- Christian Identity Directions
- Answering the Shills
- Disdaining the Culture of Fear
- End Time Dates
- Paul Bashers: A Line in the Sand
- Snakes in the Grass
- The Universalism of Eli James
- Weiland Letter 2005
- The Anatomy of my Split with Eli James
- Antichrist News
- Russia No. 1 - The Crimes of the Jews in Bolshevik Russia
- Ahmadinejad - A Friend of the Jews?
- Antichrist Whore
- BBC Says That the Jews Themselves Did Entebbe
- Effrontery of Judaism
- Effrontery of Judaism, Part 2
- Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv
- Genetic Proof of the Blood Relation of Palestinians and Jews
- Jew Media Brags About Israeli Control Over American Gov't
- Jewish Media Control
- Jim Jones: Marxist Shill
- Polluted Anti-Christ Mind, Part One
- The ADL IS Hate
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Five - Jewess Admits Scam
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Four: Israelis Fomenting Racial Agitation
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Three
- The ADL IS Hate, Part Two
- The Devils Pig
- The Enemy Within
- The Jewish Problem
- The USS Liberty: Interview with a Survivor
- Zionism Seemed Hopeless in 1902?
- Historical Documents
- Miscellaneous Bible Topics
- On Biblical Exegesis
- Notes Concerning Daniel's 70 Weeks Prophecy
- Divorce in the Bible
- On the Passover
- Pharma, Part 1
- Pharma, Part 2
- Pork Is Not Food
- Revelation Chapter 20
- Roman Women
- Temple Warning
- The Ephraim-Scepter Heresy, Revelation 5:5
- King James: Why Quote it?
- Prophecy of Television
- Things to Consider
- Christian Identity Directions
- About the Blog
- The Saxon Messenger Editorial Page
- A Tale of Two Englishmen
- Anders Breivik and The Right Far and Faux
- Crimes of the ADL, Part One
- Disdaining The Culture of Fear
- Fascism vs. Capitalism
- Liberalism is Racist
- Misogeny is “hatred of race”
- New Weimar Republic
- On the mongrelization of nations
- Saturday, June 20th
- Society, Think About It
- The Beelzebub Belt
- There Is No Political Solution
- White Liberal Misogeny
- Who is your god?
- Worshipping the Image of the Beast
Genesis Chapter 2
Genesis Chapter 2
It is readily apparent that Genesis chapter 1 should have ended with verse 3 in chapter 2, and that chapter 2 should actually have started with verse 4. These chapter and verse divisions did not exist until relatively recently in the history of Scripture, and the medieval monks who made the divisions – often quite arbitrarily – did not leave us with an ideal product. The text of Genesis 2:4 begins a story which ends with the end of chapter 4. On the seventh day, when Yahweh God "rested from all His work", that does not mean that He ceased from all activity. Rather, it means that with the creation of Adamic man, He stopped creating new species. Any new species or organisms which have appeared since the creation of Adam are only corruptions or adaptations of the things here which Yahweh already created.
It is evident to this writer that Genesis chapters 2 through 4 are not truly a chronicle of actual historical events, but are rather a parable which is merely representative of actual events. While Genesis 1:26-28 is a general account of the plural creation of the race of Adam, the account which begins in Genesis chapter 2 represents a separate account of the creation and then the fall of the Adamic race through the transgression of the particular patriarch Adam. While many commentators concentrate on the minutest details of these chapters, they ignore the meanings of certain Hebrew words, they fail to recognize many of the idioms, and they fail to reconcile many other statements made in later Scriptures which allude to early events, and therefore they miss many of the lessons which are conveyed here.
Adam was not the first man in the sense of the word as an adult male hominid. Rather there is much evidence both within and without the Bible that other hominids walked the earth long before the creation of Adam, which the best manuscripts of the Old Testament date to approximately 7500 years ago (see Clifton A. Emahiser’s Patriarchal Chronology). It can be established with certainty that Adam was the first White man. The word adam in Hebrew means rosy, to be able to blush, or to see the blood through one’s skin. This is quite the way that Dr. James Strong defined the word in his Concordance well over 100 years ago. As an adjective, it is ruddy, and it is used in that manner in descriptions of King David found at 1 Samuel 16:12, 17:42, of King Solomon at Song of Sol. 5:10, and of the Nazirites described by Jeremiah at Lamentations 4:7: “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire”. Only White men could possibly ever be described as being ruddy. The word adam means ruddy because the Hebrew word dam (Strong’s #1818) means blood.
It is generally agreed among anthropologists and archaeologists that so-called Western Civilization began in Syria and Mesopotamia at least, but not much earlier than, 5,000 years ago. It can be established that all of the nation-families listed in Genesis chapter 10 and described as having descended from the patriarch Noah after the flood were originally White, and that all of the White nations of today have descended from these peoples. In the Historical Essays section of Christogenea there is a list of papers establishing the assertions made here concerning the origins of the White race. Much too lengthy a topic to address here, there is a preponderance of evidence by which it is demonstrated that the Biblical story of the creation of Adam portrays the creation of the White race on earth. Click here for a list of papers from Clifton A. Emahiser’s website which discuss Adam in relation to the White race.
The first law of the Bible is “kind after kind”, which is often overlooked by theologians. That every creature made by God was created “after his [its] kind … and God saw that it was good” is mentioned repeatedly in Genesis chapter 1. In Genesis chapters 2:8-9, we see that Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden. In ancient Akkadian inscriptions, in a language closely related to Hebrew, eden is the common word used to describe the steppe. In this garden there are trees “good for food”, and there are also the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. People and races are often depicted as “trees” in Scripture (i.e. Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 17:22, 31:3). The Tree of Life, as the New Testament reveals, is Yahshua Christ, who is also the root and the branch of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1, 10). The Tree of Life is also mentioned at Rev. 2:7 and 22:2, 14. Yahshua Christ said in John 15:5 “I am the vine, ye are the branches”. By all of this it may be evident that Yahshua is the Tree of Life, and each member of the Adamic race is a part of that Tree. The “knowledge” of good and evil, without stretching the meaning of the original Hebrew word in any way, signifies the understanding or even the experience of good and evil. A wooden fruit tree cannot possibly be described by these terms. Like the Tree of Life, this tree is also a race of people. In the Biblical context, the only race up until the time of Adam which could have such knowledge or experience of evil are those rebellious “fallen angels” referred to by both Peter and Jude.
That there were indeed a race of angelic beings cast out to earth even before the time of Adam is evident in Scripture in many places, and also even more so in apocryphal literature such as the Book of Enoch, which is quoted by both Peter and Jude. Yahshua Christ Himself tells us at Luke 10:18: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”, and at 10:19 relates this “Satan”, or adversary, to “serpents and scorpions”. An illustration of this same thing is provided to us in the Revelation at 12:7-9: “7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” These are the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. For more on the topic of these fallen angels, see The Problem with Genesis 6:1-4 here at Christogenea.
In Genesis 2:18-24 it is related that Adam had named all of the beasts and other animals which Yahweh created, and among them he found no suitable mate, so Yahweh created a mate for Adam from Adam’s own flesh and bone. Many believe that this seeking of a mate among the animals by Adam is somehow proof that Yahweh God created the other hominid races at this time (or in the creation of Genesis 1:24-25, another account of this same event). This is discussed in a separate article found below. Whether or not this is true, however, is immaterial to the reason for the account given here. What is absolutely evident here is that Adam was acquainted with all of the species of fauna in his environment, and plenty well enough to recognize them and to give them names. Adam was also highly informed that none of these other species were suitable to mate with, and that it was sufficiently important only to mate with another who was so closely related in kind so as to be the flesh of his flesh, and the bone of his bones. In other words, this is a lesson which teaches that Yahweh God forbids race-mixing, which is a destruction of His original creation, and which is a theme throughout the Bible, even in the New Testament where it is called fornication (as Jude 7 demonstrates, fornication is the pursuit of “strange”, or different, flesh). Click here for an index of some of the papers here at Christogenea and related sites that discuss the Biblical attitude towards race-mixing.
The last verse of Genesis chapter 2, “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed”, sets the stage for the account given in Genesis chapter 3, discussed here in another section.
Before godless jewish ideas absolutely corrupted most of Western academia, there was a time when scholars were not afraid to investigate the origins of the races of men from a more practical point of view. When common sense prevailed, intelligent men never would have bought the notion that all of the world's races developed from a common ancestor, whether that ancestor be a certain Adam or some rabbinical protozoa emerging from a talmudic primordial ooze. This book, Preadamites by Alexander Winchell, is a product of those times, and is presented here as a record and as a monument to that period of honest academic inquiry which is lost today to the jewish religions of modernism and pluralism.
Various theories on the creation of non-Adamic hominids, which are also referred to in the Bible as “beasts”:
There has been much debate among even the most sincere and scholarly advocates of (two-seedline) Christian Identity, concerning whether or not there were two-legged, or hominid, “beasts” amongst the original creation of life by God on earth, as described in Genesis Chapter 1, from which are derived the non-White races of today. This article shall endeavor to assess this debate, as well as offer a solution to the dilemmas of division and argument on this issue.
On the one side are those who insist that two-legged hominid beasts are indeed included in the “beast” creation of Genesis. These people refer to Genesis 1:24-25 and the use of the Hebrew word chay, Strong’s # 2416, to support their argument. They also seek further to support their argument by pointing to the many “beasts” of later scripture which are described as having cognitive abilities, hands, and which can be punished for wrongdoing. Yet while it is absolutely evident that such two-legged hominid “beasts” did exist after the time of Adam, at least as early as the time of Noah’s having been preserved from the flood (i.e. Gen. 9:5) and possibly even as early as the time that Adam named the beasts of the garden, that does not necessarily mean that those beasts were a part of the original creation. Furthermore, the word chay is clearly used of four-legged beasts in Genesis 7:2 (“every clean beast”), 8:20, 9:2, and many other passages of Scripture. Therefore, neither of the two main Scriptural arguments given by those who would assert that Yahweh created non-Adamic “men”, or hominids, can be seen to prove those assertions by themselves. It can also be said, that in most places where the word "beast" is used idiomatically, as a pejorative, of hominids in the Bible, the Hebrew word is never chay, but is always behemah instead, a word from which we have gotten the English behemoth.
On the other side of this argument are those who would insist that hominids could not have been among the original creation outlined in Genesis 1:24-25, and that Yahweh never created any hominid here on earth except Adam, the first White man. This side concludes that since Yahshua Christ separates the races into good kinds and bad kinds (the word kind in the parable of the net at Matthew chapter 13 is actually genos in Greek, which means race), or into sheep and goats, or wheat and tares, as Paul also distinguishes only sons or bastards (mongrels), that all non-Adamic (non-White) hominids must be mongrels (goats, tares, bastards, etc.), and therefore Yahweh could not have created any of them. This side also insists that since Yahshua proclaimed that “Every plant, which My Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up”, and since Genesis explicitly states that Yahweh created Adamic man, and no other hominid is explicitly stated as having been created, that therefore all the other races are to be rooted up, since Yahweh did not create them. And even though this writer agrees with all of these arguments concerning the other races as they exist today, none of these arguments actually prove by themselves that Yahweh did not create hominids among the beasts which only later became corrupted, and therefore only later are a “plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted”. These Scriptures only prove that there are no non-Adamic races here now which can be considered to be legitimate “men” planted by Yahweh. Furthermore Paul, in Romans chapter 5, clearly equates the word man (Greek anthropos) with the Adamic race, thereby limiting his own understanding of man to that particular race, the Adamic race.
It is generally agreed by both of these sides that the so-called “fallen angels” had been cast out onto this planet before the creation of Adam. It is also agreed that, as the ancient apocryphal documents state and as the epistles of both Peter and Jude infer, these fallen angels had corrupted much of the creation of Yahweh before the time of Adam, and also corrupted much of the Adamic creation (or race). Therefore this entire argument really makes no difference theologically, except that one side wants to somehow “prove” the other wrong. This writer believes that this argument cannot be proven one way or another by Scripture, and indeed it makes no difference, since it is perfectly clear to all involved that the covenants and promises of Yahweh our God are only made to those of the White Adamic race, and specifically to the children of Israel who were chosen from among the greater White race. All non-Adamic hominids are excluded from these covenants.
One side or the other may attempt to turn to the archaeological data to prove their point, since that data certainly does show that there were hominids here before Adam, and that some of them may have even been White in appearance. Yet it can be argued convincingly by Scripture, that the fallen angels themselves must have been White, and the existence of other races here before Adam proves nothing, since we have no exact chronology either of Yahweh’s creation, or of the time of the original rebellion from Yahweh by that race of “fallen angels”. We cannot prove whether the fallen angels corrupted hominids which had already been created by Yahweh, or whether there were no hominids until the fallen angels corrupted themselves with animal-kind, thereby creating those hominids out of themselves. Furthermore, we may never be able to answer this, at least until Yahshua Christ Himself returns and gives us the answer!
Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 were discussed at length by Eli James and William Finck on the following Talkshoe Internet Radio broadcasts, available here:
The following papers represent Clifton A. Emahiser's research on the topic of the "beast of the field":
Last Updated: 06/09/10 - Click here to go to the top of the page