Other Bible Studies

The Bible Commands Racial Segregation - A Review of a Sermon by Bertrand Comparet

Here we are going to present and critique a sermon by Bertrand Comparet which has been presented under diverse titles in the past, for reasons we shall describe as we proceed. However doing this, I also hope to demonstrate why it is important for us, as Bible-believing and Bible-studying Christians, rather than as merely denominational Christians, to constantly investigate, refine and improve our own understandings of Scripture, its original languages, its historical context, and all of the various aspects of the context of words, verses and passages found in Scripture, so that we may come to a better understanding of our faith, and so that we may be able to better defend and explain our professions to others of our kinfolk.

Every passage of Scripture has a historical and situational context which must be understood before it may be properly interpreted, and the same is also true of Hebrew or Greek words and their definitions. If Christian Identity is the Elijah ministry, as its objectives certainly do fit the description of that ministry where it is found in the closing verses of the prophet Malachi, then it is of the utmost importance that we do present our case to our kinfolk. But if we profess things which can easily be disproven, we will be quickly mocked, and we will have failed ourselves and our people, as well as our God. When people hear an argument in support of a position or doctrine which is contrary to their own predisposed beliefs, they will scoff at the slightest mistake in the data supporting that argument, and dismiss all of it for that one small mistake. It is already quite difficult to get our kinfolk to even listen to our case, so we must strive to make it as airtight as possible.

The original podcast file was somehow corrupted and would not play. It has now been replaced. I apologize for any inconvenience. Being on the road, the Monday following the podcast I was finally able to edit the notes, and there I was also able to add a few short clarifications and make a few minor corrections.

Bible Blunders, Part 1

Here I am going to present something that I will call Bible Blunders. Ultimately this may turn into something of a series, so I will even add “Part 1”. When I made several Forum posts addressing certain things in Scripture which are commonly misunderstood, a friend suggested that I compile them into a program called Bible Mysteries, but these really are not mysteries. Rather, they are blunders because the solution to understanding them is in the Scripture, and for that reason we really have no excuse not to understand them. But some of these traps I have fallen into myself, not necessarily because I made the mistakes, but because we often trust others to be correct, especially our teachers, and we repeat things that they say without investigating them for ourselves. So here we are going to discuss queen Athaliah of Judah, a trap which I managed to avoid, and also the identity of the Rechabites of the Book of Jeremiah, and the “Kenites” of 2 Chronicles chapter 2, a trap which I was caught in until recently, because I followed older teachers without giving the subject a sufficiently full consideration.

Proof that Athaliah queen of Judah was not the daughter of Jezebel:

A version of this was originally posted at the Christogenea Forum on 17th July 2022.

Years ago, in June, 2009, I made a presentation called Women in the Genealogy of Christ. Only rather recently did I realize that it needs an update. That is because I never had a “church” background, and therefore I never knew that the churches teach that Jezebel is an ancestor of Christ. That is what at least most of them teach, and it is absolutely wrong. So in that early podcast, I discussed Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, three of which women are specifically mentioned in the genealogy of Christ as it is presented in the Gospel of Matthew, but I never knew there was a need to discuss Jezebel. (Bathsheba is also referred to in Matthew, but not by name.)

Adamic Eternity: The Greatest Discovery

Here I am going to make a solitary presentation on a subject which I have discussed quite often in many of our longer series of Biblical commentaries. There is nothing more disappointing than seeing an Identity Christian, or at least, someone who professes to understand Christian Identity truths, who still carries the baggage of the denominational churches and their false doctrines, doctrines which were constructed centuries ago by a priesthood which sought little else but to maintain its own control over the minds of the people, usually in concert with various governments. This is especially true where those doctrines are persistently maintained by such Christians, but are clearly contrary to the plain word of Scripture.

So one result of false Church doctrine is that we have White men who seek to condemn one another to the fires of eternal destruction for some sin which they themselves think is too horrible to forgive, or which is far more grievous than their own sins. Yet only Yahweh God can judge men, because only God knows the hearts of men, which is to say that only He can know why men did certain things at certain times, rather than merely just what they did, and all the factors which drove them to do such things. To understand that, He must know everything that a particular man had learned throughout his own life, which led him to make such choices.

From Yahshua to Jesus: the Evolution of a Name

In the early years of my Christian Identity studies, I became acquainted with a plethora of wild ideas, and I actually did evaluate them all as best as I could. Some of these came from British Israel writers, and others from more recent Americans such as Rand, Swift or Comparet, and even more recent writers who are still alive today. So with an open mind and with Scripture as my guide, along with various lexicons and many books of classical history and ancient inscriptions, and even many of the so-called apocryphal or pseudepigraphal books, as I studied I had considered just about everything that an Identity Christian could hear.

Among these were the Ephraim-Scepter heresy, and the Noon-to-Noon calendar day heresy, the No-Devil heresy, and all of these Clifton had written essays about before I ever had a chance, because he was also dealing with them for a long time. Both Clifton and my friend Ralph Daigle would send me all sorts of Christian Identity-related materials, and some of it I read for entertainment purposes, while other things I took more seriously. If I ever unpack the three remaining crates of notes and correspondence I had accumulated throughout those years, perhaps I will address some of the things which have merit, or at least those which seem to need further attention because the things they proposed are still in circulation.

Throughout those years, in my studies I naturally came to many conclusions which I did not have immediately, and which had long been debated in Identity Christian circles. Foremost among these were the debates concerning Two-Seedline, the origin of non-Adamic races, the identity of certain of the trees of Eden, and other important topics. Some of the conclusions which I have arrived at over the years actually took years for me to understand, and then even more years to formulate effective arguments based on the supporting evidence.

What’s in a Name?

Identity Christians are sometimes perceived as Judaizers, at least those of us who often prefer to use certain Biblical Hebrew terms in place of more modern English or Greek terms. This is especially true where it comes to the use of certain Hebrew names and titles for the God of Israel, or for Christ. But to me, it is much more dangerous heresy to be a Judaizer in the implementation of certain doctrines and concepts that are really only derivatives of the Old Covenant reliance on ceremonies and rituals, rather than to be called a Judaizer on account of a preference for a couple of names or words. To Judaize is one thing, but to lay claim to a heritage which rightfully belongs to many White Europeans, and which never actually belonged to Jews, is something totally different.

So here we are going to present, and hopefully expand on, a paper written by Clifton Emahiser titled Which Is It, "Lord" Or "Yahweh"? But Clifton really did not write this paper. He only wrote the first paragraph, and the rest was simply a reproduction of an article from the 1910 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. Then he sent this to me to proofread, in the Spring of 2004, and doing that, I made some brief comments which he then added as a conclusion to the article. Making this presentation, I will rearrange some of those notes this evening, and I will certainly also add many others.

One of the most misunderstood passages of Scripture is found in Genesis chapter 12, where Yahweh had said to Abraham that “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Today, denominational Christians naively believe that this statement which God made to Abraham somehow applies to Jews. The misunderstanding of this passage is the driving force behind the wicked phenomenon which we know today as Christian Zionism, and its abuse has perhaps been even more dangerous to true Christendom than the popular misunderstanding of John 3:16. Christian Zionism is wicked, because its attitude towards Jews is absolutely contrary to the attitude which Christ Himself had towards Jews. Jesus hated Jews, and now Christians worship Jews instead of Jesus. Many Christians await the rule of an anti-Christ, while in reality the anti-Christ already rules over them while they themselves remain ignorant of it, and their churches are in collusion with the devil.

But there is another problem with the common interpretations of this passage, and that is where Christians imagine negroes, yellow and brown orientals, American and Australian aboriginals, Pacific islanders and other aliens to be reckoned among “all the families of the earth”, which is a concept that Scripture itself never expresses, and in some places even refutes. So here we shall present a two-part series of essays produced by Clifton Emahiser and titled as a question, All The Kindreds Of The Earth Be Blessed?, parts 1 and 2. From his records, it is evident that Clifton first wrote part 1 of this series in May of 2007, but finalized both parts in January of 2009, when they were apparently published to his mailing list. That is the same month that I started Christogenea, and I created the first version of his website just a short time later, perhaps in March or April of that year.

This was not recorded with my usual equipment, and I apologize for the often-audible feedback squeal.

Divers Seed Defiles Families, or How Angels Become Chained in Darkness

This evening I am going to present a paper by Clifton Emahiser titled Divers Seed Defiles Families, which he had first written in February of 2012. Clifton had originally added a notice to the title which indicated that this would be part one of a series, and that is how it is published at his website. But he never sent me a second part, he never really elaborated on the subject which is suggested by the title, and I have no further evidence that he attempted to do so among any of his papers. Clifton was often diverted from subjects to address things which he felt were more important, or at least more urgent, and often he never went back. He did create an abbreviated version of this paper that could serve as a one-page handout, which added a couple of ideas and made some minor clarifications of what he had written here. Presenting this here, we shall include Clifton’s clarifications, and add his new additions at the end of this expanded version of his paper.

This paper discusses an important Biblical concept which is found only in the meanings of words in the original Hebrew language of Scripture, but which is not explicitly spelled out in the language of Scripture itself. However, I am convinced, as Clifton had also pointed out here, that an understanding of this concept serves to clarify certain remarks by the apostles, where Peter and Jude had both referred to angels “chained in darkness”. Here Clifton expresses the realization that certain references to seed or kind in Scripture actually have a deeper meaning than the English or Greek translations suggest. Until this time, neither Clifton nor I had taken the time to elaborate outside of this paper on the importance of this realization in relation to how it substantiates other aspects of our work. But the fact that Clifton certainly realized the implications shall be fully evident as we proceed with his discussion of a certain Hebrew word for seed which appears in just a couple of passages in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Pitfalls Found in Biblical Research Materials, Part 1 with Clifton Emahiser

Last August Clifton Emahiser, being 90 years old at the time, had taken a bad fall in his home. At that time he realized that he really could not live alone safely any longer, and we brought him here to Florida to stay with us. In the meantime, just before his accident Clifton had sent me three new short essays to proofread, which I never got to until now. So we will begin trying to make that up to him with this evening’s presentation. Here we have Clifton Emahiser with us once again, to present and discuss one of those short essays, which he had titled The Pitfalls Found In Biblical Commentaries, Lexicons & Dictionaries.

It seems to me that Clifton may have planned for this to be another multi-part series, since while the title is broad in scope, here he mainly focuses on the rather recently-developed denominational doctrines of Futurism and Preterism, and how they have affected modern Christian thinking which is reflected in their inclusion in certain popular Study Bibles and Commentaries. While Clifton has treated this topic in the past, here it is presented in a somewhat different context, and he goes further to show how recent these and other ideas about Scripture have been developed by certain denominations.

So now we shall present Clifton’s essay, along with our own comments and discussion:

The Pitfalls Found In Biblical Commentaries, Lexicons & Dictionaries, by Clifton Emahiser

While some of these Biblical helps are better than others, even the best have some serious errors! For instance some Bible cross-references can lead one astray, so let’s consider some of the better center-references found in a few Bibles:

If you have a King James Version Bible with the proper center reference, you can very readily prove Two Seedline teaching with it, for it will take you from one supporting verse of Scripture to another almost endlessly on the subject. (Not that the King James Version is an especially advisable Bible to use for study, as it is alleged to contain approximately 27,000 translation mistakes.)

The Book of Odes is a collection of passages from Scripture which were once employed as a Christian Liturgy in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They are known to us only from the Codex Alexandrinus. Here William Finck presents the Odes and demonstrates that their teachings parallel our assertions of Christian Identity. The conclusion is that the Book of Odes is a Christian  Identity Liturgy, and that Christian Identity is the original (small 'c') catholic faith.

Christian Identity Liturgy in the Book of Odes

The Book of Odes is known to us mostly from Alfred Ralfs’ publication of the Septuagint, and it consists of a collection of songs or poems which were found placed at the end of the Book of Psalms in the Codex Alexandrinus. Sir Francis Brenton did not include them in his Septuagint translation, ostensibly because that work was based primarily upon the slightly older Codex Vaticanus, where the collection is not found. The Odes are only pericopes which were extracted from other portions of Scripture, so by themselves they are not an actual Biblical book. However to us they are interesting, because of the nature of the pericopes themselves.

Here we will make a critical presentation of Bertrand Comparet''s sermon, Ruth was an Israelite, offering our own commentary on Comparet's original material, Clifton Emahiser's notes on the sermon, and our own research in addition to theirs, hoping to edify and substantiate Comparet's premise. This version of the sermon is available at Christogenea. It is from the book Your Heritage, which was digitized with critical notes by Clifton A. Emahiser:

It is unfortunate that many preachers, in their ignorance, teach so many false doctrines. One such false doctrine is the statement that Yahshua was not of pure Israelite blood, they say one of His ancestors was Ruth, a Moabitess. From the use of this term they believe that she was racially, not just geographically, a Moabite, in this they are greatly mistaken.

The territory of the Moabites was originally east and northeast of the Dead Sea. It extended from the Arnon river on the south to the Jabbok river on the north. Then their territory went from the Dead Sea and the Jordan river on the west, across the plains and foothills, into the mountains to the east. From the name of the people who lived there, it was called Moab. It kept that name for many centuries after all the Moabites were gone from it.

Christogenea Saturdays, June 6th, 2015 - Esther: Fraud or Fable? Part 3

In the first part of our presentation refuting the canonical status of the Book of Esther, we showed that historically, the Esther narrative does not fit into the rule of any of the kings of Persia, from the earliest of them all the way down to the last of them, for the entire 200-year span of the Persian empire. We also presented textual evidence of the rejection of Esther by the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the sect of Judaeans at Qumran. Additionally, we showed that the supposed events portrayed in Esther are impossible in light of the records of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the minor prophets of the second temple period, which are Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Then in the second part of our presentation of the arguments against the veracity of the Book of Esther, we began following Bertrand Comparet's sermon against the book. Doing this, along with Comparet we pointed out several inconsistencies in the story itself, as well as several historically ridiculous situations which the book expects us to accept. Among the inconsistencies is the fact, recorded by both the prophet Daniel and by the Greek historian Herodotus, that the Kings of Persia were forbidden to change any laws or decrees which had been made before-time. Yet in the Esther story, even though the story itself also informs us of this Persian custom, the king is seen making such changes which are impossible because of the custom. Among the historically ridiculous situations, we saw that the king had issued a lengthy proclamation that all of the Jews throughout the empire would be put to death, on a specific date eleven months from the date that the proclamation was made. Yet there was no Exodus, and no uprising. Among the inconsistencies we pointed out, the story purports that only two months later the King of Persia had apparently forgotten that he made such an important proclamation.

Esther: Fraud or Fable? Part 2

In Part 1 of Esther: Fraud or Fable? this past Saturday we hope to have established as fact that the Esther narrative does not fit into the histories of any of the kings of Persia, especially taking into consideration the circumstances of Ezra and Nehemiah and some of the internal circumstances of the Esther story, such as the chronology which the book itself provides. We had walked through each of the Kings of Persia, from Cyaxares all the way down to Darius III, the last Persian king, and illustrated the problems which materialize with identifying any one of them as the King of Esther.

We also spoke at length about the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the fact that not only is any portion of Esther entirely missing from those scrolls, but in addition, the Feast of Purim is not mentioned in any of the extensive calendrical writings found among the scrolls. Now, as we have often discussed before at Christogenea, the Dead Sea Scrolls can with certainty be dated to the time of Roman rule over Judaea and while Jerusalem was still intact, to the 130-year period between 65 BC and 65 AD. So the sect which created those scrolls obviously did not have the Esther story among their holy scriptures.

The Book of Esther, Fraud, or Fable? Part 1

“Oh no”, some would say, “now he's attacking the Bible!” Well, whose Bible is that? And what is the Bible? The books which we call the Bible were compiled into a single volume by men, and originally many of them were argued over at great length. Of the 66 books (they are not all “books”, but we will call them “books” for our purposes here) in the King James Version of the Bible, 65 certainly belong there. However the original King James Version of the Bible contained 80 books. The Geneva Bibles which were published in the 16th century and which were the Bibles of the first American protestants also contained 80 books. Someone before us must have attacked the Bible 14 times, because 14 books are already missing! Those 14 books are sometimes published separately and are called the “Apocrypha”. Reportedly, Martin Luther was the first to have published a Bible with these 14 books placed under that special designation, and the Geneva and King James Bibles followed his lead. The typical Catholic Bibles have 72 books, because they retain 6 books from the Apocrypha as well as the 66 found in the King James Version.

But other ancient scriptures exist which are not in the Bible, and were quoted by the apostles as scripture, yet they are not found in the Apocrypha. For a clear example of this, there is Jude 14, where the apostle quotes Enoch. The passage is famous, where it says “14 And Enoch, seventh from Adam, prophesied to these saying 'Behold, the Prince has come with ten thousands of His saints 15 to execute judgment against all and to convict every soul for all of their impious deeds which they committed impiously and for all of the harsh things which the impious wrongdoers have spoken against Him!'” But no such prophecy from Enoch is found in the Old Testament as we have it today. So there are books which the apostles themselves esteemed as Holy Scripture, which never made it into our Bibles at all.

"8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.9 All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. 11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. 12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant."

The Canaanite Woman: The Biblical Perspective

It seems that there has long been some degree of confusion in regard to the healing of a Canaanite woman’s daughter by Yahshua Christ, an event described at Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30, and especially among Israel Identity adherents. Why did Christ heal the daughter of a Canaanite? Was she really a Canaanite? While the descriptions of the event are often abused by the promoters of universalism, they actually refute universalism. Yet those who understand the Old Testament and the curses against the Canaanites are left to wonder just how and why Yahshua Christ had shown mercy toward this particular woman, and this issue has been the cause for much debate. This short essay shall endeavor to clear up any confusion surrounding this event.

First, it must be noted that the accounts of this event provided by Matthew and Mark differ significantly. It must be understood that no gospel account by itself can be regarded as a full and complete record of any particular event. Rather, each writer witnessed, or recorded from witnesses, all or parts of an event seen from a certain perspective, writing down those portions of the event which were notable, as they were remembered. Therefore, piecing the accounts together we can create a more complete picture of the event as a whole.

This presentation is based on the essay Baptism - In What?

Program Notes: Adultery and Fornication

Many people, myself included, assert that the word adultery in the Old Testament means race-mixing. And while I would still assert that this is true, it is not to be told from the definitions of the word as they are given in Strong's Concordance or in Gesenuis' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon. For that reason, and for the way in which the word is used in some Biblical contexts, it is easy for a scoffer or a doubter to refute the assertion that the word is used to describe race-mixing. So here we shall do a study of this word, and some other words which are necessary to gain an understanding of the difference between adultery and fornication.  

The Women of the Genealogy of Christ, with Clifton Emahiser

Click here for the program notes. A discussion and full vindication of Tamar the mother of Pharez and Zarah, Rachab "the harlot", Ruth "the Moabite", and David's wife Bathsheba and her first husband Uriah "the Hittite".