- Christogenea Internet Radio
The Arab Question, Part 3
We are going to continue to deal with this discussion of Arabs at least until we get through Clifton’s papers on the subject, and then I may eventually take it a step further to discuss in greater detail the satanic beginnings and nature of Islam. Up until this point, we hope to have fully demonstrated that all Arabs are bastards, even by the very meaning and origination of the Hebrew term, and that Jews and Arabs are from the same stock, being mixed not only with Israel, Ishmael and Edom, but also with the descendants of Peleg and Joktan, Midian and Abraham’s other sons with Keturah, and more importantly, with all of the tribes of the ancient Canaanites along with the Kenites, Rephaim, and other and darker races. Surely there are other White nations also in the mix, such as Greeks, Romans, and the more ancient White nations of Africa, Mesopotamia and the Near East.
Since long before the rise of Islam, Arabs have freely and unabashedly intermingled with sub-Saharan Africans, and had brought them and their mulatto offspring with them wherever they were able to settle. The Arab slave trade spread the negro blood to places as far east as Malaysia, the Philippines, and China. But significantly, this is why many Southern Europeans of today are no longer white, and this is also the strain that was spread into the Caribbean and South and Central Americas in the Spanish and Portuguese settlement of those areas. Before this series is over, we may find that the label latino really isn’t a direct derivative of the word Latin, and neither are the people who bear the name. I also hope to demonstrate that not only are Jews and Arabs prominent among the forebears of the so-called Latinos, but are also the ancestors of many Mexicans.
In the first two parts of this series, we employed Clifton Emahiser’s papers, Arabs, Friend Or Foe? and Both Jews & Arabs Are Serpent-Seed, both written in 2006, as the basis for our discussions. Now we shall employ a third paper, which is also somewhat of a recapitulation of the first two, and which Clifton had first prepared for publication in December of 2007, so here is:
Misconception of Arabia & Arab Peoples, by Clifton Emahiser
Most Christians familiar only with Scripture would reply, upon a request to define these terms, that the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, the son of Abraham by Hagar (which a few of them can partially claim). In addition, these same unenlightened people believe that all Arabs today are pure Shemites and are somehow cousins to the true Israelites. Both of these assumptions are dangerously flawed, and the terms “arabia” and “arab” are almost impossible to define, and therefore hardly deserve to be capitalized. This paper will be an attempt to set the record straight.
In his papers, Clifton refused to capitalize the words Arab or Arabia (which I have capitalized, if only for the sake of people finding our material through the search engines). This he did mostly because capitalizing the term Arab is really like capitalizing the term mongrel. If mongrel does not merit capitalization, then neither should Arab. Clifton continues:
As the term “arabia” is ambiguous as to a land area, so too is the term “arab” as to a people. Ambiguous is an accurate expression, as one of its synonyms is “dusky”, meaning shadowy, a condition of not being entirely light nor entirely dark. I will now endeavor to address the term “arabia” as a land mass. My first source for doing so will be gleaned from the Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by James Hastings, vol. 1, p. 88. I will not quote from it directly, but tailor it in my own words:
In our day, “arabia” denotes the great peninsula lying between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. But in ancient times, it was a singularly elusive (evasive or slippery) term. Its ancient usage was simply “desert” or “desolation”, but later when it became an ethnographic proper name (if such a thing is possible), it took an extended time period in acquiring a fixed and generally understood meaning. Arabia, as a landed area, shifted from time to time like the nomads who occupied it. Like the shifting sand, it did not denote a country whose boundaries could be negotiated by treaty, shown by landmarks, or set down in a map. It was a vast area of vague demarcation with a character and history of its own.
While most of this is accurate, I would take issue with the claim that Arabia in ancient times was simply “desert” or “desolation”. More accurately, I would believe that Arabia had gotten its name because it was the home of many different tribes that had all eventually inter-married with one another, or had absorbed or been absorbed by neighboring tribes stronger than they. The lawlessness of the desert tribes is evident in the opening chapter of the Book of Job, for example, where Job’s estates were pillaged by the Sabeans, a tribe of the descendants of Joktan, if not of Ham. There is also a pattern of behavior among the Canaanites which is notable in the Old Testament, that they sought to intermarry with neighboring tribes in order to form alliances of peace and enhance the prospects of trade and other forms of mutual cooperation. This is the basis for globalism and multiculturalism today, and its source is with the same Canaanite merchants who came to control ancient Babylon.
We have already discussed the fact that the arabization of the Caribbean and Central and South America went on at the same time that the Spanish and Portuguese were colonizing those areas. It can be shown that Brazil is named after the Hebrew word for iron, and Aruba is from a Hebrew word for a trading emporium. My interpretations of these terms differ from the usual explanations, but I would insist that they were more truthful. The word arubbah, Strong’s # 6161, is basically a bargain or exchange, and uncoincidentally, that word is a feminine participle form of # 6148, arab, which is to intermix. Trade and the idea of intermixing have always gone hand-in-hand. The name Brazil, I am persuaded, comes from the Hebrew word barzel, Strong’s # 1270, which means iron. The following is from a Brazilian website called the Scientific Electronic Library Online, or SciELO, in an article titled The iron ores of Brazil by one Orville A. Derby, which was written some time around 1910:
The colonial records of Brazil register the fact that about 1590 an exploring party, that set out from the town of São Paulo, founded about forty years before, reported the finding of iron ore in a mountain situated about 100 kilometers to the southward. Gold and silver were also reported from the same region, and acting on this information the Portuguese Government took measures to promote the mining industry in the colony by sending out, in 1597, officials especially charged with this mission. The inclusion of an iron founder in the party indicates a special interest in the discovery of iron ore. One or two small forges were set up which commenced to produce iron probably about the year 1600 and continued in activity to about 1629. The place subsequently took the name of Ipanema which has ever since been inseparably connected with the long, though not brilliant, history of the iron industry in Brazil. There is a reasonable probability that the iron produced here was the first to be manufactured on the American continent.
About the same time a forge was established close to the town of São Paulo in order to work the lean argillaceous ore that abounds in the vicinity, but it [the forge] does not seem to have had a prolonged existence.
Understanding this, nobody is going to convince me that Brazil was not named by Jews, after the Hebrew word for iron. Brazil is the world’s leading producer of iron to this day, having five of the 11 largest known deposits, and the four largest, according to Mining Technology, an industry website.
The motivating forces for the Iberians in their endeavor to expand into the Americas was the aspiration to empire and the dominance of trade. From the earliest times, the concept of alliances through race-mixing to create “peace” coupled with the furtherance of free and open trade has been the objective of every nation seeking its own empire. After the decline of the Iberians, it was the objective of the British and American empires, which we continue to suffer under today. This is the basis for what the Scriptures refer to as Mystery Babylon, and the series of world empires described beforehand in the words of the prophets. In order to reach the objective, those who control the government of an empire must also control its economy and its religion. I wrote about changing religious attitudes in the transition from nation to empire in a strange place, in the introduction to my presentation of Ecclesiastes chapter 11, subtitled Even Vanity is Vanity, here in April of 2018. There, citing ancient Egyptian literature, as Egypt began to transition to an empire even before the time of Abraham, a prophet of their own lamented that “A man regards his son as his enemy…. A man of character goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land. . . . Foreigners have become people everywhere….” Other documents show that the religion of Egypt was transformed into a universalist religion during that same period.
It is also apparent that in northern Mesopotamia, in the time of Abraham, the process of arabization had already begun there. Just the other day I wrote the following in a post on Social Media:
I really think that we cannot locate any distinct nation or government that we can identify with Arphaxad because in prehistoric times it must have been dissolved and absorbed into the Hittite empire, and then [later] mixed into the Hurrians and the Mittani Kingdom, and ultimately the Assyrian empire. It is hard to tell, but it is a subject I always wanted to study in greater depth, if it could even be attained. This early mixing with Hittites and Hurrians is what I believe Abraham was called out from, and why he was sent to Canaan, where he seems to have been among people the most different from himself in all of the middle & near east. Being the most different, circumcision was added to maintain the distinction. Just my opinion…
The Hebrew laws against race-mixing, as well as the early practice of circumcision, helped to preserve at least most of the ancient children of Israel from arabization. After the Assyrian deportations, they were preserved simply by a matter of geography until the adoption of Christianity caused another religious polarization with the Jews, who are the Canaanites and Edomites of antiquity. By the time that the so-called “lost tribes” accepted Christianity, most of the rest of the old Adamic nations of the Near and Middle East were thoroughly arabized.
As another digression, the Romans called Arabia after the name Arabia Felix, which may be translated as Arabia the Happy, or Lucky, Fortunate or Prosperous or even Fertile Arabia. Evidently, in ancient times, it was not really a desert at all, but perhaps more like a wild west wilderness.
Now continuing with Clifton, where he is speaking of Old Testament times:
To the settled races occupying Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, arabia meant any part of that uncultured hinterland skirting the confines of civilization, which was the camping grounds of wandering tribes forever hovering around peaceful towns waiting for an opportunity to spread terror among their inhabitants in raids on their food supply, burning homes, killing the men and raping their women. It amounted to a dim border region, not so wholly unproductive as to be incapable of supporting life, interposed between cultivation and the sheer wilderness. So uncertain was the application of the term “arabia” that there was no part of the semi-desert fringe area extending from the lower Tigris to the lower Nile which was not, at one time or another, referred to as such. To the prophets of Israel, “arabia” had one meaning; while on Persian inscriptions it had yet another; and to the Greek writers yet another. Thus, “arabia” became a generally used term for various hinterlands peculiar to each individual writer. To Hastings’ description of the raids by early arabs I [Clifton] made an embellishment, for women were treated as spoils and with the shifting sand came shifting races.
In contrast, when the children of Israel conquered Canaan, of the Canaanites they were to slay every man, woman and child. But when they conquered the Midianites, who were descendants of Abraham and his third wife, Keturah, and who were ostensibly White, they were allowed to keep virgin females to themselves as booty. The wife of Moses had also been a Midianite. After the conquest of Canaan, the law forbid the people from intermingling with Canaanites and others, while those of certain nations could become a part of Israel only if they proved allegiance over several generations. So while it was never followed perfectly at all times, the Hebrew laws did help to maintain the racial characteristics of the people. But the other nations of the region typically had no such laws, and marriage was usually a mere business arrangement, when it wasn’t forced upon a woman who was only a prize in war. Clifton continues:
In the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia under the topic “Arabia” and the subtopic “Inhabitants”, upon explaining an arab connection to the “Caucasoid race” we read, speaking of the arabs as a people: “The people of the Arabian Peninsula are Arabs, members of the Semitic subgroup of the Caucasoid race, with some admixture of the Caucasoid groups and of Negroids from Africa in the coastal areas. The Negroid admixture is due chiefly to the importation of slaves from Africa, which was an active trade until recent years.” [Now Clifton responds and says:] While this is an important admission, the arabs had mixed their race since time immemorial. It is evident from the language of this short quotation that by 1980 the civil rights movement was already well under way, and the tone of the writer’s words seem to imply that today an admixture with the negroid should not be considered a stigmatizing phenomenon.
I must now make known some little-known-facts concerning traditional arab beliefs; about half of them claim descent from Ishmael while the other half claim descent from Joktan, who is recorded as being the brother of Peleg, (first mentioned at Gen. 10:25), an ancestor of Abraham. Like most poorly informed Christians, I was aware of the Ishmael connection but totally oblivious to that of Joktan. I first gained the information on Joktan by reading some of Nord Davis’ literature. I then discovered that Nord was correct when I found the same data about Joktan (Yoktan) in The History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz, vol. 3, pp. 60-63. Since these two finds, I have found many references to Joktan being the father of the arab people. But it is parallel to a similar claim by the bad-fig-jews to be Israelites. It is evident that alien peoples dwelt in and/or moved into the geographic area which the descendants of Joktan once occupied, in what is now southern Arabia, and have absorbed – or been absorbed by – Joktan’s descendants, claiming Joktan’s heritage. Of course, it cannot be told whether Joktan’s descendants did themselves, through raids, pillage and rape, gradually absorb the genetics of various alien peoples, or whether they were victims of such. The Sabeans, as recorded at Job, were descendants of Joktan, who was a White man, but one can read in Job the pillage they did of Job’s possessions. In those ancient times, usually rape was part of the plunder. All we know today is that the arabs are NOT White, so it is glaringly apparent that something drastic happened to their genetic makeup along the line somewhere.
Among the early inhabitants of what is now known as Arabia are not only the descendants of Joktan, but also the Hamites descended from Cush, namely those of Sheba, the Sabeans, Havilah, Raamah and Dedan. These groups are identified in Arabia in the historical Scriptures, such as where the land of Havilah is placed in Arabia in 1 Samuel 15:7. However in that account, the people of Havilah are Amalekites, who were often allied with various Canaanite tribes as early as Genesis chapter 14, but whose origins are not mentioned in Scripture. Later, Esau had a son named Amalek, but his descendants should not be confused with the earlier Amalekites. As for the Sabeans of Job, it is impossible to tell whether they are of the Seba or Sheba of Genesis 10:7, a son of Cush, or the Sheba of Genesis 10:28, a son of Joktan. However in the days of Moses, Arabia was called the “land of Cush”, from whom also came Nimrod, and for which the early Greek writers had called the entire area the “Ethiopia of the East”, so therefore the Sabeans were more likely from Ham than from Shem, although linguistically the Arabs speak a Semitic language.
Furthermore, language does not identity a race. Today we have all sorts of races in America speaking English which are not descended from the English. One hundred and thirty million Mexicans now speak Spanish, but none of them are actually Spanish. Africans in Haiti speak French, even over two hundred years after the negroes had slaughtered the last of the White French settlers there. The lingua franca of the Middle and Near East was Aramaic, a Semitic language, for hundreds of years before the arrival of the Hellenistic period, and all of those trading or under the rule of Babylon and Persia spoke the language. During the period of Greek dominance, Aramaic persisted among the natives, and long after the passing of the Greeks, the native tribes of Arabia and Syria all continued to speak their own dialects of Aramaic, one of variation of which is now known as Arabic, as they still do today.
Clifton proceeds by once again citing Nord Davis, whom he justly criticized in his earlier papers on this subject:
Nord Davis said the following in his 1990 booklet Desert Shield on page 49:
“My teacher’s historical panorama of Arabia, with its people descending from Shem through Joktan, the brother of Peleg, began to open the eyes of those who make a study of racial backgrounds and peoples.
Of course, we have already shown that Davis’ so-called “teacher” was not very accurate. Now Clifton’s citation of Nord reveals that his “teacher” is not even White, but was himself an Arab. Relying upon an an Arab for history, whose ancestors never preserved their history and did not even have a common history, being of many different races, is sort of like relying on a dog to describe its own pedigree. Thus he continues:
“About three years ago, my friend made a whirlwind tour of America, speaking to 50 groups in 36 states telling these Christian Americans the story of Joktan, and the Queen of Sheba. One of his stops was at Northpoint Team headquarters here in the Smoky Mountains. He spoke to us regarding the urgency of getting a pro-Arab public relations effort going to prevent the upcoming war in the Middle East.”
In our opinion, Nord being a White Christian should not have cared how many Jews and Arabs destroy one another. But it is even more naive to imagine that any mere citizen could dissuade the Zionist-controlled government and churches in America from a war which they hope fulfills their own political, economic and religious objectives. As I have said in other contexts, modern Protestant Dispensationalism is the best religion that Jewish money could buy for its own Zionist objectives. Now Clifton responds to the citation from Davis and says:
About six years after this publication, Nord died of cancer. Nord was a tremendously gifted Two Seedline Bible teacher, but I have often wondered whether or not Yahweh took him home to prevent his involvement with the multi-breed arabs. [Davis died just weeks before his 66th birthday - WRF] I will now cite the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica under the topic “Arabia” and subtopic “Origins of Koreysh”, where one of the editors scoffingly remarks:
“In this assembly the immediate local proximity of the Koreysh chiefs, joined to their personal wealth, courage, and address, assigned them a predominant position.
“Of their pedigree, which, as is well known, includes that of Mahomet himself, we have a carefully – too carefully, indeed, for authenticity – constructed chronicle, bringing the family tree up in due form to Ishmael, the son of Abraham, of whom the Koreysh figure as the direct descendants. In the same artificial annals the Yemenite or genuine Arabs appear under the cousinly character of the children of Joktan, the son of Heber. On these points all Mahometan annalists are equally positive and distinct; all other Arab testimony equally adverse or silent. That a fable so utterly defiant of reasonable chronology, and even of the common sense of history itself, should have been adopted as matter of fact by Arab vanity and ignorance, is less surprising than that it should have found favor in the eyes of not a few, indeed of most, of our own European writers.”
Now it is probably true that at least many arabs descended from either or a combination of Joktan, Peleg, and Ishmael, but no arab can provide a concise genealogy proving that, and all arabs also have the blood of Canaan, the Kenites, Rephaim, and many other and more recently introduced alien tribes. So an Arab tracing himself to a particular patriarch in Scripture is really no different than any Southwest plains Indian with a marginal degree of Spanish blood claiming to be a descendant of Isidore of Seville. He may as well claim descent from Don Quixote. In truth, Islam was devised by Jews, and the Arab genealogy was contrived to make it appear as if it had a legitimate connection to Hebrew patriarchs. The Koran is partly Jewish fable, partly a Talmudic interpretation of the law, and partly a plagiarizing of Hebrew and apocryphal Scriptures. There is only one legitimate “Abrahamic religion”, and that is Christianity.
The only Arab tribe which may possess a definite and historically verifiable connection to a definite Biblical figure are the Nabataeans, who maintained their name and identity throughout the Babylonian and Persian periods and at least until the time of Imperial Rome. They are mentioned in ancient inscriptions as well as in Greek histories. In my opinion, the name comes from Nebajoth, a son of Ishmael who is mentioned in Genesis 25:13, 28:9 and 36:3. However even if that connection is valid, and it seems to be, in early times the Nabataeans had also mingled with Edomites and other tribes of the Canaanites, and also with other races since then. The Nabataeans had evidently taken over for themselves the land of the Edomites, who had, in the 6th century BC, migrated into Palestine after the deportations of Israel and Judah, and they dwelt there in Roman tribes and were known by that name to Greek writers such as Strabo of Cappadocia. In fact, Strabo even thought that the Idumaeans, or Edomites, in Judaea were originally Nabataeans, knowing from where they had come, and he only distinguished them because they were in Judaea and mingled with the Judaeans, as he also described.
Clifton continues by discussing Peleg:
Most commentaries ignore by skipping over – or making little comment on – the genealogy of Peleg and Joktan at Genesis 10:25. But the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary on the Old and New Testaments shows, though maybe not perfectly, an awareness of a connection of the arabs to Joktan, vol. 1, p. 118, saying:
“There is no special distinction attached to Eber. He is only a link in the genealogical chain. The Hebrews never rested on him as their progenitor; and, on the contrary, he is mentioned as the common ancestor of that people and the Arabians. 25. Peleg [Septuagint, φαλεγ] – division. for in his days the earth was divided. The natural view of these words implies a reference to a formal division of the earth, which, as has been thought, from several passages of Scripture ... Others are of the opinion that extensive landslips occurred – the sea bursting through many parts of the solid land and forming straits and gulfs, or separating continents, and that it was to such breaches ‘the dividing of the earth’ refers. A third class suppose that the allusion is not to the general dispersion of Noah’s descendants, but to a division in Eber’s family – the Joktanidœ, leaving the paternal settlement in Mesopotamia, to which the elder branch adhered, migrated into Southern Arabia (old Arabia Felix; the Yemen). This view would necessitate the bestowment of the name Peleg at an advanced period of his life. The common interpretation of the passage is preferable to any of these. The posterity of Peleg are neither forgotten nor overlooked, but reserved to the next chapter.”
[Now Clifton responds to the article:] Whatever all of this “dividing of the earth” business is about, it surely isn’t speaking of a continental drift as some surmise. The term “earth” would be better rendered “land”, and there are many possibilities for such a land division. Many times when an estate is settled upon the death of a large landholder, the land is divided among his descendants. At other times it became necessary to divide land due to a lack for supporting cattle herds, such as between Abraham and Lot. Peleg was so named, for “in his days the earth (land) was divided.” The text of Gen. 10:25 and 1 Chronicles 1:19 do not say that this notable division came at Peleg’s birth, but “in his days”. In other words, his name did not mean “division” at birth, but his name Peleg acquired that meaning later. Had the meaning meant continental drift, that would have all happened during his lifetime, which is illogical, as the hypothesis for a continental drift is theorized to have taken many thousands of years to develop. Whatever else this division might be about, we know that the descendants of Peleg appeared in Mesopotamia while the descendants of Joktan appeared at various places in south and southwest Arabia, as per the book of Job. Gen. 10:30 says, “from Mesha, as thou goest unto Sephar.” The Greek Septuagint has translated the name Mesha as Mas-se, the name of an Ishmaelite whose descendants appear to have settled in northern Arabia (Gen 25:13-14). The location Sephar, while uncertain, also suggests a location in southern Arabia, agreeing with the book of Job.
Clifton is correct concerning the descendants of Peleg and Joktan here, however I must elaborate on Peleg, where I may disagree with him to some extent. Genesis chapter 10 describes the division of the land among the various grandsons of Noah, and in 10:25 where Peleg is first mentioned, who was a great-great-great grandson of Noah, we read “for in his days was the earth divided”. So it should be rather clear that it was in Peleg’s time that the land was divided among the sons of Noah, because that is the context in which the statement was made. The event is recollected in Deuteronomy 32:8 where we read that “8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” So Genesis chapter 10 describes how the land was going to be divided, but Genesis chapter 11 is a recapitulation which describes why it was divided. Then in that chapter we see another recapitulation of the genealogy from Shem down through Peleg, and it is brought further down to the patriarch Abraham, who, with his own offspring, from that point forward becomes the entire focus of the Scriptures.
The line is Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, and then the brothers, Peleg and Joktan. Even the original Strong’s Concordance says at # 3355 that Joktan was “an Arabian patriarch”, and although no particular genealogy could ever be set forth to prove that, it is evident in history that his descendants became amalgamated into the people now known as Arabs. Strong’s Concordance says that Peleg means earthquake, however to me that seems to reflect Strong’s own interpretation of the statement that “in his days was the earth divided”, with which I cannot agree. Nothing happened to the earth geologically in Peleg’s time, but rather, the land was divided amongst the various Adamic tribes descending from Noah. The name Peleg, found at Strong’s # 6389, is a part of a group of words describing division or the act of dividing in one form or another. So the word for division did not come from the name, as Clifton speculated. Rather, Peleg was so named ostensibly because the dividing came in his time, and many Biblical names are actually prophetic of the events which were to come during a particular individual’s lifetime. For example, Abram, was the original name of Abraham, and it means “exalted father”, which was indeed prophetic of the life of the patriarch.
If we examine the more accurate chronology of Scripture as it is presented in the Septuagint, we see that the flood of Noah was about 2262 years from the creation of Adam, and rounding the numbers, Peleg was born about 530 years after that. Abraham was born about 700 years after the birth of Peleg. Since Peleg lived for nearly 240 years, in Genesis chapters 10 and 11 the land was divided some time between 530 and 770 years after the flood, so the land was divided anywhere from 700 to 460 years before the birth of Abraham. Nevertheless, by the time of Abraham they had all gone off into paganism, as Joshua chapter 24 informs us even of Abraham’s own immediate ancestors, and as Clifton is about to discuss in another, and limited, perspective. Continuing with Clifton:
While preparing for this pamphlet, I happened on some unexpected evidence which I will reproduce here from the New Bible Dictionary p. 549, which may shed some new light on our subject:
“Jerah. One of the sons of Joktan (Gn. 10:26; 1 Ch. 1:20), some of whom can be connected with tribes of South Arabia. The name (yerah) is identical in form with the Heb. for ‘month’ or ‘moon’, and the word occurs in the South Arabian inscriptions (yrh) with this meaning, so it may be concluded that the descendants of Jerah had likewise settled in South Arabia. The site of Beth-Yerah (Khirbet Kerak) on the Sea of Galilee is probably unrelated.”
I am also convinced that Jerah, or yerah, is the source of our English word year, as a cycle of months.
[Clifton responds to the citation:] Notice that the name Jerah is identical to that of the moon. Could that be why the arabs use the crescent moon as their identifying symbol? Or are the arabs an alien people pretending to be the descendants of Joktan, thus stealing Joktan’s heritage? Whatever the case, the arabs are definitely not a pure race by any stretch of the imagination! If they were, they’d have the complexion of a Caucasian! Rather, they appear more like a Canaanite; and evidence reveals they are closely genetically related to the bad-fig-canaanite-jews whom true Israel was commissioned to exterminate – man, woman and child (Numbers 33:51-55; Deuteronomy 20:15-16; Joshua 17:13-18)! That may seem severe, but it would be better than pricks and thorns in our eyes!
Here Clifton only cited passages which command the children of Israel to destroy the Canaanites. But I do remember that in his earlier writings he had discussed the connection of the crescent-shaped moon to the worship of the ancient pagan moon god Sin. Much later, Clifton cited Judges 8:21 and 26 in connection to Arab moon worship. In that passage we see crescent-shaped ornaments were a symbol worn by the Midianites in the days of Gideon, about 1300 years before Christ. The King James Version translates the Hebrew word saharon, Strong’s # 7720, only as ornaments, but there are other words for that. Rather, a saharon is a particular ornament shaped like a crescent moon, so other versions translate the word as “crescent ornaments”. Evidently, the symbol of the crescent-moon is very old among the tribes which ultimately became known as Arabs. Now Clifton returns to the meaning of that word, arab:
THE WORD “ARAB” IN SCRIPTURE
The term “arab” in the Strong’s Concordance is #’s 6154 and 6151. Strong’s defines #6154 as: “...ʿêreb, ay´-reb; or ... ʿereb (1 Kings 10:15), (with the article prefixed), eh´-reb; from 6148; the web (or transverse threads of cloth); also a mixture, (or mongrel race):– Arabia, mingled people, mixed (multitude), woof.” Strong’s defines #6151 as: “... ‘arab (Chald.), ar-ab´; corresponding to 6148; to commingle:– mingle (self), mix.” The root of this verb in Strong’s is #6150, and is defined: “... ‘ârab, aw-rab´; a primitive root [rather identical with 6148 through the idea of covering with texture]; to grow dusky at sundown:– be darkened, (toward) evening.” [Note: The “mixed” in “mixed multitude”, Ex. 12:38, Neh. 13:3, is from #6154, “arab multitude”!]
I don’t know whether or not the reader has entirely comprehended the full implications of what he has just read. With the above criteria as one’s guide in our search for the first Biblical arab, it can be no other than Cain, for he was the mixed progeny of the serpent by Eve. Yahweh said to Cain at Gen. 4:7: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, [interracial] sin lieth at the door [of the birth canal]. And [if you are racially pure] unto thee shall be his [Abel’s] desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” For the words here added in brackets, I apologize not!
I would disagree with Clifton’s interpretation where he interjected “if you are racially pure”. Of course Yahweh knew Cain’s racial composition. Rather, the descendants of Cain have always been history’s most notable panderers, and the descendants of Seth have always been enticed by their wares.
I do not remember exactly why Clifton was compelled to repeat in December of 2007 what he had already explained in the summer of 2006, but I can guess. In his pamphlets, or brochures, as he called his short essays, Clifton was often answering questions which were raised in correspondence, either from prisoners or through his email, and he often felt that all of his readers would benefit from his answer if he put it into that format. I remember around this time another so-called “pastor” was promoting the works of Nord Davis, and that was Eli James. I was receiving correspondence from Clifton which were copies of emails between Clifton, Eli and our friend Don Brown, and Don was trying to correct Eli on the Arab question. I would have to search my own correspondence, but I think I was also in that process.
By the time I got out of prison, a year after this paper was published, and I began to do podcasts with Eli James, he had at least pretended to be corrected on the Arab question by Don and Clifton. But when we split after two years, Eli immediately reverted on the issue, and once again began promoting Nord Davis and Star Wars. But it was not for another year that I discovered that one of Eli’s own daughters had married an arab Egyptian, and now I believe that is why in 2010 he started going in circles on the issue of race and Scripture, circles which he is still spinning to this very day.
So continuing with Clifton:
To get a better handle on this thing, we need to go to John 8:21-24: “21 Then said Yahshua again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. 22 Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. 23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this cosmos; I am not of this cosmos. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
Clifton here seems to have been citing an early version of my translation of John. Before I thought I could prove that the Greek word cosmos could mean society, I chose not to even translate it, since it certainly does not mean “world” as we know it, although on occasion I also used the term world. Now he continues:
Our Messiah was as much as telling the bad-fig-jews that they would die in their mixed racial sins, which no amount of soap can wash away (Jeremiah 2:22). He was so much as declaring to the bad-fig-jews that they were dead men walking, in modern terms “zombies”, and zombies are incapable of understanding or believing anything of the Spirit. Thus, all racially-mixed people (arabs) are dead men walking, or zombies, without the Spirit. All one need do today is to go shopping at a supermarket or large department store, and there are zombies (walking dead people) all over the place. Thus, Cain was the first arab-walking-dead-zombie! And all of the goody-goody two-shoes liberal pastors telling us today, that if we curse these bad-fig-jewish-arab-walking-dead-zombies that we will be cursed, and if we bless them we will be blessed, is pure poppycock. The truth is, if we curse them we will be blessed, and if we bless them we will be cursed! Not only does the lineage of the bad-fig-jews go back to Cain, but also the lineage of the arabs, for they are both mixed with the Canaanite nations listed at Gen. 15:19-21: “19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, 20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, 21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”
These ten nations race-mixed so much that at Deuteronomy 7:1-2 they merged to become only seven. The Kenites, Kenizzites and Rephaim were completely absorbed by the other nations of this group from which the bad-fig-jews are extracted.
There is plenty of proof of this in Scripture, where after Deuteronomy 7:1 we still see many references to individuals or to small groups of Kenites and Rephaim, but they are no longer listed among the nations. Clifton continues by saying that same thing, using yet another citation:
The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, has this to say: “The Kenites. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards reckoned but seven; see Deut. vii. 1; Acts xiii. 19. Probably some of them which existed in Abram’s time had been blended with others before the time of Moses, so that seven only out of the ten, then remained.”
In the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 116, we find this about this mixed group of nations spoken of at Genesis 15:19-21: “When the Israelites entered Canaan they found there a very mixed population generally designated by the term Amorite or Canaanite.” So what were originally ten nations is later, because of absorption by race-mixing, designated as seven and often referred to as an all inclusive one, Amorite or Canaanite.
In the early Assyrian inscriptions, all of the Canaanites and others west of Babylon, through the Arabian desert and all the way to the sea, are generally called Amuru, or Amorite, regardless of their actual identity. Again, Clifton continues by responding to this citation:
There are two nations among these ten needful of further mention: the Kenites and Rephaim. Kenite is Strong’s #7017: “Qênîy ... or ... Qînîy ... patronymic from 7014; a Kenite or member of the tribe of Kajin:– Kenite.” And 7014 is: “Qayin ... Kajin, the name of the first child ...:– Cain, Kenite(-s).” The children of Cain, the Kenites, are mentioned later in the Bible at Num. 24:21-22; in Judges chapters 1, 4 and 5; 1 Sam. 15, 27 and 30; and at 1 Chron. 2:55, where it is revealed that some of them became scribes in Judah. Their continued existence shows that they were absorbed into the remaining nations of Canaan, as explained above.
Let’s now consider the “Rephaim”. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 5, page 64, says this in part: “REPHAIM. ... The inhabitants of Trans-Jordan in pre-Israelite times whom the Moabites and Ammonites called respectively ‘Emim’ and ‘Zamzummim’ ... ‘giants’ ... Their land is one of ten ethnic groups promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:20). ... Deuteronomy 2:10, 11 says that they were great, many and tall like the Anakim. Og, king of Bashan, for example possessed a king size iron bed, nine cubits long and four cubits broad.… Giants among the Philistines who fought against David and his mighty men along their disputed border both at Gezer ... and at Gath ... These giants were the descendants of Rapha, the eponymous ancestor of these Rephaim.”
Harper’s Bible Dictionary, p. 345 defines Rephaim as: “Rephaim (ref´ ay-im), a noun appearing in three contexts in the Bible. 1 Those who are dead and inhabit Sheol, ‘shades’ (Ps. 88:10), ‘dead’ (Prov. 9:18). 2 Pre-Israelite inhabitants of Transjordan (Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10-11). 3 ‘Giants’ from Philistia (1 Chron. 20:4, 6, 8; 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20) ...” As you can see, we are right back to the walking-dead-zombies.
Actually Psalm 88:10 has the Hebrew version of the word Rephaim where the King James Version has the second occurrence of the word “dead”. It should not have been translated as “dead”. It actually sits in contradistinction to the first occurrence, and the verse should read: “10 Wilt thou shew wonders to the dead? Shall the Rephaim arise and praise thee?” One event would be just as wondrous as the other, but the author made such a statement because the Rephaim would not be expected to see the wonders of Yahweh. The word “dead” is also translated from the word for Rephaim in Proverbs 9:18, and should have instead been rendered as Rephaim. The verse in the Proverb does not necessarily relate what the commentators perceive, and the Rephaim are once again not necessarily the same as those in the “depths of hell” whom the Proverb laments.
The Rephaim were a race of bastards related to the race of the nephilim mentioned as “giants” in Genesis chapter 6. Their descendants still exist among both Arabs and Jews today. Now Clifton continues from another perspective:
Let’s now check with Ezra 9:1:
“1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”
[To this Clifton responds:] I have already shown the connection of the bad-fig-jews with the Gen. 15:19-21 ten nations in other essays, but Jeremiah 25:24 connects the terms “Arabia” and “mingled” people into one and the same, as follows: “... And all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert ...” The second statement simply reinforces the first!
That feature of Hebrew grammar which Clifton describes in Jeremiah 25:24 is called a parallelism, and is used quite frequently in the words of the prophets and even in the New Testament.
As for Ezra chapter 9, the perspective is from after the return of the remnant to Jerusalem from Babylon. While Ezra was able to correct the situation, the same thing happened again later, as about a hundred years later Malachi complained about the Levites who infringed on the covenant, and lamented the fact that “Judah married the daughter of a strange god”. While Malachi was using the patriarch Judah in an analogy, he was actually referring prophetically to the mixing of the Judaeans with the Canaanites and Edomites which resulted in a race-mixed Judaea of the time of Christ and the apostles.
Now Clifton concludes:
At Matt. 23:35, Christ told the bad-fig-jews: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” Had they not been Cain’s literal descendants, Yahshua could not have made that statement! Had the bad-fig-jews not been Cain’s literal descendants, He would have been bearing false witness, a crime worthy of death! Yes, Cain was the zombie who killed Abel, and akin to the satanic-walking-dead-arabs!
Since the Arabs are descended from the Canaanite to the same extent as the Jews if not to an even greater extent, they are every bit as liable as the Jews are to all of the curses which have been uttered upon the races of Cain, Canaan, Esau, and the Rephaim. Christians must therefore have nothing to do with Arabs.
In our last segments of this series, we established the fact that Cubans and other so-called Hispanics of the Caribbean and South and Central America are actually descended to a great degree from both Arabs and Jews. Essentially, through at least 1400 years of intermingling, Hispanics are not much more than a branch of the same race as Arabs and Jews. When we return to this subject, we shall discuss another branch of the Jewish and Arab people, which are now called Mexicans. Hopefully that will not be until late April, and first we will return to our commentary On the Gospel of John.