TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 18


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


  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20201212-100Proofs-18.mp3 — Downloaded 2395 times

 

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 18

This is our third discussion of point 42 in TruthVid’s 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White. As we have already said, this review of the meanings of certain words does not explicitly prove the race of the Israelites, but it does show that word meanings were obfuscated so as to distort the many other evidences that the message of Christ and His apostles and prophets is solely intended for White Europeans.

42 continued) Major word mistranslations or misunderstandings that occur repeatedly throughout the Bible.

Adam, enosh and mamzers: Man, man and bastards.

First, we must address a false claim in Christian Identity circles that the word enosh is a precise reference to so-called men of other, non-Adamic races. That is not true. The fact is that examining the listings in Strong’s Concordance for the English word men, it is very quickly realized that men of the race of Adam were very often referred to with the word enosh. Rather, the Hebrew word enosh, Strong’s # 582, is related to and derived from the word anash, Strong’s # 605, which means frail or feeble, and therefore enosh refers to man as a mortal being.

But the word adam as a noun refers only to one particular race of men, the race created by Yahweh God as it is described in Genesis chapters 1, 2 and 5 where we read “this is the book of the generations of Adam”. That Hebrew word translated as generations is toledah, Strong’s # 8435, and it means descent or descendants. Not everyone in the Bible is a descendant of Adam, as we see later on in Scripture that there are Nephilim, Rephaim, Zuzim, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Girgashites and others who cannot be traced back to Adam, who were not ever counted among the descendants of Adam, and all of whom were rejected by Yahweh God as being among the accursed races of Canaan. The Kenites were not of Adam, although the meaning of Genesis chapter 3 is argued by denominational Christians. But as for those other groups not being of Adam, they have no grounds upon which to argue, as it is clear that they are not of Adam.

Now we must take this understanding a step further. Because enosh was used as a reference to any mortal man regardless of race, and Adam is a reference to a man of a particular race, sometimes in the later books of Scripture, the Psalms or the prophets, the two words are set in contradistinction to one another, and in those cases it is apparent that enosh is used in a manner which refers to men which are not of Adam. Examples of this are found on more than one occasion in the Psalms, and also occur in the books of the prophets. But they are not readily evident because the meanings of the two words, adam and enosh, are not commonly distinguished by the translators, so they are treated equally and both words are most often translated as man, or in the plural, men.

In the 73rd Psalm, attributed to Asaph, we read: “3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. 4 For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm. 5 They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. 6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.”

In verse 5, the word other was added twice, but it was not necessarily implied by the text. When you add words that are not implied by the text, you are representing them to say something that was not necessarily intended by the original author. The words for men in that verse are first enosh, and then adam, but in the Hebrew they are both singular. The word for trouble is also labor, toil or work. The word for “they are not” is a 3rd person masculine plural adverb and it actually follows the other words in the first clause, but was moved to the beginning of the clause in all the translations. In the second half of the clause there is a conjunction that was ignored, and a preposition which was mistranslated, so the word for like is more accurately with.

The New American Standard Bible has a better translation of verse 4, speaking of the wicked: “For there are no pains in their death; And their body is fat.” Therefore, following the conventional understanding of the aforementioned adverb in verse 5, with which we do not necessarily agree, we would translate the verse to read: “They are not in the labor of mortal man [enosh], and with Adam [a reference to the Adamic man] they are not stricken.” After the fall of Adam, the Adamic race were to be chastised by experiencing death, as they were at first created to be immortal. However by obfuscating the distinctions of the meaning of these words, the differences between the mortal man and the Adamic man are obscured.

Another example of such obfuscation is found in the 90th Psalm, which is attributed to Moses: “1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. 3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. 4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

Here we shall focus on verse 3: “Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.” The first occurrence of the word man is enosh, and the second adam. In the original, both words are singular. The word for destruction is actually a word for dust, and various translations interpret it metaphorically. We would interpret Moses to have been praising God and saying: “You turn mortal man [enosh] to dust; and You say, Return, ye children [or sons] of Adam.”

While all mortal men die, only the children of Adam are promised resurrection. There is no promise of resurrection for the children of the Nephilim, the Rephaim, the Canaanites or other bastards. Once these words are properly translated, a new level of understanding emerges from Scripture, which the translations have all obscured. There are children of God in the world, and as Christ also explained often in the Gospel, there are people who are not of God. In diverse places, the race of Adam is clearly distinguished from other men.

Now, speaking of bastards, the ten toes in the vision of the fourth and final beast empire described in Daniel chapter 2 were described as being composed of both iron and clay, and the iron was mingled with the clay so that there was no cohesion in them. The vision itself informs us of the meaning, and we read in Daniel 2:42-43 “42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” That word for men in verse 43 is also enosh, and implies that the kingdom wherein Adamic and other men are mingled cannot stand for that reason.

The Hebrew word mamzer is understood in English to be a bastard. This understanding is clear in Greek translations of Scripture, where mamzer was translated as νόθος. In Greek, νόθος is opposed to another word, γνήσιος. According to Liddell & Scott, γνήσιος means “of or belonging to the race, i.e. lawfully begotten, legitimate, opp. to νόθος.” So νόθος means “a bastard, baseborn child, i.e. one born of a slave or concubine, opp. to γνήσιος.” But in the ancient Greek world, a slave would not generally be of one’s own race, so claiming that a νόθος is merely a child born of a slave and a citizen, or free man, is misleading. Furthermore, claiming that a legitimate marriage is a marriage in a church or in a government building between people who have a government-issued license is also misleading. In the ancient world, marriages were held at home and there were no licenses. Neither was there any priest or town judge required to officiate them.

When Isaac first saw Rebekah, as we read in Genesis chapter 24: “67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.” Likewise, Jacob married Leah in a bed, and even if he was deceived by Laban, he was nevertheless married to Leah. So we read in Genesis chapter 29: “21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. 24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid. 25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?” These examples and others serve to prove that marriage is an agreement between men and that the sexual union is the consummation of the marriage, so that upon the act of intercourse a man and woman become married.

The Bible informs us in Genesis chapter 2 of the conditions for a legitimate marriage, where Adam named all the beasts of the earth, and a suitable wife was not found, so Yahweh made him a wife of his own flesh and bone and then we read: “23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” But fornication is the pursuit of strange, or different flesh, and it is fornication which is the grounds for an illegitimate marriage. A child of illegitimate birth is a child of mixed race, and that is a bastard. The word γνήσιος is “of or belonging to the race” and therefore a νόθος is someone who is not of the same race as his parents, since a mixed-race sexual union produces children who are of a different racial characteristic than either parent.

In Deuteronomy chapter 23 we read: “2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” It can be explained that “tenth generation” is an idiom and means forever. But why, if one couple failed to get a marriage license or to have a church wedding before they had a child, would ten generations of their children be condemned? There is no valid reason. Moses had a son born to a pagan woman of the Midianites in the land of Cush, and he was not condemned. In fact, Yahweh demanded that son be circumcised so that he could be admitted into the congregation! The Midianites, descendants of Abraham and Keturah, were of the same race as Moses.

In Hebrews chapter 12 we read: “8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Then a little further on: “15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; 16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” Was Esau a fornicator for selling his birthright, or did he sell his birthright because he was a fornicator who had no care for it in the first place? The only sin of Esau, as the accounts in Genesis relate, is found in the fact that he had taken wives of the Canaanites rather than wives of his own race. For that reason, his children were all bastards. Thus we read, from the last verse of Genesis chapter 27 and on into chapter 28: “27:46 And Rebekah said to Isaac, I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as these which are of the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me? 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. 2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. 3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; 4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.” So Jacob merited the blessing on the condition that he would take wives of his own race.

All of Jacob’s children were all considered legitimate in the eyes of God, even though he was married in a bed and never in a church or a town hall. The four sons who were born to handmaids were also considered legitimate, and each had a full share of the inheritance in spite of the fact that their mothers were slaves to Jacob’s two wives. When Jacob’s wives gave their handmaids to Jacob, the handmaids themselves had no say in the matter, and the same had been true of Abraham, Sarah and Hagar. The children of Joseph were given additional blessings although they were born to a daughter of a pagan Egyptian priest. In fact, Rachel, Leah and the rest of their family were also pagan, as we see that Abraham’s immediate ancestors were pagans, in Joshua chapter 24. These and many other examples prove that a legitimate marriage is a racial phenomenon, and has nothing to do with religious belief, church ceremonies or state licenses.

Now this leads us to another discussion concerning strangers, as there is also much contention and many wrong interpretations of that word.

Strangers and aliens.

First I must offer a list of terms and some brief definitions, starting with words which have no racial connotations at all:

1481 gur, guwr is to sojourn. Hence the derivative 1616 geyr is a sojourner.

4033 magur is sojourning, and it is derived from 1481 gur. It refers to a temporary lodging or abode, and therefore in some contexts referring to people it is stranger.

8453 toshab is also a sojourner. Strong’s derives it from yashab, 3427, which is to dwell, remain or settle in a place.

1121 ben is merely a son, although often it is used along with another word meaning a stranger, as in “son of a stranger” (of an Amalekite, 2 Samuel 1:13), or in contexts such as “a son, not of thy seed” (Genesis 17:12).

It is unfortunate that any of these words were even translated as stranger, since they could refer to people of any race, and even to Israelites of other tribes who had been sojourning in a land other than their own, even in the lands of other Israelites. Now for words which do refer to strangers, there are two primary terms which each have some variants:

2114 zur, zuwr is a stranger. In Strong’s Concordance this word zuwr, which is often translated as stranger is considered to be a primitive root. But another word, zur, 2213, refers to something on a border, while Strong’s assigns 2214, zara, which it defines as “disgust, in the sense of estrangement” as a derivative from the root 2114 zuwr. However I would associate both 2114 zuwr and 2214 zara as derivatives of 2213, and understand a zuwr stranger to simply refer to the people from outside or upon one’s borders. The three words are clearly related in this manner. So concerning the ancient Israelites, a zuwr could be someone of the same race, or one of the other races such as the Canaanites which were on the borders. In the 69th Psalm, attributed to David, we read “8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.” David was not implying that he became like someone of another race, but only that he became estranged from his own brothers.

Finally, there are three words which are really different forms of the same word:

5235 neker, 5236 nekar, 5237 nokriy are all translated as stranger. So what follows is from a post I had made at the Christogenea Forum:

A couple of things that are missed in assessing the way in which the various words for stranger were used in the Old Testament Hebrew are these:

1) The colloquial idioms of the various eras. There are, rounding roughly, about 500 years between Moses and Ruth, 1000 years between Moses and Daniel, and 1100 years between Moses and Ezra. We cannot expect the vocabulary to remain absolutely consistent between these distant centuries, and with certainty it did not. Therefore considering the law of God, the usage in the books of Moses should be considered first.

2) The historical perspective and national attitudes. At the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, even "lost" Israelites among the Samaritans were absolutely despised, since they could not document their genealogy. Since the objective of the time was to preserve the racial integrity of the remnant nation, everybody who had no recorded genealogy was evidently a candidate for nokriy status! This attitude, I believe, was carried over into the books of Chronicles, which were compiled around that same time.

The common perception among Identity Christians is that nekar and nokriy are always used to describe a person of another race. But that is not true. It is an oversimplified explanation which has done more damage to our basic understanding of Scripture than it has done good. The verb form of the word nekar, which has the same spelling and is found at Strong’s # 5234, can mean recognize, and is often translated as acknowledge or discern in the King James Version. The noun is used of Joseph in comparison to his brethren in Genesis 42:7 where we read “And Joseph saw his brethren, and he knew them, but made himself strange unto them, and spake roughly unto them…” Then the word appears in 42:8 where we read “And Joseph knew his brethren, but they knew not him.” Joseph did not make himself into someone of another race, but rather he only acted in a way by which he hoped his brethren would not recognize him. The word was sometimes used in other contexts of other Israelites, for example in 1 Kings 14:5 and Lamentations 4:8. This is how it is used in Isaiah chapter 56, of an Israelite of the captivity who has been estranged from God, who is no longer recognized as an Israelite. Wherever it is used, it does not necessarily refer to someone of another or non-Adamic race.

Likewise, the word nokriy is not necessarily someone of a different race, as many Identity Christians often insist. Related to nekar and the corresponding verb, it too merely refers to a person unrecognized or unknown. In Genesis 31:15 the wives of Jacob had spoken in reference to their own father and said, “Are we not counted of him strangers?” Likewise, Job declared in his calamity that “They that dwell in mine house, and my maids, count me for a stranger”, in Job chapter 19. In Psalm 69 David cried that “8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.” All of these passages used this term, nokriy. Rachael and Leah, Job and David, they were not complaining that they were somehow miraculously transmogrified into niggers. They were only lamenting that they were estranged from their own families or households. Ruth had also called herself a stranger in that sense in relation to Boaz, using that same word. A nokriy is an outsider, someone who is unknown to the beholder, and the term does not designate race or any particular race.

In different times, or historical contexts, it seems that the use of these terms had varying significance. In the period of the Old Kingdom, while the Canaanites and related Rephaim and other tribes were always accursed, the terms nekar or nokriy were also used to define acceptable Adamic people such as the Egyptians or Syrians. Contrary to Weiland’s claims, one cannot prove that wherever nekar or nokriy appear in Scripture, that it referred to people of non-Adamic races, and that contention is outside of the context of Scripture.

But in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra, as Jerusalem was being rebuilt, the need for the community to maintain religious and racial exclusivity, while it had always existed, was explicitly recognized and enforced by the rulers, whereas earlier in history it had often been neglected by the corrupt kings. That neglect is clearly condemned in the words of the prophets. By that time, after the return from Babylon, many of the surrounding peoples had indeed mingled with the Canaanite races, or if they were remnants of Israel, they no longer had their genealogies as they were kept by the priests in the Old Kingdom to prove that they had not mingled. So the rulers, meaning Nehemiah and Ezra, justly urged the people of the return to account all of them as strangers regardless of their race. This in turn seems to have led to the troubles with the Samaritans, many of whom were remnant Israelites. In the days of Josiah, which ended only a hundred and twenty years before Nehemiah became governor in Jerusalem, he had cleansed Samaria of idols and returned the remnants of Israel who had remained there to worship in the temple (2 Kings chapter 23). Now the Samaritans were being rejected, and that was the primary source of friction and enmity between Samaritans and Judaeans.

So none of these words which are commonly translated as stranger are technical terms for non-Adamic people, or people of other races. The truth is that aside from people mentioned in the Bible, such as the Canaanites and Rephaim, the children of Israel had little or no contact with black Africans, yellow Asians or brown or red Indians or Americans. So while I believe that the word nekar may have evolved into the Latin word niger meaning black, and ultimately the American word nigger, originally it never referred to a black although it could have referred to a black.

Like Hebrew, there are also several Greek words translated as stranger. The most common of these is ξένος, 3581, which also appears in a couple of compound words, and which is primarily a “guest-friend, applied to persons and states bound by a treaty or tie of hospitality,” according to Liddell & Scott. The Roman, Greek or Syrian, or anyone else subject to the empire, would very likely be such an individual. But a group of Mandingo or Mongolian warriors or a swarm of Mexican migrants or African “refugees” would probably have all been destroyed as soon as they came over the border.

The next word is ἀλλογενής, 241, which is found several dozen times in the Septuagint and which does refer to someone of another race. In the New Testament it appears only at Luke 17:18 where it describes a Samaritan, as opposed to Judaeans. The Greeks used the word γενεά, which is race, from which ἀλλογενής is derived in a narrower context than we use it today, to describe even only particular families within a nation. So an ἀλλογενής could describe a Bavarian as opposed to a Rhinelander or an Austrian, and is not necessarily someone of another race as we know the term. Here we must note that Luke himself would have been of an ἀλλογενής to Judaeans, as he was a Greek.

Following that there is ἀλλότριος, 245, which simply refers to someone or something “of or belonging to another”, and was therefore used opposite to οἰκεῖος, which is “in or of the house, domestic… household affairs, property…” Like ἀλλογενής, this term is not necessarily referring to people of non-Adamic races, as we use the term race today, but only refers to someone or something of another household or nation other than one’s own.

After these there are the terms ἐπιδημέω, 1927 a verb form of ἐπίδημος, and παρεπίδημος, 3927. These are all rooted in the word δῆμος or people. The word ἐπίδημος is literally by the people but was used to describe what was popular. So ἐπιδημέω is to be with the people, or in some contexts, with a foreign people, to be a sojourner. Similarly, παρεπίδημος is sojourning in a strange place. None of these have any racial connotation as they could also have been used to describe people of kindred race sojourning in one another’s countries.

Finally, there are πάροικος, 3941, παροικία, 3940, and παροικέω 3939. The word πάροικος is a dwelling beside or neighboring. So the noun παροικία described someone sojourning in a foreign land and the related verb παροικέω was used in that same manner, to describe someone dwelling beside natives or others in a land that was not their own.

Just like the Hebrew terms, these were not specific words for people of non-Adamic or non-White races. But it was unfortunate that they are all translated generally as stranger, and in that manner we are compelled to accept people of non-Adamic races, although in the original context of Scripture it was not people of non-Adamic races who are described by these terms.

People look for non-Adamic races in the Bible, and only those related to the Nephilim are ever mentioned specifically. There are no Hebrew words specifically describing other races, because in the ancient world Hebrews rarely if ever came in contact with the brown, black, yellow or red races. So they used allegories and called certain people “roving creatures” and the Biblical prophets spoke of beasts and satyrs, devils and screech owls which would ultimately inhabit certain cities.

 

 

ChrSat20201212-100Proofs-18.odt — Downloaded 44 times