- Christogenea Internet Radio
This evening we are going to present a short paper from Clifton Emahiser titled Be Kind to Your Kind. Clifton had originally prepared this paper for publication on June 24th, 2006.
I am presenting this at the current time because I tried to rush the last presentation in my commentary on the Gospel of John, and I made a serious error which was pointed out to me by a friend at the Christogenea Forum. So I will present that afresh, and with much more time and consideration, hopefully next Friday. I also hope that having taken some time off this week, I have had some needed rest. Otto, our Weimaraner, benefited because I was able to assemble a dog house and a few other things he desperately needed in his new kennel.
So I would also like to say that while it seems that I have been close to completion for awhile now, my tasks in the aftermath of the hurricane are finally actually getting there, and I expect to be done moving out of the old house by early next week, so long as the weather is fair. I thought that we would be finished at least a few weeks ago, but we have had some obstacles to our progress. We still have a lot of work to do to settle in here at our new place, but we are close to accomplishing that as well.
We have found over the last five or six months that a certain supposed friend to whom we had extended our charity had really only sought to take advantage of us, thinking that perhaps he had some permanent license and entitlement, while at the same time he never complied with the terms which we had agreed upon when we first gave him shelter. More recently, this man even went so far as attempting to exalt himself as an elder above me in my own home, and claiming that he did not have to live by the few simple house rules that I had imposed upon him, and which he constantly and willfully disregarded. He professed this idea several times since the recent hurricane, that he did not have to obey my wishes in my own house. But even with that, my charity towards him continued until he began slandering me secretly, and now he slanders me openly. He is resentful that we discontinued our charity in the face of his arrogance, as if he had some sort of entitlement.
This same character had been promoting my work at Christogenea on his Facebook pages and in various groups for the past several years. However rather recently he professed to me that cutting and pasting my work on Facebook, along with Clifton’s work, was his so-called “ministry” and that he expects to collect tithes from it. He said that he had several people sending him monthly tithes for that purpose. He claimed to do it out of love, but it was really only for profit.
Now, I really do not care who helps who, and who sends money to who. It is not even any of my business. But if a man living in my home shares my work and expects to profit from it for himself while giving me nothing, then that is stealing. And as this man lived freely in my home, and while Clifton was present, he therefore also stole from us in that manner the entire year that he lived there. He justified pressing people for tithes by citing Galatians 6:6 where Paul wrote “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.” But this man never imagined communicating anything to his own teachers, or at least, to those whose work he was merely copying while pretending to be a teacher of others. I can only say, that may Yahweh reward him for his fraud. We don’t even press people for tithes.
This leads me to discuss another quandary, over whether to address slander publicly at all, or to discuss what many see as mere personal drama. Some friends think that I should ignore the slander and those who seek to defame me, while others think that if I do not refute the slander, that the accusations must be true.
I went through this in 2011 with Eli James. Initially I only sought to address him on the issues of Scriptural interpretation which led to our differences, and he in turn only made personal attacks and threw around pejoratives, attempting to defame my character because I was mean and hateful and an “exterminationist”. When he pretended to address the issues, he was only one-sided and used straw-man arguments rather than actual and substantial citations from my work.
Now since December of 2017, and a few times in the Spring of last year, I began discussing and exposing as a fraud a certain heresy that Ryan Brennan and Michael Brandenburg sought to introduce into Christian Identity, which is the so-called Prosperity Gospel, and I addressed that error in several podcasts solely on the basis of Scripture. This heresy has created sharp divisions between us, but they will not admit that the real reason for the division is their heresy. Rather, they look to slander my character, and by doing so they hope to cover up the real reason they despise me, which is simply that I would not go along with their prosperity fantasies.
There are very many morally repulsive people who have been involved in White Nationalism, and even in Christian Identity. For example, the former would-be Posse Comitatus member, Aryan Nations leader and recurring television talk-show guest August Kreis is now serving 50 years in prison for raping his own daughters. But Kreis had a long history of perversion before that charge was brought to court. Not all reprobates are as noteworthy, however I am certain that most long-time Identity Christians can recall at least a short list of similar examples.
But it has occurred to me that Kreis, and most morally reprehensible men who attempt only to promote themselves as leaders of something, have little left of substance after they are gone because they really spent all of their time in their perversions, rather than in doing anything that is actually worthwhile. It is evident that men should not choose leaders because they have big mouths and promote themselves to be leaders, otherwise the result would only be many more like August Kreis. There may well be many more already, and they just haven’t been revealed yet.
Fifteen years ago, if someone sought to defame August Kreis or Hal Turner, a dozen others would have jumped to their defense. Other men, who have documented imperfections, seem to survive defamation, and James Wickstrom comes to mind. But I must admit that at least Wickstrom did more good for our Christian Identity message than Kreis or Turner ever did, and for years to come at least some of his efforts will survive. It was Wickstrom who had introduced Clifton Emahiser to what we call Two-Seedline Christian Identity.
This is our dilemma. So often, when men disagree on principles, one side or the other takes to using slander as a weapon in order to distract others from the real issues. One reason they seem to get away with this so easily, is because Christian Identity as a whole has been plagued with a long history of men like August Kreis and Hal Turner. But since Yahshua Christ our God assures us that all sins shall ultimately be brought to light, we must trust in Him to expose pretenders, lest we ourselves be found as false witnesses and suffer the punishment we thought that we could exact on others. Many true Identity Christians had always despised August Kreis, or other pretenders of the past such as Hal Turner, but ultimately those men created their own undoing.
Unfortunately, men fool men all the time, but no man will fool Yahweh our God. If a man is a pretender, he will come to his own end, and in that end everyone will know. But a man who spreads rumor and slanders, especially where there is no real and tangible sin involved, exposes himself as a fraud, and should be ostracized for making condemnations without first having a tangible sin, and appropriate witnesses. While it is not evident in the King James Version, for this reason Paul had written in 1 Timothy 5:19: “An accusation against an elder you must not receive publicly, except ‘by two or three witnesses.’” Any public pronouncement against another man which is not accompanied by two or three credible and independent witnesses is slander.
Now returning to this man whom we had opened our home to for a year but who is now slandering us, he has already publicly joined himself to the Prosperity Gospel hucksters. So if we disagree with someone and we are forced to part ways, is it really proper to join with heretics in order to campaign against the person we disagreed with? That act alone should discredit him forever in the eyes of any true Identity Christian who may witness it, and it reveals that he only had an agenda in the first place because he has openly betrayed the principles he claimed to have only a short time ago. This individual’s agenda is now obvious to me, but others may never understand it without sorting through propaganda, lies, misrepresentations and endless accounts from either side of the dispute, and who has much time for that?
When the charity of one man for another ends abruptly, there must be a good and serious reason for it. But whether there is any fault on the part of the giver is immaterial, and a man who extended his charity to another, especially for a considerable period of time, should never suffer blame when he chooses to discontinue that charity, for whatever reason. On the other hand, when someone who has been the recipient of charity for a period of time suddenly begins to accuse and slander the man who had once nourished him, we must wonder just what sort of person would bite the proverbial hand that fed him. Such people, whom the Scripture labels as backbiters, must be ostracized and rooted out of the assemblies of Christ.
Citing Scriptures which speak of brotherly love, and which encourage men to be hospitable and charitable, and in that manner using those Scriptures as some sort of weapon in order to extort charity from a fellow Christian is not a righteous act, and does not deserve to be rewarded with anything but condemnation.
There is a huge difference between hospitality and charity. Every White man or woman whom I encounter is worthy of my hospitality, so long as they respond in kind. So in a way, hospitality must be earned, although it should not have to be earned, which is a paradox. You extend hospitality to someone, and if they show they are not worthy by granting kindness in return, you withdraw your hospitality. So generally, good and hospitable White folks can indeed have a sure and just expectation of receiving hospitality in return for their hospitality.
But charity is different. You cannot do anything to earn charity, and you should never have an expectation of charity. You have no entitlement to charity, and you should never feel as if you are so entitled. If I extend charity to anyone, it is out of love and because I believe that they need it for both edification and sustenance, because they need my help and without it, they may have no other means of survival. Other forms of charity are less obvious, such as merely preparing a meal for friends, or sharing an evening quaff, and those simple forms of charity are more common among Christians. But even if I extend charity to anyone, that does not necessarily mean that they have an entitlement to my continued charity. Displaying the attitude that one is entitled to charity is the surest way to be cut off from charity.
This I have had to do recently; I have had to cut off my charity towards this particular individual, and I did not do it lightly. But now the parasite is arrogant enough to defame me as soon as my charity for him had ended. He has joined himself to Michael Brandenburg and Ryan Brennan, who is another former recipient of my charity and who turned on me because, after a couple of years, I would not accept his Prosperity Gospel heresy.
If anyone believes the slander currently being spread by Sonny Eanes, they should be held to the same trial, and they should open their home to him. We shall see how they are treated in turn. If anyone believes his slander and does not open their home to him, because he is once again in need of a home, then they are hypocrites. Norman “Sonny” Eanes is homeless and needs help, or at least, he insists that he needs help. If you agree with his slander and you are not the one helping him, then you are a hypocrite.
In my Ten Years of Christogenea discourse, given here nearly a month ago, I predicted that Sonny Eanes was going to slander me, and I was correct.
For my part, even though I may again take the risk of suffering from backbiters, I will continue to be kind to all those whom I perceive are of my kind, and that is the ultimate thesis behind Clifton’s paper this evening.
With this, we shall present Clifton Emahiser’s paper:
BE KIND TO YOUR KIND
The primary object of this paper is to bring to the fore the word “kind” as used [in Scripture] of a race of people, and secondly, as that benevolent nature found inherent with a single lineage of people. You will notice I have used the word “kind” in both of these senses in the above title. The word kind is the root for the word kindred or kind-red. [Here Clifton makes a pun of kind and the fact that adam means ruddy or rosy.] Oddly enough, the New College Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language shows the same root-word in its list of Indo-European word derivatives for both of these senses of meaning.
For many years, I used this same dictionary which Clifton cites here throughout my own studies of Scripture and the Biblical languages, and the writing which resulted. I don’t remember exactly why I bought it, but I date my books when I receive them, and this one says “September, 1998”. Looking at Clifton’s website, he recommended that dictionary in his Watchman’s Teaching Letter #5, which was published that very same month, and nearly a year before I actually started to get to know him. So it is very likely that I ordered my copy because of Clifton’s recommendation, since even though his ministry was rather new, I was already on his mailing list at that early time.
In an Appendix to that dictionary is a long list of many pages of supposed “Indo-European” root words, or basically, representations of syllables that form words with common meanings in multiple European and Central Asian languages. Many of the entries are very good, but it must be kept in mind that the concept itself is only a proposition, that the list is mainly theoretical, and also that there may be other valid explanations as to why so many homonyms with similar meanings are found in so many European languages. For our part, we ourselves would assert that the European and related Asian languages, such as Sanskrit, have their origin in Hebrew, Persian, Akkadian and other related languages from in and around ancient Mesopotamia. But the list virtually ignores any Hebrew cognates with European languages, of which we ourselves have listed hundreds. If their list is valid, then our list is at least as valid, as it is based on the same simple methods. Clifton continues:
Significantly, the Adam-kind #120 can take the life of most anything, but [or except] another #120 [Adamic] kindred man, [citing] Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” At Ruth 2:20 the translators chose both the English words “kindness” and “kinsman” in close proximity. The following are the definitions of the word “kind” as used as an adjective and secondly as a noun. Interestingly, both are derived from the same Indo-European root “gene-.”
So first we see that at least some linguists believe that the English word kind is indeed a direct relation to the Greek word γενεά, which is race, and the Latin gens, which is a clan, a tribe or even a nation. However more importantly, Clifton’s thesis here may be summarized in the assertion that both meanings of the word kind are inextricably intertwined with one another, so that in many contexts, one cannot truly exist without the other. Therefore Clifton presents both definitions and word origins, along with an exhibition of other related words, as mentioned in the aforementioned dictionary:
“kind1 (kind) adj. kinder, kindest. 1. Of a friendly nature; generous or hospitable; warmhearted; good. 2. Charitable; helpful; showing sympathy or understanding: a kind word. 3. Humane; considerate: kind to animals. 4. Forbearing; tolerant; charitable: very kind about the broken window. 5. Courteous; thoughtful: Thank you for your kind reply. 6. Generous; liberal: his kind words of praise. 7. Informal. Agreeable; beneficial: a soap kind to the skin. [Middle English kynde, kind, Old English gecynde, natural, innate. See gene- in Appendix.*]
That word gecynde is an Old English compound word which means primarily, “that which is in accordance with nature or the usual course of things”, according to the Bosworth-Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, the ge- being a collective prefix, and the cynde being a forerunner of our word, kind. Continuing with the definition:
“Synonyms: kind, kindly, kindhearted, benign, benevolent, gracious, compassionate. These adjectives apply to persons and their actions when they show evidence of concern or sympathy for others. Kind and kindly are approximately interchangeable in describing persons and their natures; with reference to acts that reflect consideration or sympathy, kindly is more common. Kindhearted especially suggests an innate tendency to behave in such manner. Benign implies gentleness by nature; benevolent, charitableness and desire to promote others’ welfare; gracious, courtesy and warmth, especially to those at a disadvantage; and compassionate, a tendency to be moved to pity easily.”
Now for the second definition and use of the word kind, from the same dictionary:
“kind2 (kind) n. 1. Variety; sort; type: the kind of people who are cheerful in the morning. 2. A class or category of similar or related individuals: What kind of dog is that? 3. Rare. Mode of action; manner; way; He was successful in his kind. 4. Archaic. Nature within an order. -See Synonyms at type. –a kind of. A rough approximation of the category expressed: a kind of shelter. –differ in kind. To differ in nature, not simply in degree. –in kind. 1. With produce or commodities rather than with money: pay in kind. 2. In the same manner or with something equivalent; accordingly: returned the slight in kind. –kind of. Informal. Somewhat: I'm kind of hungry. [Middle English kynd(e), kind(e). Old English cynd, gecynd(e), birth, nature, race. See gene- in Appendix.*] ...”
Now at this point Clifton proceeds by citing the Indo-European roots appendix in the dictionary, to which the definitions for both meanings of the word kind make reference. For the audio presentation of this paper, we will read some of the statements and list some of the terms, but probably not all of them, which are listed at the theoretical root word gene-:
* Appendix: “gene-. Also gen-. To give birth, beget; with derivatives referring to aspects and results of procreation and to familial and tribal groups. 1. Suffixed zero-grade form *gn-yo- in Germanic *kunjam, family, race, in: a. Old English cyn(n), race, family, kin: KIN; b. *kuningaz, king (< ‘son of the royal kin’), in Old English cyning, king: king. 2. Suffixed zero-grade form *gn-ti- in: a. Germanic *kundjaz, family, race, in Old English cynd, gecynd(e), origin, birth, race, family, kind: kind1, (KINDRED); b. Germanic *kundiz, natural, native, in Old English gecynde (ge-, collective prefix; see kom), natural, native, fitting: kind2; c. Germanic variant *kinth- in Old High German kind, child: kindergarten, Kriss Kringle; d. Latin gens (stem gent-), race, clan: gens, (gentile), gentle, (genteel); gendarme. 3. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-es- in: a. Latin genus (stem gener-), race, kind: gender, general, generate, (generation), generic, generous, genre, genus; congener, (congenial), degenerate, (engender), miscegenation; b. Greek genos and genea, race, family: genealogy, genocide, genotype, heterogeneous; c. Greek suffix -genes, ‘-born’: -gen, -geny. 4. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-yo- in: a. Latin genius, procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality: genius, genial1; b. Latin ingenium (in-, in-), inborn character: ingenious, engine. 5. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-a- in Latin indigena (indu-, variant of in-, in-), born in (a place), indigenous: indigen, (indigenous). 6. Suffixed full-grade form *gen-wo- in Latin ingenuus (in-, in-), born in (a place), native, natural, freeborn: ingenuous. 7. Suffixed fullgrade form *gen-men- dissimilated in Latin germen, shoot, bud, embryo, germ: germ, german2, (germane), (germinal), (germinate). 8. Suffixed full-grade form *gene-ti- in Greek genesis, birth, beginning: genesis, -genesis. 9. Reduplicated form *gi-gn- in: a. Latin gignere (past participle genitus), to beget: genital, genitive, genitor, gent1, gingerly; congenital, primogeniture, progenitor, (progeny); b. Greek gignesthai, to be born: epigene. 10. Suffixed zero-grade form *-gn-o in Latin benignus (bene, well; see deu-2), good-natured, kindly, and malignus (male, ill; see mel-5), evil-natured, malevolent: benign, malign. 11. Extended form *gna- in Latin praegnas (prae-, before, pre-), pregnant: pregnant1. 12. Suffixed zero-grade form *gne-sko- becoming *gna-sko- in Latin gnasci, nasci (past participle gnatus, natus), to be born: naive, nascent, natal, nation, native, nature, nee, noël; agnate, (adnate), cognate, connate, enate, innate, neonate, puny, (puisne), renaissance. 13. Suffixed o-grade form *gon-o- in Greek gonos (combining form -gonos), child, procreation, seed: gonad, (-gonium), gono-; archegonium, epigone. 14. Full-grade form *gen- in: a. Persian zadan, to be born: mirza; b. Persian zata-, born, in azad-, free: azedarach. 15. Zero-grade form *gn- in Sanskrit ja- in krmi-ja-, ‘produced by worms’ (see kwrmi-). (Pok. 1. gen- 373.)”
It is not unreasonable that the same and related words have two meanings in English which show a relationship between hospitality and race: to be kind and to be of a kind, to be gentle or humane, and to be of a generation or gens, a clan or race. The same relationship between race and hospitality holds true of the word human, which was derived from the Latin word humanus. In English the word human refers to a man, but another derivative, humane, is showing compassion or benevolence, to be kind or kind-hearted, etc. In Latin, humanus carries those same and similar meanings, but also refers to a man in the sense of being mortal. So our very language reflects the natural course which things are expected to follow, and that is the meaning of the old Saxon word, gecynde.
Speaking of African blacks in the first century before Christ, Diodorus Siculus had said, in part: “As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; 3 and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs." (Library of History, 3.8.1)
Still acting in that same manner today, how they could be considered “human” when they are anything but humane is only a mystery. Clifton now responds to the list of words derived from gene- in that appendix, and has a digression where he lambasts one of the poor ideas which pass for scholarship among certain Identity Christians:
We should notice a couple of things about the above appendix definition from the Indo-European root “gene-.” (1) It happens that “gene-” is also the root-word for “noel” as found in the Christmas carol, and its meaning is “to be born.” I mention this because there are a lot of people in Israel Identity going around saying that it means “no God.” They are erroneously taking the English word “no” and the Hebrew word “el” and combining them, spawning a false premise! [Even worse, noel is of course French, and neither English nor Hebrew.] In pointing this out, I’m in no way advocating the pagan observance of the winter solstice! It’s just a matter that when we make such charges, we should know what we are talking about! (2) More importantly, “gene-” is the Indo-European root for the Greek term “gonos” or “genos.”
Now Clifton wants to show how many times in Scripture these words appear in contexts which refer to race, something which is dismissed by the organized denominations, and especially in relation to the New Testament. So even if some of the Hebrew and Greek terms are from different root words, he employs a source which focuses on the word kind and other derivatives of the Indo-European root word gene- where it appears in English. He continues:
With that in mind, we will go to An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words by W. E. Vine on the translated word “kind”:
“KIND (Noun): 1. genos (1085), akin to ginomai, ‘to become,’ denotes (a) ‘a family,’ Acts 4:6, ‘kindred;’ 7:13, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, “kindred”); 13:26, ‘stock’; (b) ‘an offspring,’ Acts 17:28; Rev. 22:16; (c) ‘a nation, a race,’ Mark 7:26, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘nation’); Acts 4:36, rv ‘(a man of Cyprus) by race,’ kjv, ‘of the country (of Cyprus);’ genos does not mean ‘a country;’ the word here signifies ‘parentage’ ... 7:19, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘kindred’); 18:2, 24, rv, ‘by race’ (kjv, ‘born’); 2 Cor. 11:26, ‘countrymen’; Gal. 1:14, rv, ‘countrymen’ (kjv, ‘nation’); Phil. 3:5, ‘stock’; 1 Pet. 2:9, rv, ‘race’ (kjv, ‘generation’); (d) ‘a kind, sort, class,’ Matt. 13:47, ‘kind’; in some mss. in 17:21, kjv, ‘kind;’ Mark 9:29, ‘kind’; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, ‘kinds’ (kjv, ‘diversities’); 14:10 (ditto). See beget, B.
Here we see W.E.Vine at least admit that the word genos has a racial connotation, although in relation to the scattered tribes of Israel and the promises to Abraham, modern churches deny those plainly evident implications. Clifton continues from Vine’s examination of the word kind as it is sometimes derived from another word:
“2. phusis (5449) among its various meanings denotes ‘the nature, the natural constitution or power of a person or thing,’ and is translated ‘kind’ in Jas. 3:7 (twice), “kind” (of beasts etc.), and ‘(man)kind,’ lit., ‘human kind.’ See nature, natural.
In James 3:7 in the Christogenea New Testament, we translated phusis as species, in order to distinguish it from genos or genea. Still continuing with Vine, as he describes words which in the King James Version were translated as kind:
“Notes: (1) The indefinite pronoun tis, ‘some, a certain, one,’ is used adjectively with the noun aparche, ‘firstfruits,’ in Jas. 1:18, ‘a kind of.’ (2) In 1 Cor. 15:37, rv, ‘some other kind’ (kjv, ‘some other grain’) translates a phrase which, lit. rendered, is ‘some (one) of the rest (loipos).’ (3) In 2 Cor. 6:13, ‘(for a recompense) in like kind,’ rv, (kjv, ‘in the same’), is, lit., ‘(as to) the same (recompense).’
“KIND (Adjective), KIND (be), KINDLY, KINDNESS: A. Adjectives. 1. chrestos (5543), ‘serviceable, good, pleasant’ (of things), ‘good, gracious, kind’ (of persons), is translated ‘kind’ in Luke 6:35, of God; in Eph. 4:32, enjoined upon believers. See better, easy, good, goodness, gracious. 2. agathos (18), ‘good,’ is translated ‘kind’ in Titus 2:5, rv. See good. B. Verb. chresteuomai (5541), akin to A, No. 1, ‘to be kind,’ is said of love, 1 Cor. 13:4. C. Nouns. 1. chrestotes (5544), akin to A, No. 1, and B, used of ‘goodness of heart, kindness,’ is translated ‘kindness’ in 2 Cor. 6:6; Gal. 5:22, rv (kjv, ‘gentleness’); Eph. 2:7; Col. 3:12; Titus 3:4. See goodness. 2. philanthropia (5363), from philos, ‘loving,’ anthropos, ‘man’ (Eng., ‘philanthropy’), denotes ‘kindness,’ and is so translated in Acts 28:2, of that which was shown by the inhabitants of Melita to the shipwrecked voyagers; in Titus 3:4, of the ‘kindness’ of God, translated ‘(His) love toward man.’ See love. D. Adverb. philanthropos (5364), akin to C, No. 2, ‘humanely, kindly’, is translated ‘kindly’ in Acts 27:3 (kjv, ‘courteously’). See courteously.”
[Clifton now responds to the definitions of W. E. Vine:] We should be starting to see the close connection between the word “kind” as a race of people and “kind” as the genetic nature of that same race. Now there are some in Israel Identity who claim that the Bible nowhere speaks of “race”, but it should be obvious from W. E. Vine that it’s a matter of finding the right Hebrew and Greek term as we see above.
By “some in Israel Identity”, Clifton refers to the likes of Ted Weiland, James Bruggeman, Stephen Jones and other universalists who hold some Identity truths, but not as much truth as they should hold.
Next we will go to [the] Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon for the word “kind” found under Strong’s #1085:
“Greek #1085: γένος [genos /ghen·os/] n n. From 1096; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1:684; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 117; Goodrick Kohlenberger 1169; 21 occurrences; AV [the Authorized Version, or King James Version] translates as ‘kind’ five times, ‘kindred’ three times, ‘offspring’ three times, ‘nation’ twice, ‘stock’ twice, ‘born’ twice, ‘diversity’ once, and translated miscellaneously three times. [It is defined as meaning:] 1 race. 1a offspring. 1b family. 1c stock, race, nation. 1c1 i.e. nationality or descent from a particular people. 1d the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort.”
When reading definitions from Strong’s Concordance, and especially in the original version, one must note the differences between the actual meaning of the word, the definitions, and the way it was translated in the King James Version. Sometimes readers confuse the two aspects of these Strong’s definitions, although this newer “enhanced” version does better to distinguish them. Now Clifton cites two other sources on the Greek word γένος:
The New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries on Strong’s Greek #1085: “γένος genos; from 1096; family, offspring:— birth (2), countrymen (2), descendant (1), descent (1), family (2), kind (3), kinds (3), nation (1), native (1), race (3).”
Now from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 117: “ ‘Posterity,’ ‘family,’ as in Acts 17:28 (all [sic. all Adamites] are related to God) and, individually, in Rev. 22:16 (descendant, not representative). 2. ‘People, e.g., the Jewish [sic. Judaean] people in Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5, Christians in 1 Pet. 2:9 (quoting Isa. 43:20). 3. ‘Kind,’ e.g., species of animals or plants, but also tongues (1 Cor. 12:10, 28).”
[Clifton responds to the definitions:] Surely, the Christians at 1 Pet. 2:9 were Israelites as Isaiah 43 demonstrates. It’s amazing how blind the lexicographers are! At this point it would be advisable to go to the Greek word #1074 in the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, for it is related to #1085 [γένος]:
Now Clifton turns from γένος to the related Greek word, γενεά. Bear in mind that, as we saw in the discussion on Indo-European roots, these Greek words are early cognates of our English word kind:
“1074 γενεά [genea /ghen·eh·ah/] n f. From (a presumed derivative of) 1085 [γένος]; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1:662; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 114; Goodrick Kohlenberger 1155; 42 occurrences; AV [King James Version] translates as ‘generation’ 37 times, ‘time’ twice, ‘age’ twice, and ‘nation’ once. 1 fathered, birth, nativity. 2 that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family. 2a the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy. 2b metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character. 2b1 esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race. 3 the whole multitude of men living at the same time. 4 an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30—33 years.”
Here I must interject: γενεά should not have been translated as generation on so many occasions. But it is also demonstrable that generation did not mean in 1611 what it means to us today. However, even when it does appear in Scripture and describes all of the people living at a particular time, for which it is used on occasion, it still cannot be separated from its original meaning of race. It describes all of the people of a particular race who are living at a given time, and not merely all living people. Clifton continues in response to the definition:
The lexicon says “a presumed derivative” here. With the remainder of the definition it would seem more like a certainty.
Actually we cannot tell whether γενεά is derived from γένος, or if perhaps the opposite is true, or even if both forms were derived from some earlier and obsolete root in a parent language. Now Clifton cites another definition of γενεά:
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged describes the Strong’s Greek word #1074 [γενεά] thusly:
“geneá. This means a. ‘birth,’ ‘descent,’ b. ‘progeny,’ c. ‘race,’ and d. ‘generation.’ In the NT it is common in the Synoptics, rare in Paul, and absent from John. It mostly means ‘generation’ and is often qualified: ‘adulterous’ (Mk. 8:38), ‘evil’ (Mt. 12:45), ‘unbelieving and corrupt’ (Mt. 17:17); the formula ‘this generation’ is very common (Mk. 8:12 etc.). ‘Crooked generation’ in Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15 is based on Dt. 32:5 (cf. Mt. 17:17 and Dt. 32:20). The use of ‘generation’ by Jesus expresses his comprehensive purpose: he aims at the whole people and is conscious of their solidarity in sin. genea has the sense of ‘age’ in Mt. 1:17; Acts 13:36; Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26, and of ‘manner’ in Lk. 16:8. In Acts 8:33 there is an allusion to Is. 53:8 in a literal rendering of the obscure original.
[Now Clifton responds:] Here the lexicographer places ‘birth,’ ‘descent,’ ‘progeny,’ & ‘race,’ in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd & 4th positions of importance, and then foolishly states “It mostly means ‘generation’”, an obvious contradiction! No doubt he made this statement as an apology for some of the translators! We must give him credit, though, for he at least placed the primary definitions out in front.
Rather, Clifton was being kind. I would say that “of course he was apologizing for the translators!” And not only that, but the definition accepts the mistranslations. I would assert that γενεά never means age, it means generation only in a couple of instances, is usually used to describe or refer to a race, and always has a racial connotation regardless of the context. Now Clifton concludes with the Greek portion of his word study:
Before we go to the Hebrew, it should be mentioned, in addition to the Greek #s 1074 [γενεά] & 1085 [γένος], there are also the Greek #s 1075 [γενεαλογέω], 1076 [γενεαλογία], 1080 [γεννάω], 1081 [γέννημα], 1083 [γέννησις] & 1084 [γεννητός] which are closely related [Clifton missed a few others, especially # 1078, γένεσις, but we will leave it here]. The most used word for “race” is #1085 [γένος] and [it] is found 21 times in the New Testament. Of these 21 occurrences, all but five have a racial signification.
Clifton did not elaborate, but what he referenced is easy to determine. The word γένος should be birth in Acts 4:36, 18:2 and 18:24, and sort in 1 Corinthians 12:10, 12:28 and 14:10, referring to languages, so it is really all but six, rather than five. Now he moves on to the various meanings of kind as the word was employed by translators of the Old Testament:
From the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, on the Hebrew for the word “kind”, or Strong’s #4327:
“#4327:מין [miyn /meen/] n m. From an unused root meaning to portion out; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1191a; Goodrick Kohlenberger 4786; 31 occurrences; AV translates as ‘kind’ 31 times. 1 kind, sometimes a species (usually of animals). Additional Information: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created ‘kind’ if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. This does not preclude new species because this represents a partitioning of the original gene pool. Information is lost or conserved not gained. A new species could arise when a population is isolated and inbreeding occurs. By this definition a new species is not a new ‘kind’ but a further partitioning of an existing ‘kind’”.
A miyn can also mean a part or portion. This, I am persuaded, is the ultimate root of English words such as minute, in all its meanings, and related words such as miniscule, through the Latin word minutus. The word ar in Hebrew means mountain, so the name Armenia is from a Hebrew compound word meaning mountain parts. Clifton now comments upon the definition from Strong’s lexicon:
This last sentence is important, for there are those in Israel Identity who claim that the impostor “Jews” are not Biblically designated as a race! Though racially mixed as they are, the proper Biblical term is “race.” Though they constitute a new species from “a further partitioning”, they are generated into existence as a “mixed kind.” Hence, John the Baptist was calling them a “race (#1081) of vipers” at Matthew 3:7. It is a blatant error to spiritualize this passage as many do!
Of course, Clifton was once again referring to men such as Ted Weiland, James Bruggeman, Stephen Jones and other clowns who deny the references to race in the New Testament, not understanding the true nature of the Jew. The various White Adamic races are indeed “further partitioning” of the original Adamic race, which biologists often describe as speciation, and all other races are mongrel corruptions. Now Clifton quickly changes the topic, and continues under the subtitle:
WALKING THROUGH SCRIPTURE ON “KIND”
As mentioned above, the Greek word #1085 genos is used more often than any other word in the New Testament to mean “race.” Probably the most important passage where it is used is 1 Peter 2:9: “But ye are a chosen race (#1085), 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.”
It should be noted that the RSV has translated 1 Peter 2:9 properly [where it has] “race.”
Actually, there are over a dozen popular translations which rendered the word genos correctly as race, but the dummies all think Peter was talking about Jews. When we apply it correctly within the context of Peter’s epistle to White non-Jews, the same dummies accuse us of being “racists”! So Clifton proceeds and says:
We will now consider other passages where genos is used:
Mark 7:26: “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by race (#1085); and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.”
Acts 4:6: “And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the (#1085 racial) kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.”
Acts 7:19: “The same dealt subtilly with our (#1085 racial) kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.”
Acts 13:26: “Men and brethren, children of the (#1085 racial) stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.”
Acts 17:28-29: “28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his (#1085 racial) offspring. 29 Forasmuch then as we are the (#1085 racial) offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.”
2 Corinthians 11:26: “In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own (#1085 racial) countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren.”
Philippians 3:5: “Circumcised the eighth day, of the (#1085 racial) stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee.”
Revelation 22:16: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the (#1085 racial) offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”
Especially interesting is Matthew 13:47 in the parable of the dragnet from verses 47 through 50 which reads as follows:
“47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every (#1085 racial) kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Now in reference to this last passage in comparison with all of the others, Clifton concludes:
From this you can see very clearly that this passage completely debunks the theory of universalism. It is stated very unequivocally here that there are categorically two racial groups, “good” and “bad”, and the fact that only the good racial group will be “gathered into vessels.” The good group are only those racially pure descended from Adam. Just think of all the wasted time, effort and blood thrust upon those not of our “kind.”
Here I would say, as I explained at the start of this evening, that perhaps those who abused my kindness and tried to manipulate me for one reason or another, and now hate me for not being manipulated, have done so simply because they are not of my kind. But we must be humble and remember that often we cannot tell wheat from tares, as Clifton says:
Obviously, we are not to be “kind” to those not of our “kind”! Don’t get mad at me, I didn’t write the Book! Besides, this passage is in red letters in my Bible [referring to Matthew 13:47-50 and the parable of the net], so what kind of connotative reflections does that have on Yahshua our Redeemer who said those words?
John the Baptist also said some racial words at Matthew 3:7 which are repeated at Luke 3:7: “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O (#1081 race) of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”
Yahshua the Messiah reasserted the words of John the Baptist at Matthew 12:33-34: “33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O (#1081 race) of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
To follow the context of what is being said in this passage, one must first consider that at verses 31-32, Yahshua the Messiah had just concluded speaking about “the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost”, which is race-mixing. (Here Clifton refers his reader to his July, 2008 essay, The Unpardonable Sin. In March of 2013, I myself elaborated on the same topic in a paper titled Scatterers and Gatherers. The words of Christ where he mentions blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in the context where they were spoken, indeed show that race-mixing is the unpardonable sin. Clifton continues:) Then, He speaks of either making the tree good or corrupt. Once miscegenation had taken place it is obvious that the tree ([In this instance the] “Jews” of Revelation 2:9 & 3:9) is a corrupt tree in verse 33. From this it is evident why He called them a “race of vipers”, for they had mixed with the race of Cain (Matthew 23:35, Luke 11:51). Again, at Matthew 23:33 Yahshua says: “Ye serpents, ye (#1081 race) of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
On the negative side Yahshua first accused the “Jews”, and the “Jews” answered Him at John 8:41: “Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not (#1080 racially) born [The word is not γένος, but the verb γεννάω, which is cognate.] of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” [Which, of course, Christ had refuted as a lie.]
On the positive side, we read at 1 John 2:29: “If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is (#1080 racially) born [γένος] of him.”
Again, at 1 John 3:9: “Whosoever is (#1080 γεννάω racially) born [γένος] of God doth not commit sin; for his (#4690 sperma) seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
That it is speaking of physical “seed”, we will consult the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon on the Greek word 4690:
“4690 σπέρμα [sperma /sper·mah/] n n. From 4687; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 7:536; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 1065; Goodrick Kohlenberger 5065; 44 occurrences; AV translates as ‘seed’ 43 times, and ‘issue’ once. 1 from which a plant germinates. 1a the seed i.e. the grain or kernel which contains within itself the germ of the future plants. 1a1 of the grains or kernels sown. 1b metaph. a seed i.e. a residue, or a few survivors reserved as the germ of a new race (just as seed is kept from the harvest for the sowing). 2 the semen virile. 2a the product of this semen, seed, children, offspring, progeny. 2b family, race, posterity. 2c whatever possesses vital force or life giving power ...”
On #4690 [σπέρμα] the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon adds: “2c1 of divine energy of the Holy Spirit operating within the soul by which we are regenerated.” It is paramount that we understand that it is necessary to be physically born of pure Adamic seed, or otherwise the Holy Spirit cannot abide in us.
I do not know why Clifton did not elaborate upon this, as these last two parts, or additions, to Strong’s definition are evil. Paul informs us in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that the resurrection is made possible through the spiritual body, which is sown as a natural body, and the word sown is the Greek word σπείρω, a cognate of σπέρμα. Clifton had said in the past that there is no such thing as “spiritual sperm”, and that is correct. But the lexicons merely cover for the false theology of the universalist churches. Now moving towards Clifton’s conclusion:
At 1 John 5:1 we see: “Whosoever believeth that Yahshua is the Christ is (#1080 γεννάω racially) born of God: and every one that loveth him that (#1080 γεννάω racially) begat loveth him also that is (#1080 γεννάω racially) begotten of him.”
I hope by now the reader has a better comprehension of the importance of the term “kind” both as a noun and an adjective. In the book of Genesis the phrase “after his/its kind” is used 17 times, and for good reason!
On the contrary, never but never is anything or anyone blessed that is not after its kind, ever! But Adam, speaking of Eve, said the same thing in a different way at Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Don’t let anyone ever tell you that the subject of “race” is not spoken of in Scripture, for it’s the main theme throughout its pages!
Now we hope to have made clear the connections between kind as a noun, and kind, or kindness, as an adjective, and also have seen the same relationship between similar words, human and humane, generation, gens and gentle, et cetera. If someone cannot be kind to you, perhaps it is because they are not of your kind, and in any event, they really cannot expect your kindness in return.