To hit the road running let’s read the two verses cited:

Rev. 2:9: “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews [sic of Judah], and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

Rev. 3:9: “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews [sic of Judah], and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.” (cf. John 8:44)

Before we start to take some of this text out-of-context, there is one phrase in 3:9 where some readers come to a mistaken conclusion, and that is: “... I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”

Right away, some people will conclude that somehow these evil Edomite-Satanic-jews are going to repent, and turn and wor- ship Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth!

This excerpt from Rev. 3:9 is a prophecy already fulfilled that lasted about a thousand years, until the Israel nations of Europe phased out their kings as their chief leaders and phased in parliamentary governments. During the reigns of these Eu- ropean kings, they would hold court, and the king had power over life and death, and every person in the king’s court bowed down before the king, including the evil Edomite-Satanic-jews. Of course, these same evil Edomite-Satanic-jews were often tax farmers for the king, as well as physicians. These kings were sometimes known as Caesars, Czars or Kaisers.

Those kings are almost extinct, but the Edomite-jewish tax farmers are still around. Two cases in point are the Edomite- jewess Lois Gail Lerner, head of the Internal Revenue Service and the Edomite-jewess Janet Louise Yellen, head of the Fede- ral Reserve, who can only be described as bloodsuckers and leeches. These are only two samples of hundreds of thousands. In fact, the body of Edomite-jewry own and control all the central banks of the world, without exception!

Unmitigated Confusion: The problems we have today with mediocre Bible readers are their oversimplifications of Biblical subjects and names. For instance, these lackluster students will boil all the peoples of the Bible down to “jews” and “gentiles”, and both terms are very misleading! Therefore, when reading “jew” in any Bible, one must determine whether it means: (1) a true member of the tribe of Judah, or (2) an Edomite or Canaanite people converted to Judaism between 120 to 105 B.C.

As I wrote in my Misapplication Of The Biblical Term “Gen- tile”: We need to examine how the Latin word “gentile” was intro- duced into our present Bibles. Yes, “gentile” is a Latin word, but no Bible writer ever used the term as there is no such word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. The first time that the Latin word “gentile” ever appeared in any Bible is when Jerome translated the original manuscripts from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into Latin! Secondly, and more importantly, in Jerome’s day, the Lat- in term “gentile” (gentilis) never had today’s corrupted definition meaning, “non-Jew”. The Junior Classic Latin Dictionary pub- lished by Wilcox & Follett Company in 1945 defines gentilis: “of the same clan or race”, surely a word consistent with all of Scrip- ture. (Amos 3:2, Matt. 15:24, etc.).

Following Jerome’s example, the later English translators anglicized the Latin gentilis, “gentile”, for their translations in place of the original Greek wordἕθνος (ethnos) because Jerome, when he made the Latin Vulgate, used the word gentilis to translate the Greek ἕθνος into Latin. In other words, Paul was sent to the people of his own ethnicity. How, where or when the term “gentile” first took on the corrupted meaning of “non- jew” cannot be definitely determined, but that was NOT the orig- inal meaning in Latin! Nor is the word “gentile” found in any of the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek manuscripts! Paul never uttered or wrote the word “gentiles”! Rather, Paul used only the Greek words тà ἕθνος “the nations”, and knew that he was going to those same nations found at Genesis 17:6 and 35:11. To use the term “gentile” in an improper manner only exposes that per- son’s lack of intelligence!

The American Heritage Dictionary describes “gentile” both as an adjective and a noun. As an adjective, it is described in part: “gen•tile (jĕntĭl,-til) adj.1. Of or pertaining to the gens or to the tribal society based on it. ... –n1. A number of a gens. ... [Latin gentilis, from gens, clan gens.]”

In order to fully understand this definition, we must next refer to “gens” in this same dictionary:

“gens (jĕnz) n., pl. gentes (jĕn´tez´). 1. The particular clan forming the basic unit of the Roman tribe and having originally a common name, land, cult, and burial ground. 2. Anthropology. An exogamous patrilinear clan. [Latin gens, clan. See gene- in Appendix.*]”

Again, in order to understand the “gens” connection, we must go to the appendix on gene- in part:

“gene-. Also gen-. To give birth, beget; with derivatives re- ferring to aspects and results of procreation and to familial and tribal groups. ...”

It should be clear here that the term “gentile” is a Latin term used among the Romans to designate certain racial privileges and rights based on ancestry! Therefore, this would have been the meaning of the term “gentile” near the end of the 4th century A.D. when Jerome compiled his Vulgate translation of the Bible, and as one can plainly see, this definition had no affiliation to a meaning of “non-Jew”. Later, during the Middle English period (1150-1475 A.D.), according to The American Heritage Dictio- nary, the capitalized term “Gentile” was changed from a proper adjective to a proper noun with a corrupted meaning, thusly:

“Gen•tile (jĕn´tĭl) n. 1. Anyone who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation. 2. A Christian as distinguished from a Jew. 3. A pagan or heathen. 4. Among Mormons, a person who is not a Mormon. –adj. Of or relating to a Gentile. [Middle English gentile, gentyle, from Late Latin gentiles, pagans, hea- thens, from gentilis, pagan, from Latin, of the same clan, from gens, clan gens.]” [only the underlining is correct here, C.A.E.]

It is very important here that we notice that The American Heritage Dictionary specifies under Late Latin (150-700 A.D. – Jerome having lived in the 4th century) that “gentile” essentially held its original meaning of “... the same clan, from gens, clan gens ...” So the meaning of “gentile” all boils down to which time period, whether Late Latin or Middle English is considered! It makes a lot of difference! Therefore, it is evident that sometime after Jerome’s translation, the meaning had changed 180°.

It is high time we replace unsound fiction with sure facts!

[Note: Feel free to copy and distribute!]