The Only True Adam of Genesis, Part 2: ADAM in the Hebrew in Genesis

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 Saturdays
CHR20180707-OnlyTrueAdam-2.mp3 — Downloaded 6648 times


The Only True Adam of Genesis, Part 2: ADAM in the Hebrew in Genesis

It never ceases to amaze me, how many times I may state something that is based upon at least two or three witnesses in Scripture, along with studies of word meanings in the original languages, along with contextual support, and often even historical support, yet people simply dismiss it because it goes against something which they were taught in the past. They are so confident in their supposed knowledge that they absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that they may be mistaken. They are so emotionally attached to their teachers, who are only fallible men, that they will not even examine the facts which underlie a contrary opinion.

Nowhere in Scripture do I see this phenomenon more often than in discussions of the creation of Adam which is described in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Many people who learned their Christian Identity from Bertrand Comparet, Wesley Swift, or Sheldon Emry are so certain that there was an 8th-Day Creation of Adam distinct from the explicit 6th-Day Creation that they simply refuse to listen to any contrary evidence whatsoever. There is nothing wrong with being loyal to our teachers, but real loyalty would require studying behind them, and being able to prove everything which they told us for ourselves. For this Christ Himself never said “just take My word for it”, but rather He always said “search the scriptures”. Real loyalty would also require a dialogue when different results are obtained through that study. This is why there are science labs in high schools, so that students can prove through demonstration the things which they hear in the lectures, rather than merely taking those things for granted. If you are the only student whose metal rod did not expand when it was heated, you might have some great new discovery, or perhaps you only made an error in your measurements, and that is much more likely to be the case.

Pondering this situation this morning, I have here in a box in my office closet a short stack of some of the mail which I received from Lorraine Swift and others over the years I spent in prison. Lorraine sometimes wrote on paper, but usually she wrote shorter notes on greeting cards. I found one card where she wrote so much that she used a piece of paper to finish her letter. I will reproduce it, and the other notes from Lorraine that I will mention here, for the notes to this podcast. It was dated October 13th, 2004, which is about a year before her death.

There is a reference to an old song at the beginning of her note, titled “11 more months and 10 more days”. I cannot say how it was familiar to me, I do not remember. Maybe I spent too much time in jail. But it can be found in several versions on Youtube.

In this note, among other things, Lorraine, who often shared with me brief recollections from her past, told me the following: “Regarding Bert & Wesley, Inez did his research & Wes read a lot & had a photographic memory. I would hope that knowledge would increase as time goes on. At one time, believe it or not, the scene passed before Wes’ eyes & all he did was to describe it. That’s when he talked fast.” Lorraine mentioned another woman in this letter, Jeanne Snyder, who corresponded with me much more than Lorraine herself did. Jeanne was a lifelong friend of both couples, the Swifts and the Comparets, and often corroborated for me things which Lorraine had also told me, in the course of her own correspondence. I hope one day to get all of my correspondence with these women posted in appropriate places.

So Inez Comparet did Bertrand’s research, according to Lorraine Swift, and Wesley Swift simply had visions of things pass before his eyes. I do not want to assail Bertrand Comparet, but perhaps he may have found greater things if he did his own research. Wesley Swift I have criticized more extensively, and there are reasons why I personally have always upheld a need for mental hygiene, not to read things such as the Kabbalah or the writings of the Neoplatonists with which Swift was quite enamored. When you follow a teacher, you had better study behind him in order to be able to assess the value of what you are following.

I found another card this morning, dated November 29th, 2001, where in part Lorraine had said “Thank you for editing Emahiser’s material. I think he is doing an exceptional job with research.” On January 7th, 2002, she repeated that compliment and said “Clifton Emahiser does remarkable in depth research.” On November 24th, 2004, she wrote in part: “I appreciate your writing about David & not agreeing completely with Wes & Bert. Knowledge is supposed to increase. Not all ministries are the same, as you know. I really appreciate Emahiser’s in-depth research. And your help.” The David she mentioned is David Moore, with whom I had some serious disagreements. From what I remember, David took Wesley Swift’s New-Age syncretism to a whole new level, and I was quite incredulous. Then again on January 7th, 2005, speaking of our critical review of Comparet’s fourteen-part series on the Revelation, Lorraine wrote “I’m glad you & Clifton are doing Bert’s Revelation. He was a good man and a good friend. He used to deer hunt with us often getting lost.” The irony does not escape me, and that is all I will say about that.

I did not receive much from Lorraine after that last card mentioned here, as her health took a seriously bad turn and she was committed to a nursing home shortly thereafter. She did not survive to see 2006. But Lorraine was totally committed to her husband’s ministry, even 35 years after Wesley Swift had died, and she freely sent Wesley’s booklets to prisoners right up until the months before she became terminally ill. But my point here, is that Lorraine Swift had not one bone of contention with either Clifton or I for seeking to advance beyond her husband’s work and seeking to correct some of his errors. So if Lorraine Swift can humbly appreciate new developments in Christian Identity research, and new conclusions based on those developments, then just about anyone else should also be able to appreciate them, and hopefully examine them. The only obstacle is pride, and this is what I find to be the prominent obstacle with those who cannot accept that the so-called 6th & 8th Day Creation theory is just plain wrong.

Ever since the dawn of the British Israel movement, when scholars began to conclude from the young science of archaeology that the people of Europe originated in Mesopotamia and the Levant, and that many of them could indeed be identified with the so-called “lost tribes of Israel”, have men sought to distinguish our White and Adamic race from the other races of the planet. So, without any proof, but merely taking for granted that Yahweh God created all of the races as we know them from our own brief historical experience, many men have come to insist that the Genesis chapter 1 adam is a separate and earlier creation than the Genesis chapter 2 Adam. By this they imagine that the Bible describes the creation of all races of so-called man, while at the same time the White race can be viewed as being separate and special.

Now, I was once a neophyte to Christian Identity studies, back in 1997, and this all seemed to make sense to me, especially since at the time I had very few research resources. Then I had a friend, a man who had been studying much longer than I, whose name was David Gray. David showed me a better way to understand Genesis, through much discussion in which Clifton was also involved, and after a great deal of study I realized that he was correct, and that the 6th & 8th Day Creation theory, which it was my first instinct to defend, could not possibly be correct. By David’s arguments, I was forced to make the realization that while Comparet and Swift helped me a lot, they were wrong about this particular issue. Yet David had only about half of the evidences and considerations that I have now, after another 18 years of study.

For that I am grateful, that I was divested of the 6th & 8th Day error so early in my own studies, and soon after that, when I was studying the Greek of Peter and Jude, if I remember correctly, I arrived at the conclusion that Yahweh could not have created the non-White races at all, at least as we now know them. I concluded from that and from the parables of Christ that they must all be corruptions of Yahweh’s original creation. I think I came to that conclusion in 2003 or 2004, and Clifton came to it along with me as we had continued to study and discuss the subject with one another. Now I am still certain that this theory is true, I believe that I have proven it from Scripture, and there is a collection of presentations at Christogenea containing those proofs, titled The Biblical Standing of the Non-Adamic (Non-White) Races, which includes five parts of my long Two-Seedline: Pragmatic Genesis series.

We have considered a greater Biblical context than merely the enmity of Genesis chapter 3, and view the other races as branches on that “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which represents the fallen angels and their rebellion and the corruption of Yahweh’s original Creation. The first proof of that is the fact that the goat nations ultimately share the same fate as the “fire prepared for the devil and his angels”. If we can acknowledge their destiny, we can then understand their origin. But here our purpose is not to prove that the other races of ‘men’ are ancient corruptions. Rather, we must demonstrate that our Bible describes the creation by Yahweh of only one race of man, which is the White race.

So last week I presented a two-part essay by Clifton Emahiser, titled The Only True Adam of Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7. In those papers, aside from a few other things, Clifton mostly focused on the fact that only one race, our White race, can have the image of God, and therefore Genesis chapters 1 and 2 must both be describing the creation of the same White race. The Genesis chapter 2 man is not described as having that image, but is said to have been endowed with the Spirit of God. There I also mentioned a later paper which Clifton wrote titled "Adam" in the Hebrew in Genesis, and explained that I have already expanded on that article in the initial segment opening my Pragamatic Genesis series. Here I am going to present only a few concepts from that material, along with Clifton’s paper.

In order to completely understand our Scriptures, or at least, as completely as we as men are capable of understanding them, one needs to comprehend a great deal of history as well as the complete scriptures themselves, both old and new testaments. As we have also often said, since Christ Himself had attested that He came to reveal things which were kept secret since the foundation of the world, we as Christians should know that Genesis cannot be understood apart from, or independently of, an understanding of the teachings of Christ.

So when I decided for myself, maybe 15 years ago, to begin writing essays in order to defend my own Christian Identity profession, one of the first things I wrote was a rather concise paper titled The Race of Genesis 10. I did that in order to illustrate that all of the nations of Genesis chapter 10, which are all of the known surviving descendants of Adam, were originally White, and I assert confidently that such a fact is indeed known from ancient history.

The advocates of the 6th & 8th Day Creation theory imagine that there were somehow two creations of adam, representing distinct races of people, and that our White race descended from the second of these two creations, which is described in Genesis chapter 2. So if one is to imagine that there is another race descended from a separate Genesis chapter 1 creation of adam, where may one find it? Only in the non-White races, and that is exactly what many of the advocates of the 6th & 8th Day Creation theory actually claim: that black, yellow, red and brown people all fall under that first category of so-called man, or small-a adam, as the Hebrew word for the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-27 is adam.

Rather ignorantly, the same advocates of that theory will turn around in Genesis chapter 2 and swear that the word adam in Hebrew means “to show blood in the face”, which is how James Strong defined the verb form of the word in his original Concordance. Then they will tell you that the other races do not show blood in the face, all the while insisting that the other races are the man, the Hebrew adam, created on the 6th day in Genesis chapter 1! Their failure to see the blatant contradictions in their own arguments and the discrepancies in their own teachings never ceases to amaze me.

We accept Strong’s definition. Adam as a verb can mean “to show blood in the face”, or, as an adjective, to be ruddy. It bears those meanings because its true root word is the Hebrew word for blood, which is dam (Strong’s # 1818). That is something Strong had failed to record, but which I had noticed on my own in my first few weeks of study in Christian Identity, when I had nothing to read but a King James Bible I procured from the prison chapel, and a Strong’s Concordance. The Concordance was borrowed, and I never returned it. After all these years, it is still sitting here beside my desk. And if the man I borrowed it from ever listens to this, as I lost touch with him years ago, I pray he contacts me one day so that after over twenty years, I can finally return it. I must admit, that I still do actually use it, but there are larger hardcover editions which I now have from Clifton’s library. So I would be happy to return this one, and actually relieved.

The advocates of the 6th & 8th Day Creation theory claim that somehow the adam in Genesis chapter 1 is a different man than the ha-adam or the eth-ha-adam of Genesis chapter 2. So in effect, they are claiming that adding articles, prepositions and other forms of grammar to a noun somehow makes that noun a different entity than if the articles and prepositions were not added. So if I go to the store today and buy a ball, and the next day I go out to my yard and I throw the ball for my dog, that cannot be the same ball that I had just purchased the day before, as “a ball” must be a different ball than “the ball”! This is of course ludicrous, but this is in effect exactly what they are professing.

So in Clifton’s paper, "Adam" in the Hebrew in Genesis, Clifton reproduces a lot of Hebrew sentences, highlighting the Hebrew words for adam, along with the accompanying articles and prepositions, and illustrating that they are only different grammatical parts of speech referring to the same entity. This is somewhat technical, but I will try to make it as understandable as possible.

Clifton opens his paper with a proclamation that:

The Hebrew clearly proves that the “man” at Genesis 1:27 is the same “man” as that of Genesis 2:7, 8


The following are both the Hebrew from Bible Works [from the Codex Leningradensis Hebrew Text, from the Groves-Wheeler Westminster Morphology] , and the English from the King James Version which clearly proves (not merely suggests) that the “man” (Adam) of Genesis 1:27 is the same “man” (Adam) of Genesis 2:7-8 and the other verses presented here:

Genesis 1:27: ויברא אלהים את-האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אתו זכר ונקבה ברא אתם

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

[Clifton did not reproduce Genesis 1:26 here, where the creation of man is proposed, and the Hebrew form is only אדם, or adam]

Genesis 2:7:וייצר יהוה אלהים את-האדם עפר מן-האדמה ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים ויהי האדם לנפש חיה

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Genesis 2:8: ויטע יהוה אלהים גן-בעדן מקדם וישם שם את-האדם אשר יצר

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:15: ויקח יהוה אלהים את-האדם וינחהו בגן-עדן לעבדה ולשמרה

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Genesis 3:24:ויגרש את-האדם וישכן מקדם לגן-עדן את-הכרבים ואת להט החרב המתהפכת לשמר את-דרך עץ החיים

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Genesis 6:6: וינחם יהוה כי-עשה את-האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל-לבו

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7ויאמר יהוה אמחה את-האדם אשר-בראתי מעל פני האדמה מאדם עד-בהמה עד-רמש ועד-עוף השמים כי נחמתי כי עשיתם

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 9:6: שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך כי בצלם אלהים עשה את-האדם

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

That is the end of Clifton’s examples, and in them we have seen three grammatical forms for the same word, which we will transliterate as adam, ha adam, and eth-ha adam. Now Clifton, after examining these forms, says:

Some try to cite the Strong’s Concordance Hebrew #120 to prove that the man at Genesis 1:27 and 2:6-7 are not the same man along with other ridiculous arguments. Strong’s states the following for Hebrew # 120: “120 אדם; âdâm, aw-dawm; from 119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):– X another, + hypocrite + common sort, X low, man (meaning, of low degree), person.”

When citing this passage by Strong, they will point out [the additions of the words] “another”, “common sort”, “low, man (meaning, of low degree), person.”

Here Clifton explains the construction of a definition in Strong’s Hebrew lexicon, which I shall augment in various places:

Had they read Strong’s “SIGNS EMPLOYED” at the front of Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, they might have realized that everything [in his definitions which comes] after “:–” [the symbol with the colon and the long dash] is only [a list of] some of the renderings by the King James Version [translators], and one needs to find those passages to understand the context. Strong’s definitions of all the Hebrew and Greek words are previous to “:–” [and the list of King James Version renderings is not a part of his definition].

Now Clifton gives a short list of other aspects of a Strong’s lexicon definition, which are explained in that same place in his lexicon, where Strong’s explains certain symbols that he uses:

“+ (addition) denotes a rendering in the A.V. of one or more Hebrew words in connection with the one under consideration.

“X (multiplication) denotes a rendering in the A.V. that results from an idiom peculiar to the Hebrew.

“° (degree) appended to a Hebrew word denotes a vowel pointing corrected from that of the text. (This mark is set in Hebrew Bibles over syllables in which the vowels of the margin have been inserted instead of those properly belonging to the text.

“( ) (parenthesis) in the renderings from the A.V., denotes a word or syllable sometimes given in connection with the principal word to which it is annexed.

“[ ] (brackets), in the rendering from the A.V., denotes the inclusion of an additional word in the Hebrew.

Italics, at the end of a rendering from the A.V., denotes an explanation of the variations from the usual form.”

So one can clearly see that [the parts of the definition for Adam which we see in Strong’s # 120, where it has] “… X another, + hypocrite + common sort, X low, man (meaning, of low degree), person” is definitely not part of Strong’s definition. These are only terms that the King James Version translators chose to use, (rightly or wrongly).

For instance, for the rendering of “another”, all we need to do is go to Jeremiah 32:20 where it says: “Which hast set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this day, and in Israel, and among other men; and hast made thee a name, as at this day;” Notice that the King James Version translators have added “other” in italics. Jeremiah was not speaking about blacks or mongolians here! The Strong’s number for “men” at this verse is 120, so it can only be speaking of White Adamic men! It is clear, with this instance, that we better stick with Strong’s definition of ruddy rather than the King James Version rendering.

On the words “common sort” we find them in the King James Version at Ezekiel 23:42 thusly: “And a voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans from the wilderness, which put bracelets upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their heads.” The words here “common sort” are #’s 7230 and 120, thus White men, but not necessarily under the covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as they were “Sabeans”. So even White men not under the covenant were considered as a “common sort”.

And of course, the Sabeans were originally White, and descended from the Genesis 10 nations. So Clifton correctly concludes:

You can see from this that we have to be careful how we use the Strong’s Concordance!

I do not want to take any credit from Clifton, but I remember writing to him back in 1999 or early 2000, when I first started proofreading for him, and providing a very lengthy explanation of Strong’s “Signs Employed”, because he too was originally mistaking the uses of words by the King James Version translators as a part of Strong’s actual definitions. I still may have a copy of that letter. But if Clifton could make the error, any of us can. It is wise to read the prefaces and appendixes of any reference work before using it, so that one knows how to use it. While Strong is not the ultimate authority for the Hebrew language, he did seek to do us a sincere favor by creating a concise and easy to use reference for Hebrew and Greek words in the King James Version, but we must use it with care.

Continuing with Clifton, under the subtitle:


Not being familiar with the true nature of the Hebrew language, some resort to developing their own arbitrary translations from the Strong’s Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary by picking and choosing at random whichever Strong’s Hebrew number that supports their defective supposition. Let’s first examine what the Hebrew really says.

To demonstrate that the “man” at Genesis 1:27 and the “man” at Genesis 2:7 are the same person, they are both derived from the same identical Hebrew phrase, את-האדם

Therefore to separate these two passages as being two separate creations has absolutely no foundation whatsoever! Not only is this same particular Hebrew word used here, but it is also used at Genesis 2:8; 2:15; 3:24; 6:6, 7; 9:6; Deuteronomy 5:24; 2 Chronicles 6:18; Ecclesiastes 7:29; Isaiah 6:12; Jeremiah 27:5 Zephaniah 1:3 & Zechariah 11:6. Let’s now break this Hebrew phrase את-האדם down into its component parts, reversing its order from right to left to left to right, where את-האדם is reversed to:

את = eth, - = MAQAF, ה = ha, אדם = adam

This is what is known as a “noun common masculine singular absolute”, according to the electronic program “Bible Works”. Each one of these component parts of this Hebrew word is very important to fully understand the meaning of the noun (or name). Let’s now consider each one of these elements of this noun in their proper order:

את = eth

This is the Hebrew # 853 in the Strong’s Concordance, thus: “853. את ’êth, ayth; apparently contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely):– [as such unrepresented in English.]”

As we can see, ’êth is used simply to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition. To get a better concept of the Hebrew word ’êth, let’s go to Strong’s # 226: “226. אות ’ôwth th; probably from 225 (in the sense of appearing); a signal (literal or figurative), as a flag, beacon, monument, omen, prodigy, evidence, etc.:– mark, miracle, (en-) sign, token.”

The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon [found] in the Libronix Digital Library states in part on # 226: “… 79 occurrences; AV translates as ‘sign(s)’ 60 times, ‘token(s)’ 14 times, ‘ensign(s)’ twice, ‘miracles’ twice, and ‘mark’ once. 1 sign, signal. 1a a distinguishing mark. 1b banner. 1c remembrance. 1d miraculous sign. 1e omen. 1f warning. 2 token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof.” [Clifton responds:] I only included this data on Strong’s # 226, for Strong’s # 853 stated that it was “… apparently contracted from 226 in the demonstrative sense of entity… ”

This dissertation on the word ’êth has been given for those who are unfamiliar with the Hebrew language and are unaware that it exists. Inasmuch as it is used in conjunction with the term “man”, articulated as “adam” at both Genesis 1:27 & 2:7, as presented here, its use should be taken into account. The word ’êth, is used 689 times in the book of Genesis alone, and a grand total of 7302 times in the entire Old Testament! The problem is, I am not aware that there are any interlinear Bibles, or other Bibles with the Strong’s numbers above each word which designate where the occurrences of ’êth (# 853) are. The only source which I know of that one can find this information is on the Internet at the QBible website.

Here I must note, that the QBible website was created by the same individual who created Israel Elect, which is now in my possession. QBible seems to have fallen into a state of disrepair, Clifton’s original link is broken, and I am not certain if the site is still being developed, or even maintained. While the individual who created it worked hard to do so, it employs out-dated technology which is difficult to maintain, and better Bible software tools are available, rendering it obsolete. Now Clifton continues:

There are only two other ways by which one can find such information: (1) learn to read the Hebrew and recognize each ’êth when it is seen, or (2) use an electronic Bible program such as Bible Works. For those who don’t have a computer or an electronic program such as Bible works [we must remember that many of Clifton’s readers were prisoners at this time], I will describe how this can be done, hoping that it won’t be too boring, but can be verified by those having this program:

One would go to the [Bible Works] Hebrew Old Testament at Genesis 1:27 and place the cursor on each Hebrew word, and when it displays “n.m. man, mankind” one will know one has the right word. It is the same word as enlarged and displayed in this document.

Here Clifton is trying to explain how to find the Hebrew word for “adam” in the Bible Works software, for those who do not read Hebrew. But the important thing to note is this: Clifton wants his readers to know how to study behind him, so that they can examine and prove these things for themselves. It is not our objective to simply preach and beg our listeners believe us. We want to show our listeners exactly how we arrive at our conclusions, and why we make the assertions which we profess. Continuing with Clifton:

Then by placing the cursor on various parts of the word, one can recognize (1) the particle ’êth, (2) the particle article “ha”, and (3) “adam” in the Hebrew. Then one can go one step farther by highlighting the entire Hebrew word and right-clicking, and a box will open, and then select “string search”, and every time that same word appears with the same parts of speech, each occurrence will be listed along the side. When selecting one of the passages that Hebrew word will light up in red. Then if one only wants to isolate the particle ’êth, just highlight that part of the word and right-click and one can find every time that it is used in the Old Testament, again lighting up in red wherever it is to be found.

My motive for explaining the use of electronic data in Bible programs is so that all of those people out there who are dreaming up new ways to twist the Scripture will become aware that they need do some serious study before they put their proverbial foot in their mouth.

There is another electronic source called E-sword which shows only part of the Hebrew words [which contain the] particle ’êth (#853), and therefore [it] cannot be trusted by the serious Bible student, and I don’t recommend it for this purpose, but it has it right on Genesis 1:27 thusly:

“So God [430] created [1254] [853] man [120] in his own image, [6754] in the image [6754] of God [430] created [1254] he him; male [2145] and female [5347] created [1254] he them.” Notice # 853 here!

It should now be evident that attempting to make an assessment on Old Testament passages without first knowing about the Hebrew את, (#853, ’êth), and other such particles, could be hazardous.

Now Clifton explains the little dash seen between words in Hebrew, and notably for our purposes, it always appears between the words “eth” and the phrase “ha adam”:


We will now address what is known as the “MAQAF”. The symbol which is called MAQAF “-” is the equivalent of a hyphen for ancient Hebrew. Just like the hyphen in English, the MAQAF in Hebrew is used to connect two words. To give you an illustration in English, I often write of a “Canaanite-jew”. In doing so I’m showing a connection between the Canaanites of the Bible and a minor few of the Judahites who had mixed racially with the Canaanites. In other words, since these half-breed Canaanite-Judahites have something in common to both the Judahites and the Canaanites, I simply use a hyphen “-” to identify them as both Canaanite and jew, or “Canaanite-jews”.

In Strong’s Dictionary of The Hebrew Bible under “Hebrew Articulation”, he says: “5. The Maqqêph´ (-), like a hyphen, unites words only for purposes of pronunciation (by removing the primary accent from all except the last of them), but does not affect their meaning or their grammatical construction.” [Clifton responds to Strong’s explanation:] Yes, it would not affect the meaning of their individual grammatical construction, but surely the (-) denotes some sort of interrelationship between the two words! If Strong is correct here, it would place the accent on “adam” rather than “ha”, or ha adam. This would make adam very important, and at Genesis 1:27 & 2:7 it does indeed articulate as “adam”!

Now Clifton proceeds to describe the definite article, which we transliterate into English as “ha”:

ה = ha

Next to be addressed is what is known as the “particle article” (ה). In order to understand the importance of an article in grammar, it would be well to review the use of the article in English.

Sadly, some are lacking knowledge of the importance of the part of speech called the article. In Practical English, chapter 2, entitled “The Parts Of Speech II”, page 6, we find a definition for what articles consist of in English: “The words a, an, and the are adjectives, although in grammar they are called articles. The word the is called the definite article. The words a and an are called the indefinite articles. When we say ‘the book on the table’, we are pointing out a particular book on a particular table. When we say, ‘I have a book’, no specific or particular book is indicated.”

Surely, most of you who are reading this paper and remember your English classes in school know that this description of the English definite and indefinite articles is correct. Upon realizing this, you will immediately be wary once you observe people making such an error. Like the English definite article, both the Hebrew and Greek articles modify the subject to a noun.

The Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, page 1933, has this to say about what an article is: “article A special form of adjective. ‘The’ is called the definite article. ‘A’ and ‘an’ are indefinite articles.”

The Encyclopedia Americana, 1948 edition, volume 1, page 357, says this of the Article: “Article, in grammar, a part of speech used before nouns to limit or define their application. In the English language a or an is the indefinite article (the latter form being used before a vowel sound) and the [is] the definite article. The English indefinite article is really a modified form of the numeral adjective one; so the German ein and the French un stand for the numeral and the article. There are traces in various languages showing that the definite article was originally a pronoun; thus the English the is closely akin to both this and that. The Latin language has neither the definite nor the indefinite article; the Greek has the definite; the Hebrew and Arabic definite article was prefixed to its noun, while on the other hand, in the Syriac and Chaldee it was affixed to the noun, as it is in the Icelandic. In the Scandinavian language the definite article is appended to the end of the word as hus-et, the house. There is no article in Russian.”

Why is it so necessary to stress the use of the article when we study the Scriptures? For one reason, if we don’t know about the use of the article, whether it is present or absent, we cannot know what the Scriptures are saying. Not only do we have to know what the article means in English, but we have to understand the article in Hebrew and Greek. With the definite article, the Scriptures are speaking of a genuine person: [’êth]-[ha adam´]! In Strong’s Dictionary of The Hebrew Bible under “Hebrew Articulation”, and reversing the order to right to left, we have the same identical Hebrew for the “man” of both Genesis 1:27 & 2:7 as follows:

א = aw´lef, ד = daw´-leth, ם = mame

How anyone gets something other than “Adam” out of this, I’ll never know! But, add the Hebrew ’êth and the Hebrew Article to this, and it becomes an absolute! How can anyone argue that the “man” at Genesis 1:27 is a different person than the “man” at Genesis 2:7, when it’s the same identical Hebrew word with the same identical parts of speech, and at both places with the ’êth and Article? But I guess anything goes when one becomes a pretzel twister!

Actually, the 6th & 8th Day Creation advocates exploit the form of the word man in Genesis 1:26, which has neither the ’êth nor the Article. But Genesis 1:27 refutes their chicanery. There wqas a 19th century clown named Thomas Davies who noticed that in Genesis 1:26 the word for man was only adam, אדם, but in 1:27 eth-ha-adam, את-האדם, and wrote a book claiming they were two different creations, which is even more stupid than the 6th & 8th Day heresy.

Now Clifton begins his conclusion:

We have now covered all of the elements making up the Hebrew word for Adam at both Genesis 1:27 and 2:7, 8, and I have given you in this paper the 13 other places in the Old Testament that the same identical word occurs.

Genesis 1:27: “So God created man [את-האדם] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 2:7-8: “7 And Yahweh singular-Elohim formed man [את-האדם] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man [האדם] became a living soul. 8 And Yahweh singular-Elohim planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man [את-האדם] whom he had formed.”

Genesis 3:24: “So he drove out the man [את-האדם] and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

Genesis 6:6-7: “6 And it repented Yahweh that he had made man [את-האדם] on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And Yahweh said, I will destroy man [את-האדם] whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man [האדם], and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s [האדם] blood, by man [באדם] shall his blood be shed: for in the image of god made He man [את-האדם]

A paraphrase of Genesis 9:6 might go something like this: “Whoso sheddeth [HA ADAM]’s blood [DAM], by [ADAM] shall his blood [DAM] be shed, for in the image of God made He [’ETH-HA ADAM].” It is interesting to note here that the last two letters of Adam’s name are the same Hebrew characters that articulate as “dam”, blood [דם].

Conclusion: the theory asserting that Genesis 1:27 is a record of the creation of the non-adamic races is pure fiction!

Of course it is. If we assert that the adam of Genesis 1:26 is a different creature than the Adam of Genesis 1:27 and 2:7, then in Genesis 9:6 we must admit three different adams, and four because then we are compelled to add the adam of Genesis 5:1!

This is the end of Clifton’s original paper, and our comments on it. Here I am going to repeat a portion of Pragmatic Genesis, Part 1. I apologize in advance for repeating some of what we just heard from Clifton, but I must keep stressing certain important points:

We have one Adam in all of Genesis, with multiple grammatical forms:

In the following examples from Scripture, we will see instances where the word Adam appears in many forms. Clifton only mentioned three. There is ADAM, the generic noun, HA-ADAM, the noun accompanied with a definite article, and ETH-HA-ADAM, the article and noun further accompanied with the Hebrew word eth, which by itself is often used as a preposition, or to show that HA-ADAM is the subject of a certain preposition, and we also have also AL-HA-ADAM, EL-HA-ADAM and VAV-LAMEDH-ADAM, which are yet other prepositions affixed to the article and noun by the MAQAF symbol which Clifton described in his paper.

This word eth, according to Strong's Concordance, has other meanings, but when it is used as a prefix to a noun it is “generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition” Strong goes on to explain that for this reason it is unrepresented in English when used in this manner. Likewise, the Enhanced Strong's that is built into the Bible Works software says that it is “an untranslatable mark of the accusative case”, which in the language of grammarians is precisely what the original Strong's says, but with different terms. It is a feature of grammar which has nothing to do with the nature of the object itself.

Genesis 1: 26 And God said, Let us make man [ADAM] in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So [VAV] God created man [ETH-HA-ADAM] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The conjunction in front of the verb in Genesis 1:27 demonstrates that the creating of man in that passage is a direct result of the proposition posited in Genesis 1:26. Both Greek and English translators understood this.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [ETH-HA-ADAM] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man [HA-ADAM] became a living soul.

This first occurrence is the same grammatical form seen in Genesis 1:27, and it cannot be interpreted to be a different creature.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man [AL-HA-ADAM], saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

This prefix, AL, is a preposition meaning on, upon, over, or above, or referring to height. But like ETH often is, as Clifton explained, it too is unexpressed in English here.

Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam [EL-HA-ADAM] to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam [HA-ADAM] called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam [HA-ADAM] gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam [VAV-LAMEDH-ADAM] there was not found an help meet for him.

The phrase EL-HA-ADAM is the noun with the article, THE ADAM, prefixed with another preposition which means to, into or towards.

In verse 20, the VAV-LAMEDH-ADAM is a conjunction, VAV, and, but, etc., prefixing another preposition, LAMEDH, which means to, for, towards, belonging to, in regard to, according to, etc. There are several one-letter prepositions in Hebrew.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam [ADAM]. In the day that God created man [ADAM], in the likeness of God made he him; in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Here, twice, we see ADAM, and only ADAM. The same ADAM of Genesis 1:26! This is the Adam all White men and women descended from. This language is similar to Genesis 1:26-27, but unlike Genesis 2:7. If they are not all the same Adam, then God has hopelessly confused His Word.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam [ADAM] lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man [ETH-HA-ADAM] whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man [ADAM], and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Genesis 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man [HA-ADAM]:

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's [HA-ADAM] blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man [ETH-HA-ADAM].

Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men [HA-ADAM singular!] builded.

Deuteronomy 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man [ADAM] upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam [ADAM], he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Isaiah 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man [ADAM] upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

1 Chronicles 1:1 Adam [ADAM], Sheth, Enosh, 2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, 3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

The sophistry of attempting to distinguish “formed” vs. “created” in relation to creation of the Adamic man:

There is an argument put forth by certain clowns that the man who was “created” in Genesis chapter 1 must be a different man than the man which was “formed” in Genesis chapter 2. Of course, the adam of Genesis 5 was also created, where the word formed does not appear. Yet the same hypocrites who claim to be Israelites thereby must determine that their descent is from the Adam of Genesis 5, who was created and not formed! If their argument is true, how could they have the Spirit of God imparted to the Adam of Genesis chapter 2? Of course, their argument is childish and contrary to Scripture.

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image…

Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground…

Genesis 5:1-3: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image…

Deuteronomy 4:32: For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth…

Deuteronomy 32: 18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. 19 And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

Job 33:6 Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay.

Ezekiel 21:29: …I will judge thee in the place where thou wast created, in the land of thy nativity.

Malachi 2:10: Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?…

Were we formed or created? Actually, the answer is simple, and is answered in Isaiah 43:1, we were both formed and created:

Isaiah 43:1 But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.

And if that is not enough, let us read Isaiah 43:7:

Isaiah 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

The arguments over the Adam that was formed vs. the Adam that was created are sheer sophistry, because they are merely different descriptions of the creation of the same Adam. There is only one Adam created in Genesis chapter 1, on the 6th day of Creation. Further details of that creation and what happened thereafter are given from Genesis 2:4 through the end of Genesis 4. The same creation was mentioned again in Genesis 5:1-3, and the language there related our Adamic race to the man created in Genesis chapter 1. The Adam of Genesis chapter 5 was created, the same word used in Genesis chapter 1! We were created, we were formed, we were made in the image of God, we were endowed with the Spirit of God, and we are the only race of man ever mentioned in all of the accounts of the creation of God.

That is the truth, it shall stand in the face of all history and Scripture, and if we do not get the beginning right, we will never understand the rest of the Bible, or what the end shall be in our own future. This truth will eventually come to dominate Christian Identity, as it is the only teaching that provides an absolutely unshakable foundation for understanding the issue of race in Scripture. One can either accept it, or face being marginalized as your compromise on the issue of race becomes more and more evident in the progress of time.

I said much more on this topic in my Pragmatic Genesis series, and provided references to all of the proofs required. But I cannot possibly repeat them all here.

When we return to this topic, we will discuss Adam’s commission, again using the papers of Clifton Emahiser as our starting point.

CHR20180707-OnlyTrueAdam-2.odt — Downloaded 303 times