally intermarried with the nokri/nekar peoples of Palestine after their return from Babylon.  This situation was described fully in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and was briefly mentioned in an earlier section of this production. 

 

Not only did The MOST HIGH allow David to remain married to her (as would appear to be wrong, if their marriage was correctly adulterous), but He even chose a later child of this marriage (Shlomo) to possess the throne at David’s death (a most unusual choice, if their marriage was adulterous and if Shlomo’s conception was illegal). 

 

But whatever the case, one must not automatically assume that Bathsheba’s marriage with Uriah was legal under the terms of YHWH’s laws.  There are all kinds of possible explanations which would allow that it was not legal and proper--despite the condemnation on David. 

 

For now, this terrible incident can be offered just as one more proof that Israelites did intermarry with the Canaanite peoples in the land (see Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35). 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 118--Answers in the Torah II

 

 

The Name Evidence

 

The enormous presence of miscegenation surfaces in the modern House of Yisrael lands whenever the student of truth examines the names of people--as arising historically in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic culture.  Most of us have family names which go back centuries, and names which were attached to our ancestors because of some cogent reason. 

 

Many names are directly traceable to the occupation of some ancestor (usually paternal).  Thus, we have Bakers (who were bakers), Weavers (who were weavers), Smiths (who were blacksmiths), Taylors (who were tailors), and so it goes. 

 

Christian linked words and names were commonly attached to Christian people.  Accordingly, some family names are Christian (especially among Nordic peoples) and the names of people found in the English Scriptures were sometimes chosen--like James, Peters, Thomas, etc. 

 

Sons often added the son to their fathers’ names.  This condition created the huge presence of Johnsons, Petersons, Bensons, Davidsons, Ericksons, Jamisons, Robertsons, Robinsons, and on and on. 

 

But what many persons lose sight of is the fact that names were often attached to people because of their racial status. 

 

A previous chapter noted the situation with the Italian name Delanegra (meaning of the Negro), and even the most stupid of people must be able to eventually figure out that the name Negropointe denotes a Negro ancestor in a person’s paternal line.  Also, the situation with the name Black was mentioned (Shirley Temple Black was cited; but with her, the name Black arose in her marriage). 

 

In any case, the words black, red, brown, and white as names developed for the obvious reason that some progenitor exhibited those racial characteristics.  Hence, we have the names White, Whitehead, Black, Blackman, Blackmoor, Red, Redford, Redman, Brown, Brownson, etc. 

 

But over the centuries, the importance and role of such names lost much of their meaning because of the huge reality of miscegenation and mixing.  Therefore, many people today with the names White, Red, Black or Brown may be far removed from those colors.  Of course, Robert Redford shows his blazing red, (apparent) Irish complexion, but others may not be this revealing. 

 

Nevertheless, there are a vast number of British Isles derived people who today carry the name Black, Brown or Red in some form.  Yet, many of these people seem to be profoundly white in appearance--as much as people who carry the name White. 

 

It’s not hard at all to see that long ago some very brown-colored Canaanites or Edomites in the British Isles (many of these persons migrated to the British Isles, as established elsewhere herein) were called Brown or some Black Negro was named Black and then their descendants miscegenated greatly with more White people over the centuries so that today they appear as white majority types. 

 

While it would seem out of the question to define these people today as Blacks, Browns or Reds, on the basis of skin coloring and appearance, it is fascinating that sometimes their ancestry and attributes do soak through.  Thus, persons named Black, Brown or Red may not appear that way.  Yet, their non-Adamic mentality, IQ, thinking, character, personality, spirituality, etc may surface to reveal their colored ancestry. 

 

 

Jewish Miscegenation After the Babylonian Exile 

 

As cited in prior chapters, one of the bad sins committed by the descendants of Yehudah, when they returned to Canaan from Babylonian exile, was their illegal intermarriages with the nokri/nekar peoples. 

 

Ezra told the Israelites to divorce and get rid of their illegal mates, along with the resulting mongrel children (Ezra 9:1-2; 10:2-3, 10-11, 14, 17-19, 44; Neh 9:2; 13:3, 30).  Yes, the issue here was physical seedlines (Ezra 9:2). 

 

Here, the point must be made that YHWH’s edict was to get rid of both the nokri wives and the Israelites’ own mixed children (Ezra 10:3).  This may seem harsh to ignorant and uninformed Christians, who know little or nothing about the Word; but it represents YHWH’s thinking and wisdom on miscegenation and the resulting mongrel children. 

 

One of the interesting documents found at Qumran was a disciplinary record against one Hananyah Nuthus because he had turned aside from the spirit of the community and had intermingled Yisrael (apparently) with some unstated third party (“The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation,” p. 406). 

 

Whether this man had fornicated with some nokri women or had encouraged others to do so is unclear.  But the wording plainly suggests that miscegenation was the issue.  Later chapters will detail the vast Jewish Israelite miscegenation with the nokri/nekar peoples of Palestine in Second Temple days.  Without broaching it fully at this time, the fact remains that it was extensive and very pervasive. 

 

Yes, it is both interesting and tragic that from the post exile days forward, even to modern times, many true Jewish Israelites (just like Christian Israelites in the House of Yisrael lands) have violated YHWH’s Torah prohibiting miscegenation.  This trend is fascinating in view of Jewish halakhah law that stipulates that a mamzer may not marry a daughter of Yisrael--only a mamzeret (“Jewish New Testament Commentary,” p. 185). 

 

 

More on the Mamzer 

 

This quotation from David Stern’s “Jewish New Testament Commentary” deserves some more discussion.  Actually, Stern made his remark in connection with John 9:34 and the accusation leveled against YESHUA (although Yohanan’s verse does not use the Greek nothos or anything which might connect to the Hebrew mamzer). 

 

Stern makes the case that under halakhah law in the Talmud, the term mamzer technically refers to any child born of one of the illegal marriages outlined in Leviticus 18 (and thus might be conceivably limited to the one generation of the mamzer child resulting from the stated illegal marriages). 

 

Of course, this reference in Leviticus covers the host of sex sins which the Canaanites were guilty of performing in their flesh.  In the list, there is the specific prohibition against sexually crossing with the behemah (Lev 18:23). 

 

Thus, it would be correct to say that a mamzer is a child of a sexual cross of an Israelite with a behemah; and seemingly, in the context of Deuteronomy 23, Israelite crosses with the chaiyah and Hamites. 

 

However, there could be a complication in this vein if using the term mamzer for all of the illegal marriages outlined in Leviticus 18 (as the Talmud seems to do).  The complication arises because the word mamzer only appears two times in the Tanakh and not in Leviticus 18 at all (in Deut 23:2 and Zech 9:6, as cited earlier). 

 

In these two Scriptural uses of mamzer, the issue is plainly one of children born of miscegenation, as the context in Zechariah fully communicates.  In this sense, the prohibition in Leviticus 18:23 would certainly, as a minimum, define a mamzer from an Adamite-behemah cross.  However, as far as the other prohibitions (like with incest), there must be some question about the applicability of mamzer. 

 

This writer would not dare try to be dogmatic on how far the mamzer definition applies in sexual relations. 

 

The fact that the Ammonites and Moabites were singled out in Deuteronomy 23:3 (evidently, as an example of a ten generation mamzer exclusion) might allow a person to suppose that their problem was only one of incest (and this may be true).  However, the evidence is massive that the Moabites and Ammonites were both also guilty of interracial crossings with the behemah, as was true with the Canaanites. 

 

 

The Importance of the Land Occupation 

 

One of the differences between the Moabites/Ammonites and Canaanites is that the Canaanites occupied the promise land of Yisrael (at the time of the Exodus). 

 

In order to preclude Israel’s interracial crossings with the Canaanites--YHWH not only prohibited marriages and covenants with them; but He ordered them all exterminated (Deut 7:1-3; 20:16-17), to include all men, women and children (He also issued a similar mass extermination order for all Amalekites when they began encroaching upon and persecuting Yisrael, to be discussed later herein--Ex 17:14; and I Sam 15:3). 

 

Of course, Yisrael foolishly failed in this task (because she disobeyed, as discussed elsewhere herein).  Tragically and stupidly, instead of destroying the Canaanites (and Amalekites) as commanded, Yisrael actually ended up by racially intermingling (miscegenating) with them, as the Word repeatedly proves (Jud 3:1-8; Ps 106:34-35). 

 

Some scholars may speculate that the Ammonites and Moabites did occupy some part of the promise land (to the East of the Jordan), but that idea was seemingly not true at the time of the Exodus (as was pointed out in a preceding chapter). 

 

“Davis Dictionary of the Bible” (p. 53) notes that Moab inhabited the land to the South of the Arnon, which was near Edom and the lower parts of the Dead Sea (Num 21:13; Deut 2:36; 3:12; Josh 12:1; Jud 11:18). 

 

Davis (p. 31) adds that the Ammonites once occupied the land North of the Arnon to the Jabbok (Deut 2:20-21; 3:11), but were in turn driven out by the Amorites (a Canaanite people) and compelled to keep to the border of the Eastern desert (Num 21:24; Deut 2:37; Jud 11:13, 22). 

 

Specifically, YHWH declared that He did not give the land of the Ammonites to the Israelites (Deut 2:19).  However, in later years, both the Ammonites and Moabites did encroach upon the Israelite territories allocated to the tribes East of the Jordan. 

 

In the sense that the Ammonites (and maybe even the Moabites to some extent) had once occupied a part of the promise land of Canaan (East of the Jordan), one could make an argument that the sex sins of Leviticus 18 in the land of Canaan (Lev 18:3) applies to certainly the Ammonites and likely the Moabites, as well as to the Canaanites (as was discussed in a previous chapter). 

 

Likely, the case can be made that YHWH drove at least the Ammonites out in the form of the Amorite conquests North of the Arnon and South of the Jabbok that were near the Jordan (likely because of their miscegenation which defiled the land). 

 

Since all of the Canaanites were to be destroyed (both East and West of the Jordan), there was no necessary reason to cite them as an example of the ten generation rule (as happened with the Moabites and Ammonites, who were not under a mass liquidation law).  In Deuteronomy 23, YHWH evidently covered the main types of the local neighbors of the Israelites (who were not under the mass extermination edict). 

 

 

The Mamzer Prevalence 

 

Furthermore, in assessing Dr Stern’s comments on halakhah law, a possible far reaching piece of teaching now surfaces. 

 

In previous comments, this writer has cited specific cases known to me in my life where interracial sexual crosses produced mamzer mongrel children.  The genes of a behemah humanoid are quite profound and become very evident in mixed blooded children (evidently, to the tenth generation, as in the case of behemah-Adam mixes). 

 

In today’s modern America, huge numbers of people carry these behemah genes, including several Christian Identity leaders.  At least one of these Christians has some prominence in the Identity movement and is known to me in Idaho.  This mamzer appearing Christian Identity leader not only shows physical evidence of his behemah genes, but he is a little slow intellectually and is very questionable in true spiritually. 

 

Since these mamzer persons seem to be lacking spiritually, one must wonder if it is possible for them to receive a call in this age and become a part of YHWH’s election (though many do become Christians and some even become Sabbathkeepers).  Hence, would the mamzer be excluded from the election category to the tenth generation since he cannot be a part of YHWH’s congregation? 

 

This writer is not sure of what the answer is on this issue.  But it would be foolishness to automatically conclude that a mamzer can be in The ELOHIM’s election in either the first century CE or here in the age end (in the early 21st century).  Frankly, it looks highly questionable. 

 

This writer has seen and known several of these mamzer individuals over the years (as outlined above and in preceding chapters).  Since it would seem to be illegal or wrong for an Israelite to marry and cross with a mamzer, the question must remain as to who the mamzer can legally marry? 

 

The probable answer to this enigma is answered in the Talmud.  Apparently, mixed blooded mamzer humanoids can and should marry mamzeret (or female) mongrels.  The thing which manifestly would seem to be wrong is for an Israelite to cross with one of them (possibly to the third or the tenth generation, depending upon how one might interpret Lev 18 and Deut 23). 

 

While the comments of the Talmud are certainly worth some study, it must be noted that they have to be considered in conjunction with what the Word expressly states. 

 

 

Again, the Problem 

 

Much of the difficulty on the marriage question, in the vein of the mamzer, arises because the two Scriptural uses of mamzer do not fully address the question of marriage, as just pointed out above.  While one can fall back on the Talmud, that source still doesn’t really define YHWH’s position. 

 

For sure, there is the obvious ten generation general exclusion of the mamzer (at least, the behemah produced mamzer) from the Congregation of Yisrael (Deut 23:2).  This text alone is sufficient to make an Israelite person want to have second thoughts about marrying a known or apparent behemah derived mamzer to the tenth generation. 

 

The Talmud’s reference to Leviticus 18 actually does not solve the dilemma either.  Leviticus 18 does lay out a number of prohibited marriages.  But the list only addresses the question of an Israelite marrying a behemah (Lev 18:23, in the context of race).  Clearly, Leviticus 18 is only concerned with the sex sins which the Canaanites were guilty of doing in the land. 

 

Leviticus 18 does not seem to directly consider the question of a good blooded Israelite marrying a mamzer descendant of a behemah to the tenth generation or a chaiyah or a Hamite to the third generation. 

 

Of course, there is always the problem of identifying and defining the mamzer to the tenth generation.  In Adamite-chaiyah or Adamite-Hamite mixes, the bad genes seem to be bred out much quicker than with an Adamite-behemah mix (likely, three generations versus ten generations).  The behemah genes are enormously strong and they last for evidently ten full generations. 

 

The problem is that a mamzer is affected not only in the vein of physical appearance, but also the adverse genes significantly affect the mentality, intellect, personality, temperament, and spiritual qualities of so-called human beings as well (as noted above, in the case of one Idaho Christian Identity preacher who is a clear mamzer). 

 

Possibly, this reality is the reason why there is a religious curse of sorts upon a mamzer to the tenth generation (this curse is brought out in Deuteronomy 7:2-4). 

 

Because of the ten (and three) generations rule, it is plausible that spiritually a mamzer is so defective that he/she can never come to any semblance of truth in this life and age.  At least, this writer has never been acquainted with a mamzer of behemah extraction who progressed into any semblance of Scriptural truth. 

 

Alternatively, many of them do become Christians and some of the strong extroverts (from the behemah genes) enter the Christian ministry (including the Christian Identity motion, as noted above).  The Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is heavily influenced by behemah and mamzer peoples, as will be addressed in later chapters. 

 

 

The Nokri/Nekar, Revisited 

 

But none of this discussion so far really broaches upon the question of marriage for a mamzer.  Probably, the solution to this enigma lies in the fact that the Scriptures make it clear that a mamzer seems to be almost synonymous with the nokri/nekar alien (at least, in this present mixed up world), as discussed above in this and earlier chapters. 

 

In broaching the nokri/nekar definition, the Scriptures do lay out a whole series of duties and truths relative to the nokri/nekar person, in contrast to an Israelite or a ger alien--to include the question of marriage (Gen 1:11-31; 6:1-9; 24:1-4; 27:46; 28:1-2; Ex 21:7-8; 22:19; Lev 18:23-30; 19:19; 20:15-16, 22-26; 21:14-15; Num 25:1; 36:8; Deut 7:1-3; 17:15; 22:9-11; 23:1-9; 27:21; Josh 23:11-13; Jud 3:5-8; Ezra 9:1 to 10:44; Neh 9:2; 10:30; 13:3, 23-29; Prov 5:10, 20; 6:24; 7:5; Jer 2:21-23; 31:27; Dan 2:43; Joel 2:17;  Matt 24:37-38; Lu 17:26-27; I Cor 10:8; Heb 12:16 [on this, see Gen 26:34-35; 27:46; 28:6; 36:2-18]; Rev 2:14). 

 

The point is that an Israelite seemingly cannot legally marry a nokri/nekar alien.  Since the nokri/nekar definition is almost synonymous with the mamzer distinction, the inference can be drawn that the prohibition covers the mamzer. 

 

This prohibition is particularly strong in the case of Adamic women who choose to marry nokri/nekar males.  Over and over, the Word proclaims that it is illegal for a nokri/nekar person to rule over Israelites (Ex 21:7-8; Deut 17:15; Joel 2:17).  Obviously, it is a terrible situation for an Israelite woman to have to submit to the husband-wife relationship and have a nokri/nekar husband ruling over her. 

 

But while the nokri/nekar alien is almost the same as the mamzer, there are some differences.  First, the nokri/nekar individual is identified and distinguished specifically by his physical appearance. 

 

Next, the mamzer is a child or descendant of a racially mixed sexual cross (in other words, he is a mixed blooded mongrel).  The nokri/nekar definitions include all mixed blooded mongrels which can be physically identified and detected. 

 

But the nokri/nekar definitions also include all full blooded behemah and chaiyah humanoids, as well--plus the descendants of Satan-Kain (to the extent that they can be physically identified and distinguished from more obvious Shemites). 

 

In the case of mamzer children and descendants from an Adamic and behemah cross, it would seem that their physical appearance will persist until around the 7th, 8th or 9th generations.  In that sense, the visible image is such that the prohibition of marriage is clear enough. 

 

Despite this clear restriction, there is the reality that the adverse genes will continue on in the mamzer to the 10th generation.  By YHWH’s Word, membership in the congregation of Yisrael will still not be allowed until the 10th generation (assuming that the mamzer line continues to marry back with good Israelite stock for the full ten generations). 

 

The point is that a person with brains above the idiot level must be absolutely sure that he or she does not intermarry with a mamzer. 

 

 

Divorce? 

 

Yet, the mamzer/nokri problem is so vast and extensive in modern America (as destined to happen, per Jer 2:21; 31:27; Dan 2:43) that it is very easy for a gullible and Scripturally uninformed Israelite to marry a mamzer and/or nokri/nekar alien.  Once married, what does a person do when the truth is discovered? 

 

Thus, for an Israelite married to a mamzer, there are some manifest questions about the provisions of Deuteronomy 24; and whether the marriage qualifies for a legal divorce (depending upon how obvious the problem is).  If there is an answer, it might be found in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13.  But in all cases, one must go slow on this question and not do anything hastily, without sufficient Scriptural study and prayer. 

 

This issue is enormously complicated and this writer is not prepared to offer an immediate interpretation or solution at this time (other than to warn any and all persons that each of us need to be extra careful about “who” we marry).  Certainly, one involved in a bad marriage with a mamzer would approach the divorce option cautiously.  As a minimum, prayer would be needed. 

 

In any case, there can be no doubt about the applicability of the mamzer definition to the children of mixed marriages between Israelites and the behemah--and evidently, chaiyah and Hamite humanoids as well.  Assuredly, the children born to the unions with the behemah are mamzer to the tenth generation (Deut 23:2), although there is still one more point of clarification due here. 

 

In Leviticus 18:23, the prohibited marriage is with a behemah humanoid.  In this use of behemah, and indeed in all other uses of this term, the message is not simply one of a full-blooded or 100% racial behemah.  It seems to include all behemah humanoids who are recognized as such. 

 

 

The Issue of Acceptance 

 

In any case, the Word seems clear enough that the prohibition in Leviticus 18:23 must apply to all behemah humanoids who plainly appear to be and are accepted as non-Adamites.  Thus, the behemah reference would apply both to the most obvious behemah possible as well as evident mulattos. 

 

Since Leviticus 18 does not include the chaiyah or Hamite Yellow-Brown humanoid definitions, one must wonder about their inclusion here.  Of course, as cited above, the problem seems to be essentially the fact that Leviticus 18 does not address all prohibited marriages, but only those illegal sexual crosses as occurring among the Canaanite people. 

 

Since the Canaanites were themselves Hamite Yellow-Browns, there was no point in saying that they sinned by crossing further with other Hamites.  Naturally, they could legally cross with other Hamites (in the vein of legal kind after kind reproductions).  In terms of the chaiyah, it is possible that the Canaanites had not yet miscegenated with them (at least not much so in numbers). 

 

Alternatively, it is even possible to allow that the behemah definition in Leviticus 18:23 might include all forms of non-Adamites. 

 

As a minimum, the chaiyah definition is a little more tenuous and difficult to attach to non-Adamite humanoids than the case with the behemah humanoid.  As noted earlier, this writer accepts the reality of the chaiyah definition (although it is somewhat more complicated than the behemah issue). 

 

Translating this to the real world, it is easy to see that Leviticus 18:23 might could be implied to extend to all non-Adamic humanoids.  It would certainly address all clear behemah humanoids to the 2nd-5th generations (who would never be in doubt as to their racial status). 

 

Chaiyah humanoids would surely extend to the 2nd generation (where the evident genes definitely prevail to establish the non-Adamic identity). 

 

On the basis of Deuteronomy 23:7-8, one can make the case that the chaiyah and Hamite Yellow-Brown humanoids are included in the mamzer class, but with a restriction only to the third generation. 

 

As a matter of information, the generic Edomites were heavily mixed with chaiyah and Hamite peoples over the years.  Of course, the true, original Egyptians were largely Hamites from their beginnings. 

 

 

A Summary on the Scriptural Mamzer and Nokri Peoples

 

In essence, the terms nokri/nekar are almost synonymous with the mamzer concept, but not totally and completely so.  Probably, almost all nokri/nekar peoples today can be classified under the mamzer definition. 

 

But all mamzer persons are not automatically nokri/nekar.  The word mamzer defines a person born of mixed parentage.  The nokri/nekar distinction is generally used in the Book to refer to the racial and/or ethnic status of all non-gerim strangers in Yisrael, vis-à-vis Israelites. 

 

The nokri/nekar person is identified upon a visual inspection or recognition (which includes most mamzer people within the 3-10 generation rules and assuredly all behemah, chaiyah and Hamite humanoids). 

 

But some mamzer persons (still under the three or ten generation rule) have been so mixed with Adamites that they are no longer recognized as such upon a visual examination--like some persons with behemah genes, but who have become very Adamic before the full ten generations have completely expired. 

 

Yet, they would still be of the mamzer class if under the ten generation rule (because of mental, spiritual, temperamental and intellectual issues). 

 

 

The Contemporary Problem 

 

Through sufficient study, it is possible to draw some conclusions about modern mixes of Whites, Blacks, Reds and the small-boned Yellow-Brown peoples.  Physically, a so-called White with Black genes begins appearing extremely White by about the 7th to 9th generations. 

 

This writer has known of several so-called White families with clear Black ancestors.  In at least three cases known to me, some of the girls were very fair and blond headed (especially when young).  They would never be suspected of having a Negro ancestor. 

 

It appears that the blond hair and blue eyes of a largely Caucasian can surface in about eight or nine generations from a Black ancestor. 

 

Though physically, a White person with Black genes to the eighth or ninth generations can be awful white, the truth remains that it still takes ten full generations to breed out all of the Black genes in Black-White mixes (too, this writer is not sure of how many generations it takes to breed out the White influence in mixed Black people). 

 

In other words, it would be utter folly for a true White, Red, Black or Yellow-Brown woman of good genes to marry a man like J. Edgar Hoover, Emmanuel Goldenberg, Abraham Lincoln or any of the other mamzer men mentioned earlier (because genetically, all of them shared heavily mixed genes). 

 

Just as Whites have miscegenated greatly over the years, the same thing can be said of Blacks, Reds and others (thus, almost everyone in the world today is a cross of something--somewhere).  Consequently, most, many or perhaps almost all so-called Blacks are all already products of miscegenation. 

 

Some of them (like Fats Waller, O. J. Simpson, former Negro Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, and the Colin Powells) are likely removed to the second, third or fourth generations.  Obviously, a further infusion of White genes will make all of these mixed blooded Blacks move even more dramatically closer to the White kind than as would be true with 100% Blacks. 

 

 

J. Edgar and Elizabeth, Revisited 

 

A good example of how this works out concerns the mamzer J. Edgar Hoover.  Edgar’s great grandmother was Elizabeth A., allegedly a person with African genes. 

 

As suggested earlier, there are good reasons to suppose that this Elizabeth (or her mother or whomever) was not the usual, black Black (since she was desired as a bed warmer).  Her female line had undoubtedly crossed with Whites for many years.  Likely, she was a very white Negro. 

 

In today’s world, with the reality of massive miscegenation for the past 60 years, one can find some modern Negro women who do have many white genes and are far removed from their African ancestor.  Certainly, Black actresses like Robin Givens (who was married to boxer Mike Tyson) and Halle Berry are not typical Blacks. 

 

A number of very white Negro beauty queens have achieved some recognition in the last 60 years in the various beauty pageants.  In the case of Halle Berry, she has sufficient African genes to have dark skin and black, kinky hair.  But otherwise, this woman has an enormous presence of White genes. 

 

Possibly, Elizabeth (or whomever providing the Black genes to J. Edgar) was in the category of Berry.  If so, one must realize that such persons are already several generations removed from their Negro ancestor.  So-called Blacks, like these women, may only have around 6.25% to 3.125% of Black genes. 

 

While Elizabeth (or whomever) was supposedly born into Black slavery and was accepted as a Black for part of her life, some of her descendants quickly made the transition to being Whites. 

 

Thus, Elizabeth might have been a 3rd or 4th generation removed mamzer mongrel.  In three more generations, her great grandson J. Edgar could have been removed to the 6th or 7th generation from his Black ancestry. 

 

J. Edgar passed for a White, certainly in his adult lifetime.  Though one could look at his physical features and easily detect the African genes, it would not take many more generations for this physical appearance evidence to disappear (if he and his line would have crossed back with Whites). 

 

 

Transition to Whites 

 

At some point in time, miscegenated Blacks, Mongoloids and Hamites leave the Colored definitions and begin to pass for Whites.  This has happened in many mongrelized societies--like Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. 

 

It appears that these mongrelized peoples are in the mamzer definition and will remain that way until the White genes totally prevail to establish the white appearance (in ten generations in the case of mixes with Blacks, and in three generations in cases of mixtures with Mongoloids or Hamites). 

 

Thus, mixed blooded Blacks (like the Colin Powells) are very much African; yet, they clearly carry mixed genes (thus, they are visibly recognized and known as Blacks with mixed blood lines).  So-called, alleged Whites (like J. Edgar Hoover, Abraham Lincoln, Karl Marx, Ernie Kovacs, etc) are/were actually nokri/nekar, mamzer peoples. 

 

The point seems to be that a mixed blooded person (to the third generation in the case of Mongoloids and Hamites and the tenth generation in terms of Blacks) would suggest the mamzer definition--though he may be accepted as a Black, Indian or something else.  Or perhaps, if he is accepted as a White, he would still be a mixed, mamzer person. 

 

Hispanics and Arab peoples, though possessing heavy Yellow-Brown genes, are virtually all mamzer or mixed humans (except in those cases where they have sufficient heavy Black genes to allow themselves to be defined as Blacks). 

 

 

A Revisit to the Hebrew Word Arab or Arav 

 

Prior chapters have mentioned Daniel 2:43 and its use of the Hebrew word “arab” (correctly arav) for the mingling of the seed of men (the Aramaic enash, a general term for mortal man, like the Hebrew enosh). 

 

The word arav is especially important because it has come to refer to specifically the Arab peoples who manifestly mixed and mingled racially with a heavy presence of both White and Black genes. 

 

Young’s “Analytical Concordance” (p. 664) gives the meaning of the word arab as “to mingle.”  The “Soncino Books of the Bible” for Daniel (p. 19) gives the meaning of mingle themselves in Daniel 2:43 as “intermarry.” 

 

“The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon” (p. 612) gives several meanings and uses of the Hebrew arab--to include to intermix, intermeddle, interfere (this is an interesting concept included in the vein of mingling), to have intercourse, be familiar with, to enter into negotiations with, to be mixed, and reflective of certain foreigners or strangers. 

 

This same source ties the word to the Arabs and Arabia and adds to become dark, drawing towards evening, the time between the two evening (between sunset and darkness).  This citation adds that it is the basis for the Arabic word meaning black. 

 

Consequently, the word arab clearly means almost the same thing as mamzer and nokri/nekar, as discussed above and earlier. 

 

If there is a difference, it apparently exists in the framework of arab referring to the Arabic peoples.  In other words, they are Arabs because they are a mixed, mingled people.  The Black genes are profoundly evident among the Arabs, as well as among Hispanics in general. 

 

 

Therefore

 

Without using the space here to cover this theme properly, the fact remains that YHWH does legislate distinctions and differentiations on the various classes and kinds of humans/humanoids whether we like it or not.  Or as Shaul perceptively put it--all flesh is not the same flesh (I Cor 15:39)--as will be more fully explained later herein. 

 

For those mongrels (or the pure behemah, chaiyah or Hamites for that matter) that do not qualify for conversion to Yisrael (who do not meet the three or ten generations test), this writer would not dare attempt to judge their future. 

 

Beyond Isaiah 56:6-7, it might be that their hereafter is laid out in the Scriptures, but that this writer has not had the understanding or interpretation to recognize what the Word says.  But whatever the case, every human/humanoid will fulfill YHWH’s purpose for the creation.  We can be sure of it! 

 

 

Hebrew or Greek

 

The preceding discussion now opens the door to one more especially salient gem of truth which must be covered again.  As outlined previously, it is presently an axiom that "all" of the oldest, extant copies and writings of the New Testament seem to have been preserved to our time in Greek. 

 

However, notwithstanding this fact, there is an abundance of scholarly works and studies making it very probable that all or most all of the New Testament books were originally written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic. 

 

Probably, very early, the autographs or some of the first copies were translated to Greek.  And of course, it has been the extant Greek writings which have survived to our time--thus helping to perpetuate confusion over the proper noun name “Adam” and the other terms related to race, as discussed herein. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 119--Demographics, the Flood & Noah’s Ark

 

 

Some Prevailing Beliefs 

 

The prevailing position of most scholars and educated people is that life commenced on Planet Earth in a primordial pool of chemicals by some miraculous act which is totally unexplainable by man.  From this beginning of life (perhaps from an insignificant one-celled “amoeba”), life “evolved” into what man can behold today. 

 

From this scientific and educated viewpoint, the supposedly great minds have went on to stipulate that “man” evolved in Africa from a lower form of a primate.  Once the earlier humans/humanoids were established, they then branched out into the different races (through evolutionary development, as was described in preceding charters) and spread abroad from Africa. 

 

Some of these humans/humanoids became “civilized” while others remained very primitive savages.  Through further evolution and time, the huge assortment of so-called human races and kinds of people arrived on the world’s stage (as now visible in the year 2003). 

 

The stupidity of this evolutionary thinking is covered elsewhere herein and needs no further consideration.  But it is important here to compare this prevailing scientific thinking of the great minds of modern man with what actually occurred. 

 

Per the Scriptures, man and certainly a part of the rest of YHWH’s (re)creation, centered not in Africa at all; but rather, in the Middle East--in the area of the Euphrates River (in modern Iraq) and three other rivers which are still partially unidentified.  The record seems to say that these four rivers emptied into a great valley or garden to water it and make it an Eden paradise. 

 

E. T. Tennyson, in “Unspeakable Words” (p. 45-50), offers this conclusion and goes on to note that the word Eden means “the pleasant valley in which they lived.”  Tennyson then went on to outline where he thinks those four rivers flowed.  It is not hard to see that the Euphrates flowed on South into the Persian Gulf. 

 

Hiddekel is one of the rivers and some scholars tie it to the Tigris which parallels the Euphrates before finally joining it just before emptying into the Persian Gulf (Gen 2:14).  Tennyson suggests at creation, all four rivers flowed into the Gulf area.  This theory has enormous support, as will be established in later comments. 

 

While the Tigris does today join the Euphrates before the Euphrates empties into the Gulf, it is not farfetched at all to allow that at one time both rivers emptied much further below (South) in the present Persian Gulf area.  Rivers can change course over the years and it is possible that in the post-flood environment, the Tigris changed slightly to link up with the Euphrates up river from where it once emptied. 

 

The Pison River flows through the land of Havilah (which is thought to be the Arabian Peninsula).  The fourth river, the Gihon flows at the length of the land of Cush/Ethiopia.  To understand the situation with the Gihon, it must be recognized that in pre-flood days the earth’s land mass was in a singular pattern with one continent. 

 

Australia was up under South Asia, perhaps just South of India.  At that time, the Australian continent may have included New Guinea and Tasmania.  The breakup of the continents occurred in the days of Peleg (Gen 10:25). 

 

The water level of the oceans, to include the now Red Sea, was much lower than it is today.  Thus, starting at the Sea of Reeds (or Sea of Seaweeds), on the East side of Egypt, the Gihon River flowed South by the land of Cush and turned East at the Horn of Africa to pass around the Arabian Peninsula and flow between Australia and Asia over to the Euphrates at some point above the Garden of Eden which must have been in the Euphrates valley (now the Persian Gulf). 

 

By the way, it should be noted that this ancient land of Eden became the land grant by YHWH to Avraham in his day.  As a matter of fact, the Shemites settled this area after the flood.  Then, the Hamites started a number of illegal invasions to take it over. 

 

First, Nimrod, the son of Cush, established Babel (Babylon) in the territory belonging to Arphaxad in the Southern Euphrates valley.  Soon, the Canaanites encroached on the Western part of the grant near the Mediterranean.  And soon, the Philistine descendants of Mizraim settled along the coast of Canaan.  By the time of Abraham, Arphaxad had lost all of his territory.  The grant to Avraham reaffirmed it. 

 

 

An Alternate Position 

 

There is another view on Eden and these four rivers.  This one was outlined by Jim Myers in issue Number 8, 1999, of “Discovering the Bible” (p. 12).  Myers quoted a story from the Feb 1, 1999, “Jerusalem Report” on “Paradise Found.” 

 

This story centered on the work of British archaeologist David Rohl who says he has found the site of the Garden of Eden in a lush valley beneath an extinct volcano in Northern Iran, some ten miles from the industrial city of Tabriz (Northwest of Teheran).  Rohl says that the Scriptural reference to the Hebrew Gan Eden means a walled garden. 

 

He adds that the valley he found is indeed a walled valley or garden surrounded by towering mountains--including Mount Sahand, a snow capped extinct volcano which Rohl identities as Yechezkel’s “Mountain of God” (Ezek 28:11-19). 

 

The article goes on to suggest that the Garden of Eden was actually located at the head waters of the four rivers--rather than at their mouths, as suggested by various scholars and as allowed in some of the above comments.  In the sense that the garden was located where the four rivers commence, Rohl believes he has found them in this believed Eden area. 

 

He says that the four rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris, Araxes (Gihon) and Uizhun (Pishon), all of which have their headwaters in this area of Northern Iran.  Rohl also believes that he has found the land of Nod, East of Eden.  He says that today this land of Nod is called “Noqdi.” 

 

 

The Present Reality 

 

Regardless of which of these options bears truth, a question can eventually surface to make one wonder if the Garden of Eden will one day be discovered--either in this present age or the millennium, during the rule of YESHUA (certainly, this seems like a very plausible time for it). 

 

Even if it was located in the Persian Gulf area (and now under water), the eventual discovery or identification of the site seems highly likely.  As discussed elsewhere herein, much or some large part of the ocean waters are expected to go back into space to form a band of ice or water to surround the earth once more, just as happened in Genesis 1.  Eden could then become visible to man. 

 

Incidentally, this ancient land area along the Euphrates (in Mesopotamia, Ur and so forth) has been historically called the “cradle of civilization.”  Of course, the Adamic civilization started precisely in this area and not in Africa at all, as evolutionists allege. 

 

The George W. Bush war on Saddam Hussein and Iraq will be covered at length in later chapters.  So there is no need or intent to really get into it here in this present discussion.  However, there was one tragic fall out which is relevant here in the context of the after effect of the war once the US had seized Baghdad. 

 

An NPR news report on Apr 13, 2003, said that the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad was looted and all of its priceless treasures stolen and its records burned and destroyed. 

 

A US archeologist said that some of this stuff went back to 3500 BCE and included priceless gold and silver antiquities and 100,000 cuneiform tablets from ancient Mesopotamia (many of these ancient tablets are 5,000 years old and have never been translated and studied--so who knows what they might have said). 

 

Since some of the gold and silver antiquities will be hard to sell, the thieves will likely just melt them down.  Other priceless treasures may be either destroyed or end up in private collections.  Manifestly, the ancient history of Adam has been destroyed in the Bush Junior war. 

 

Actually, there was some similarly related looting in some museums in Southern Iraq in the 1991 George Senior war on Iraq (but on a very limited and much smaller scale).  So the US knew it could happen. 

 

Too, various authorities around the world called out in public for some security to be placed on the Iraqi museums by the invaders (but the US focus was on securing the oil fields and stealing that wealth and not on the history of Adam).  The State Department was specifically warned about what could happen at the Iraqi museums. 

 

Yet, US authorities did nothing to secure these artifacts (although they did secure the Iraqi oil wells, as just noted above).  The incompetence and stupidity of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Tommy Franks are unbelievable! 

 

 

The Kain Migrations 

 

Next, a question must surface on how far Adamic man did extend outward from the area of Mesopotamia in the pre-flood environment (which was the earliest habitation place for Adam man).  Well, the Book does not seem to be precisely clear on this point, but the some part of the Kain line (fathered by Satan) assuredly emigrated at some point in time East--perhaps into the area of modern India or China, as allowed in other comments in this study. 

 

India is especially interesting in the context of the Kain line for other fascinating reasons-- “if” it can be established that the flood was not universal, as mentioned earlier and as will again be broached shortly?  As noted previously, Cain was apparently the first vegetarian opposed to the slaughter of animals (Gen 4:2-5).  He must have been the proto-type of the modern animal rights activists. 

 

With this description, it is interesting that most of the peoples of India are utterly opposed to the slaughter and consumption of animals.  Animal worship seems to be a part of Hinduism and the Indian culture.  Add in the enormous propensity for demonic and occultic religious manifestations and it is easy to see that modern India and the historic Kain and Kain’s father have had an awful lot in common. 

 

One of the earliest peoples in South India was the Australoids which must have passed into the Australia area some time before the continents were divided.  The Australoids are clearly a mix of the Kain line with African Negroes.  It is not clear where the mix took place but the best guess would be that they miscegenated in South India. 

 

My take is that most of them moved into Australia before it separated from Asia in the days of Peleg (this Australoid settlement of South India and Australia could have happened pre flood or post flood as the dating is not clear.  If it was pre flood, it would have involved Cainites and Negroes.  If post flood, it would have been Cushites and Negroes). 

 

Yet, some of these mixed Australoids did remain in India.  Some scholars assert that the Australoids are the oldest people inhabiting India.  In the immediate post flood era, some Cushites from Babylon (called Dravidians) evidently moved into India, along with many more Blacks in the form of the present Negritoes.  The Aryans from Elam came much later. 

 

The Australoids moving to Australia provided the mixed Black population which, after the continents separated and continental drift occurred, moved North into New Guinea (although New Guinea was evidently a part of the Australian continent originally; thus, the Australoid presence there may have occurred from India along with the Australoid movement into Australia);, the Philippines and the South Pacific areas of Melanesia. 

 

In any case, the present civilization now visible and apparent in most or all of the world is manifestly the Adamic civilization which commenced in the modern area of Iraq.  It’s quite obvious that Adam man quickly began miscegenating with the behemah, the chaiyah and ultimately Satan and fallen angels to produce some profoundly bad aberrations. 

 

This very evil miscegenation prompted The MOST HIGH to declare His decision to destroy those people in the great flood (Gen 6:1-7).  As elsewhere described herein, it is a repeat of this sin of miscegenation which will also be one of the catalysts to precipitate the age end and the return of YESHUA to establish His millennial government on earth (Matt 24:37-38; Lu 17:26-27). 

 

Any student of truth can easily ascertain the extensive move to miscegenation and  a world full of very mixed and mingled peoples.  All the way from the Pacific Islands, to India and China, to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, to almost all of Africa, to South America and the Caribbean and back to the starting point, one can essentially find a world of very mixed people. 

 

So, left under man’s direction for the present, the future holds out a world full of people like one would find maybe in the Philippines or perhaps in Brazil.  The people of Scandinavia will soon be forgotten relics of the past.  Yes, man is duplicating the sins of Genesis six, right now in our time. 

 

 

The Flood, Revisited 

 

As outlined in a former chapter, the Scriptural flood in the context of the Euphrates area was conclusively proven with the archeological work of Sir Leonard Wolley in 1929. 

 

This fantastic archeological find of a civilization buried under a stratum of eight feet of mud at the Ur of the Chaldees (described in a prior presentation) goes on to verify that indeed the Adamic civilization must have commenced in the Euphrates valley and on South into the Persian Gulf area. 

 

Moreover, there is the previously quoted find of tablets from Egypt which established a civilization there at an early and possibly pre-flood time.  The word “possibly” has been purposely used here because man’s modern dating schemes are not necessarily accurate.  So while the alleged dates for the Egyptian find may be correct, they may also be incorrect.  They must be used with some caution. 

 

Hence, even if the flood was somewhat localized (as will be shortly addressed), it still must have been quite extensive covering much or all of Asia and perhaps even some part of Africa. 

 

There is furthermore the previously mentioned report by Bruce B. Auster on “Noah and the great flood,” in the Nov 29, 1999, “US News & World Report” (p. 12). 

 

This story offered another possible proof of the great flood in Noah’s day or an earlier one in the context of new discoveries of a great flood in the Black Sea Basin, allegedly some 7,500 years ago, which completely wiped out entire cities and submerged thousands of square miles of dry land 550 feet below the present Black Sea level. 

 

Moreover, in an article on “The Great Mediterranean ‘Desert,’” Lambert Dolphin mentions contemporary work which has discovered that the Mediterranean Sea had dried up and refilled on several occasions in past years (Jan 1998 “Personal Update,” p. 11-14).  Today, the Mediterranean Sea floor reportedly contains salt deposits which could have been caused by Noah’s flood. 

 

Beyond the just cited, geological evidence of the flood, there is an interesting and extensive presence of a flood tradition in apparently all or most all of the traditions of ancient peoples inhabiting the Middle East and even over to China. 

 

The most famous of these early flood traditions is the historic epic of Gilgamesh which was ascribed to the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians.  It was extant and obviously believed by many in Babylon in the time of Alexander the Great (“Davis Dictionary of the Bible,” p. 248).  This story parallels the Scriptural account in many aspects. 

 

In almost any assessment of the Genesis 6 flood, one must stop and ponder how it was possible for water to be so vast and deep that it covered Mount Ararat so high that the ark rested upon its slopes as the water receded.  This would involve a fantastic quantity of water which had to stay upon the Asian land mass for some time before running off to the oceans. 

 

The difficulties here on the quantity of water will be addressed in a subsequent chapter on earth cataclysms.  Suffice to say, the answer may lie in plate tectonics which will be commented upon in a later chapter. 

 

 

More on the Flood 

 

While the evidence is certain that the whole area from the Persian Gulf North to Mount Ararat came under water during the flood, there is some question about how far the flood extended over the earth.  In other words, was it really universal--as implied in the Word and as has been historically believed by religious people reading the Tanakh? 

 

As outlined previously herein, there is a considerable body of believers that have raised real questions about whether Noah’s flood was truly global or not.  This issue boils down to the correct meaning and understanding of the Hebrew “erets,” as stipulated in Genesis 6.  There is no question but that erets means dry land areas (Young’s “Analytical Concordance,” p. 281). 

 

However, many interpreters wish to qualify that definition by saying that the uses of erets do not always include “all 100%” of the entire dry land of earth.  In other words, it can mean a limited area or portion of earth.  Furthermore, some argue that the use of the word can refer to the portion of earth inhabited by the Adamic civilization. 

 

For example, Nebuchadnezzar and the Roman Caesars ruled the world or earth.  But their rules did not extend over primitive areas in Africa, Northern Asia or the Americas.  Their rules were actually limited to the areas of earth that were inhabited by the civilized Adamic population. 

 

This writer has not taken a stand on this flood question and will not do so here.  As outlined in former comments, it doesn’t matter one way or the other in explaining the different humans/humanoids and how they ultimately (in the post-flood era) spread abroad from the Euphrates valley to cover the earth. 

 

In the context that Adamic man might have had a pre-flood civilization in early Egypt or the establishment of the Kain line perhaps in India (and the survival of a male line of descent from Kain into modern times, as elsewhere described herein) would lead one to speculate that maybe the flood was not universal after all. 

 

 

The Ark

 

The flood subject takes the student of truth next to Noah’s Ark for a closer look.  It seems to have been a massive boat, as big as a modern football field.  Using the Scriptural dimensions, it is possible to perceive that it was on the order of 450 by 45 by 75 feet and sufficient to provide something in the range of 56,361 cubic yards or the equivalent of 569 standard railroad cars (as some scholars/writers stipulate). 

 

Could the Ark have carried all of the species and varieties of life now known to man (beyond those which could survive in the water)?  Many persons claim the answer here is yes.  However, this writer is uncertain and will not attempt to assume a position.  

 

While the ark was vast and huge and could carry a phenomenal representation of life (including appropriate pairs of behemah and chaiyah humanoids--who would have been helpful to Noah), some question must still persist over whether it did in fact carry all representations of life in all of its varieties, as allowed herein in prior remarks. 

 

Thus, carrying one pair of one wolf breed is very feasible but carrying pairs of the huge assortment of wolves, discussed earlier, could become complicated.  In any case, the waters subsided and the Ark rested on Ararat at about the 14,000 feet level. 

 

And during the vast centuries since it first rested on Ararat, any number of people have seen it, went up to closely inspect it, to take pieces of wood from it and on and on.  Many modern “discoveries” of this ancient artifact have been reported, including the famous work of the Frenchman Fernand Navarra, who in the 1950s, brought back some wood from the Ark. 

 

Modern science and technology have gotten into the act by confirming the presence of an artifact in a glacier on the mount.  Other explorers have suggested that part of it broke and slid down the mountain somewhat to a more exposed position.  Apparently, many of the people bringing back petrified wood have made their discoveries in this lower broken off portion. 

 

For a fact, this writer is totally convinced that the Ark is there on Ararat, waiting for a great witness to so-called humanity sometime in future years. 

 

Since there have been some recent reports of a warming earth, is it plausible that some of the glaciers on Ararat will melt sufficiently to allow the Ark to at last be viewed (by television cameras?) all over the world as a great witness in the age end? 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 120--Post-Flood Demographics

 

 

Following the Flood 

 

After the flood, the evidence is that Noah and his descendants initially stayed in the area of modern Turkey, Armenia and Northern Iraq and Syria, although many of them apparently began migrating in time in various directions and particularly South. 

 

In the context of the work of Nimrod to build the tower of Babel in Shinar into the heavens (Gen 11:1-8) and the decision of YHWH to confuse their one Adamic language (into 70 varieties, per Rabbinic literature, “Jewish New Testament Commentary” p. 222), it would appear that some portion of the Adamic survivors of the flood migrated fairly soon South into ancient Mesopotamia--again along the Euphrates. 

 

But with the intervention of The ELOHIM at the tower of Babel incident, it seems that many of the Adamic people were then scattered abroad from Mesopotamia--if not from Ararat earlier. 

 

Upon leaving the Ararat area, some Shemites assuredly came on further South, quickly to inhabit the warmer Euphrates valley near the Persian Gulf, as beforetime.  It is this civilization in the Southern Euphrates--which came to be the Sumerian civilization.  It produced the obedient man Avraham, elsewhere described at length. 

 

For sure, by the time of Nimrod and his attempt to reach into the heavens, and its failure at the hands of YHWH, there was a massive scattering abroad of Adamites--essentially into Asia, North Africa and some parts of Europe. 

 

But probably, these early migrations into Europe from the Middle East were somewhat limited.  Subsequent history was to provide a catalyst for some further huge migrations into Europe.  It was these later migrations which have most profoundly affected modern history and the demographics of modern peoples.  These migrations will be addressed shortly below in comments to come. 

 

To what extent after the flood that the behemah and Cainites were already in Africa and in South-central Asia (in the India area) or the chaiyah was already in Northeastern Asia is uncertain.  If the flood was not universal, it is likely that these other forms of humanoids were already in those lands.  However, if the flood was universal, it is plausible that those non-Adamic humans migrated to those lands in the post flood environment. 

 

This writer has long suspected that the ancient Chinese civilization was founded by Adamites who came to Eastern Asia and miscegenated with other non Adamic peoples in Eastern Asia.  The result is that modern Chinese are a basic racial mixture of White and Red peoples (with even some presence of Black genes and B blood).  The Cantonese (Southern Han Chinese) have also some huge presence of Yellow-Brown genes. 

 

On this theme, it is absolutely fascinating that the Chinese New Year of the Dragon, which started on February 5, 2000, is the year 4698 in the Chinese calendar.  The elapse of something like 4,697 years since the flood is awful tempting to think about in the context of the Chinese calendar. 

 

In a later chapter on chronology, this writer puts the flood at about 2357 BCE.  This means that the year 2000 CE shows an elapse of time of around 4,356 years since the flood.  Though probably off slightly, the Chinese year 4697 seems to be extremely close to the real 4,356 years.  The 300 plus years difference can be easily understood in the context of human error and mistakes in calculation at some point in time. 

 

The essence here is that the Chinese civilization was probably founded by Adamites (from Japheth) just after the flood.  Over the ages, the Adamites miscegenated with other humanoids to form the modern Chinese race. 

 

 

More Migrations 

 

As one approaches from the North to Southeast and South-central Asia, Black genes begin to surface in numbers.  India certainly has Black, White, Red and Yellow-Brown genes in a mix (which could go all the way back to Cain since he and his descendants probably founded the eventual people and religions of India). 

 

So the basic White people who came East quickly miscegenated with other peoples to form the modern races and ethnic groups there.  Probably, most of this migration and miscegenation occurred after the flood, although one must be prudent and allow a Cain presence earlier (if the flood was not universal). 

 

The famous yellow-brown immigrations out of Southeast Asia (Malaya or possibly Southern China) must have primarily involved small boned yellow-brown Hamites, who miscegenated with others over the years. 

 

These Hamites formed much of the basic stock which pushed East to eventually inhabit much of the Pacific Islands and begin the formation of the later Micronesians and Polynesians.  The Hamitic Philippine inhabitants came from these Malay, Indo-China and/or Southern China area migrations as well.  The Japanese Ainu were of this same Hamite stock and migration from SE Asia. 

 

The very Black Aborigines in Australia and the nearby islands are all fairly small boned people, suggesting that they were produced by interracial crossings of Hamites and Blacks (the previously cited Australian actress Sigrid Thornton, with her small size, dark coloring and Aborigine facial bone structure, clearly shows this mix--along with some White genes which she probably has). 

 

These same Aborigine people of Australia seem to dominate racially in Melanesia and to lesser extents in Micronesian and possibly even Polynesia.  Micronesia has a heavy presence of the Australoids which migrated from the South and these two populations mixed in Micronesia to produce its modern mixed population.   

 

As noted above, there was a heavy Black Aborigine/Australoid people in the Philippines, who were evidently of the same racial types as those in Australia.  Some persons have claimed that the Australian Aborigines came from the Philippine stock.  However, the contrary view must be the better one that the Philippine Aborigines came from the Australoids of Australia who migrated North to inhabit Melanesia and Micronesia along with the Philippines..  It is not clear how extensive the Australoids influenced the Polynesians but there was likely some crossing even here. 

 

 

The Role of Religion 

 

In the scattering abroad, whether voluntary by the post flood Adamites or involuntary through the actions of YHWH at the tower of Babel incident, an interesting facet of history now emerges for the student of truth.  Except for the man Avraham, as mentioned above and earlier, the evident balance of Noah’s descendants chose to ignore, abandon and turn away from the true worship of The ELOHIM. 

 

Instead of worshipping The CREATOR, they began worshipping the creation (in the form of the sun, moon and stars).  Shaul and others wrote about this transition from truth to false, pagan worship (Rom 1:19-32).  It will be elaborated upon in some detail in later chapters. 

 

The reality that the descendants of Adam turned to sun worship goes a long way in identifying and locating those people today who have scattered from Central Asia.  Although this topic will be further assessed in a later chapter, the point must be made now that there is an interesting correlation between different racial groupings of people versus their religions. 

 

For example, European Slavics, who generally seem to be related, have tended toward the Eastern Orthodox Catholic faiths.  The Southern European Mediterranean peoples are generally Roman Catholic and the Nordic White Northwest Europeans are Protestant Christians. 

 

The Ishmaelites (the modern Arabs) are Muslims.  In “A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ” (p. 326, v. ii, division 1), Emil Schurer notes that the Itureans were descended from one of the sons of Ishmael.  The Itureans were also known as Syrians or Arabians. 

 

The Arabs’ descent from Ishmael is well established and few or no scholars would dispute it (to be in the form of twelve major Muslim Arab entities in the age end--Gen 17:20; 25:16).  The sons of Keturah could have produced another six to twelve nations (per Gen 25), which are also Moslems today (possibly of the Shiite variety). 

 

Furthermore, certain descendants of Esau (to be later assessed) seem to have also possibly formed another twelve nations (at least 11 to 14, per Gen 36), many of which today are Muslims.  Esau’s ties to Ishmael make this religious definition very logical (especially since Esau married a daughter of Ishmael).  Other racial groupings of people have identifiable religions, largely peculiar to themselves as well. 

 

Apparently, the Adam kind are largely all sun worshippers today--in contrast to the more primitive religions of the behemah and chaiyah humanoids (to be later outlined).  The Hamite yellow-brown people are either Muslims, Hindus or some of the other pagan sun worship faiths of India.  Otherwise, there seems to be at least two primary exceptions for the enigma associated with Adamites. 

 

First, there are the few Adamic persons who have maintained or adopted the Scriptural Hebrew faith (to also be later addressed).  Next, some few, true Jews are around who have not succumbed to sun worship, as will also be assessed in subsequent chapters herein. 

 

Incidentally, many students of the Book are acutely aware of the fact that YHWH chose to establish His Covenant with the people of Yisrael--the seedline of Avraham-Yitzhak-Yakov.  As discussed in prior chapters, it is only Yisrael who can really understand the Word and properly obey it.  Thus, YHWH made a religious decision based on race.  Do Christians call The ELOHIM a racist?  Yes, there is a link between race and religion! 

 

As noted earlier, it is intriguing that there is a phenomenal correlation between race and religion.  It is no wonder that YHWH in His Word warned Israelites against making marriages with the defiled races (Deut 7:2-4).  Not only would the Colored partners lead their husbands and wives into sin (as happened with Shlomo), but also the children of these mixed marriages would never follow truth as should happen with true racial Israelites. 

 

 

Languages and World Government 

 

Besides the racial correlations to religions, it is also fascinating that basic languages also offer a racial connotation. 

 

For example, the Germanic languages dominate in the Nordic Northwest Europeans, the Latin languages are found in the Mediterranean Southern Europeans, and the Slavic languages, using the Cyrillic alphabet, predominate among East Europeans.  The Black African, Arab and Asian-Oriental populations have their own language peculiarities. 

 

Surely, the Chinese civilization produced the unique alphabet and characters found in modern China, Japan and Korea.  While there are some differences in the various nations that use these pictures/symbols of words and phrases, there are many similarities between them, which suggest a common origin. 

 

Succeeding comments herein will address the efforts of Adamic man to establish world government--starting with Kain and on forward to Nimrod (after the flood), and still on forward to the famous Assyrian, Babylonian and Medeo-Persian empires.  All of these famous and powerful Adamic empires were centered in the Middle East. 

 

This reality of linking the powerful world ruling Adamic nations to the Middle East continued on until the time of the rise of the Grecian-Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century BCE.  Once Alexander came on the scene, world domination, and even rule for periods of time, shifted to Europe--in the form of the Greek and Roman Empires. 

 

 

The Later Big Migrations Into Europe

 

The situation which evolved in the post-flood era up to the fourth century BCE and the rise to power of Alexander the Great is absolutely fascinating and profound.  Beyond the trickle of Adamic people out of the Middle East into Europe over the post-flood years, not much changed in geographical demographics until the days of the famous Shemitic Assyrian empire. 

 

The Assyrians were firmly in place in the Middle East (to the Northeast of the modern Palestinian and Iraqi areas).  These powerful war prone peoples rose to international significance in the 9th and 8th centuries BCE.  They became a world ruling people and eventually invaded, enslaved and subjugated the peoples of the House of Yisrael and other nations (as discussed elsewhere herein). 

 

However, by the late 7th century and the early 6th century BCE, the Assyrian empire was on a sharp decline (to be replaced by the Babylonian empire).  And all of a sudden, the Assyrian peoples (collectively) and many of their enslaved populations (like the House of Yisrael) began vanishing from the Middle East scene.  This was a great human population disruption (that is not generally understood by historians). 

 

The prevailing assumption is that the Assyrians were absorbed by the Babylonians.  But this assumption does not seem to bear any semblance to the reality of what happened.  The truth is that many of the Assyrians and their enslaved peoples migrated out of the Middle East--eventually into Europe. 

 

This migration of Assyrian and Assyrian dominated peoples has some interesting correlations to the above mentioned language and religion factors.  These peoples who left the Middle East by the 6th century BCE came to form the basic Germanic peoples and languages (as discussed elsewhere herein).  In time, they became largely Protestant Christians. 

 

This strange phenomenon also happened with the Hamitic Babylonians.  They rose to power around 600 BCE and began to fade out of power around a hundred years or so later (to be replaced with the Medeo-Persian empire).  While the Babylonians did not face the enormous dispersal which the Assyrians underwent, many of the Babylonians also did migrate into Europe. 

 

In time, the Babylonians (displacing to Southern Europe) became the basis of the Latin languages and the Roman Catholic religion. 

 

There was also a possible movement out of the Middle East by some of the later Medeo-Persian peoples--as that empire began fading out with the rise to power of Alexander the Great in the late 4th century BCE.  It is plausible that some of these peoples went into Europe, as well as Asia.  Some of the later to be discussed Edomites and Israelites were probably in this disruption. 

 

By the time of Alexander the Great, it appears that many of the early Shemites had left the Middle East.  This time frame obviously saw a giant transformation in the Middle East.  Of course, some Shemites retained a presence with the House of Yehudah which stayed in Babylonian and other lands and/or returned to Judea. 

 

There was also a great Aryan empire in Northern India which may have been founded by Shemites (perhaps Elam, who initially settled in Iran).  These Aryans may have miscegenated with the local Coloreds or some or all of them may have migrated into Central Europe to form the later Austro-Hungarian empire.  

 

The years which produced these great changes in demographics in the Middle East saw a huge explosion of the Arab/Ishmaelite and Edomite populations (which today pretty well inhabit almost all of the old Middle East areas).  Clearly, the peoples leaving the Middle East underwent a shift in languages and ultimately in religions, as just suggested above. 

 

There are a couple of footnotes here worth mentioning.  Back in 1969, this writer was in the US Army and on a training exercise in Germany.  While at a German hotel one day, where I was staying, the hotel proprietor mentioned that he had learned in school that the original German people came to Northwest Europe from out of the East (this movement from the East is also true of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples who eventually settled Great Britain). 

 

In the 19th century, the famous German philosopher Friedrich Delitzsch gave a series of lectures on the ancient Assyrians.  In the use of a 7th century relief, Delitzsch had a sketch made of the wife of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal.  Obviously, she was a very Nordic, White woman (much like the Germans).  In his lectures, Delitzsch described her as a princess of Aryan blood and blond hair (Feb 2002 “Bible Review,” p. 36). 

 

Of course, Delitzsch became famous for his alleged anti-Semitism.  However, as he himself stated, he neither hated or loved Semites; but he was “simply seeking truth for its own sake, without any prejudice or bias” (ibid, p. 39).  Thus, maybe the charges against this man were nothing but lies, as is a common occurrence when dealing with certain people (to be described in later chapters). 

 

This situation with the relief used by Delitzsch spells out a common finding in many of the ancient reliefs, statutes, paintings and other representations of people in the historic Middle East, Greece and Rome.  One must inevitably be struck with the reality that many of these ancient peoples were White Caucasians.  Sometimes Blacks and other dark people are shown (like in Egypt), but the White presence is unmistakable. 

 

The point of this is that the Western civilization started in ancient Mesopotamia and spread abroad from there.  The people who eventually came to Northwest Europe came from out of the Middle East.  This truth cannot be denied.