Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 1

In recent weeks, we have presented both our own views and those of Clifton Emahiser on the ridiculous so-called 6th and 8th Day Creation theory. Now we shall address another issue which is very similar to that theory, which is the idea that certain races of hominids, from which we have the non-White races of today, were among the “living creature” (chay nephesh) or the “beast of the earth” (chay erets) created in Genesis chapter 1 where we read: “24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” This is the usual fall-back position for those who endeavor to squeeze the beast races of hominids, the non-White races, into the Creation of God, as if any of them could possibly be “good”.

When I began my presentation of The Only True Adam of Genesis series in late June, I explained that I did so in part to address “certain so-called pastors in Christian Identity who cling to this fallacy of an 8th-Day Creation, and have the nerve to ridicule us for refuting it.” Now one of those same individuals, whom I will not yet name, is attempting to argue with me in social media over the idea that Yahweh created the non-White races as “beasts”. So he clings to two ideas for the creation of non-Whites, the 6th & 8th Day heresy, and this concept which we will begin to address here this evening. One way or another, there are so many fools who feel that they have to squeeze non-White races into the Creation of God, when all this time a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” representing the corruption of Yahweh’s creation by fallen angels stares them in the face, and they overlook the significance.

So a friend made a post in social media of some things I said in that first series, and this fool, who lives in the Texarkana region, if I remember correctly, responded to that by posting an article from another so-called “pastor” from Indiana, whom I will not name just yet. But his article proves that these people do not study the Scriptures. Rather, they formulate ideas based on their own opinions, promote those ideas as doctrines, and do not even check so much as a Strong’s Concordance to find whether those ideas have any merit.

The article which he posted is called “where to look in the Bible for blacks”. It is subtitled, in all capital letters, “beast-chayah-negro”, which reflects the claim that the Hebrew word chayah is a reference to negros. We are not going to reproduce the entire article, but after attempts to explain the different Hebrew words for animals which are found in Genesis chapter 1, explaining for example that the Hebrew word behemah is a reference to quadrupeds, then the article states:

We are concerned with the Hebrew word CHAYAH, which means LIVING CREATURE, and which we feel refers to the following biped (two-legged) beasts.

Then it reasserts the connection by stating:

Those who have clearly traced this Hebrew word CHAYAH through the scriptures under the English word beast, know it is speaking of the NEGRO!

Now, we, meaning Clifton Emahiser and I, would whole-heartedly agree that negros are beasts, and not men. We would also agree that negros fall into the category of beast, or are one possible subject, in certain Scriptures that refer to beasts. But that does not mean that the Hebrew word chayah is a specific reference to negros, as our writer claims, and it does not mean that negros can be found in the Genesis creation account, as the fool from Texarkana and so many like him insist. Another fool, Eli James, has also frequently insisted this same thing.

But this is where they really sound stupid, and where their assertions really fall apart. The article goes on to ask several questions citing specific Bible verses. So we read:

Was Joel speaking of a "beast" or field hand in Joel 2:22?
What kind of a beast do you know that wears clothing (sack-cloth) as we read in Jonah 3:8?
What kind of a beast has hands as reported in Exodus 19:13?

By checking a simple Strong’s Concordance, it is evident that the word for beast at Joel 2:22 is the word behemah, and not chayah! So the writer himself, according to his own article, must be willing to admit that it refers to quadrupeds, as he himself defined the word behemah in his opening statements!

Furthermore, checking a Strong’s Concordance, or any other source for the Hebrew original, at Jonah 3:8 and Exodus 19:13, the Hebrew word for beast in both instances is also behemah.

The writer of this article then asks:

What type of beast is capable of mixing or "sowing" his seed with the "seed of Adam" as described in Jeremiah 31:27?

But the word for beast in Jeremiah 31:27 is also behemah, and not chayah! So how do these men insist that chayah is a Hebrew word which means negro? This is foolishness, and it is what Clifton and I have been arguing against for many years. We do not need this foolishness and this sloppy scholarship in Christian Identity.

For many years I have taught that the beasts of Jeremiah chapter 31 described the non-White races. The concept first appears in my paper, The Immigration Problem and Biblical Prophecy, which, according to the metadata found in Clifton Emahiser’s computer files, was first prepared as a PDF for publication by him on July 24th, 2006. So I wrote that at an earlier time than I even remembered.

But that does not mean that they are the beasts which Yahweh created, and they are certainly not the chayah of Genesis chapter 1. Somewhere in my Pragmatic Genesis series, I explained from apocryphal Scriptures the sin of the fallen angels, who mingled their seed with the seed of all sorts of quadrupeds in order to corrupt the Creation of God, and the Enoch literature tells us that the results were giants and monsters and other sorts of unnatural beasts, even demons. This is why the non-White races, on the rare occasions that they are mentioned in Scripture, are referred to as behemah, even though they are bipeds and not quadrupeds, because they are certainly not men. In these instances, behemah is a pejorative, which is an otherwise innocuous word that is purposely used in a derogatory manner, such as calling a person a dog or a goat… or a clown.

Then the writer of this article asks:

What kind of a male beast could a woman lust after and "lie down thereto" and cause God to have them executed in righteous judgment? Leviticus 20:16
What kind of a female beast could a man lust after and cause a penalty of death to be decreed by God? Leviticus 20:15

Likewise, the word for beast in both of these passages is behemah, and not chayah. The word could be understood literally, and throughout history sexual acts with four-legged beasts has been a common perversion, especially among the non-White races. Modern pornographic media and the Internet are littered with examples of this, upon which I should not have to elaborate. This also being the sin of the fallen angels, it is not irrational that the Law is forbidding bestiality. Ostensibly, for this same reason Yahweh had commanded the Israelites to slay the flocks and herds of the Canaanites as well as the Canaanites themselves (i.e. 1 Samuel 15:3).

On the other hand, negros and all other races would fit into the description of beast in these passages, simply because they are not men. Having intercourse with them is indeed the “pursuit of strange flesh” which the apostle Jude described as fornication. It is also the “way of Balaam” which both Peter and Jude made reference to in that same context, and associated with the sin of the fallen angels. But that acknowledgement does not mean that these negros are the beasts of Yahweh’s Creation.

It was a British Identity pastor in Ireland who was named Alan Campbell, and who is recently deceased, that first spread the confusion that the negros were the “beast” or chayah of Genesis chapter 1, while citing examples throughout Scripture where the actual Hebrew word is behemah. Clifton Emahiser addresses Campbell’s errors in this series, Identifying the “Beast of the Field”, which we are about to present. So our writer did not create this error, but rather, he was too lazy to check Campbell’s work before he began repeating it.

However here and in the next passage which he cited, the writer of this article shows that not only is he too lazy to fact-check the writers that he follows, but that he himself is also dishonest. His dishonesty is first evident in a mild way where where he asked “What kind of a female beast could a man lust after and cause a penalty of death to be decreed by God?”, citing Leviticus 20:15. There is nothing in that passage of Scripture which includes the emotion of lust as a motive or component of the act. So the writer created a lie. Rather, the passage merely states, from the King James Version, “15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.”

But now our writer creates an much bigger lie, and actually, he creates two lies, where he asks:

What kind of beast would have the ability to "keep the vineyard" as we find in the Song of Solomon, Chapter 1, who incidentally was Black?

The word beast, in the singular or plural, does not appear in the Song of Solomon. The Hebrew word chay does, as an adjective modifying the noun water to read “living waters” in chapter 4. But there is no mention of any beasts in the entire book, and the specific form cited by this writer, chayah, does not appear either. Neither does the Hebrew word behemah, for beast. So how does our writer imagine that Solomon in chapter 1 of his Song is possibly referring to beasts?

It is absolutely clear in the opening chapter of the Song of Solomon that the author is speaking of himself! That he is the “keeper of the vineyards” and that he is “black” because “the sun hath looked upon me”. He lamented that he was forced to do menial work, and he was ashamed of the result, that his skin had turned dark in the sun. Our writer is a liar, and he has an agenda, but he obviously has no care for truth.

So he next asks:

What kind of a beast "cries mightily unto God" in Jonah 3:8-10?

Once again, the Hebrew word for beast in that passage is behemah, and not chayah. So our writer began with the assertion that the Hebrew word for beast, chayah in Genesis chapter 1, was a specific term for negros. Yet in all of his examples from Scripture, there is not one time where the occurrences of the word beast that he himself uses as examples come from that word chayah. They all come from the word behemah, which he himself admitted refers to quadrupeds, and not to people. The level of stupidity here is astounding. Paul Mullet and Billy Roper are clowns for promoting this article and these lies, and none of them are worthy of the title pastor.

[See https://theroperreportsite.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/where-to-look-in-the-bible-on-negros/ or even better: see the screen-shot here.]

At one time, and early in my own studies, we ourselves were persuaded that Jonah 3:7-9 referred to hominids as beasts, as Bertrand Comparet and Wesley Swift both made the assertion, but it is simply not true. This is Jonah’s record of the words of the king of Nineveh, a pagan who did not have a Biblical perspective. There is not one example that I have seen in thousands of existing Assyrian inscriptions which indicate that the Assyrians had ever considered any race or class of their own people as beasts. Assyria was a multi-racial empire like all others. The words of this king can not be taken for Scripture, or to prove any point in Scripture, except to validate the reason for and the success of Jonah’s mission.

The ancient Assyrians were a very wealthy society. It is evident in their own art inscriptions that they adorned their quadrupeds, which they used for transportation and for religious ritual as well as for agricultural purposes, in ornaments overlaid with gold and silver and in expensive fabrics. So the Assyrian king imagined that the beasts should show repentance as well as the men, but that does not mean that those beasts are people created by God. This is why we consider those who hold this position to be fools. They concoct every lie imaginable in order to squeeze niggers and other unseemly corruptions into the Creation of God.

Our writer then asks four more questions before his article ends, citing 2 Peter chapter 2 for all of them, verses 12 through 14. They are:

What kind of a beast would have "eyes full of adultery", as recorded in 2 Peter 2:12-14?
What kind of beast loves to riot in the daytime? 2 Peter 2:12-14
What kind of a beast can talk or speak? 2 Peter 2:12
What kind of a beast was made to be taken and DESTROYED? 2 Peter 2:12

Now we would once again wholeheartedly agree, that in this passage Peter was referring to beasts in human form, to bipeds, and not to quadrupeds. However when we examine the entire passage in context, we see that Peter’s subjects were intruders into the body of Christ which he related to the “angels that sinned”, who were cast into chains of darkness to await judgment and destruction. He did not say “chains in darkness”, as if they were sitting in some pit in the desert, but “chains of darkness”, which we would assert is certainly the state of the non-White races.

And our writer’s last question, where he asks “What kind of a beast was made to be taken and DESTROYED?”, proves our point and refutes his own, because everything that Yahweh created in Genesis chapter 1 is good, and none of it was created only to be destroyed. No doubt, all non-Whites races are beasts, but they are not the beasts of Yahweh’s Creation. Rather, they are products of the sinful corruption of His Creation, so Peter then said that these natural brute beasts “shall utterly perish in their own corruption”, ostensibly because they are the products of corruption.

Now with that introduction as a starting point, I shall begin to present and add my own comments and clarifications to Clifton Emahiser’s seven-part series of papers titled Identifying the “Beast of the Field”. According to Clifton’s metadata, he had prepared this paper for publication on March 25th, 2010.

IDENTIFYING THE “BEAST OF THE FIELD”, #1

Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries

For many years I have held the position that the Biblical designation “beast of the field” often is an idiomatic expression for the non-Adamic races (i.e., such as the negroid and mongoloid, which I prefer not to capitalize). My late wife, who died in 1993, would refer to them as “BOFs”, our own secret code-term for them. Every culture has had idiomatic expressions peculiar to their own social conditions. Israel is not an exception to this phenomenon, for the Bible is just loaded with idioms, especially in the Old Testament Hebrew.

About two years ago, a very good friend of mine gave me a copy of a video presentation by pastor Alan Campbell of Belfast, Ireland entitled Who Are The Beast of the Field? I would guess that it was made ten years ago, around the year 2000. When I first viewed this video, I was quite impressed, as I agreed with Campbell that the negroids were indeed included under the Biblical idiom “beast of the field”! I was so swayed by Campbell’s reasoning that I decided to write my own version on this topic. But this is where I ran into trouble!

Unlike the writer and promoters of the article which we began with this evening, Clifton was careful to check the claims of his sources before he repeated them or their ideas in his own writings. This is the mark of a scholar, where those who blindly copy others are merely lazy, if they are not stupid. Early in my own Identity studies, I was tricked a few times by mistakes made by Comparet, Swift or Capt, and I also learned the hard way to check behind my sources and to prove things for myself. That is what we should all do, and in a short time we would eliminate countless heresies and many charlatans from our Christian Identity community. Continuing with Clifton:

Campbell started his presentation by appropriately quoting Jonah 3:7-8 thusly: “7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: 8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.”

At left: Allen Campbell's presentation on the beast of Jonah chapter 3.

I must interject here, and say that when we read the words here in Jonah, it is absolutely plausible that the king was speaking of animals where we see the word beast, just as he commands herd and flock not to eat. Imagine actually telling birds not to eat, or sheep not to graze at pasture, and getting them to listen. So there must be a poetic, allegorical sense to the king’s decree which we do not comprehend outside of the original cultural context. Continuing with Clifton:

Then, Campbell appropriately appraised the context of these two verses: “Now if you’ll come back ... to Jonah; let’s look at that Jonah passage for just a moment before I go on with it. You are being asked to believe that the beasts in chapter three (and organized religion tells you that they’re four-footed/quadruped beasts) – you’re asked to believe they would cover themselves in sackcloth – highly unlikely! You’re asked to believe they would cry unto God – they would use actual speech or language. That’s not just highly unlikely – that’s downright impossible! You’re asked to believe that the beasts (four footed/quadrupeds) repented from evil doing. That implies a God-consciousness! Do you think that four footed/quadruped animals have a God-consciousness? ‘... and turn from the violence that is in their hands ...’ ... which indicates the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Now I have known a lot of intelligent animals ... I’ve never known of ones that could distinguish between right and wrong! ... of ones that had a God-consciousness; or ones that could cry unto God; or ones that could repent in sackcloth and ashes ...”

Now, Campbell is actually second-guessing the motives of a dead king. Why should we pretend to understand his words on our own terms? If he can command flocks and herds not to eat, then he can command behemah, quadruped beasts, to repent. That does not mean he actually expects them to obey, or to be able to do such things.

As I have already explained, and which at this point in time Clifton did not yet understand, the King of Nineveh was certainly referring to four-footed beasts. Later, when I discussed my reasoning with Clifton, he did agree with my position, but I do not know if we ever had the chance to discuss it publicly. However Campbell’s description here is plainly dishonest. There is no mention of these beasts “covering themselves”, as he said, so there is no need to imagine that they must have had human physical capabilities. Rather, the text of Jonah in the King James Version merely has the king exclaiming “let man and beast be covered”. Now continuing with Clifton, where his contention with Campbell is really over the Hebrew word for beast and Campbell’s resulting conclusions:

At this juncture, I should point out that I do not disagree with Campbell’s premise! My problem with Campbell is how he arrived at his conclusions. As all good Bible students are aware, all premises must be solidly based on the witness of Scripture. As we shall shortly see, Campbell failed miserably to back up his correct premise with qualified documented evidence from Holy Writ where he stated:

“So let’s treat this word; let’s treat the word ‘beast’. As it is rendered in our English ... you get ‘beast’ translated from three different Hebrew words:

• “The Hebrew word ‘behema’ [sic bhemah]. It means cattle or other domesticated quadruped four-footed beasts, sheep, goats; all that manner of domesticated farm animals or farm stock.

• “‘beir’ a brute beast , the wild animal, like the tigers and the others we saw at the circus here Saturday night.…

• “And then we have the people referred to in the Genesis account where it talks of the ‘beast of the field’ and the people referred to in Jonah, and the other dozen or so passages I’m going to read to you tonight, and the Hebrew word is ‘c-h-e-v-a’; it’s chevya, ‘a living creature’, and that living creature is a biped/two-legged creature. He’s not a wild beast; he’s not a domesticated animal; he is a creation of his own above the animal creation, yet separate from Adam-kind”

In the article which we first discussed here, which is posted on Billy Roper’s website, it is credited to Paul Mullet and dated for February 2017. Now comparing it to Clifton’s transcription of Campbell’s presentation, we clearly see that since Clifton wrote this in 2010, and the quote from Alan Campbell is almost word-for-word what Mullet takes credit for having written, that Mullet is only a plagiarist and a thief. He has stolen Campbell’s writing, which is not even correct, and then takes credit for it himself. Roper is his accomplice. This is another sort of behaviour that we must eradicate from Christian Identity. Now Clifton responds to Alan Campbell:

I would like it understood that I have in my library vast amounts of lexical data, both in book and electronic form. I don’t know from whence Campbell gets “behema”, but Strong’s articulates it as “bhemah”, and [it] is #929. [The word] “beir” is #1165 in Strong’s and is articulated “be‘îyr”, and I failed to find a classification such as “tiger”, but rather “in the sense of eating: cattle”. Campbell’s major error, though, is with the word “chevya” which obviously is what Strong has [at] #2423 [as] “chêyvâ”, a Chaldean word not found anywhere in the Bible other than the book of Daniel. This entirely destroys Campbell’s thesis, at least from a language perspective, but not necessarily from an idiomatic perspective. There is absolutely no way that Campbell can apply “chêyvâ” to Genesis chapter one or to Jonah chapter three!

Here Clifton, the exacting analyst, took issue with Campbell for his transliteration of certain words. But I do not know if Clifton understood that there is a large degree of latitude allowed when transliterating Hebrew, which really has no vowels and where for example “t” and “th” or “s” and “sh” can be represented by the same letters, into our English language where vowels must be supplied and where the writer must often choose between “t” and “th” and “s” and “sh” to represent the Shin (ש) and the Tav (ת). We do not necessarily have to follow Strong’s transliterations, although Clifton and many other writers prefer to do so. I would rather write behemah, as I have here, than follow either Strong or Campbell. The word is the source of our English word behemoth.

Clifton does, of course, have every right, and even a responsibility, to call Campbell to task for his blatant misidentification of words, which he continues to do as he proceeds:

But there are some who will go beyond Campbell, and refuse to take “no” for an answer, as they will seize on Strong’s #2423 (a Chaldean word) where it says, “... from 2418 châyâh (another Chaldean word), found only in the book of Daniel. Once arriving at #2418, they will notice Strong’s #2417, another Chaldean word also found only in the book of Daniel (except for the lone exception at Ezra 6:10), and assume there must be some connection. Upon observing Strong’s #2417, they will notice this Chaldean word is articulated “chay”. Then immediately above #2417, they will notice Strong’s #2416, also articulated “chay”, and will cry “Eureka”! Then they will seize on the Hebrew #2416 “chay” and apply [Campbell’s assertion concerning Jonah and other passages] to Genesis 1:24-25, which amounts to little more than intellectual dishonesty. All this to somehow include negroids and mongoloids in Yahweh’s creation! Really, we have to take the entire context of Genesis 1 into consideration before we concentrate on verses 24 and 25. Here is an example:

• Genesis 1:4: “And God saw the light, that it was good ...”

• Genesis 1:10: “... and God saw that it was good ...”

• Genesis 1:12: “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:18: “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:21 “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:25 “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:31 “... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

You will notice from all of this that God didn’t create anything in Genesis chapter 1 that was not good. Well, then, if we conjecture that the non-whites were created in verses 24 & 25 (somehow being “good”), we are sending a message to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren that there is nothing wrong with mingling racially with them! [But] Christ Himself said there were bad racial kinds at Matthew 13:47-50, and here I amplify it for a better understanding:

“47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea [of people], and gathered of every kind [meaning race]: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good [racial kind] into vessels, but cast the bad [racial kind] 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 [the bad racial kind] into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” To take Genesis 1:24-25 out-of-context, and insinuate that God created the nonwhite races, and label them as “good”, is to give license to miscegenation!!!

All throughout Scripture, people are classified in two distinct groups, the righteous and the wicked [whether or not the righteous sin, or the wicked are imagined to do good], the wheat and the tares, sons and bastards, sheep and goats. Once the other races are given legitimacy in this manner, where they are viewed as a separate category within God’s Creation, it must be imagined that they have a legitimate existence as a neutral party in the war between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. We are then found on a slippery slope which does indeed lead to humanizing and then intermingling with them. But in Scripture there never is such a third category, and the other races are only the flood from the mouth of the serpent which persecutes the woman. All those who want to find the non-White races in the Creation of Yahweh are really seeking to find a third category for those races by which to justify their existence, and they are in essence taking the side of the devil. Continuing with Clifton:

We will now return to Alan Campbell’s video where he mistakenly quotes several passages of Scripture, where he inaccurately applies the Chaldean word “chêyvâ”, where it absolutely cannot be found.

Exodus 9:8-9: “8 And Yahweh said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh. 9 And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt.”

Campbell claims that the “beast” of verse 9 is #2423 “chêyvâ”, but rather it is #929, “bhemah”. It really makes me wonder what kind of lexicon he is using, if [he is using] any [lexicon] at all!

Here we see that the errors of Billy Roper and Paul Mullet had originally belonged to Alan Campbell, and these men are merely fools who followed Campbell without checking into his claims. Many others also did this, even Richard Butler. Continuing with Clifton:

He [Campbell] comments thusly on this passage, “Now if you read the account of the plagues, you will find there had already been a plague of cattle sickness. You’ll find God had already cursed the domestic cattle throughout Egypt. Yet here we find another plague which is experienced both by man and by living creatures which take the form of boils.” Then Campbell moves forward to quote Exodus 9:19: “Send therefore now, and gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die.” In this verse, Campbell misidentifies two Hebrew words, “cattle” and “beast”. He makes the erroneous claim that “cattle is “bhemah” #929, whereas it is rather #4735, “miqneh” ... “something bought, i.e. property, but only live stock ...” It is quite evident here that Campbell is trusting his deficient memory rather than taking the time to look up the words and make sure of their Strong’s numbers and meanings. Again, Campbell misidentifies “beast” at verse 19 as #2423 “chêyvâ”, rather than the correct term #929 “bhemah”!

This error on Campbell’s part should never have been made by any honest man. One cannot just guess at the Hebrew word from which any English word of Scripture is translated. The least one can do is check Strong’s Concordance, which is not perfect although in this regard it is usually accurate. Any so-called pastor worth his weight in beef should go to a Hebrew text and check that as well as a Concordance, so that out of the mouth of at least two witnesses, the matter may be established. Returning to Clifton:

Picking up Campbell a little later on his video, he quotes Exodus 19:12-13: “12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: 13 There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast (929) or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.”

Again, the “beast” of Exodus 19:13 is “bhemah” #929, rather than #2423, “chêyvâ”! This is substantial evidence that we are working with an idiom rather than a literal [meaning for this] Hebrew or Chaldean word, and we will see more affirmation of this as we continue with this subject. In fact it will be #929, “bhemah” almost every time we encounter the translated word “beast” on this topic.

To his credit, Campbell comments, “Now you don’t really believe that Moses was saying to the four-footed animals in the camp of Israel; their cattle, their sheep, their goats – Moses really didn’t say to them ‘make sure you don’t put your paws on the mountain or you’re going to be stoned or shot through.’ He didn’t say ‘paws’, the word is ‘hands’. There’s a different word for paws and hooves of animals in your Bibles ... He says, ‘don’t let your own people, Israel, touch the mountain ... and don’t let your beast, your bipedal servants ... touch it either or they will suffer the same punishment’. A dumb animal wouldn’t have understood his instructions. Can you see Moses saying to the goats that are bleating: ‘Don’t you touch that Holy mountain with your paws or you are going to be killed’?”

Campbell consistently points out passages that use behemah while asserting that the word chayah or similar words refer to other races, in a completely dishonest fashion. Furthermore, it is not likely that Israelites had servants at this early time, since they themselves were recently-escaped slaves from Egypt. Rather, I understand this passage to be an allegory in the law preserved for a future time, a type for the later people of Israel. The children of Israel are the true mountain of Yahweh, and any beast which puts a hand on one of them should indeed be put to death.

Paul of Tarsus later quotes this passage, in Hebrews chapter 12, in a way that seems to reveal this meaning. After speaking of the fornication of Esau, he says “18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 19 And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 20 (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) ” Our race still doesn’t understand this. They still cannot endure the commandment which says “if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart”. Returning to Clifton:

The next two passages which Campbell addresses are Exodus 22:19 where they read: “Whosoever lieth with a beast (929) shall surely be put to death”, and Leviticus 20:15-16: “15 And if a man lie with a beast (929), he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast (929). 16 And if a woman approach unto any beast (929), and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast (929): they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” First of all, it should be observed that most all animals have sexual intercourse standing on their feet rather than lying down, so these passages aren’t referring to the animal kingdom! Again, you will notice we are dealing with #929 “bhemah”, rather than #2423, “chêyvâ”, as Campbell inaccurately claims!

I would assert that these passages can refer to either two-legged or four-legged beasts, and the word translated as lying or lie is merely an idiom for the act of sexual intercourse, which Clifton may have realized in other contexts. Returning to Clifton once again:

To Campbell’s credit, he states: “Now these verses are inserted between the commands of other forbidden sexual relationships. Now I know the churches expect you to believe that that refers to some sort of abominable wickedness between humankind and animals. I don’t believe that for a moment! I believe it is describing what the Bible rightly calls adultery. And I don’t equate that with running off with someone else’s wife… it means adulterating or watering down the Holy seedline – the bloodline – crossing the color barrier – crossing the racial line of distinction that God has set – miscegenation – the intermarriage of the races. We read in another portion of Scripture how an Israelite cohabited with an alien woman, and Phinehas ran them through with a spear, and the Bible says ‘... Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace ...’ because he rid the camp of Israel of the sin and the abomination of a mixed-race marriage ... Miscegenation is the sin of the last days of Israel.”

While non-Whites are certainly beasts, even if Yahweh did not create them, if we understand the historical context of the passage it is clearly referring to quadrupeds as well as bipeds, since bestiality certainly was common in the ancient world. It is also quite popular in modern times. Clifton continues:

Campbell takes us next to Jeremiah 31:27 which he describes as “controversial material, even for Identity people”: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. (929)” Here again, contrary to Campbell, it’s #929 “bhemah”, rather than #2423, “chêyvâ”! Although Campbell bases his thesis on the wrong word (which happens to be Chaldee rather than Hebrew), he gets the context right where he states, “What’s God saying? The day will come when Israelites will intermarry with other Adam-kind. There are other people, White people, who aren’t of the seed of Israel. The Israel line is a special line called out of the race of Adam – it’s a godly seedline – it comes on down through Seth, Noah and Shem – and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph – there’s lots of White people out there, and they’re not all [of] that chosen line of Israel. And, God said the Israelites will marry with them – or other Adamic people. But also, I will mix them – I will mingle them – I’ll permit them to be mingled with the descendants of the beasts. What’s God saying? The sin of the last day of the nations of regathered Israel, is the sin of crossing the color line – of mingling of blood – of racial miscegenation – of the cohabiting, I’m not going to call it marriage, but cohabiting – of the White Caucasian Israelitish people with the living creatures – with the beast of the field – with those who are not of the creation of Adam-kind in the first place ...”

Of course, we whole-heartedly agree with Campbell that the beasts of this passage in Jeremiah represent non-White people, as I have already explained earlier. But they are not beasts that Yahweh created, and they are not found in Genesis.

Campbell should be commended for his position on the issue of race. However I would disagree that there are “lots of White people out there” who are not of the seed of Israel, as Israel had come to dominate the old Adamic world rather completely before the time of Christ, and many remnants of the other Genesis 10 nations were overrun with aliens, especially with the rise of Islam. It is evident, however, that there are some other White people in Europe and elsewhere who are not necessarily of Israel, but they are never beasts. Campbell was of the British-Israel persuasion which maintained the error that Germans were Assyrians, and they doubted the Israelite heritage of other European nations. But Clifton seems to ignore this facet of Campbell’s assertions as he continues and responds by saying:

I agree almost wholly with what Campbell is stating here, except [for] his comment [that Israel will be mingled] “with the living creatures”. Actually, these beast-people to whom he refers can only be considered the walking-dead, or zombies, for it was only Adam who received Yahweh’s breath of life, (Genesis 2:7)!

This is absolutely true, so the apostle Jude informs us that the non-Whites among us, which he calls “spots in your feasts of charity”, are “trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots”, and ostensibly they are twice dead because once their bodies die, they have not the Spirit of God by which the Adamic race lives an eternal life. Jude then relates them to the fallen angels by referring to them as “wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever”, where we once again see that Yahweh did not create them. Clifton continues his criticism:

By using the Chaldean (Aramaic) word #2423, “chêyvâ” rather than the correct Hebrew #929 “bhemah”, he acquired a wrong definition from #2423 “chêyvâ” and #2418 châyâh meaning “... to live ...” Many are making a similar mistake by using #2416 “chay” [which is found] at Genesis 1:24, as it also has the definition of “alive” [, and imagining that is the word which describes the creation of the other races]. Paul made this [distinction between Adamic man and the other races] very clear at Romans 8:11 where he wrote: “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Yahshua from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Such people who are void of the breath of life breathed into Adam, when they die, they are considered “twice dead”, [in] Jude 12. The first stage is the walking dead, and the second stage is the second death, [which is referred to in] Revelation 2:11; 20:14 & 21:8. Therefore [the phrase] “living creatures” does not describe the nonwhite races, for all the non-Adamic peoples are the spawn of Satan (serpent-seed)! Campbell couldn’t be more wrong when he stated, “God created the negroids and mongolians for a purpose – for His own glory.” They are rather fallen angel-kind mixed with animal-kind! ([Here Clifton cites] “The Book Of Giants”, [from] The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr. and Edward Cook, on page 247, a translation of 1Q23, fragments 1 + 6).

Campbell takes us next to Exodus 23:29: “I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast(2416) of the field multiply against thee.”

Campbell is wrong on two counts at the above passage. (1) He believes the “beast” at Exodus 23:29 are the other races, and (2) he claims the word is #2423, “chêyvâ”, but it is not. It is #2416 “chay”. This is very important, as there are others beside Campbell who are attempting to bring in negroes and mongols under Yahweh’s creation at Genesis 1:24-25 with the Hebrew word #2416 “chay”. But now we have prime evidence that #2416 “chay” at Gen. 1:24 simply means wild animals as it also means at Exodus 23: 29! For documentation on this, I will cite the Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, vol. 1 of 6, pages 376-377 on Exodus 23:29.

The people who argue that the “beast of the field” are the non-White races often go overboard and insist that the idiom is meant in passages where the Scripture is actually referring to mere four-legged animals. One thing that they miss when they assess Exodus 23:29 is that the people being driven out incrementally “lest… the beast of the field multiply against thee” were not White! They were mixed-race Canaanites, and therefore they would also be beasts! So the “beast of the field” must have referred to four-legged animals and other critters, and not to hominids. Furthermore, there is no supporting archaeological or literary evidence that negros or Chinamen were found in the land of Canaan in any significant numbers at this time, and most probably they were not found there at all. So this passage cannot have anything to do with non-Whites.

Continuing, Clifton citing this commentary on Exodus 23:29 advises his readers to:

Notice the description of the “beast” given here:

“... We can make nothing out of this description, unless by sea is meant the Dead Sea, into which the Jordan empties itself. On this view the Canaanite inhabited the southeastern extremity of Palestine west of the Jordan. Apart from this, it is but natural to suppose that the reason of the association of these three tribes is, that the part inhabited by the Canaanite was also a wild and dangerous region. Now, look at the northern extremity of Palestine, with its mountains forming the southern ridges of the Lebanon range, which are even at the present day full of the haunts, of the buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena the ounce [a sort of snow leopard], lion, bear, tiger, leopard, lynx, and serpents, vipers, scorpions, centipedes, the tarantulas, the hornet, and the wasp. Look again at the southern part of Palestine, with its road from Jerusalem to Jericho – a road which travellers unite in depicting in the most gloomy hues, as a ‘wild and melancholy region.’ The aspect of the whole of it is said to be ‘peculiarly savage and dreary, vying in this respect with the wilds of Sinai,’ The wilderness of Judea is full of extensive caverns, in which David wandered about. It is the region of which, so late as in the time of Christ, ‘wild beasts’ are spoken of as inhabitants (Mark i. 13). Further to the south is Idumea, with the great Eastern desert, to name which is enough for present purposes. Now, in the historical account of the occupation of these localities there is no instance detailed of overrunning by wild beasts having really occurred; and it must be considered, therefore, that the pre-arrangement described in this passage, as to the gradual dispossession of the native tribes, is a beautiful illustration of the minute care Jehovah took of His chosen people.

One mistake these commentators made is to assume that the condition of the land, the flora and fauna, was not necessarily the same today – or in the 19th century when our article was written – as it was in 1450 BC at the time of Joshua, or two thousand years ago at the time of Christ. The condition of the land has certainly changed over the centuries, and therefore the speculation over the vicinity in which these events took place is not necessarily valid.

Now, we saw Clifton had a few seeming inaccuracies in this citation, evidently caused by the process of scanning and using a software program to recognize the text, along with a failure to catch all the errors in the editing process. So I went to his bookshelves to look for the original source, and all I found was A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. Why Clifton said this was from the Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible is beyond me, as that is a separate work and I do not find it on our bookshelves. But the citation was on the page that he cited, in A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, Clifton is not around to answer the question. Now Clifton responds to the commentary in regard to Exodus 23:29 and says:

Did you notice the kind of “beast” that occupied Palestine? Although Campbell’s premises are quite good on the “beast of the field”, he is wanting in much of his research. There is positively no way that the “beast” mentioned at Exodus 23:29 could be negroes. Also, there is absolutely no way that the “beast” mentioned at Genesis 1:24 could be negroes or mongoloids or any other nonwhite race.

Clifton is absolutely correct. Both words for beast in this passage are from the Hebrew word chay and simply refer in general to wild animal creatures, such as rodents, large cats, or any other sort of furry critters. The conclusion Clifton makes is also excellent. If chay refers to furry critters in Exodus 23:29, and it certainly does, then it must refer to the same type of critters in Genesis 1:24-25. Now he concludes:

Since Mark 1:13 is cited above, we need to read that one too: “And he (Christ) was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.” So now we have the required two Biblical witnesses we need to establish a matter, but do we have a third as recommended by Deuteronomy 19:15? Yes we do. We find our third testimony at 2 Kings 17:25-26. The 17th chapter of 2 Kings addresses the second of three deportations of Israelites from Samaria of the northern kingdom by Assyria under king Shalmaneser. After king Shalmaneser had deported the greater part of them, he repopulated Samaria with aliens. (Read 2 Kings 17:24-26!) Verse 26 states: “Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.” This is proof positive that the “chay”, translated “beast” of Genesis 1:24 and Exodus 23:29, is speaking of wild animals such as buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena, lion, bear, tiger, leopard & lynx rather than the nonwhite races! The “beast” at Gen. 1:24 typifies wild animals, not the nonwhite races!

As we have often attested, there is no evidence in Genesis that Yahweh created non-White races, and the words of Christ in the Gospels and the Revelation preclude the idea entirely.

We will commence with part 2 of this series, Yahweh willing, from Bristol Tennessee next Friday evening.