The Only True Adam of Genesis, Part 4: Origin of a Heresy

This may be the first time ever that I discussed the same subject on Friday and Saturday of the same weekend. At least, if I ever did it before, I do not remember. But there are two reasons why I must do it tonight. First, because this material is halfway prepared before I type a word, and my time is worn thin these past few weeks. So I can prepare this in just a few hours and Clifton has already done much of the core research. Then secondly, because if I have to present an entire series from Clifton’s writings over a few short weeks, there are few subjects more important than this one.

The Only True Adam of Genesis, Part 4: Origin of a Heresy

Rejecting the so-called 6th & 8th Day Creation heresy is an absolute necessity if Identity Christians are ever to have a clear and unshakable racial concept based on Scripture. We need a clear and unshakable racial concept if we are to survive the trials with which we are faced at the present time. We do not need any capitulation to Jewish concepts, and we do not need compromise with non-Adamic so-called ‘people’. As I have said many times in the past, Yahweh did not create any of these non-White races and call them “good”.

But rejecting the idea that Yahweh created non-Whites is not the same as saying that Adam was the first intelligent bipedal hominid on the planet. In Matthew chapter 13, Yahshua Christ explains the parable of the wheat and the tares, which informs us that Yahweh planted one kind: wheat, and that the tares were planted by the devil. But the devil had to be somewhere in order to be able to infiltrate the field and plant the tares. In that same place, Christ declared that “I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.” So we cannot imagine that the entire truth of this planet and its history are revealed in the book of Genesis, if Christ Himself informs us that there were things which were purposely withheld from men until the gospel of Christ was proclaimed.

In the ancient Enoch literature and other associated writings, there are fragmented accounts of fallen angels who had corrupted the creation of Yahweh, in one way or another cross-breeding even their own seed with all sorts of animals, from which resulted monsters and demons and all sorts of other abominations, both physical and spiritual. Whatever we want to think of this, it is certainly apparent that the ancient Greek legends of satyrs, minotaurs and centaurs, hybrid creatures which were forever the enemies of man, must have flowed from the same fount as this more ancient Hebrew literature. Other related cultures carried similar legends which correlated with Hebrew scriptures even more closely – of which the Epic of Gilgamesh is a striking example.

When Cain was expelled from the Garden of Eden, he was described as dwelling in the land of Nod. Most surface readers of Scripture think that may have been a name for a literal place. However the Hebrew word nowd (Strong’s # 5113) simply meant wandering. The concept of wandering appears throughout Scripture to describe sin, which is ultimately a deviation from the will of God. It is apparent to me, that the wider world outside of Scripture was already in a state of sin, for which reason Yahweh marked off a garden for Adam in the first place.

The serpent was the representative of a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, and ostensibly, that tree was an entire group of ‘people’. They knew good, once being in the presence of God, and they experienced evil, which is rebellion against God. But this nature of this tree is not revealed in Scripture until the parable of the wheat and the tares, and not explicitly until Revelation chapter 12, where we read that Satan, which is the devil and “that old serpent”, along with a third of the angels in heaven had been cast out into earth. The language is poetic and allegorical, and should not be understood literally. In any event, we see a large group of ‘people’ here on earth and in a state of rebellion from God before Adam was placed in the garden, or at least before the historical narrative in our Scriptures begins, because nearly as soon as Adam was created, they are already there to greet him and cause him to sin.

Both Peter and Jude inform us that the angels that sinned were bound in chains of darkness. Jude 6 says “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” 2 Peter 2:4 says “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment…” and we should not imagine that hell must be interpreted literally. If we look at Asia before the arrival of White men, or sub-Saharan Africa, or South America and the Caribbean islands, we can have a clear picture of a metaphorical hell where presumed ‘people’ are indeed bound in chains of darkness – but not necessarily bound in chains in darkness, as that is not what Peter had said. From a portion of them did Cain find a wife, and for them did Cain build a city. But Yahweh never took credit in Genesis for having created those races which, only 7,500 years ago, had already existed outside of the garden.

As we have often said in the past, and notably in our essay The Race of Genesis 10, the historically verifiable portion of our Scripture begins with the table of nations descended from Shem, Ham and Japheth. While some of those nations were overrun and amalgamated with other so-called races, or ‘people’, in ancient times, they were all originally White. Our entire Adamic race was originally White, as the earliest law of our God insists, that everything He created was after its own kind. So at the very least, we must determine the origin of any other race of so-called ‘people’ as suspect, because they are not our kind, and because in Scripture Yahweh God Himself only took credit for having created our kind.

This perspective on race and Scripture is not very popular, and it is actually hated by many who may even call themselves Identity Christians. But it is Truth, and those that hate it only do so because they themselves have an agenda. It also stands the test when measured against every passage of Scripture, the archaeological record, and the events of history, and leaves absolutely no room nor any necessity for confusion or for compromise with devils.

If the other so-called ‘races’ are the flood from the mouth of the serpent, as it is portrayed in Revelation chapter 12, then their origin is with the serpent, and not with God. If the other so-called ‘races’ are among the goat nations whose destiny is the “fire prepared for the devil and his angels”, as Christ explains in Matthew chapter 25, then their origin is from the devil and his angels, and not from God. We must understand that every single mixed-race and non-Adamic creature can only fall into this other category if we are ever to understand and overcome our circumstances today. This is the beginning of real Two-Seedline understanding. It is not Christians vs. Jews, it is the White Adamic race, of which Christ is the only legitimate head, vs the whole rest of the world. While there is enmity between two seeds, all the of other races are tools of the devil, and will ultimately share the same fate as the devil.

With this, we are going to look at one further aspect of the so-called 6th & 8th Day Creation theory, which is where that theory may have been first developed. Earlier in this series I spoke of Thomas Davies and early British-Israel theories of Genesis from the 19th century, and while these had helped popularize the theory in more recent times, it is actually even much older than that. So here is Clifton Emahiser’s essay on the subject, which was originally prepared by him for publication on April 3rd, 2006. The real origin of the theory may surprise us, but again, in reality it should not surprise us at all. So now we make a presentation and critique of:

[The] Origin of the 6th & 8th Day Creation Theory, by Clifton A. Emahiser

Many may be unaware that some hold to the idea of both a 6th and an 8th day creation of man. They insist with resolute determination that the non-white races were “created” by the Almighty on the 6th day, and that Adam-man was “formed” on the 8th day, though nowhere in Scripture is an 8th day creation alluded to. Some go so far as to advocate that not only were there two separate creations of man, but also two distinctly different creators, (1) Elohim and (2) Yahweh. They go to great lengths to dispute that the other races were “created” rather than “formed” as Adam was at Genesis 2:7. They also contend the “man” at Genesis 1:26-27 was created male and female simultaneously, and that the “woman” at Genesis 2:22 was made separately from the “formed man” at Genesis 2:7. By all this, they hope in vain to account for the creation of the non-Adamic races.

Bertrand Comparet, one of the most significant proponents of the 6th & 8th Day Creation heresy within Christian Identity, was actually quite dishonest – whether you want to imagine that it was purposeful or not – in his essay Adam Was Not the First Man, where he said:

Next the Bible tells us about the creation of men, in the plural in Genesis 1:26-28 saying, “Male and female created He them and Yahweh told these people, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish [actually fill] the earth”. Plenish is an obsolete English word meaning to fill. You cannot replenish what was never plenished, or filled, before. In Genesis chapter 2, we find the Adam (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word aw-dawm, rendered Adam in English, is from a root word meaning to show blood in the face or of a ruddy complexion, a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the white race. Bible scholars know Genesis 3:20, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living”, is a later interpolation, which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt’s translation.)

First, Genesis 3:20 cannot be proven to be an interpolation, and evidently because Comparet did not understand the scope of the passage, he claimed it was an interpolation. Simply appealing to a particular translation is not enough to substantiate the claim. Checking Moffatt’s translation of Genesis, he did include Genesis 3:20, but has it enclosed in double-brackets. Now, in a lot of translations or editions of manuscripts that may often mean that the editors esteem a passage to be an interpolation. But that is not why Moffatt used double brackets around Genesis 3:20. Rather, in the Preface to his 1913 edition, he himself explains his reason, where he wrote:

Again, several of the most characteristic Hebrew terms, religious, social, and psychological, have no English equivalent which exactly corresponds to their original meaning. Something is dropped as they are passed from Hebrew into English. Even the rhythm of the prose as well as of the verse cannot be carried over into our modern language without a certain amount of alteration, if the version is not to be pedantic. Furthermore, the habit of playing upon words, acrostics, euphemisms, paranomasia, and verbal tropes of this kind, baffles the translator, who may be reduced to the desperate expedient of suggesting within brackets (as, for example, at Genesis iii. 20 and Micah i. 10,11) the point of some allusion or piece of popular etymology.

So here is absolute proof that Moffatt did not esteem Genesis 3:20 to be spurious, as Comparet claimed, and that certainly seems to be dishonest on the part of Comparet, although it was more likely only sloppy and poor scholarship on the part of Inez Comparet. We did offer the testimony of Lorraine Swift earlier in this series, that Comparet’s wife Inez had done his research. For my part, I would interpret the reference to “all living” in Genesis 3:20 to mean all of those living in the flesh who would have the Spirit of Yahweh, those who have the likeness and image of Adam. So “all living” is a reference to the members of our Adamic race, those from Adam’s legitimate line.

Second, Comparet neglected to mention that the word for man in Genesis 1:26 is adam, and in Genesis 1:27 is the exact same grammatical construct found in Genesis 2:7, which is eth-ha-adam. In those passages it is also in the singular, although in 1:26 it is a collective singular and the related pronouns are plural. Comparet then defined the meaning of adam only in relation to Genesis chapter 2, but the meaning of the word certainly does not change where it appears in Genesis chapter 1, even if in the King James Version it is only translated as man. That also seems to be willful dishonesty. As for the plural pronouns in Genesis 1, we must refer to Genesis 5:1-2 to see what is meant in Genesis 1:26, and Comparet’s argument fails a third time. We love Comparet as much as anyone, but with all certainty he was incorrect in this aspect of his Genesis interpretation.

Now continuing with Clifton:

Actually, [the passage at] Genesis 2:4-7 is the first chronicle in the Bible, and [it] is only giving an historical recapitulation of the entire creation of Genesis 1. What it all boils down to is that the other races are not even on Yahweh’s radar map. But to show evidence that the “man” at Genesis 1:26-27 is the same “man” at Genesis 2:7 (“man” being the same Strong’s # 120, the same as “Adam”), I will quote Josephus’ Antiquities 1:1:1-2, for he definitely states that Adam was “formed” on the sixth day:

Josephus’ Antiquities 1:1:1-2: “1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light; and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day; and he named the beginning of light and the time of rest, the Evening and the Morning; and this was indeed the first day: but Moses said it was one day, — the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear, with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars; and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both those that swim and those that fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the air: he also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that their kinds might increase and multiply. On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also FORMED man. Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world and all that is therein was made; and that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; — whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue. [emphasis mine]

“2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living.”

[Clifton responds:] You will notice that Josephus in no way supports the theory of an 8th day creation of man, but states, “On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man.” Notice that Josephus uses the term “formed” as stated in Genesis 2:7 for the “man” created on the sixth day. So the “created” vs. “formed” argument is invalid, as it is also invalidated by language found at Genesis 5:1-2, 6:7, Deut. 4:32, Job 33:6, Psalm 102:18, 104:30, Ecc. 12:1, Isaiah 43:1, 7, 15, 45:12, Mal. 2:10 etc.

As we pointed out earlier in this series, Isaiah chapters 43 and 45 refute the sophistry of the created vs. formed arguments of the 6th & 8th Day heretics. For example, in Isaiah 43:1 we read “But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel…”, so we see that our race was both created and formed, just like the only true Adam.

Further, some try to include the so-called “creation” of non-Adamic races under “the beast of the earth after his kind”, but Josephus blows holes in that theory also by stating “four-footed beasts.”

I have personally often found Josephus more accurate than either the Masoretic text or the Septuagint, though he often agrees more with the LXX. But in the creation of Adam-kind at Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7 there is no disagreement between these three sources. It’s all a matter of what some men have read into these passages that is really not there. Once one understands that Genesis 2:4-7 is the first historical chronicle in the Bible, all confusion disappears. Those who hold to the idea of two creations of man could also claim there was a second creation of animals at Genesis 2:19-20, which is only a recapitulation of Genesis 1:24-25. It is ridiculous to the point of blasphemy to claim that the races, (other than Adam), are in the “image” and “likeness” of the Almighty!

For anyone who doesn’t have a copy of the Works of Josephus, I would recommend the translation by William Whiston, by either the Kregel or the Hendrickson publishers. One might have to find a copy through a used book store.

Clifton likes Flavius Josephus, and in many respects so do I. But there are a few caveats. He was a Pharisee, and he carried a lot of what Christ had referred to as the “leaven of the Pharisees”. So he cannot be taken for gospel where he attempts to interpret Scripture. However he is most valuable in the history which he recorded during the inter-testamental period, from the end of the books of Maccabees to the beginning of the New Testament, which can be much better understood with the knowledge of that history which Josephus provides. We can also use Josephus to understand at least what many of the scholars among the first century Judaeans, those who were of the sect of the Pharisees, had thought about Scripture. Josephus, being a priest and a notable author, was indeed one of those scholars. For comparison’s sake, Josephus was born in 37 AD, five years after the Passion of the Christ, and probably died around 100 AD. So when Philo died, Josephus was only around 3 years old.

Here, Clifton made this exhibition from Josephus to show that a Hebrew reader, who was also a Levite and a priest, did not interpret Genesis chapters 1 and 2 to be describing two different creations of man. Neither do we. But there is a writer even a little older than Josephus who did, and his name is Philo Judaeus, or Philo of Judaea, a philosopher of first century Alexandria in Egypt. So he was also sometimes called Philo of Alexandria. In brief, Philo was a lot like Wesley Swift. He was a syncretist who sought to reconcile the pagan philosophies with Scripture, and to explain Scripture on philosophical terms. I am certain that he was a proto-Gnostic, one of the originators of what had later become known as gnosticism. But I never read all of Philo, because once I started, and realized that he was only a babbler, and no true interpreter of Scripture, I quickly abandoned Philo, even though he had a large influence on the generations which followed him, which included many of the later Christians at Alexandria. So Clifton continues under the subtitle:

THE INVENTOR OF THE 6TH & 8TH DAY CREATION THEORY

I believe most would be amazed at the origin of such a concept. It seems to be an invention of Philo, a Jew of Alexandria, Egypt. Philo did not call it a 6th & 8th day creation of man, but he did foster the idea of the creation of two separate Adams. So the theory of a 6th & 8th day creation of “man” is definitely his brainchild and [it is] certainly not Biblical. The question at once arises, how did that hypothesis gain credence in the Israel Identity Message? No doubt, by someone who had read Philo’s ridiculous allegories and had taken them literally. But before we view the evidence, let’s consider what is known of this man. The 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 18, page 700, has the following to say:

“PHILO JUDAEUS ... born about 20 B.C. and died about A.D. 40, was a Jewish thinker and leader of the Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt. He left many writings, mostly preserved in the original Greek, but some in Armenian translations. Philo was a contemporary of both Jesus and Paul. In his writings, Philo bequeathed a rich repository of information about Judaism in the Greek dispersion. Moreover, the external form of these writings, that is, a broad use of allegory, contributes an additional element of interest. Allegory is a way of interpreting an ancient text (whether Homer or the Bible) whereby a commentator assigns arbitrary and fanciful meanings so as to convert the literal sense into a meaning congenial to himself. Philo in his allegory interpreted the proper names of Scripture as abstract concepts drawn from Greek philosophy, principally Pythagoreanism (which includes Platonism) and Stoicism. For example, Adam is an ordinary mind, Eve is sense perception, Canaan is adolescence, and Egypt is sensuality; Cain is fluent speech in unsound argumentation, while Abel is sound argumentation haltingly expressed. The result of such allegory is that Philo represents a blending of Jewish revelation and Greek philosophy, thereby creating a precedent for subsequent Christian and Jewish theology.

Philo really could not have known much of either Jesus or Paul. The Passion was in 32 AD, and the Judaeans themselves rejected anything special about it, they tried to suppress the report of it, and they dismissed, and then persecuted, the upstart sect of Christians whom they treated as mere heretics. There is no authentic record of early apostles in Egypt. I do not accept the Coptic legends of the apostle Mark in Alexandria, as the Book of Acts refutes the claims that they make about his presence there. While Mark was supposed to have been in Alexandria from about 42 AD, a date which is later than the death of Philo, during the years he was presumably in Alexandria he was really traveling with Paul and Barnabas, and then, later, in Antioch with Barnabas. Even later, Mark was with Peter, until after Peter’s death when he wrote his gospel while he was in Rome, from what things Peter had related to him. It is also likely that Philo, who died in 40 AD, did not know anything of Paul of Tarsus, whose earliest surviving epistles can be dated with certainty to about 51 AD. When Philo died, Paul was most likely in Tarsus, as we see in Acts 9:30 and 11:25.

Continuing with Clifton’s citation from Collier’s Encyclopedia in reference to Philo:

“Philo’s treatises are customarily divided into categories. The Exposition is the group in which a topic is treated, while The Allegory of the Laws consists of essays built on a sequence of Biblical verses. In both categories each essay carries a specific title. The theory is advanced, and properly contended against, that The Exposition was written for Gentiles, The Allegory for Jews. The third group, Questions and Answers to Genesis and Exodus, is piecemeal allegory and amounts to preliminary notes rather than worked-out essays. The fourth is a miscellany; it includes Against Flaccus, a denunciation of the Roman governor of Alexandria during anti-Jewish riots in A.D. 38 or 39; Legation is an account of Philo’s participation in a Jewish committee sent to Rome to protest against Flaccus. That Every Good Man Is Free is nowadays often consulted for its gilded description of the Essenes, while On the Contemplative Life portrays a somewhat similar monastic order of Egyptian Jews, the Therapeutae.

“Philo was not so much a philosopher as a preaching essayist who utilized philosophy in great abundance. Repetitions and tangents describe his manner; systematic organization of ideas is foreign to him.

“Most notable is his view of the Logos, the immanent (‘in this world’) intelligence of the transcendent (‘beyond this world’) God. Affinities exist to the Logos of the Gospel According to John, and also to various early Christologies.

“Both in allegorical method and in many aspects of his content Philo influenced Christian writers such as Clement and Origen, though perhaps indirectly. He is unknown in ancient rabbinic literature.”

To this Clifton responds:

It is difficult to determine whether or not Philo was a good or bad fig. Philo is one of the publications listed by the Loeb Classical Library. From the forward, page xii, of Philo translated by C. D. Yonge (forward by David. M. Scholer), we read of Philo’s brother:

“Philo’s brother, Alexander, held various offices for Rome in Egypt and used his money to plate the gates of the temple in Jerusalem with silver and gold and to make a loan to Herod Agrippa I (see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.159-160 ; Jewish War 5.205 ). Alexander’s two sons, Marcus and Tiberius Iulius Alexander, Philo’s nephews, were also involved in Roman affairs. Marcus married Bernice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa I (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.276-277 ; this is the Bernice mentioned in Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30). Tiberius Alexander became an apostate from Judaism, held the office of procurator of Judaea (A.D. 46-48), and was a prefect in Egypt (A.D. 66-70).”

[Clifton responds:] From this it would appear that Alexander, Philo’s brother, married into the Edomite family of Herods, although this would not necessarily make him an Edomite though, his sons and nephews surely were. Also, Alexander having that much money makes one wonder where and how he got it, and who the people are that usually possess it?

We would agree with Clifton, contending that the family of Herod must have had much approval of Alexander the brother of Philo, if he were to last long in an official capacity in a city such as Alexandria, where the Judaeans had considerable influence. That alone may reveal that he was indeed a bad fig, but the evidence is certainly only circumstantial. Continuing with Clifton:

Just after the forward, there is a “Preface To The Original Edition” from which we will take excerpts on pages xix & xx:

“... His chief residence was at Alexandria, which at that period was, next to Athens, the most celebrated seat of philosophy in the world, and which had long been a favourite abode of the learned Jews. On one occasion he mentions having visited Jerusalem; and this is all we know of his personal history. In his religious opinions he appears to have been a Pharisee, to the principles of which sect some portion of his fondness for allegorical interpretation may perhaps be owing ... The attempt to reconcile the heathen philosophy with the Bible was not altogether new. As early as the time of Ptolemy Lagus, many Jews had been settled in Alexandria; and, at the period when Philo flourished, they are supposed to have formed half the population of that city – the splendid library of which opened to the learned men of their nation those stores of Greek wisdom and eloquence ... Of all the writers of this school the most eminent was Philo, and his works are highly interesting as showing us the manner in which the Sophists of his age and nation sought to appropriate the Greek philosophy by an allegorical interpretation of the works of Moses ...”

[Clifton responds again:] What all this boils down to is the mixing of Holy Scripture with heathenism. This is the same thing that our Redeemer rebuked Peter for when He addressed him as “Satan”, (Matthew 16:23): “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

I would rather rebuke Philo according to the words of Paul of Tarsus in 1 Corinthians chapters 2 and 3: “2:6 Now we speak wisdom among the accomplished; but wisdom not of this age, nor of those governing this age, who are being done away with. 7 Rather we speak wisdom of Yahweh, that had been hidden in a mystery, which Yahweh had predetermined before the ages for our honor, 8 which not one of the governors of this age has known, (since if they had known, they would not have crucified the Authority of that honor,) 9 but just as it is written, ‘Things which eye did not see, and ear did not hear, and came not into the heart of man, those things Yahweh has prepared for them that love Him’… 19 For the wisdom of this Society is folly before Yahweh; indeed it is written, ‘He seizes the cunning in their villainy.’ 20 And again, ‘Yahweh knows the reasonings of the cunning, that they are vain.’” Philo was certainly one of those cunning sophists to which Paul was referring. Clifton continues:

While Philo is valuable for some of the history during his time, his writings, for the most part, are outrageous. Actually, some of Philo’s history interlocks with Josephus, though Josephus is of a later date. Outside of the word “logos”, Philo has little Biblical inspiration to offer. In fact, he does quite the opposite. The idea of the two creations of Adam is one of them found under “On The Creation”, page 19:

“XLVI. (134) After this, Moses says that ‘God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life.’ And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God. For man as formed now is perceptible to the external senses, partaking of qualities, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal. But man, made according to the image of God, was an idea, or a genus, or a seal, perceptible only by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, imperishable by nature. (135) But he asserts that the formation of the individual man, perceptible by the external senses is a composition of earthy substance, and divine spirit. For that the body was created by the Creator taking a lump of clay, and fashioning the human form out of it; but that the soul proceeds from no created thing at all, but from the Father and Ruler of all things. For when he uses the expression, “he breathed into,” etc., he means nothing else than the divine spirit proceeding from that happy and blessed nature, sent to take up its habitation here on earth, for the advantage of our race, in order that, even if man is mortal according to that portion of him which is visible, he may at all events be immortal according to that portion which is invisible; and for this reason, one may properly say that man is on the boundaries of a better and an immortal nature, partaking of each as far as it is necessary for him; and that he was born at the same time, both mortal and the immortal. Mortal as to his body, but immortal as to his intellect.”

The offending conjecture at this passage of Philo is: “After this, Moses says that ‘God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life.’ And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God.” While much of what Philo says about the “spirit” of Adam-kind is true, he failed to recognize that Genesis 2:4-7 was the first chronicle in Scripture and that the “man” at Genesis 2:7 was the same “man” at Genesis 1:26-27. Are we not told at Luke 3:38 the following?: “... Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Therefore, only Adam, being the Son of Yahweh, could have His “image” and “likeness.” Surely the other races don’t have Yahweh’s Image or Spirit! Note: Philo’s “first man” has the Image, and the “man generated now” has the breath of life (Spirit)!

By this, I’m fully persuaded that Philo is responsible for today’s “6th & 8th day creation theory”! But let’s take a look at another one of Philo’s absurd allegories on page 19:

“XLIX. (140) The first man, therefore, appears to me to have been such both in his body and in his soul, being very far superior to all those who live in the present day, and to all those who have gone before us. For our generation has been from men: but he was created by God. And in the same proportion as the one Author of being is superior to the other, so too is the being that is produced. For as that which is in its prime is superior to that the beauty of which is gone by, whether it be an animal, or a plant, or fruit, or anything else whatever of the productions of nature; so also the first man who was ever formed appears to have been the height of perfection of our entire race, and subsequent generations appear never to have reached an equal state of perfection, but to have at all times been inferior both in their appearance and in their power, and to have been constantly degenerating, (141) which same thing I have also seen to be the case in the instance of the sculptors’ and painters’ art. For the imitations always fall short of the original models. And those works which are painted or fashioned from models must be much more inferior, as being still further removed from the original. And the stone which is called the magnet is subject to a similar deterioration. For any iron ring which touches it is held by it as firmly as possible, but another which only touches that ring is held less firmly. And the third ring hangs from the second, and the fourth from the third, and the fifth from the fourth, and so on one from another in a long chain, being all held together by one attractive power, but still they are not all supported in the same degree. For those which are suspended at a distance from the original attraction, are held more loosely, because the attractive power is weakened, and is no longer able to bind them in an equal degree.

“And the race of mankind appears to be subject to an influence of the same kind, since in men the faculties and distinctive qualities of both body and soul are less vivid and strongly marked in each succeeding generation.”

[Clifton responds:] I guess we would have to call this one “Philo’s constantly degenerating theory.” This would imply that Yahweh really didn’t make kind after kind! Anyway, I thought everyone would find it interesting from where the creations of two different Adams came, or what in Israel Identity is called “the 6th & 8th day creations.” What I have presented here on Philo is only a fraction of his convoluted gibberish. He is not to be likened to historians such as Herodotus, Josephus and many of the other classical writers. While the Bible uses allegorical language, it is not to be compared to the hodgepodge nonsense dreamed up by Philo. It is remarkable why anyone would want to repeat his absurdities. It now becomes the responsibility of everyone who has read this data to check it out for its accuracy. Again, I will repeat, the Works of Philo are of limited value, but I wouldn’t advise throwing them away.

As I said before, when I first began to peruse a copy of Philo, probably a few years before Clifton had written this paper, I gave it back after one evening, and I never bothered to try to read him again. But of course, I do not remember exactly what it was that I had disliked, except that I found Philo to be what I called at that time a philosobabbler.

That being said, in that passage which Clifton just cited, Philo was probably attempting to reconcile pagan Greek myth and philosophy with the Scripture. The ancient Greek poet Hesiod, who most likely thrived in the late 7th century BC, in his famous poem Works and Days, expounded at length about five ages of men, which he called the Golden Age, the Silver Age, and Bronze Age, the Age of Heroes, the historical heroes known to the Greeks such as Heracles, Jason, Theseus, and the warriors at Troy, and finally, the Iron Age, where men who are inferior to all those before them age quickly and have lives of constant toil. Perhaps some of Hesiod’s imaginings are based on interpretations of our Scriptures, and in turn Philo based his imaginings on pagans such as Hesiod.

Returning to Clifton’s criticism of Philo:

Let me here repeat Philo’s theory of the creation of two separate Adams: “After this, Moses says that ‘God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life.’ And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God…” The implications are, if Philo is correct, that we as White Adamites cannot have both (1) Yahweh’s Spirit Breath and (2) His “Image-Likeness” simultaneously. Which of these two very important inherent attributes shall we sacrifice? Philo implies one man is Spirit-man and the other is Image-man which is the same absurd theory that the 6th & 8th day creationists promote. It’s about time we discard this relic which belongs lock, stock and barrel to Philo. It is absurd to suggest the Spirit without the Image, or the Image without the Spirit!

In fact, in the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 2, we read: “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” We certainly would not want to imagine that this image could belong to both our race and the other so-called races. They cannot have this image any more than they can be ruddy, the meaning of the word adam. Clifton continues:

So, contrary to Josephus’ distinguished writings, much of Philo is nothing more than twisted logic! Josephus is not without fault in many respects, however an honest and straightforward man, while holding many errors of the Pharisees, as did Paul of Tarsus until he spent three years relearning the true meaning of Scripture. Phariseeism, though not as highly multicultural as today, was also tainted with universalism. Furthermore, Josephus was blind to the differences of Kenite-Canaanite- Edomite stock from the pure Adamite, even at times being quite complementary of Herod and his family, and seldom mentions differences along racial lines, except in a few isolated instances. For this reason his interpretation of early Scripture, as with other manuscripts, is not without error.

Aside from all of this, it may be said that it is good to compare Josephus’ view of the creation of Adam with that of Philo’s, and it shows that from a Hebrew reader’s perspective ([that of] Josephus), one certainly need not distinguish the repetition of the story of Adam’s creation as two different stories. The difference is, Josephus was interpreting Scripture from a strictly Hebrew standpoint, while Philo was attempting to pervert Scripture into something more agreeable to Greek philosophy. Thus, unwittingly the 6th and 8th day creation theorists have fallen into Philo’s diabolical trap. Like hybrid people, hybrid animals, hybrid fruit and vegetables, hybrid fish, hybrid birds, Philo’s is a hybrid religion. Therefore, those today who are teaching a 6th and 8th day creation of two different [Strong’s] # 120 Adams are promoting a (Philo inspired) hybrid doctrine. This is tantamount to race/species-mixing. Today, scientists (like the angels which kept not their first estate) are species-mixing in the laboratory. Again, I will repeat, Scripture does not record the creation of the non-Adamic races.

Actually, checking only the Strong’s numbers, the number Strong assigned to the word man in Genesis 1:26, 1:27 and 2:7 is always # 120. The proper name, Adam, does not appear in Scripture until Genesis 2:19, and there it is also # 120. So the so-called 6th & 8th Day Creation heretics cannot even believe the Strong’s Concordance which they twist in other ways to make their claim of two different adams!Now Clifton continues under the subtitle:

AN ANTICHRIST DOCTRINE

Significantly, the idea of a 6th & 8th day creation theory gets even more serious. By proclaiming that the non-Adamic races were created at Genesis 1:26-27 suggests that they are in the Image of the Almighty, [and] not us. Since Yahshua the Redeemer was called “son of Adam”, those propounding this theory deny that our Savior was in the Image of Yahweh. And if our Messiah has not that Image, then He is not our Kinsman Redeemer. If He came in the Image of the non-Adamic races, He is their Kinsman Redeemer, not ours! Further, if He came in the Image of the non-Adamic races, He didn’t come in our flesh, and anyone who declares He didn’t come in the flesh is “antichrist” (1 John 4:3; 2 John 7). As I have stated before, when He came He was born in the flesh, He was bruised in the flesh, He died in the flesh, He arose in the flesh, He ascended in the flesh, and He will return at His Second Advent in the flesh!

Clifton seems to have gotten somewhat sidetracked here, as the argument is not whether or not Christ came in THE flesh, but that he must have come in flesh the same as OUR flesh, as He is the “first-born among many brethren”, and took upon Himself the flesh of Abraham. Together with the image and likeness of God, that proves that He descended from the Genesis chapter 2 Adam as well as the man of Genesis chapter 1. Clifton concludes:

But in the end, it’s each individual’s responsibility to prove these things for himself (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Philippians 4:8)!

Clifton is right to point this out, but the conflicts which the 6th & 8th Day Creation heretics have with Scripture are much more numerous in this aspect.

For example, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul says: “7 Therefore while a man ought not to have the head covered, being of the likeness and splendor of God, then a woman is the splendor of a man.” Yet how is a man of the likeness of God, unless he is descended from the adam-man of Genesis 1:27, who is made in the image and likeness of God? While it is repeated in Genesis 5:1, it is not said in Genesis chapter 2 that Adam is in the likeness or image of God. However Genesis chapter 5:1-2, as well as Genesis 9:26, assure us that the man created in Genesis chapter 2 is the very same man whose creation we see in Genesis chapter 1, having the image and likeness as well as the Spirit of God. We cannot have all three, unless we are descended from the same Adam described in both Genesis chapters 1 and 2. So we attest, that the 6th and 8th Day Creation heretics must repent of their error, and now we see how that error originated: in the babble of Philo and the others who came before him, who attempted to twist Scripture to agree with Greek paganism.