This page is an index page to various Hebrew-English resources posted here at Christogenea and elsewhere.

Many today are struggling with this very question. What other subject could be of more importance than the very name of our Creator? Maybe the following article will solve some of your uncertainties. If one wishes to find information on the term “Yahweh” it is somewhat hard to find. One reason is because in most encyclopedias it is listed under “Jehovah.” Also, in later up-to-date encyclopedias the information is rather suppressed. The following is a rather thorough, but not perfect, article on this subject found in the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica printed in 1910. We will not use the entire article as toward the end they get mired in the errant criticisms of the 1800’s humanists. Otherwise this article brings to light many historical facts on the topic. But like all testimony, it must be scrutinized! (Footnotes have been changed to paragraph notes at the end of each paragraph by the use of superscript numerals inside of brackets [ ] ):

JEHOVAH (Yahweh1), in the Bible, the God of Israel. “Jehovah” is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word adonay, “Lord,” which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures. In such cases of substitution the vowels of the word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the consonants of the word which is not to be read. The consonants of the word to be substituted are ordinarily written in the margin; but inasmuch as Adonay was regularly read instead of the ineffable name Jhvh, it was deemed unnecessary to note the fact at every occurrence. When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jehovah. It is an unprofitable inquiry who first made this blunder; probably many fell into it independently. The statement still commonly repeated that it originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; Jehova occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century. [1This form, Yahweh, as the correct one, is generally used in the separate articles throughout this work.]

So many men look at the oppressive behemoth which calls itself the Roman Catholic Church, and then foolishly place the blame for the creation of this monster and its offspring upon Paul of Tarsus, as if he ever developed such a thing. In doing so, these men are only repeating the romish church’s lies by which it claims an apostolic founding, and giving them credence as if they were true, which they certainly are not!

The history of these articles is given in the Preface. This section will indeed see further improvement as time allows. The entire article is now posted here. Enjoy! - WRF

Six essays and corresponding audio presentations explaining the origins of the Germanic people, from the Classical historians, archaeology and other resources.

• Classical Records and German Origins, Part One 
  
   
• Classical Records and German Origins, Part Two
  
   
• Classical Records and German Origins, Part Three
  
   
• Classical Records and German Origins, Part Four
  
   
• Classical Records and German Origins, Part Five
  
   
• Classical Records and German Origins, Part Six: Who are the English?
  
   

© 2006 William R. Finck Jr.

In the preface to Josephus’ Wars, the historian explains that he originally wrote the book in “the language of our country”, i.e. Hebrew or perhaps Aramaic, and sent it to the “Upper Barbarians”, among whom he then names as “the Parthians ... Babylonians ... remotest Arabians ... and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni.”

Except for the Parthians, Josephus’ designations here are geographical, where it is clear from the pages of his Antiquities that many of the Israelites of the Babylonian deportation still dwelt around Babylonia in his time (15.3.1), and this would include the “remotest” part of Arabia adjacent to Babylonia (cf. Acts 2:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). Also, Josephus attests that many Israelites of the Assyrian deportations were “beyond Euphrates until now”, where they were “an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers” (11.5.2). Adiabene is that part of Assyria which, according to Strabo in his Geography, is not in Mesopotamia but which consists of the plains beyond the Tigris bordering Babylonia to the south and Armenia to the north (16.1.1, 19). Media borders Adiabene on the east.

• Classical & Biblical Records Identifying the Phoenicians
• Galilee of the Gentiles?
• Cherubs are Sphinxes

Download the audio here.

By: William Finck  ©  2007

Luke 16:1-13, or the parable of the unrighteous steward, is perhaps one of the most misunderstood pericopes in the Bible. The reason for its being so misunderstood is, I believe, due to the poor translations of the text found at verses 8 and 9 of the pericope, and the entire parable must be presented and discussed here, yet these two verses shall be examined most thoroughly. I have translated Luke 16:1-13 thusly:

SIN AND THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN

And, Who Are The Modern-day Sadducees?

By: William Finck    © 2007

A strange “flesh is evil” or “the devil is the flesh” theology has developed among some sects labeling themselves as “Christian Identity”. With this twisted theology, since all men sin (Rom. 3:23; 1 John 1:8), and since, as the A.V. has 1 John 3:8, “He that committeth sin is of the devil”, then all men must be of the devil! Then, taking Paul’s discourse concerning the trials of the flesh out-of-context (Rom. 7:13-25), some claim that our only enemy is the flesh. All of this certainly seems to run parallel to the typical “White-liberal” guilt-complex and self-hatred ideologies found in certain socio-political segments over the past couple of centuries: that men are evil, and especially White men. Little do they realize that Yahweh Himself created the flesh of Adamic White man, and then added His Spirit to it (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7), and that Yahweh blessed those men and women whom He created (Gen. 1:28; 5:2; 9:1). Therefore the “flesh is the devil” theologians indirectly blame Yahweh Himself for all the world’s evil! Their theology is akin to that of “Calypso Louie” Farrakhan and the radical black “Nation of Islam”: they teach their willing listeners that the White man was created by an evil mad - black - scientist!

Yet further on in Romans, in chapter 8, we find that Paul warns us that it is other forces which we must beware of, not the flesh but “... angels ... principalities ... powers ...” and “... any other creature [creation]” which would seek to separate Adamic White man from Yahshua Christ (Rom. 8:38-39). Paul clarifies this elsewhere, at Eph. 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” While all of the errors of the “devil is the flesh” crowd cannot be addressed here, we shall endeavor to examine John’s comments concerning sin, found in his epistle known as 1 John. Before beginning, however, a few of the prophecies concerning Israel and sin must be noted:

The word χριστός (christos, Strong’s #5547) is defined by Liddell & Scott: “verbal Adjective of χρίω, to be rubbed on ... II. of persons, anointed: ΧΡΙΣΤΟ´Σ, ὁ, the Anointed One, the CHRIST, as a translation of the Hebrew Messiah, N.T.” The root verb, χρίω (chrio, #5548), is “... to rub or anoint with scented unguents ... to anoint ...” (L&S). So we see that when used of persons the adjective χριστός simply means anointed. Yet wherever the A.V. translators found the word, either as an adjective or used as a Substantive (a noun, usually with the Article), they, whether by habitual repetition or plain ignorance, translated the word as Christ. Therefore Christians have been led to believe that the word always refers to Yahshua Christ Himself. Most translations done since have simply followed the A.V. in this respect, and so have the lexicographers, including Liddell & Scott as is evident above. Because of this situation, and the intended demonstration of this essay, all of the translations below shall be my own unless otherwise noted. Comparing the passages supplied here with those found in the A.V., and using a concordance such as Strong’s, the reader should be able to assess the validity of the following assertions.

The verb χρίω, to anoint, is found at Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38 and Heb. 1:9, all pertaining to Christ. Elsewhere in the N.T. we see this verb used in the same manner of the children of Israel, at 2 Cor. 1:21. Indeed the Corinthians were descendants of Israelite tribes, from whence came the Dorians, who settled in Greece over a thousand years before Christ’s birth. Note the text at 1 Cor. 10:1-11 for instance. Likewise, a related noun, χρῖσμα (chrisma, 5545), was used by John, speaking of Israelite Christians. The A.V. translated this word as “unction” at 1 John 2:20, and as “anointing” twice at 2:27.

By: William Finck ©2007

As recorded in the gospels, Yahshua Christ talked often about different aspects of the law, and the law of divorce was no exception. In Matt. 5:17-48, Yahshua is recorded as having delivered a general sermon on the law, of which divorce is a part and is mentioned at vv. 31-32. Later, in a conversation recorded at both Matt. 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-12, Yahshua was specifically asked about divorce, and in this case the Old Testament law concerning divorce is referred to, found at Deut. 24:1-4. This law is not found in Leviticus, and surely was not – as Christ infers – added to the kingdom law in Deuteronomy because Yahweh approves of divorce: He certainly does not. Rather, it seems to have been added in order to confront an inevitable reality: disobedience and the hardness of men’s hearts, that unwanted wives may seek a redress if one is needed, and a means to remarry, being legally freed from their former obligations and so not in fear of being charged with adultery once found with another man. The intent here, however, is not to discuss common husband-wife divorce. The proper Christian perspective on that topic is found at 1 Cor. 7: 10-11, where Paul correctly follows Yahshua’s instruction on the matter. Yahshua Christ also mentions His teaching concerning divorce at Luke 16:18, yet the context of His conversation is quite different there and reveals that in this instance, neither was He speaking about common husband-wife divorce.

By William Finck   2008

Recently there was much media chatter concerning the current head of the Romish “church”, Herr Ratzinger (I ought not use any of the usual self-proclaimed titles, cf. Matt. 23:8-9), and his visit to the United States. One of the highlights of his trip, according to the media, was his stop at a New York City synagogue, and his embrace of the Jews there, where he gave a speech which stressed the so-called “Jewish” roots of Jesus (Yahshua) Christ and of Christianity. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. In reality – which reality shall continue to escape the notice of most people in society – Herr Ratzinger’s homage to the Jews of New York surely demonstrates the truth of such New Testament verses as Luke 4:5-6, John 14:30 and 1 Cor. 2:8, among others. For those whom we see in positions of authority are not the true wielders of power: it is the dragon (Rev. 12:7-9) which gives authority to the beast (Rev. 13:4). While this statement may seem enigmatic now, it may become clearer later, as this essay proceeds.

By William Finck © 2006

John the Baptist’s practice of cleansing, or “baptizing”, sinners in water was not an idea peculiar to him and, as shall be made evident below, it was done for a specific reason. It was a practice long known to not only the Judaeans but also the Greeks. This should be no surprise, since it is known that both the Danaan and Dorian Greek tribes were direct descendants of the Hebrew Israelites. It would be odd if they did not share many of the same customs.

Presented in this podcast are William Finck's Broken Cisterns essays, Part 1 and Part 2.

Download the podcast here. There is only one podcast for both parts of Broken Cisterns.

• The Seed of Inheritance, Part 1
• The Seed of Inheritance, Part 2

© 2007 William R. Finck Jr.

The Bible, a collection of very ancient books written in languages which have not been spoken in their original forms for many, many centuries, contains many enigmas for the average reader of modern times. This is especially true since many parts of the Bible – and it is the Old Testament being discussed here as well as the New – were written in parables and in the poetic language of prophetic vision. While it is certainly a sound practice to interpret Scripture in the context of Scripture, with the idea in mind that the Word of Yahweh our God clarifies and explains itself, the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, or 72 for the Catholics, or even 80 for the original King James Version compilers of 1611, are not by themselves a complete revelation of the history of White Man (Adam-kind). Neither should one be so arrogant as to believe that these books which we now have were the only inspired Scriptures transmitted in antiquity: for not all of the books excluded from canon by early churchmen deserved such a fate, and not all of the books of antiquity survived until the Christian era. Neither can these books be completely understood all by themselves in any language, because of their incomplete state and the antiquity of the languages they were written in. Yet with sound, thorough studies in history and archaeology, many facets of the Bible are much better understood. Not only the historical books of the Bible, but the utterances of the prophets also come to life with studies in these fields, and the certainty of the Word of Yahweh our God is surely made manifest. Furthermore, with studies of the ancient languages which the Bible was first written in, a surer understanding of that Word is acquired. Yet unless one looks outside of the Bible, to other ancient writings produced by kindred cultures during the Biblical age, a proper understanding of many of the metaphors and idioms of Biblical languages shall never be acquired, and the intended meaning of many Biblical passages shall forever remain concealed. Here we shall look at part of an ancient Mesopotamian poem, The Epic of Gilgamesh, and see that it helps us understand certain obscure, oft-debated passages found in the third chapter of Genesis.

© 2007 William Finck

Various theories have been developed around the text found at Gen. 6:1-4, and it is quite often that discussions concerning these verses, like many others in the Bible, become emotionally charged. This is because people often tend to build their own personal belief systems upon a single Biblical passage, or perhaps a couple of passages, rather than upon the entire body of Scripture accompanied with sound studies in language, archaeology, and history, which truly are necessary in order to obtain an honest understanding of Scripture. For instance, upon examining this particular passage, it is quite obvious that it contains a conflict which is irresoluble within the Masoretic Text or Septuagint alone, when compared to other passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Here, an explanation of this conflict shall be provided, and a resolution offered. Yet in order to do so we shall peruse Biblical literature, deemed apocryphal by many, found outside of the Masoretic Text upon which today’s popular Bible versions are based.

Podcast Download Link

© William R. Finck Jr. 2007

The purpose of this exposé is to show how, if one is not familiar with secular history (of which much is found in the Greek Classics), one will not fully understand Scripture. The Judaean nation comprised mostly of “bad figs” (today called “Jews”) was not dispersed until 70 A.D., as prophesied at Jer. 24:8-10, 26:6, 29: 17-19 et al., affirmed by Christ Himself at Luke 21:24. While James at 1:1 speaks of the “twelve tribes which are scattered abroad”, and James died before 70 A.D., as Josephus attests, James was not addressing the so-called “Jews” dispersed in 70 A.D., and neither could the “Jews” already spread abroad claim descent from tribes other than three only, Judah, Benjamin and Levi, and only a tiny fraction of those resettled Judaea on their return from Babylon.

Except for his long description of Egypt in Book 2, and his other forays into the past, Herodotus gave the history of Persia covering the reign of five kings: Cyrus (1. 46), Cambyses (2. 1), Pseudo-Smerdis (3. 67), Darius (3. 88), and Xerxes (7. 5). These kings are the same exact kings which Daniel our prophet speaks of in Daniel 11:1-2.

By William Finck - 25th May, 2009

Many commentators often construe Paul’s statements at Galatians 3:15-16 to mean that there is only a single heir of the covenant of Yahweh God, which is Yahshua Christ Himself. If this is a true interpretation, then Paul conflicts with many of his own statements, where we see several times that Paul tells us elsewhere that there is a plurality of heirs to the covenant. For instance, concerning the New Covenant Paul says at Titus 3:7: “That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Then again concerning the New Covenant Paul says at Hebrews 6:17: “Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath”. In Hebrews chapter 6, while discussing Yahshua Christ and the New Covenant, Paul illustrates that the heirs of that covenant were selected before the confirmation of the covenant by the Sacrifice made by Yahshua Christ. For this reason he also told the Romans at 15:8: “Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”.

The historical essays offered here at Christogenea.org attempt to demonstrate how the English, Germans, and many of the Greeks and the Romans, among others, had descended from the ancient Israelites of the Old Testament period. Just as well, the English and German languages are derived from Hebrew much more than they were influenced by Greek and Latin, which were also at least partially derived from Hebrew at a much earlier time than English and German. These pages will prove beyond all doubt that hundreds of fundamental English words have much older Hebrew counterparts. A few similarities in meaning and sound may be written off as coincidences, however hundreds of such similarities cannot possibly be so lightly dismissed.

Here is a challenge to philologists and etymologists (as well as historians, archaeologists and theologians) everywhere: take your heads out of the sand, open your eyes, and examine the words here closely, because the only real solution to the "indo-european" origins question is in the Christian Israel Identity message. If you refuse to discover it, you risk becoming fools and clowns in your own occupations, because this information cannot stay hidden forever. The history offered in the essays here is authentic and justly interpreted, and now this language comparison supports it fully, as a sure second witness to the truth. The Caucasian races of Europe are indeed descended from the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia, and especially from the Hebrews, of which the people now called jews truly do not belong.

The Christian Israel Identity message had found me in the autumn of 1997, as I had just been transferred to the Federal Corrections Institution at Elkton, Ohio (where I would remain until October of 2008). I had been given some booklets written by Wesley Swift, Bertrand Comparet and E. Raymond Capt, and after reading of the possibility that the Germanic and related peoples had descended from the Israelites of the Old Testament, I immediately read the entire Bible.

The charts below contain listings of English and Hebrew word and definition comparisons.

• English is from Hebrew, Part 1
• English is from Hebrew, Part 2
• English is from Hebrew, Part 3
• English is from Hebrew, Part 4
• English is from Hebrew, Part 5

In our Bible, at 1st Kings 4:31, the wisdom of Solomon was said to exceed that of several other men: “For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite (Zerahite), and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.” Yet the only other place in the Bible that these apparently great men are found is at 1st Chron. 2:6, where we learn that Ethan, Heman, Chalcol, Darda, and Zimri were all sons of Zerah, the son of Judah.

At Genesis 46:12 we learn that when Jacob went to Egypt, Zerah went along also, but no sons accompanied him. While he may have had a wife, or wives, with him (46:26), and Pharez had his own two sons with him, Zerah went to Egypt without children. Much later, during the Exodus, we see that descendants of Zerah were with the Israelites (Num. 26:20). Yet while the records of the census in the desert mention the tribes of the sons of Pharez (Num. 26:21), Zerah’s sons, who must have been notable men, are not mentioned individually.

© William R. Finck Jr. 2007

The Corinthians were Dorian Greeks. The Dorians were a tribe said to have invaded Greece, by all ancient accounts, a short time after the Trojan wars. The Greeks who inhabited all of the Peloponnese before the Dorian invasion, as well as areas of the mainland, were called everywhere “Danaans” (Danai) and “Achaians” by Homer. Modern historians assert that the Dorians came “from the north”, and point to the Dorian Tetrapolis, four cities (Erineus, Boeum, Pindus and Cytinium, for which see Strabo 9.4.10) which lie west of Phocis and north of Delphi on the Greek mainland, as evidence of this. These historians also claim that all Aryans came “from the north” into the ancient world at one time or another, yet they are consistently in error. Homer is given much credit by Strabo for his knowledge and accuracy in describing the peoples of the οἰκουμένη and the regions where they lived, and the poet is constantly cited by the geographer. Homer described all of the people of Greece, and the peoples and places known to the Greeks in the period which he wrote about. Yet Homer makes no mention of the cities of the Tetrapolis, of Dorians in Greece, or anywhere in the north. The Dorians, who invaded Greece by sea (hardly necessary if they came from the north) and pushed the Danaans out of the Peloponnese, and who also later founded their mainland cities, are only mentioned by Homer as being on Crete (in his Odyssey, Book 19).

Download the podcast here.

The Race of Genesis 10

By William R. Finck Jr. © 2006

[Essay revised for podcast presentation, October 15th, 2011; the PDF file linked below is now current. For downloading, find the podcast page here: The Race of Genesis 10 - the Podcast]

Don't let the antichrists fool you, Genesis Chapter 10 begins the historically verifiable Biblical narrative. 

This is a lengthy paper which describes the nature and historicity of the Genesis 10 Nations of the Bible. It presents a Biblical weltanschauung of White origins and history.

We are only going to travel the history of this planet once. There are no second chances. One history, one Bible, one trek from the garden of Eden to the gathering of the Wheat. If we find not the foundations of our race in Genesis chapter 10, then our history – our Bible – is absolutely unreliable and we are mired in futility, with no purpose for living and no record of our origins, and no hope of a future. I often begin oral explanations of Genesis chapter 10 by quoting Epictetus, borrowed from the opening pages of Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament άρχὴ παιδεύσεως ἡ τῶν ỏνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις, or “the beginning of learning is the investigation of names”, and how I must agree with Epictetus!