This is my fifty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my fifth year of publication. For the last few teaching letters we have been doing a walk-through of Daniel’s prophecies. It is simply amazing how his predictions have been distorted and wrenched out of shape. There are few who really do his prophecies justice. Most everyone seems to want to twist his predictions into wild, groundless conjecture. We shall now look into some of those manipulated postulations. Like I explained before about Daniel 9:27, the Futurists apply to Satan that which belongs to our Redeemer. This is very serious, for there is no greater error that could be made. As we will see, it is a doctrine right out of the Universal Roman Catholic Church.

To give you some insight where this teaching is coming from, I will cite and quote from a book entitled History Of Antichrist, by Rev. P. Huchedé. This book is published and sold by Tan Books And Publishers, Inc., P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105. It is a reprint from an English edition of 1884, Nicholas Bray, NY., and reprinted in 1969, 1971, 1973 and 1976. Evidently, the English edition of 1884 was a translation from a former French version, according to page 5. On the publisher’s preface this statement is made: “Basing his comments on Sacred Scripture and on the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of Catholic Church ... the tradition concerning Antichrist preponderantly favors the position that he will come, that he will be an individual man, that he will rule throughout the world ... based upon the very solid foundations of the Bible and the writings of the Church’s greatest minds.” The great problem with this view is the fact that there is no prophetic time-frame for such a so-called future “Antichrist.” The proponents of this preposterous opinion steal seven years from Daniel’s seventy weeks of seven-year weeks and project them 2000 years in the future. Further, on page 10 we read this: “Satan shall have universal sway for awhile over all nations. The Holy Catholic Church, which has fought the battles of Christ for eighteen hundred years, is therefore destined to pass through a persecution compared to which those that she has suffered up to the present time are insignificant.” Then on page 26 this comment is made: “Then by order of the tyrant the continual sacrifice shall be abolished. (Dan. 9:27). The holy sacrifice of the Mass shall no longer be offered up publicly on the altars.”

Before we go any farther, let’s read that verse: “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.”

Everything in this verse revolves around who the “he” is. Those who view prophecy from a Historical view favor taking “Messiah” as the antecedent for this pronoun, and would favor the following affiliated passages: Isaiah 42:6; 53:11; 55:3; Jeremiah 31:31-34; 32:40-42; Ezekiel 16:60-63; Matthew 26:28; Romans 5:15, 19; 15:8-9; Galatians 3:13-17; Hebrews 6:13-18; 8:8-13; 9:15-20, 28; 10:16-18 and 13:20-21. The Futurists take the grammatical reference to be the “prince that shall come”, a view favored because they claim that the grammatical reference is nearer, and because they also claim what is said further in this verse does not fit the Messiah, but the Antichrist. They refer to Daniel 7:8, 23-24; 8:23-25; 9:26; 11:21-24; 36-45; Isaiah 28:18; Jeremiah 19:7 and 1 John 2:18. They claim that by no means should this covenant be understood to be made by the Messiah. For one thing, they further contend, it is in the wrong time-frame, the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy. The truth is: there is no time-frame for a future so-called “Antichrist.” For another, they continue, “Christ” did not make any seven-year covenants which he then proceeded to break after three and one half years. Then they again assert that this is the seven-year covenant made by Antichrist with the Jewish nation, which the super-duper-pooper Antichrist then breaks in the middle of what they dub “the tribulation.” This is pure nonsense, for why would that fictitious so-called “Antichrist” want to make a covenant with the “antichrist-Jews”, who are not in any way true Israelites? Surely, if there is a future so-called Antichrist on the horizon, and there isn’t, why wouldn’t he make that covenant with the true Anglo- Saxon and related Israelites? A third view makes Antiochus Epiphanes the “he” in Daniel 9:27. I’m sure that would fit the  Catholic Preterists’ false theory.

Now that we have made both the Futurists’ and Preterists’ positions on prophecy look ridiculous, let’s look at the supporting Scripture for the Historical view:

Isaiah 42:6: “I Yhwh have called thee [Israel] in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the [Israel] nations.”

Isaiah 53:11: “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their [Israel’s] iniquities.”

Isaiah 55:3: “Neither let the son of the stranger [Israel], that hath joined himself to Yhwh, speak saying, Yhwh hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch [Israel] say, Behold I am a dry tree.”

Jeremiah 31:31-34: “31 Behold, the days come, saith Yhwh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith Yhwh. 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days saith Yhwh, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their Elohim, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’: for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Yhwh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Jeremiah 32:40-42: “40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them [Israel], that I will not turn away from [following] them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. 41 Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul. 42 For thus saith Yhwh; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.”

Ezekiel 16:60-63: “60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee [as] in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant. 61 Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. 62 And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am Yhwh: 63 That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Sovereign Yhwh.”

Matthew 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new testament [covenant], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” [Notice, for “many”, not “all men”]

Romans 5:15, 19: “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of Yhwh, and the gift [covenant] by grace, which is by one man, Yahshua the Messiah hath abounded unto many ... 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous [by way of the New Covenant].”

Romans 15:8-9: “8 Now I say that the Messiah has been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of Yhwh, to confirm the promises [covenants] made unto the fathers: 9 And that the [Israel] nations might glorify Yhwh for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the [Israel] nations, and sing unto thy name.”

Galatians 3:13-17: “13 The Messiah hath redeemed us [Israelites] from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the [Israel] nations through the Messiah Yahshua, that we [Israelites] might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren [Israelites], I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant yet if it be confirmed no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises [covenants] spoken. He saith not, And to seeds [a variety of seed] as of many; but as of one [variety], And [also] to your [Israel] seed, which is Anointed. 17 And this I say: that the covenant that was confirmed before by Yhwh in Yahshua, the law, was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise [covenant] of none effect.”

Hebrews 6:13-18: “13 For when Yhwh made promise [covenant] to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein Yhwh, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath. 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for Yhwh to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”

Hebrews 8:8-13: [See Jeremiah 31:31-34 above, as it is repeated here almost word for word.]

Hebrews 9:15-20, 28: “15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament [covenant], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament [covenant], they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament [covenant] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament [covenant] is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people. 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament [covenant] which Yhwh hath enjoined unto you ... 28 So Messiah was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Hebrews 10:16-18: “16 This is the covenant that I will make with them [Israel] after those days, saith Yhwh, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.”

Hebrews 13:20-21: “20 Now the Elohim of peace, that brought again from the dead our Sovereign Yahshua, that Great shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant, 21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Yahshua the Messiah; to whom be glory for ever and ever Amen.” ALL THIS IS THE “COVENANT” SPOKEN OF IN DANIEL 9:27!!!

All that Futurism being promoted by the mainstream false prophets of today is nothing more than twisting and distorting the Word of the Almighty until it cannot be recognized. When they assign to the Antichrist [Satan] that which belongs to our Redeemer, that is about as serious as it can get. And if we go around spouting and repeating their rhetoric, we become a part and parcel of their lies. Their whole premise is false from beginning to end, yet these people sell millions of books, audio and video tapes!

I don’t know about your Bible, but the cross-reference in mine, on Daniel 9:27, takes me to both Isaiah 42:6 and Matthew 26:28! Ferrar Fenton has an interesting rendering of Daniel 9:27, as follows: “But the Covenant will be guarded by many for one week, and in the middle of the week, He will make the sacrifice and the offering to cease, and the Loathsome Brute will desolate to the extreme;— but at last a wound will be given to the Desolators.” With this translation, it would seem to appear that the “desolators” might be the impostor Judahites know as “Jews” who are the seed of the serpent, and the “wound” the bruising of His head as spoken of in Genesis 3:15 and Romans 16:20: “And the Elohim of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly ...” Also the word “wound” used by Fenton may be identifying those “Jews” as the abomination of desolation.” If that’s the case, the “abomination of desolation” has returned to Jerusalem. The term “Loathsome Brute” may also be identifying the serpentine “Jews.” This expression surely couldn’t represent the Roman army, for it was made up of many Israelite soldiers. If you have the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 10, page 455, you will see that one of the Roman standards was the insignia of the hand symbolizing Zarah-Judah.

 

HISTORY AND DANIEL ARE ALL IMPORTANT

 

It is detrimental to one’s understanding to study Daniel without at least an elementary working knowledge of Persian history. If one lacks in this area, he should be learning rather than teaching others. In other words, if you want to teach, stick to an area you are familiar with and have mastered. If you are unfamiliar in a certain area, do a crash-course on it until you comprehend it. And you will have to remember, all information is not good information. Therefore, one must be very selective. I’m saying all this to show you a case in point.

In the book Revelation Unveiled, by Tim LaHaye, he says this on page 135 concerning “The Three Divisions of the Seventy Weeks of Years”: “... A study of Jewish history reveals that from the going forth of the decree of Cyrus, it took the Jews under both Ezra and Nehemiah forty-nine years to complete the building of the walls of the city of Jerusalem. Thus we have the first unit predicted.

“2. Sixty-two sevens (or ‘weeks’ in the older translations) of years equals 434 years. These next 434 years, described as 62 heptads, were predicted to be ‘times of trouble’, and certainly that is accurate. It was a period of silence from God until John the Baptist came on the scene. It was a time of weakness in Israel, culminating in Roman domination at the time of Christ. The period was predicted to end when the ‘Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.’ Thus we see that this second period of time extended from the rebuilding of the Temple to the crucifixion of Christ, a total of 434 years.

“Verification of the exact dates is impossible, since the Medo-Persians were notoriously poor historians ...” This last statement about the Medo-Persians being poor historians should sound an alarm, as the author is getting ready to fudge the dates. Up until that point, he was doing quite well. In other words, he is laying a trap in our path. All he has to do is establish an incorrect premise, and he’s paralyzed our ability to reason. Rule #1: always check the premise. By building on the premise that “the Medo-Persians were notoriously poor historians”, he can manipulate the dates any way he wants to and get away with it. Where is his proof on that allegation? Why doesn’t he cite at least one example?

Once causing us to trip over this pitfall, he leads us to his next stumbling-block, on pages 135-136: “The best evidence we have is fulfilled prophecy. Since all other prophecies about Christ have been fulfilled without deviation, we can well assume the fulfillment of this one. Sir Robert Anderson’s masterful book, The Coming Prince, shows that Christ’s coming into Jerusalem the Sunday before His crucifixion occurred in exactly the right year. To my knowledge, his book has never been refuted.

“3. One week equals seven years. Daniel 9:27 predicts that he (‘the ruler who will come’, or the Antichrist, who will obviously be a Roman, since he will be of the people that destroy Jerusalem) will make a covenant with Israel [sic. not the house of Israel!] for one week. [Here comes the trap!] That covenant, which will cover seven years, has not been made since the crucifixion of Christ but is a covenant that will be made in the days of the Antichrist. Even though he will break the covenant in the midst of the seven years, it will still be part of the period of time Gabriel predicted would be ‘decreed for your people and your holy city’ (9:24) ... [Be careful again!] Thus all but one ‘week’, or heptad, of Israel’s [sic. not the house of Israel!] prophetically determined history has been accomplished. The final period of time will be such a time in history that the people of God are referred to ‘the desolate’.”

You will notice that Mr. Tim LaHaye uses the terms “Jew” and Israel interchangeably in the above quotation from his book. This shows that he neither understands history as taught in the Bible nor secular history. I address him as “Mr.”, as I do not recognize him as a minister or any kind of Bible authority. Other than that, he may have gotten the last sentence above correct if applied to the “Jew” rather than “the people of God” at the time the Romans besieged Jerusalem under Titus rather than at some future date as he implies. Not only does he ignorantly take Scripture out of context to support his false thesis, but he violates the first principles of prophetic interpretation; that being applying the prophetic year of 360 days to an actual year rather than 360 prophetic years. In other words, “a time, times and a half of time”; “1260 days” and “forty-two months” all mean 1260 prophetic years. The “seven years of tribulation”, which they attempt to detach from Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy and project them 2000 years in the future, is not the same as the prophetic 1260 days; forty-two months or time, times and a half of time found in Revelation. A true year is still 365 and ¼ days, and a prophetic year = 360 years. Astonishlingly, some in Israel Identity are still using this false method to calculate prophecy. Once we establish the true day- year system of prophecy, it eliminates a lot of false doctrine. As you can clearly see, it rules out any so-called “seven years of future tribulation.”

 

WE NEED ALL THE STORY OF DANIEL

 

Many may not be aware of it, but there is more to Daniel than we have in our present Bibles. Ferrar Fenton rightly points out that there are three different books of Daniel which make up the present book of Daniel in our Bibles. Fenton has them listed as Daniel 1:1 to 4:33 as the first book. Daniel 5:1 to 6:29 as the second and Daniel 7:1 to 12:13 as the third book. In addition to these three divisions of Daniel, there is evidence that the book History Of Susanna found in the Apocrypha should be placed at the beginning of Daniel, and that the Daniel mentioned there is the same Daniel as in our present Bibles. How come the preachers of Futurism never make mention of that? As Daniel was quite young in the History of Susanna, it could only be placed at the beginning.

To demonstrate how all this fits together, I will quote first from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume R-Z, page 467: “SUSANNA ... [Συσάννα]. An addition to the book of Daniel wherein the prophet displays his wisdom. The story is so well written, with so few characters and such impressive issues, that it is widely regarded as one of the literature’s great pieces, as the ‘first detective story.’

“Susanna was accused of adultery by two elders whose advances she had repulsed. She maintained her innocence, but when put to trial before the community on their testimony, she was about to be found guilty. Daniel shouted for true justice and was permitted to cross-examine the elders. He asked each elder separately under what tree the sin had been committed. The elders named different trees, thus contradicting each other. Susanna was then acquitted, and the elders were executed in accordance with the biblical law: ‘Then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother’ (Deut. 19:18-21) ...

“The story of the trial indicates the value of cross-examination of witnesses. As narrated, the story is in direct contradiction to the Pharisaic practice and law that false witnesses can be put to death only on the basis of an alibi — i.e., other witnesses show that the first pair of witnesses were with them at the time of the committal of the crime; they were not at the scene of the crime and therefore have given false testimony. Thus the book of Susanna depicts only a contradiction of ‘witnesses in fact’ and not in ‘matter of time.’ Because of this contradiction to Pharisaic accepted law, the book was not included in the [Jewish] canon [at Jamnia, 100 A.D.] ...”

For a description of the content of the History Of Susanna as found in the Apocrypha, I will use The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume Q-Z, page 546: “The narrative tells of Susanna, a pious woman of great beauty who lived with her wealthy husband Joakim in Babylon. Adjacent to his house Joakim had a large garden in which Susanna loved to stroll at midday when the elders (judges) and litigants, who were in the practice of conducting their business in Joakim’s house, had departed. Two of these elders, however, had for some time been secretly inflamed with desire for Susanna, and one sultry day individually stole back to the garden where, having surprised each other, they were forced to confess their mutual designs on Susanna. After she had sent away her servants in preparation to bathe, the elders confronted her with the alternative of either submitting to their desires or being exposed as having been caught with a young man. Susanna chose to be unjustly accused ‘rather than to sin in the sight of the Lord.’ At the trial on the following day the men gave their false testimony. But as Susanna was being led away to her execution, the young Daniel was moved by the Lord (in answer to Susanna’s prayer) to protest the precipitate action. At their invitation, Daniel sat with the judges in a renewed examination of the evidence. He shrewdly examined the men separately, inquiring under which tree in the garden Susanna and her alleged lover were seen. The contradictory answers to this question exposed the treachery of the two elders who in turn received the punishment which was to have been Susanna’s. The innocence of Susanna had been vindicated and the narrative concludes with the statement that from thence onward Daniel’s reputation among the people was established.”

While this summary is quite excellent, it leaves out the identification of the two men, which is of the utmost importance to the story. That is found in verses 56-57: “56 So he [Daniel] put him aside, and commanded to bring the other, and said unto him, O thou seed of Chanaan, and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart. 57 Thus have ye dealt with the daughters of Israel, and they for fear companied with you: but the daughters of Juda would not abide your wickedness.”

You can see from this that Daniel understood the difference between a Judahite and a Canaanite trying to pass himself off as a member of the Tribe of Judah. This is identical to what those impostors today are doing over in Palestine calling themselves Israelis, but are really Canaanites. And the Futurists are aiding and abetting them in their effort. Most detrimental of all, they are using Daniel’s prophecy out of context to support those Canaanite variety of “Jews.” Today, we should be as wise as Daniel, and have the intuitiveness to recognize that difference also. Let’s repeat what Daniel told those impostors: “O thou seed of Chanaan, and not of Juda.” No wonder the “Jews” had the History Of Susanna taken out of the Scripture at Jamnia. If you will go back and reread these verses, you will notice that it wasn’t the first time a Canaanite had attempted to seduce an Israelite or Judahite lady. It’s Genesis 3 all over again; and again and again and again. Notice how Daniel exposes how they use the element of fear to get what they want (“for fear of the Jews”, John 7:13; 19:38; John 20:19.). It is apparent that if the History Of Susanna was still the first part of Daniel in our Bible, today we would have a better idea about what the Canaanite variety of “Jew” is all about (that is, a Canaanite claiming he is of the Tribe of Judah). So what do we have today? We have a whole bunch of people going around claiming the Canaanites are “God’s chosen people.” It should also be noted that Bel And The Dragon found in the Apocrypha, is also part of Daniel, but we will not go into that here.

 

DANIEL’S WRITINGS UNDER ATTACK

 

According to his own writings, he was the author, (9:2; 10:2). He is recognized by no less than our Redeemer Himself, Matthew 24:15. Daniel was carried into the Babylonian captivity in the third year of Jehoiakim, approximately 605 B.C. (1:1). Daniel, being of noble descent, was selected and educated to become the king’s courtier in a foreign land. It was the Almighty Himself that raised up Daniel to become His spokesman in Babylon. During that captivity, Daniel served under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede. His book recounts his ministry from 600 B.C. until 536 B.C., the third year of Cyrus the Persian. Evidently his book must have been completed sometime after the capture of Babylon, and also after the first migration back to Judea. His writings record the transfer of authority from Babylon to Persia.

As I showed before, there is more than one division of the book Daniel. The first six chapters are written in the third person. Chapters 7-12 are composed solely of visions and dreams, and are written in the first person. Therefore, we must be able to separate the historical facts from the symbology employed in those dreams. It is highly important that we apply these visions to their proper places in the various kingdoms they represent in the war of the Kingdom of Yahweh as opposed to the kingdom of Satan and his people. We should be encouraged that in the end, Messiah’s Kingdom will triumph over all the enemy.

The prophecies of Daniel consist of revelations received over a seventy-year period, while at the same time, it seems that the larger part of Judah and all of Israel had vanished from off the face of the earth. All that was left was this insignificant remnant left over after the destruction of Jerusalem. This period of isolation forced the people to renew their position with the Almighty and seek His grace and favor. It was in this atmosphere that Yhwh raised up Daniel. Many make the mistake of thinking Daniel’s prophecy was for this small remnant nation only. Nothing could be further from the truth, as Daniel’s prophecies would affect, over a long period of time, all twelve tribes of Israel. In our age, we can look back at Daniel’s prophecies as a powerful witness to the certainty of their fulfillment, when properly grasped.

But over the years Daniel’s prophecies have been bitterly attacked. The authorship of Daniel has been contested since the time of Porphyry, a third-century A.D. philosopher. Porphyry was a pagan who hated Christianity and was alarmed and distressed at its rapid growth. Therefore, he studied the scriptures in order to find any seeming inconsistencies in order to reconvert the Christians back to paganism. It is reported that he devoted an entire book to discredit the book of Daniel and show that it didn’t date from the remote past, but was a Jewish compilation dating from the Maccabean Wars, and thus, had no merit as prophecy. This is only touching the subject of Porphyry lightly. Though Porphyry is long dead, there have been hundreds of “Porphyrys” since applying the same kind of arguments. Should one not be familiar with Porphyry, he can mark it down that he still has some homework to get caught-up on.

After years of darkness from Yhwh’s written Word, and after the invention of the printing press, the Bible became an open book at the time of the reformers, and the anti-Christian religious system known as the “Church of Rome” along with its Pope came under fire. All this found Rome in an awkward position, and she had to fight back. This fell to the Jesuits under Loyola to destroy the Reformation. A Spanish Jesuit priest by the name of Aleazar promoted the idea that the Apostle John could not possibly have predicted future events after his own time. Therefore, he assigned the Antichrist to probably the Emperor Nero or some other earlier persecutor of Christians. That theory is still around today and is known as Preterism. It has even found its way into Israel Identity. So here again, the writings of Daniel were under attack, especially 7:8.

Then along came another Spanish Jesuit Catholic priest by the name of Ribera, going to the other extreme and propounding the theory that the whole book of Revelation related to events that would take place at Yahshua’s second Advent, and therefore was still in the future, and that a super-duper-pooper world-dictator Antichrist would appear at that future time. Right after the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, instigated by the Jesuits in 1572, Ribera published his theory of Futurism. Today there are thousands of ministers going about spouting Ribera’s theory. For 250 years, from 1580 to 1830 the false doctrine of an individual personal future Antichrist was a recognized teaching of the Church of Rome. On the other hand, the Protestant reformers held that the reign of Antichrist extended all through the Dark ages, from the fourth century to the Reformation. After the expulsion of the Jesuits from numerous nations, A Chilean Spanish Jesuit priest by the name of Lacunza came from Chile to the north of Italy, where he wrote a book The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty. He was steeped in that current Jesuit Futurists’ teaching, to which he added some of his own ideas. From that time to this, it has become a giant snowball gathering speed and momentum, crashing down upon us. Ribera and Lacunza, in their attack on the reformers, in turn were attacking the books of both Revelation and Daniel.

It now becomes your duty to notify these purveyors of these false doctrines in Israel Identity by writing or calling them and letting them know you don’t appreciate their false position, and if they refuse to listen and start teaching the truth, to let them know you will no longer support their efforts. It’s time we take a stand against this demonic, Jesuit, Babylonian religious system. Today the Roman Catholic Church is under fire again for sex abuse. It appears that, given time, that false religious system may fall under its own weight. It also appears that it is now an opportune time to get the true Israel Message out to those deceived people who are of our race.

This is my fifty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my fifth year of publication. With this teaching letter, we will continue our walk through Daniel. This is not an effort to cover all of Daniel, but those parts which concerns his prophecies. As I have pointed out before, the various unreal, debauched interpretations that have been promoted by various sources are simply preposterous and outrageous. The so-called experts on the subject simply do not follow the first principles for interpreting Bible prophecy. It should be pointed out, one must do a lot more than simply read the book of Daniel. One might read it a hundred times, but if he doesn’t branch out to other connecting evidence, he will never comprehend what Daniel is all about. With this lesson, we are going to branch out into those other areas. Once one becomes familiar with all the testimony, it will not be so easy for those unscrupulous manipulators and purveyors of falsities to engineer their subterfuge.

To study Daniel thoroughly, much history and a wide area of geography are required. Not only that, but it is paramount we know who Scripture is talking about on every particular occasion. For instance, the name Darius is used at Ezra 4:5; 4:24; 5:5-7; 6:1; 6:12-15; Nehemiah 12:22; Daniel 5:31; 6:1, 6, 25, 28; 9:1; 11:1; Haggai 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zechariah 1:1 and 7; 7:1. The problem we encounter is: there are four different alleged men by that name. If we, by unfamiliarity, apply the wrong person to a particular passage, the result can definitely be catastrophic. Is there an incident where this has happened to get things all fouled up? Yes there is! We will get to that later. Let’s see who these four personages were: (1) Darius I, (521-486 B.C.), known as Darius Hystaspes or Darius the Great. (2) Darius II, (423-404 B.C.), known as Ochus or Darius Nothus (Darius the bastard). (3) Darius III, (336-330 B.C.), known as Codomannus, and, (4) Darius the Mede.

With this lesson we are going to do a lot of quoting from various Bible reference books, commentaries, and other sources. While much of this information will be constructive in nature, other commentary will only lead us in the wrong direction and cause us to arrive at many erroneous conclusions. I have decided to quote both the beneficial and the detrimental data derived from these sources and let you see if you can determine the good from the bad as we go along. Inasmuch as we will be getting quite involved in some unusual areas of study, this should really stimulate our mental faculties. While I will be able to address some of the problems as we go along, other difficulties will have to wait until later lessons. Let’s now try to differentiate between these four said individuals known to us in the Bible as “Darius.” Before finishing this issue, we will see just how dangerous a wrong identification can be!

To separate these four different personages by the name of Darius, I will now quote from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary by Elwell and Comfort, page 355, on Darius I:

“Darius I (521-486 BC) Also known as Darius Hystaspes and Darius the Great, Darius I seized the throne of the Persian Empire after the death of Cambyses II. Although he was an Achaemenid, he was from a different branch of the royal family than Cyrus and Cambyses ... After Darius quelled several revolts, however, his power was firmly established, and he turned his attention to expanding the empire. His military campaigns extended Persian borders to the Danube River in the west and to the Indus River in the east, making him ruler of the largest empire the world had known. Greco-Persian conflict, which continued until Alexander the Great conquered the empire in 330 BC, began when Darius launched two invasions of Greece after conquering Thrace and Macedonia. The first expedition was destroyed by a storm in the Aegean Sea; the second was defeated by the Athenians in the famous battle of Marathon in 490 BC.

“An able administrator, Darius did much to promote trade and commerce. He instituted a uniform system of weights and measures. During his reign, a canal from the Nile River to the Red Sea was completed, and a sea route from the Indus River to Egypt was explored.

“During Darius’s reign, Persian architecture developed a style that continued until the end of the Achaemenid dynasty. Darius built at Babylon, Ecbatana, and Susa, his capital. A great royal road was constructed from Susa to the Lydian capital of Sardis. His greatest architectural accomplishment was the founding of Persepolis, a new royal city to replace the emperor’s residence at Pasargadae. Darius also allowed temples to be built in Egypt and in Jerusalem, continuing Cyrus’s policy of respecting the religious customs of his subjects.

“Darius I is the Darius, king of Persia, mentioned in the books of Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah. Ezra 5-6 record[s] that Zerubbabel and Jeshua, with the help of Haggai and Zechariah, finished rebuilding the temple ... Zerubbabel and Jeshua had returned to Jerusalem under Cyrus II about 538 BC (Ezr. 2:2) ... That must have been the sixth year of Darius I (516 BC), since the sixth year of Darius II would certainly be too late. That identification was confirmed by discovery of a Babylonian document, dated June 5, 502 BC, which refers to Tattenai as ‘the governor of Beyond the River ...’”

Though problematic, the previous quotation should give you some idea of who Darius I was. For Darius II we will quote again from the Tyndale Bible Dictionary by Elwell and Comfort, page 356, under Darius II:

“Darius II (423-404 BC) Also known as Ochus (his real name) and Darius Nothus (‘Darius the bastard’), Darius II was the son of Artaxerxes I Babylonian concubine. Before he became emperor, Ochus was a satrap (governor) of Hyrcania, a region on the southwest coast of the Caspian Sea. In 423 BC his half brother, Sogdianus (or Secydianus), killed Xerxes II. Ochus then seized the throne from Sogdianus, whom he executed, and adopted the name Darius II. His reign was plagued with revolution and corruption. His own full brother, Arsites, revolted soon after Darius seized the throne, and Darius had him executed.

“After an alliance with Sparta was formed against Athens, Persia joined the Peloponnesian War. Several successful military campaigns succeeded in recovering the Greek coastal cities of Asia Minor and breaking Athenian power in the Aegean area. Darius II died in Babylon in 404 BC, the year the Peloponnesian War ended ...”

For Darius III, I will need to quote from another book as he is not mentioned in most of them. I get this information from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume A-D, page 770:

“Darius III (336-330 B.C.), known as Codomannus, according to Justinus (X. 3. 3ff). He suffered repeated defeats against Alexander’s Macedonian armies (Granicus [334], Issus [333], Gaugamela [331]) and was finally murdered by Bessus, satrap of Bactria ...”

Finally we come to the tough one; Darius the Mede. For him, we will return to the Tyndale Bible Dictionary by Elwell and Comfort, page 356:

“Darius the Mede Unknown in historical documents of the period of the Babylonian and Persian empires, this biblical Darius has been identified with several known figures. The most important efforts have identified Darius the Mede as another name for Cyrus II (‘Cyrus the Persian’ Dn. 6:28); for Cambyses II, Cyrus’s son; or for Gubaru, who was governor of Babylon and the province Beyond the River during the reigns of Cyrus II and Cambyses II.

“According to the book of Daniel, ‘Darius the Mede received the kingdom’ when Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was slain (Dn. 5:30-31). Darius was about 62 years old (v. 31) and was ‘the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede’ (9:1). Daniel never suggested that Darius was king of Media or of the whole Persian Empire, only of the Chaldean (Babylonian) kingdom. The Babylonian Empire included Mesopotamia (Babylonia and Assyria) and Syro-Palestine (Syria, Phoenica and Palestine). In the Persian Empire, that huge area became known as the province of Babylon (Mesopotamia) and Beyond the river (Syro-Palestine). Daniel also recorded that Darius appointed governors in the kingdom ...

“According to Nabonidus’s Chronicle and the Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus (two cuneiform documents from Nabonidus’s reign), Nabonidus was in Tema until Cyrus’s invasion of Babylonia. While he was away, he ‘entrusted the kingship’ to his son Belshazzar. On October 12, 539 BC, Babylon fell to Ugbaru, general of Cyrus’s army. Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 BC, and appointed a person named Gubaru governor of Babylon. Gubaru then appointed other governors under him. General Ugbaru died on November 6, 539 BC ...

“Darius the Mede was thus probably a subordinate of Cyrus who was made ruler of ‘the realm of the Chaldeans’ after Belshazzar and who could have been considered a king by his subjects. Accordingly, the reign of Darius (Dn. 6:28) should be understood as simultaneous with that of Cyrus, not as a preceding reign. Thus Gubaru was made governor of Babylon immediately following the reign of Belshazzar, and he appointed governors, as did Darius the Mede. There is no record of Gubaru’s age, nationality, or ancestry. He may well have been a 62 year-old Mede whose father was named Ahasuerus ...

“Many Babylonian texts record that Gubaru was governor of Babylon and the province Beyond the River for about 14 years (539-525 BC). The documents attribute much power to him. His name is a final warning to officials who might disobey the laws. In documents that mention Cyrus II or Cambyses II, crimes in Babylon are stated to be sins against Gubaru, not against Cyrus or Cambyses. The province of Babylon and Beyond the River was the richest and most populous in the Persian Empire, encompassing many nations and languages. For a powerful governor of such a region to be called ‘king’ by his subjects seems only natural.

“The case for Gubaru is admittedly circumstantial, but it remains the best solution to the problem. Until further evidence comes to light, it is safe to assume that Darius the Mede, ‘king over the realm of the Chaldeans’, was actually Gubaru, the known governor of that realm.”

SPECIAL NOTE: While there is indeed an historical Gubaru, it will be shown later that Gubaru and Darius the Mede were two different individuals. But that still leaves us with four men by the name of Darius to deal with, and we dare not get them mixed-up. Scripture does not waste words identifying who it is speaking about. In churchianity the Futurists and Preterists are so intent on convincing people of their perverted views that they never explain about the four different Dariuses.

 

THE QUESTION OF DARIUS MUST BE RESOLVED

 

Unless the issue of Darius is settled, we cannot claim to understand the book of Daniel. The fact that the mainstream clergy doesn’t address the matter is substantial evidence that most of them simply don’t know, or don’t care to know. Before we are through with this study, we will have tangible testimony to strengthen our position. Once we become aware of the four different leaders known as Darius in our Bible, we can then rectify the chronology of Daniel’s seventy weeks (490) years, and account for every one of them. And there won’t be seven years left over for a super-duper-pooper so-called future “Antichrist.” I will now repeat a statement which the futurist, Tim LaHaye made in his Revelation Unveiled, page 135: “Verification of the exact dates is impossible, since the Medo-Persians were notoriously poor historians.” As we shall see, the Persians were not as “poor historians” as LaHaye claims. We will next use some commentary by the Pictorial Bible Dictionary, edited by Merrill C. Tenny, published by the Southwestern Company, 1966, on Darius, pages 199-200:

“DARIUS (... Heb. daryawesh, Gr. Dareios), a common name for Medo-Persian rulers. Numerous cuneiform tablets contain the references to them, especially to Darius Hystaspes. Darius the Mede, seems to have been the same as Gubaru who was an officer in the army of Cyrus, probably governor of a Persian province north of Babylon. His name is possibly a translation of ‘Darius.’ He was the son of Ahasuerus, hence a Mede (Dan. (9:1). Belshazzar’s notable feast (Dan. 5) ended in the destruction of the Chaldean Empire, and Darius the Mede (Gubaru) became ruler of the province by appointment of Cyrus at the age of 62. Daniel tells us that Darius the Mede was not heir to the throne, but nevertheless was made king (Dan. 5:31). He seems to have exercised authority contemporaneously with Cyrus.

“Cuneiform records list Nabonidus as the last king of the Medes [sic. rather the last king of Babylon]; so Belshazzar, his son, was ruling in Babylon while his father was away at war. Darius reorganized the government and gave Daniel a high place. (Dan. 6:1-3). Evil princes set out to destroy him (6:4-9). Jehovah [sic. Yhwh] rescued Daniel from the lions and thus advanced his cause before the king (6:10-23). Darius the Mede seems to have ruled for only a brief time (10:1; 11:1).

“Darius Hystaspes was the greatest of the Persian rulers. Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, continued the conquest which his noted father had started. He did not, however, recognize the claims of the Jews (Jos. Ant. XI:1:2). In one of his campaigns he was defeated by the Egyptians, and on his way home committed suicide. Taking advantage of the king’s defeat, a pretender, named Smerdis, was made king by zealots of the Magian religious sect and he ruled one year (Jos. XI:3;1),  until slain by Darius and other princes. Darius having had himself made king. He was a collateral descendant of Cyrus who, according to tradition, had selected Darius to succeed him. Between the reign of Cyrus and that of Darius, the Jews had been mistreated, and work on rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple stopped (Ezra 4:1-6). An appeal was made to Darius who made search and discovered the original decree of Cyrus favoring the Jews. Under his lenient reign, they restored the walls of the city and rebuilt the temple (Ezra 6:1-15). Darius was beset by rebellious subjects and spent much time in putting these down. He recognized the government and extended its boundaries. He conducted many magnificent building enterprises and encouraged men of letters, especially the historians who extolled his prowess (Josephus Ant. XI:1:3). The Greeks never yielded to him, however, and after some futile campaigns, his forces were overwhelmed in the battle of Marathon 490 B.C. Darius planned another campaign against the Greeks, but rebellion in Egypt interfered, and death in 486 B.C. ended his career. He was succeeded by Xerxes I, a grandson of Cyrus the Great ...” [“Jew” should read Judean.]

SPECIAL NOTE: Again, the name Gubaru is mentioned, and as we will see later, he is not Darius the Mede. While problematic, this last reference helps round out our perspective of Persian history and her rulers during and after the time of Daniel. For additional evidence on Cyrus, I will quote from the New International Bible Dictionary, Based on the NIV, page 247:

“CYRUS ... The son of Cambyses, king of Anshan. With the rise of Cyrus began the renowned Persian Empire that was to continue until the coming of Alexander the Great. Seven years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus ascended the throne of Babylon, in 555 B.C. He was destined to be the last ruling sovereign of the neo-Babylonian Empire, for in the highlands of Iran another kingdom was forging out its own program of conquest. When the Medes and their king, Astyages, were defeated by Cyrus, the realm of Persia began to assume threatening proportions. Cyrus himself announced his genealogy: ‘I am Cyrus, king of the hosts, the great king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad ... son of Cambyses the king, king of Anshan; the grandson of Cyrus ... the great-grandson of Teipes ... king of Anshan ...’ In this same inscription Cyrus proceeds to relate how the city of Babylon opened its gates to him without resistance, confirming the biblical account recorded in Daniel 5 when Darius, acting as vice-regent for Cyrus, took the city of Babylon in the name of Cyrus the Great. The neo-Babylonian Empire was in no condition to resist the advance of Cyrus, and fell easily into the hands of the Persians. The Old Testament sets the framework of reference against the backdrop of Belshazzar’s impious feast (Dan. 5:1-30).

“Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29, 539 B.C., and presented himself in the role of the liberator of the people. He allowed the images of the gods to be transported back to their original cities and instituted a kindly policy of repatriation for captive peoples. His policies of moderation naturally extended to the Hebrews, whom he encouraged to return to Judea to rebuild their temple (2 Chr. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-6). Isaiah refers to Cyrus as ‘his [i.e., the Lord’s] anointed’ (Isa. 45:1).”

As you can begin to see, little by little, we are gathering much of the evidence for this period. Also, I am trying to present this in a coherent manner so the data keeps building on top of that presented ahead if it. Our next source on Daniel will be The Revell Bible Dictionary, page 276:

“Daniel, Book of ... The book divides naturally into two sections. Chapters 1-6 relate events which took place in the Babylonian and Persian courts. Chapters 7-12 report apocalyptic visions given to Daniel.

“Date and Authorship: Liberal scholars view Daniel as a legendary figure, even though he is named three times by his contemporary, Ezekiel (Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). They see the Book of Daniel as a composite work, written about 165 B.C., that is, after the events prophesied in Daniel’s visions.

“Conservative scholars, however, view Daniel as a historical person, and believe the book was completed by Daniel before his death about 532 B.C. Conservatives believe that God revealed future events through the prophets, so the accuracy of Daniel’s predictions is hardly evidence of a late date. They also note that many of the ‘historical problems’ cited by 19th century critics have been resolved by archaeological finds, which have demonstrated how accurately the author of Daniel portrays details of empire history and court life ... Belshazzar, long scoffed at as an invention, has been identified as the son and co-regent of Nabonidus (he offered to make Daniel ‘third highest ruler in the kingdom’ [Dan. 5:16], because he himself was second). The change in punishment from fire (Dan. 3) to the lions’ den (Dan. 6) reflects a change from Babylonian to Persian practices. ‘Darius the Mede’ has not yet been identified by cuneiform records. But ‘Darius’ was a title assumed at coronation, just as Roman emperors became Caesar upon accession. The name might well be an alternative title of Cyrus himself, or perhaps a reference to a man named Gubaru, whom secular sources identify as ruler under Cyrus of Babylon and the ‘regions beyond the river’.” A further interesting note on page 277 says: “Note: Daniel was probably about 13 years of age in chapter one. When cast into the lions’ den (ch. 6) he was in his 80s.”

SPECIAL NOTE: Again the name Gubaru is mentioned, and again he is not Darius the Mede. More information on Cyrus and Darius the Mede is found in Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 331:

“...Persian cuneiform inscriptions show that Cyrus II (‘the Great’) was the successor of Belshazzar. One possible answer to this problem is that ‘Darius the Mede’ was the army general sent by Cyrus to conquer Babylon. It is also possible that ‘Darius the Mede’ was an alternative name or title used by the writer of the Book of Daniel for Cyrus the Persian himself. Indeed, in Daniel 11:1, the Septuagint — the Greek translation of the Old Testament — has Cyrus instead of Darius. Thus, a quite legitimate translation of Daniel 6:28 might read: ‘Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian’ (NIV margin). Such a logical and reasonable interpretation silences the skepticism about this passage in the Book of Daniel.”

SPECIAL NOTE: No, Cyrus the Persian was not Darius the Mede either! From Unger’s Bible Dictionary, page 241, we read the following:

“Darius the Mede (Dan. 5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28; 9:1; 11:1) is to be identified with Gobryas (Gubaru), the governor of Babylon under Cyrus. Darius is most certainly another name for Gubaru. That he was styled ‘king’ is to be regarded as not inaccurate in describing a man of Gubaru’s authority since he was amel pihate of the city or province of Babylon, nor does this usurp the absolute sovereignty of Cyrus (q.v.). Moreover, it is not necessary to discover cuneiform tablets dated according to the years of Darius’ reign in order to substantiate the Biblical datings. These biblical datings of Darius’ reign (Dan. 9:1 and 11:1) are exactly paralleled by the datings of Belshazzar’s reign (Dan. 7:1; 8:1). This conclusion is warranted since it is now known that the author of Daniel took into consideration Belshazzar’s secondary position in the Babylonian Empire (cf. Dan. 5:7, 16, 29) ... Behind these statements is the implication that Darius was not the supreme ruler of the Persian Empire. Daniel 6:28 portrays Daniel as prospering not in the consecutive reigns of two independent sovereigns, but during the reigns of two contemporary rulers, one being subordinate to the other. ‘So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.’ Gubaru (Gobryas), it is now known, appointed governors in Babylon after the fall of the city, and Cyrus departed for Ecbatana before the end of the year. The only possible ruler of Babylon was Darius, since Cambyses did not reign as sub-king until the following year, being removed from this honorary position after a few months, while Gubaru continued as governor of Babylon and the District Beyond the River for some years. Since the territory ruled by Gubaru was coextensive with the Fertile Crescent and included many different peoples and races, the description on Dan. 6:25-28 of Darius’ decree is explainable. Neither does the decree of Darius in Dan. 6:7, 12 exclude the possibility of his being a subordinate ruler. Darius’ second decree (Dan. 6:26), which was published to annul the first decree, was addressed to ‘all the dominion of my kingdom’, not the entire Persian Empire. ‘Unto all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth’ can be rendered ‘in all the land’ (Dan. 6:25) and does not claim universal sovereignty for Darius. Moreover, Gubaru was doubtless ‘the son of Ahasuerus’ and also a Mede ...”

SPECIAL NOTE: While there was an historical Gubaru, he was not Darius the Mede! The interesting thing in the above commentary from Unger is the fact that Daniel was third in both the kingdoms of Babylon and Persia. Before the fall of Babylon the order of ruler-ship was: (1) Nabonidus, (2) Belshazzar, and, (3) Daniel. After the fall of Babylon to Persia the ruler-ship was: (1) Cyrus, (2) Darius the Mede, and, (3) Daniel. You can see from this, although Daniel’s two superiors were displaced by the fall, Daniel maintained his position as third in the kingdom. By the way, that was no small office.

One more piece of interesting evidence should be mentioned concerning  Darius  Hystaspes, or Darius I, and a usurper claiming to be Smerdis. From Unger’s Bible Dictionary, page 239 we read:

“Darius Hystaspes ..., king of Persia (521-486 B.C., Ezra 4:5, 24; 5:5-7; 6:1, 12, 15; Hag. 1:1; 2:10; Zech. 1:1, 7; 7:1), the restorer of the Persian empire founded by Cyrus the Great ... Cyrus was succeeded in 529 B.C. by his son Cambyses, who possessed his father’s adventurous spirit without his commanding genius. He added first Phoenicia and Cyprus, and afterward Egypt, to the new empire, but failed in attempting to carry out impracticable schemes of conquest in North Africa and Ethiopia. Encouraged by these disasters to Cambyses a pretender seized the throne, claiming that he was Smerdis, the deceased younger son of Cyrus, who had not long survived his father’s death. Cambyses, despairing of success against the usurper, put an end to his own life while on his homeward march. The impostor, after a reign of a few months, was dethroned by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, in 521 B.C., who headed an insurrection of the nobles against him. Darius was apparently the rightful heir to the throne, being descended, collaterally with Cyrus, from the ancient royal line of Persia ...”

 

 

 

 

BOTH BABYLON AND PERSIA KEPT EXCELLENT RECORDS

 

Contrary to the futurist Tim LaHaye, the Babylonians and Persians kept accurate records. The Popular And Critical Bible Encyclopedia And Dictionary by the Rev. Samuel Fallows (1920) makes superb comment on this in volume 1, pages 486-487:

“Fortunately we are not dependent upon the statements of second or third-hand historians for a description of the fall of Babylon. We have the records both of Nabonidus, the reigning and vanquished king, and of Cyrus, the conqueror. Though somewhat fragmentary in some places, they nevertheless furnish us with a reasonably good picture of that momentous event. Nabonidus’ own record will be cited first (Nab.- Cry. Chron. col. i: Rev. 12-24) ... Cyrus’ own cylinder gives us a no less wonderful story. This sets out by assuring the reader that Cyrus was thoroughly imbued with the idea that he was a man of destiny (Cyl. 11-19, 22-24) ... These two records of the capture of Babylon from two different sources — one might rightfully say from two opposing forces — present a marvelous harmony. They unite in the statement that the city made no resistance to the entrance of the army of Cyrus, neither were there any objections to his immediate assumption of control unless in the Nab.-Cry. Chron., we interpret the guard about the temple of Esagila as a minor siege. On the other hand, the population of the city seems to have welcomed their new conqueror, deliverer, and ruler, as a friend and benefactor.” Although I didn’t quote the contents of these chronicles here, you can see that the author was quite complementary of them.

If you have followed the evidence from these various sources thus far, you may be somewhat convinced that “Gubaru” is identical to the Darius the Mede of Daniel. I can assure you that almost every Bible reference takes that position. There is other evidence that Darius the Mede was the uncle of Cyrus, and to deal fairly with the subject, we must present and consider it. For that, we go to the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament on the words #1867 & #1868 we find the following:

“דריוש Darius, pr. n. of some of kings of Media and Persia.

“(1) of Darius the Mede, Dan. 6:1; 9:1. This was Cyaxares (II.), the son and successor of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus, who reigned over Media, between his father and nephew, from 569-536 B.C.; Cyrus, however, so administered the kingdom for him that he is only mentioned by Herodotus. Frequent mention is made of Cyaxares by Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 4,§ 7, v. § 2, viii. 7,§ 1; and Josephus says correctly of Darius the Mede (Ant. x. 11,§ 4), ἧν Ảστυάγους υἱός, ἓτερον δὲ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐκαλεῖτο ὄνομα. The various opinions of interpreters and historians are collected, and true opinion brought to view by Bertholdt in Comment. on Dan. p. 842, seq.”

Though caution is advised with these early historians, the above account seems somewhat reasonable. It would appear logical that Cyrus would appoint someone of his trusted family to such an important post in order to manage the affairs of the newly conquered area of Babylon. Inasmuch as Cyrus was of a royal line, his uncle Cyaxares (or Darius the Mede) evidently must have been also. If truly Cyaxares was Cyrus’s uncle, an age of 62 for him is not unreasonable, Daniel 5:31. With this evidence we can only conclude that Darius the Mede was not Gubaru as many of the Bible commentaries claim.

Although Darius the Mede and Gubaru are two individuals, they are both important leaders in Persian history. We will look further into the historic testimony concerning Gubaru in the next lesson. Among the many topics we must address, we must devote attention to Nehemiah’s mission to the city, and its date; the rebuilding of Jerusalem; Ezra’s second return to Jerusalem. Also, in the next lesson, we will show a time-chart of the various Persian kings from Cyrus to Alexander the Great’s overthrow of that great empire. In addition to that, I will try to lay out a timeline for the major events during that period.

Another interesting factor should be mentioned concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s family line. I will use the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 15, page 628, under the topic “Media” for that purpose: “... The pact between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar was sealed near Nineveh by the marriage in 613 B.C. of Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar to Cyaxares’ granddaughter ...”

The motive for all this Persian background is to prove beyond all doubt that every one of Daniel’s seventy weeks (490 years) were used up, and that the Futurists don’t have a leg to stand on for their so-called “future seven years of tribulation.”

I might also point out that in the Septuagint on Daniel 11:1 the name Cyrus is used instead of Darius the Mede. Also in some versions of the Bible, Daniel 11:1 is totally omitted. Yet in other versions Daniel 11:1 is placed at the end of chapter 10. While there seems to be confusion with this passage, other places containing “Darius the Mede” have no difficulty.

 

WE CAN’T READ DANIEL ALONE!

 

If one has the idea that he can read and study Daniel alone and comprehend his prophecies, he is terribly mistaken. Yet some try! In addition to studying Daniel, we must be familiar with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah. In addition to the books of the so-called “Canon”, there are also the ‘Apocryphal’ 1st Esdras, 2nd Esdras, and Ecclesiasticus to name a few. Should you want to do a more thorough study of Daniel, I suggest you mark down all the Scriptural references from this teaching letter and expand from there.

Therefore, it might be advisable to keep this letter as a future reference guide for your own study, as it represents a very difficult topic to research. You may reach different conclusions with your own study than presented here. Should you have data that would contribute to the understanding of this topic, would you please be so kind to share it with me? Surely, we can all agree there are a lot of so-called “experts” spouting Daniel who haven’t the slightest ides what they are talking about!

 

AFTERTHOUGHT ON THIS LESSON

 

I don’t want anyone, by any means, to assume that all the quotations used in this issue are entirely accurate. Pointedly, there are many problems during that period which space does not allow to be addressed. For instance, there was not room to show that Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar were not of royal blood as were Nebuchadnezzar and his son Awil-Marduk; that Nebuchadnezzar was not Belshazzar’s real father as stated in Daniel 5:2, 11, 18 & 22, but an Assyrian expression meaning a predecessor to the throne. Nor was it possible to mention all the intrigue and murder between Awil-Marduk to Nabonidus.

This has been an effort to present all sides of Biblical and secular history pertinent to the Babylonian and Persian empires in connection to Daniel. For anyone who wants to do further research on that period, I would highly recommend they obtain copies of the books History Of The Persian Empire by A. T. Olmstead; Clash Of East And West by Daisy More & John Bowman; and the 1949 Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton.

This is my fifty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my fifth year of publication. I will soon complete my fifth year of publication with my sixtieth teaching letter in April. As I’m preparing this letter I have noticed the enemy is really using to his utmost his race-card, in a multicultural sense, on television. It’s simply a constant barrage of Satanic ideology.  Anyone who is not aware that we are in a race-war simply hasn’t done his homework. Today the clowns called preachers in the mainstream churches are the greatest race-traitors the world has ever known, and they call it Christianity. Even some in Israel Identity avoid the use of the “R” word thinking they’re doing Yhwh a favor. Anyone who hasn’t discovered that the Bible is a book about race from the beginning to the end, doesn’t know what true Christianity is all about. Therefore today, those uninformed so-called “Christians” are trying to walk with one arm embracing Yhwh, and the other outstretched to Satan. Ditto for the “universalists” in Israel Identity, who dub it “the restitution of all things.” Until the White race is completely separated and isolated from all the other races, there will be no “restitution of all things.”

There is also another area I must address which was brought to my attention. It seems there is always someone out there going off on a tangent in Israel Identity. The latest is Pastor V. S. Herrell in his article The Sacred Name Delusion, which appeared on his Internet Web site. The object of his article was to debunk the Sacred Name of Yahweh/Yahshua. Had he really done his research on this subject, he wouldn’t have come to such an untenable conclusion. In short, he based his assertion that the Sacred Name of Yahweh/Yahshua was false on the assumption that Messiah and His Disciples spoke Greek rather than Aramaic. If you are having problems with the Sacred Name, you may find the following information informative:

(1) If you will go to Josephus’ Antiquities 20:11:2, you will find that he confesses he had problems pronouncing the Greek language. It should be obvious that in that area Aramaic was still a prominent language during that time period, and it was spoken by Yahshua and His followers, contrary to V. S. Herrell.

(2) Recently, archeologists have found what they believe to be the ossuary of James, half brother to Yahshua. On the stone box is an inscription in Aramaic mentioning Yahshua, which the translators spelled “Yeshua.”

(3) In the earlier translations of the Bible at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, the translators substituted the word “Jesus” rather than Joshua, showing they recognized the name to be the same. Some of the newer translations have corrected this obvious error. It should be noted that in many languages the “J” is pronounced as “Y”, making Joshua = Yahshua.

(4) In addition to these three witnesses, The Papyrus from Elephantine in Egypt written to Bagohi, governor of Judah near the time of Nehemiah, spoke of the “temple of Yahu” (abbreviated form of Yahweh) at Elephantine (The 1916 Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, page 388).

Even before the writings of Moses, language was under going a “Canaanite shift.” There is evidence Yhwh might more correctly be pronounced like our state, Iowa, named after an Indian tribe. It has been discovered that the Algonquian speaking White Indian tribes actually spoke Egyptian hieratic. But until the correct pronunciation is established, I will continue to use Yahweh. (Try “Jehovah”; Ency. Britannica ,11th edition.)

As all of you know, who have been receiving my teaching letters, for the last several months we have been doing a walk through in the book of Daniel. I want to thank every one of you who have called or written informing me of the inspiration that you have received as a result of this series. At this point as we progress into this subject, we are interested in the history of Persia. This is important because the Book of Daniel fits at the end of the Babylonian Empire and at the beginning of the Persian Empire. Unless we understand the history surrounding the Book of Daniel, it is next to impossible to understand his circumstances, let alone his prophecies. With this lesson, we are going to key in on the Persian period. The object for doing this is to reckon, justify, and account for every one of Daniel’s “seventy weeks” of seven year weeks, or 490 years. Once this is accomplished, there will not be any seven years left over to project 2000 years in the future as the Futurists falsely and insanely maintain.

You will remember that in the previous lesson it was shown that in Scripture there were four different men by the name of “Darius.” If you thought that was confusing, A. Leo Oppenheim in his book Ancient Mesopotamia, on pages 340 341, lists four different men by the name of Nebuchadnezzar. The one mentioned in Daniel 2 was Nebuchadnezzar II. The last two (III & IV) were usurpers.

In the last lesson, I briefly touched on Nebuchadnezzar II when I wrote: “Another interesting factor should be mentioned concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s family line.” I will use the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, volume 15, page 628, under the topic “Media” for that purpose: “... The pact between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar was sealed near Nineveh by the marriage in 613 B.C. of Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar to Cyaxares’ granddaughter ...”

It should also be pointed out that the reference in Daniel 4:1, 4, 18, 31, 33, 34 & 37 to the madness of Nebuchadnezzar refers rather to Nabonidus, whose unconventional acts as king provoked much opposition, and may well have earned him the reputation of insanity (The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. K-Q, page 530).

To start this lesson, we will consider the various rulers of the Persian Empire. While Daniel’s time fits only the beginning of the Persian Empire, his prophecies cover all of it. To understand the Persian era is important, for it was the largest landmass of all the empires of that early period. Rome was larger, if the Mediterranean Sea is counted. The following chart is a list of those Persian rulers:

 

Ÿ  Cyrus                                                                   550-529  B.C.

Ÿ  Cambyses II                                                        529-522  B.C.

Ÿ  Pseudo Smerdis                                                522-521  B.C.

Ÿ  Darius I, Hystaspes                                           521-486  B.C.

Ÿ  Xerxes I                                                                486-464  B.C.

Ÿ  Artaxerxes I                                                         464-445  B.C.

Ÿ  Artaxerxes II                                                        445-424  B.C.           

Ÿ  Xerxes II, (Murdered)                                         424-424  B.C.

Ÿ  Darius II, Ochus (not royal)                              424-404  B.C.

Ÿ  Artaxerxes, Mnemon                                         404-359  B.C.

Ÿ  Artaxerxes III                                                       359-336  B.C.

Ÿ  Darius III, Codomannus                                   336-330  B.C.

 

This chart was not copied from any publication and took many research-hours to complete. Therefore, you may want to keep this chart for future reference. Later, I did find other charts on the Persian period in some publications, and the above data does not include all the usurpers.

There is another reason for understanding the history of the Persian Empire. In 2 Kings 17:6 it is recorded that the people of the Ten Northern Tribes were deported from Samaria in Palestine to “the cities of the Medes” north of Assyria. Therefore, we should find many of the Israelite tribes in that area, but by other names. As Persia conquered Media to form the great Medo-Persian empire, we should take cognizance of this fact. In other words, if we comprehend Persian history, the Ten Lost Tribes are not entirely lost to us. No wonder the enemy would want to conceal this history from us. This being so, (especially those in Israel Identity), we should acquaint ourselves with Persian history. When we look at history from this perspective, it is no longer dull and dry! Once one comes to the understanding that he is an Israelite, he will no longer have to clean the dust from his Bible! Once one comes to comprehend that many of the tribes were in the area of Persia at that time, this history comes to life. Therefore, this chart should be very interesting to anyone who is desiring Scriptural inspiration.

As long as Persia had royal blood on the throne, they continued to grow and did quite well. But when bad blood managed to infiltrate authority, things in Persia literally went to hell. On one occasion, a character claiming he was the son of Cyrus, by the name of Smerdis, was an impostor. The true Smerdis evidently died at a very young age. We can be quite sure that the phony Smerdis was not of royal blood. When Darius I was being selected for the throne, out of seven families Darius I was the only one who could qualify. To show you this, I will quote from the 1894 ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 18, page 580: “... He was probably the only one of the seven who was qualified to be so, for he alone belonged to the royal family, of which it is true, there may have been many members more nearly related to Cambyses. At any rate there was hardly another candidate for the crown as able as he.” This false Smerdis’s real name was Gaumata. Later another fake Smerdis appeared whose real name was Vahyazdata.

Seventy-six years later, when Artaxerxes II died, another serious problem developed. Again, I will quote from this same encyclopedia, same volume, on page 587: “Artaxerxes died in 424 [B.C.]. His successor, Xerxes II, the only one of his eighteen sons who was legitimate, was murdered after a month and a half by his brother Secydianus or Sogdianus. But after six and a half months the murderer was in his turn overthrown by his brother Ochus, satrap of Hyrcania, and in violation of solemn oaths, put to death. Ochus assumed the name of Darius ascending the throne about the beginning of the year 423.” After this, it would be downhill for Persia all the way to Alexander the Great.

While these early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica are very informative on many subjects, nevertheless we must use them with caution. The eleventh edition put out in 1910 may be one of the greatest sources of knowledge ever assembled in one set of books. On the subject of Persia, they put things together very well. But the editor who wrote on the subject of the Book of Daniel elected to compose his contribution based on the, then, so-called pseudo-science of “higher criticism.”

One of the seeming inconsistencies he chose to use to refute the authenticity of Daniel was to point out that in Daniel 6:1 it mentions 120 satraps as compared to Herodotus’ account of 20 satraps into which Persia was divided. As you can see, there is a bit of confusion on how many satraps there were in Persia, but the enemies use these clashing accounts to discredit Scripture. It should also be noted that in Esther 1:1, 127 satraps are mentioned. Whether or not this is some kind of scribal error cannot be determined. The author of Eederman’s Dictionary Of The Bible commented very concisely:

“SATRAP Title of provincial governors in the Persian Empire (Heb., Aram. ahasdarpan; O. Per. xsaspavana; Ezra 8:36; Esth. 3:12; 9:3; Dan. 3:2-3; 6:1-7). Esth. 1:1; 8:9 reports some 127 provinces in the empire, and Daniel 6:1-2 notes 120 satraps under three presidents. Herodotus lists 20 satrapies in the empire as organized under Darius Hystapes (Hist. 3:89-94).” We do have some evidence from the Behistun inscriptions of the divisions of the Persian Empire. From the web site, http://members.ozemail.com. we read the following, page 2, line [1.6]: “Says Darius the king: These are the countries which came to me; by the grace of Auramazda I became king of them; Persia, Susiana, Babylon, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, the (lands) which are on the sea, Sparda, Iona [Media], Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Ga(n)dara, Scythia, Sattagudia, Arachosia, Maka; in all (there are) 23 countries.”

Possibly the difference in the Biblical and secular accounts is: that Persia was divided into twenty-some countries and some 120 to 127 principal cities, with each city requiring a satrapy leader. At Daniel 6:1, it mentions “princes” rather than provinces or satrapies, and maybe therein lies the problem.

 

 

 

TWO SEEDLINE AT WORK IN BABYLON

 

Unless I explain ahead of time where we are going with this account of Daniel’s writings concerning the Babylonian and Persian periods, you will not completely understand the story. As you will begin to see, this is a very complicated period. One of the essential details which should be pointed out is the fact that the Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel chapter 4 is rather Nabonidus (also spelled Nabuna‘id or Nabu-naid). Nabonidus had gained the kingship, under Nebuchadnezzar’s name to gain political control. With unawareness to that momentous, vital, fundamental element of the story, little sense can be derived from our Bible.

Not only that, but there was a war between the factions of Nebuchadnezzar’s religion and those of Nabonidus. As we will later see, Nabonidus’s religion was that of Cain. Unless we come to an understanding of these things, we cannot comprehend what Daniel was up against in Babylon. Keep this in mind as we pursue this topic:

The following is from the 1916 edition of Archaeology And The Bible by George A. Barton, pages 54-55: “... Nabuna‘id, King of Babylon, 555-538 B.C., states that he found, in repairing the temple at Sippar (Agade), the temple-platform of Naram-Sin, son of Sargon, which no one had seen for 3,200 years. As he made this statement about 550 B.C., it was long supposed that this fixed the date of Naram-Sin at 3750 B.C., and that of his father, Sargon, at about 3800 B.C. These dates will be found in many older books, but they are incredible. They would, if true, leave long gaps in the history that we have no information to fill. Since it has been clearly proved that the dynasties overlapped, it seems that Nabuna’id reached his date by adding together the totals of dynasties, some of which were contemporary. It now seems proba to which he owed his new position, of the support by nobles and army, but in very truth it was by the command of Marduk, his lord, that Nable that he placed Naram-Sin about 1,100 years too early.”

From the book History Of The Persian Empire by A. T, Olmstead, pages 1-2: “Nabu-naid was not the only ‘antiquarian.’ More than one of his temple restorations had been commenced, and more than one of his cult reforms initiated, by Nebuchadnezzar, who sought in vain early building records his more fortunate successor uncovered, and whose own inscriptions were purposely archaistic, imitating in style and in writing those of the famed Hammurabi.”

Page 35: “... Three days after the tablet dated by Labashi-Marduk, there is another dated by a rival, Nabu-naid. According to him, Labashi-Marduk was a youth without understanding who, contrary to the will of the gods, had seated himself upon the throne of the kingdom. There are hints of the palace revolution Nabu-naid was raised to the lordship of the land. He also claims that he is the representative of Nebuchadnezzar and Nergal-shar-usur, his predecessors. At any rate, after less than two months’ rule, the young king was put to death with horrible torture, and Nabunaid was sole ruler of the remnants of the Chaldaean Empire.”

Pages 36-37: “Although the nominee of the anti-Chaldaean party, Nabu-naid was not himself a native Babylonian. His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the ‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran ... Quite literally, it was the life-dream of Nabu-naid to restore that temple, amid whose ruins his father was still living. But this required that Harran first should be taken from the Medes ...

“In this hope, Nabu-naid made alliance with Cyrus, who [Nabu-naid] thereupon openly rebelled against Media. To fulfil his part of the agreement, Nabu-naid promptly levied an army against the ‘rebels’ who lived in the countries once held by Nebuchadnezzar. Before he left, Nabu-naid handed over the ‘kingship’ of Babylonia to his eldest son, Bel-shar-usur (Belshazzar as he is called in the book of Daniel), and started off for Harran.” [Nabu-naid used Cyrus for his own gain.]

Page 38: “... For some strange reason, Nabu-naid built there a palace like that in Babylon and took up his residence in it. Business documents from the years immediately following tell of camel caravans which carried food to the king at Tema ... The influential priests of Marduk were completely alienated. That the great lord of their city was snubbed while the alien moon-god of Harran was extravagantly honored did not lessen the resentment.”

Page 52: “After making it clear that he was the legitimate successor of their former monarchs, Cyrus made sure that the memory of Nabu-naid should be forever damned. As he tells the story, a no-account was appointed to the priesthood of the land. One like him (Belshazzar) he established over them. To Ur and the rest of the cities he gave a ritual unbefitting them. Daily he planned and made the offering to cease. The worship of Marduk, king of the gods, he [Nadu-naid] overturned; he daily manifested enmity to Marduk’s city; all Marduk’s people he brought to ruin through servitude without rest.”

Page 55: “The royal inscriptions and dedications of Nabu-naid were removed and burned; the winds carried off their ashes. They tore down his statue and erased his name from the sanctuaries. Everything he had left was fired; Cyrus fed it to the flames, for on Babylon his heart was set. As for the sinner himself, may they throw Nabu-naid into prison in the underworld, may mighty bonds inclose his assistants, while in joy Marduk regards kindly Cyrus’ own kingdom.

“The results of this deliberate propaganda were curiously mixed. Cyrus’ attempted ‘damnation of memory’ did not succeed; Nabu-naid was not forgotten. When in the next generation Babylon again revolted, two pretenders in succession claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabu-naid ...”

While the book Sargon the Magnificent by Mrs. Sydney Bristowe, page 93 is informative, she confuses fact with fiction:

“In the ‘Legend of Sargon’ he calls his adopted father ‘Akki’, which is evidently another name for the Devil, for it is closely connected with the name of Nakash the Hebrew serpent — with Ahi, the water-god and serpent — with Ahriman, who in the Persian religion is the ‘source of all evil, the devil’ — with Agni, the Indian god of fire — with the Egyptian Naka, the serpent — with Naga, the Indian serpent-god — with the Maori demiurge Tiki and with Agu or Acu, another name for the Babylonian moon-god, otherwise called Sin.”

Correctly she links “Akki”, “Devil”, “Nakash”, “serpent”, “Naka”, and the moon-god, “Sin”, but erroneously applies Sargon’s legend as fact. In The Penguin Ency. of Ancient Civilizations, ed. Arthur Cotterell, page 84, Thorkild Jacobsen explains that the enemies of Sargon characterized him as being illegitimately born of a temple prostitute priestess not knowing his father, and then being exposed to the elements to die, but rescued and adopted by a humble fruit grower. Further, the “legend” maliciously implies that Sargon was sired by the “devil.”

According to The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 4, page 272, under the topic of “moon”, the moon is considered a “wanderer.”: “1. The terms used. Yārēah [yerach] is the more usual OT word for moon and possibly to be connected with the verb %9!, ‘to wander.’ since the moon travels across the heavens ...” Additionally, Wallis Budge in his Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, page 553, explains the Egyptian word “Khensu” as meaning, “the Moon-god as the ‘traveler’.” We will remember that in Jude 13, the descendants of Cain are referred to as “wandering stars.”

The numbers in Strong’s for the moon are 3391-3394. Gesenius’ says this in part on #3392: “[Jerach], a people and region of Arabia, of a race of the Joktanites, Gen. 10:26.” Today, Joktan’s descendants are scattered among the Arabs, so we can know in what manner “the earth was divided.” And as Arabs, they have Cain’s crescent-moon as their emblem.

To show other ways Cain’s religion spread, I will now quote from The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop on page 240:

“Still the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome, even after the Etruscan idolatry was absorbed into the Roman system, was only an offshoot from the grand original Babylonian system. He was a devoted worshipper of the Babylonian god; but he was not the legitimate representative of that God. The true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff had his seat beyond the bounds of the Roman empire. That seat, after the death of Belshazzar, and the expulsion of the Chaldean priesthood [sic rather, the  priests of the moon-god Sin] from Babylon by the Medo-Persian kings, was at Pergamos, where afterwards was one of the seven churches of Asia. There in consequence, for many centuries was ‘Satan’s seat’ (Rev. ii. 13). There under favour of the deified kings of Pergamos, was his favourite abode, there was the worship of Æsculapius, under the form of the serpent, celebrated with frantic orgies and excesses, that elsewhere were kept under some measure of restraint. At first, the Roman Pontiff had no immediate connection with Pergamos and the hierarchy there; yet in course of time, the Pontificate of Rome and the Pontificate of Pergamos came to be identified. Pergamos itself became part and parcel of the Roman empire, when Attalus III, the last of its kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the Roman people, B.C. 133. For some time after the kingdom of Pergamos was merged in the Roman dominions, there was no one who could set himself openly and advisedly to lay claim to all the dignity inherent in the old title of the kings of Pergamos. The original powers even of the Roman Pontiffs seem to have been by that time abridged, but when Julius Cæsar, who had previously been elected Pontifex Maximus, became also, as Emperor, the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then head of the Roman state, and head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him, and he found himself in a position to assert these powers. Then he seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attalus, as well as the kingdom that Attalus had bequeathed to the Romans, as centring in himself; for his well-known watchword, ‘Venus Genetrix’, which meant that Venus was the mother of the Julian race, appears to have been intended to make him ‘The Son’ of the great goddess, even as the ‘Bull-horned’ Attalus had been regarded. Then, on certain occasions, in the exercise of the high pontifical office, he appeared of course in all the pomp of the Babylonian costume, as Belshazzar might have done, in robes of scarlet ... however, acting in their name and by their authority), until the reign of Gratian, who, as shown by Gibbon, was the first that refused to be arrayed in the idolatrous pontifical attire, or to act as Pontifex. Now from all this it is evident that, when, Paganism in the Roman empire was abolished, when the office of Pontifex Maximus was suppressed, and all the dignitaries of paganism were cast down from their seats of influence and power, which they had still been allowed in some measure to retain, this was not merely the casting down of the Fiery Dragon of Babylon ...”

You should have noticed from the above that the religious system that settled at Pergamos came from Babylon and was the religion of Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar. Additionally, you should have noticed that that sect was ejected out of Babylon by the Medo-Persian kings which would be no other than Cyrus and Darius I. Once we can fathom this connection, we can better grasp Revelation 2:13 which says to the church at Pergamos: “I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.”

Of the many witnesses, both Biblical and secular, to the Two Seedline doctrine of Genesis 3:15, this is but another. This overwhelming evidence shows a direct connection of the Universal Roman Catholic Church with the religion of Cain and his father, Satan. Not only that, but the so-called Protestant churches are but little offshoots of that religious system. If you’ve had problems comprehending Two Seedline teaching, this testimony should resolve any questions along that line. In my Bible these Words are in red indicating they are the very Words of Yahshua the Messiah Himself. Yet, the anti-seedliners continue to imply our Redeemer was a liar! When will we ever learn that when the Bible says “Satan”, it means Satan!, or at least something associated with Satan. Whether or not it is speaking of a literal Satan (adversary) depends on the Hebrew or Greek article, and in Revelation 2:13 the Greek article is at both mentions of Satan, or (the) Satan. It should be noted that in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33 where Yahshua calls Peter “Satan”, the Greek article is not there. Additionally at Luke 4:8, when Yahshua addressed the devil as “Satan” in the KJV, it Is not found in other translations, and evidently not in the original manuscripts. But the article (the) is at verses 2, 3, 5 & 6, denoting the genuine, authentic devil. The Catholic Confraternity-Douay version correctly treats that Satan with a small “s.”

 

THE BACKGROUND OF CAIN’S MOON-GOD SIN

 

Many are taught the doctrine of “original sin” without being instructed who the original sinner was. John 8:44 and Revelation 12:7-9 clearly state that “the devil” (Satan) holds that dubious position. Adam and Eve were only victims of Satan’s rebellion. Ancients looked upon the sun and moon as two eyes in the sky; the sun was the right eye and the moon the left. The right eye (sun) was the true light while the left eye (moon) was considered inferior. We can see, therefore the moon is very befitting of Satan’s inferior position to Yahweh and his wisdom — being only a reflection of the True Light.

Using my own words, I will now present this background from three different Bible dictionaries (Insight On The Scriptures; Nelson’s Illustrated & Unger’s) under the topic “moon.” Before we start, maybe we should think over who use the moon as their religious symbol of worship today. Enough said, but they too are under the banner of Cain. It should be noted that Job lived among moon worshipers (Job 31:26-28). The Midianites were among those who placed moon-shaped ornaments on their camels (Judges 8:21, 26). Cain’s moon-god Sin was the local god of Ur, the capital of Sumer. No wonder the Almighty called Abraham out of that place, for he and his seed would have been swallowed up in Cain’s religion. From that place, Abraham and his party traveled to Haran, another major center for Cain’s moon-worship. It is also evident that Abraham’s father Terah and his brother Nahor, practiced that religion (Genesis 11:31-32). When entering Canaan, Joshua reminded the Israelites that Abraham’s kin worshipped other gods and that they were to refrain from that (Joshua 24:2, 14).  While Israel was in Egypt, they witnessed the worship of the moon-god Thoth, where every full moon the Egyptians sacrificed a pig. In Greece, moon-worship came under the title Hermes Trismegistus (Hermes Trice Greatest). Moon-worship even found its way to Mexico and Central America. In Canaan, where the Israelites finally settled, moon-worship was carried on by the Canaanite tribes. Also in Canaan, the moon-god was sometimes worshipped under the symbol of the goddess Ashtoreth and her consort Baal. The worship of these two frequently ensnared the Israelites during the period of the Judges (Judges 2:13; 10:6). Considering all these things, we can begin to understand why our breaking of Yahweh’s commands became associated with Cain’s worship of the moon-god “Sin.”

When King Solomon took on foreign wives, he brought the contamination of moon-worship into Judah and Jerusalem. With his foreign wives came foreign priests making smoke sacrifices to the sun, moon and stars. This practice was continued until Josiah’s time (1 Kings 11:3-5, 33; 2 Kings 23:5, 13-14). Then came along the kike Jezebel, daughter of the kike Ethbaal, ruler of the Sidonians and married King Ahab of Israel bringing her worship of Baal which included the moon-god (1 Kings 16:31). And we shouldn’t forget Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab who attempted to kill all the heirs to the throne of David. And again, when Judean exiles came into contact with the moon-worship of Nabonidus in Babylon.

The moon was known as “Sin” in Babylon and Assyria — “Ninna” at Sumer — “Yarih” at Ugarit which last name is similar to the Hebrew word for moon. While all this was forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:19, 17:3), the evil King Manassah established the cults of “all the hosts of heaven”, including the moon, in the court of Solomon’s Temple (2 Kings 21:3-5).

Again, moon-worship was extensively practiced in the nations of the East and under a variety of aspects. Ur, Abraham’s birthplace in lower Mesopotamia, was an important center of the worship of Sin, the moon-god, as well as Haran in Upper Mesopotamia whither Abram and Terah emigrated. In Egypt the moon was honored under the form of Isis, one of the two deities commanding pagan reverence in all of Egypt. In Syria it was exemplified by one of the Ashtoroth surnamed “Karnaim”, from the horns of the crescent moon by which it was distinguished. Indications show a very early introduction into the countries adjacent to Palestine of a manner of worship distinct from any we have as yet observed, viz., honoring heavenly bodies characteristic of Sabianism (Job 31:26-27), condemned at Deuteronomy 4:19.

At a later date, however, moon-worship in a grosser form was introduced originating from Syria. An example is given in Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:16-18, 25 which says:

“The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make [crescent shape] cakes to the queen of heaven [Cain’s moon-god Sin], and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they provoke me to anger ... As for the word that thou [Jeremiah] has spoken unto us in the name of Yahweh, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven [Cain’s moon-god Sin], and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven [Cain’s moon-good Sin], and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine ... Thus saith Yahweh of the hosts of the Elohim of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven [Cain’s moon-god Sin], and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.”

This is my sixtieth monthly teaching letter and completes my fifth year of publication. Five years ago I decided to make this ministry an independent endeavor. I was aware that I could in no way, in all good conscience, associate and identify with those teaching against Two Seedline. Then too, I realized there were those in Two Seedline who were going off on tangents in various unrelated areas, and I needed to separate myself from that kind of environment. Therefore, my main effort is research in proving Yhwh’s Word to be true in every respect. I have literally put thousands of hours of study into these teaching letters and brochures which I have put into your hands. The primary reason for segregating from the anti-seedliners is because their erroneous position helps to promote race-mixing, which is almost out of control at our present time. I will continue to try and counsel those who are caught-up in the error of the one-seed theory.

In the last teaching letter, I showed you there were four different men by the name of Nebuchadnezzar somewhat contemporary with Daniel. Actually, there were five Nebuchadnezzars in all, and I will explain that in this lesson. I also gave evidence that the Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 was not Nebuchadnezzar II but instead Nabonidus. In all of my days of going to church, I never heard a single minister explain that fact. Nor have I ever heard any radio or television evangelists give any insight on this. I am also persuaded there are very few pastors in Israel Identity who are aware of this. Usually when this subject is commented on, it is not in the plural, but in a singular sense, making one think it is speaking of one individual. It is a very good case-in-point that if one does not understand history, one will have difficulty grasping the full narrative of the Bible. And why are the anti-seedliners so strangely quiet about such things? The following chart shows the five different Nebuchadnezzars:

 

► Nebuchadnezzar I         1124-1103        B.C.       (22 yrs.)         

►  Nebuchadnezzar II           604-562         B.C.       (43 yrs.)

►  Nabonidus (using

Nebuchadnezzar’s name)         555-539         B.C.       (17 yrs.)

►  Nebuchadnezzar III                 -522         B.C.       (6 mos.)

►  Nebuchadnezzar IV                -521         B.C.       (3 mos.)

 

This chart shows a very large gap between Nebuchadnezzar I and II, and as can be observed could not have been immediate father and son. Also, Nebuchadnezzar I was of the second Isin Dynasty while Nebuchadnezzar II was of the Chaldean Dynasty. Should one desire more information on this subject, in addition to the books I cited in Lesson #58, I highly recommend the book Ancient Mesopotamia; Portrait of a Dead Civilization by A. Leo Oppenheim. In addition to the 1st and 2nd Isin and Chaldean dynasties, there were: the Dynasty of Akkad; the 1st & 2nd, Dynasty of Ur; the Kassite Dynasty; the 1st, 2nd, 9th & 10th Babylonian Dynasty; the Dynasty of the Sealand; the Dynasty of Sisku; the Dynasty of Sape; the Kings of Assyria; the Dynasty of Bazi; and the Persian Kings.

If you will notice the above chart, you will see the last petty tyrant usurper using Nebuchadnezzar’s name was IV. When I wrote my Watchmen’s Supplement Teaching Letter of August 14, 1998, I based the seven times over the stump from the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar III. Seven times over the stump would be 2520 years to the end of the Babylonian System. Had I used IV instead, my calculations would have lined up with the fall of the World Trade Towers pretty much on the money. I had figured: 2,520 minus 522 = 1998 (1999 + adjusting for the B.C. to A.D. conversion factor). I now see that had I used IV at 521 B.C., it would have put it at 2000 + B.C. to A.D. conversion factor which might amount to about a year and a half. How does September 11, 2001 sound? I’m really not a prophet. I try only to understand what the prophets have already written.

All of that said, we must now ask the question: just who was this Nebuchadnezzar I who lived and reigned as king of the Isin Dynasty some 570 years before Nebuchadnezzar II of the Chaldean Dynasty in Babylon at Daniel’s time? If you happen to already have the book mentioned above by A. Leo Oppenheim, you might check pages 151, 159, 254 & 269 for that data. Otherwise, information on Nebuchadnezzar I is somewhat difficult to come by. According to the dates, Nebuchadnezzar I was even before the time of David and Solomon. That would place him somewhat contemporary with Eli or Samson. Now that we have an idea of the time-period involved, let’s take a look at page 151 of Ancient Mesopotamia; Portrait of a Dead Civilization by A. Leo Oppenheim:

“... Such events seem to have been the military triumph of Tukulti-Ninurta I, who was the first Assyrian king to conquer Babylon; the destruction of the famous city by the Elamites (under Kudur-Nahhunte); and the spectacular successes of Nebuchadnezzar I, king of Babylon, against the Elamites. On the other hand, the Babylonian poets and scribes had a difficult task explaining the tragedy of Babylon abandoned by its god Marduk and conquered by enemies ...”

This is an interesting bit of information inasmuch as we can now grasp that not only was Nebuchadnezzar I of the Isin Dynasty, but he was a king of Babylon. With that piece of evidence, we can now safely conclude that Nebuchadnezzar I was head of the Isin Dynasty in the city of Babylon near 1124-1103 B.C. We can also deduct from this that Nebuchadnezzar I fought successfully against the Elamites who were descendants of Shem. If that is true, jokingly, by today’s standards, Nebuchadnezzar I was an “anti-Semite.” Putting that aside, we have to wonder whether or not Nebuchadnezzar I was a good guy. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar II was of a royal line, and considering the fact that the enemy trace their lineage through their mother’s side rather than the father, they have no royal line as such. On the same page, A. Leo Oppenheim comments thus of a similar situation where a Dynasty originated from a female. (And it should be noticed that this dynasty was that of the line of Cain.):

“... Among them is Ku-Baba, a female innkeeper who founded the third dynasty of Kish; Sulgi, the most powerful king of the third dynasty of Ur; and Irra-imitti, of the dynasty of Isin, who died a strange death — to mention only the best-known personages ... such as Sargon of Akkad and Ibbi-Sin of Ur. Sargon remained a semimythical king throughout much of the second millennium ...”

This appears to be damning evidence against Nebuchadnezzar I, for he was also of the Isin Dynasty. On the other hand, Sargon and Naram-Sin go back to the Dynasty of Akkad 1200 years earlier, and a lot of changes can take place in that amount of time. But if the “female innkeeper” connection with Nebuchadnezzar I is correct, it is still damning, though the Dynasty of Ur is still dated 700 to 900 years before Nebuchadnezzar I. If this evidence is not condemning to Nebuchadnezzar I, it is overwhelmingly detrimental to the line of Cain! Because the anti-seedliners hold a false premise on Genesis 3:15 and 4:1, and are willingly blind, then no comment will be heard from them on matters such as these involving the lineage of Cain.

On page 159, A. Leo Oppenheim fills in some of the period between Nebuchadnezzar I and Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II’s father:

“The victory of Nebuchadnezzar I (1124-1103 B.C.) over the Elamites ushered in the half millennium through which Babylonia first slowly and with many setbacks, then with ever-increasing momentum, rose again to power. This movement which continues with Nabu-nasir (747-734 B.C.), whose role and impact is still beclouded by lack of evidence, culminated in Nabopolassar, the first king (625-605 B.C.) of a new dynasty which was to become for a short time heir to the Assyrian supremacy over a large section of the ancient Near East. Much of that span of time is as dark an age as the Dark Age itself.”

This should now give you some idea of who Nebuchadnezzar I was and a glimpse of history during and shortly after his time. You should also now realize the fact there were five different Nebuchadnezzars, and have a new insight on Daniel 4 where the Nebuchadnezzar mentioned there was really Nabonidus. Whenever we consider Nabonidus, we should never forget he was the father of Belshazzar.

Again, in the book Ancient Mesopotamia; Portrait of a Dead Civilization by A. Leo Oppenheim we find more information pertaining to Nabonidus’ preoccupation with the moon-god Sin on page 395:

“HARRAN A city in northern Upper Mesopotamia, attested first in the Hittite texts from Boghazkeui, then in the Old Testament and in the Assyrian royal inscriptions from the last third of the second millennium onward. It was conquered by the Assyrians pushing toward the west but became (under Sargon II) an integral part of Assyria, rivaling in importance the old cities of the Assyrian heart land. Its main deity was the moon god [Sin] whose temple was sumptuously rebuilt by the Babylonian king Nabonidus ...”

Since we have established that the Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 was in fact Nabonidus, let’s take a look at the transfer of power from one to the other. For this, I will quote from the book Clash of East and West by Daisy More and John Bowman, on page 39:

“Nebuchadnezzar was determined to hold the southern half of the Assyrian domains that his father, Nabopolassar, had taken. When a city was not cooperative, Nebuchadnezzar seized its inhabitants — as he had the men of Jerusalem from their hilltop — marched them to Babylon with all their goods from their ruined temples, and put them to work as slaves. One building project, called the Hanging Gardens by the Greeks, had a garden placed over a vaulted substructure to look like a hill, as a gift for Nebuchadnezzar’s Median wife. Another was the long wall between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, dubbed the Median wall, for the Babylonians had begun to suspect that their allies the Medes might one day grow strong enough to turn against them.

“In 566 B.C., shortly after Cyrus had become king of the Persians, Nabonidus took over the kingdom of Babylon. Both of his predecessors, who had succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, had brief and ineffectual reigns. Nabonidus did what he could in the midst of the fever and famine that beset Babylon during his rule, and he marched north to bring back thousands of new slaves. But through a series of miscalculations and blunders, he incited the anger of the city’s more powerful inhabitants. He was [geographically] an Aramaean, and while attempting to establish the Aramaean moon god, Sin, in Babylon, he reduced the royal allowance to the priests of the chief Babylonian god Bel-Marduk. Then, he left his unpopular son Belshazzar in charge of the city and went off to the Arabian desert to seize the city of Tema and make it a base from which to control the trade route to Egypt [just like a kike]. He lost many warriors and many noblemen in the process. He seldom returned to Babylon for the important New Year’s Day celebrations. He failed to drain the gulf, which was silting so badly that ships could not reach the tiled quays on the lower Tigris and Euphrates; nor did he fence property as was customary. To make amends, he finally threw a huge New Year’s feast, but it was too late to quell the growing hostility of the priests, nobles, merchants, and landholders.”

It might be added that Nabonidus had a daughter who was a high-priestess at Ur named Bel-shaltinannar (Atlas of Ancient Archaeology by Jacquetta Hawkes, page 173). In fact, Nabonidus built a palace there for her, and she was, no doubt, a high-priestess to the moon-god, Sin. Our people didn’t use women as high priests! For further confirmation that Nabonidus’ daughter was indeed a high-priestess to the moon-god Sin, I will quote from Ancient Mesopotamia by A. Leo Oppenheim, page 213:

“This is corroborated by a curious late text in which the scholarly Chaldean king Nabonidus describes in considerable detail how his own daughter was selected by the moon god for the highest priestly office of his cult.”

Now back to cover the short period from Nebuchadnezzar II to Nabonidus in greater detail, I will quote from the book Light from the Ancient Past by Jack Finegan, (who was a director of religious activities at Iowa State College at Ames, Iowa), page 189, under the subtitle “Nabunaid And Belshazzar”:

“The new Babylonian empire also was destined to fall, and the decline came rapidly. Nebuchadnezzar II was followed on the throne by his son Amel-Marduk (562-560 [B.C.]), or Evil-Merodach as he is called in II Kings 25:27. This man was soon slain by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglisar). The latter ruled but four years (560-556 [B.C.]) and his son Labashi-Marduk (Laborosoardoch), was on the throne only a few months (556 [B.C.]) when conspirators made away with him. One of the conspirators, a Babylonian noble named Nabunaid (Nabonidus), then ruled (556-539 [B.C.]) as the last king of Babylon.

“In practice, however, Nabunaid shared the kingship with his own eldest son Belshazzar. Belshazzar is named as the first-born son of Nabunaid in Babylonian inscriptions, and in one cuneiform text we read the following statement concerning Nabunaid: ‘He entrusted a camp to his eldest, first-born son; the troops of the land he sent with him. He freed his hand; he entrusted the kingship to him. Then he himself undertook a distant campaign, the power of the land of Akkad advanced with him; towards Tema in the midst of the Westland he set his face. He undertook a distant campaign on a road not within reach of old. He slew the prince of Tema with the sword; the dwellers in his city and country, all of them they slaughtered. Then he himself established his dwelling in Tema; the power of the land of Akkad ... That city he made glorious; he made ...; they made it like the palace of Babylon ...’

“This passage plainly states that before Nabunaid started on an expedition to Tema in Arabia he divided the rule of the empire between himself and his son, entrusting actual kingship to Belshazzar. Then he undertook the distant campaign, conquered Tema, established his residence there and built that city with the glory of Babylon ...”

We can now see that during Daniel’s time in Babylon, he experienced three major power-shifts, and managed to survive them all without losing his own head.

 

THE SIN OF THE MOON-GOD SIN

 

Undoubtedly, many people might envision moon-worshippers going out on the night of the full-moon, gathering in groups to do adoration in various forms to the moon. Further, they might imagine sacrifices of various kinds of animals and incense being offered to the moon. In fact, we have a case in Scripture where the moon-worshippers were baking crescent shaped cakes to honor the Queen of Heaven. One might envision special prayers being chanted to the moon. Additionally, one might envision intoxicating drink-offerings being offered to the moon-god Sin, accompanied with all kinds of immoral, associated practices. Along with that, one might expect the worship of various nocturnal creatures such as the owl and the cat. No doubt, beating of drums and chanting along with wild, discordant music might be used by the moon-god priests to build up wild, unrestrained emotion. While moon-worship might be accompanied by all these manifestations, the sin for the moon-god Sin goes far beyond all that.

For the background of this discussion, we will use the History Of The Persian Empire by A. T. Olmstead, pages 199-201 under the subtitle, “Religion And The Calendar.” I will not quote this passage word for word, but reduce it to a concise review.

While Darius I, being of the faith of Ahura Mazda, had little personal respect for the Akkadian priests and temples of the moon-god Sin, yet he could not entirely ignore the solid practical scholarship coming from them. In them he saw a scientific effort to make his calendar more correct. The Orient had no opposition to science, and the measuring of time was but a byproduct of the priests and temple of the moon-god, Sin. Astrology had long been a priestly observation of the heavenly bodies. Thus calendar needs brought into use an eight-year cycle, and then a nineteen-year cycle, which once combined together at its close resulted in an almost perfect lunar and solar agreement.

In 744 B.C., this system was adopted for practical use by the Babylonian king Nabu-nasir, and from that time forward the nineteen-year cycle became a standard. A bit later, Assyrian astronomers, in seeking data for purely scientific reasons, believed the foundations of a truly scientific astronomy were not laid until the Chaldean period.

For instance, by a Chaldean ephemeris (observation of the alignment of celestial bodies) prepared in 568 B.C. “On the eighteenth of the month, Dilbat (Venus) was 2°55' above the king”, Regulus, brightest star of the constellation of the Lion. “Night of the eighth evening, Sin (the moon-god) stood 6°15' under the Scales of the North” ... “The tenth, Mercury at evening behind the Great Twins enters”, sets with the sun; “Mercury goes farther to the east.” We can see the priests of the moon-god Sin were using the same method of degrees, minutes and seconds in that time as we use today for surveying, navigation and taking alignment on the stars.

More advanced knowledge is revealed from an ancient textbook, “Appearances of the Planets, Behind You It Will Return”, prepared by Labashi, son of Bel-shar-ibni in 577 B.C.: “Appearance of the god Sin, 27 days the time will return”, that is, the moon cycle is 27 days. “Appearance of the goddess Dilbat, 8 years behind you she will return”; Venus returns to the same place in the heavens after 8 years; but “4 days you subtract, you observe”, and the true cycle is 8 years minus 4 days. “Mercury 6 regular years behind you return”; Mercury is the most difficult of planets, and Labashi knows that this is hopelessly rough, for he adds: “Its time you shall ascertain, the time of its appearance you shall ascertain and observe”, in the hope that future astronomers may be more successful. The cycle of Mars is 47 years less 12 days, Saturn returns in 59 years, but “day by day you shall observe”, and the same caution is given in the case for the 27 year cycle of the “Weapon of the Bow Star”, Sirius. After a period of trial and error over many years, these priests knew with a certainty all the cycles of the planets, including the “difficult” Mercury. Not being satisfied, the astronomer priests sought espan style=It might be added that Nabonidus had a daughter who was a high-priestess at Ur named Bel-shaltinannar (span style=ver increasing accuracy. They had already discovered sar (which is still employed by modern astronomers), a period of 6,585 days or a little more than 18 years, after which eclipses recur almost exactly in the same order.

A. T. Olmstead continues this topic for six more pages, and it is simply amazing what the ancients knew about the precise movements of the celestial bodies of the heavens. Actually the old tables on these movements are not too far removed from what we have today. Of course, after the invention of the telescope much greater accuracy was obtainable. Nevertheless, and this is important, this gave the priesthood of the moon-god Sin much detrimental credibility, for they were able to predict every eclipse of the moon or sun to the very day. They kept the methods they used for doing this top secret (a hidden mystery), and the common people looked upon them as gods. This gave the wicked moon-god priests of Sin, who were descendants of Cain, the ability to proclaim any kind of lie, and be believed. This is the SIN of the moon-god, SIN! Its the same kind of deception as in the Garden of Eden. It’s also the kind of deception the anti-seedliners are using today! (A little bit of truth followed by some downright lies!)

I will now quote word for word from A. T. Olmstead on pages 202-203:

“About the beginning of the fifth century [B.C.] appeared the first great Babylonian astronomer whose name was remembered by the Greeks: Nabu-rimanni, son of Balatu, ‘descendant’ of the priest of the moon-god, who witnessed important documents at Babylon in 491 [B.C.] and 490 [B.C.]. Strabo called him Naburianus and gave him the deserved title ‘mathematician’, for, while his tables were based on observation, the details are the result of most elaborate calculation. His system is explained in a textbook, copied in early Seleucid days, which gives directions for construction of such lunar computation tables and eclipse tables as are preserved from late Seleucid and early Parthian times.”

After this statement, A. T. Olmstead shows more data on the very detailed calculations made by the moon-god priests. To sum up the nature of these calculations, Olmstead says this:

“... it brought true lunar and true solar years together at the end of the 19-year cycle when, after 12 common years of 12 months and 7 embolistic years with 13 months, sun and moon returned so exactly to the same position on the ecliptic that it took 236 years to bring the error to 1°.”

You will notice, while these calculations are astounding, they are arrived at by trial and error. They don’t even compare to the Great Pyramid and its alignment to various stars and true north. That’s because the Great Pyramid was built by Adam’s descendants, not Cain’s. Doubtless, the priests of the moon-god Sin stole some of their technology from Shem’s people. Think about it; when taking on such a great project as building the Great Pyramid, it would be impossible to do it by trial and error; it must be calculated correctly from the start! Now some will claim there were practice pyramids, but were they our pyramids or copycat pyramids?

Speaking of the ancient astronomical tablets, Olmstead, near the finish of “Religion And The Calendar”, said this on page 206:

“... Succeeding columns [of the tablets] found the actual new moon, for by this, and not by the already calculated astronomical new moon, the Babylonians started their month. To obtain this, they observed the last appearance of the old moon as a thin sickle to the east in the morning sky. Until these columns and the corresponding sections in the [ancient] textbook are published and explained by professional astronomers, we cannot fully appreciate Nabu-rimanni’s colossal work.”

It should be noted that the Babylonian moon-god system for calculating the new moon is just the opposite to that which the Israelites were instructed to observe for their required feast-days. The Israelites were instructed to sight-in the first “sickle” of the new moon after the dark of the moon rather than the “last sickle of the old moon.” If one sights-in the “sickle” of the new moon, one looks west rather than east as most pagan religions do. Also, if the Babylonian moon-god system is used for calculating our required feast-days, they would be kept a day or two early. Not only that, but by the Babylonian moon-god system the full-moon festival would be celebrated at night rather than during the day, as we observe our feast-days. You will remember, our Messiah was nailed to the tree at high-noon, halfway between sunup and sunset. Inasmuch as Yahshua’s disciples, including Paul, continued to observe them, is proof Israel’s feast-days were never, as some people say, “done away with.” To show you this, a major happening has occurred on every calculated Israelite feast-day except one: Emmanuel’s Birth at the sounding of Trumps: the Crucifixion at Passover; and the Advent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Yet to happen is the Second Advent at the Feast of Tabernacles. Therefore, if we “do away” with the feast-days, there will be no second Advent of our Redeemer. I’m sure we don’t mean to propound that. Maybe, if we would start keeping Yahweh’s appointed feast-days, we wouldn’t have time for Cain’s feast-days where Satan is literally worshipped. Why not show the manger-scene without the Wise-Men at the sounding of the Trumps at the Fall Festival? The Wise-Men and the Star may have been near December 25, but why worship Santa-Claus (Satan-claus)? There again, the manger scene with the Wise-Men and the Star is a lie, for they are two separate events! The manger-scene should include shepherds, not Wise-Men. The Wise-Men scene should include the Star, and not the manger-scene. If we are going to send Holiday cards of the manger-scene, why don’t we send them out in September?

MOON-GOD SIN DIVINATION

 

Unless we deal with the subject of “divination” as practiced in Mesopotamia, we cannot fully understand the religious atmosphere under which Daniel had to persevere. In his book Ancient Mesopotamia, A. Leo Oppenheim has a subchapter, under the title “The Arts of the Diviner”, which every serious Bible student should read, pages 206-227. To the people of Mesopotamia, the diviners of the priesthood of the moon-god Sin had all of life’s answers. A young man wouldn’t so much as attempt marriage until he had consulted the diviner for its success or failure. The diviner’s art consisted of various methods. These included variant forms of casting lots; interpreting dreams; future predictions based on the positions and courses of the heavenly bodies; communication with spiritual forces; by reading the forms of smoke-clouds produced by burning incense in a censer; by reading the movements of oil poured into a container of water; by killing an animal (usually a lamb) and reading the defects in the liver, gall bladder or entrails; and by observing wind, clouds and the movements of birds.

Once we understand these methods of divination, many Scripture passages open up to us. We can grasp why Nebuchadnezzar II was so distressed and demanded his dream of the image to be interpreted by the priesthood of his day, which they were unable to do. We can also comprehend Ezekiel 21:21 where “the king of Babylon” coming to a fork in the road used divination for whether he should take Jerusalem first or Rabbah. To decide, he used three forms of divination: (1) by casting arrows, (2) by images of talismans, and, (3) by inspecting the liver and entrails of an animal. We can also see that type of divination used in Jeremiah 44:17 which says:

“But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.”

The purpose for the “burning of incense” to the queen of heaven was to create a cloud-image so they could read some meaning into it. The divination used by the practitioners of the moon-god Sin is a lot more extensive and complex than what I have presented here, and would be an entire subject in itself. The main purpose for presenting this subject is so whenever you are studying your Bible, you can spot this kind of worship when you read it. And as you can see, it seems to have a direct connection with Cain and his progeny, though our own people got all wrapped-up in it. 

 

OTHER PROBLEMS

 

In some Bible dictionaries, they say that Nabonidus’ wife, Nitocris, was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar II, and makes Belshazzar both the son of Nabonidus and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar II. If that is true, it’s another case of making marriage with the satanic race. The main thing that I have observed is that Nabonidus was not of a royal line. If that was the situation, maybe it was an incident similar to that of Prince Charles of England. I noticed that the Nelson’s New Bible Dictionary says, page 875, that “little is known of his activities.” I’m sure you will have to agree with me that that statement is a downright lie, and that much is known about Nabonidus. Evidently they simply didn’t want to talk about it. I have to warn you again; not all the various reference books can be trusted. I cite the Tyndale Bible Dictionary by Elwell & Comfort as a case- in-point. Under the subject of Nebuchadnezzar, on pages 940-941, they speak of how Nebuchadnezzar had a second dream “about a great tree that was cut down but later sprouted from the stump.” The truth is, Nebuchadnezzar II had the first dream in chapter 2 and in chapter 4, Nabonidus had the second. I don’t want to leave the wrong impression though, for there is some valuable information in Bible reference books, but we must be very careful to cull out the beneficial from the detrimental. Actually, it’s somewhat like eating out of a garbage can. I should inform you also, that Elwell and Comfort don’t even mention Nabonidus. And while the older commentaries and dictionaries might be excused for not knowing, Elwell & Comfort is a 2001 edition.

 

 

 

DEAD SEA SCROLLS ON DANIEL 9:25-26

 

Among the findings in the Dead Sea Scrolls is confirmation for the entire book of Daniel as we now have it in our Bible up to and including chapter 11. Other indirect evidence quotes Daniel 12:10. But the one I wish to bring to your attention is evidence on Daniel 9:25-26. From The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg et al., ©1999, we find a very interesting item on page 484, speaking of scroll 11QMelchizedek, which makes reference to the “Anointed of the Spirit, of whom Daniel spoke.” This is simply amazing, for if Daniel 9:27 is speaking of a “future antichrist” as the futurists claim, then that so-called “antichrist” would be the “Anointed of the Spirit” [of Yhwh]. Of all the downright lies of the futurists, the accusation that the “he” of Daniel 9:27 is the antichrist is the greatest blasphemy perpetrated of all time. They are actually claiming our Redeemer is Satan. We are experiencing some of the most notable happenings in our day, for through archaeology and things like the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Almighty is making liars of all the false-prophets (including the anti-seedliners).  

It mentions from the same named publication above that eight Daniel manuscripts have been found at Qumran; two in cave 4^b, and one in cave 6^c. While none is complete, due to the ravages of time, between them they preserve a substantial amount of the book of Daniel. They believe the eight scrolls were copied about 175 years before they were left in the caves. It should also be noted that in Daniel 7:1, the words “He related the sum of the words” is absent from 4QDan^b. A second example is at Daniel 10:16 “one in the likeness of the sons of men”, but pap6QDan likely agrees with the Septuagint’s “something in the likeness of a human hand.” In the scroll pap6QDan, the verb touched is feminine, while in the Masoretic text it is masculine, making the hand in human form, whereas before the Incarnation, Yhwh was in Spirit form.

If you have followed all this series on our walk through of Daniel, you should now have a better understanding of who all the players are and where they fit on the chessboard. While we have made much progress, we still have a few things to work out. Once we grasp all these things, we can have a better comprehension of 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 where it says:

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come the Apostasy first, and that man of [the moon-god] sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called Divine, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” The Roman Pope reigned 1260 years as Cain over the kings of Europe.

It mentions from the same named publication above that eight Daniel manuscripts have been found at Qumran; two in cave 4

This is my sixty-first monthly teaching letter and starts my sixth year of publication. With this lesson, we will focus on the 4th chapter of Daniel. I have commented on this chapter several times before, but there is need to examine it in greater depth. The 4th chapter of Daniel must be approached differently than other passages as it is written somewhat, but not entirely, from a subsidiary position. While in this style, contained within its story many revelations are given. We can detect its indirect orientation as it starts and ends with Nebuchadnezzar’s (Nabonidus’) words, yet Daniel is the author. Why Daniel chose this style to reveal his prophecy is hard to resolve, and we can only speculate. Like novels of today it could just as well have started, “Once upon a time in the ancient empire of Babylon” etc., and ended “and they lived happily ever after.” But lying in-between the opening and end are major revelations. Unless we prepare ourselves for this mode of writing and get in the mood of Daniel’s theme, we may not get the entire thrust of his message. Being it is in this form, one must be able to separate fact from fantasy.

We are told in Daniel 12:9 that “the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” So this explains why down through the centuries there have been so many whimsical interpretations of his prophecies. But those who have used the historical method of interpretation along with the year for a day principal have fared the best (Numbers 14:34 & Ezekiel 4:6). Therefore, when you hear false teachers speaking of a three and one half or seven literal years of tribulation, one can mark it down in his book that they don’t know what they are talking about, and sadly its the majority. There are all kinds of absurdities created when a literal interpretation is used! So it is quite apparent we are never going to grasp the prophecies of Daniel as long as we persist on a non-historical, literal interpretation! By not following the written Word, one makes a liar out of oneself every time! Therefore, it is quite impossible to understand Daniel 4 without the year-day principal inasmuch as it’s Biblical.

For example, 30 days (a month) of prophecy = 30 years; 12 months of prophecy = (30 X 12) or 360 literal years or a Biblical “time.” Therefore, whether it is stated as “a time, times, and a half of time”; “42 months”; or “1260 days”, in any of these forms it is always 1260 literal years. In other words, a “time” (360 years) plus “times” (720 years) plus “a half of time” (180 years) total in all (360 + 720 + 180) = 1260 literal years. In the case of the 42 months it is 42 X 30 = 1260, or again 1260 literal years. The stated 1260 days are simply 1260 years under the year-day principle. Welcome to the Biblical system of counting prophetic time. Once comprehending this principle, one can begin to recognize those who understand, and those who understand not. Even after conquering this hurdle, there are other problems with interpretation to overcome, but at least we have a start. All other issues aside, the measurement of prophetic time is critical in understanding Daniel as well as Revelation. Once understanding the prophetic time element, we can start placing historical events in their proper order. This also instills confidence in Biblical prophecy when we see all the pieces begin to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

As I presented in the last two lessons, all the evidence points to the Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel chapter 4 as being Nabonidus. There’s a reasonable possibility that Nabonidus may have been a son of Nebuchadnezzar by a non-royal wife. The evidence also strongly suggests that Nabonidus was a descendant of the satanic seedline of Cain. If all this is true, and I personally believe it is, it presents an entirely different picture of Daniel 4. As we will see, in this chapter, we are once more confronted with the element of prophetic time. Reading Daniel chapter 4, we already see at verse 3 an indication of the time covered in this passage: “How great are his signs! and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation.” We can deduct from this verse that this chapter, while it concerns itself with a narrow period under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar (Nabonidus) at Babylon, it is really covering many generations of the everlasting Kingdom of Yahweh.

Then in verses 1-4, the dialog belongs to Nebuchadnezzar (Nabonidus) rather than Daniel. In verse 5, Nabonidus speaks of such a troubling dream, he consults all the usual “astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.” It should be evident that the Nebuchadnezzar of chapter 2 is not the same, for had it been, surely, after the failed dream-image interpretation experience by the usual prognosticators of chapter 2, he would have consulted Daniel from the first. Continuing in verse 8, we are told that Daniel was finally consulted about the matter. Then in verses 10-17 it describes Nabonidus’s dream-vision:

“10 Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. 11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: 12 The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all: the beast of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it. 13 I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven; 14 He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beast get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches: 15 Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass; in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: 16 Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. 17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.”

Now let’s analyze to see what this passage is saying. In doing so, we will need to dissect each individual word and phrase for a proper interpretation. This is a passage which can’t be read over scantily, giving it only a lick and a promise, for there is much more here than first meets the eye.

In verse 10, we are told Nabonidus’s dream-vision was all about some kind of “tree.” Therefore, if we can determine what sort of tree this could possibly have been, we might just understand the subject of his vision. Of course, if you ask some of the anti-seedliners, they will say it simply means a “wooden tree” like they foolishly insist about the “tree of life” and “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” in Genesis 2:9. Before we are finished with this topic, we will understand beyond all doubt that this was no ordinary tree. We find a very interesting comment in The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Walvoord & Zuck, volume 1, page 1342:

“Previously Nebuchadnezzar [Nabonidus] had traveled to Lebanon to watch the felling of the great cedars to provide timber for his construction projects in Babylon. So he had witnessed the felling of mighty trees. The tree he saw in his dream was significant because of its size (vv. 10-11), its beauty and its fruit (v. 12). It provided food and shelter for all the animals and birds who lived under it or in it.”

While this is very intriguing, the “animals” and “birds”, like the tree, were no ordinary “animals” or “birds.” Once we discover that these terms are symbolic in nature, we are on our way to an understanding of what this passage is conveying, and this is true for most of the Bible. That’s why many people can’t comprehend Two Seedline!

The next important word we are faced with in speaking of the “tree” is the term “end” at verse 11 where it says: “... and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.” It is #5491 in the “Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary” in Strong’s, and its meaning is “end”, but we are directed to 5490 which says: “... sofe; from 5486; a termination:— conclusion, end, hinder part.” Going to 5486, we get: “... soof; a primitive root; to snatch away, i.e. terminate:— consume, have an end, perish, X be utterly.” To this, Gesenius’ seems to agree. To #5486 The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon adds: “come to an end, cease.” We have to ask the question, does “end” mean chronologically or geographically, or both? As we will see, it’s not relevant. As stated here, “end of all the earth”, would seem to be geographically. While Babylon covered a lot of territory, it was far from covering the entire earth, and as there were other kingdoms around them, it didn’t mean that even in their general area. But if “end of all the earth” could symbolically apply to the Babylonian system from that time to our day, it would include “all the earth”, or to every corner of the earth, with no one being exempt. Anyway, that’s my interpretation, and if that’s the case, the time factor would have to be included. I say all this, for Babylon has to fall two times, Revelation 14:8.

Then going to verse 12 we read: “The leaves thereof were fair.” The “leaves” on a tree are symbolic of protection for the fruit, and the birds which might nest in its branches. This is simply comparing the leaves of the tree to Babylon’s protection of its inhabitants. Then it continues “and the fruit thereof much.” This simply is symbolic of great production both in crops and manufacture, with a surplus for export. Resuming in verse 12 it says, “and it was meat for all.” This, in symbolic language, is implying that all the inhabitants of Babylon lacked nothing. Continuing in the same verse it remarks, “the beast of the field had shadow under it.” This is as much as saying that in Babylon there were, like we have today, inferior races dwelling among them, and again the shadow produced by the leaves served as protection. Continuing in that verse “and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof.” This is very similar to Revelation 18:2 where again it is making reference to Babylon where it speaks of “the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” I am sure that in both Daniel and Revelation it is referring to the satanic seedline which we know today as “Jews.” Today, like in Babylon of old, we have that kind of people in the branches of our government.

The anti-seedliners would deny all this claming it’s all a matter of the “flesh.” If they really believe that, then they should use their ministries to convert the “Jews” from their wicked ways. For instance, if that’s the case, Ted R. Weiland could move his whole operation from Scottsbluff, Nebraska to Tel Aviv. It would only be a minor change on his stationary from Mission To Israel to Mission To Israeli. And If he, according to his own words, “appreciates the other races” so much, he could setup branch ministries in the Congo and at Hong Kong.

Verse 12 then ends “and all flesh was fed of it.”  When it speaks of “all flesh” feeding off Babylon, it should be understood to mean they believed in and practiced “universalism.” This should give one a reasonably good depiction of the nature of the “tree” of Daniel chapter 4, but this is not the end of the story. Verses 13 & 14 then say:

“13 I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven; 14 He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from his branches.” Here Yahweh is announcing, through His messenger, to cut down the “tree” representing Babylon, with its economic, political, religious and universalist systems.

Verse 14 commands, “hew down the tree”, meaning to bring in the Medo-Persians (with the Scythian Israelites) and conquer her. After that the order goes out “and cut off his branches”, same as the “boughs” or branches of government under which the fowls [unclean birds] infiltrate mentioned in verse 12. Next the order is “shake off his leaves”, meaning break down the walls of protection, followed by “and scatter his fruit”, meaning dry up the production of food and cause industry to fail. Continuing we hear the words “let the beast get away from under it”, meaning, let the other races go somewhere else, followed by one last directive “and the fowls from his branches”, and if you will remember in lesson #59 how the Chaldean priesthood left Babylon for Pergamos where Revelation 2:12-13 states “Satan’s seat” is.

 

BUT LEAVE THE STUMP

 

We come now to the second half of the “watcher’s decree.” Now for anyone who is looking ahead to verses 25, 32-33, and believes that Nebuchadnezzar (Nabonidus) was condemned “to eat grass like an oxen” in an environment with animals for a literal period of seven years, should reconsider that position. I point that out, as the digestive system of a man can in no way consume grass as food. Now the cud-chewing bovine variety of beef-cattle, including the oxen and buffalo, have a four compartment stomach and can break down raw grass as usable food. Even then, if they eat to much grass in the green stage, it can make them terribly sick. There is no way Nabonidus, as a man, could have eaten grass for seven days, let alone seven years. For anyone who thinks he did, I invite him to make a single meal of grass, cooked in any manner or eaten raw, and he will wish he hadn’t within 24 hours. Yet in spite of this crystal-clear, explicit fact, many Bible commentaries make that claim. It’s about time we start using some common sense when reading Holy Scripture, and with common sense, we will continue. So we can safely conclude that Daniel in chapter 4 is speaking mostly in symbolic terms rather than literal! One exception being the “one hour” at verse 19. 

Now if you are familiar with the Book Of Enoch, you are aware there are a group of angels who are called the “Watchers.” If you will recall, Daniel had contact with two other angels, Michael and Gabriel. Many of the anti-seedliners disclaim both devil and angel-kind. We will now read verses 15-17:

“15 Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: 16 Let his heart be changed from man’s and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. 17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.”

As we continue, we are told in verse 15, “Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth.” When we finally arrive at verse 22, it will be revealed, while it doesn’t state his name, that Nabonidus using the name of Nebuchadnezzar was the “tree.” It should then be evident that if the tree is Nabonidus, the stump and roots in some manner are also. Then we are introduced to a different element of the “stump”, “even with a band of iron and brass.” These are two of the four same metals of the dream-image at chapter 2, less the gold and silver. And if you will remember, the gold was Babylon; the silver was Medo-Persia; the brass was Greece; and the iron was Rome. To be consistent and because we are not instructed otherwise, we can once again be quite sure the iron band is Rome and the brass band Greece. As we can observe, the sentence was severe, but not entirely fatal to what the tree represented. And while Nabonidus was the tree that was cut down at the fall of Babylon, his political, economic and religious system continued living on. Next we are given a clue where the dying stump would subsist and under what conditions it would thrive, “in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven” At Matthew 13:38, in the parable of the wheat and the tares we are told “the field is the world.” But this passage speaks of “the tender grass of the field” and how can that be applied? Well, wheat is a product from a kind of grass, and the true Israelites were considered wheat in the parable just cited. Therefore, the “tender grass” can be no other than the White Adamic race. And once we can comprehend that, the “dew of heaven” can be no other than the knowledge of Yahweh and Gospel story. Now the stump is not the tender grass and the tender grass (wheat) is not the stump. In other words the tender grass (true Israel) is coexisting with the Babylonian stump. And while the knowledge of Yahweh is for true Israel only, the dying stump pollutes the knowledge of Yahweh with its poisonous byproducts, and that’s a perfect analogy of the Universal Roman Catholic Church which worships Naboninus’ Babylonian queen of heaven, teaching.

Another interesting thing we should take into account is the fact that the stump with its bands of iron and brass completely bypassed the Medo-Persian Empire as the stump had no band of silver. This is because the Medo-Persian Empire, under Cyrus and Darius, had developed an honest money system and had post roads for the free movement of truthful news and information. It is also because Nabonidus’ moon-god Sin religious system, as related in lesson #59, moved directly from Babylon to Pergamos, again bypassing the Medo-Persian Empire. Thus, out of the Grecian Empire came heavily influenced philosophy (the knowledge of men) which in church seminaries is called hermeneutics. And when Rome conquered Greece, all the Greek paganism along with Greek thought became part and parcel of Rome.

Continuing on in verse 15, it says, “and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth.” It appears to be implying, let Nabonidus’ stump system be with the beasts (other races) in the grass (Israel wheat) of the earth. To be more emphatic, Nabonidus’ portion is with the beast (other races) in the tender grass (wheat) nations. Following in verse 16 we read, “Let his heart be changed from man’s and let a beast’s heart be given unto him.” Again, this is symbolic language suggesting that he, the Nabonidus stump political-economical-religious system, would have a similar mental disposition as a brute-animal. Also it should be noted the word “man’s” as used here is not #120 for Adam-man but #606, enash-man in Aramaic, and # 582 in Hebrew, enosh-man. It is quite evident, then, that Nabonidus was not related to us White people. Then the proclamation, “and let seven times pass over him.” Here again, we come face to face with the Biblical system for counting prophetic time. Inasmuch as a time is 360 years, “seven times” would equate to 2520 years to pass over the stump system. This is the seven times period of Nabonidus’ insanity.

Then it continues, “This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones.” There are certain angels who have specific jobs, and are assigned to watch over the destinies of certain countries and situations and are under the command of the Almighty. Whether or not the various nations are aware of it, they will in some way fulfill the purposes of Yahweh (and that doesn’t mean non-Israel peoples will inherit the Kingdom with Israel). They emphatically will not! The next verse 17 verifies this where it says, “to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” Here the words “the living” pertain only to Adamic man, for he only had the breath of life of Yahweh breathed into him, Genesis 2:7. So when we grasp that seven times are going to pass over Nabonidus’ stump, we can be sure the Almighty has a purpose for it, and that it will be fulfilled exactly on time. Then we see one more very important matter added to this mandate, “and setteth up over it the basest of men.”  All we need do is look back over history from the time when this decree was made to the present day and observe the various emperors, czars, kings, Kaisers, dictators, prime ministers and presidents and thereby we can plainly see that they were indeed the “basest of men.” The only ones who amounted to anything at all were those kings descended from the House of David of the Tribe of Judah. And surely many of our presidents would have to be placed in the “basest” category. This phrase alone should prove beyond all doubt that the “seven times” were not seven literal years, but 2520 years of the insanity of Nabonidus! How can one place the plural word “men” in the space of seven literal years? It can’t be done, for it is speaking of a prophetic 2520 years for these “basest of men”! And that is what we’ve had!

The only question at this point is, from what point in time do we start counting the “seven times”? For the answer to that we need to know when the “tree” was fully felled. While the Babylonian Empire was conquered at 539 B.C., the last usurper to attempt to restore the empire was Nebuchadnezzar IV in 521 B.C. It would seem reasonable that Cyrus hadn’t really secured his conquest until that last usurper was eliminated. It could only be at that point the “tree” was down to stay. Once that point is established, all one need do is add 2520 years and allow one year for B.C. to A.D. conversion plus any variation for New Years day. We keep our New Years day January 1st but Babylon celebrated theirs in the Fall of the year. Therefore, adjustments would have to be made for all these varying factors.

But we must remember that this is all a dream-vision to Nabonidus, and probably in his dream he counted it as seven literal years. Then at the end of his imagined seven years’ insanity he fantasized he was restored. That also was but a dream. The reason the vision was given to Nabonidus is because his “stump system” would fulfill it. Now if we will keep in mind that this is all a dream on the part of Nabonidus, we can separate the literal from the long range prophetic significance. Let’s now take up the reading of Daniel chapter 4 once more skipping to verse 20:

“20 The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; 21 Whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation: 22 It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth. 23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him; 24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king: 25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule. 27 Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity. 28 All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar.”

You probably noticed the language from verses 20 to 28 were a repeat of former verses, and because we had established their meaning, you could comprehend the text to a greater degree. There were two things, though, that I underlined for emphasis. The second item that I underlined which should be taken into account is at verse 26 where it said, “thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee” In a sense, this became true, but Nabonidus would never live to see it though, and I doubt if Daniel explained it to him in that manner. The one thing which we are certain, it has undeniably been 2520 years of insanity! Now verses 29-31:

“29 At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. 30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? 31 While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.”

Obviously, this is not part of the dream, but it does show he had no respect for Daniel’s interpretation. What is interesting is the last part of verse 31 where it says, “The kingdom is departed from thee.”  Truly, if this is Nabonidus, it would be a proper statement, for it was during his reign that Babylon fell to the Medo-Persians, although he was at Tema in the Arabian Desert and had left his son Belshazzar in charge of the city. Later, Nabonidus would be captured at Babylon. He was an archaeologist, and was considered by secular historians a “mad king.” Nabonidus was mad all right, he had a bad case of “moon-madness.” Fortunately, we have much evidence concerning Nabonidus from a secular historical viewpoint, and it’s not hard to see why Daniel might have pictured him in that light. Let’s now read verses 32 to 37 in such a light:

“32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. 33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws. 34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? 36 At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counselors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me. 17 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of Heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.”

From this ending, one might get the idea that Nabonidus turned from his sinful ways, and as some might say, ‘became a Christian.’ Nothing could be farther from the truth! Nabonidus was far from being an Israelite, the only Kingdom people. Daniel is simply illustrating, how in the end, all heathen (other races) will have to recognize and admit that Yahweh is the only living, all wise Elohim, although His Salvation is not for them. This can be proved from many passages of Scripture. It seems that the Almighty takes great pleasure in showing all the non-Israelite peoples that His Redemption is not for them!

As has been pointed out before, Daniel’s writings are mostly in symbology, and in most cases cannot be taken entirely in a literal manner. If we do so, we will get into trouble every time. Another thing you might have noticed with this passage is the fact that the symbology is repeated throughout the chapter several times. Whenever this phenomenon is encountered in Scripture, it is for the purpose of emphasis, as the matter is extraordinarily important. As the terms “seven times” “stump” “tender grass” are repeated two, three and four times in the same text, Daniel is imploring you to learn the symbolical meaning. Actually, the basic theme concerning the “seven times over the stump” is reiterated four times in slightly varying language, so the symbology is of very great significance. Had it meant only seven literal years, once would have sufficed. The ball is now in your court, and you will have to settle this matter for yourself. One will have to admit, there is a considerable difference between 7 literal years and 2520 prophetic years, and also 1260 literal days (sometimes stated “42 months” or in other cases, “time, times, and a half of time”) and 1260 prophetic years!

It should be noted at verse 23, the command from the “watcher” was to “hew down” and “destroy” the tree which represented Nabonidus (v. 22) , but at the end of the chapter, Nabonidus was seemingly restored. We can’t have it both ways, as he was either destroyed or he wasn’t. Therefore, the only way Nabonidus was restored was in a symbolic sense in the analogy of a decaying “stump”, after the fact. We still have that corrupt stump among us today, and the only restoration we can have is the total destruction of the “stump” system which it represents. And the only restoration which might be applicable would be the exposure of those advocating and promoting the stump system, and having them have to admit there is only one True Elohim, and His “living tree” system. Daniel really isn’t contradicting himself if we perceive him in the correct manner!

It is hard to find anything beneficial from the various Bible commentaries on this chapter, but occasionally one can chance on an interesting remark. The International Bible Commentary by F. F. Bruce et. al., on verse 15 makes the observation that the “bands” around the “stump” might be for the purpose of stunting its re-growth so it doesn’t get out of control, or to make sure it’s going to eventually die. Well, that’s a tantalizing thought! Bruce also suggests the possibility of the bands being used “to protect against damage.” I would have to agree with the former. Bruce also points out that the term time in “seven times” in Aramaic only means “a specific period.”

Another interesting observation is by the Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on verse 13; “watcher and an holy one —  rather, ‘even an holy one.’ Only one angel is intended, and he not one of the bad, but of the holy angels. Called a ‘watcher’, because ever on the watch to execute God’s will ... The idea of heavenly ‘watchers’ under the supreme God (called in the Zendavesta of the Persian Zoroaster, (Ormuzd) was founded on the primeval revelation as to evil angels having watched for an opportunity until they succeeded in tempting man to his ruin, and good angels ministering to God’s servants ...”

 

This is my sixty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. Because there are so many bad teachings circulating around in all areas of Scripture, I find myself on a continuous treadmill in order to combat them. At the present time, I have so many irons in the fire, I don’t know which one to address next. The only advantage I can see coming out of this chaos is the fact that it makes the rest of us study all the more intensely. The problem with this is, they can dream these fantastic screwball ideas faster than I can quell them. Sadly, all this confusion is scattering the sheep rather than gathering them.

After I had all of my Watchman’s Teaching Letters printed up and distributed for March and April, I noticed a mistake on page 1, column 2, paragraph 3 where I mentioned Nebuchadnezzar I, and it should have been Nebuchadnezzar II. You might make a correction on your copy.

We have been doing a walk-through of Daniel’s prophecies, and it has come to my attention again that many of us (in fact, most of us) simply don’t know the history of both houses of Israel up until Daniel’s time. It is impossible, therefore, to make any sense of Daniel without this historical knowledge. Time after time after time, I read in Israel Identity materials that the ten northern tribes went into Assyrian captivity and Judah went into Babylonian captivity. Such a blanket statement is only about 50% correct (in other words, 50% incorrect). Now if one doesn’t want to be among that great majority who are only 50% correct, he will of necessity have to do some “study to show himself approved.”

If you don’t already have Hammond’s Atlas of the Bible Lands, edited by Harry Thomas Frank, professor of religion at Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio, copyright MCMLXXVII, published by Hammond Incorporated, I highly recommend you get a copy. Also advisable would be An Outline History of the Seventy Weeks Nation by Rev. Alban Heath as shown on my price list. The first mentioned publication has charts and maps that are reasonably accurate. On page B-17 of the Atlas, there is a map showing the routes of the five different forays made by the Assyrians into what we call today Palestine, of which I will show four here in chart form along with data from other sources:

ŸTiglath-pileser III            745-727 B.C.        734-732 B.C.

ŸShalmaneser V               727-722 B.C.        724-722 B.C. 

ŸSargon II                         722-705 B.C.               -721 B.C. 

ŸSennacherib                   705-681 B.C                -701 B.C.

In the first column is the name of the Assyrian ruler; in the second the period of his reign; and the third the years of his campaigns. Another must book is Reader’s Digest Atlas of the Bible, edited by Joseph L. Gardner et. al. (especially chapters: “The fall of Israel”; “Sennacherib Attacks Judah”; “End of Judah”; and “Exile in Babylon”). During the reign of Shalmaneser III, northern Israel was first threatened and direct contact made by a series of raids when he sought to contain the pressure of the hill-tribesmen in Urartu, Medes and Persians in the Urmia region.

After many victories elsewhere, Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 15:19; 16:7-10), made a swift march down the coast of Gaza, whose King Hanunu fled to Egypt. He sacked the area and set up a golden statue of his royal self as a mark of victory, but did not push beyond Egypt’s border at Nahal-Musur. This advance took him through the territory of Damascus, Galilee and northern Israel (which was called “the land of Omri”), and after that counted as part of Assyria. After placing Pekah on the throne instead of Hoshea, he may well have instigated the murder of the former (2 Kings 15:29-30). Thus, we have a record of the beginning of several Assyrian invasions directed at the northern ten tribes culminating in their capture. Among these were the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5:26).

Then came Shalmaneser V, who continued his predecessor’s (Tiglath-pileser III’s) practice of periodically marching through Syria collecting tribute. He made Hoshea of Israel a vassal (2 Kings 17:3), but in his seventh regnal year Hoshea ceased to pay the annual required tribute. Quick to react, Shalmaneser V besieged Samaria for three years, taking more northern Israelites captive when the city fell with the next Assyrian king, Sargon II, in 723/2 B.C. removing them to Halah and Habor by the river Gozan in the cities of the Medes (2 Kings 18:9-11).

Sargon II does not appear in Old Testament history, but Sargon II himself has left the following inscription: “(In the beginning of my reign) the city of Samaria I besieged, I captured ... 27,280 of the inhabitants I carried away; fifty chariots in the midst of them I collected (and the rest of their goods I seized); I set my governor over them and laid upon them tribute and taxes like those of the Assyrians.”

 

Sennacherib TAKES NEARLY HALF OF THE SOUTHERN

KINGDOM OF JUDAH INTO aSSYRIAN CAPTIVITY!

 

This is the important part of the story that most Bible students completely overlook! And this “half” doesn’t include the many of Zarah-Judah and Pharez-Judah that migrated away before the Assyrian invasions. Later, after taking all the ten northern tribes of Israel captive, the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705-681) came up against all the fenced cities of Judah, taking them (2 Kings 18:13). While Scripture is silent on the subject of the deportations of Judah, Sennacherib himself has left the following record: “And Hezekiah king of Judah, who had not bowed down to my feet forty-six of his strong cities, his castles, and the smaller towns in their neighborhood beyond number with warlike engines ... I attacked and captured 200,150 people small and great, male and female, horses, mares, asses, camels, oxen and sheep beyond number from the midst of them I carried off and distributed them as a spoil. He himself, like a bird in a cage, inside Jerusalem his royal city I shut him up.” After this, all that was left of the southern Kingdom of Judah was Jerusalem (2 Kings 18:13, 17; 2 Chronicles 32:1-2 and Isaiah 36:1-2). Rightly does The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Walvoord and Zuck say on 2 Kings 18:13: “Next he [Sennacherib] attacked all the fortified cities of Judah except Jerusalem and captured the people.”

The 27,280 of the House of Israel and the 200,150 of the House of Judah can hardly account for a fraction of their numbers. While Sargon’s inscription might record a small division of the 46 cities of Judah, it surely doesn’t necessarily account for all the Judahites taken captive.

 

THE POPULATION OF JUDAH

 

Using Scripture, we will cite various passages to ascertain the population of the southern Kingdom of Judah at specific periods. At 2 Chronicles 13:3, we are told that Abijah put four hundred thousand men of war in battle array compared to eight hundred thousand by Jeroboam of the northern Kingdom of Israel, totaling 1,200,000 between them. At 2 Chronicles 17:14-19, we find 1,160,000 in Judah under Jehoshaphat a generation or so later (in both the MT and LXX).  At 2 Chronicles 25:5 we find 300,000 men of war in Judah over the age of 20 from a census. At 2 Chronicles 26:13, we observe 310,100 men of war under Uzziah, king of Judah. At 2 Chronicles 28:6, we see that 120,000 men of war under Ahaz of Judah were slain in one day by Pekah, king of Israel.

Therefore, it is quite obvious, with these statistics of just the fighting men of war, the considerable number of Judah when all the women, children and old men beyond fighting age were counted. From this Biblical and historical evidence, you can now see why we have so much trouble with proper Biblical interpretation. In addition to a major part of Judah going into Assyrian captivity, many of Judah who went into Babylonian captivity had opportunity to join with Judah who were in Assyrian captivity, (Jeremiah 50:4). So those returning to Jerusalem at the decree of Cyrus represented  only a minor part of the original Kingdom of Judah! Now, if you don’t have a full understanding of these captivities, you still have some homework to do. In short, nearly all of Judah migrated into Europe with the other tribes. Another factor must also be taken into account. Because the southern Kingdom was also made up of Benjamites and a considerable number of Levites, they also were taken captive with Judah into Assyrian captivity at the same time, and migrated into Europe also. The reason I’m compelled to reiterate all these weighty facts once more is because I continue to observe many, and some claim to be teachers, who haven’t the slightest idea what it’s all about!

 

THE HISTORY MANY OF US DON’T KNOW

 

I found it necessary to review some of this Biblical history in order to bring our study of Daniel into perspective. In fact, without this history, it’s quite impossible to grasp to whom, what and how his prophecies apply. If one listens to prime-time, mainline religion, Daniel’s prophecies become one giant mass of confusion. For that same reason, let’s summarize the general Biblical-historical narrative again.

Before we start, and as we go along, it is imperative we define some terms. It is essential, therefore, when we use the terms “Israelite” or “Judahite”, we don’t mean “Jew.” The true identity of the sons’ of Isaac (Anglo-Saxons), according to the prophets and Messiah’s parables, was to be hidden until the time of the harvest, or sometimes stated as “the time of the end” or “the last days” (Matthew 9:37-38; 13:30). Many people wonder, if the Anglo-Saxons are Israel, why don’t more know about it? Or, why hasn’t my pastor taught that? The answer is, it was prophesied that it would not be generally known until our present time (Psalm 83:3). In order to understand Biblical prophecy today, one must know the identity of the Anglo-Saxon and related peoples. As we enter into Bible prophecy, we will also need to consider Bible history. One reason, and the main reason, people have difficulty with Bible prophecy is because they do not take time to read Bible history. The first sixteen or seventeen books of the Bible are Bible history. For instance, how can anyone expect to understand the prophecies of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel if they’re not familiar with, and pay no attention to, the books of the Bible setting forth the history leading up to those prophecies?

If one can lay down these fundamental historical facts from Biblical history, one can proceed into Biblical prophecy, and it will open up beautifully. One of the essential details to understand is that the word “Jew” does not appear in Biblical history until 2 Kings 16:6, or 1,300 years after the death of Abraham! Also, it was 600 years after Moses brought the Isaac-Sons out of Egypt. All one need do to verify that is to check Biblical chronology. The fact of the matter is, neither Abraham nor Moses were “Jews.”

And before you get all bent-out-of-shape, do a little thinking. Now if Abraham was a “Jew”, as we hear, then many Arabs are “Jews”, for many Arabs can claim to be from Abraham! Additionally, once we start using some common sense, if Abraham was a “Jew”, then his son Isaac was a “Jew.” And if Isaac was a “Jew”, then all the cursed Edomites are “Jews” also. When you hear statements like: “Abraham the Jew”; “Isaac the Jew”; or “Jacob the Jew”, one can mark it down that the one making such an expression is not competent with the two-edged Sword, for these were not “Jews.”

If one is really proficient in Biblical history, there is no dispute that Jacob, Isaac’s other son, had 12 sons. One should be familiar that those son’s names were called: Reubenites, Simeonites, Levites, Issachar[ites], Zebulun[ites], Gadites, Danites, Naphtali[ites], Asherites, Joseph[ites] (represented by the Ephraimites & Manassehites), Benjamites, and Judahites [Strong’s: “neé”, not “ites”]. The Judahites were not “Jews” as the term has come to be used. Therefore, to use the expression “Jew” to mean Abraham, Isaac or Moses is the most ridiculous, absurd thing that one could say to anyone that’s familiar with Biblical history. If we can’t get some of these basic rudiments correct, we can neither understand Scripture nor Biblical history!

When we trace Biblical history we must grasp the primary fact that the twelve sons became 12 tribes, or 13 tribes if we include the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. But under David, at about 1000 B.C. they became one nation, which is an historical fact. If you’re not familiar and don’t understand, you cannot possibly understand what the Scriptures prophesied concerning these people. Let us now read from 2 Samuel 5:4-5 which presents an important historical fact and a key to understanding Scripture: “4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. 5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.”

This is simply stating that David ruled seven years and six months over Judah before he reigned the balance of his administration over both Israel and Judah. It’s very clear in Biblical history, even before the time of the Exodus, a division arose between Judah and Ephraim with the two contending for leadership. That distinction and division continued from the time that Jacob was still living, and as they developed into tribes and nations, it lingered on. This shows in the fact that it took the House of Israel (Ephraim) seven and a half years to accept David’s rule. So they were brought together as one nation under David. But that didn’t last very long.

After David’s administration, we had Solomon’s administration, and after the death of Solomon it is needful to know that in 1 Kings 12, Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, became king, and we read it in verses 19-20: “19 So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. 20 And it came to pass when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only [which included Benjamin and some Levites].” In the balance of this chapter, we read what Yahweh said concerning this division into separate nations: “for this thing is from me.”

Let’s go to 2 Kings 17:5-6 to note further historical developments which give an understanding and a key to Biblical prophecy: “5 Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria [ten tribed Israel] and besieged it three years. 6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.” Here we have one of the most important events in all the history of the Isaac-Sons, or the Anglo-Saxon and related people. All this took place about 720 B.C., and placed them in Assyria, and later toward the Black and Caspian seas. Now, leaving the ten tribes we will return to 2 Kings 23:27 and we’ll find what happened to the Kingdom of Judah: “And Yahweh said, I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and will cast off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

It should be repeated with emphasis that this is Biblical history and is something we should all be able to agree on and accept. That is, if we believe the Bible is the Word of Yahweh. So we have here the second captivity of Judah and Jerusalem by Babylon. Following this, at 2 Kings 24:2-3: “2 And Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh which he spake by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely at the commandment of Yahweh came this upon Judah to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did.”

If we plunge into Biblical prophecy without a foundation of Biblical history it simply will not make any sense, and we will have no way of proving we are correct. We can not Scripturally interpret prophecy unless it is done from such an understanding. So to be sure we are getting all of this in our minds, let’s now go over this again. We have now learned that from the twelve sons of Jacob came twelve or thirteen tribes depending on how they are counted. Later they became one nation under David. But after the death of Solomon, the son of David, these tribes divided into two nations. This may seem elementary, but it is essential to understanding Biblical prophecy. Samaria was capital for the ten-tribe Israel nation in the north, and Jerusalem was the capital of the two-tribe Judah nation to the south. Again it should be reiterated that in 720 B.C., some seven hundred years before the First Advent of Messiah, the Israel nations were taken into the Assyrian captivity. And extremely important, because it is usually overlooked, a major portion of the southern Judah nation was also taken into Assyrian captivity to join with the ten tribes already there. Then about a hundred years later, the remnant of that remaining Judah nation, which consisted mainly of Jerusalem, was taken into Babylonian captivity. The Bible is a history book and must be treated as such, and it is a history of one man’s family. If you still don’t understand, go back and keep rereading it until you do comprehend.

 

SYNCHRONIZING PROPHECY

 

Jeremiah, in chapter 3, in the very beginning of his book, it again deals with Biblical history. That history is simply this: Jeremiah prophesied at the time when the leftover Judah nation, which was not taken captive into Assyria, was about to be taken into Babylonian captivity. The northern Israel nation had gone into Assyrian captivity some one hundred years before this, and once again falls under the category of Bible history. Hosea prophesied concerning Israel while Jeremiah prophesied concerning both Israel and Judah. Should you have a desire to understand, continue to follow with us. Jeremiah was preaching and prophesying to this small residue Judah nation. As we have learned, Israel and most of Judah had been taken into Assyrian captivity and to regions north, a hundred years before this time, never to return. In Jeremiah 3:12 the Almighty speaks to his prophet Jeremiah saying: “Go and proclaim these words toward the north [where Israel was], and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel [Israel and Judah], saith Yahweh; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith Yahweh, and I will not keep anger for ever.” This is a momentous passage overlooked by the majority of Bible students as far as the Isaac-Sons are concerned, which we will see as we go along. The message was: “You return back to Me and My Word, and I will not cause Mine anger to fall upon you, and I will not completely destroy you.” Then in verse 14: “Turn O backsliding children [of Israel and Judah], saith Yahweh; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” Many try to imply that Yahweh was married only to Israel, not Judah, which categorically is not true. Judah simply joined Israel in her migrations. It is simply amazing how some people come up with all kinds of confused conclusions.

This is a tremendous prophecy, and we must be able to discern the history when it was fulfilled. This was a long-range prophecy pertaining to the Israel and Judah people who were taken into the Assyrian captivity. For those who don’t understand this prophecy, it is a foretelling of the Great Zion Nation, America. Just pick up any truthful history book of the founding of our country, and read about it, for it is a fulfillment of Jeremiah 3:14. And where did all these people come from? Well, they came from the very region of the Black and Caspian seas from where they migrated into Europe (the British Isles, Germany, France, Scandinavia etc.). This was a long-range prophecy and Yahweh did take us in the manner He said He would. “Long-range”, inasmuch as it was to last 2,520 years for each individual tribe. Th class= class=/pfont-family: e rest of the prophecy in verse 15 reads: “And I will give you pastors according to my heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” Any pastor not feeding us with “knowledge and understanding” of who true Israel and Judah are, are not worthy of that dignity, nor our tithes of support. But the Israel and Judah of today are literally throwing tons of money at the false-pastors.

The only true pastors are the Israel Identity teachers identifying both the Wheat [Israel and true Judah] along with the tares [the impostors called “Jews”], which constitutes the Two Seedline message of Genesis 3:15. The Gospel without the first Gospel is no Gospel at all! Now let’s take a look at some Scriptures contrasting the House of Israel with the small residue Judah nation that didn’t go into Assyrian captivity. I call your attention to how Jeremiah prophesied at 18:1-2: “1 The word which came to Jeremiah from Yahweh saying, 2 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.” In other words, Yahweh said to the prophet, ‘Jeremiah go down to the potter’; the man that makes vessels of clay; he places them upon a wheel and then he molds them. Yahweh said to him, ‘go down and watch that man, because I’m going to give you an illustration; I’m going to give you an object lesson or a parable!’ Now continuing in verses 3-4: “1 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.” As Jeremiah watched, he waited for the message of the object lesson, as he knew Yahweh was going to show him something. As he watched this man, he noticed that that particular vessel he had on the wheel was marred. But he also noted that he made it again, another vessel as seemed good to the potter to make. Now verses 5-6: “5 Then the word of Yahweh came to me saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith Yahweh. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.” While this is a parable, it is also a long-range prophecy to be fulfilled in history, and the prophecy is this: As this vessel was marred, so was the House of Israel marred, and placed into Assyrian captivity. They were placed under bondage, judgment and punishment. In other words, Yahweh was making Israel into another vessel; into nations He could use. It is important to note that the potter did not throw the clay away as churchianity tries to do with true Israel today. In other words, ever since the Assyrian captivity, true Israel and true Judah have been a vessel in Yahweh’s hand to use for His purpose. There is another legal aspect to the potter and the clay, inasmuch as He purchased us, and the fact we are under Covenant-Contract, He can legally do anything necessary to bring us back into line. We are the only people He ever purchased. Ever since Abraham offered Isaac on an altar, we are His possession. Being that is true, He has every right to chastise us until we conform to His ways. If you are a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then you are under contract from your very first breath, and you cannot annul it, as you have no choice in the matter. But why would we want it any other way?

 

END OF THE “RESIDUE” NATION OF JUDAH

 

The term “residue” is used at Jeremiah 24:8 and should be used accordingly. In the very next chapter of Jeremiah, or the chapter right after the potter and the clay, we have another tremendous prophecy. Chapters 18 & 19 alone should convince people that the “Jews” cannot possibly be the Israel people of the Bible. Now going to Jeremiah 19:1: “Thus saith Yahweh, Go and get a potter’s earthen bottle and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests.” This time, Yahweh is telling Jeremiah to go to the potter’s house and get a clay bottle which has been baked hard and brittle. Then Jeremiah is instructed to take of the elder people and priests (civil leaders and religious leaders) as witnesses, as He wants both church and state to see this illustration and understand its message. ‘Now Jeremiah go get a bottle; not one that is soft and workable and in the process of being made, but a finished bottle.’ Then verse 2 says: “And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom [city dump], which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee.” This is what Jeremiah was to say, verses 3-4a: “And say, Hear ye the word of Yahweh, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, the Elohim of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Because they have forsaken me ...” In chapter 18, it was “O House of Israel”, and in this chapter it is “O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.” Remember here, we have both the leaders of church and state to go to the city dump outside the city gate where Jeremiah spoke the words we just read. Now follow along as we read verse 10: “Then shalt thou break the bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee.” Do you note the contrast and see the difference between chapters 18 and 19? In chapter 18, Israel was made into another vessel whereas in chapter 19 it is proclaimed, verse 11 in part: “... Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel that cannot be made whole again ...” Here again, this is prophecy and it wasn’t completely fulfilled until 70 A.D. Yet in spite of this very clear proclamation, the modern-day priests of Jew-deo-churchianity claim the “Jews” returning to Palestine is a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. That “residue nation” is like Humpty-Dumpty that had a great fall, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty-Dumpty back together again! It’s never going to happen! Like musical chairs called “going to Jerusalem”, it’ll always lack one chair than needed, and end in confusion! It’ll never fit the bill! Although that “residue” nation was condemned to extinction, still there were a very few “good figs” remaining until its end.

Now this not being “made whole again” has nothing to do with personal salvation, but has everything to do with which people were to be Yahweh’s Kingdom people, and His special sovereign nations, or His vessels.

 

SHORT-RANGE PROPHECIES

 

We will now shift from long-range prophecies to short-range prophecies. Going to the 25th chapter of Jeremiah we will note a short-range prophecy on this “residue” Judah nation, or the Judah remnant that didn’t go into Assyrian captivity. Reading now from Jeremiah 25:11-12: “11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Yahweh, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations.” This same prophecy is repeated in Jeremiah 29:10: “For thus saith Yahweh, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.” In other words, the people that were left in Jerusalem of Judah were to be carried into the Babylonian captivity. But unlike Judah in the Assyrian captivity, these were to return after seventy years. This corresponds to what we read in Daniel 9:1-2: “In the first year of Darius ... I Daniel understood by the books the number of years whereof the word of Yahweh came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.” We can see that Daniel, while in the Babylonian captivity, was familiar with the writings of Jeremiah and understood Biblical history. Being aware of the prophecy, Daniel prayed for its fulfillment.

We will now consider Ezra 1:1-3: “1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, 2 Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, Yahweh Elohim of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.”

For what followed, we will go to verse 5: “Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit Yahweh had raised, to go up to build the house of Yahweh which is in Jerusalem.” Outstanding here is the fact that the three tribes involved in the rebuilding were Judah, Benjamin and Levi. This is substantial evidence that, contrary to what is being taught today by the mainstream churches, all the tribes didn’t return to Jerusalem. It’s not Scriptural, and it couldn’t possibly be. The other tribes, including the major part of Judah, were in the Assyrian captivity and the bulk  NEVER RETURNED.

 

WHAT ALL THIS AMOUNTS TO

 

This is by no means all the history with which one should be familiar in Scripture, but it does represent some of the most important facts, and very few fathom them. The main purpose for addressing this topic is to give us a better foundation for understanding Daniel’s prophecies. By examining most of the history from Abraham to Daniel, we can better understand the conditions under which he prophesied. While we have covered much on Daniel, there is still more to address. Of all the misused and abused books to the Bible, Daniel probably stands at the top of the list. Not only that, but we are informed that his writings would not be fully understood until the end, and I hope we have made some progress in that direction.

If no other thing is to be learned from this issue, and if we don’t remember anything else, we should never forget that a major part of Judah went into Assyrian captivity and migrated into Europe with the other ten tribes. We should also remember that when it speaks of the southern Kingdom of Judah, it includes both Benjamites and Levites. Once we understand generally where all the tribes went, we then have no problem with James 1:1, which says: “James, a servant of Yahshua the Messiah, to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, greetings.” You will notice that James didn’t say anything about ten tribes, so we can be quite sure he knew where true Judah was that had gone into Assyrian captivity.

True Judah consists of Germans, Scots and Irish, and the false “Jews”, claiming to be Judah, are merely Judah through his Canaanite wife, Gen. 38:2, and also by Esau’s taking of Canaanite-Hittite wives, thus disqualifying them as heirs.

 

/strong

This is my sixty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. In lesson #60 we focused on the 4th chapter of Daniel. I have commented on this chapter several times before, but there is need to examine it in greater depth. To put the Babylonian stump-system into perspective which was to last “seven times” or 2520 years, I have devised the following graph to show how it has developed during that time. The average person on the street hasn’t the slightest idea what it’s all about, thinking everything is normal, while it is far from that. And they get ‘mad’ if informed otherwise.

 

TODAY’S GREATEST PROBLEMS   Although we have many problems to day, the four in the above diagram represent the greatest. In the very center is the issue of RACE. Then around the RACIAL issue revolve the MONETARY, the POLITICAL and the RELIGIOUS.

 

 

 

Once we can identify these four divisions of our dilemma, we can begin to rectify the status of our position. The above diagram is very much oversimplified. It needs to be broken down into smaller segments as follows: (1) Racial-monetary, (2) Racial-political, (3) Racial-religious, (4) Monetary-political, (5) Monetary-religious, and (6) Political-Religious.

Therefore, all four of the above divisions interact with each other. Should one try to combat any one of these six interacting divisions, one will find he must fight all six simultaneously. Not only that, but each of these six divisions have thousands of subdivisions like the tentacles of an octopus to entangle and destroy. To add to this sad-state-of-affairs, we are in a position where there is little we can do about it. Many have tried, but usually end up dead or in prison. Eric Rudolph, while commendable on some of his positions, on the other hand, after saving our White children from the “Jewish” abortion mills, would get them hooked on marijuana leading to harder drugs. Moreover, Eric put innocent White people at risk with his attacks. (That is, if he is actually guilty for the crimes with which he is charged.) Our Redeemer instructed us that we should not root up the tare-people to the detriment of the wheat-people. As a result of his actions, he has only given the Identity movement a black-eye. And I would add this: the anti-seedliners are doing more damage to destroy the Kingdom than the Eric Rudolphs. And if that shoe fits, wear it!

It’s about time we start taking a long hard look at the predicament in which we find ourselves. Maybe this chart will help in that direction. I’ve noticed that many get hung-up in one area of the conspiracy and are unable to see the entire, overall picture. Once one finds that everything revolves around race, he has made the ultimate discovery. Additionally, when this fact is finally confirmed, one can determine the danger of “universalism”, as it in turn leads to miscegenation (race-mixing).

Recently I have noticed the soft stand on race even among those who teach Two Seedline. They take Psalm 2:8 completely out of context, which says in the KJV: “Ask  of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” They fully overlook the following verse 9 which says: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Psalm 2:8-9 in the NRSV is a somewhat better translation: “8Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. 9You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Evidently, those in Identity who somehow think we are to receive the “heathen as a possession” envision themselves in the Kingdom in the setting of the southern plantation environment, sitting around socializing and eating steaks while having a whole bunch of non-whites attending their every need. This passage in no way implies such a thing. It simply states that we Israelites are to inherit all their lands. The following quote from the Early Church Fathers, Chapter XXXVI, makes that clear:

“‘Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.’And again He saith to Him, ‘Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.’ But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.”

From The Bible Exposition Commentary on Revelation 5:1 we read: “The scroll represents Christ’s ‘title deed’ to all that the Father promised Him because of His sacrifice on the cross. ‘Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen [nations] for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession’ (Ps. 2:8). Jesus Christ is the ‘Heir of all things’ (Heb. 1:2). He is our beloved ‘Kinsman-Redeemer’ who was willing to give His life to set us free from bondage and to restore our lost inheritance (see Lev. 25:23-46; the Book of Ruth; Jer. 32:6-15).”

For a better example of what Psalm 2:8-9 means, let’s consult A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament “The Preparation for Subsequent Revelation”, page 96: Another purpose of the book of Ruth was to connect the Davidic dynasty with the promises of the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant rather than with the conditional Mosaic Covenant. To accomplish this, the writer traced David’s genealogy back to Perez, the son of Judah (Ruth 4:18). It was from Judah that a king for Israel would arise (Gen. 49:10). He would be the main channel of God’s blessing to Israel ... The provision of this king was not conditioned on Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Covenant but was guaranteed on the basis of God’s faithfulness to His promise to Judah. When David reigned, he functioned as a priest as well as a king (1 Chron. 15–17). He was able to do so because his right to rule was rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant rather than in the Mosaic Covenant. Had it been rooted in the Mosaic Covenant David could not have served as a priest since he was not a Levite. But because his right to rule went back to the Abrahamic Covenant, obviously antedating the Mosaic Covenant, he could serve as a priest. David functioned according to the order of Melchizedek, not the order of Aaron (cf. Pss. 2, 110). The book of Ruth then links David with the promises of a king that were given to the patriarchs and so prepares for the record of his reign that follows in 1 and 2 Samuel.”

It is becoming evident, there is much more to Psalm 2:8-9 than first meets the eye. Commentary after commentary associates this passage to the Second Advent of our Messiah. Once identifying who the primary personality is, who do you suppose the heathen [nations] are? They are none other than the twelve tribes of Israel. After being divorced from the Almighty, they became “not a people”, and thus equal to non-Israelites. Anyone who unwittingly presumes that we are to inherit a bunch of non-whites as our inheritance simply doesn’t understand the basic racial thrust of Scripture! Those daffy ideas would be comical if they weren’t so serious! To show you this is the proper context of this passage, I will quote from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III:

“I do not know in what manner these men understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, from whom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, is understood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who says to Him in the Psalms, ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee; ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen [nations] for Thine inheritance;’ and who has ‘put all things under His feet.’If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom, and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how can those men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and, therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whom no man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus: ‘I beheld,’ he says, ‘till the thrones were set,and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened,’ etc. And a little after, ‘I saw,’ he says, ‘in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all [Israel] peoples, [Israel] nations, and [Israel] languages should serve Him: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

If we can’t rightly divide racial passages such as this one, we are in serious trouble. This is but a sample of the preposterous teachings floating around in the Identity movement! For those who are under the erroneous delusion that we are to inherit the other races, need to go back and take another look at the graph on the first page. In that chart, you will notice that around race, it is divided into three parts. I would refer you to Revelation 16:19 which says: “And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.”

While wanting somewhat, The Bible Exposition Commentary says the following: “‘Babylon is fallen!’  ... This proclamation anticipates the events of Revelation 18 (see also Rev. 16:18–19). We will consider it in detail then. ‘Babylon’ is God’s name for the world system of ‘the beast,’ the entire economic and political organization by which he rules. ‘The harlot’  (Rev. 17) is the religious system that ‘the beast’ uses to help build his organization.” The next time someone quotes Psalm 2:8 out of context to you in an attempt to support the idea that the other races will have a place in the Kingdom, let them know very quickly that they are quite confused on Scripture. Let’s read that passage again and include verse 7:

“7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” The context is: the “Son” is Yahshua, and “the heathen” (rather “nations”), represent all of true Israel, and the “them” of verse 9 refers to the enemies of Israel or (verses 1-5) which we will now read:

“1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?  2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying, 3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. 4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. 5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”

While the word “heathen” at verse 1 is the same Strong’s #1471 as at verse 8, the context is not the same. Gesenius’ says this: “... The word is general, and used of the nations at large, and also (which should not have been doubted by some interpreters) of the Israelites, e.g. Isaiah 1:4; 9:2; 26:2 49:7 Gen. 35:11; 12:2 Psal. 33:12 ...”

Now we have to deal with verse 9 which is speaking of the “heathen” as we know them, or the other races that “rage”: “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Once we understand the impetus of verse 9, let’s consider Matthew 15:13 which says:“But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” From this passage, it is quite evident there are people living on this earth that the Almighty never planted [in other words, created]. This may come as a shock to some of you! But let’s take up this subject of “thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” I will now quote from Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible on Isaiah 30:8-17 [Isaiah 30:8]: “First, A surprising ruin: The breaking shall come suddenly, at an instant, when they do not expect it, which will make it the more frightful, and when they are not prepared or provided for it, which will make it the more fatal. Secondly, An utter ruin, universal and irreparable: ‘You and all your confidences shall be not only weak as the potter’s clay (ch. 29:16), but broken to pieces as the potter’s vessel. He that has the rod of iron shall break it (Ps. 2:9) and he shall not spare, shall not have any regard to it, nor be in care to preserve or keep whole any part of it. But, when once it is broken so as to be unfit for use, let it be dashed, let it be crushed, all to pieces, so that there may not remain one sherd big enough to take up a little fire or water’ — two things we have daily need of, and which poor people commonly fetch in a piece of a broken pitcher. They shall not only be as a bowing wall (Ps. 62:3), but as a broken mug or glass, which is good for nothing, nor can ever be made whole again.”

This matter about ruling “with a rod of iron” has two aspects: (1) Yahshua will rule the twelve tribes of Israel in that manner, and (2) He will, with His iron rod, destroy all of Israel’s enemies! In a publication by W. W. Wiersbe, 1996, Be Decisive, An Old Testament Study, he says the following about Jeremiah, the persecuted prophet (Jer. 19:1–20:6):

“In the Near East in that day, kings and generals often smashed clay jars in a special ceremony before they went out to battle, symbolic of their total defeat of their enemies. This image is also used of the Messiah in Psalm 2:9: ‘You shall break them [the enemy nations] with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’”

The idea that somehow we are to receive the “heathen” [other races] as our inheritance is simply preposterous! Not only are we not going to receive such a compensation, but they are to be destroyed forever. It is their land we will acquire, not them! After all the White people have been resurrected, (and they only will be so), we will need the entire earth for ourselves.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VIII, Augustin Expositions on the Book of Psalms: “For that rod is ‘a rod of iron;’ an inflexible rod. ‘Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron: and break them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’ Some He rules; others He ‘breaks in pieces.’”

The Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. 1997. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Ps 2:9-10): “His enemies shall be subject to His terrible power (Job 4:9; 2 Th 2:8), as His people to His grace (Ps 110:2, 3). rod of iron — denotes severity (Rev 2:27). a potter’s vessel — when shivered cannot be mended, which will describe utter destruction.”

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VIII, Augustin: Expositions on the Book of Psalms: “He ruleth us, being our King, lest we fall. But by ruling us He doth not break us; for whom He ruleth not, He breaketh. ‘Thou shalt rule them,’ saith He, ‘with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.’ But there are whom He ruleth not; these He spareth not, as a potter’s vessel dashing them in pieces.”

Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the New Testament (Rev. 19:1): “He is no longer on a humble donkey, but on a fiery white charger. His eyes are not filled with tears as when He beheld Jerusalem; nor is He wearing a mocking crown of thorns. Instead of being stripped by His enemies, He wears a garment dipped in blood, signifying judgment and victory. When on earth, He was abandoned by His followers; but here the armies of heaven follow Him in conquest. His mouth does not speak ‘words of grace’ (Luke 4:22), but rather the Word of victory and justice. See Isa. 11:4. He comes to rule with a rod of iron (Ps. 2). He comes not to bear the wrath of God on the cross, but to tread the winepress of God’s wrath at the Battle of Armageddon. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords!”

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. 1997. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments: “Hengstenberg similarly thinks that Matthew names Jeremiah, rather than Zechariah, to turn attention to the fact that Zechariah’s prophecy is but a reiteration of the fearful oracle in Jer. 18:1–19:15, to be fulfilled in the destruction of the Jewish nation. Jeremiah had already, by the image of a potter’s vessel, portrayed their ruin in Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion; and as Zechariah virtually repeats this threat, to be inflicted again under Messiah for the nation’s rejection of Him, Matthew, virtually, by mentioning Jeremiah, implies that the ‘field of blood’ (Mt 27:8, 9), now bought by ‘the reward of iniquity’ (Acts 1:18) in the valley of Hinnom, was long ago a scene of prophetic doom in which awful disaster had been symbolically predicted: that the present purchase of that field with the traitor’s price renewed the prophecy and revived the curse.”

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV, Disputation of the First Day: “But it is plain in the things themselves that there is no similarity between darkness and light, truth and falsehood, death and life, soul and body, and other similar things which differ from each other both in names and appearances. And for good reason did our Lord say: ‘The tree which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up and cast into the fire, because it brings not forth good fruit:’ ... Hence truly it follows from the reason of things that there are two substances in this world which agree in forms and in names, of which one belongs to corporeal natures, but the other is the eternal substance of the omnipotent Father, which we believe to be God’s substance.”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, Chapter XVI, Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and IrenaeDefaultText1 are? They are none other than the twelve tribes of Israel. After being divorced from the Almighty, they became “not a people”, and thus equal to non-Israelites. Anyone who unwittingly presumes that we are to inherit a bunch of non-whites as our inheritance simply doesn’t understand the basic racial thrust of Scripture! Those daffy ideas would be comical if they weren’t so serious! To show you this is the proper context of this passage, I will quote from ; background: white class=strongFranklin Gothic Bookus: “‘For many shall come in My name, clothed outwardly in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly being ravening wolves. By their works ye shall know them. And every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down and cast into the fire.’ And as to those who are not living pursuant to these His teachings, and are Christians only in name, we demand that all such be punished by you.”

Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume I, Chapter XXXVI: “Since the Son of God is always one and the same, He gives to those who believe on Him a well of water [springing up] to eternal life, but He causes the unfruitful fig-tree immediately to dry up; and in the days of Noah He justly brought on the deluge for the purpose of extinguishing that most infamous race of men then existent, who could not bring forth fruit to God, since the angels that sinned had commingled with them, and [acted as He did] in order that He might put a check upon the sins of these men, but [that at the same time] He might preserve the archetype, the formation of Adam. And it was He who rained fire and brimstone from heaven, in the days of Lot, upon Sodom and Gomorrah, ‘an example of the righteous judgment of God,’ that all may know, ‘that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down, and cast into the fire.’”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume VIII, section IV. — The Testament of Judah Concerning Fortitude, and Love of Money, and Fornication: “And after these things shall Abraham and Isaac and Jacob arise unto life, and I [Judah] and my brethren will be chiefs, even your sceptre in Israel: Levi first, I the second, Joseph third, Benjamin fourth, Simeon fifth, Issachar sixth, and so all in order. And the Lord blessed Levi; the Angel of the Presence, me; the powers of glory, Simeon; the heaven, Reuben; the earth, Issachar; the sea, Zebulun; the mountains, Joseph; the tabernacle, Benjamin; the lights of heaven, Dan; the fatness of earth, Naphtali; the sun, Gad; the olive, Asher: and there shall be one people of the Lord, and one tongue; and there shall no more be a spirit of deceit of Beliar, for he shall be cast into the fire for ever.”

This is simply amazing, for with this last quotation, we have one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers quoting from the Testament of Judah. We are told by many that these lost books were never “canonized”, and therefore we should pay no attention to them! Oh, I am sure there are a minor few “lost books” we should be careful with that cannot be trusted! Some in Identity don’t like the “lost books” because they teach and prove Two Seedline, like Testament of Judah speaking of “Beliar” in the passage above! Some of these same anti-seedliners, though, quote from the same Ante-Nicene Fathers, and yet, on the other hand, claim we shouldn’t quote from the same books that the Ante-Nicene Fathers cite. Talk about a false-hearted, double-dealing, double-standard. It can’t get any more two-faced than that! They continue to expand their bizarre allegation that the doctrine of Two Seedline can be found in the “Jew’s” Talmud, and try to insinuate that anything found from that source should be discredited. Amazingly, the Torah and the rest of Old Testament is the first volume of the Talmud. If we follow and accept their perverted line-of-reasoning, we would have to throw away the entire Old Testament from our Bibles. I will tell many of you who have been following such deceitful, double-dealing false-teachers, it is well past time to question every thing they promote. Start doing it yesterday! Why don’t you write or call them and ask them about the entire Old Testament being the Talmud! I’d like to hear some of their double-talk trying to explain that one! And if they don’t respond to your question, you will become keenly aware that they don’t have an answer! As any good legal representative might advise you, “put their feet to the fire.”

 

WERE THE NON-WHITE RACES CREATED?

 

Many years ago, when I used to be under the influence of the fundamental churches, I believed that the Almighty created everything, and that Satan could create nothing. I still hold to that belief to some extent. What I didn’t realize back then is the established fact that Satan has the ability to corrupt that which Yahweh has already created. It’s happening today, and it’s called “genetic engineering.” If you haven’t been following what they have been doing in that field, you need to catch-up on the latest. They are now injecting oyster DNA (an unclean crustacean) into corn, and human DNA into swine. Thus, if you’re eating pork, you’re committing a form of cannibalism. This is only part of the story. My point is, if the satanic forces of today can engineer genetics now, there is no reason they couldn’t have done it from the very beginning.

There has been a theory floating around Identity circles for years that the non-white races were created on the sixth day in the Genesis story, and that Adam was formed on the eighth day. My Bible only records seven “days” of creation, and they couldn’t have been 24 hour days, as the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day (Genesis 1:16-19). No place do I find an eighth day of creation mentioned! After I learned the Identity Truth, I read all the various opinions on the matter. About 18 years ago, while watching television, I happened on a station where some blacks were beating out their jungle music, and the lighting was such to cast their shadows on a wall in back of them. The shadow of one of the women was exactly like a small gorilla. That left me with an enduring impression that I couldn’t forget. Like so many things in this message, I put it on the back burner until the issue could be resolved.

Then, as I was in the process of preparing lesson #52 for August, 2002 on June 26, 2002, there was a special news segment on the Fox News channel at 9:50 A.M. concerning a topic which they dubbed “Wonder Boy.” I put this information in that Watchman’s Teaching Letter, but I will repeat it here. It was a segment about a boy from Kazakhstan in Russia, a region in central Asia, NE of the Caspian Sea, west of China. If you happened to catch that short portion of news, you can verify what I am about to relate. In my opinion, “Wonder Boy” is an excellent exhibit of a throwback of certain men to the animal stage. In fact the doctor, which the commentator was interviewing, called people like him “monkey men.” Further, they used the term “genetic mutation” in describing him. Asked if he would grow out of this condition, the doctor indicated the condition would “persist” throughout adulthood. He mentioned using hair laser treatment to get rid of the excessive amount of hair. The doctor also mentioned there were other examples like him in Mexico; citing a father and son in that category. The best description I could give of what I observed of “Wonder Boy” is that he appeared to be a cross between a Mongolian male and a chimpanzee ape, or possibly a capuchin monkey. Upon looking up pictures of monkeys, apes and gorillas in my Collier’s Encyclopedia, the facial features of the blacks appear to favor that of the gorilla.

I had heard stories that some of the Japanese prisoners captured during World War II actually had spurs of tails. When I saw that “Wonder Boy”, although his rear wasn’t exposed, my impression was that he was a throwback to the original genetic engineering of Satan and his fallen angels. If you have read all the proceeding, then you will remember that the Ante-Nicene Fathers also understood that the fallen angels “commingled” and formed “that most infamous race.” When I observed that “Wonder Boy”, I became convinced that the other races were never created, but are simply DNA genetic mutations. As a result of my two observations from television, I no longer subscribe to the sixth and eighth day creation theory.

I am now in the process of studying this subject from Scripture, and I am sure I can demonstrate that Adam was the only man Yahweh ever created (formed as it says in Genesis 2). I can show you only a small amount of my research in this short space. The sixth and eighth day creation advocates try to make a case that in Genesis 1 the word “creation” is used as opposed to the word “formed” in chapter 2. By this they assert that Adam was “formed”, not “created.” But yet if one will go to Genesis 5:2, (Adam’s genealogy) it states that Adam was created thus: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. The word “created” in both Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 are the same Hebrew word #1254 in Strong’s. So their whole premise is faulty, as both Adam and Eve were indeed “created.” Some go so far as claiming that Yahweh created two White races, which Scripture does not support. Some will try to assert that because Genesis 1:26-27 uses the word “man” instead of “Adam”, it was two separate actions, and that the “creation” of man in Genesis 1:27 was the creation of the non-Adamic races. There’s one huge problem with that theory, for in both 1:27 and 2:7 the Hebrew article ha is used (the Adam). Also, both passages use the Strong’s #120, which is the word for Adam-man. The implication being that if Yahweh didn’t create the other races, He didn’t say, in their case, “everything after his kind, and ... it was good.”

Probably one of the most absurd inferences, if Genesis 1:26-27 is the record of the creation of the other races, is the commission (office) that Yahweh gave them in Genesis 1:28 which reads: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” The other races have never fulfilled such a task as this, and never will. If that’s the true context of this passage, then the other races should “subdue” and “have dominion over” us. Well, surely it isn’t because they aren’t trying to accomplish such a thing! Go back and reread Psalm 2:2-3 again if you don’t think so!

It is only common sense and logic, then, if the Almighty continually said to have nothing to do with the other races, period, why did He “create” them and stick them with us? Or better stated, why did He “create” them that we might get stuck with them? There are two kind of “beasts”, talking and dumb!

In the next lesson, we’re going to investigate who’s Adam and who’s not, and who’s Israel and who’s not. 

This is my sixty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. With the last lesson, Watchman’s Teaching Letter #63, it might appear that I am straying off the subject of Daniel’s prophecies. If that is the impression you came to, I would assure you that I have only diverged from that topic in order to once more address the ever important subject of race. I found this reiteration on race necessary, as there is still a lot of confusion on this theme. You might also have gotten the impression from the last lesson that when I use the term “Israelite” that I am excluding all the other descendants of Adam, which I am not. When the designation “Israelite” is used, there is a definite association with the pre-Abrahamic descendants of Adam. To show you this, I will quote Deuteronomy 32:8 (KJV): “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” Therefore, if we don’t understand how “the most High separated the sons of Adam”, we cannot comprehend the entire thrust of Daniel’s prophecies.

Many ask the question, “What about the descendants of Ham and Japheth?” Inasmuch as I haven’t gotten deeply into that subject in the past, I will attempt to address that one with this lesson. So with the help of one of my proofreaders, William Finck, we will tackle that issue. Because the following represents some of his notes to me on this subject, and because I did not entirely quote him word for word, but paraphrase him at places and insert some of my own remarks, with his permission, I will dispense with the usual quotation marks. Just keep in mind that this composition is the product of two people (some his, some mine):

One thing that even Identity pastors miss on Psalm 2, which I addressed in lesson #63, and to understand that one, one must comprehend the concept of “the nations” (i.e. Gen. 10). This is the fact that “Israel” is not the White Race chosen by Yahweh in preference to non-white races. No, not at all in that sense. Rather, Israel is one branch, one family of the White Race, chosen and preserved by Yahweh in preference to all the rest of the White Race (Genesis 10 Nations), which has since been destroyed by mixing (voluntary or not) with the other non-white races (and the children of Cain). Except for the Arab (mixed multitude) peoples and the children of Cain, which are all despised and dispersed (among whom are Moab, Esau, etc.), the other races are not even on the Biblical radar screen! You can see from this, then, that if any of the White descendants of Adam are excluded, it’s because they didn’t keep their racial purity!

In light of everything, Psalm 2 may be interpreted thus: The “heathen” and “peoples” with their “kings” in that passage are the non-Israelite branches of the Adamic Race. The Anointed are the body of Christ, which is defined as the children of Israel with Yahshua as their head (King), which Paul describes. Peter uses this passage to describe Christ Yahshua himself (Acts 4), where it could be said that although that may be one fulfillment, the general fulfillment of Psalm 2 was when Israel was warred against and decimated by other Adamic Nations. So in this respect Psalm 2 is, like Genesis 3:15, applicable to both Yahshua Himself, and again to His people Israel.

A study of history will reveal that the children of Israel (as Greeks, Romans, Scythians, Saxons etc.) did gain dominion over or destroy all of the other Adamic Nations before those nations were overrun by non-white races. So we have a past fulfillment of this, and will get a future one because all unmixed Adamites will be resurrected (as Yahshua testified) and ruled by Him, with His administration chosen out of the children of Israel (the “Saints”). Hence the “kings, ... all ye that judge the earth, serve Yahweh with fear” (LXX), and surely the other races cannot do that! So, now we have a better understanding of Psalm 2, and who “the nations” are from the Old Testament before Israel’s dispersion, bringing us to a fuller perspective.

People are easily deceived because many terms have been twisted and corrupted. For instance, if one wants to find the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Canaanite variety of “Jews”, he surely can’t expect the prophecies concerning Judah to be applicable. Just because man confused the term, we can’t expect Yahweh to do likewise. So one must read the prophecies concerning Esau and Canaan to learn their ultimate fate. The same is true of the other races. If one wants to know about black “people” or mongolian “people” in the Old Testament, he must look up the phrases “beast” (where it applies) and “beast of the field.” It’s that simple, as the blacks and mongols aren’t even on the Biblical road map.

As it may be demonstrated, Yahweh even has a sense of humor (as Psalm 2:4 suggests): “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.” Now also see Isaiah 56:9: “All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.” I explained Isaiah 56: 1-8 in my brochure entitled The Lie Of Universalism #1, but I should have included verse 9. When verses 9 and 10 are included, we can see that Yahweh foresaw that the “dumb watchmen” (56:10) would screw up the meaning of Isaiah 56:1-8, and  allow the “beast of the field” (other races) to “devour” (mix with) the true children of Israel! How much plainer could it be? The other races are not even thought of in the Bible, except in this context. Any Identity minister who doesn’t realize this is one of those “dumb dogs.” And if the shoe fits, wear it!  Someone ought to have a very serious man-to-man talk with Arnold Murray of Shepherd’s Chapel fame!

You might be becoming aware that this subject correlates with our study on Daniel, as the Persians were our people, but were not under the Abrahamic Covenant. Though the Persians were Elamites of Shem’s line, they probably had a king of the Tribe of Judah, as did all the empires of Daniel 2 & 7 (possibly the Zerah branch). Many of the Genesis 10 peoples, descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth, can be identified in ancient history and archaeology. Genesis 10 is a snapshot of the Adamic Race some time early in the period between the Genesis 11 event (Babel) and the “call of Abraham.” All of the Genesis 10 nations which we can identify were alive and well (in a secular sense) at the call of Abraham, but later fell into a state of “universalism” and “multiculturalism.”

Possibly, Yahweh sent Abraham to Canaan because a judgment was about to come to Mesopotamia and northern Syria (which may have been the land of Arphaxad at that time). Shortly after Abraham’s departure we have (which the Bible does not record) the destruction of the cities such as Mari, Ebla, Nuzi, and the takeover of northern Syria and part of Anatolia by the Hurrians. The Kenites and Hittites rose to power after this, from which Abraham may have been saved.

While in Genesis 17 (and other places) Abraham was promised that his offspring would become many nations, surely that has been fulfilled in today’s White Israel Nations. The “Nations of the earth” which “shall be blessed in” Abraham, a promise going back to Genesis 18:18, speaks of the White Adamic nations of Abraham’s time — those of Genesis 10.

Yahweh gave all the Genesis 10 nations over to their own desires — they had all followed the ways of the heathen. It was for this reason that Israel was constantly warned not to follow such ways, and for this reason that, as outside the scope of the Bible, the entire Adamic world was being overrun, mongrelized and destroyed. Yet preservation was continually promised to Israel, [from who the White Nations of today are derived (except the Slavs, who may be Japhethites; see Genesis 9:27, of which a connection of the Slavs can be made to the Medes in Diodorus Siculus)]. Whether or not this is good or bad depends upon whether they kept their racial purity. If for a fact this is true, we may still have a few scattered pureblooded Japhethites among us today.

So an entire old White World was destroyed — bastardized, a process which took over 2000 years, and an entire new White World was created from the children of Israel (and probably some remnants of the other tribes, most surely), a process which also took over 2000 years. And today only one person in a million has any concept of this whatsoever! Well, maybe a handful in a million — but many in Identity don’t even realize the impact of this. In fact, with some of their bizarre, unreal and twisted teachings, they are actually aiding and abetting the continuation of that bastardizing process.

So, how were all of the old White Nations blessed in Abraham’s seed? Don’t take this statement wrong, but Yahweh married only Israel, and Israelites have a special future among the children of Adam, as kings and priests (priest-kings, or administrators). However, these administrators need something to administrate! Anyway, ALL ADAMITES have the Spirit of Yhwh, and all Adamites will be in the Resurrection, which Yahshua clearly illustrates at Matthew 12:41, 42 (Luke 11:31, 32) and which Job declares at 19:25-27 and 14:10-15, it being understood that Job was an Adamite but evidently not an Israelite. Because from Abraham’s seed the race was preserved and the Redemption process fulfilled (the murder of Yhwh in the flesh by the children of the dragon), all Adamites were freed of the false accuser and will be resurrected. The bigger picture is barely discussed because the focus is on the preserved Nation, Israel, and only Israel will marry the Lamb! ...

Paul’s mission to “the nations” (mistranslated as “Gentiles” in most Bibles), was surely directed toward Israel, and those long forgotten Israelite nations descended from Abraham. Yet at Athens (in Acts 17) the natives were actually (for the most part) Ionians, the children of Javan the Japhethite, which is the reason for much of Paul’s unusual discourse here. Most people do not realize that even in those late times, tribal divisions and differences in belief and custom distinguished most Greek cities. Paul understood that, although today’s ‘theologians’ do not. Without question, most, if not all of the recipients of Paul’s epistles (and visits) were to long-transplanted Israelites who happened to have among them communities (hence ‘synagogues’) of recently (at that time) migrated Judaeans, some of whom were Judah, and some obviously not.

Understanding the destination of the Genesis 10 nations allows one to appreciate so much greater the Promise by Yhwh of the preservation of Israel, even seeing that a great number of Israel fell victim to destruction also (Carthage, Greece, Italy, the Kelts of Anatolia etc.), so that even we in this age, may be considered but a remnant. With all of the troubles we endure now, surely we will yet be preserved to flourish again!

It is hoped that this larger picture of the term “nations”, with one application for the “Adamic Race” past, and another for the Christian Israelite nations of this age, has been illuminated sufficiently here, and understood and found to be agreeable by all concerned and to all whom it applies! As I stated previously, the greater part of this commentary is from another scholar. I will now continue with some thoughts of my own.

We first have to consider that the earth was entirely bastardized, except for eight people at the time of Noah. You might say, at that time, “the White Race was skating on mighty thin ice.” Had there been any other unmixed White people, at that time, they would have been on Noah’s Ark. When it says that Noah was “perfect in his generation” (RSV), it meant he and his immediate family were racially pure. Shortly after the flood, Ham looked upon his father’s nakedness (which was his mother), and his son, Canaan, by that union, was a product of incest. Now, if that doesn’t agree with your theology, maybe you better check Genesis 9:22; Leviticus 18:7; 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20 Ezekiel 22:10; 1 Corinthians 5:1; Amos 2:7; Genesis 35:22; 49:4; 1 Chronicles 5:1 and 2 Samuel 16:22! I covered all that in my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #25, May, 2000. As a result, Ham’s son Canaan was cursed and kicked out of the family, only to mix with the “serpent seed” of Cain. Cain is not Canaan and Canaan is not Cain, but their descendants eventually mixed together, acquiring a double-curse. Eventually, Ham’s name came to mean “black”, not because he wasn’t White, but probably because his descendants mixed with the darker races.

In the Bible (about 1500 B.C.), Egypt is called “the land of Ham.” The Egyptians are recorded to be the descendants of Mizraim, Gen. 10:6, 13, 14. It might have a double meaning, inasmuch as the Nile valley about five miles either side consists of very black soil. Yet again, it may be because some of the descendants of Ham settled there, or maybe both. Historically, we know that some of the descendants of Shem settled there and that many of the pharaohs were Shemites, particularly the pharaoh that gave Joseph a wife. Exodus 11:7 gives us reason to believe that the general population might have indeed been the descendants of Ham, which reads: “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that Yahweh doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.”

I would remind you what I wrote in the Watchman’s Teaching Letter #35 for March, 2001, which I will repeat here:

 

APARTHEID IN EGYPT FOR ISRAEL

 

We are told by many the people of Egypt were the same White stock of people as the Israelites. This is not entirely true. This is why it was so necessary for the Israelites to settle in an area where the two peoples wouldn’t mix. Even the standard Bible commentaries are aware of this. This from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 43, commenting on Genesis 46:31-34: “Before Joseph presented his family to Pharaoh, he gave them specific directions about how to reply to the ruler’s questions. When asked about their calling, they were to represent themselves as shepherds. Then Pharaoh would likely assign them the land of Goshen as their dwelling place. Goshen would provide excellent grazing for their flocks and herds. They would be together, and therefore well protected from mixing with other peoples.” [emphasis mine]

In the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 79, we have further confirmation that this was indeed the reason for the Israelites settling in a place where they could be isolated to themselves: “It was agreed that they would tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds. Since shepherds were despised by the Egyptians, Pharaoh would let them live in the land of Goshen, far away from the royal palace. There in Goshen they were isolated from social intercourse with the Egyptians, first because of their nationality (Gen. 43:32) and then because of their occupation. God (Yahweh) left them in this incubator until they were a strong nation, able to possess the land that He promised to their forefathers.”

We also know that on one occasion when the land of Canaan was having a drought, Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt for relief. Upon the pharaoh desiring Sarah, he was plagued by Yahweh, whereupon he gave Abraham much wealth and some Egyptian maid servants. Hagar was one of them. Evidently, Hagar wasn’t entirely white, as we are given witness at Galatians 4:29: “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” This passage can refer to none other than the hassle between Ishmael and Isaac, and the fact that Ishmael didn’t have the “Spirit” is damning evidence that his seed was not pure through his mother. If true, again the White Race was skating on mighty thin ice, for only one person stood between them (the kings and priests) and extinction. It should also be noted that Lot went along with Abraham on that occasion and got himself an Egyptian wife, which might explain much concerning the Ammonites and Moabites. I have much documentation that some of the Ammonites are now the Japanese.

Again, when Esau despised his birthright, which all race-mixers do, only one, in the person of Jacob, stood between the White Race of kings and priests and extinction. Are you getting the picture, or need I draw you a diagram?

How tragic, then, that we would esteem our heritage to such a low degree! How calamitous that we would view our race of no value, and go so far as to promote universalism!

If the seriousness of this matter of race wasn’t understood before, it should be now. And if one is any kind of man at all, he’ll write or call each and every one of the anti-seedliners and universalist so-called ministers or teachers in Identity and let them know he doesn’t appreciate their dangerous position. And if the men won’t do their job, the women will have to step in and do the men’s job for them. After all, all you she-bear women, the enemy has intruded between you and your cubs, and it’s time to show your claws. As I wrote in one of my brochures, They’re Your Children, Do You Really Care? It is quite evident that the anti-seedliners and universalists among us don’t care! All they care about is trying to gain some theological brownie points! And spurious points at that! And anytime they want to leave the movement, we can thank God and Greyhound they’re gone!

 

MORE ON THE NATIONS OF GENESIS 10SONS OF JAPHETH:

 

Gomer, Genesis 10:2: Gomer is difficult to document. Gomer’s sons surely occupied what we call southern Russia today. To what extent the early sons of Gomer absorbed alien races can not be estimated, however the entire region was eventually overrun by Asiatics by the end of the first Christian millennium. On Genesis 10:3, Of the sons of Gomer, the “Jew” Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe, written concerning the “Jewish” migration to Khazakstan, lists tribes which he purportedly documents to be descended from Togarmah, on page 72, which are: Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars and Sabir. Ashkenaz, surely a component of the ancient Jewish-Turk-Khazar trading empire (hence Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan now) supplies his name to what are otherwise called the “Russian” (Ashkenazi) “Jews” today.

Magog, Genesis 10:2: From the prophets can be discerned to have gone somewhere east into Asia, but where exactly cannot be known. Mongolia and Tibet, home of the ancient mixed races with a clear Adamic cultural influence, may be conjectured.

Javan, Genesis 10:2: In the Septuagint called z3Tb"< and in the prophets often where we find Ionian Greeks. Surely since they are called Yavana by the Shemitic Persians, Ionians dwelt in a region of Asia Minor and also founded and inhabited Athens and its environs. Tarshish, (Gen. 10:4): Herodotus wrote of Tartessus as a port city even before the time of the Trojan War (circa 1184 B.C.), surely corroborating King Solomon’s shipping industry. Unfortunately, before the end of the first millennium most Greek lands were overrun by Arabs, Mongols and Turks. The last holdouts, Constantinople and Greece itself, were conquered by the Turks in the 14th and 15th centuries AD. (Tiras  along with Javan’s three sons to be treated in the next lesson.)

Meshech & Tubal, Genesis 10:2: These two we will treat together. Over 1500 years before the Germanic Rus conquered the land which bears their name today, Ezekiel wrote of Rhos (LXX) or Rush (A.V.) being the leader (“prince”) of Magog, Meshech and Tubal (Ezek. 38). This is by no means coincidental! Whoever Magog may have been in prehistoric times, we can be certain that his descendants are found among those gigantic (“Gog”) mixed masses of Caucasian-Mongol-Chinese/whatever blood, who are found inhabiting much of Russia today.

In light of the relationship which the Rus were to have with Magog, Meshech and Tubal, which Ezekiel 38 illustrates, Herodotus mentions two tribes among those under Persian domination, the “Moschi” and “Tibareni”  (Herodotus 3:94 and 7:78) in a convenient geographic region that without stretching the imagination, we may associate these ancient Japhethites with the dwellers around the Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk today, however it is certain that at some point in time all of the peoples have mingled with pre-Adamic races related to those of the Orient.

Madai, Genesis 10:2: That Madai is identifiable with the Medes should be evident simply by checking both terms in Strong’s Concordance. The Greeks wrote “Mede” as 9­*@l, the “0” in English being an ‘a’ or an ‘ê’ or ‘e’. Herodotus (7:62) wrote that, “These Medes were anciently called by all people Arians” although it was more likely that the term “Aryan” was rather used by Israelites who once sojourned in Media ... the Greeks had Israelites in Media confused with actual Medes.

THE SONS OF HAM: Cush, Genesis 10:6: There were two lands of Cush. The first, known to the Greeks (and so to us) as Ethiopia, appears everywhere in the Bible as the word from the Hebrew for Cush. Ethiopia in Africa, once White, as can be discerned from the meaning of the Greek word, and p style=,sans-serif/spanfrom the Bible and Greek historians, was overrun by Nubians in the 8th century B.C. While that did not totally destroy the country, during the Christian era all of the White Cushite blood has been lost. The second Cush, at one time, may have been near Mesopotamia, where some of the Midianites dwelt (Exodus 2, Numbers 12) and extended east toward India. This is supported by Genesis 2:13, and the fact that there are Hindu-Kush mountains in northern India today. Distinct from those of Africa, the Greek poets and historians (Hesiod, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus) often mention the “Ethiopians of the east” and relate that Memnon, King of Ethiopians built Susa, capital city of Persia. Abraham’s children by Keturah, Midian among them, were sent off to the east (Gen. 25:1-6). Surely Hebrew and Greek historians coincide quite well. Of course, there are no White races left in this area today with which to identify these Cushites. However, Northern India has a long, long history of western influence.

Mizraim, Genesis 10:6: Mitsrayim is the Hebrew for “Egypt” everywhere in the Old Testament. At that time Egypt was the Nile River valley and the Delta, as far as Elephantine. To what extent the Mizraimites may have mixed with aboriginal populations before Joseph sojourned there can not be estimated. However, the Egypt of Joseph was quite different, and not dominated by Mizraim.

Of the sons of Mizraim, the Anamim were named in an inscription and likely inhabited an area at or in the vicinity of later day Cyrene. The word Naphtuhim seems to be Egyptian for “people of the Delta”, Pathrusim for “people of the southern land.” Caphtor was a district in Egypt, and the Philistim, or Philistines, left Egypt to settle in Palestine. The Ludim in Egypt are often mistaken by the translators for Lud, son of Shem.

Put, Genesis 10:6: Often the prophets associated with Libya (a name coming from an alien tribe, the Lubim) as did the early translators, yet it can be demonstrated from early Greeks that civilized Whites did inhabit the Mediterranean coasts of Africa (and were not Phoenicians), an actual linkage of any of these people with the name Put is not yet detected.

Canaan, Genesis 10:6: Canaan was cursed, and any discussion of him must be reserved for an investigation of the descendants of Cain via admixture (Gen. 15:19-21).

Of the sons of Cush, Sheba, Genesis 10:7: Sheba (as opposed to the Sheba of Joktan, Gen. 10:28) was a district near Ethiopia in Africa (see Strong’s #7614) and is often mentioned along with Dedan in the prophets. Sheba and Seba are mentioned together at Psalm 72:10. Like Ethiopia, Egypt was also overrun, and ruled for many years, by Nubians (a black race), an event from which she never really recovered, in the 8th century B.C. Eventually all of the Hamites became mingled with the black races of Africa which, along with the Arab incursions and the earlier Phoenician settlements, gives us today’s Berbers, Moors, Ethiopians, and the continent’s many other mixed races.

THE SONS OF SHEM: Elam, Genesis 10:22: Everywhere we find Elam in the Bible, we find people later known as Persians in secular history. Along with Madai (Gen. 10:4) Elam formed the Medo-Persian Empire of historic times. Much later these two tribes, along with many of the Israelites deported to Babylon, formed the Parthian Empire. Iran, originally Ariana, a part of Parthia was overrun first by Arabs, and later by Mongols and Turks, creating the mixed race which resides there today.

Asshur, Gen. 10:22: The Assyrians, who became a great empire, but mixed with the Hittites, Horites (Hurrians) and others at an early time, although surely many pure Assyrians must have existed at the time of the prophet Jonah (i.e. 3:8), who urged them to repent. Assyria was destroyed, along with its capital Ninevah, about 625 B.C. by the Scythians (Israelites) and the Medes (Madai).

Lud, Genesis 10:22: The Lydians of Asia Minor, only mentioned elsewhere by the prophet Isaiah at 66:19 (an event fulfilled by the Israelite Kelts), all other mentions of Lud or (by error) Lydians in the Old Testament are actually Ludim, sons of Egyptian Mizraim. Before the Etruscans were descended from the Lydians as recorded by both Herodotus & Tacitus.

Aram, Genesis 10:22: Everywhere the word Syria appears in the Bible, the Hebrew word is Aram. This word is also the root of Aramaic, one of the languages of Palestine. Originally Aram was centered in Damascus. The ancient Greeks spoke of Cinyrus, a Syrian who colonized Cyprus, although he may have been a Phoenician. Jacob took wives of “Laban the Syrian”, although he too was a descendant of one of Abraham’s brothers.

Eber, Gen. 10:24: From Eber we have the name “Hebrews.” Eber, Strong’s #5677, is the same as a word meaning “across” or “opposite.” Hence we have Eber’s name in many places on the opposite side of the Mediterranean from Palestine: The Iberian Peninsula, the Ebro river in Spain, Hibernia which we know today as Ireland, and Hebrides, islands off Scotland. Later one of the first countries inhabited by the deported Israelites, near the Caucasus Mountains, was also called Iberia, and Diodorus Siculus mentions a Hebrus river in Illyria. Of course, the Israelites descended from Eber.

Joktan, Gen. 10:26-29: Only a few of Joktan’s sons will be mentioned here briefly, Sheba was an ancient kingdom in what we know as Yemen. Ophir must have been on the east coast of Africa. It is the source of the name Africa, the original Latin being Afer. Jobab, meaning “father Job”, may very well be the Job of our Book.

Summary thus far on Genesis 10 on what we have here presented (more to come in later lessons): This record in Genesis 10 is, more or less, a “snapshot” of our race as it was originally dispersed after those events which are represented by the Tower of Babel story recorded in Genesis 11. There are at least 1500 years between this dispersion and the time of Moses, the author of our record. Surely many of these people spread out further, mingled with others, or moved entirely during these 1500 years. However, at the time of Moses, there are no Europeans other than the few Japhethite settlers of the Mediterranean coasts!

It can be shown that all of the Northern and Western Europeans, as well as many of those original Eastern and Southern ones, were actually the children of Israel. For this one must realize the origins of the Phoenicians, the Danaans, the Dardans (and Dorians and Latins) and then the Scythians and Kelts. These must, of course, all be discussed individually.

With all of the formerly White Adamic nations except those left of Israel being completely overrun and destroyed by the other races, and today being among the poorest and lowest, backward, “third world” countries, you would think that Israel would learn from this. You would think that finally we would see the importance of being a separate people (Exod. 19:5, 33:16, Deut. 14:12. 26:18, Titus 2:14 and I Peter 2:9-10)! Of course we haven’t because we are ignorant of history!

This is only the beginning of volumes that could be written on this subject, which I will continue. This represents only a nucleus which could be expanded into a great study by those interested in preserving our origins. But instead, the White Race is swiftly going to hell in a hand basket, and who really cares? Surely not the anti-seedliners or universalists!

This should now give you some idea of who’s Adam and who’s not and who’s Israel and who’s not. Also, it should be very clear that the table of nations in Genesis 10 concerns itself only with the sons of Noah, and they were all White, at least at that time. It would be well, then, to cite the prophecy which states the fact that what was happening immediately prior to Noah’s flood would happen again in the end days. It is found at Matthew 24:37-38:“37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark ...” While much of the prophecy of Matthew 24 has already happened, this passage we are seeing fulfilled before our very eyes. The “marrying and giving in marriage” mentioned in these two verses was the miscegenation between angel-kind and Adam-kind which produced mutated giants. Today we are witnessing a similar condition. I recently heard that 90% of young people now look with favor on race-mixing. That should give one some idea just where we are on Yahweh’s time-clock.

(Note: This summary on the Genesis 10 nations are from notes by William Finck. I will continue using his notes in the next lesson when going into a little more detail on this subject.)

 

This is my sixty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. In the last lesson, Watchman’s Teaching Letter #64, we covered the demise of the Genesis 10 White Adamic table of nations. Today there is little left of them in their original racial integrity except for the true descendants of Jacob-Israel. With this lesson we will continue the same subject in somewhat greater detail. Again I will be using the notes of William Finck as a guideline for this, with some of my own comments appended. Therefore I will dispense with the usual quotation marks:

The Race of Genesis 10: We are only going to travel the history of this planet once. There are no second chances. One history, one Bible, one trek from the garden of Eden to the gathering of the Wheat. If we find not the foundations of our race in Genesis chapter 10, then our history, along with our Bible, is absolutely unreliable and we are mired in futility! I (William) often begin oral explanations of Genesis 10 by quoting Epictetus, copied from the opening pages of Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: άρχὴ παιδεύσεως ἡ τῶν ỏνομάτων ἐπίσκεψις, or “the beginning of learning is the investigation of names.” And I must agree with Epictetus!

The chronology of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible may be more reliable than the Masoretic Text, and according to many (e.g. Adam Rutherford) from that source the date of the flood of Noah may be fixed around 3245 B.C. I would purport that Genesis 10 is a snapshot, a profile of those tribes from which our race — the family of Noah — first blossomed in the first few centuries after the Deluge. I would think that, five thousand years ago, one would find no “Aryan” or “Caucasian” civilization outside of these Genesis 10 people — and that all of these people are indeed “Aryan” or “Caucasian.” It is certainly no mistake, that as it may be made evident here, so many of the tribes listed in Genesis 10 are found with names similar to those gleaned from the earliest secular records of our race. Although it is frustrating that some of the Genesis 10 people seem to have vanished at an early time, too early to be identified in secular records uncovered thus far (that I, William, have found), surely enough of these people may be identified that one may see the truth of these words concerning Genesis 10 fully demonstrated. [Haberman’s Tracing Our Ancestors p.9, has it 2344 B.C. likely MT]

Genesis 10:2-3: The historian Josephus made the mistake of associating Gomer with the Kelts, an error probably derived from an early Greek name for them, 54::XD4@4, and many of his copyists have followed this mistake, which is based solely upon this weak phonetic similarity. That the Kelts sprang from a portion of the children of Israel deported by the Assyrians (see Missing Links Discovered In Assyrian Tablets by E. Raymond Capt) is evident from many factors, including their late (7th century B.C.) appearance in history, their location today, and their role in early history in fulfillment of many of the prophecies concerning Israel. However that discussion is beyond the scope of my purpose here. Simply note that the “Galatians” of Paul’s epistle are Kelts, and Paul was writing to Israelites.

At this point, I (Clifton) will interrupt William for an interesting item found in The Ancient World Of The Celts by Peter Berresford Ellis. While Ellis is a profound researcher and author of many books on the subject, he is blind to the truth that the Celts were Israelites. On page 15 he states: “I find that it is not stretching the imagination to suggest that when the Greek merchants first started to encounter the Celtic peoples and asked them who they were, the Celts simply replied. ‘the hidden people’— that is, to Greek ears, Keltoi.”

That should immediately set off a signal in our minds, as Psalm 83:3 should instantly be recalled which says: “They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.” While the Kelts had the veil of darkness over them by Yahweh, at least they understood they were “hidden”, and informed the Greeks in an allegorical statement to that fact. This comment by the Kelts is simply amazing.

Now, back to Bill: By contrast, in Ezekiel 38, Gomer is allied with those in opposition to the children of Israel, which makes it easy to accept the statement which A. Koestler, on page 72 of his book The Thirteenth Tribe (bear in mind that Koestler, a “Jew”, writes from a “Jewish” perspective) claims that Togarmah, Gomer’s son, is the common ancestor of the Uigur, Dursu, Avars, Huns, Basilii, Tarniakh, Khazars, Zagora, Bulgars and Sabir. Surely the Biblical prophecies indicate that Gomer’s descendants are to be found among the Asiatic hordes of this age.

Riphath, another of Gomer’s sons, is unmentioned elsewhere in the Bible (except for a copy of Genesis 10 found at 1 Chronicles, chapter 1). Ashkenaz, however, is easily identified. Mentioned in Jeremiah 51:27 along with Ararat and Minni (both part of modern Armenia), Ashkenaz is there shown to be not far from the ancient land of the Khazars, once a great empire and of which modern Kazakhstan is a remnant. In the first millennium many of the Edomites and Canaanites who had adopted Judaism migrated to Khazaria, and had converted a great many Khazars to Judaism, including the Emperor of the Khazars. The “Jews” being absorbed into the general population, these people later adopted the name Ashkenaz, or “Ashkenazi Jews”, for Ashkenaz was recognized as an ancestor of the original Caucasian population of the area.

As was mentioned in lesson #64, and will be repeated here: Over 1500 years before the Germanic Rus conquered the land which bears their name today, Ezekiel wrote of Rhos (LXX) or Rush (A.V.) being the leader (“prince”) of Gog, Meshech and Tubal (Ezek. 38). This is by no means coincidental! Whoever Magog may have been in prehistoric times, we can be certain that his descendants are found among those gigantic (“Gog”) mixed masses of Caucasian-Mongol-Chinese-whatever blood who are found inhabiting much of Russia today.

In light of the relationship which the Rus were to have with Magog, Meshech and Tubal, which Ezekiel 38 illustrates, Herodotus mentions two tribes among those under Persian domination, the “Moschi” and “Tibareni”  (Herodotus 3:94 and 7:78), in a convenient geographic region that without stretching the imagination, we may associate these ancient Japhethites with the dwellers around the Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk today. However, it is certain that at some point in time all of these peoples have mingled with pre-Adamic races related to those of the Orient.

That Madai is identifiable with the Medes should be evident simply by checking both terms in Strong’s Concordance. The Greeks wrote “Mede” as Μῆδος, the “η” in English being either an ‘a’ or an ‘ê’ or ‘e’. Herodotus (7:62) wrote that, “These Medes were anciently called by all people Arians” although it is more likely that the term “Aryan” was rather used by Israelites who once sojourned in Media (with which Dr. G. Moore agrees in his The Lost Tribes And The Saxons Of The East And The Saxons Of The West), since the term “Arya” seems to be “mountain of Yahweh” in Hebrew (i.e. Daniel 2:45), and that the Greeks had Israelite tribes in Media confused with actual Medes. Regardless, with the Medes fulfilling a destiny in history which the prophets had already assigned to Madai (Isaiah 21; Jeremiah 25:25; 51:11, 28 and Daniel 8), there should be no doubt as to this identification.

It may well be that the Medes are found in the Slavs of today. The Slavs may be, at least in part, traced to a people that Romans and Greeks called Sarmatians (Sauromatae). Diodorus Siculus, discussing certain Sakae (Scythian) kings, (2:43:5-7) states that “It was by these kings that many of the conquered [by the Scythians] peoples were removed to other homes, and two of these became very great colonies: the one was composed of Assyrians and was removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus, and the other was drawn from Media and planted along the Tanaïs, its people receiving the name Sauromatae. Many years later this people became powerful and ravaged a large part of Scythia.” If this is so, and we have so many Slavs among us today, that such must be the fulfillment of Genesis 9:27, for we Germanic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon and Keltic peoples are descendants of the Scythian-Israelites, and the true Semites. [For to “dwell in the tents of Shem” implies that Japheth was absorbed and became part of Shem’s family.]

The next of Japheth’s sons to be discussed is Javan. Strong, in his Concordance, identifies Javan with the Ionian Greeks, and the Septuagint translators seem to also, rendering the Hebrew word #3120 as Ἰωύαν (Iōuan). This is not without reason, for on the Behistun Rock (and other Eastern inscriptions) the Greeks are called “Yavana”, and Sir Henry Rawlinson wrote “Ionians” there in his famous translation of that inscription. Other Persian inscriptions assure this same connection (see G. Moore’s The Lost Tribes... and E. R. Capt’s Missing Links...). These Ionians once inhabited the coasts of Anatolia (Turkey today) and many of its islands, that land called Ionia generally, and also were the founders and principal inhabitants of Athens.

Of the sons of Javan, all are identified with the sea trade with Tyre in Ezekiel chapter 27: Elishah at 27:7, Tarshish at 27:12, Kittim (or Chittim) at 27:6 and in the Septuagint, Dodanim which is a mistake by the Hebrew copyists for Rodanim (as Strong’s attests), at 27:15 (where the A.V. has “Dedan”), or “Rhodians” (Ῥόδιοι) in the LXX.  Elishah and Kittim are both identified with Cyprus, with several varying spellings of these names found in ancient inscriptions.  Kittim is the word for Cyprus throughout the Hebrew prophets.   Rodanim are the Greeks of Rhodes, as identified in the LXX.  Tarshish is a region of southern Spain known as Tartessus.  The Ionians (or Javan) are connected with Tyrian sea trade also at Ezek. 27:13 and 19, mentioned with Dan: for a portion of that tribe also settled Greece at an early time, and were known as Danaans.

The ships of “Tarshish” are mentioned in Kings, Chronicles, Psalms and several of the prophets. Although a separate and quite lengthy topic, it can be convincingly demonstrated that the “Phoenicians” of Tyre and elsewhere were the Israelites — called Phoenicians by the Greeks, right from the pages of the Bible, with much evidence also added by secular historians. Carthage was a Phoenician colony of Tyre, and the Carthaginians eventually controlled the land we call Spain today, then called Iberia, “Hebrew” or “Eber” land, just as the land south of the Caucasus mountains, where the deported Israelites first settled and became known as Scythians, was also called Iberia even in Roman times.

Diodorus Siculus (25:10:1 ff.) discusses wars between the Carthaginian Hamilcar Barca and the “Iberians and Tartessians” in the third century B.C. Herodotus (4:152) is writing about a period much earlier than his own, even predating the Trojan War, and says, “This trading town was in those days a virgin port, unfrequented by the merchants.” The Trojan War was 200 years before King Solomon’s ships, so maybe Herodotus was correct. Surely Herodotus’ calling Tartessus a “trading town” illuminates the Scriptural record. In their Greek-English Lexicon, the learned Liddell & Scott readily identify Τάρτησσος as “the Tarshish of Scripture.”

The last Japhethite tribe to discuss is Tiras, or in Strong’s Hebrew spelling, Thiyrac. Although I have no recorded sources for a connection, many modern writers have made perfect etymological sense in presenting Thrace as the habitation of these people.

Modern anthropologists, archaeologists and historians often discuss the “sea peoples” whom they usually claim were Caucasians who came from the Aegean area and invaded the Mediterranean. The true origin of these “sea peoples” are as the Japhethites of Genesis 10, who were spread along the waterways from the Caspian and Black Seas and as far west as Spain, and at a very early time. Contrast Genesis 10:5 with 10:20 and 10:31, where the Japhethites are specifically assigned the “isles” or “coastlands”, but not the Hamites or Shemites.

Genesis 10:6-14: Before beginning a discussion of Ham, or his son Kush (or Cush), it is quite important to acquire an understanding of the word “Ethiopian”, as the Greeks called the Kushites, as the word is often translated in our Bibles and as we call the people inhabiting the land of Kush in Africa today. Our “Ethiopian” comes from the Greek word Αἰθίοψ which properly means “shining face”, “glowing face” or “sun-burnt face”, and was certainly not used by the earliest Greek writers to describe the dark races. There are several words used to describe “black”, “swart”, “dark”, etc. in Greek which are applied to people. Among them are μέλας, κελαινός, πελός and φαιός. Other words meaning “dark”, but seemingly not applied to people, are σκότος, κνέφας, γνόφος, δνόφος, ζόφος and ζόφερος.

A word akin to Αἰθίοψ is αἰθός, which the large 9^th edition of Liddell & Scott defines as “burnt...II. shining...red-brown...”. The 1996 Revised Supplement to this edition inserts after burnt “perhaps black- or dark-complexioned”, and emends shining to bronze-coloured. The black I must reject. Red-brown describes a sun-tanned Caucasian, and not a dark-skinned negro who only gets blacker in the sun.

Other words related to Αἰθίοψ are: αἴθων “fiery, burning ... of metal, flashing, glittering ...”; αἴθω “to light up, kindle ...”; αἴθρη “clear sky, fair weather”; αἶθοψ, the closest, “fiery-looking, of metal, flashing; of wine, sparkling”, but according to Liddell & Scott, someone recorded in the Greek Anthologies, a late and wide collection of Greek inscriptions mostly from well into the first millennium A.D., either translated or used αἶθοψ as “swart, dark.” However, this is clearly contrary to the true spirit of the word’s meaning. Applied to Kush, a White man, or his White descendants, could only mean “sun-burnt” as in bright red or brassy-colored, which is something which happens only to Caucasians in the outdoors and is exactly what one may expect Kushites in Ethiopia to look like!

Moses fled Egypt, as recorded in Exodus chapter 2, and met with the Midianites, descendants of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:1-2) from whom he took a wife. These Midianites lived in the land of Kush, as can be discerned from Numbers chapter 12. Abraham had sent his sons with Keturah “east- ward, unto the east country” (Gen. 25:6), and surely this “east country” is that called Kush in Genesis 2:13, beyond Mesopotamia, to where we have the Hindu-Kush mountains today. Or at least somewhere between the Euphrates and that country, as we will soon see from the Greek writers. Moses did not go to Ethiopia in Africa for his wife, and there are no Midianites ever spoken of there.

In Hesiod’s “Theogony”, probably written in the 8th century B.C., Memnon, legendary king of the Ethiopians, was the son of Eos, or “Light.” In the “Aethiopis” by Arctinus of Miletus, written as a sequel to Homer’s Iliad, Memnon the Ethiopian aided the Trojans in the war against the Greeks, only to be slain by Achilles. Herodotus (3:94) mentions the “Ethiopians of Asia”, and although he also describes black and wooly-haired Ethiopians (3:101; 7:70), I will refer to Diodorus Siculus for a more complete picture below. Herodotus calls Susa, the famed capital city (along with Persepolis and also the Median city Ecbatana) of the Persian Empire, the “city of Memnon” (5:53-54), since the Greeks believed that Memnon founded that city.

Diodorus Siculus, relating the tradition concerning Memnon, has Ethiopia in Asia sending aid to the Trojans, including Assyrians and “men of Susiana” (2:22:1-5, 4:75:4). So the Greeks have many witnesses of an Ethiopia in Asia, in lands and cities known to be inhabited by Caucasians, and with people taking part in some of the first events recorded by the Caucasians of Europe. Thus, the Hebrews have a Kush in a land which may be supposed to be the same as the Greek, if not close, yet the Hebrew record is not much earlier than the events the Greeks were recording. As a third witness, we have a Kush on our own modern maps not much further east than where we may assume that the ancient district was situated. This surely can not be coincidental, especially considering the reference in Genesis 2:13, mentioned previously.

Now to turn to the Kush, or Ethiopia, of Africa. In the first eleven chapters of his third book, Diodorus draws from earlier historians (as he always did) to describe the various peoples of African, Ethiopia and the various tribes contrast with one another quite starkly. The first “Ethiopians” he discusses are endowed with what we may consider a well-developed form of “western civilization”, for he states “they say that they were the first to be taught to honor the gods and to hold sacrifices and processions and festivals.” They quote Homer in reference to themselves (Iliad 1:423-24), they recount the unsuccessful invasions into their country by Cambyses and Semiramis, and they claim that the Egyptians were originally Ethiopian colonists, led by Osiris. The two types of their writing (like Egypt) popular (demotic) and sacred (hieroglyphic), are described, and it is said that the sacred is common among these Ethiopians. Their priests were much like the Egyptian. They believed that their kings gained sovereignty by Divine Providence, their laws and punishments were from custom, and they practiced the same flight of refuge which the Greeks did, which was similar to the Hebrew Levitical cities of refuge. An Ethiopian king under Ptolemy was educated in Greece and studied Philosophy, and aside from a few odd customs there is no reason to believe that these Ethiopians, whose physical characteristics were not mentioned, were anything but civilized, and not much different than the rest of “western” society.

In stark contrast to those Ethiopians first discussed, starting at 3:8:1, Diodorus says: “But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, [here it is made apparent that, like “Phoenicia” and other labels, “Ethiopia” has become only a geographic designation], some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighboring country of Arabia [between the Nile and the Red Sea], and others residing in the interior of Libya [the rest of Africa — Sudan here]. The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in color and have flat noses and wooly hair.” Here it is evident that Diodorus is describing the Nubians and other wandering black tribes of the region. He continues: “As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast ... and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another ... and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life ... they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.”

So surely it seems here that if we do not have a White culture in Ethiopia in an era not long before Diodorus’ own, we certainly have at least a remnant of one. Ezekiel 30 lists Ethiopia among “all the mingled people”, and all of this fits very well with a once-Caucasian but now adulterated Kush in that region.

To briefly revisit the Asian portion of Kush, in his book The Lost Tribes pp. 148-150, Dr. Moore proposes that the word “Kush” may be the underlying root of “Khazar” and “Cossack” (Kush, Kosa, etc.), and hence the ancestors of those people which later became prominent, and among those set to fulfill the destiny set for them in Ezekiel 38 and other prophecies are very likely revealed.

Surely Mitsrayim, or Mizraim, is Egypt. Where the Old Testament reads “Egypt”, in all places the Hebrew reads “Mitsrayim.” The term “Egypt” is that used throughout Greek literature, “Aegyptus.” Mitsrayim was not Egypt as we know it, but only a much smaller district along both banks of the Nile. The early Greeks seem to have written little about Egypt outside of Thebes and Heliopolis, although I still have reading to do in that period so I can’t comment fully on the matter. There is much to be said about early Egypt that is beyond the scope of this discussion, but warrants at least a mention. First, early Egypt actually consisted of several alien cultures adverse to one another and eventually amalgamated, which was surely not a good idea. The pharaonic civilization in Egypt appeared rather suddenly, not long after 3000 B.C., consistent with Septuagint chronology. There were actually two groups in early Egypt, centuries apart, remembered as “Hyksos.” The first group little is known about, a noble Adamic race, probably Shemites and maybe even Hebrew, who built the Great Pyramid. The second were Kenites who invaded and occupied the Delta shortly before the Genesis account of Joseph. During the tῬόδιοιfont-family: span style=ime of Joseph, the Pharaohs at Thebes were of the House of Shem, as was the priesthood of On (Heliopolis or Beth-Shemesh). It was these Egyptians whom Joseph was sold to as a slave.

There are nearly 1800 years between the time of the Deluge and the writing of the Pentateuch, and about 800 more to the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah — all of this time the various tribes of Adamites were seeking new and better land throughout the known world and points beyond. With so few written records, how difficult it is to determine their movement. Homer, the earliest Greek writer we know of, was contemporary with Hosea and Isaiah, rather late in the history of Israel!

It is difficult to discern why the name Phut was associated with Libya (see Nahum 3:9), and in the Septuagint, as well as the A.V., it was translated as such at Ezekiel 30:5, 38:5 and Jeremiah 46:9 (LXX 26:9). The Lubim (hence “Libya”) and Sukkim (2 Chron. 12:3) may have been pre-Adamic (aboriginal) people, and it may well be that our writers of Scripture knew that Phut had mingled with these. Like Kush, Phut is listed among “all the mingled people” at Ezekiel 30:5.

Diodorus Siculus (20:55) writes of Libyans dwelling on Africa’s northern coast, in cities, and friendly to Carthage, but then of the nomadic “Lybians” of the interior, hostile to Carthage. He does not, however, describe Libyan or Carthaginian physically. Hesoid, probably a contemporary of Isaiah, writing in his “Catalogues of Women” (fragment 40A) mentions both the “boundless black-skins and the Lybians” but says that from Epaphus, son of Chronos, “sprang the dark Libyans and high-souled Ethiopians”, but also the “underground folk and feeble-pygmies.” Surely the more reliable early source may be Aeschylus (a writer contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah), who in his “Suppliant Maidens” at lines 277-290 lists a group of races and compares the likeness of their women to those of the (“Greek”) Danaans, among those mentioned being Libyans, Egyptians and Amazons, very likely indicating some degree of homogenization among these people. Aeschylus is relating a parody of events which transpired a thousand years before his own time: the migration of Dan from Egypt to Greece.

In this age we have a mixed race, the Berbers, as evidence of a former White civilization in this region, although the settlements of the Phoenicians, the later Germanic invaders of Carthage, the Vandals, and then the rise of Mohammedism all did much to further confound an already mingled North African world.

Mitsraim, Kush, and Phut, the Ludim of Genesis 10:13 (not of Lud the son of Shem discussed below), and the Lubim (Lybians) are all mentioned in one or more of the following verses (sometimes with other people): Ezekiel 27:10; 30:5; 38:5; Nahum 3:9; 2 Chron. 12:3 and 16:8. Since Ezekiel 38 is unfulfilled, it may be clear that the Arab (meaning “mixed”, see Strong #6154, the result of which is described in Strong #6150) peoples descended from them will be opposed to the children of Israel (not the “Jews”) in the last days.

The Anamin of Genesis 10:13 are likely the “Anami” mentioned in an 8th century B.C. cuneiform inscription. Naphtuhim may be a word borrowed from Egyptian meaning “people of the delta,” Pathrusim “people of the southern land.”

The Philistim, or Philistines, had dwelt in the land of Caphtor before their own migration to Palestine (an unrelated word), and Caphtor was very probably in Egypt. See Amos 9:7, Deut. 2:23 and Jer. 47:4. Certainly the Philistines were Adamic (Zech. 9:6), and some had surely migrated west with the children of Israel (Isaiah 11:14). Goliath was not actually a Philistine, but rather a mercenary in their army, one of the sons of Rapha the Canaanite giant. Of which see 1 Chronicles 20:4-6, where “the giant” is in Hebrew ha-rapha, the source of the Rephaim (i.e. Genesis 14:5; 15:20; 2 Samuel 5:18; 23:13 et al). There also should be noted an obscure entry in Herodotus, at 2:128: “Hence they [the Egyptians] commonly call the pyramids after Philition, a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place.” Some suppose that this may be a memory of ancient Philistines in Egypt, and the first “shepherd kings”, connected to the building of the Great Pyramid.

With Nimrod we may very well have mention of both the first Adamite tyrant, a man who would rule over his kin outside of the laws of God, and the first multicultural “empire,” since the cities mentioned had long existed and were populated with peoples of other races. There is much evidence that the beginnings of “western” civilization appeared rather suddenly here in Mesopotamia, by which the Genesis 11 account has much creditworthiness once it is realized that this represents the beginning of the White race, and not all races.

Genesis 10:15-19: Canaan, Ham’s youngest son, was cursed by Noah. The reason why Canaan, and not Ham himself and his other sons, was cursed should be apparent reading Leviticus 20:11. Canaan was the result of Ham’s illicit behavior — warranting his special mention at Genesis 9:18. Canaan’s descendants are later found mixed with the race of Cain (Genesis 4:16-26; 15:19-21; Deut. 7:1-2), who was also cursed (Genesis 4:10-15), and several races with no Biblical genealogy, indicating that they are of non-Adamic (non-white) origin. Some of the “ites” here in Genesis 10:16-18 also may well be of non-Adamic stock, races that the Canaanites mixed with rather than races which sprung from Canaan. The “Hivites” may actually, in all occurrences, be a scribal error for “Horites”, evident by comparing Genesis 36:2, 20, 30, and also the LXX at Genesis 34:2 and Joshua 9:7. The Horites, Hurrians to the anthropologists and archaeologists today, are an Oriental race which invaded Mesopotamia at an early date. Some Horites dwelt at “Mount Hor”, to which the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, and also cursed, joined themselves. Mount Hor was later called Mount Seir, and today is known as Petra in Jordan. See Genesis 36. All of these people aforementioned may be traced to the people we call “Jews” today, although many are also among the “Arabs.” See: Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:57; John 8:33-47; Romans 9:1-13 and Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9:1 (13:254-58), 13:15:8 (13:395-97), 15:7:9-10 (15:253-66) and Wars 2:20:4 (2:566-68), 2:8:2 (2:119-121) and 4:4:4 (4:270-73).

Heth was a precursor to the people who were later known as Hittites, probably a pre-Adamic tribe whom Heth had settled with, and therefore named by the rest of the Adamic race. The name Sidon is found in the city in Canaan of the same name, and its environs. Seven hundred years before the Greeks first wrote of “Phoenicians”, the Canaanites of Tyre and Sidon and the rest of the coast were driven out by the children of Israel, who then inhabited those cities. The “Phoenicians” were Israelites!

Summary thus far on Genesis 10 on what we have here presented (more to come in later lessons): This concludes for this lesson the notes by William Finck, along with some of my own appended observations.

If you have followed very closely what has been presented here, you are probably beginning to acquire a concept of how serious a problem we are facing today concerning race. As I pointed out in lesson #63, race is at the very heart of the agenda of the enemy. Additionally, by understanding our past in a greater light, we can observe more thoroughly and with better perception the process which is happening in our world today before our very eyes. It should be comprehended by all White people that the present race-mixing phenomena we are confronted with was designed and advocated as far back as prior to the Civil War. As a matter of fact, that is what the Civil War was all about! But, as one can quickly observe from this lesson, its origin goes back beyond, and is linked with Genesis 3:15 in the Garden of Eden.

While I do not agree fully with Philip Jones in his book Racial Hybridity, (and he being at the opposite end of the spectrum to his brother, Stephen E. Jones), I will cite, in part, a couple of passages from the chapter “The Challenge To Destroy The White Race”, on pages 215 and 217:

“One of the foremost exponents of race-mixing was David Croly (1829-1889). His book Miscegenation honestly informs us of the reasons behind the Civil War and giving negroes ‘rights.’ Croly admits:

“It is idle to maintain that this present [Civil] war is not a war for the negro. It is [indeed] a war for the negro. Not simply for his personal rights or his physical freedom ... it is a war if you please, of amalgamation, so called ... a war looking, as its final fruit, to the blending of the white and black ... Let it go on until ... church ... state ... society recognize ... the necessity of the fusion of the white and black’” ....

“The ideal or type [of] man of the future will blend in himself all that is passionate and emotional in the darker races, all that is imaginative and spiritual in the Asiatic races, and all that is intellectual and perceptive in the white races. He will also be composite as regards color. The purest Miscegen will be brown, with reddish cheeks, curly and waving hair, dark eyes, and a fullness and suppleness of form not now dreamed of by any individual people.” Is this what you want for your children and grandchildren? - ? - ?

 

This is my sixty-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. With the last three Watchman’s Teaching Letters, #63, #64, and #65, we have been discussing race and the general demise of the Genesis 10 White nations. It was necessary to pursue the subjects of race and the decline of racial purity among the Genesis 10 nations in order to get a true perspective on Daniel. These lessons are now taking on a tone of seriousness of the greatest magnitude. In fact, there is no other topic, the implications of which are more threatening to our well-being and posterity.

I have recently been forced to take an uncompromising stand on the creation of Adam and the progeny derived from him. I can no longer endorse or promote the 6th and 8th day creation theory. As a matter of fact, this premise helps promote miscegenation, as it gives the non-Adamic races dignity they don’t deserve. Even to compare them with animals is to disgrace animal-kind. There is absolutely no Biblical record of the creation of the other races.

One incorrect premise is that the “elohim” of Genesis 1 created the other races, whereas Yahweh formed Adam at Genesis 2:7. Promoters of this theory imply that the “elohim” of Genesis 1 is plural, while Yahweh of Genesis 2:7 is singular. This is not correct. I will now quote excerpts from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, pages 413-414, under the topic “God, name of”, under the term “Elohim”: “... In the great majority of instances, however, “Elohim” is used in a singular sense, even when, as a concession to the plural form of the word, the accompanying verb is in the plural (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 20:13; 35:7; Exod. 22:9 ...) This use is often called the ‘plural of majesty’ or pluralis amplitudinis ... Thus the word is equivalent to ‘deity’ or ‘Godhead.’ In this sense it is used in the priestly account of Creation: ‘Then Elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen. 1:26) ... The ‘plural of majesty’ did not arise first in Israelite tradition as a result of the identification of Elohim with Yahweh ... On the contrary, this is an ancient pre-Israelite expression which was employed in Babylonia and Canaan even with a singular verb. In the singular sense ‘Elohim’ is sometimes applied in the OT to the god of another people, as to Chemosh the god of the Ammonites (Judg. 11:24), Ashtoreth (Ishtar) goddess of Sidon (1 Kings 11:5), or Baalzebub of Ekron (2 Kings 1:2). But in the majority of cases ‘Elohim’ refers to the God known and worshiped in Israel. For Israel, Yahweh is not one El among many; he is God absolutely, the Lord of history and nature, who demands the exclusive homage of his people ... The conviction that Yahweh is Elohim, God in the absolute sense, is emphasized in the Elohistic (E) narratives of the Pentateuch, so designated because the narrator prefers to use the divine title Elohim, especially for the period before the Mosaic revelation ... The title Elohim stresses the fact that God, the Creator, is the absolute Lord over His creation and sovereign of history ... Elohim is none other than the God whose personal name, Yahweh, was later disclosed. Thus the priestly redactors [writers] of the Pentateuch in Gen. 2&3 placed Elohim in appostition [grammatical construction in which two nouns in a sentence mean the same thing] to Yahweh in the expression ‘Yahweh Elohim’ ... the intention being to affirm that Yahweh is Elohim, the God of all times.”

“In the LXX the usual practice is to translate ‘El’, ‘Elohim’, and ‘Eloah’ with θεός  and to render ‘Yahweh’ with κύριος. The word θεός, of course, had its own history and associations in Greek culture. In the NT, however, where this word is used as the basic word for ‘God’, its meaning is not defined primarily out of the Greek thought-world but out of the sacred history of which the OT is the witness (Heb. 1:2).” It should be pointed out that the terms “Lord God” [Yahweh Elohim] are used together as one being a total of 533 times in the Old Testament, indicating that Yahweh is the same as Elohim!

You may wonder what all this excess verbiage means. It is simply this: Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7 is the Biblical record for the creation of the White Adam-man, and there is no Biblical record for the creation of the non-white races! There also is absolutely no Biblical record indicating that the non-white races were “kind after kind”, and that Yahweh Elohim ever said they were “after his kind, and ... that it was good.”

 

THERE WAS NO 8th DAY CREATION

 

One may search the entire Bible from beginning to the end, and not find one peep of verification for such a supposition. In fact, the record speaks quite to the contrary! The argument goes that “Yahweh” is not mentioned until chapter 2, and therefore it must have been the “elohim” who created the “man” which they designate as the other races in chapter 1. First of all, there were no chapter divisions, numbered verses or punctuation in the original Hebrew manuscripts. So the question arises, how does one then divide chapter 1 from chapter 2? As there is no original division, both chapters are in the same context! If you will peruse Ralph Woodrow’s book Babylon Mystery Religion on pages 145-146, you will find that punctuation marks were invented and added by Aldus Manutious in the Fifteenth Century. While chapter divisions, verse numbers and punctuation are convenient in many cases, in other circumstances they can and do lead to serious error. Thus, a chapter division between Genesis chapters 1 & 2 proves nothing. A division between Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:8 would have been a more natural division for chapters. The bottom line is: if one is reading his Bible entirely by chapter divisions, verse numbers and punctuation, he may not be getting the full or correct message!

For the history of how the Bible was divided into chapters and verses, I will use The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J under the topic “Geneva Bible” on page 380: “GENEVA BIBLE ... An English translation produced at Geneva. The NT was published in 1557, the OT in 1560. Edited by William Whittingham, it combined a thoroughgoing revision of the OT on the basis of the Hebrew text and essentially Tyndale’s version of the NT. It was divided into chapters, with Robert Estienne’s verse divisions, and made use of chapter summaries and marginal notes. It was very popular and the best translation available in its day.”

To show that Adam could not have been created or “formed” on a so-called “eighth day”, I will quote Genesis 2:1-2: “1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”

Notice the words “finished” and “ended” here. It is quite apparent from these two words, Yahweh Elohim “ended [all] his work which He had made.” Creating Adam-kind was part of the work. The next usual argument used by the 6th & 8th day creation advocates is that the “man” of Genesis 1:26-27 was “created”, rather than “formed” as the Adam of Genesis 2:7. But if we consult Genesis 5:2 we will see that both Adam and Eve were created: “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

The word “created” here is the same Hebrew word #1254 used at Genesis 1:27. Then they will make a case out of the words “male and female created he them” at Genesis 1:27, and claim that in the account at Genesis 2:7, only Adam was formed, not “male and female.” Again, notice Genesis 5:2, for it says in the creation of Adam, “male and female created he them.” Therefore, Adam-kind was both “created” and was designated as both “male and female.” Thus, we can clearly see that Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7 are talking about the same Adam. For those who prefer the Greek Septuagint text, basically it says the same thing!

It is obvious that the 6th & 8th day creation people are only surface-readers of Scripture. We need only to go to Isaiah 43:7 to verify that fact: “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.” You will notice that both the terms “created” and “formed” are used in this verse, so we can safely conclude that Adam and Eve were both “created” and “formed” as in both Genesis 1:27 and 2:7! To leave little doubt, the Almighty added the term “made” in this verse.

Some go so far as to advance the theory that the “elohim”, whom they consider to be the fallen angels, created the other races in Genesis 1, while Yahweh created the Adam-man in Genesis 2. But that goes contrary to John 1:1-3: “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made [(\<@:"4, to come into being] by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” This should make it perfectly clear that there was no creation outside of Yahweh Elohim. Therefore, the only other condition that could exist is a corruption of that which had already been created [formed] by Him. We see that same kind of defilement by the process of miscegenation happening all around us today! Do we have, then, any Scripture verifying that such a thing could happen? Indeed we do, at Matthew 15:13: “But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” On the other side of the coin, do we have an example where a “created” plant was corrupted? Yes, at Jeremiah 2:21: “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?”

For those who are not aware of it, the Ante-Nicene fathers addressed many times the heresy of the idea that angels created or took part in the creation. One such is as follows: The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, ch. 2: “Those, moreover, who say that the world was formed by angels, or by any other maker of it, contrary to the will of Him who is the Supreme Father, err first of all in this very point, that they maintain that angels formed such and so mighty a creation, contrary to the will of the Most High God.”

Another one is: Ante-Nicene Fathers vol., 1, ch. XXII: “The ruleof truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist. Thus saith the Scripture, to that effect ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the might of them, by the spirit of His mouth.’And again, ‘All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.’There is no exception or deduction stated; but the Father made all things by Him, whether visible or invisible, objects of sense or of intelligence, temporal, on account of a certain character given them, or eternal; and these eternalthings He did not make by angels, or by any powers separated from His Ennoea [thought].”

In addition to all this evidence, we have testimony that the White Adam-man was indeed created (“created”, “formed”, “made”) on the sixth day of creation. This is found in the 1st Book Of Adam And Eve, 34:5, 10, 13-15: “5 ‘Then Thou spreadest Thy hand and didst create me out of one element, that of dust of the earth; and Thou didst bring me into the garden at the third hour, on a Friday, and didst inform me of it in the cave’ ... 10 ‘Then it was in that third hour of Friday, in which Thou didst create me, and didst command me concerning the tree, to which I was neither to draw near, nor to eat thereof; for Thou saidst to me in the garden, ‘When thou eatest of it, of death thou shalt die’ ... 13 Then, at the end of the third hour of that Friday, O Lord, Thou didst cause a slumber and a sleep to come over me, and I slept, and was overwhelmed in sleep. 14 Then Thou didst draw a rib out of my side, and created it after my own similitude and image. Then I awoke; and when I saw her and knew who she was, I said, ‘This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; henceforth she shall be called woman’ 15 It was of Thy good will, 0 God, that Thou broughtest a slumber and a sleep over me, and that Thou didst forthwith bring Eve out of my side, until she was out, so that I did not see how she was made; neither could I witness, 0 my Lord, how awful and great are Thy goodness and glory.’”

There will probably be those who will scoff at any reference to the three books of Adam And Eve, but it should be pointed out from the start that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd books of Adam And Eve are mostly allegorical and prophetic in nature, and cannot be taken in a literal sense. If they are taken at their face value, less than 5% can be comprehended. I will give you an example of such a case. In the 27th chapter of the first book of Adam And Eve we read the following: “1 When Satan, the hater of all good, saw how they continued in prayer, and how God communed with them, and comforted them, and how He had accepted their offering — Satan made an apparition. 2 He began with transforming his hosts; in his hands was a flashing fire, and they were in a great light. 3 He then placed his throne near the mouth of the cave because he could not enter into it by reason of their prayers. And he shed light into the cave, until the cave glistened over Adam and Eve; while his hosts began to sing praises. 4 And Satan did this, in order that when Adam saw the light, he should think within himself that it was a heavenly light, and that Satan’s hosts were angels; and that God had sent them to watch at the cave, and to give him light in the darkness. 5 So that when Adam came out of the cave and saw them, and Adam and Eve bowed to Satan, then he would overcome Adam thereby, and a second time humble him before God, 6 When, therefore, Adam and Eve saw the light, fancying it was real, they strengthened their hearts; yet, as they were trembling, Adam said to Eve:— 7 ‘Look at that great light, and at those many songs of praise, and at that host standing outside that do not come in to us, do not tell us what they say, or whence they come, or what is the meaning of this light; what those praises are; wherefore they have been sent hither, and why they do not come in.’”

Let me suggest to you what you have just read. Like I stated before, the books of Adam And Eve, #1, #2 & #3 are prophetic and allegorical and must be taken in that vein. The heading of the chapter reads: “The second tempting of Adam and Eve. The devil takes on the form of a beguiling light.” We Two Seedliners also know that today’s “Jews” are Satan’s literal children fulfilling his desires. Notice here that Satan is in the form of a “flashing fire.” That is exactly what moving pictures and television are (a series of flashing lights from a carbon arc powered projector or television picture tube).

When motion pictures are increased to 24 frames per second, the flicker of the frames nearly disappear due to the characteristic of the eye called “persistence”, which rate became the standard for theaters. Even at 24 frames per second, flicker was still noticeable, whereupon a shutter was placed in front of the lens to break up each frame into two separate views, producing an effect of 48 frames per second. Television requires a synchronization with the U.S. 60 cycle electric power system. Therefore, they chose to interlace two half frames every cycle, giving somewhat the same effect as that for the standard used for motion picture projectors.

I don’t know what your impression of what this last passage might mean, but I deem it simply amazing! When therefore we read such passages as the 1st book of Adam And Eve chapters 74-75, where Cain is supposedly born with a twin sister named Luluwa, and later Abel born with a twin sister named Aklia, it cannot be taken literally at face value, but has a symbolic meaning. It may simply imply that Abel, had he not been murdered, should have married with his “righteous” kind, and avoid Cain’s satanic kind. Of one thing we can be sure, there’s more to the story than we read on the surface. The 1st book of Adam And Eve 74:7, shows Cain’s name to mean “hater”, like 27:1 for Satan above, showing a like-father-like-son connection: “7 The meaning of Cain is ‘hater’, because he hated his sister in their mother’s womb; ere they came out of it. Therefore did Adam name him Cain.” (More allegory with Cain hating his so-called sister, but it has some hidden meaning as with all the books of Adam And Eve.) If you have the books of Adam And Eve, and were disappointed with them when you first read them, you haven’t studied them well enough. In short, they’re not saying what you think they are saying! It would be doubtful if any fetus would have the ability to hate another fetus sharing the womb. Conversely, if there were two opposing spirits at enmity with each other, as in the case of Genesis 3:15, hating would be implied.

 

COMMISSION GIVEN TO (the) ADAM

 

Genesis 1:26-27 is highly imperative here: “26 And God said, Let us make man 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 God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

While the Hebrew article “ha” is not used in conjunction with “man” at verse 26, “ha” is incorporated with “man” at verse 27, or “the man.” This is not because it is speaking of two different men as some maintain. This is only proper usage, as in verse 26 “man” is only proposed, whereas in verse 27 “man” becomes an established fact. The “man” in both verses can only mean “Adam-man” because the Hebrew article is used in verse 27. In other words, it can’t be any of many, but the one and only “the Adam.” The next important thing to notice is that “the man” is (1) “in our image”, and (2) “after our likeness.” Surely, Yahweh Elohim doesn’t have the disposition and features of the non-white races!

Then “dominion” is given to “the man” over all “fish”, “foul”, “cattle” and “every creeping thing.” No other race but Adam-kind has ever conquered and used these living beings for his benefit. Other races have only copied Adam-kind in that endeavor. I will now quote The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, chapter 12: “A horse is guided by a bit, and a bull is guided by a yoke, and a wild beast is caught in a noose. But man is transformed by the Word, by whom wild beasts are tamed, and fishes caught, and birds drawn down. He it is, in truth, who fashions the bit for the horse, the yoke for the bull, the noose for the wild beast, the rod for the fish, the snare for the bird. He both manages the state and tills the ground; commands, and helps, and creates the universe.”

Further, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2, chapter 18 says: “But as to what relates to the creation of man, his own creation cannot be explained by man, though it is a succinct account of it which holy Scripture gives. For when God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,’ He first intimates the dignity of man. For God having made all things by His Word, and having reckoned them all mere bye-works, reckons the creation of man to be the only work worthy of His own hands. Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.’ But to no one else than to His own Word and wisdom did He say, ‘Let Us make.’ And when He had made and blessed him, that he might increase and replenish the earth, He put all things under his dominion, and at his service; and He appointed from the first that he should find nutriment from the fruits of the earth, and from seeds, and herbs, and acorns, having at the same time appointed that the animals be of habits similar to man’s, that they also might eat of any of the seeds of the earth.” Only Adam-kind has accomplished all these things with “dignity”! Only Adam-kind was ever given the charge (actually a covenant) to “multiply and replenish the earth” (here and at Genesis 9:1). Let’s now compare Genesis 1:28 and 9:1, 7:

Genesis 1:28: “28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 9:1, 7:“1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth ... 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”

It would be advisable to check the Hebrew words “subdue” and “dominion”, and think twice before giving Adam’s empowerment and authority to the other races! Besides, do we really want the other races to multiply and fill the entire earth? No! No! A thousand times No! For a very good commentary on Adam’s jurisdiction given him by Yahweh, I will now quote from A Commentary On The Old & New Testaments by Rev. Robert Jamieson et al., volume 1 page 8: “... and let them have dominion, &c. This delegated supremacy over all the creatures in this world was bestowed upon the [Adamic] human race in consequence of their being made in the image of God; and as they are consequently capable of exercising authority and control over the irrational animals, they have had all things committed to their guidance, and put under their feet (cf. Ps. viii. 6-8), as the exclusive prerogative of the race ... for us is joined here to a plural verb; or by the use of the pluralis majestatis, for this lofty style, in which earthly potentates commonly speak of themselves, was as yet unknown. Nor is the difficulty removed by supposing that God was addressing himself to the angelic hosts, for the hypothesis that they accompanied him as counsellors, or that their agency was employed, is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture ... Of course, a sexual distinction is implied in the creation of all the lower animals; but in the case of mankind it is expressly mentioned, on account of the higher relations the race was to sustain, and the moral purposes to which the union of the sexes was to be subservient.”

Then to show that all of Yahweh’s creation was finished by the end of the sixth day, and that that was the end of all His endeavor along that line, I will again quote A Commentary On The Old & New Testaments by Rev. Robert Jamieson et al, volume 1, page 9, on Gen. 2:1-3: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished. This sentence does not refer to the arrangements which have just been described as made in the six days. It is merely a recapitulation of the opening statement, that God was the Creator of all things in the universe, in connection with the fact, which was about to be put on record, that He established the present system of things on earth in that specified time ... Some commentators render it ‘and God had ended,’ as if the verb were in the pluperfect tense. But the future is never so used. Instead of ‘the seventh day,’ the Samaritan codex, the Syriac and Septuagint versions, have ‘the sixth day’ — a change in the reading obviously made with a view to avoid the inference which the present text seems to imply, that God continued to prosecute his work on ‘the seventh day.’ But as that alteration is unsupported by MSS. testimony, the text must be adhered to; and though the language is loose, it is impossible to misapprehend its purport — viz., that by ‘God’s ending on the seventh day the work which he had made,’ is meant that the work was brought to a termination when the seventh day arrived.” [emphasis mine]

We can see from this that Adam was indeed “created” or “formed” on the sixth day and that Genesis 2:7 is simply a “recapitulation” of Genesis 1:26-27. If there are still a few doubters that this is so, I will refer to Psalm 8:5-8 which reads thusly: “5 For thou hast made him [Adam, #120] a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” Even the KJV center reference takes us to Gen. 1:26 on this passage, and Gen. 1:26 brings us back again!

It should be noted that the White Adam was blessed and given a threefold command: (1) to be fruitful, (2) to multiply, and, (3) to replenish the earth. These three mandates comprise procreation, or the union of man and woman to populate the earth (cf. Gen. 9:1; 11:8-9; Isaiah 45:18). The term “replenish” would be better translated “fill the earth”, or a first time filling as stated in Gesenius’ on #4390 at page 473: “... to fill, as anything does a vacant space ... to fill a place with any thing ... of the thing which fills ... to be fulfilled, to be full ... to be fulfilled, or completed, used of space of time ...” Adam-man was also instructed to subdue the earth, a verb meaning “to tread upon”, implying sovereignty, control and direction over the land animals, the flying bird creatures, and marine fish environments. Thus, White Adam-man became steward over Yahweh’s earthly estate. While the animals, birds and fish are commanded to reproduce after their kind, Adam-kind, being the “image” and “likeness” of Yahweh-Elohim, are commanded to reproduce after Yahweh-Elohim-kind! Only White Adam-kind has His “image.” The other races simply cannot do that! And need not try! To attempt to make the “man” of Genesis 1:26-27 fit the other races is to give them undeserved dignity and will promote further miscegenation with them.

To understand Genesis 2:4-7, one must first comprehend that this passage is the first Biblical historical record of the creation of the heavens and earth, which included the Adam-man of Genesis 1:26-27. If we will read this passage separately by itself, we will see it: “4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for Yahweh Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Unaware that this is a “historical” record, (similar to Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1 and 37:2), the 6th and 8th day creation theorists mistakenly advocate two different creations of what they term “Adam.” Inasmuch as Adam was “of the dust of the ground”, made him part of the “generations ... of the earth.” Again, this passage is simply a “recapitulation” of Genesis chapter 1! And again, there is no Biblical record of the creation of the other races! To use the “historical record” of Genesis 2:7 to promulgate the creation of an additional Adam is ludicrous!

This passage is simply declaring, there was no earth, there was no heaven, there was no vegetation, there was no rain, and there was no White Adam-man with the “breath of life” to till the ground. In contrast, the other races are only parasitic hunter-gatherers. They are really good at gathering welfare stamps. In other words, kill off all the buffalo and they’ll starve to death. Should one want to curtail the growth of third-world countries, stop feeding them, for they don’t have the ability to farm! After all, charity starts at home with our own White folk! They can’t even dig or drill a well where there is plenty of water! If you don’t believe it, just watch television! They will continue to take, and take, and take, as long as one is willing to give, and give, and give! White women are one of the things they want to take, and take, and take, as long as the white-super-whore-women continue to give, and give, and give! They can’t blush, but the white women can, yet have forgotten how (and some white-super-whore-monger-race-mixing-men, as far as that is concerned)! And if red Ted “appreciates the other races” so much, let him go live with them and teach them their identity!

I will repeat again: if we are insistent on interpreting Genesis 1:26-27 as our Almighty supposedly creating the other races, it will only serve to promote more miscegenation with them by our White people! It is simply giving them prestige they don’t merit. Not only that, but it contributes to the “Jewish” false doctrine of universalism! Yes, you read that right, “Jewish.”

To understand the creation of White Adam-man to a greater degree we must consider Job 4:17-19 & 10:8-9, 11: “17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker? 18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: 19 How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth?” ... “8 Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. 9 Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? ... 11 Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews.” The “folly” to which the Almighty has charged the angels is mixing angel and animal kind, producing genetic racial mutations! At Genesis 6, they then mixed angel-kind and Adam-kind. Today, we are seeing mixing to a greater degree than ever. 

This is my sixty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. In the last few lessons, we have been covering the prophecies of Daniel. Then to get a clearer picture of Daniel’s prophecies, we took up the subjects of race and the Genesis 10 table of nations along with the creation of Adam. If you don’t have the lessons on these topics, you may not fully understand this current presentation.

Once comprehending the origin of the Genesis 10 White nations, we will then grasp the unusual world in which Daniel found himself. To give you some idea of that world, I will quote from History Of The Persian Empire by A. T. Olmstead, page 229:

“... ‘If now you shall think,’ he tells us in his tomb inscription, ‘‘How many are those lands which Darius the king seized?’ then look at the representations of those who bear the throne. Then you shall know, then shall it be known to you: The spear of a Persian man has gone forth afar; then shall it be known to you: A Persian man has smitten a foe far from Parsa.’ Once each representative was properly labeled; today the names of only a limited number have been preserved, but we can still identify the Persian, the Mede, the Elamite, and the Parthian, as well as the Pointed-Cap Scythian, the Babylonian, the Assyrian, and the man of Maka [Maka/Makran being a 1st millennium B.C. term for Egypt].”

In Daniel 8:2 we are told that Daniel had one of his visions in the province of Elam, later to be conquered and become a satrap of Persia: “And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.” From this we can ascertain that Daniel understood who the Medes, the Elamites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Israelite Parthians and Scythians were. He knew that the Medes were of Japheth; the Elamites of Shem; and the Parthians and Scythians as Israelites. For those who wonder whatever happened to Japheth, here is part of the answer: the Medes.

Information on the Elamites is hard to find. For a better than average, though not without error, commentary on the Elamites, I will now quote from the following, found in A Commentary On The Holy Bible by Matthew Poole, vol. 2, page 634, on Jeremiah 49:34-39 concerning them:

“34 The word of the Lord that came to Jeremiah the prophet againstElam in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, saying,

“Elam was the son of Shem, Gen. x. 22, his posterity were called Elamites; these were the Persians, as is most probable, though some judge that the Persians were at too great a distance from the Jews to be the people meant here, but we read of no other Elam in Scripture but in Persia, Dan. viii. 2; and though they were indeed at a great distance, yet it is probable that Nebuchadnezzar, having conquered the Assyrians, might also make some inroads into Persia, the emperor of which afterward conquered Babylon. This prophecy being in the first year of Zedekiah must needs be long before the thing was done, for it was ten years before the king of Babylon took Jerusalem.

“35 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; Behold, I will break the bow of Elam, the chief of their might.

“All those Eastern people were famous for the use of the bow, the Elamites in special, Isa. xxii. 6: those bows were the chief of their offensive armour, though by the chief of their might may also be meant their most mighty and strong warriors. This prophecy is probably judged to be fulfilled when the Persians made a defection from the king of the Medes, who was son-in-law to Nebuchadnezzar. Others think that this prophecy was accomplished by Alexander the emperor of Greece, or rather by his successors.

“36 And upon Elam will I bring the four winds from the four quarters of heaven, and will scatter them toward all those winds; and there shall be no nation whither the outcasts of Elam shall not come.

“The prophet threateneth the destruction of the Persians by a confederacy of enemies, supposed Babylonians, Medes, &c., which should assault them on all sides, as when the wind blows at the same time from all quarters, which causeth a whirlwind, which driveth the dust every way hither and thither, so he saith the Persians should be scattered into all nations.

“37 For I will cause Elam to be dismayed before their enemies, and before them that seek their life: and I will bring evil upon them, even my fierce anger, saith the Lord; and I will send the sword after them, till I have consumed them:

“We met with the like threatenings ver. 5, 24, 29, as to fear; and as to their destruction, we have often met with the like threatenings.

“38 And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the Lord.

“God here calls the throne of Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus, or Alexander, (whoever he was that conquered the Persians,) his throne: l. Because God gave it the conqueror. 2. Or because God showed himself the Lord of hosts, or the Lord of the whole earth, by disposing the kingdom of Persia at his pleasure. He doth not threaten the destruction of the whole nation, but the making of it all tributary, so as it should have no kings nor princes of its own.

“39 But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the Lord.

“We had the like promise as to Moab, chap. xlviii. 47, and as to Ammon, ver. 6; the same latter days either signify after many days, or in the time of the Messias. In the former sense it may refer to Cyrus, who conquered Persia. In the latter sense it is referring to the spiritual liberty which some of these poor heathens were brought into by the gospel. We read, Acts ii. 9, that some of these Elamites were at Jerusalem at Pentecost, and were some of those converted to Christ.”

While I agree with much of Poole’s commentary, I do not concur entirely at verses 36, 38 & 39. Inasmuch as Jeremiah was prophesying about Persia some one hundred plus years ahead of time, the “outcasts of Elam” at verse 36 would have been more likely the Israelites within Persian territory. Surely the divorced, deported Israelites, while under Persian authority, could rightly be called “the outcasts of Elam.” Naturally, Poole being blind to the Identity Message would, like many other commentators, assume that it is speaking about Elam. That being true, then the “throne” in verse 38 can only be either Cyrus, Darius or maybe both. If we can accept this, then we will have no trouble understanding who it is speaking about when it says: “... I will bring again the captivity of Elam ...”It’s Israel that was in “captivity”, not Elam. In fact, some members the lost tribes were called “Parthians”, and “Medes”, and “Elamites” at the Feast of Pentecost with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Acts 2:9: “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia.” Whether or not the “latter days” refers to that time or our day is uncertain, but my own opinion is that it is now. We can be quite sure of this, as the punishment period was to last 2,520 years. In view of this, let’s now take a look at some Elamite history.

For a bit of Elamite history we will use some excerpts from the book The Heritage Of Persia by Richard N. Frye, pages 44, 56-59, 67 & 69. Before reading this documentation, it should be pointed out that the term “Semetic”, (like in many books and cases) may be misapplied, and at times the author is only guessing on such things as race and language. I must remind you again that all the references I use are not perfect, and must be scrutinized for content. Nevertheless, Frye brings us some interesting information about the subject we are discussing, and therefore we must sort out the useful from the invalid. In order to accomplish that, we must use all the resources we can find: Biblical, historical and archeological. When we can achieve that end, it will all fit together very nicely. In order to get an overall view, one should read several authors on the subject. While in many cases we can attain such a goal, there are still many blank places to be filled in. Please consider these things as you read the following:

“The land of Bactria was the most important satrapy in eastern Iran under the Achaemenids, and later was the centre of the post-Alexander Greeks who established a kingdom here and then proceeded to the conquest of north-west India .... but successive invasions of the rich plain between the Oxus river and the mountains changed the composition of the population, so we know nothing about the ancient inhabitants ...

“The Elamites were known by the Persians as Uja or Huja after a mountain people to the east of Susa probably closely related to the Elamites. Classical authors knew them as Uxii (a mistake by Alexander’s historians for Uzii?) found in the modern name Khuzistan. Elam appears early in history but little is known about it .... The name ‘Japhetic’ has been given to the languages in the area of western Iran which were neither Semitic nor Indo-European, among which Elamite is one, but this classification tells us little ... In any case, the Elamites had a long history and acted as the intermediaries between mountains and plains. They were greatly influenced first by the Sumerians in southern Mesopotamia, probably the inventors of writing, and then by the Semitic Akkadians.

“It is impossible to detail the history of Elam here, and much is unknown since it is reconstructed primarily from Akkadian cuneiform tablets, but Elam had some features of interest different from the small states of Mesopotamia, with whom the Elamite princelings warred. The role of the woman in ancient Elamite society seems to have been conspicuous, for the right to the throne was transmitted through the mother ... The divinisation of the king is uncertain, but the descent of kingship from brother to brother, instead of father to son, seems to be peculiar to Elamites, though not unknown elsewhere in different times and places ...

“Furthermore Elamite was the language of the records at Persepolis under Darius, an indication of the presence of many Elamites as inhabitants of the region. We may suppose that there was an important Elamite influence on the Persians, perhaps to be compared to the local Iranian influence on the Turkish invaders of Azerbaijan so many centuries later ...

“About 1175 BC a king of Elam, Shutruk-Nakhunte, captured the great and ancient city of Babylon carrying back to Susa, his capital, great booty, among which was a diorite stone engraved with Hammurabi’s law code, excavated by the French in 1901 ... After 1150 BC Elam is in decline and is not mentioned in sources, the spotlight of history having turned to the north ... When the Elamites reappear in history in the seventh century BC, it is as a conglomeration of principalities friendly or more often hostile to Assyria. The final result of years of intrigues and partial success at times against Assyrian power was the decision of Assurbanipal to ravage and crush the country. About 636 Susa was sacked; its famous ziggurat was razed to the ground and statues of the deities of the Elamites were carried to Assyria. Elam was finished as a power in the world.

“One must always be careful with ancient, cuneiform names, for the temptation to relate tribal or ethnic names to later geographical names is great and it can lead to error. Furthermore, designations sometimes change greatly; for example, the name Magan in cuneiform texts of the third millennium BC may designate a country on the Persian side of the Persian Gulf (the name Maka/Makran has been compared with it), but in the first millennium BC it is used for Egypt!...

“Also under Sargon Israelite and Syrian prisoners were settled in Babylonia and probably in parts of the Zagros mountains as well ...

“The Scythians then dominated Media for twenty-eight years from circa 652-625 BC, when they were defeated by the son and successor of Khshathrita, called Uvakhshtra or Cyaxares. It is likely that Kashtaritu had already united the Medes in Central Iran, the task which Herodotus attributed to Deioces, but under Cyaxares the power of the Medes grew greater than ever before and the Persians, now in their final home of Persis, submitted to the Medes.”

From the book Clash Of East And West by Daisy More and John Bowman, pages 19 & 22 we read: “The bold, expressive Persians tried to copy the more sophisticated Elamites, who lived on the flat plains of Susiana at the base of the outer Zagros, where they had easy access to the Mesopotamian cities. In 1175 B.C., the king of Elam stormed the walls of Babylon and wrested the city from its overlords. He sent many trophies home to the Elamite city, Susa. Susa had always been a hub of roads and water-ways, and it soon developed into a great city with a thousand men on the palace payroll.

“Despite the refinements of Elamite influence, Persian life remained relatively rustic. The extended family provided structure, with the father ruling as an all-powerful patriarch. Family groups formed clans, and the head of a clan could ally his fighting men with those of other clans to form a tribe of roughly a thousand warriors. The Persian headmen began the practice of choosing one of their number as chief headman, or tribal king ...

“Of the several hundred tribes of Aryan and indigenous peoples scattered across the Iranian plateau, ten were the tribes of Persis itself. Four of these were composed of families who were still nomadic herders, three of farmers who had settled permanently, and three more of people who also worked the land and who were in the position to claim ownership. The Pasargadae (as the Greeks called them — ‘Parsagard’ may have been the true name) were one of these three landholding tribes. Among them was a family the Achaemenids — from whom it became customary to choose the tribal king ...

“In the northern part of the plateau, in what is now the Hamadan-Tehran-Isfahan area, the Medes had formed half a dozen large tribes. In about 670 B.C., the six tribes pledged themselves to follow a single leader in hopes of protecting their land from the aggressive Assyrians, who had taken Mesopotamia from the Elamites and held it for almost five hundred years ... They had stolen horses from the Medes, taken men as slaves, and put the Medes under their tribute system.

“As the Persians had copied the Elamites, the Medes tended to copy the Assyrians, especially in the manner in which they treated their king. Like the Assyrian king, the Median king, or khshayathiya (from which the word ‘shah’ comes), was no rude chieftain ...

“Shortly after the Medes chose their first king, the whole area of the Mesopotamian plain, the adjoining Anatolian peninsula, and the Iranian plateau were threatened by a new wave of savage Indo-European horsemen from the pasture lands between the Danube and the Volga. In the third quarter of the seventh century B.C., these Scythians and their relatives, the Cimmerians, depopulated many of Assyria’s tribute paying towns. The Median king, Cyaxares, was forced to pay tribute himself to some of these hordes. He finally managed to poison several of their leaders at a feast and then joined with many of the remaining Scythians to attack the already weakened Assyrians. Cyaxares and the Scythians also had an invitation to meet with a rebel governor in Babylon, a potential ally who wanted to free his province from the Assyrian oppression. The Median king and the Babylonian governor, Nabopolassar, met in 612 B.C.”

On the other hand, the term “Media” is summed up quite well by the Illustrated Dictionary & Concordance of the Bible by Geoffrey Wigoder, et al, pages 668-669:

“MEDIA, MEDES (MEDE) Madai, the Hebrew name for Media, is listed in the Table of Nations (Gen 10:2; I Chr 1:5) as the third son of Japheth, a people living east of Mesopotamia. Media and Medes are often mentioned together with Persia (Est. 10:2; Dan. 5:28; 8:20, etc.). The history of the Medes, a people apparently of Indo-Iranian origin, is reflected in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Greek documents. In the 9th century B.C., Media was invaded by various Assyrian kings. At this time the Medes began to settle in towns administered by local rulers, without any central authority, which made it easy for the Assyrians to fight them but failing to subdue them, the Assyrians often resorted to large-scale deportations. The Median kingdom was founded by Diokea who united the seven Median tribes (best known of whom were the Magi, a tribe of priests) and ruled for 53 years (699-646 B.C.). The kingdom was consolidated under Phraortas (646-624) who headed a league that endangered the Assyrian hold over the Zagros mountains. Under his successor, Cyaxeres (625-585), a serious threat to the Median kingdom was posed by the Scythians; the latter were, however, eventually thrown back by the Medes in alliance with the Babylonians. As Babylonian power grew, the Medes too became a significant political and military factor. They were included in Jeremiah’s enumeration of foreign peoples (Jer. 25:25). The last king of the Medes was Astyages (585-550 B.C.); in 553 B.C., the kingdom was overthrown by Persia., its former vassal, under Cyrus. The Bible depicts Media as the enemy of Babylon (Isa. 13:17-18; 21:1-10). The Book of Daniel considers Media and Persia as a single political unit, prophesying that this combined power will defeat Babylon (Dan 5:26-28).

It should now be quite apparent why it is important to understand the Genesis 10 table of nations. Further, one should now comprehend to a greater degree the environment in which Daniel lived and to whom his prophecies pertained. Above all, it is important to understand how race fits into the picture. All we have to do is observe Iran today, for they represent what is left of the old Persian Empire. When we consider the fact that Persia was once dominantly an Aryan group of people, today’s Iran is a disgrace to the utmost degree. It demonstrates beyond all question that race-mixing is the “unforgivable sin” (or sin unto death)! Not only that, but America and all the White Israel nations, like Iran, are fast becoming third-world mingled countries.

 

! WE DARE NOT CHANGE OUR POSITION ON RACE !

 

As I pointed out in the last few lessons, the Bible does not record Yahweh creating the other races. I will not retract from that tenet. I absolutely denounce the idea of a sixth and eighth day creation. Genesis 2:4-7 is simply the first chronicle of the Bible giving the history of Genesis chapter one. I will repeat that passage again: “4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh Elohim made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for Yahweh Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And Yahweh Elohim formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Because man was formed of the “dust of the ground”, he was part of the “generations of the heavens and of the earth.” A chronicle is simply a record similar to the books of Chronicles (an account, a history, a narrative, a report, a story, or annals, a rehash (or to discuss or say again), a reiteration, an act of repeating, a rephrase, to restate something such as a paraphrase (a restatement of a text giving the meaning in different words)). In other words, a review, a summarization, an analysis, a recap! To imply the other races were a part of the creation is to give them unjust dignity they don’t merit. Such a position will only invite further miscegenation!

To put this whole thing in perspective, I will quote Jeremiah 31:27: “Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.” The last four words of this passage means exactly what it says, “the seed of beast” (fallen angel and animal kind). We are observing the product of this type of thing today everywhere we turn. This prophecy by Jeremiah is being fulfilled today before our very eyes. We know this type of thing is not in the sovereign will of Yahweh, so it can only be in His permissive will. If this is true, it can only be for the purpose of teaching us a lesson, and what a terrible lesson it is. But we shouldn’t be surprised, for it has happened before but our people never learn.

For this we will go to the Apocrypha, 1st Esdras 8:68-71: “68 Now when these things were done, the rulers came unto me, and said, 69 The nation of Israel, the princes, the priests and Levites, have not put away from them the strange people of the land, nor the pollutions of the Gentiles, to wit, of the Canaanites, Hittites, Pheresites, Jebusites, and the Moabites, Egyptians, and Edomites. 70 For both they and their sons have married with their daughters, and the holy [set apart] seed is mixed with the strange people of the land; and from the beginning of this matter the rulers and the great men have been partakers of this iniquity. 71 And as soon as I had heard these things, I rent my clothes, and the holy garment, and pulled off the hair from off my head and beard, and sat me down sad and very heavy.”

Now skipping to verses 82-85: “82 And now, O Lord, what shall we say, having these things? for we have transgressed thy commandments, which thou gavest by the hand of thy servants the prophets, saying, 83 That the land, which ye enter into to possess as an heritage, is a land polluted with the pollutions of the strangers of the land, and they have filled it with their uncleanness. 84. Therefore now shall ye not join your daughters unto their sons, neither shall ye take their daughters unto your sons. 85 Moreover ye shall never seek to have peace with them, that ye may be strong, and eat the good things of the land, and that ye may leave the inheritance of the land unto your children for evermore.”

Now jumping to verses 92-94: “92 Then Jechonias the son of Jeelus, one of the sons of Israel, called out, and said, O Esdras, we have sinned against the Lord God, we have married strange women of the nations of the land, and now is all Israel aloft. 93 Let us make an oath to the Lord, that we will put away all our wives, which News Gothic MTwe have taken of the heathen, with their children, 94 Like as thou hast decreed, and as many as do obey the law of the Lord.”

Now let’s go to 1st Esdras 9:7-9: “7 So Esdras arose up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed the law in marrying strange wives, thereby to increase the sins of Israel. 8 And now by confessing give glory unto the Lord God of our fathers, 9 And do his will, and separate yourselves from the heathen of the land, and from the strange women.”

But this is not the end of the story!!! Many have come to the conclusion when reading Ezra and Nehemiah that all the Judeans of that time resolved the situation and got rid of their foreign wives and children by them, and they lived happily ever after. This is not true. For proof of this, I will refer to the History Of The Jews by Heinrich Graetz, vol. 1, pages 368-369:

“One of those present, Shechaniah, touched by sympathy, uttered a weighty suggestion: ‘Let us make a covenant to put away all the strange wives, and such as are born of them.’ Ezra seized upon the idea at once; he rose and demanded that the heads of the families, who were present on that occasion, swear before the Sanctuary, and by their God, that they would repudiate their foreign wives and their children. That moment was to decide the fate of the Judæan people. Ezra, and those who thought as he did, raised a wall of separation between the Judæans and the rest of the world. But this exclusiveness was not strictly in agreement with the letter of the Law, for Ezra himself, with all his knowledge, was not able to point out any passage in the Torah, implying that mixed marriages were forbidden when contracted with those who acknowledged the God of Israel.

“Such members of the community as, in a moment of enthusiasm, had taken this vow, were now obliged to keep it. With bleeding hearts they separated themselves from their wives, the daughters of neighbouring tribes, and repudiated their own children. The sons and relations of the high-priest were forced to set an example to the rest. Those of the elders of the people who were the most ardent disciples of the Law formed a kind of senate. They issued a proclamation throughout Judah, commanding all who had been guilty of contracting mixed marriages, to appear within three days in Jerusalem, on pain of excommunication. A special court of enquiry was instituted for this one question. Ezra himself selected the members who were to make the needful researches to discover whether the Judæans had really repudiated their wives. So thoroughly was the work of this court of enquiry carried on, that all those who were living in the towns of Judæa separated themselves from their wives and children, as the inhabitants of Jerusalem had done. Still there were some who, influenced by family feelings, made some show of resistance.”

We will now skip to page 372: “Many noble families made peace with their neighbours, took back their repudiated wives, and contracted new connections with the stranger. They pledged themselves by a reciprocal vow of constancy to respect these new [racial] ties.” [emphasis mine]

If you will carefully reread this last passage again, you will see the “Jewish” mind-set written all over it. From this point on, they started to take a “universalist” view in order to legitimize their race-mixing. Shame on any Identity pastor who promotes this identical doctrine (leaven) of the Pharisees. After their attempt at trying to justify their taking of foreign wives, they endeavor to vindicate themselves, relating to the story of Ruth on pages 370-371 of the same book. Many in Identity today, just like the “Jews”, haven’t figured out yet that Ruth was an Israelite, not a Moabite! I can just imagine there are some people who don’t believe what I am saying, so I will quote it:

“The poetical author of the Book of Ruth relates, apparently without a purpose, the simple idyllic story of a distinguished family of Bethlehem which had migrated to Moab, where the two sons married Moabitish wives; but he touches at the same time upon the burning question of the day. Ruth, the Moabitess, the widow of one of the sons, is described as saying to her mother-in-law, ‘Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God: where thou diest will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me.’ And the Moabitess kept her word faithfully. Upon her marriage with Boaz, the people exclaim: ‘The Lord make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel.’ The son born to Ruth was the ancestor of David, the great king of Israel. The several incidents of this exquisite story are most delicately and artistically developed. But the author meant to place two facts before his readers, namely, that the royal house of Israel sprang from a Moabitess, and that the Moabitess, after having connected herself closely with the people of Israel and acknowledged their God, gave proof of such virtues as grace a daughter of Israel: chastity, refinement of feeling, and cheerful self-sacrifice. The reference in this tale to the all-absorbing question of the day was too pointed to be passed over unnoticed. Among those unfortunate wives who had been, or who were to be repudiated by their husbands, might there not be some who resembled Ruth? And the children born of foreign women, but having Judæan fathers, – were they to be looked down upon as heathens? If so, then not even the house of David, the royal family, whose ancestor had married a Moabitess, belonged to the Judæan nation!”

This “Jewish” mode-of-reasoning is enough to make one vomit!  But it’s the same mind-set as we have today among our White people! We even have it in Identity! The mainstream church people will usually say, “Oh, it’s all right as long as the other party is a Christian.”

All this race-mingling by those returning from Babylon is analogous to A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by John Lightfoot, volume 2, pages 7-8:

“... Common persons, as to the priesthood: such whose fathers, indeed were sprung from priests, but their mothers unfit to be admitted to the priests’ marriage-bed ... such as were born in wedlock; but that which was unlawful ... bastards: such as came of a certain mother, but of an uncertain father ... Such as were gathered up out of the streets, whose fathers and mothers were uncertain.

“A defiled generation indeed! and, therefore, brought up out of Babylon in this common sink, according to the opinion of the Hebrews, that the whole Jewish seed still remaining there might not be polluted by it ... Therefore he brought them to Jerusalem, where care might be taken by the Sanhedrim [Sanhedrin] fixed there, that the legitimate might not marry with the illegitimate ...” [emphasis mine]

 

This is my sixty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. With this lesson, I’m changing the appearance of my Watchman’s Teaching Letter, as I believe that I have discovered some more readable fonts. As I explained in my lesson #24, I reduced my lesson from eight pages to four pages in order to send out two lessons at a time and still keep the weight under an ounce. It was necessary to do this in order to keep the mailing cost to a minimum. This allows me to send two letters out every second month. After doing that, I experimented with various paragraph styles and also started to hyphenate words at the end of a line. Upon making those changes, I soon found I had the word-count equivalent to that which I had achieved with eight pages. With these new fonts, hopefully I will have just as readable a document as I had previously with eight pages. Many books we read have much smaller fonts than you are now reading.

With a new appearance comes a rekindled determination. After some reverses in August, I have resolved to fight for the Israel Truth Message as never before. We are now observing the genocide of an entire race of people through miscegenation. And while that race-mixing is in the process, so-called self-appointed Israel Identity pastors and teachers are promoting doctrines which are contrary to what White-Israel should be taught. They’re dreaming up all kinds of concocted premises and passing them off as Gospel. With this letter, I’m going to expose three such cases in point. We will start with Dan Gentry, where he retaliated at Two Seedline doctrine and myself under his inaccurate logo Facts For Action, Summer, 2003:

“Recently I received an envelope from a Clifton Emahiser, addressed to ‘un-Christian Research.’ Curious, I opened it to find the usual screed against our belief that the ‘serpent’ of Genesis 3 is human reasoning, and that sin is NOT hereditary, but a matter of choice. Emahiser showed his ‘choice’ by calling me a number of names, including ‘bone-headed’ and ‘this turkey.’ In responding to our Winter, 2003 Sparks From Scripture (in FFA), he also said, ‘In addition to his own name, he (Gentry) claims the founder of the publication was the late Gerda Koch.’ This is a matter of record, and he knows it, yet throws it up like a red herring to confuse his readers. To show you his thought process, I’ll share a few excerpts from his diatribe ... :

‘One of Gentry’s tricks is to quote Genesis 4:1 in an English translation to prove that Cain was Adam’s son... When you quote Genesis 4:1 in English, you are quoting from a corrupted form of Hebrew...’

“To try to ‘prove’ his point, Emahiser refers to Charles Laymon’s Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on The Bible, which says regarding Genesis 4:1b, ‘...can scarcely be translated, still less understood... ‘He says if it is unintelligible and scarcely translatable, then HOW DARE Dan Gentry say Cain is Adam's son?! Au contrere, mon frere, Mr. Emahiser. According to your ‘logic,’ you would be equally unable to ‘translate’ or understand it to mean Adam's wife had consorted with a fallen archangel who could transform himself into a flesh, blood & semen man! And may I remind the reader that Laymon is (by his own description) an interpreter and commentator here, and only one of MANY extant. Genesis 4:1, even in the Septuagint Old Testament, clearly states Cain was the result of Adam ‘knowing’ Eve, and verses 5-7 indicate he had the same capacity as brother Abel to choose good, not evil, forever excluding any insipid, conspiratorial notion that ‘The devil made me do it!’  Laymon would probably be shocked by how his own words are being used by Emahiser!

‘Let's now wait to see if he (Gentry) answers this testimony, or if he stubbornly continues to broadcast his damnable lies. ‘Damnable' inasmuch as his position promotes race-mixing among our Race. If you want some mamzers (bastards) in your family-tree, continue to support him!’

“Anyone who knows me personally, or has read much of my writing, including Death Penalty for Race Mixers is Prescribed in The Bible, knows how much of a hoot this is! The ironic thing about this false witness is that the reason Adam (and much later, the Israelites) were forbidden intermarriage was for spiritual apartheid, that they would not adopt the religion and rituals of the heathen around them! ‘Racial purity’ (if you wish to call it that) was not the be-all and end-all of the Law, but a means to preserve the priesthood in all purity of thought and government. Further, most who promote the ‘Two Seedline’ belief (it is NOT a doctrine) couldn't trace their bloodline back more than a few generations, having no way of knowing if there was a stranger in their woodpile. When YHVH-God has a racially-pure remnant (and I believe He does), it is thankfully hid from the eyes of the dissemblers. This reminds me a bit of those charismatics involved in ‘Rapture practice’ (waving arms and jumping off pews), or those who ‘compete’ for a slot in the 144,000 sealed Saints of Revelation 14:1-3! If ‘Two Seedliners’ were in power, might they have a scratch-and-sniff test to determine how ‘white’ you are, like the Nazis had an analagous (sic.) eye-color test?

‘Evidently, Gentry is not aware of the fact that the ‘Torah’ is the first volume in the [Babylonian] Talmud. If that’s the case, using Gentry’s irrational reasoning, we would have to discard our entire Old Testament in the process because they are, in his words, ‘Jewish.’ (Gentry didn't tell you that, did he?) That kind of tactic shows the cunning of a charlatan ... such deceivers using the old shell-game? The writings of the Talmud are simply a collection, many from wicked sources, but not all. Many are from innocent sources (like the Torah) that the ‘Jews’ have preserved there.

“Admittedly, I have not personally read the entire Babylonian Talmud, and I would venture that Emahiser has not, either, but I have read enough to turn my stomach each time. I have both the Soncino English translation and the Rodkinson, and do not find the Torah (if we consider this the first five books of our Bible) anywhere, in either. What I do find, in gross abundance, is rabbinical quibbling over minutiae of daily life, supposedly trying to infuse bits and pieces of YHVH's Law with peculiar Babylonian Jewish ‘wisdom.’ Here is one modest example:

“A JEW MAY PERJURE HIMSELF WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE: In Kallah (1b, p.18) it says: ‘She (the mother of the mamzer) said to him, ‘Swear to me.’ And Rabbi Akibha swore with his lips, but in his heart he invalidated his oath.’ A similar text is found in Schabbuoth Hagahoth of Rabbi Ascher (6d): ‘If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only.’

“You might recognize this example as a ‘little white lie,’ but believe me, it is a very mild example of ritual Jewish perjury. And when it comes to discussing sex and bodily wastes, the Talmud is gutter-level theology I won't waste time reprinting here. And just who is practicing irrational reasoning?! And who is defending it, while claiming to be a Christian teacher?

“Incidentally, you may check this all out by examining the entire Rodkinson Babylonian Talmud  online at ... I’ll forego further dissection of Emahiser’s rant, as it continues in the same vein of thought, and reasoning.” (End of Gentry’s article about me.)

 

GENTRY’S UNSTABLE MIND-SET

 

Once we analyze it we will comprehend just how unstable it is! It’s Gentry’s “reasoning” which is questionable! Some of the first words out of Gentry’s mouth is the “serpent of Genesis 3 is human reasoning.” I’ll bet you never knew that, did you? Neither did I! Let’s then see how Gentry would read Genesis 3:14-15: ‘And Yahweh Elohim said to Eve’s reasoning, Because thou hast reasoned this, thy reasoning is cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; and thy reasoning shall go upon its belly, and dust shalt thy reasoning eat all the days of its life: And I will put enmity between Eve’s reasoning and her, and her offspring shall bruise thy reasoning’s offspring’s head, and the woman’s offspring shall bruise her reasoning’s offspring’s heel.” (The Gospel according to Dan Gentry.)

The next words out of Gentry’s mouth is his “matter of choice” theory vs. “heredity.” I don’t know what Gentry’s Bible says, but mine proclaims: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ...” In Gentry’s little 2x4 world, everything is a matter of man’s choice over and above the Almighty’s choice. Poor old God, can’t do anything right! What is Gentry going to do with 1 John 3:8-9 where it says: “8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” All Adamites are “born of Yahweh.” Notice the word “seed” in verse 9! It can’t get any more “hereditary” than that! In other words, he that is born of the devil is prone to commit sin and he that is born of Yahweh is not naturally prone to sin! It doesn’t say “choice” here but “seed”, for it is a genetic trait! The word “seed” is the Greek word #4690, which is spérma from which we get our English word “sperm.” Evidently, Gentry believes that somehow “sperm” can “choose” to be good sperm or evil sperm. The cross-reference on this passage will take one to John 8:44 and Matthew 13:38, again in a genetic sense!

Then Gentry questions my supporting commentary by Laymon’s Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary, where he remarks on Genesis 4:1: “... can scarcely be translated still less understood ...”  Here Gentry is dealing very deceitfully, trying to make everyone believe that was the only source I had! In that paper I also quoted from the 12 volume The Interpreter’s Bible, implying Genesis 4:1 is a gloss. After that, Gentry tries to make a brownie point by citing the Septuagint as saying the same thing as the Masoretic text. In his lethargic mentality, he doesn’t seem to grasp that the Septuagint translators may have translated the gloss into Greek. Yes I did call him “bone headed” and “this turkey”, but I apologize, as I should have called him a cross between a turkey and a parrot. A turkey because all he can manage is some gobble-de-gook, and parrot Stephen E. Jones!

Further, Gentry talks out of both sides of his mouth. First he claims the Bible prescribes the death penalty for race-mixing, and practically in the same breath claims there are hardly any of us pure, that there are only a few priests among us who haven’t mixed! I don’t know about Gentry, but I’m German, Irish and Scotch in that order (pure Judah). Maybe Gentry is judging everyone else according to himself! Go back and reread how Gentry speaks of some kind of fan-dangled “spiritual apartheid.” Sounds like some of Stephen E. Jones’ concocted verbiage to me, like when Jones conjured up the expression “experiential Israelites”! We are either Israelites or we are not! And we are either sons or we are bastards! (Hebrews 12:8) Such “spiritual apartheid” and “experiential Israelites”  is garbage. I will repeat again, if you want some mamzers in your family tree, then keep on supporting turkey-parrots like these.

And one other thing. Along with the Torah, all of the Old Testament is the first volume in the Talmud! Again, Gentry talks out of both sides of his mouth. In his commandeering from Gerda Koch’s Facts For Action for Winter, 2003, Gentry repeats all the same quotes about the Talmud as used by Stephen E. Jones and red Ted R. Weiland, and then turns around in his issue for Summer, 2003, and claims he doesn’t have time to read the Talmud. It appears Gentry can’t make up his mind whether he reads the Talmud or not. And you know that Soncino Talmud he talked about? I was the one who sent it to him! Therefore, he has no excuse for not knowing that the entire Old Testament is in the Talmud!

It should be quite clear, as long as we have unqualified, self-styled, uncalled by Yahweh people promoting such gibberish in Israel Identity, the Kingdom will not be advanced. They call themselves pastors, but they are no more than theology quacks!

 

STEPHEN E. JONES GOES BONKERS OVER UNIVERSALISM

 

The definition in my new Webster’s for “bonkers” is “mentally unbalanced, mad, crazy.” A very fitting description I would say! In order for you to see what I mean, I will quote a passage from Jones’ Foundation For Intercession for December 2002. In that publication, Stephen E. Jones, the man who has done more damage in the Israel Identity Message than any other I’m aware of, masquerades himself as an expert on the book of Revelation. On the first two and one half pages of four, he says little of nothing, and fails to identify the little horn of Daniel 7:21, which he so authoritatively mentions. He speaks of the Roman Catholic church as “the church”, unaware that the original church at Rome was actually a branch of the British Celtic church. The early church at Rome had no connection with the Roman Catholic church. It is apparent, then, he’s talking when he should be listening, for it is obvious he has never done his homework! So he starts at the bottom of the ladder and works himself downward.

To show you documentation of the true church in Rome, I will cite The Drama of the Lost Disciples, by George F. Jowett: “The church still stands and can be seen in what was once the palatial grounds of the Palatium Britannicum, a memorial to the Christianizing endeavors of St. Paul and the expatriate (exiled) royal British family at Rome with Rufus Pudens. The church is recorded in Roman history under four different names: 1. Palatium Britannicum; 2. Titulus; 3. Hospitium Apostolorum; 4. Lastly, as St. Pudentiana in honour and memory of the martyred daughter of Claudia Pudens, by which name it is known to this day.”

Thus, Stephen E. Jones shows his rampant ignorance. We will now see what kind of a hole he digs for himself when he writes the following:

“THE FIGS: Rev. 6:13 compares the stars of heaven to figs being cast to the ground before they are ripe. The comparison is very appropriate. In the Bible, the fig tree is the national symbol of Judah. Jeremiah 24 divides Judah into two groups of people: a basket of good figs and a basket of bad figs. The good figs are those who submit to God, even when God pronounces judgment upon the nation. The bad figs refuse to submit, thinking God wants them to fight God’s ‘enemies’ in order to retain their freedom.

“In Jeremiah’s day God classed the majority of the people as bad figs, for they fought Babylon, instead of recognizing king Nebuchadnezzar as God’s servant (Jer. 27:6) and instrument of divine judgment for sin.

“In Jesus’ day God’s servant was the Roman Empire. The majority of the Judean people again held the same view as their forefathers in Jeremiah’s day. They chafed under Roman authority, believing that it was God’s will that they be free. They wanted their freedom in order to be able to continue their empty and hypocritical worship in the temple, believing their own traditions and setting aside the divine law (Matt. 15:1-9).

“The point is this: there were two fig trees portrayed as Judah. One produced fruit so rotten that it could not be eaten. The other produced fruit that was very good. John the Baptist came, prophesying that the axe was laid to the root of the tree (Matt. 3:10), because any tree that does not bring forth good fruit was to be cut down and burned.

“The good figs, on the other hand, were represented by Jesus Christ and His followers. Those of this fig tree became the inheritors of the promises to Judah. Even as the evil fig tree was cut down, the good fig tree carried on the banner of Judah and became the legitimate tree of the tribe of Judah.

“For this reason Paul says in Rom. 2:28 and 29 that those who possess only the physical circumcision – Jews who had rejected Jesus Christ and remained part of the evil fig tree – were NOT Jews (Judahites) at all. Likewise, those who had been circumcised in their hearts ARE Jews (that is, Judahites, of the tribe of Judah).

“The early Church began as the legitimate tribe of Judah, for they were loyal followers of the King of Judah, Jesus Christ, the legal heir of King David's throne.

“When the Church was scattered by persecution into other lands, many other people of different ‘trees’ were converted to Christ. These ‘branches’ of other trees were cut off from their former trees and grafted into this Judah fig tree. Soon the number of foreign converts exceeded that of the genealogical Judahites, so that this fig tree began to look like a ‘gentile church,’ bearing peaches, pears, apples, and plums, with only a few branches bearing figs. Hence, men began to think of this tree as something other than Judah. But they were mistaken.

“What men call the ‘Church’ is, in reality, the original fig tree of Judah with many other branches grafted into it. The Church, then, carries the banner of Judah. Those who remain unattached to Jesus Christ, the Root of this tree, are not true Judahites, regardless of their genealogy.

“And so, when Rev. 6:13 compares the stars of heaven (the overcomers) with the figs, it is no idle comparison. The overcomers are indeed the true Jews (Judahites). They may not all be descended genealogically from the tribe of Judah, but they all derive their sustenance from Jesus Christ, the King of Judah. They are the good figs of Judah. These are the ones cast down at an early age as unripe figs. These are the ones persecuted and worn down by the little horn of Dan. 7:21-25.”

 

UNMITIGATED  IDIOTIC  BALDERDASH

 

You have just witnessed the most outlandish piece of drivel you will ever encounter. Mr. (not pastor nor teacher) Stephen E. Jones has just violated every major principal of Biblical interpretation. Folks, it doesn’t get any worse than this! This is the most disgraceful discourse which a man could speak or write in the name of our Almighty (unending blasphemy without shame).

First of all, the “figs” of Revelation 6:13 have absolutely nothing to do with the Tribe of Judah! Secondly, there is absolutely no connection of the “figs” of Jeremiah 24 to the “figs” of Revelation 6:13! Stephen E. Jones is using this “fig” hocus-pocus sleight-of-hand which is the old Canaanite merchant game of “bait and switch”, designed for simple-minded suckers. The object is to get the victim’s eye on the “bait” while switching to another object. In other words, now you see it; now you don’t! It is nothing more than the old Canaanite variety of “Jewish” hocus-pocus sometimes referred to as abracadabra! Using this Canaanite-Jew’s con game, Jones is about ready to pull a “switch.” Once your eye is on the “figs”, the next trick is to establish a couple of false premises by saying: “The good figs are those who submit to God, even when God pronounces judgment upon the nation. The bad figs refuse to submit, thinking God wants them to fight God’s ‘enemies’ in order to retain their freedom.” This is entirely false concerning the good and bad figs! The “good figs” of Jeremiah 24 are the Judahites who kept racially pure and the bad figs are those who did not. Jeremiah 2:21 spells it out quite clearly: “Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” Further Ezekiel 16:3 says: “And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite.”

It’s just simply amazing what kind of foul-smelling excretion Jones and his clique dream up! Jones reduces everything to a “personal decision” rather than a genetic fact. Jones then states: “In Jeremiah’s day God classed the majority of the people as bad figs.” This is entirely in error, for the “majority” of “good fig” Judahites were taken by the Assyrians in the first deportations (or later to Babylon), and a minority of “bad fig” Judahites were taken in the last Assyrian deportation, or left to be the poor of the land, or ended up in Egypt, (majority, ha!).

Jones then makes the statement: “The majority of the Judean people again held the same view as their forefathers in Jeremiah’s day.”  Here again, Jones goofs, as the Judeans in the time of Messiah were more related to the Canaanite variety of Judean than to the true Tribe of Judah. By the time of our Redeemer, a good many of the “good figs” of Judah had joined with the other Ten Lost Tribes! This is what kind of twaddle we get when we have people on a kindergartner level in Israel Identity trying to run the show. Continuing, Jones says: “John the Baptist came, prophesying that the axe was laid to the root of the tree (Matt. 3:10), because any tree that does not bring forth good fruit was to be cut down and burned.”  Persisting, Jones remarks: “They may not all be descended genealogically from the tribe of Judah, but they all derive their sustenance from Jesus Christ, the King of Judah.” Let’s now see how inappropriate his conclusion is when he said: “When the Church was scattered by persecution into other lands, many other people of different ‘trees’ were converted to Christ. These ‘branches’ of other trees were cut off from their former trees and grafted into this Judah fig tree. Soon the number of foreign converts exceeded that of the genealogical Judahites, so that this fig tree began to look like a ‘gentile church,’ bearing peaches, pears, apples, and plums, with only a few branches bearing figs. Hence, men began to think of this tree as something other than Judah. But they were mistaken. What men call the ‘Church’ is, in reality, the original fig tree of Judah with many other branches grafted into it. The Church, then, carries the banner of Judah. Those who remain unattached to Jesus Christ, the Root of this tree, are not true Judahites, regardless of their genealogy.”  How do you like all that “peaches, pears, apples and plums” business? Whatever happened to the original commission?, Matthew 10:5-6 (KJV): “5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The context for “gentiles” in this verse is non-Israelites, and in the Greek is §2<@l, or “heathen.” As for “the ax being laid to the root of the tree”, that represenfont-family: ,ted the Cain satanic seedline that had mingled genetically with a small portion of Judah, and was closely related to the Shelanite Judahites descended from Judah’s first wife Bathshua the Canaanite and the Edomites. It has everything to do with genetics and nothing to do with a personal decision as goodie-goodie two shoes Jones implies.

Jones at one time was connected to The Lord’s Covenant Church under Sheldon Emry. It was there that he, with the backing of Emry, wrote a book entitled The Babylonian Connection, refuting Two Seedline doctrine. Since then, he also promotes universalism and the “No Devil” doctrine. Like I stated before, Jones has done a lot of damage to the Israel Kingdom Message. As a result there are a lot of other so-called Israel Identity ministries parroting all three of these teachings. Upon Emry’s death, Dave Barley inherited Emry’s ministry and is following Jones’ teachings to a tee.

I will now present evidence that Barley and company teach and promote Stephen E. Jones’ brand of universalism. I will now quote a passage from America’s Promise Newsletter, August/September, 2003:

“By the way, I received a phone call from an Arab man the other day who had watched the film and became converted to following Christ. His testimony was fantastic and upon learning that Jesus Christ has a place and purpose for all people, he had great hope. He learned that God’s law had many forms and facets to it, such as the law of aerodynamics, and gravity. All of God's creation experiences those ‘laws of nature’ and they are subject to those laws. However, as we know, there are also God’s laws to Israel, and Israelites for the most part, are to teach and administer those laws, but as God’s Word says, ‘to whom much is given, much is required,’  and ‘each man in his own order.’  This Arab learned that as he acquired truth, that there was also a responsibility that he now bore to properly use and apply that truth.”

The film the Arab was referring to was a 2nd version of Heirs Of The Promise, to show Israelites that they are under the Abrahamic Covenant. Evidently, Barley and company are about to teach Israel Identity to the Arabs! How absurd! Not only that, but evidently Barley and company are about to welcome the “Jews” (the satanic seedline) into their midst. They even went so far as to reprint an article from Southwest Jewish Press, Vol. 5727, Thursday, April 20, 1967. It was submitted to America's Promise Ministries by Pastor Southwick. It’s an article where a “Jew” is now teaching us Israel Identity, but there is a hitch in it. Maybe Barley and company should move to the middle east with their ministry and teach the Arabs and the Jews their own identity. Anyway, this is what that Jew said:

 

THE 10 LOST TRIBES

by Harry Golden, a Jew

 

“Isaiah, the prophet, wrote that the remnant of Yawheh’s (sic.) people would be found in ‘isles of the sea.’ Isn't it reasonable this remnant may be the people of the British Isles?

“Grant me the possibility and I shall proceed to unravel the great archaeological riddle of the ages: what happened to the ten lost tribes?

“The men of Dan escaped slaughter when Shalmanaser subjugated the ten tribes.

“As they made their way across Europe; they left indelible evidence of their journey.

“They called the places they stopped after the name of their tribe: thus Danube, Dnieper, Denmark, etc., all of which lay along their route of march.

“The men of Dan eventually settled in Ireland and were known as Tuatha de Daanana. None of this is imaginary research. One has only to dip into the work of the eminent Rabbi S. Raisin to see how well documented and probable this hypothesis is.

“Along with the Danites, the other coastal tribes, the Asher, Manasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon, escaped Shalmanaser’s fury. Obviously, the Simeonites became the Simoni [or Cimerii] of Wales. The Danites called their new home arzaret, which means ‘another Land of Israel’ and gradually they also came to call themselves Gauls which is a metamorphosis of the word ‘Golim’ meaning exiles.

“Some of them called themselves Saccae which derives from Succotites and means ‘dwellers in booths.’

“These were the fellows who emigrated to the next island and came to call themselves Scotsmen for all ‘Scotch’ means, as any student of Anglo-Saxon knows, Is ‘Irisher.’

“Others from Ireland emigrated to Wales and the folk ethos remained strongest here.

“David remained their favorite name and became their patron saint, although they forgot their Hebrew for as Isaiah said:

“‘For with stammering lips and with a strange tongue shall it be spoken to the people.’

“Returning once again to the Old Testament for more verification, we see that when Zedekiah, the last ruler of Judea was carried off into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, his daughter, Tea Tephi found refuge under the guardianship of Jeremiah.

“Jeremiah also saved her royal escutcheon, the harp, and the Wonderful Stone, the fountain stone of the temple of Mount Zion. When Tea Tephi married Heremon, the ruler of the Danites, the Lion of Judah was united with the Unicorn of Joseph, a characteristic of all English heraldry.

“Last but not least, consider that the word ‘Britain’ may well be a corruption of the Hebrew ‘Brith-am’ meaning the ‘people of the Covenant.’

What do 1 mean by all this? Simple, the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and the Irish Catholics are really my cousins – all right, so its a few times removed. All of us knew it all along.”

If you have followed closely, you can see the snag in the “Jew’s” presentation is the fact that he is claiming to be a “distant cousin” to the true Israelites, and somehow that gives him license to enter the Kingdom from the back door. Now, evidently Barley and company think this is simply great. My reaction is, things are getting mighty sorry when we have to have a “Jew” come in to teach us who true Israel is.

 

THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM

 

The main problem is, the majority of our people don’t know there is a problem! The average guy on the street doesn’t have the slightest idea what’s going on in this world. And such false teachings as you see presented here are only adding to the confusion! We are informed at Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 the following: “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”

Thus there are but two categories, those who gather and those who scatter the Israel sheep. And there is no better way to scatter the sheep than to tell the sheep there are no wolves (no devil), or that the wolves can enter the Kingdom as well as the sheep (universalism). And this is exactly the shenanigans these turkey-parrots are doing. How can they claim they are against miscegenation when they look with favor on the race-mixed “Jews”? I would remind you again, today we are witnessing the genocide of the entire White Israel race via the process of race-mixing, while some in Identity actually want to accept mixed-blood into our midst! As long as this attitude persists, we have no salvation. Oh yes, they will identify Israel, but they refuse to identify Israel’s enemy. So they are only teaching half of the message, which is as good as no message at all! Sorry to say, there are a lot of people in this message who should go and saw their toilet seat in half in order to fit their half buttocks behind.

We have now observed some very precarious and really un-Biblical teachings, and upon reading this lesson thus far, it brings up a very grave question for each person to answer! Each one will now have to decide whether he/she desires to be a scatterer or a gatherer. It is impossible to be in both camps! The lukewarm position will only be “spewed out.” The weightiness of this question may have dire consequences, inasmuch as when one stands before Yahweh’s Throne in judgment, all of his works and teaching may be burned with fire before him. Therefore, I implore each one to reconsider every teaching that is floating around in Israel Identity, and prove that which is beneficial or detrimental. A second position should also have to be considered, that being whether one should support a scatterer or a gatherer! For those who are only blessed with a few talents need all the more to invest them wisely! There is an even greater situation to consider. As we travel through life, we are forced to make many important decisions. Before we do so, in each and every occurrence we should analyze each new decision and ask ourselves whether that resolution would scatter the Israel sheep or gather them! It is very sobering to envision the coming of the White Throne Judgment and realize that the works of some will be entirely burned with fire while with others their rewards will be given to another! Therefore, everything I teach, I do so with fear and trembling!

In the last few lessons we have been considering the importance of Race. In the analysis of the Genesis 10 nations, we can now see a gradual deterioration of the White Race represented in the three sons of the racially pure Noah. What has previously happened as a whole to the House of Ham, and the House of Japheth, and a good many of the House of Shem, is now in the process of those under the Covenant of Abraham. Make no misgivings about it, the agenda of the enemy (the Canaanite variety of “Jews”) is to destroy, in any manner possible, the entire White Adamic Race. We witness this fact on a daily basis. Those of us who hold to the Two Seedline doctrine understand that this is the “enmity” spoken of in Genesis 3:14-15. And unless the Almighty somehow intervenes on our behalf, we as a people have no future! Therefore, I apologize not for my hard-core racial stance. The bottom line is, RACE IS EVERYTHING! And we aren’t going anywhere without it!

Many have either called or written me demanding that I take their name off my mailing list, which I promptly do. Though they don’t realize it, at the same time, they are taken off Yahweh’s list too. I observed a young White lady in the post office recently leading one and carrying another small White boy. On viewing that, I immediately thanked our Almighty that there are still a few that have some integrity. So for those who would rather listen to people like Dan Gentry, Stephen E. Jones and Dave Barley, may Yahweh Elohim have mercy on your Racial family catastrophes. At least, with what I have shown you here, no one can claim they were never told! Every White mother and father deserve to have White grandchildren! Maybe it’s finally time we take a racial stand!