TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 68


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
ChrSat20220115-100Proofs-68.mp3 — Downloaded 4249 times

 

TruthVid's 100 Proofs that the Israelites were White, Part 68

In our last presentation of these 100 Proofs, we discussed the critical importance of the words of the prophets to interpretations of Christianity, as attested by both Christ and the apostles. Then we discussed what Yahweh God had cleansed on the cross of Christ, which must have been the children of Israel whom He had promised to cleanse in the words of those same prophets. So if God had only cleansed certain men, as He had promised, it must be evident that there were men who were not cleansed by Him, men who could not be cleansed, and that shall be our subject in this presentation. Some portions of the following two proofs were already discussed in our proof on all of the mistranslations found in the letters of Paul, however they merit separate treatment because they each stand as proofs on their own, that the Israelites were White as they demonstrate that the Gospel was intended exclusively for the White Europeans to whom the apostles had evangelized.

86) Men who Could Not be Cleansed

In John chapter 13 there is a detailed description of the event which is popularly called the Last Supper, and the apostle explained how Christ had washed the feet of all of the disciples. So as He proceeded to do that, we read in part: “8 Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. 9 Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.”

Saying that, there is no indication that Christ did not wash the feet of all of the disciples who were present, including those of Judas Iscariot. Yet John made a parenthetical remark in the next verse and said: “11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.” But how could Judas not have been clean, even if it was he who had betrayed Christ? The same Christ had said, as it is recorded in Matthew chapter 12, speaking at an earlier time: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Therefore, if Judas were an Israelite under the law, he would have been forgiven for having betrayed Christ, for having spoken a word against the Son of Man.

So there must have been another reason why Judas could not have been clean. An indication of that reason is found in John chapter 6. There we have an account where many of those who had been following Christ had departed, and we read: “65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. 70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.”

Here it is evident that Christ had purposely chosen as one of His apostles a man who was not one of His Own sheep, so that His betrayer would be one of His enemies, and therefore none of His Own would have to live forever with the burden of guilt that would accompany the task which Judas had performed. This becomes more evident in the 41st Psalm where that very event is prophesied: “9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. 10 But thou, O LORD, be merciful unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them. 11 By this I know that thou favourest me, because mine enemy doth not triumph over me. 12 And as for me, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and settest me before thy face for ever.”

Ostensibly, Judas was from the south of Judaea, from Kerioth, which seems to be the meaning of the word “Iscariot”, a Hellenization of the Hebrew words ish and Kerioth. In the 2nd century Diatessaron of Tatian, Simon the father of Judas is called Simon Iscariot. When Christ called Judas a devil, Judas had not yet done anything of which he could be accused, and he remained a disciple until the time would come when he betrayed Him. Yet even in the betrayal of Christ, Judas was not breaking the law. He was only leading the authorities to a man whom they considered a heretic, and indicating which of the men in the garden that evening was Christ. None of that is a transgression of the law, even if it is a violation of trust and fidelity one would expect of a disciple. But at that earlier time Christ could not have been merely slandering him, so there must have been a deeper and more substantial reason which provided a basis for the accusation that he was a devil.

Ancient Kerioth was a town of Judah on the border of Edom, which is evident in Joshua 15:21-25. It was not one of the towns resettled by those of Judah who returned in the days of Zerubbabel, Nehemiah or Ezra, and there is good reason for that. After the Babylonian deportations of Judah, the Edomites had migrated northwards and took most of the southern portions of Judah and Israel for themselves, as well as the cities of the coasts. But Jerusalem and the surrounding villages, as well as most of Galilee, apparently remained unsettled and the people of Judah who returned in the Persian period, seventy years after the destruction of the temple by the Babylonians, had settled in those places. So Judas, being from Kerioth, certainly must have been an Edomite while the other apostles, all of whom were from Galilee, were all Israelites. Evidently, Judas was one of the Edomites who were forcibly converted to Judaism in the time of the Maccabees, a process which took place from the time of John Hyrcanus to that of Alexander Janneus, from about 134 BC to about 76 BC.

Next, there are the words of Paul of Tarsus in 2 Thessalonians chapter 3, where Paul made a prayer, and the King James Version reads: “1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you: 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.”

The last clause of this verse is consistent in all of the ancient Greek manuscripts cited by the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. So indisputably, the text is οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις. The word for men, which is italicized in the King James Version there, does not appear in the clause. But neither does the verb have, and quite dishonestly, that word was not italicized in the King James Version. There is no verb in the clause. So we shall examine this clause more closely because in the Christogenea New Testament we have translated it “since the faith is not for all.”

According to Liddell & Scott , the conjunction γάρ is: “I. Argumentative, to introduce the reason for a statement, which usually precedes....” This first use fits this occasion perfectly, as Paul is explaining why there are men who are “unreasonable and wicked” who would oppose the spread of the Gospel. Other uses of γάρ are “II. Epexegetic” and “III. Strengthening” and do not fit the grammatical purpose or the context here. The lexicon further states that in Greek writing γάρ is “regularly placed after the first word of a sentence” although of course this is not the case in English. Here γάρ is rendered as since, to introduce the reason for the statement which preceded.

The word πάντων here is the genitive case plural form of πᾶς, which is all. The genitive case marks source or possession. Surely in this case it does not indicate source, as men are not the source of the faith. The particle οὐ is an unconditional negative, as opposed to the conditional μή. Here it negates πάντων, the word which follows. Properly it would be translated as “of all”.

The verb εἰμί, to be, is unique among Greek verbs in that “as in classical Greek, so also in the New Testament εἰμί is very often omitted ... ἐστίν most frequently of all the parts” (quoting Thayer, εἰμί, VI., p. 180 col. B.). ἐστίν is the 3rd person present singular of εἰμί, it is or simply is: Examples of this are near at hand, in 2 Thessalonians 1:5, 1:6, 3:1, 3:16, and 3:18 where it is apparent in the King James Version, noting the words in italics. This verb will be supplied here in it's most natural position, following the subject of the clause, which is here marked by its having been written in the nominative case. So while in Greek translation it is fair that the verb for is may sometimes be supplied by the translator, the same is not true of other verbs, such as have.

The phrase ἡ πίστις is the faith, the noun being accompanied by a definite article, and it is in the nominative case so it certainly cannot be the object of any verb, as the King James Version has it, and they supplied a verb of their own because there is no verb in the text. If the phrase were the object of a verb, it would have been written in the accusative case: τὴν πίστιν. But since ἡ πίστις is nominative, the words must be the subject of the clause. This is a fundamental of grammar and should be readily evident in any Greek grammar textbook. So even if Paul meant to infer the verb have, which is contrary to grammar, faith could not be the object of that verb, or of any other verb, unless it were written in the accusative case. Paul certainly knew how to write Greek and knew how to say what he meant. Evidently what he said did not please the King James translators, so they rewrote what he said. But what they wrote, when compared to the Greek text, is absolutely untenable, unacceptable, and seems to have been purposely dishonest. Paul did not write “for all men have not faith” and the King James Version added two significant words, have and men, to create a lie and to twist what Paul had actually written.

So our rendering of the text: since (because the conjunction γὰρ introducing the reason for the statement which preceded is placed first in English, and not second) the faith (because in English we are inclined to state the subject of the clause at its beginning) is (because the verb ἐστίν is inferred, as it often had to be elsewhere in Paul’s writing and in Greek generally) not (because the negative particle commonly precedes that which it negates) of (i.e. belonging to, of or as we may say in English, for) all (being in the genitive case), and so “since the faith is not for all” is a proper and literal translation. Out of all the major English translations which we have examined, only the Young’s Literal Translation has it right, where it reads “for the faith is not of all”.

Yet it should be evident that the faith is not for all, because it is only for the children of Israel. If the faith is for one race only, then that race must be the White race as Paul had taken the faith to Europe, to White Europeans, and to no others. Furthermore, once it is realized that the faith is not for all, it should become evident whom Paul had wanted White Europeans to “come out from among”, as we shall now discuss his admonition to “come out from among them”, in a passage which is also poorly translated in the King James Version.

87) Come Out From Among Them

In the later half of 2 Corinthians chapter 6 Paul of Tarsus began to warn his readers not to have fellowship with those who are outside of the faith. So we read in the King James Version “14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” This translation, which we would assert is wrong, causes a serious conflict. It is demonstrable that this epistle was written only a few months after Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. The first epistle was written shortly before Paul left Ephesus in the Spring of 56 AD, and the second as he wintered in Nicopolis at the end of that same year. There is no reason we should believe that Paul had changed his mind about anything, or that he was contradicting himself in these two epistles.

But earlier, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul was discussing the dilemma of men and women who became Christians but whose spouses did not accept the Gospel and he wrote “10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband… 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.” So if Paul is merely speaking of unbelievers here, is he contradicting himself, in epistles which were demonstrably written only a few months apart from one another? Certainly not. Paul defined the faith in Romans chapter 4. The faith is not what an individual believes. Rather, the faith is what Abraham had believed, and as we have also just discussed here recently, it is the promises to Abraham, not to individuals, that Christ had come to assure.

So in Romans chapter 4 Paul had written, in part: “13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith…. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.” Where Paul said “not to that only which is of the law” it is evident that most of Abraham’s offspring having been taken into captivity had abandoned the law, while only a small portion remained to keep the law, those who returned from captivity to Jerusalem. Furthermore, Yahweh God “calleth those things which be not as though they were”, meaning that He spoke of nations that did not yet exist when the promise was made, and they did not yet exist because they would come from Abraham’s seed, which had not yet been born.

So what Abraham believed, as Paul also explained there in Romans, is that his own offspring would become many nations, and that those nations would inherit the world. That is the faith of Abraham of which Paul spoke in Romans, and it is what Abraham believed to which Paul referred here in 2 Corinthians. They are the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” for whom Christ had come, and coming for them He was keeping those promises which He had made with Abraham, since He was Yahweh God incarnate. Therefore if a man or woman had an unbelieving spouse who was of the seed of Abraham, that unbelieving spouse was nevertheless of the faith of Abraham, and is included in the covenants and the promises in Christ.

We have already explained much of what we are about to say in relation to this passage in our earlier presentation on mistranslations, but here we shall review it again.

Admittedly, the opening clause of 2 Corinthians 6:14, although it contains only four Greek words, is very difficult to translate in as few words. So the Greek phrase μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις in the Christogenea New Testament is rendered “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens”. The King James Version has here “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”, and the denominational churches and their translators generally interpret this to be a “religious” admonition: which would have Paul conflict with his own statements such as those in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, which we have just explained, where he advised men and women already married to unbelievers to continue in their marriage. Doing that, the churches make Paul out to be a liar, contradicting himself.

But in that clause the King James translators had rendered an adjective as a noun, which was apparently necessary for them to do because they did not render the participle verb as fully or properly as they could have, while they also ignored the meaning of the verb where a different form of the same word was used in the Septuagint. This is not a religious statement, and we hope to make that evident upon an examination of the terms ἑτεροζυγέω and ἄπιστος.

The verb ἑτεροζυγέω appears nowhere else in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint. However the corresponding adjective, ἑτερόζυγος, which does appear in the Septuagint, at Leviticus 19:19, where the King James Version itself has “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”. The Septuagint Greek is: τὰ κτήνη σου, which is “your cattle”, οὐ κατοχεύσεις, which is “do not let gender”, where the verb implies the act of sexual intercourse, ἑτεροζύγῳ, which is “with a diverse kind” and since the idea of being “yoked” was already implicit, the English translators did not repeat it. So Brenton’s English as it was translated from the Greek varies little from the King James Version English, which was translated from Hebrew, where he has the verse to read in part: “…thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with one of a different kind…”

So while the Liddell & Scott definition for the verb ἑτεροζυγέω that appears here in the New Testament follows the King James Version: “to be yoked in unequal partnership” the Liddell & Scott definition for the adjective ἑτερόζυγος which appears in the Septuagint is “coupled with an animal of diverse kind”. In reference to people that can only mean to be coupled with someone of another race, and therefore it is evident that both the King James Version and Liddell & Scott are attempting to convince us that the verb form of the word somehow has a totally different meaning than the adjective!

Furthermore, this word being a compound word from ἕτερος, which is another or different, and ζυγός, which is a yoke, it means to be yoked to something different, and not merely to be unequally yoked in some philosophical or religious sense. It does not refer to being coupled with people of different beliefs, but to people of other kinds. The word ἕτερος describing flesh in the epistle of Jude was translated as “strange flesh” in the King James Version, in the context of people of other races.

I have already discussed this simple concept in these presentations. Different forms of the same basic word must share the same basic meaning, whether they be noun, verb or adjective. The words call as a noun, to call as a verb, and calling, caller or called as nouns, verbs or adjectives all share the same basic meaning relating to the same action. So if the adjective ἑτερόζυγος means coupled with an animal of a diverse kind then the verb ἑτεροζυγέω means to be coupled with an animal of a diverse kind. For that reason, here in the Christogenea New Testament for the verb ἑτεροζυγέω we have “yoked together with aliens”, preferring the idea that the verb as it was used by Paul surely bore the same meaning that the adjective did in the Greek scriptures of the Septuagint which Paul had so often quoted verbatim.

This word must also be contrasted with σύζυγος, used in the New Testament only once, by Paul at Philippians 4:3 and which Liddell & Scott define “yoked together, paired, σύζυγος ὁμαυλίαι wedded union, Aeschylus… as a feminine Substantive, a wife, Euripides; masculine a yoke-fellow, comrade, Iliad, Aristotle.” It is of marriage that Christ used the corresponding verb συζεύγνυμι (4801) at Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9. While συ- (see συν, 4862) means “with” or “together”, ἕτερος (2087) means “other” or “other than” or “different”. ζυγός (2218) is “anything which joins two bodies”, according to Liddell & Scott, and is commonly a yoke (Matthew 11:29, 30; Acts 15:10; Galatians 5:1; 1 Timothy 6:1). If Paul wanted to tell us not to be yoked together with the unfaithful, σύζυγος was the word to use. Rather, he was clearly using ἑτεροζυγέω in the same way that ἑτερόζυγος was used in the Septuagint, and telling us not to be yoked together with untrustworthy aliens. An examination of Paul’s epistles reveals that his quotations were very frequently taken verbatim from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and therefore he was highly familiar with its language.

But now we must discuss that other word, ἄπιστος, which we have translated as untrustworthy. The word ἄπιστος is an adjective, not a noun, which Liddell & Scott define as “not to be trusted...not trusty, distrusted, faithless...” Yet it is treated in the King James Version as a substantive in this verse, as a noun, and translated merely as unbelievers. The Christogenea New Testament has the word as an adjective, which is what it is. If Paul wanted to use this word as the substantive, the use of a definite article would have cleared up any ambiguity. But there is no article at all, so we have chosen to render the participle verb ἑτεροζυγοῦντες as the substantive. But in truth we would read the two words together in that manner as they seem to be interdependent even though the participle verb is in the Nominative case and the adjective is in the Dative case.

So with all of this, if we wanted to remain precisely true to the grammar, we would assert that another way to translate this clause from Greek is: “Do not become yoked together with those of other races who are not to be trusted”, which is also a literal translation, or if one would insist that ἄπιστος is the substantive, “Do not become yoked with the faithless of other races”, which is also literal. Either way represents a message that is consistent with all Scripture, and both ways express the true meanings of the original words.

But all this only helps us to understand what Paul had meant in the rest of the passage, and especially a few verses later, in 2 Corinthians 6:17, where the King James Version unjustly adds the word thing to the text. The Christogenea New Testament reads this passage as follows: “Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince [or Lord], and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.” Here we must assert that the reference to “the impure” is a direct reference to the subject earlier in the statement, which is “them”, and therefore no added words are necessary in order to understand this verse. So if we read this passage without the added word thing, in the King James Version it would say “ 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean; and I will receive you…” and unclean describes the “them” from whom the children of Israel are commanded to be separate. Not all are clean.

This passage is a paraphrase from Isaiah chapter 52 where it says “10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God. 11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.” Once again in that translation of Isaiah the King James Version had added that word thing to the text. The Brown, Driver Briggs Hebrew lexicon acknowledges that the form of the Hebrew word, Strong’s # 2931, is a masculine adjective, and that it describes someone unclean, ethically or religiously, citing Isaiah 6:5, Ezekiel 22:5 and Job 14:4, or someone unclean ritually, again speaking of of persons, citing Deuteronomy 12:15, 12:22, 15:22, Leviticus 22:4 and Ecclesiastes 9:2.

The two passages with the similar words underlined:

2 Corinthians 6:17 from the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition:

διὸ ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῶν καὶ ἀφορίσθητε, λέγει κύριος, καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε· κἀγὼ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς

Isaiah 52:11 from Rahlfs’ Septuagint:

ἀπόστητε ἀπόστητε ἐξέλθατε ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε, ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς ἀφορίσθητε, οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου·

So where Paul had written in 2 Corinthians chapter 6 “Come out from the midst of them and be separated,” he was referring to people just as Isaiah was, and it is only a further admonition where it says “and do not be joined to the impure,” or unclean, which describes the people from whom they were expected to separate themselves. This in turn was written to clarify what Paul had meant where he wrote just a few verses earlier “Do not become yoked with the faithless of other races”, which we have given as one plausible and literal translation, and we therefore see an interpretation which describes Paul as having offered a narrative that is fully consistent with all of his other statements in his other epistles.

In this same light, there is another adjective which is mistranslated in this epistle, in 2 Corinthians 13:5 where Paul beckoned his readers and the King James Version has: “5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” The word ἀδόκιμος is an adjective, translated as a noun here in the King James Version where the word is rendered “reprobates”. It should rather have been rendered as an adjective, and it means spurious. Spurious people are considered bastards in Scripture. Spurious people cannot be clean.,

The intermediate Liddell & Scott lexicon defines the word ἀδόκιμος to mean “not standing the test, spurious, properly of coin, metaphorically of persons, rejected as false, disreputable, reprobate… etc.” But a coin is spurious when it is not pure, when it is mixed with base metals, and therefore we would cross-reference this verse to Hebrews chapter 12 where Paul wrote “8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.” Only bastards are spurious in that sense, when they are not properly sons. Chastisement is punishment for correction, and Yahweh had promised to punish the children of Israel for their correction. This brings us to evoke what we had already said in our last presentation concerning what Yahweh had cleansed, and His admonition to Peter in Acts chapter 10.

Bastards are not being cleansed. Only those that Yahweh had promised to cleanse in the words of the Old Testament prophets are being cleansed, which are the children of Israel. If there are men whom Yahweh had not cleansed, then they must be the unclean from whom Paul had warned his readers to separate themselves, and in all the promises of the prophets Yahweh had said that He would cleanse the children of Israel alone. This leads us to discuss the entire purpose of the blood of the Lamb.

ChrSat20220115-100Proofs-68.odt — Downloaded 26 times