TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 24

In the last few presentations in this series we have been discussing particular passages in the New Testament where certain terms are mistranslated or misunderstood, which also adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the New Testament. While we cannot discuss every error of interpretation, we have endeavored to address the passages which would change one’s view of Scripture, and potentially one’s entire worldview, once they are translated properly and understood correctly within the context of the entire Scripture. With these interpretations which we uphold to be correct, all of the seeming conflicts and inconsistencies within Scripture vanish, God is no longer the hypocrite which the denominational churches make Him out to be, and we can know that God is true. So now, continuing with Proof 44, we are in the midst of the Gospel of Luke, as we had left off with the parable of the unrighteous steward in chapter 16.

44) continued: Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in Matthew, Mark and Luke

In the parable of the unrighteous steward in Luke chapter 16 we saw that Yahshua Christ was actually contrasting men of different races, and He used the term for race, which is γενεά, in order to make that comparison. Those two races were descibed in an allegory as the “sons of light” and the “sons of this age”, or world. The wicked steward was praised by his master for his wickedness, because he acted as one may expect of a man of a wicked race. The parable is a lesson in human nature, that one’s nature and the resulting actions are inherent and cannot be changed for the better if one is a devil or a bastard in the first place. But now, in Luke chapter 17, we shall see that the Greeks viewed race even more narrowly than we are accustomed to perceive race today.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 23

In our last presentation, of Proof 44 in this list of 100 proofs, we discussed particular passages in the Gospel of John where certain terms are mistranslated or misunderstood, which also adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the New Testament. While we did not discuss every possible error of interpretation in John, we sought to address the passages which would change one’s view of Scripture, and potentially one’s entire worldview, once they are translated properly and understood correctly within the context of the entire Scripture. With these interpretations which we uphold to be correct, all of the seeming conflicts and inconsistencies within Scripture vanish, God is no longer the hypocrite which the denominational churches make Him out to be, and we can know that God is true. So now, continuing with Proof 44, we will endeavor to do this same thing in the so-called Synoptic Gospels, which are Matthew, Mark and Luke.

44) continued: Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions in Matthew, Mark and Luke

While there are not a lot of mistranslations or misunderstandings in the Synoptic Gospels, there are some critical ones, and we have already spoken about some obvious misunderstandings. For example, where in Matthew 3:7 we see John the Baptist calling certain of the Pharisees and Sadducees a “generation of vipers”, the word translated as generation is γέννημα, which literally means offspring. So in essence, John is calling the parents of these men vipers, and not the men themselves. The same phrase appears where Christ used it in the same manner of His adversaries in Matthew chapters 12 and 23. The use of the phrase proves that there is an actual race of men referred to as vipers in Judaea at the time of Christ, or both He and John are mere slanderers, the parents of these men not being present to defend themselves against the accusation.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 22

In our last presentation, which was Proof 43 in this list of 100 proofs, we discussed particular passages in the Old Testament where certain terms are mistranslated or misunderstood, which also adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the entire Bible. Doing that, we did not discuss every possible error of interpretation in the Old Testament, but rather we only sought to address the passages which would change one’s view of Scripture, and potentially one’s entire worldview, once they are understood correctly within the context of the entire Scripture. With these interpretations which we uphold to be correct, all of the seeming conflicts and inconsistencies within Scripture vanish, God is no longer the hypocrite which the denominational churches make Him out to be, and we can know that God is true. So now, here beginning with Proof 44, we will endeavor to do this same thing in the New Testament.

44) Specific NT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions

The first verses we should probably discuss are John 1:11-13, although we will surely return to Matthew, Mark and Luke a little later on. The denominational Christians twist the meaning of these verses in John to prove at once the chosen people myth of the Jews, and then the idea that anyone who professes to believe somehow becomes a child of God, an idea which itself conflicts with the chosen people myth of the Jews. The truth is, that these verses are not necessarily saying what they have been translated to say. What we are going to say about these verses here is mostly based on a 2006 essay I had written titled Translating John 1:11-13, which were actually based on the translation notes I made when I translated John. So I elaborated on them once again in Part 3 of my commentary of the Gospel of John, which was titled The Sons of God. Here I will attempt to condense those explanations, if it is possible.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 21

Having finally finished with Proof 42 and our discussion of words which are generally mistranslated or misunderstood throughout the Bible, now we turn to particular passages where certain words are mistranslated or misunderstood, which also adversely affect the interpretation of the Scriptures throughout the entire Bible.

43) Specific OT Verse misteachings, mistranslations or corruptions

Genesis 2:9

The first misteaching, of course, is not to properly recognize the allegories of Genesis chapters 2 and 3, even if they cannot be fully understood until Christ explained them in the parables and visions of the Gospel and Revelation. In Genesis chapter 2 there are two trees which are different from all the other trees. All of the actual wooden trees created by God were made to come out of the ground, and they were made to be good for food, but two other trees are mentioned apart from those trees, as we first read in that same chapter: “9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

Throughout Scripture trees are used as allegories for races or nations of people. But later, in the Gospel, Christ identifies the Tree of Life where He says in John chapter 15: “1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.” Proclaiming that He is the “true vine” also reveals the possibility that there is a spurious vine.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 20

This is our fifth discussion of point 42 in TruthVid’s 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White. Once again, we have already explained that this review of the meanings of certain words does not explicitly prove the race of the Israelites. But understanding the true meanings of many Biblical terms does help to prove that word meanings were obfuscated by the churches so as to distort the many other evidences that the message of Christ and His apostles and prophets is solely intended for White Europeans.

42 continued) Major word mistranslations or misunderstandings that occur repeatedly throughout the Bible.

Satan and the Devil

The word satan is a common Hebrew word which was used in the New Testament in a particular manner, and therefore in order to properly understand what it means we must examine its use and meaning in Old Testament Hebrew. In many passages, it is clear that a satan is only an opponent or adversary, and in many different contexts the word was applied to men. For example, David was called a satan or adversary to the Philistines in 1 Samuel 29:4, and Hadad the Edomite was called a satan, or adversary, to Solomon in 1 Kings 11:14. Rezon the son of Eliadah was also a satan or adversary to Israel in the days of Solomon, in 1 Kings 11:25. From the perspective of men, even an angel of Yahweh was an adversary, or satan to Balaam in Numbers 22:22. Then in the same context later in the chapter, at 22:32, the same word, satan, is a verb translated as withstand.

But not all opponents or adversaries are also capital ‘s’ Satans, even while there are capital ‘s’ satans. Grammatically, one difference between Satan, with a capital ‘s’, denoting a particular Satan for which reason we prefer to translate it as Satan in that manner, and an adversary who may be just about anyone at one point in time or another, is in what is called a Substantive. A Substantive is a word or group of words which are not typically nouns, but are employed as nouns in a given context. In Hebrew or Greek Substantives are quite common. Combined with a definite article, the noun is used to represent a particular entity, and not just any one of an entity which fits the description in the definition of the noun. In language, when the definite article accompanies a noun or Substantive, it indicates that the subject referred to by the noun has already been mentioned, or is common knowledge, or is about to be defined.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 19

This is our fourth discussion of point 42 in TruthVid’s 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White. Once again, we have already explained that this review of the meanings of certain words does not explicitly prove the race of the Israelites. But understanding the true meanings of many Biblical terms does help to prove that word meanings were obfuscated by the churches so as to distort the many other evidences that the message of Christ and His apostles and prophets is solely intended for White Europeans.

42 continued) Major word mistranslations or misunderstandings that occur repeatedly throughout the Bible.

In our last presentation of this series, we discussed the various terms for man, which are adam and enosh, and we found that adam is a racial designation, describing a single race of man, but that enosh is the general term for man in the sense of a mortal hominid. Then we examined the words for bastard and found that bastard is also a racial designation, but describes someone who is not of an authentic race. Now we shall discuss another misunderstood term which is also a racial designation similar to bastard, but from a different perspective, and that is the term arab.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 18

This is our third discussion of point 42 in TruthVid’s 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White. As we have already said, this review of the meanings of certain words does not explicitly prove the race of the Israelites, but it does show that word meanings were obfuscated so as to distort the many other evidences that the message of Christ and His apostles and prophets is solely intended for White Europeans.

42 continued) Major word mistranslations or misunderstandings that occur repeatedly throughout the Bible.

Adam, enosh and mamzers: Man, man and bastards.

First, we must address a false claim in Christian Identity circles that the word enosh is a precise reference to so-called men of other, non-Adamic races. That is not true. The fact is that examining the listings in Strong’s Concordance for the English word men, it is very quickly realized that men of the race of Adam were very often referred to with the word enosh. Rather, the Hebrew word enosh, Strong’s # 582, is related to and derived from the word anash, Strong’s # 605, which means frail or feeble, and therefore enosh refers to man as a mortal being.

But the word adam as a noun refers only to one particular race of men, the race created by Yahweh God as it is described in Genesis chapters 1, 2 and 5 where we read “this is the book of the generations of Adam”. That Hebrew word translated as generations is toledah, Strong’s # 8435, and it means descent or descendants. Not everyone in the Bible is a descendant of Adam, as we see later on in Scripture that there are Nephilim, Rephaim, Zuzim, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Girgashites and others who cannot be traced back to Adam, who were not ever counted among the descendants of Adam, and all of whom were rejected by Yahweh God as being among the accursed races of Canaan. The Kenites were not of Adam, although the meaning of Genesis chapter 3 is argued by denominational Christians. But as for those other groups not being of Adam, they have no grounds upon which to argue, as it is clear that they are not of Adam.

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 17

Here we continue our discussion of point 42 in TruthVid’s 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White. While this review of the meanings of certain words does not explicitly prove the race of the Israelites, it does show that word meanings were obfuscated so as to distort the many other evidences that the message of Christ and His apostles and prophets is solely intended for White Europeans.

42 continued) Major word mistranslations or misunderstandings that occur repeatedly throughout the Bible.

Generations or Races?

In 1 Peter chapter 1 we read where Peter addressed his intended readers and called them: “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”. But that word stranger is not ξένος, which commonly referred to a stranger or foreigner. Neither is it ἀλλογενὴς, which refers to someone of another race – in a narrower sense than we use the term race, but which is translated as stranger in Luke chapter 17. Rather the word in 1 Peter chapter 1 is παρεπίδημος, which describes “one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives”, which is a sojourner. This translation of different words with different meanings into the same English word, stranger, is also a source for confusion.

So the intended recipients of Peter’s epistle were people who were not always native to the lands where they were living. Then later in his epistle, in chapter 2, Peter says of them: “9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” In the verse which follows he again refers to them as sojourners and pilgrims.

This is Not White Supremacy, It is God Supremacy

Our Christian Identity profession is a belief in the supremacy of God and His Truth. I hope y’all have some time. Every once in awhile I am motivated to write a presentation introducing and explaining our Christian Identity beliefs, and this is it for 2020, but it is not going to be brief. This presentation includes a review of an essay by Clifton Emahiser titled When Will All of Israel be Awakened to Their Identity?

Four thousand years ago, Yahweh the God of Israel, the God of the Christian Old Testament as well as the New Testament, had called the Biblical patriarch Abraham out of the wider Adamic world, the entirety of which had wandered off into paganism and had begun to accept or develop many practices which are, for the most part, still considered abominations, or at least, have until recently been considered as objectionable, by White society unto this very day.

But because Abraham believed God, as we read in Genesis chapter 17, “3… God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Similar promises were given to Abraham, which were without condition, and were ultimately inherited by the patriarch Jacob, whose name was then changed to Israel.