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

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio


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.

Because Clifton’s terse manner of writing is sometimes difficult to understand, as he was endeavoring to squeeze these essays onto two sides of a single legal-sized sheet of paper, I will also make many emendations to his text, which I will place in brackets, aside from adding my own notes and comments in additional paragraphs.

Divers Seed Defiles Families, Deuteronomy 22:9 and Leviticus 19:19

by Clifton Emahiser

We are about to address the Bible’s most serious offense. Everywhere in the Old Testament the Hebrew word for “seed”, “sperm” or “descendant” (i.e., “offspring”) is Strong’s #2233 “zera”, except [in] Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9, where the [word found is] Strong’s #3610 [כלאים, kilayim] is used for “seeds”, “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled”; (once for “seeds” at Deuteronomy 22:9, and three times as “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled” at Leviticus 19:19) [as it is translated] in the King James Version. These two passages, with their four occurrences, are an exception to the rule.

In Clifton’s later paper, in the one-page edition, he clarified what he meant here and said:

These two passages, with their four occurrences, are an exception to the rule concerning “seeds” rather than “seed”.

Now, I may not agree with the wording of his clarification, but I can elaborate, since I am certain I know what Clifton meant by it. Everywhere else, the word seed in the King James Version is from the Hebrew word zera, and although the form is usually singular, it refers to a collection of one type of seed. If it is plural, it refers to multiple types of seed. However here in these two passages, the word is not zera, but kilayim, a dual form of another noun, kele, and Clifton is asserting that it describes a particular combination of a two seeds. I will address that assertion later on in his presentation.

I will now quote these two verses from e-Sword, with words for Strong’s #3610 underlined along with each of the four King James Version renderings:

Deuteronomy 22:9: “Thou shalt not 3808 sow 2232 thy vineyard 3754 with divers seeds 3610 [kilayim]: lest 6435 the fruit 4395 of thy seed 2233 which 834 thou hast sown 2232, and the fruit 8393 of thy vineyard 3754, be defiled 6942.”

Leviticus 19:19: “Ye shall keep 8104+853 my statutes 2708. Thou shalt not 3808 let thy cattle 929 engender 7250 with a diverse kind 3610: thou shalt not 3808 sow 2232 thy field 7704 with mingled seed 3610: neither 3808 shall a garment 899 mingled 3610 of linen and woolen 8162 come 5927 upon 5921 thee.”

In his later handout Clifton noted that “This would apply to man as well.” In other words, you should sow your own family with diverse seed. He also summarized the conclusion he made concerning the definition of Strong’s # 3610, kilayim, where he wrote:

#H3610 is rendered “divers seeds”, “diverse kind”, “mingled seed”, and “mingled”. #H3610 is an interesting Hebrew word used to denote such “seed”! It is derived from the dual form of #H3608 which means “a prison”. It would appear that what we have here are two individual seeds with dissimilar genetics, imprisoned or locked into one capsule from which neither can escape. In other words, “two, of a twofold kind” imprisoned in a single person, animal or plant.

Now we shall continue with this original paper:

I will repeat again that these four occurrences are the only places [in Scripture] where Strong’s Hebrew #3610 [כלאים, kilayim] is used, and from the King James Version it is rendered once as “seeds” at Deuteronomy 22:9 [where it is actually “divers seeds”], and three times as “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled” at Leviticus 19:19. But, the King James Version cannot always be trusted, so we will turn to the lexicons for a better understanding of the original languages (in this case Hebrew, Arabic & Ethiopic). Sometimes, when the lexicographers can’t find a root word in Hebrew, they will often turn to the Arabic because of the similarity of the two languages.

This time there is a root word in Hebrew that is employed in Scripture, which is kele, but it only means prison. So the Arabic and Ethiopic were referred to in order to see how the forms equivalent to kilayim may have been used.

Recently we presented Clifton’s series of papers titled Identifying the "Beast of the Field", and saw there that Adam Clarke had consulted words in the Arabic language in order to better understand certain Hebrew terms relating to that topic. There we explained that Arabic is closely related to Aramaic and Hebrew, and can therefore give us insight into primitive word meanings used in the Hebrew Bible, for which we do not have many, or even any, other sources available.

Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary:

3610. כלאים kil’ayim, kil-ah´-yim; dual of 3608 in the original sense of separation; two heterogeneties:– divers seeds (-e kinds), mingled (seed).”

3608. כלא kele’, keh´leh; from 3607; a prison:– prison. Compare 3610, 3628.”

The Hebrew word kilayim is the dual form of the word kele. The dual form is a form of a noun which signifies two of something. While English only has a singular and a plural, ancient Hebrew and other languages have a single, a dual and a plural form for nouns. Some ancient Greek nouns also have a dual form that has survived in the literature, which indicates that Greek also had the feature but it evidently fell out of general use in prehistoric times.

I will also elaborate on this word kele a little further. In the New College Latin & English Dictionary by John C. Traupman, Ph. D. it is explained that in Latin the letter “c” was originally hard, which explains why it was used to transliterate the Greek letter kappa, or “k”. I would assert therefore that the Hebrew kele is the origin of the Latin word cella, which is a chamber, as kele is a prison, and that is the origin of our English word cell. We have already demonstrated in diverse other places that the origin of many Latin words is found in Hebrew. Now Clifton cites the definitions of these words as they were supplied by Gesenius:

The Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon OT:

3610. כלאים [kilayim] dual. two things of diverse kinds, heterogeneous things, properly two separations, two separated, i.e., diverse things (Arabic  both, see De Sacy, Grammar Arabe ii. page 122; and Jeuhari, as quoted by him on Haririi Cons. page 87; Æthiopic  two, of a twofold kind). Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9.”

Gesenius’ on “3608: כלא [kele] masculine with suffix כלאו [kelew] Jeremiah 52:33, a prison, so called from the idea of shutting up, Jeremiah loc. cit. 2 Kings 25:29; more fully בית חכלא בית כלא II Kings 17:4; 25:27, plural בתי כלאים Isa. 42:22.”

[Clifton now comments:] In all, the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament takes into consideration Hebrew, Arabic, Samaritan, Syriac, Phoenician, Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, Coptic, Greek, and German, and has Tables of Alphabets listed on pp. xvi - xvii.

[Strong’s] #’s 3610 [kilayim] and 3608 [kele] seem to be a strange combination of Hebrew words! #H3610 is rendered “divers seeds”, “diverse kind”, “mingled seed”, and “mingled”, and #H3608 means “a prison”. It would appear [that] what we have [being described] here [in these passages of Deuteronomy and Leviticus] are two individual seed [Clifton purposely used the singular] with dissimilar genetics [which are] imprisoned or locked into one capsule from which neither can escape.

Later on in this paper it is evident that Clifton makes the connection between this realization and the description given by the apostles of “angels chained in darkness”, where he presented a passage from Justin Martyr which certainly helps us to see a correlation between these concepts. Clifton certainly realized the importance of the discovery that this particular word was used in this particular context. Now returning to Clifton:

In other words, “two, of a twofold kind” [from the dual form of kele, which is kilayim] imprisoned in a single living being or plant.

Now Clifton is going to offer biological descriptions of the word cell, even if he did not express or realize the possibility that the Hebrew kele and the English word cell were indeed the same word, and we never spoke of the relation between the words, it is almost as if he knew it instinctively:

To help the reader understand all of this, I will present some of the essential fundamental data related to this subject. I will first quote from The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 3, pp. 250-250a as follows:

CELL is the basic unit of all life. All living things – tigers, trees, mosquitoes, and men – are made up of cells. Some animals and some plants consist of only one cell. Other plants and animals are made up of many cells. The body of a man has more than a million million (1,000,000, 000,000) cells.

“Most cells are so small that they can be seen only under a microscope. It would take about 40,000 of your blood cells to fill [the space of] this letter 0 [as it appears on paper, but of course type sizes vary]. It takes more than a million cells to make up one square inch of your skin.

“Some one-celled plants and animals lead independent lives. Others live in loosely organized groups. In plants and animals made up of many cells, the cells are specialists with particular jobs to do. As you read these words, for example, nerve cells in your eyes are carrying messages of what you are reading to your brain. Muscle cells attached to your eyeballs are moving your eyes across the page. Nerve cells, muscle cells, and other specialized cells group together to form tissues, such as nerve tissue or muscle tissue. Different kinds of tissues form organs, such as the eyes, heart, and lungs. All the specialized cells together form you – or a giraffe, a daisy, or a bluebird.

“Almost all cells have some things in common, whether they are specialized cells or one-celled plants and animals. A cell is alive – as alive as you are. It ‘breathes,’ takes in food, and gets rid of wastes. It grows and reproduces (creates its own kind). And, in time, it dies.

“A thin covering encloses each cell. Within the covering is a fluid that looks like jelly. This fluid is called cytoplasm. It contains many tiny structures. Each has a job to do, such as producing energy. Near the center of the cell is the nucleus, the cell’s control point. The nucleus contains a master plan that controls almost everything the cell does. The entire living substance that makes up the cell is often called protoplasm.

“Just as all living things are made up of cells, every new cell is produced by a cell. Most cells reproduce by dividing, so that there are two cells where there once was one. When a cell divides, each of the two new cells gets a copy of the master plan.

“The master plan is a chemical substance called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). All DNA, whether it comes from a human cell, an animal cell, or a plant cell, looks much alike, and has about the same chemical composition. But DNA has a chemical code that makes every living thing different from all other living things. This code makes a dog different from a fish, a zebra different from a rose, and a willow different from a wasp. It makes you different from every other person on earth ....”

[In response, Clifton notes that:] While The World Book Encyclopedia did well on the subject of the “Cell”, they completely destroy their credibility on the subject of “Heredity” by inserting vain propaganda, promoting their unproved hypothesis of evolution [which is now] found in almost all available data! Now he continues under the subtitle:


I will now quote and underline a portion from The World Book Encyclopedia on “Heredity” where they deliberately interwove the LIE of EVOLUTION in their otherwise appropriate data, in volume 9, on page 192:

HEREDITY is the passing on of characteristics from parents to offspring. All living things – human beings, plants, and animals – pass on traits from one generation to the next.

“Nearly all forms of life are made up of vast numbers of tiny cells (units of living matter). For example, a person’s body contains about a hundred trillion (a hundred million million) cells. Each person begins life as a single cell. However, this cell comes from the joining of a tiny egg cell of the person’s mother with an even tinier sperm cell from his father. Egg and sperm join in a process called fertilization.

“A fertilized egg contains a set of ‘instructions’ on how the egg should grow. These ‘instructions’ differ from one form of life to another. For this reason, a human egg grows into a human being and not into something else. Even among human beings the ‘instructions’ vary in detail. Except for identical twins, no two persons inherit ‘instructions’ that are exactly alike.

“All children inherit traits from their parents. A boy may be blond and blue-eyed like his mother. A girl may have curly hair like her father, and a nose like her grandmother. Sometimes traits can be traced to more distant relatives. The traits that you inherited from your parents by way of the sperm and egg are called your biological inheritance.

Your biological inheritance alone does not make you the person you are. Your environment (surroundings) influences your inherited traits. Ever since you were born you have needed air to breathe, food to eat, and water to drink, as well as protection from cold weather. But environmental influences began even before you were born – when you were an egg in your mother’s body. While you were developing, your mother’s blood brought food and carried away waste products. An unborn child is very sensitive to substances in its mother's blood ...” [Clifton comments in response that: Here I have underlined the horrendous lie and the misleading statements.] Question: Just when did the “environment” change the genetic code given to us by our father and mother, who in turn received it from our Almighty Father, Yahweh?

I simply cannot let [pass] this comment that “An unborn child is very sensitive to substances in its mother’s blood” without addressing it. In a normal birth of a child, the mother’s blood never comes into contact with the child, nor does the baby’s blood come into contact with the mother! In the 1980 edition of Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 11, p. 748, under “Prenatal Circulation”, it states:

“Circulation of blood in the unborn child (the fetus), called the fetal circulation, is important because it functions directly in nutrition, excretion, and respiration. During the fetal or prenatal stage, there is present a special organ, the placenta, which connects the body of the fetus with the mother. The fetal blood runs through the placental tissue as does the maternal blood. However, the blood of the fetus and of the mother do not mix at any time. The exchange of different substances takes place through the very thin contacting walls of the placental membranes. Through them, the fetal blood takes up oxygen and nutritive materials from the mother’s blood. At the same time, it gives off waste substances which are then eliminated through the mother’s excretory system.

“From the placenta, the newly oxygenated blood passes through the umbilical vein towards the heart. Much of it first goes through the liver; hence the liver is quite large in proportion to other organs in this early stage of life. The blood that does not go through the liver goes through the ductus venosus to the inferior vena cava. There, it mixes with blood from the lower parts of the body and the abdominal wall, and the blood from the liver which comes through the hepatic vein. This mixed blood then enters the right atrium of the heart. Guided by the valve of the inferior vena cava, it passes into the left atrium through the foramen ovale which is a fetal opening in the wall that separates the two atria. There, it meets a small amount of blood from the lungs that comes through the pulmonary vein. The blood then passes into the left ventricle and is pumped out into the aorta and distributed to the head and upper parts of the body. The blood returns from the head and upper regions through various veins into the right atrium via the superior vena cava. It then enters the right ventricle and is pumped into the pulmonary artery; however only a small quantity goes to the lungs since they do not function until birth and need only enough blood for their nutrition. The greater part is forced through a blood vessel, the ductus arteriosus, which is present only in the fetus, directly into the aorta. The blood is then distributed to the lower limbs and abdominal organs, but the greater portion of it returns to the placenta via the umbilical arteries.

“At birth, the umbilical blood vessels are severed and the placenta is cast off. Several changes then occur in the circulatory system which culminate in the permanent circulatory system. The lungs start functioning and blood is sent to them for the carbon dioxide-oxygen exchange. The foramen ovale usually ceases to function within two months after birth and closes up entirely within a year. It becomes an oval depression known as the fossa ovalis. Failure to close after birth results in a congenital heart disorder known as an atrial septal defect which can now be corrected by the newest techniques of heart surgery. Immediately after respiration is established, the ductus arteriosus begins to contract and becomes obliterated. It eventually becomes the ligamentum arteriosum, which is an impervious cord without function. Failure of this to occur after birth results in a disorder known as potency of the ductus arteriosus which can be corrected surgically in a large percentage of cases. The umbilical vein, the ductus venosus, and the umbilical arteries usually disappear about five days after birth. With the commencement of food intake, the digestive tract begins to function. The digestive system then takes over the function of providing nutrients for the blood to pick up and distribute throughout the body. Wastes are eliminated through the urinary system.”

[From the same encyclopedia, from volume 9, on page 123, under the title] “Development Of The Embryo”: “A human embryo in the uterus, suspended in a protective sac of amniotic fluid. During its development, the embryo receives oxygen and food materials from the mother’s bloodstream through the placenta, a spongy membrane composed of tissue from the embryo and the uterus. Waste products from the embryo are released into the mother’s bloodstream through the same membrane. Although the blood vessels from the embryo and uterus interlock, the blood does not intermix.”

[Again, from the same encyclopedia, from volume 9, on page 123, under the title] “Extraembryonic Membranes”: “... The placenta develops as a specialized outgrowth of the fetal membranes. A spongy membrane, the placenta is composed of interlocking blood vessels from the embryo and the mother. It is through the placenta that nutrients, oxygen, and metabolic wastes are passed by diffusion. Normally, however, there is no actual intermingling of fetal and maternal blood because layers of cells separate the blood vessels. At birth the placenta is discarded as the afterbirth, and its tasks are assumed by the digestive systems, lungs, and kidneys ....” Clifton concludes: This reference material concerning how Yahweh protects our women even though they have committed miscegenation is vital to our cause! [In other words, the concept of telegony is not true. Clifton EACH TELEGONY]

The encyclopedia citations were somewhat tedious, however Clifton wanted to show precisely how well it is that we may understand the relationship between mother and child in the womb, and the process of genetic material and sustenance passing from one to the other. This understanding rules out the possibility that telegony actually occurs, and also that genetic traits are influenced by external sources.

Now Clifton changes the subject, and he cites Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist who lived and wrote until he suffered death for his faith at the hands of the Romans, some time around 165 AD. Only some of Justin's writings survive to us, most notably his Dialogue with Trypho and two of his apologies:

From The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ch. 4, where the Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, speaks of something similar: “‘... The Soul of Itself Cannot See God.” – [Trypho says:] “‘Tell me, however, this: Does the soul see [God] so long as it is in the body, or after it has been removed from it?’ – [Justin answers:] “‘So long as it is in the form of a man, it is possible for it,’ ... [Clifton's citation of the dialog is too concise. After Justin's assertion that certain presumed men are not worthy to see God, Trypho asks:] ‘And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?’ said he. – [So Justin answers:] ‘They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment’.” [emphasis Clifton's]

In response to Justin's assertion, Clifton says: See my Angels That Sinned “Chained In Darkness”, 2 Pet. 2:4 & Jude 6 (#1). It would appear [that] “the angels that sinned” are genetically mixed ½ & ½ with animal-kind/s! Until we comprehend that there is no record that Yahweh created the nonwhite races, we are naïvely doomed to adopt dangerous premises. In order to learn more about Justin Martyr and Trypho, I will quote from A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, under the topic “The Apologists”, section 11, pp. 50-51:

“These charges against Christians, and the hostile attitude of the Roman government, aroused a number of literary defenders, who are known as the Apologists. Their appearance shows that Christianity was making some conquest of the more intellectual elements of society. Their appeal is distinctly to intelligence. Of these Apologists the first was Quadratus, probably of Athens, who about 125 [AD] presented a defense of Christianity, now preserved only in fragments, to the Emperor Hadrian. Aristides, an Athenian Christian philosopher, made a similar appeal, about 140, to Antoninus Pius. Justin wrote the most famous of these defenses, probably in Rome, about 153. His disciple, Tatian, who combined the four Gospels into his famous Diatessaron, also belonged to the Apologists. With them are to be reckoned Melito, bishop of Sardis, who wrote between 169 and 180; and Athenagoras, of whom little is known personally, whose defense, which survives, was made about the year 177. Here also belongs the Epistle to Diognetus, often reckoned among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

“There is no evidence that any of these Apologists greatly influenced heathen opinion, or that their appeal was seriously considered by the rulers whom it was their desire to persuade. Their work was deservedly valued in Christian circles, however, and undoubtedly strengthened Christian conviction of the nobility of the cause so earnestly defended. Several of the Apologists were from the ranks of the philosophers, and their philosophical interpretation aided in the development of theology. The most significant was Justin, and he may well stand as typical of the whole movement.

“Justin, called the Martyr, from his heroic witness unto death in Rome under the prefect Rusticus, about 165, was born in Shechem, in the ancient Samaria, of heathen ancestry. He lived, for a time at least, in Ephesus, and it was in its vicinity probably that the conversion of which he gives a vivid account took place. An eager student of philosophy, he accepted successively Stoicism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism. While a Platonist his attention was directed to the Hebrew prophets, ‘men more ancient than all those who are esteemed philosophers.’ Theirs is the oldest and truest explanation ‘of the beginning and end of things and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know,’ since they were ‘filled with the holy Spirit.’ ‘They glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ.’ By his newly acquired conviction of the truth of their ancient prophetic message, Justin says: ‘straightway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets and of those men who are friends of Christ.... I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable.’ These quotations show the character of Justin’s religious experience. It was not a profound and mystical union with a risen Lord, as with Paul. It was not a sense of forgiveness of sin. It was a conviction that in Christianity is the oldest, truest, and most divine of philosophies. Justin continued to look upon himself as a philosopher. He made his home in Rome and there wrote, about 153, his Apology, addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and that sovereign’s adopted sons, defending Christianity from governmental antagonism and heathen criticisms. A little later, perhaps on a visit to Ephesus, he composed his Dialogue with Trypho, similarly presenting the Christian case against Jewish objections. A second sojourn in Rome brought him to a martyr’s death ...”

Both Clifton and I have quoted at length from the apologies of Justin Martyr, and later apologists such as Tertullian and Minucius Felix, but there were many others. An apology, from the original Greek meaning of the term, is a defense. These men wrote intellectual defenses of Christianity. While we have not always agreed with them, the apologies are valuable for gaining insight into what early Christians thought of Christianity, and of the Hebrew Scriptures, and for their contributions to our historical understanding of the period of Christianity under the persecutions.

Justin Martyr was not perfect, in that he maintained a lot of baggage from his past as a student of various Greek philosophies, Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, and especially Platonism. Elements of the Greek philosophies clearly affected his Christian beliefs and perspectives.

However where Justin said that souls which are in the form of man can see God, and souls which cannot see God were punished because “they are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts”, and therefore must have been of mixed race, that is not a Greek perspective – but it is found in the ancient and apocryphal Hebrew literature. As we have seen here, Justin was a Samaritan, born in Shechem, and we have also explained in our recent commentaries on the Gospel of John, in relation to John chapter 4, that at least many of the people of Shechem were remnant Israelites. So it is quite plausible that Justin was familiar with apocryphal Hebrew literature as well as the Old Testament and the meanings of Hebrew words, and derived his Christian perspective from that, at least in part.

From the work Who’s Who in Christian History, we will examine a short excerpt: “The Dialogue was a discussion with a Jewish rabbi (possibly the historical Rabbi Tarphon) about the superiority of Christianity over Judaism...” At Justin’s time, whether Trypho was an Edomite or an Israelite cannot be determined, but it is quite evident he was steeped in Judaism! [I must add, that we would only know of a rabbi Tarphon from the Talmud.] Nevertheless, both men were highly educated and acquainted with the writings of the Old Testament, and grasped the meaning of the Hebrew word “kilayim”, being two dissimilar seed[s] permanently imprisoned in the body of a beast, and the offspring thereof. [Justin of course knew this, but the Dialog shows that Trypho was not aware of it until after Justin had informed him.] I hope the reader now sees the difference between “kilayim” and “zera”!

So zera is seed, and the word kilayim was used in the scriptures to describe hybrids, two different types of kind which are locked together in the same cell, as if in a prison. The angels that sinned had committed fornication, the “going after of strange flesh” as the apostle Jude had described it, and therefore they were “chained in darkness” until the judgment of the great day, where it is inevitable that they shall all be cast into the Lake of Fire. So Justin Martyr also described their existence as mongrels, being imprisoned in the bodies of beasts, as their punishment. Jude called them “twice dead”, as they have not the spirit of Yahweh through which there is resurrection, which Paul described in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Peter said that they were “evil beasts made to be taken and destroyed.” Nothing Yahweh created was made to be destroyed; it all had a purpose.

This was the conclusion of Clifton's original essay, and at this point we will present the balance of his later one-page handout on this same topic, as neither paper seems complete until we put them both together. This immediately follows the summary of Clifton’s conclusion on the definition of the word kilayim, which we have already provided, so we will not repeat that here. As he proceeds, Clifton takes it for granted that his reader is familiar with the Christian identity of our European peoples as the actual descendants of the ancient Israelites:

The pure genetic White Israelites, now known as White Caucasians, were given specific admonishment not to race-mix with nonwhites at Deuteronomy 7:1-3 thusly:

1 When Yahweh thy Almighty shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when Yahweh thy Almighty shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” This same reprimand is repeated at: Exodus 34:15-16; Numbers 25:1-9; Joshua 23:12-13; Judges 3:5-6: 1 Kings 11:2; Ezra 9:1-2; Nehemiah 13:25; [and] 2 Corinthians 6:14-18!

Now, under the subtitle:


The following declaration of intent was given in 1912 by a British top-level Communist theoretician, Israel Cohen, as recorded in the booklet Who’s Who In The World Zionist Conspiracy by James Combs, [published in 1978, on] page 40:

“The ‘Race-Mixing’ program: ‘We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension... In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the negroes. We will aid the negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause’.”

In Myron C. Fagan’s booklet UN Is Spawn Of The Illuminati, published October-November, 1966, he elaborates somewhat more in depth concerning this matter on page 16:

“Around 1910, one Israel Zangwill wrote a play which he called ‘The Melting Pot.’ The central figure in the play was a very young Jewish boy, who ostensibly was a violinist of wonderful talent. According to the plot in the play, certain people were eager to reveal his great talents to the world and they tried to lease the Carnegie Music Hall for a concert, but the management of the Carnegie refused, ostensibly because the boy was an [Edomite]-jew. However, very great pressures were brought to bear on the management, and they consented to the engagement. Then – and this was still part of the play – it was discovered that the young violinist insisted upon a young negro pianist being his accompanist. Again the management exploded – they had a rigid rule against negroes performing in their Music Hall. But, again tremendous pressure was brought to bear on them – and they finally surrendered.

[Note (by Clifton): Israel Zangwill wrote a play and book entitled The Melting Pot, and both are a lie, and advance Satan’s agenda from the pits of Hell!]

Myron Fagan was himself a Jew, and really told us nothing new, so we should be careful of quoting him. However everything Fagan said concerning Israel Zangwill and his play The Melting Pot can certainly be corroborated in other sources. Now Clifton turns to something which seems to have vexed him in his own youth, as he was born in 1927 and these movies were popular when he was growing up:

Another case in point was the very beautiful child prodigy, Shirley Temple, whom the Hollywood Edomite-jews used to break the race barrier. Shirley was the daughter of Gertrude Amelia (Krieger) and George Francis Temple. Her father had English, Dutch, and German ancestry. Her mother had German and Irish ancestry, all of pure White Caucasian European heritage. We read at the website Questia.com:


'Bojangles' Salutes Tap Dancer Who Broke Race Barriers

“History resonates with images of the smiling tap dancer in black-face, yet few know the price black performers paid to both perpetuate and, ultimately, end these ‘Uncle Tom’ stereotypes. Showtime launches its February Black History month celebration with ‘Bojangles’ (Feb. 4, 8-9:45 p.m.), a movie about the man most knew as Shirley Temple’s tap-dancing partner, Bill ‘Bojangles’ Robinson.

Here I must note in all fairness, that the popular 1968 folk song “Mr. Bojangles” by Jerry Jeff Walker was actually inspired by an apparently White street performer whom Walker had met in a jail in New Orleans, and it has nothing to do with this negro. But evidently, many street dancers used the name “Bojangles” after Robinson, the negro actor and dancer of the 1920’s and 30’s, had become popular, and many White street entertainers wore black-face as part of their act. Evidently, negros were thought to be more entertaining bac then as well. The Jew, Al Jolson, is a famous example. Clifton continues with another source:

We read again at the website of the New York Post:


“She broke down race barriers: ‘At a time when the South was segregated, Jim Crow was in effect and white audiences reacted with revulsion at any suggestion of too much friendliness between blacks and whites, Temple is believed to have been likely the first white actress ever depicted holding hands with a black man on-screen. The disarming innocence of her famous stair[way] dance with Bill ‘Bojangles’ Robinson in the 1935 film ‘The Little Colonel’ was something of a breakthrough’ ....”

[Now Clifton aptly responds to the Shirley Temple phenomenon:] “Disarming innocence?” Hell No! Disarming subterfuge! It is nothing short of child molestation to take advantage of a pretty White, innocent, young girl like Shirley Temple to bring forth the grievous, unforgivable sin of miscegenation on a grandiose scale. And while all of this is happening, we, as a people, are claiming these Edomites [meaning the modern so-called Jews] are “God’s chosen people”, while in fact they are related to the family of the Edomite, Herod the Great. It is beyond the scope of this short essay to point out the multi-thousands of instances on par with Shirley Temple being utilized for evil!

Clifton may not have elaborated at length, but quoting that passage from Justin Martyr and bringing to light the meaning of the word kilayim as it was used in Scripture, he certainly did intend to convey the idea, that people of mixed race actually represent the seed of our Adamic race locked in a prison from which it can never escape. Families accepting such race-mixing are defiled forever in that very manner. Mixing your race with that of another, you too, through your descendants, become an angel chained in darkness, “reserved unto the judgment of the great day” at which all of your bastard progeny are tossed into the Lake of Fire.