Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 4

Although the planned League of the South demonstrations that were scheduled for the 29th at Sycamore Shoals State Park in Tennessee have been canceled, Melissa and I have come to the area anyway, as in our plans to attend the event we made other commitments which we wanted to keep. So this presentation is being prerecorded Friday afternoon for tonight's program and publication at Christogenea. I hope to write about the cancelled event and the implications of that cancellation in the weeks to come. The State of Tennessee has made itself an agent of the Antifa.

Identifying the Biblical “Beast of the Field”, Part 4

In my presentation from chapter 2 of the Gospel of John which I made here last week, which was subtitled Challenging Orthodoxy, I strongly criticized the so-called “Church Father” who is popularly known as John Chrysostom. Some people, mostly Orthodox Christians, took offense to that. They should be ashamed. They simply do not understand that their “Church Fathers” are not God, but men. Yahweh our God cannot righteously be criticized. Jesus, or Yahshua Christ, who is God Incarnate, cannot righteously be criticized. His chosen apostles were mere men and each had their faults, but their message, which is directly from Him, should not be criticized. But whenever we elevate a man to that level of veneration by which the man cannot be criticized, we engage in idolatry. I will not engage in or be subject to Orthodox or Roman Catholic idolatry.

One vocal complainant told me that I should repent for “attacking” his idol, Chrysostom. But he did not address any of the substance of my criticism. This is typical of idolaters. So I asked him, and several others like him, which of the Ante-Nicene “Church Fathers” is it that Orthodoxy follows completely, and none of them have answered. I do not believe they will answer, because it can be demonstrated that they will be found to have denied the very men upon which they claim to have their theological foundations.

Identity Christians worship Christ and believe the words of His apostles and prophets. But Orthodox Christians claim an authority for “tradition” and “Church Fathers” whom we see as mere men. We can cite them where they elucidate early Christian history, and we can discuss their attitudes on many subjects. But we cannot venerate them as gods, and we cannot view them as having been infallible – especially since they often disagree with one another. The Word of God is our authority, as the Scriptures themselves tell us, and not any traditions of men. The beginning of tyranny is the desire to rule over another man's faith, and we have a Christian duty to resist such tyranny, for that the early martyrs had died.

Now we shall present Part 4 of Clifton Emahiser's series of essays Identifying the Beast of the Field. Before I begin, I will only explain that in the past, many Identity Christians have followed the mistaken belief that the non-White races were created by Yahweh God as the so-called “beast of the field” or “beast of the earth” in Genesis. Many so-called Identity teachers have labelled them after the Hebrew phrase chay erets for that reason.

Clifton disproved that hypothesis by going through and examining all of the occurrences of that Hebrew phrase in Scripture, and finding that it almost always referred to wild animals. Furthermore Clifton examined all of the verses of the Old Testament where the term beast appears to refer to people, and found that the Hebrew word is always behemah, a word which is also very frequently and very clearly used to describe beasts of burden, such as oxen or camels. This is true even where certain Identity teachers of the past claimed that the term was chay erets, but where the Hebrew term was actually behemah.

The result of this research is that no single Hebrew term exclusively describes non-White races, and as a result there is no record that they were ever created by Yahweh. Both Clifton and I have for many years illustrated from the parables and the Revelation of Yahshua Christ that they were certainly not created by Yahweh. Rather, in some instances, beast and other terms were used at various times as pejoratives in order to refer to non-White races, but they are certainly not technical biological labels. The Scripture leaves us no such labels for non-Whites, except in the nuances of meaning in some of the words translated as stranger. But even they were not used consistently when we compare Moses and Ezra, or the books of the Chronicles, which were written a thousand years after Moses. Once we all understand all of this, our Christian Identity position in regard to non-Whites can rest on a solid Biblical foundation.

Now, in part 3 of this series, Clifton had shown, from an article discussing the transgression of Genesis chapter 3 which is in Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, that “devil” and “ape” were called by the same term in Arabic. Resorting to Arabic is not entirely out of line in this instance, as our knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic are incomplete, and Arabic was derived from Aramaic, or from older variations which are closely related to both Hebrew and Aramaic.

In this regard, I concluded that: “The original Arab tribes were White Shemites and Hamites, who became mingled with one another, and with the apparently White Canaanite bastards in the lands to the east and south of the Israelites. They only became brown later in their history as they mingled in turn with other, non-White races. It is very likely that they, or the original authors of the language they maintained, had later equated apes to devils and satyrs simply because they understood that the ape-like non-Adamic races were devils and satyrs, which are hybrid human-animal creatures from Greek mythology. Since the word satyr has a Hebrew origination, it is all the more likely that this is true. So for that reason, the Arabic word khanas can describe either an ape or a devil.”

Clifton then cited the Enoch literature found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to establish the fact that the so-called “fallen angels” had indeed corrupted the Creation of Yahweh in prehistoric times, and we would assert that to be the origin of the non-White races. With that, we will proceed with the next part of Clifton's series:

IDENTIFYING THE “BEAST OF THE FIELD”, #4

In [the first three parts] of this series, I have addressed the misapplication of the Hebrew word #2416 “chay”, where some apply it to Gen. 1:24-25 to mean the origin of the nonwhite races! Others misapply Strong’s #2423 “chêyvâ”, a Chaldean word not found anywhere in the Bible other than the book of Daniel, to mean the origin of the nonwhite races. Neither of these theories are correct, as a better case can be made that #929, “bhemah”, (a four-footed/quadruped) is idiomatic for (a two-legged/biped creature) or “beast of the field”. Some may argue that #929, “bhemah”, (a four- footed/quadruped) cannot apply to (a two-legged/ biped). But I will show evidence that there are specimens of ape-men that can walk both as a four-footed/ quadruped or a two-legged/biped.

Here I would assert that the counter-argument dissolves in the simple fact that names of animals are often used in Scripture as pejorative labels for people, even for Adamic and Israelite people. However Clifton's argument presents other interesting facts and perspectives. Continuing:

The first one that I would bring to the reader’s attention is Oliver, the chimpanzee, who many claim is a “humanzee” – half-human and half-ape! The case of Oliver has appeared several times on television and is now posted on several websites on the Internet. I have my own personal VHS tape of the Oliver story. It is my opinion that Oliver is a genetic throwback of the angels that sinned when they mixed their genetics with the ape-family of animals, or as we would refer to them today as “the beast of the field”, or the nonwhite races. To establish some credibility for this scenario, let’s take a look at some scientific evidence from the Internet [Strangely, Clifton did not cite here the website article from which this came, and I cannot find an exact match today - WRF]:

“... The trip to Japan was a turning point for Oliver because even though his owner was told it was going to be for scientific purposes, it was clear that the Japanese media wanted to portray Oliver for entertainment. In a show that grabbed in almost 26 million viewers, Oliver was put through a set of very simple tests conducted on him. A test looking for the centre of gravity in Oliver concluded that he was more human than ape.

I must say that the eavaluations of Oliver are very controversial, and the nature of the beast is still argued in social media, and even in institutions such as Stanford University. Continuing with Clifton:

“Another test on the chromosomes concluded he had 47 chromosomes. A human has 46 chromosomes and an ape has 48 chromosomes, meaning that 47 was in the middle, so the possibility of Oliver being a hybrid was high. Out of the 40 cells that had been tested, 38 cells had 48 chromosomes but 2 cells had 47. His media attention didn’t stop there as a Japanese actress said that she would sleep with Oliver and this even would be telecasted on TV.”

Japanese animal fetishes are not unique... continuing with Clifton:

A little later in the same article: “A very detailed test conducted on Oliver by the University of Chicago revealed that Oliver had 48 chromosomes and not 47. It did seem apparent that there was some sort of mutation but the conclusion remained that Oliver was an ape....

“Could Oliver’s habit of walking on two legs mean that Oliver was an example from that transition stage where an ape began to walk like man? Could it possibly mean that if Oliver was able to breed, then eventually an offspring would be produced what we today call a human being? Questions will cloud your mind but watching the footage of Oliver just makes you want to believe that he is a hybrid of a human and an ape. There is no denial in it that Oliver will intrigue you.

Now of course, these are the sentiments of whomever had written the article which Clifton quoted, and they did not belong to Clifton himself. Continuing with his citation:

“There have been rumors (which are apparently true) that an ape and human hybrid had been created in the 1920s but the infant born was killed by the creators for fear of media exposure. This makes you wonder what really caused the fear. What was that infant like? In another incident, China created a similar being where a female ape was inseminated with human sperm and was impregnated with a human and ape cross but rioters destroyed the building and the surrogate ape died.”

Now while it is disputed whether Oliver was actually a hybrid, there are many other similar examples, so Clifton now responds and says that:

While today’s scientists attempt to prove evolution with this evidence, my position strongly suggests that this evidence rather points its finger at the evil of the fallen angels!

Next, we have “Bassou”, a man-ape hybrid. Bassou lives in the Valley of Dades, near the town of Skoura, in Morocco.

We have an old National Vanguard article titled Bassou: Man-Ape Hybrid? which has long been posted at our Saxon Messenger website. Another case which has been featured on Chinese television depicted a Chinese ape-human hybrid very similar to Bassou. We have a copy of the video on Lithobolos.net. Here Clifton is citing another copy of that same National Vanguard article on Bassou, so he continues:

Here are some excerpts from one of the many Internet websites where data on Bassou is posted:

“There he sleeps in the trees and subsists on dates, berries, and insects. He wears no clothes... uses no tools, and speaks only in grunts.... Bassou’s existence raises some very troubling questions for the true believers in the TV religion of universal human equality. It has been hard enough for them to try to fit blacks and whites together into that scheme, without having to worry about Bassou.... What is Bassou? No one really knows. He displays both ape-like and man-like characteristics. Those who have studied him, however, have been reluctant to accept the suggestion that he is the product of a mating between a human being – negro or Berber – and an anthropoid ape, all three of which Morocco has in abundance.... Yet, Bassou is clearly something special, and not just a deformed human being. With arms so long his fingers hang below his knees when he stands upright; with massive, bony ridges above his eyes and a sharply receding forehead; with jaws, teeth, chin, and cheekbones all showing pronounced ape-like characteristics, he is a true ape-man.... But there has never been a scientific effort – largely for religious reasons – to actually determine whether a union between some human sub-species – a negro, say – and some species of ape, might be fertile. Numerous other examples of inter-species matings which yield hybrid offspring are known. The mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey, and the liger is a cross between a lion and a tiger, for example.... If Bassou is indeed such a hybrid – and no other plausible explanation for him has yet been brought forward – then his existence throws a real monkey wrench into the neo-liberal theory of the separateness of man from the rest of nature....”

And our Chinese example is very much how Bassou was described, and even better documented. Now Clifton will cite a case of a so-called “hairy monkey child” in Kazakhstan. The incident is not unique in the area. It actually happens quite often in India, China and the surrounding countries, that so-called “people” are born with tales, or develop horns or other animal-like characteristics. In another such incident, in 2014, there was reported in Punjab a monkey-boy with a seven-inch tale who was being worshiped by locals as an incarnation of some sort of Hindu monkey-god. But here Clifton speaks of another and older case:

Then there is the case of a “Hairy Monkey Child Discovered Living In Kazakhstan”:

“24 July 2002 ‘MONKEY CHILD LIVES IN KAZAKHSTAN’”

“The monkey child has been found by the doctors of Red Cross in Kazakhstan. The name of [the] 6-year-old boy is Albai. He was found in the mountain village Teryamagash, not far from Kazakh-Chinese border. The child’s body and head are covered with thick hair. Moreover, the form of the child’s head fully corresponds with the form of monkey cranium.

“According to the doctors, such a strange appearance of the boy could be explained with mutation caused by radiation the parents of the child were once exposed to; moreover, the 26-year-old mother and 33-year-old father are relatives.

Related to the other case which I just mentioned in India, scientists also attempted to describe that in their own terms as “a form of spina bifida”, which is really only a way to excuse a race of bastard hybrids and ignore the simple truths of our ancient prehistory as it is explained in our Scripture. Continuing with Clifton's citation of the 2002 case, which was reported in Moscow in the Russian newspaper Pravda:

“The father of the boy is himself astonished with this phenomenon. His friends even suggested [to] him to give the boy to [the] circus. Though, [the] parents decided to send the child to school. The parents understand that the boy will face many troubles in his life. Even a look at the mirror will most likely make him sad. Though, the parents want to prepare the boy for life. The doctors who observe the child state that it is very sociable and has an excellent health. © Gazeta via Pravda, Moscow/Russia - July 24.2002”

To this Clifton responds and says:

I reported on this case in my Watchman's Teaching Letter #52 for August, 2002 thusly, (beginning of reference):

As I was in the process of preparing this lesson today, June 26, 2002, there was a special news segment on the Fox News channel at 9:50 A.M. concerning a topic which they dubbed “Wonder Boy.” It was a segment about a boy from Kazakhstan in Russia, a region in central Asia, NE of the Caspian Sea, west of China. If you happened to catch that short portion of news, you can verify what I am about to relate. In my opinion, “Wonder Boy” is an excellent exhibit of a throwback of certain men to the animal stage. In fact, the doctor, which the commentator was interviewing called people like him “monkey men.” Further, they used the term “genetic mutation” in describing him. Asked if he would grow out of this condition, the doctor indicated the condition would “persist” throughout adulthood. He mentioned using hair laser treatment to get rid of the excessive amount of hair. The doctor also mentioned there were other examples like him in Mexico; citing a father and son in that category. The best description I could give of what I observed of “Wonder Boy” is that he appeared to be a cross between a Mongolian male and a chimpanzee ape, or possibly a capuchin monkey. (end of reference)

In Watchman's Teaching Letter #63, I added the following comment: I had heard stories that some of the Japanese prisoners captured during World War II actually had spurs of tails. When I saw that “Wonder Boy”, though I couldn’t tell whether he had a tail, my impression was that he pointed back to references in ancient literature alluding to [the] genetic engineering of Satan and his fallen angels. If you have read all the preceding, then you will remember that the Ante-Nicene Fathers also understood that the fallen angels “commingled” and formed “that most infamous race.” [Here Clifton seems to be quoting Tertullian, or perhaps Justin Martyr, both who made similar comments.] When I observed that “Wonder Boy”, I became convinced that the other races were never created, but are simply DNA genetic mutations. As a result of my two observations from television, I no longer subscribe to the sixth and eighth day creation theory. (end of 2nd reference)

Now Clifton offers a citation from Irenaeus, a Christian bishop in Gaul in the late second century AD:

[From the] Ante-Nicene Fathers, [in] Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter XXXVI., paragraph 4: “Since the Son of God is always one and the same, He gives to those who believe on Him a well of water [springing up] to eternal life, but He causes the unfruitful fig-tree immediately to dry up; and in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them, and [acted as He did] in order that He might put a check upon the sins of these men, but [that at the same time] He might preserve the archetype, the formation of Adam. And it was He who rained fire and brimstone from heaven, in the days of Lot, upon Sodom and Gomorrah, ‘an example of the righteous judgment of God,’ that all may know, ‘that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down, and cast into the fire’.”

Reading this passage carefully, one can only deduce that Irenaeus believed the “archetype Adam” to be what Yahweh God sought to preserve, and that the others, descended in part from fallen angels, were a rotten tree. So it seems that Irenaeus believed that the trees of these words of Christ represented genetic family trees. This is exactly what Identity Christians also believe. Clifton responds and says:

It should be apparent from this passage from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that the early Christian elders understood that it was the fallen angels who mixed their genetics with the Adamic women to produce a hybrid, mutated category of people. And since this is what happened at Gen. 6:1-6, it parallels exactly the seduction of Eve in Genesis chapter 3! At Rev. 12:9 we are informed that “the great dragon”, “that old serpent”, “Devil” and “Satan” are all the same entity, meaning the “serpent” and his “seed” (offspring). And since the serpent was already present on the earth in Genesis chapter three, the original fall of Satan with his angels had to be prior to Adam and Eve! So the incident at Gen. 6:1-6 is a second or third satanic assault. And since Adam and Eve were not yet formed (created) at Satan’s original fall, the first hybridization by the “Devil and his angels” would have to have been with animal-kind.

Here I would further assert that since there was an entire tree of the knowledge of good and evil, representing a race of corrupt people, and since outside of the garden was the land of Nod, which is Wandering, or metaphorically sin, and since Cain found a wife there and had reason to build a city, that there were for a long time corrupted races upon the earth, as the archaeological and historical records also demonstrate. Now returning to Clifton:

It is only with the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls that we have become aware of the importance of the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants, which many during the 1800's scoffed at. From my undated Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, which has “Miss Lilly Summerskile, St. Mark’s S.S., Christmas 1890” written on the front flyleaf, under the topic “Giants”, p 212:

“... though the prevalent opinion both in the Jewish and early Christian Church is that they were angels. It was probably this ancient view which gave rise to the spurious Book of Enoch, and the notion quoted from it by St. Jude (6), and alluded to by St. Peter (2 Pet. ii. 4) ...”

While I agree that the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, the only one known to that commentator, has spurious portions, the commentator mistakenly took for granted that to be the source of Jude's citation, and I find his remark, questioning the authority of the apostle, to be pretentious. Here Clifton means to illustrate that there was indeed a legitimate Book of Enoch that the apostle had cited, and which is now known only from the fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So Clifton continues in reference to them:

From the book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, p. 246 we read in part: “... Significantly, the remnants of several almost complete copies of The Book of Enoch in Aramaic were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is clear that whoever collected the scrolls considered it a vitally important text. All but one of the five major components of the Ethiopic anthology have turned up among the scrolls. But even more intriguing is the fact that additional, previously unknown or little-known texts about Enoch were discovered at Qumran. The most important of these is The Book of Giants.”

Now Clifton takes a turn:

But let us return to Adam Clarke’s question which I cited from his Commentary on Genesis 3:1 in part #3 of this series. This is what he stated in part: “Is it not strange that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text?” [Meaning that the Ara bic word khanash, is linguistically akin to the Hebrew word nachash, for serpent. - WRF] Like so many other scholars in the Hebrew language, Clarke had gone to the Arabic to check on certain lost Hebrew root words not found in the Biblical text.

In researching this subject, I also find it strange that “devils” in the Old Testament is Strong’s #8163 “sâ‘îyr” and has essentially the same meaning as “satyr” in the Greek, so evidently they have a similar etymology. In fact, the KJV translators translated #8163 as “satyr” at Isa. 34:14! To demonstrate that Adam Clarke did his homework correctly, I will show evidence that the Greek term for the Hebrew #8163 “sâ‘îyr” also has connotations of an “ape”. My first source is from the 1894 (9th edition) of the Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 21, pp. 336-337 under the topic Satyr:

“SATYR. In ancient Greek mythology the satyrs were spirits, half-human, half-bestial, that haunted the woods and mountains, companions of Pan and Dionysus. Fancy represented them as strongly built, with flat noses, pointed ears, and the tails of horses or goats. They were a roguish and wanton but fainthearted folk, lovers of wine and women, ever roaming the wild to the music of pipes and cymbals, castanets and bagpipes, dancing with the nymphs or pursuing them, striking terror into men, whose cattle they killed and whose women they made love to. In the earlier Greek art they appear as old and ugly, much like wild apes; but in later art, especially in works of the Attic school, this savage character is softened into a more youthful and graceful aspect. There is a famous statue supposed to be a copy of a work of Praxiteles, representing a graceful satyr leaning against a tree with a flute in his hand. In Attica there was a species of drama known as the Satyric drama; it parodied the legends of gods and heroes, and the chorus was composed of satyrs. Euripides’s play of the Cyclops is the only extant example of this kind of drama. The symbol of the shy and timid satyr was the hare. In some districts of modern Greece the spirits known as Calicantsars [malevolent goblins] offer points of resemblance to the ancient satyrs; they have goats’ ears and the feet of asses or goats, are covered with hair, and love women and the dance. The herdsmen of Parnassus believe in a demon of the mountain who is lord of hares and goats.

So the history of the view of satyrs in ancient Greece parallels the history of the estimation of negroes today. Originally, they were generally depicted as violent and savage brutes, and now they are depicted as graceful and intelligent demigods. There is truly nothing new under the sun. Continuing with Clifton's citation:

“In the authorized version of Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14 the word ‘satyr’ is used to render the Hebrew sĕîrîm, ‘hairy ones.’ A kind of demon or supernatural being known to Hebrew folklore as inhabiting waste places is meant; a practice of sacrificing to the sĕîrîm is alluded to in Lev. xvii. 7, where [the] E.V. has ‘devils.’ They correspond to the ‘shaggy demon of the mountain-pass.’ (azabb al-akaba) of old Arab superstition. But the satyrs of the gloomy Semitic deserts, faith in which is not yet extinct, are much more terrible than those of Greece.”

This word sĕîrîm, from a stem which means rough, is the linguistic root of satyr, and also of Saturn, the Roman storm god. The Hebrew form of Seir, the mount at which Esau had settled among the Horites, or Hurrians, is also related.

A second witness is from the World Scope Encyclopedia, vol. 10 under the topic “Satyrs”:

“Satyrs ..., in Greek legends, a race of woodland spirits, who personified the free life of the forest. They were generally represented as half human and half animal, the upper part being that of a human being and the lower that of an animal. Their appearance was both grotesque and repulsive, but their life was one of pleasure and self-indulgence, mostly given to the chase and wild music. At intervals they partook of wine and indulged in restful slumber. Both mortals and the gentle woodland nymphs dreaded them, mostly because of their reckless sports. They were represented in the train of Dionysius and were inseparably connected with his worship. Greek poets delighted to praise the innocent frolics of the little satyrs, and sculptors represented the older forms as nearly approaching human beings, but placed horns upon their heads and gave them the feet and legs of goats. The satyr of Praxiteles at Athens is a famous specimen of Greek sculpture. Pliny used the word to indicate a kind of ape.”

Satyrs sound just like most varieties of non-Whites in the aspect of their behavior. Now Clifton comments on his citations:

What we have here are two different stories, (1 told by the Greek language, and (2 [another] which is older, [only] by Greek “art” or “sculpture”. Here, Pliny takes a look at Greek sculpture and declares it appears more like an ape than a goat! The World Scope Encyclopedia, under the topic “Satyrs” doesn’t indicate whether this was Pliny the Elder or Pliny the Younger, but it doesn’t make any difference as they were both highly educated men, and Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.) oversaw the education of Pliny the Younger (61-115 A.D.), his nephew. Pliny the Elder majored in “Natural History” (zoology). [Certainly the article is referring to the Elder, as Clifton was not entirely familiar with the literature of either – WRF.] These men were Roman citizens, and Pliny the Elder published upward of 2,000 volumes of his works, and I am sure he knew the difference between an ape and a goat! So, with this, we have the Plinys agreeing with the Arabic finding of Adam Clarke, that the devil had some connection with an ape. While Clarke was a master of several languages, and had read extensively the many Classics, evidently he never read Pliny’s Natural History, or didn’t catch the connection between an ape and the Greek “satyr” when he read it.

How an ape became a goat among the Greeks can only be conjectured. Maybe it was because the Greek islands and peninsulas were not a natural habitat for them, and over time the Greeks substituted the goat in place of the ape. However it may have happened, we should not discard the entire analogy of the satyr being half goat and half man! Inasmuch as Yahshua Christ separated the sheep nations from the goat nations, surely He wanted the Greeks to comprehend the bastard status of the half goat and half man nations. So He had to state His admonitions in words [that] they would understand! Paul made it very clear at Hebrews 12:8 that there are but two kinds of people, “sons” and/or “bastards”, and nothing in between! The only way that could be accounted for is the fact that the “angels who sinned” had mixed their genetics with animals, as well as Adam-kind, on separate occasions! Had the Greeks still understood the ape connotations of their earlier art and sculpture, I am sure that Christ would have used “ape nations” rather than “goat nations”. There is also the possibility that the later Greeks confused earlier Greek legend equating satyrs with apes as relating to the wild goat – the Bezoar, or Cretan wild goat (Capra aegagrus) which is reddish-brown in winter, of which only a few remain.

Inasmuch as today we follow the terms “sheep nations” and “goat nations”, I will quote some excerpts from The Complete New Testament Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates on page 655 pertaining to Strong #’s 2055 & 2056, the two Greek words for “goat”:

“2056 ... Used as the emblem of wicked men because of their inferior value (Matt. 25:32 ... ) ...”

“2055 ... Sheep and goats pasture together, but never trespass on each other’s domains; they are kept together but they do not mix; they may be seen to enter the fold in company, but once inside they are kept separate.” It should also be noted that the goats of Christ’s time and locality were mostly black. Could that be a factor in His parable? Also, what other reason do we need for complete (100%) segregation?

Actually, Clifton erred here, evidently being led by Zodhiates to wrong conclusions. An ἐρίφιον (2055) is only a diminutive, and therefore speaking of animals, it describes a young version of an ἔριφος (2056), and both are the same sort of goat. Both forms of the word appear in the parable of the sheep and the goats. Another word for goat found in the New Testament is τράγος (5131), from which is our English word tragedy, after the plays of the Greek Tragic Poets. It is generally a male goat, a he-goat. Clifton continues by remarking on the different versions of the Greek Satyr:

Of these two variations of the story, I prefer the “ape” version over the “goat” version because of the report given at Leviticus 16:5-26. This passage instructs Aaron the priest to take two goats and cast lots over them; one of them to become a slain sacrifice while the other on which the lot fell, he should lay his hands upon it confessing all of the sins and iniquities of Israel and then lead it into the wilderness. These two goats represented Christ’s two natures, manlike and divine. Christ, like the first goat (without sin) was slain as a sacrifice, but as the second He was quickened by the Spirit to everlasting life. Ironically, though, “satyr” is “ape” both in Arabic and Greek! See the last paragraph of part #3 of this series.

The ultimate purpose here is to point out that our earliest Biblical cultures, Hebrew and Greek, thought of the bastard races in the outlying areas to be half-man and half-goat or half-ape demons, or even half-angel bastard spirits. Clifton and I both saw that the non-White races fit into that category alone.