Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 2

Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 2

I have seen many people scoff at Identity Christians simply because of the disagreement which those who label themselves as “Christian Identity” have with one another on a multitude of Biblical topics. We have the benefit of a creed with no pope, no bishops, no ecumenical councils, and few organized assemblies. But what we have in place of those things are ten thousand would-be popes, bishops and council leaders. If we are ever going to overcome the world, we all need to get on the same page, but the only legitimate page to be on is that which has written upon it the Word of God. True Christian humility is a willingness to agree with the Word of God, and be able to come to an agreement with one another based upon the Word of God. But instead of humble men we have innovators, who would pervert the Word of God for their own agenda.

When someone insists that non-White races of so-called people are described as having been created by Yahweh on the sixth day of Genesis as beasts under the label of chay or chayah, and then every single Biblical example that they bring forth from the Old Testament in order to prove their point has the word beast from the Hebrew word behemah rather than chay or chayah, it should be perfectly evident that there is an agenda, and no care for truth. As we demonstrated last week in Part 1 of this series, that is what Allen Campbell had done, nearly twenty years ago, and Eli James, Billy Roper, Paul Mullet and a thousand other clowns have followed him. But following him, they evidently never even picked up so much as a Strong's Concordance, which is a fifteen dollar book, in order to see whether he was right.

The truth is that Yahweh did not create any of the non-White races of so-called people. They are all corruptions of His Creation, and the Scripture is replete with the proofs of that statement. For instance, Christ had said, in Matthew chapter 15, that “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Both Luke and Matthew record similar words from John the Baptist where he said “10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Neither men were really referring to trees, but rather they were referring to races of people. Races of people which were not planted by Yahweh are destined for the fire.

So in the parable of the sheep and the goat nations, we see that all nations are separated into two groups, and they are separated on sight, “as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats”. Throughout Scripture, we are informed that the children of Israel are the sheep of Yahweh's pasture, and that all Israel shall be saved. So all the sheep are placed at the right hand of the shepherd, destined for eternal life. Some commentators protest that the goats are judged to be goats by their behavior, but they are missing an important aspect of the words of Christ when they make such a determination. Yahshua informed us that the goats would be judged according to how they treated the sheep, and not how they act towards one another. Without exception, all goats are set on the left hand, judged to be cursed, and destined for the “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”.

At this point, even many Christian Identity commentators seek to find the magic negro, who apparently treated White people very well and lived a good life. This is utter foolishness. Yahweh does not judge by the measure of men. If the negro were really a good negro, he would have killed himself before he was born, so that he could never even come into contact with the children of Israel, as Yahweh Himself insists that His people be holy and separate. So the magic negro is even more of a sinner than the negro who despises Whites, who at least follows his own nature.

Many other commentators insist that only the Jews are the tares of the parable, and other races are neutral parties in the Gospel. But when Christ explained the parable of the wheat and the tares, He did not say “the field is Judaea”. Rather, He said in Matthew 13:38: “The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one...” So the field is the entire world, which is the Greco-Roman world, or society, of that time. In it were the children of Israel, in their many nations descended from Abraham, and many other and mixed races, as places which had already long been overrun by Canaanites or mixed with Nubians, such as Arabia, Ethiopia and Egypt, were also a part of the world of the Gospel. So the concept of a tare in the parable cannot be limited to the Jew. It must include all other races, as none of the other races can find their origin in Genesis, and they must all fall under the description of the flood emanating from the mouth of the serpent, the nations of the four corners of the earth which Satan gathers against the Camp of the Saints.

We must be wary of all of these clowns who seek to twist Scripture in order to justify the existence of the non-White races, because in effect they are advancing the cause of that Satan. There is no justification for non-White races in Scripture. They are only “natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed”, for the very reason that they were not created by Yahweh, so they were never considered to be good.

Now we shall present Part 2 of Clifton Emahiser's series:

IDENTIFYING THE “BEAST OF THE FIELD”, #2

Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries

In part #1 of this series, I took to task a video presentation by Allen Campbell of Belfast, Ireland entitled Who Are The Beast Of The Field? I’m not sure how long ago he addressed this subject, but it was announced that the video was being distributed by The National Video Network of Phoenix, Arizona, and I suspect that it has been circulating for several years. In general, I don’t have a great problem with Campbell’s premise, but I am very ill-at-ease, as he used Hebrew words that were not in the Scriptural passages he cited.

Where he said that he had no problem with Campbell's premise, what Clifton meant was that he, and myself also, would agree that non-White races are beasts. But they are not the beast of Yahweh's Creation. Just because they may e the subject of certain Scriptures which refer to such beasts does not mean that Yahweh created them. It only means that the term beast may describe them. They are not men, and Peter referred to them as “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed”, but Yahweh created nothing which has no purpose but to be destroyed. Clifton continues:

About five years ago, around 2005, I had another run-in with a man named Campbell on this subject, and his name [was] Don Campbell, [of] Pipestone, Minnesota. Don is since deceased, but I will never forget his irrational supposition that the nonwhite races were created by God at Genesis 1:24-25.

I do not know if I should even mention this, but I remember Clifton telling me of a visit Don Campbell made to his home in Ohio. Clifton had shown Don some of his books, and a few minutes later Don was walking out of the house with them to put them in his car. Clifton told me that he demanded the books returned, and Don mentioning something about a misunderstanding. When I moved Clifton's library last year, I did notice a few books which he often cited were missing, so I am certain things like this happened more than once. Continuing with Clifton:

Had Don ever read the Charles Thomson version of The Septuagint on Genesis 1:24-25, he could not have made that error! Here it is:

“[24] Then God said, ‘Let the earth produce animal life according to kind; four-footed beasts and reptiles and wild beasts of the earth according to kind.’ And it was so. [25] God indeed made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to kind. And God saw that they were good.” There is absolutely nothing here about creating the nonwhite races!

This English translation of the Septuagint Bible was made by Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress of the United States, and one of the founding fathers of his country. On this translation, Thomson, one of the great Greek scholars of his time, a friend of Franklin, Washington and Jefferson, devoted twenty years of his life, from his sixtieth to his eightieth year. The Thomson Bible was first published in 1808. Although Thomson’s translation comes highly recommended, I still wanted to consult with another Greek authority on Genesis 1:24-25!

For this I used the Libronix Digital Library [an early version of what is now called the Logos Bible Software], opening up the Nestle Septuaginta - Morphologically Tagged Edition to Genesis 1:24-25 which was all in Greek. To get the correct definition for each Greek word, I first highlighted and right-clicked on a word, and then several options appeared, whereupon I chose “Display Information”. For the English words “beast” the Greek was “τετράποδα” and then “θηρία” and the definitions given by Liddell & Scott [which is also included] in Libronix were “four-footed ... a quadruped” and “a wild animal, beast”. For the English word “cattle”, the Greek was “κτήνη” and the definition given by Libronix was “flocks and herds ... in sing. a single beast, as an ox or sheep ... a beast for riding”. Therefore, there are absolutely no Greek words in these two verses to indicate the creation of the nonwhite races! To make this clear, I will amplify it thusly:

“[24] Then God said, ‘Let the earth produce animal life according to kind; four-footed beasts (‘τετράποδα’ fourfooted ... a quadruped’) and reptiles and wild beasts (‘θηρία’ ‘a wild animal, beast’) of the earth according to kind.’ And it was so. [25] God indeed made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle (‘κτήνη’ flocks and herds) according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to kind. And God saw that they were good.”

While Charles Thomson’s work in the Greek is quite excellent, The Complete Bible by Smith & Goodspeed is a good reference Bible when a passage is in question. While it is referred to as Smith & Goodspeed, the Pentateuch was actually translated by Theophile J. Meek, who along with Leroy Waterman, produced a translation from the Hebrew of Genesis 1:24-25 very much like what Charles Thomson rendered from the Greek. So what we have here are two different parties translating from two different languages at two different time periods coming up with similar results:

“24 Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the various kinds of living creatures, the various kinds of domestic animals, reptiles, and wild beasts of the earth!’ 25 And so it was. God made the various kinds of wild beasts of the earth, the various kinds of domestic animals, and all the various kinds of land reptiles; and God saw that it was good.” As anyone can see, there is absolutely nothing here about God creating the nonwhite races!

If for nothing else, the Septuagint is important to understand how Hebrew readers of the third century before Christ understood the language. However tracing the words throughout the rest of the Scripture, from Moses through the Prophets, τετράποδα, θηρία and κτήνη in Greek, as well as the terms chay erets and behemah in the Hebrew, are all used frequently to refer to animals, wild or domestic. Let us examine just a few passages:

1 Samuel 17:46 This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth (chay erets); that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.

Isaiah 18:6: “They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains, and to the beasts of the earth: and the fowls shall summer upon them, and all the beasts of the earth (behemah erets) shall winter upon them.”

Jeremiah 7:33: “And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth (behemah erets); and none shall fray them away.”

Jeremiah 34:20: “I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life: and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth (behemah erets).”

Ezekiel 32:4: “Then will I leave thee upon the land, I will cast thee forth upon the open field, and will cause all the fowls of the heaven to remain upon thee, and I will fill the beasts of the whole earth (chay … erets) with thee.”

Ezekiel 38:20: “So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field (chay sadeh), and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.”

Hosea 2:18: “And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field (chay sadeh), and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.”

There are many other passages in Scripture where the context certainly informs us that wild or domestic four-legged animals are being referred to by the words or phrases behemah, behemah erets, chay erets, chay sadeh, and other similar variations of the same. Where in these passages we have seen them mentioned alongside the “fowls of heaven”, they must be referring to common furry critters, and not to hominids, lest such critters are not mentioned in Scripture at all.

Now Clifton adds the testimony of yet another interpreter:

Yet another witness is at Josephus’ Antiquities 1.1.1, which reads [in part]: “On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man.” Please notice here that Josephus mentions absolutely nothing concerning God creating the nonwhite races in Genesis chapter one!

Another source on this passage, which some might frown [up]on, but really shouldn’t, as it comes from the same Masoretic Text as does the King James Version of the Bible, is The Holy Scriptures as printed and distributed by the Jewish Publication Society of America. Yes, the Canaanite-jews have the Old Testament in their possession! The point isn’t the fact that they have it, but how they interpret it! Here it is:

“24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so. 25. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind; and God saw that it was good.”

Like Charles Thomson’s Septuagint, the Masoretic Text makes it very clear that the “chayah” of Gen. 1:24-25 are of three categories, (1 cattle, (2 creeping things, and (3 beasts. Those who promote that the “chayah” of this passage represent the nonwhite races divide these as, (1 cattle, (2 the nonwhite races, and (3 reptiles. They insist that the “living creature” of verse 24 (King James Version) represent the nonwhite races only, while the “chayah” of Gen. 1:24-25 actually represent (1 cattle, (2 creeping things, and (3 beasts. Even a careful reading of the King James Version on Gen. 1:24 will verify this, and I will insert the numbers for them:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, (1 cattle, and (2 creeping thing, and (3 beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” In other words (1 domestic cattle, (2 reptiles, and (3 wild beast! Actually, what the errant “chay-people” overlook is the fact that there are two words numbered [by Strong's under] 2416 [chay] in Gen. 1:24 thusly: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living 2416 [chay] creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast 2416 [chay] of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

For the reader’s convenience, I will repeat this verse slightly enlarged with the Hebrew inserted in parentheses:

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living (חיה) creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast (וחיתו) of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

The reader will notice immediately here that the Hebrew characters are not exactly alike, although they are both listed by Strong under the number 2416. Let’s place these enlarged side by side:

H-#1 (חיה) H-#2 (וחיתו)

Here Clifton compares two words, labeling them H-#1 and H-#2. The first is the plain form of the word chay. The second is also chay but it is both preceded and followed by the Hebrew letter vav (ו). As a prefix this letter serves as a conjunction, but as a suffix it has several other grammatical uses, including that of a pronoun. So he continues in reference to his reproduction of these words as they appear in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:24:

For anyone who might believe this is incorrect, please check with Jay P. Green’s, The Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic Old Testament, volume 1 of 4. The people who demand that the Hebrew #2416 is the creation of the nonwhite races fail to designate which of the two words above establishes such proof! In other words, is it the “living creatures” who are the nonwhite races or is it the “beast”? It is obvious that it can’t be both! So, is their research valid or flawed?

Clifton's argument certainly has merit. Allen Campbell and those who follow him make the assertion that chay, or chayah, is a technical term referring to bipeds, hominids, of non-White races, but this is an obvious fallacy once the words are thoroughly examined. Now Clifton continues in reference to the archaic forms of pronouns found in the King James Version, which also often cause confusion for modern readers:

Had the King James Version used the word “their” instead of “his”, as did the Jewish [Publication Society Of America's translation of the] Masoretic Text, there would be no problem. You will notice that Smith & Goodspeed rendered the word as “various” rather than the King James Version's “his”, making it plural rather than singular! Read the King James Version again, and you will notice that “his” equals, (1 cattle..., (2 creeping things, and (3 beast (the three being plural)! You will also notice that Charles Thomson’s version of The Septuagint rendered it “their kind”, in verse 25, and therefore plural, which equals “four-footed beasts and reptiles and wild beasts.” Thus, “living creatures” is plural inasmuch as it is an adjective describing in Gen. 1:24 three categories of living entities: (1 cattle, (2 reptiles, and (3 wild animals! In other words; the “cattle” are living creatures; the “reptiles” are living creatures; and the “wild animals” are living creatures!

So we see again, Genesis 1:24-25 has absolutely nothing to do with God creating the nonwhite races. In fact, there is absolutely no record in the entire Bible that the nonwhite races were created! We do, however, have a prophecy of their demise at Matt. 13:47-50!

Here Clifton once again cites the Parable of the Net: “47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every 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.” The word for kind here is genos, which is race. So there are two kinds of races, one good, and one bad. But Yahweh created nothing bad, so the bad can only be a corruption of His Creation, falling into that category of the tares planted by the devil in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in that same chapter of Matthew, and “every tree” which He did not plant in Matthew chapter 15. Returning to Clifton, he again discusses the two forms of the word chay found in Genesis 1:24:

H-#1. Inasmuch as we are dealing with two different forms of the word “chay” (or sometimes “chayah”) in Gen. 1:24-25, we will have to consider them separately: Of the 592 times that the Hebrew word # 2416 “chay” or “chayah” is found in the Old Testament, a string search in [the] Bible Works [software program] shows the following passages to be identical to H-#1 in Genesis 1:24, translated as “living creature”. Of these 592 times only 22 are exact contextual matches: Gen. 1:20, 24, 28, 30; 2:7, 19; 9:5, 12, 15, 16; 18:10, 14; 37:20, 33; Lev. 5:2: 17:13; 26:6; 2 Ki. 4:16, 17; Job 37:8; Eze. 14:15; 34:25. [Here Clifton listed 22 passages from Genesis, Leviticus, 2 Kings, Job and Ezekiel, and says:] I will cite a few of these which are significant:

Gen. 1:30: “And to every beast (2416 חיה) of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

Comment: Here, God is dividing His “living creature” creation into three categories: (1 animal, (2 fowl, and (3 reptile, and the “beast” at this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the nonwhite races!

Gen. 2:7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living (2416 חיה) soul.”

This verse is a reiteration of Gen. 1:27 with greater detail. Here # 2416 “life” does not match Gen. 1:24, but “living” does. The nonwhites have not the “breath of life”, therefore they have not a “living soul”, hence they are spiritually dead, or zombies!

What Clifton is saying is that the word living in Genesis 2:7 is an exact match for chay as it appears in Hebrew in Genesis 1:24. But the word for life in Genesis 2:7 is also chay, but spelled with a slight variation which Clifton may not have noticed. Moving on to his next example:

Gen. 2:19: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living (2416 חיה) creature, that was the name thereof.”

Comment: Here the Hebrew word # 2416 “beast” does not match Gen. 1:24, but “living” does. As at Gen. 1:24-25, this verse is also speaking of animals and birds as “living things”, and has nothing to do with the nonwhite races!

Actually, once again the word “beast” here is from a variant spelling of the word chay, which Clifton missed. Clifton wrote this, as he said, doing a string search for an exact letter sequence. However the words he overlooked only strengthen his arguments! If chay refers to non-White races, then even the Adam of Genesis 2:7, of whom the word chay is used twice, must be non-White! It is not true that Adam was a non-White, so it is not true that chay refers specifically to non-White races! This is the confusion sown by clowns pretending to understand Hebrew, when in reality they only devised a lie so that they could include non-White races into the Creation of Yahweh, where they certainly do not belong! Clifton's next example:

Gen. 9:5: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand (3027) of every beast (2416 חיה) will I require it, and at the hand (3027) of man (120); at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man (120).”

Comment: The Hebrew word # 2416 “beast” of this verse is speaking specifically of an animal that might kill an Adamite (120), which must be put to death, although it surely would include an idiomatic “beast (929) of the field” [a non-White being referred to as a beast, as a pejorative]! Likewise, it is also speaking of an Adamite who might kill another Adamite! Although the Hebrew word # 3027 Yâd is translated 1359 times as “hand”, there are a host of other renderings such as “power” or “force”. Surely there are other parts of the body that could inflict death other than the hand!

The fools who claim that only hominid beasts could have hands overlook the fact that the word yâd, as Clifton points out here, certainly has a multitude of other meanings in various contexts. It can refer to any portion or part of a thing, including parts of animals. It can even refer to a portion of land. Therefore the appearance of the word here is not proof that the beasts in question must be bipeds. Continuing with Clifton's next example:

Gen. 9:12: “And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living (2416 חיה) creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:”

Comment: Should one insist that חיה means the creation of the nonwhite races at Gen. 1:24, then it would imply that Yahweh must include the nonwhite races under all of His covenants!

Actually, that could only include the terms of the covenant made with Noah. Returning to Clifton:

Gen. 9:15: “And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living (2416 חיה) creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.”

Comment: This promise is directed only to Noah and his three sons, not the nonwhite races! So “every living (2416 חיה) creature” must mean something else, or we would be speaking of eating negroids or mongoloids as food, (Gen. 9:3 “... be meat for you ...”)!

Clifton refers back to Genesis 9:3 where Yahweh stated to Noah: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” There the word for liveth is chay, and therefore chay in these passages cannot refer to non-White races. He continues:

Gen. 9:16: “And the [rain]-bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living (2416 חיה) creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

Comment: Once more, this is a promise by Yahweh never again to destroy Adam-man along with animal, bird and reptile! The nonwhite races are doomed to destruction at Matt. 13:47-50! [The “bad” kind in the Parable of the Net, which we have already discussed.]

Gen. 18:10: “And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life (2416 חיה); and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.”

Comment: Certainly there is absolutely no reason here to explain that the Hebrew word “life (2416 חיה)” has anything to do with the nonwhite races. Nor does it have at Gen. 1:24!

Gen. 18:14: “Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life (2416 חיה), and Sarah shall have a son.”

Comment: Again, what does Sarah’s “time of life” have to do with the nonwhite races?

Gen. 37:20: “Come now therefore, and let us slay him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast (2416 חיה) hath devoured him: and we shall see what will become of his dreams.”

Comment: It surely would be silly here to blame the nonwhite races for killing Joseph rather than a wild animal! It would be just as foolish to apply the Hebrew word 2416 חיה to mean the nonwhite races at Gen. 1:24!

Gen. 37:33: “And he (Jacob) knew it, and said, It is my son’s coat; an evil beast (2416 חיה) hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.”

Comment: Are we to believe that Jacob didn’t know the difference between a wild animal and the nonwhite races? Had it been a man of another race, such a one would have taken the coat from Joseph before killing him, not leaving the coat behind as evidence of the crime!

Lev. 5:2: “Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast (2416 חיה), or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.”

Comment: From these instructions, it is quite clear that God is dividing the dead “unclean thing” into three categories: (1 domesticated animals, (2 wild animals, and (3 reptiles. It really would be an insult to these animals and reptiles to compare them with the nonwhite races!

Lev. 17:13: “And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast (2416 חיה) or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.”

Comment: All those who still want to insist that “(beast 2416 חיה)” means the creation of the nonwhite races at Gen. 1:24, need to start bleeding out all of those unclean non-whites quite well before cooking and eating them! If it were a turkey, one would place it upside-down in a funnel to minimize its fluttering, and cut off its head!

Here, with the dispensation of the law, we see that the children of Israel may eat beasts called chay. Therefore, as Clifton asserts, there is no grounds for claiming that the word chay is a technical term for non-White hominids, as so many fools calling themselves Identity Christians do claim. Clifton continues with his examples and cites:

Lev. 26:6: “And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts (2416 חיה) out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.”

Comment: The context at this passage is that if Israel would keep all of Yahweh’s commandments, they would have rain and the produce of their crops would be protected. One such way would be to keep away all the ravaging animals that would consume the year’s food supply. Again, this Hebrew word (חיה) has absolutely nothing to do with creating the nonwhite races!

2 Ki. 4:16: “And he said, About this season, according to the time of life (2416 חיה), thou shalt embrace a son. And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid.”

Comment: This woman’s “time of life 2416” (חיה), like Sarah’s had absolutely nothing to do with the supposed creation of the nonwhite races at Gen. 1:24!

Now, some of Clifton's examples are nonsense for reason that he is demonstrating that very thing, that those who claim that chay, or chayah, or any phrase containing those words is a specific reference to non-White hominids are spouting nothing but nonsense! Again he continues:

2 Ki. 4:17: “And the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season that Elisha had said unto her, according to the time of life (2416 חיה).”

Comment: Again, I have to ask, What does this woman’s “time of life” have to do with the origin of the nonwhite races?

Job 37:8: “Then the beasts (2416 חיה) go into dens, and remain in their places.”

Comment: If these beasts have dens, so do the beasts of Gen. 1:24!

Eze. 14:15: “If I cause noisome beasts (2416 חיה) to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:”

Comment: This is proof positive that the “chayah” of Genesis 1:24 is speaking of wild animals such as buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena, lion, bear, tiger, leopard & lynx, rather than the nonwhite races!)

Here Clifton refers to his citation in Part 1 of this series, where the commentary on Exodus 23:29 found in the 19th-century work of Jamieson, Fausset & Brown informs us that by the phrase “beast of the field”, or chay erets, must be meant animals such as the buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena, lion, bear, tiger, leopard & lynx. Now for his next example:

Eze. 34:25: “And I will make with them a covenant of peace, and will cause the evil beasts (2416 חיה) to cease out of the land: and they shall dwell safely in the wilderness, and sleep in the woods.”

Comment: Here in the 34th chapter, Ezekiel looks down the corridors of time and prophesies against Israel’s pastors and compares them to “evil beasts” who feed themselves rather than feeding Yahweh’s Israel sheep. This is the literal situation we are experiencing at our present day. This is the exact same Hebrew word as used at Genesis 1:24, describing our present pastors as wild beasts who rend and plunder the flock. Instead of wild animals such as buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena, lion, bear, tiger, leopard & lynx, metaphorically we have vicious pastors who prey like wild animals on the Israel sheep! Surely, to describe this fiasco in any other manner such as “the other races” would be highly misleading! The topic of “the other races” is very serious and must be addressed in its proper context, as the nonwhite races are a mixture of fallen angel-kind and animal-kind!

Clifton is done making examples of the first, simple form of the word chay found in Genesis 1:24. Now he will turn to speak of the form of the word which is both prefixed and suffixed with the letter vav, which is also found in that passage of Genesis:

This pretty well covers all the various shades of meaning where H-#1 (חיה) appears in Scripture. Let’s now take a look at two examples where H-#2 (וחיתו) appears. This won’t take very long as this same exact Hebrew word can only be found at Gen. 1:24; Job 33:18, 22 and Isa. 40:16 when doing a string search in Bible Works.

Clifton will not mention Job 33:18 and 22 here. In those passages, the Hebrew וחיתו is translated as a phrase, “and his life”, the first vav serving as a conjunction, and the last vav as a pronoun. So he concludes first by repeating Genesis 1:24 to show the use of וחיתו in that passage:

Gen. 1:24: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast (2416 וחיתו) of the earth after his kind: and it was so.”

Finally, Clifton concludes with his last example and exclaims:

Now let Isaiah 40:16 speak for itself:

“And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts (2416 וחיתו) thereof sufficient for a burnt offering.”

The 40th chapter of [Isaiah] is written in allegory, showing how insignificant man is compared to Yahweh. At verse 13, the question is asked: Who did Yahweh either need or take to advise Him in any of His works, either of creation or His government of the world? Verse 16 is simply stating that there isn’t enough forests for fuel or enough BEASTS in Lebanon to supply sacrifices worthy of the glory of Yahweh! In this case 2416, “beast” represents animal sacrifices, not the nonwhite races! How absurd [it is] to declare otherwise!

And this is absolutely true. There is no way that the word chay in Isaiah 40:16 refers to anything but the living creatures which the Israelites were accustomed to sacrificing, which are clean animals. Therefore, there is no way that anyone can claim that any occurrence of the word chay is a technical term for any non-White hominids! Anyone who has made that claim should be ashamed and repent, because there are no niggers in Genesis!