Beast of the Field

Beast of the Field

By Pastor Eli James

“Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Yahweh Elohim had made.”

• Genesis 3:1.

Children of Israel, there is a dispute within Two-Seedline concerning the “beast of the field” and the “beast of the earth.” Virtually all Two-Seedliners consider the “beast of the field” to be a reference to non-White hominids (humanoids that walk on two legs). As an example of this opinion, I have provided links, at the end of this essay, including Jason Blaha’s “Beast With a Hand?” which elaborates on this position. However, there seems to be some confusion on this point, so I have decided that a thorough word study is in order. Up until now, all Two-Seedliners I have studied agree that the other races were already in existence when Adam and Eve were formed in the Garden of Eden. For example, Dr. Wesley Swift taught that all of the non-White races existed for eons before Adam was created in the Genesis account. With this statement, I totally agree. Also, according to Swift, the White Race is only 6,000 years old. Bertrand Comparet and Sheldon Emry also believed this. In my opinion, however, the White Race, although the last in the order of creation, is very much older. Since the Genesis 1 account is dealing with eons (Hebrew yowm), not literal days, we must strive to harmonize the language of Genesis 1-4 with natural history. My Enmity Series goes into great detail about these eons and the order of creation. The Enmity Series can be found at www.anglo-saxonisrael.com .

Within Christian Identity, there is no dispute that the Adamites were exclusively White and that the other races are separate species, which cannot be equated with or derived from the Adamites. Nobody in Identity teaches that all of the races “evolved” or descended from the two individuals, Adam and Eve. But this is what Judaism and the Judeo-Christian churches teach, so the vast majority of religious people believe this. However, no archeologist believes this, because the fossil record clearly shows that hominid fossils of all the known races are common, well before 4,000 BC. This includes Cro-Magnon (Caucasoid) fossils and artifacts. Mummies dated to 5,000 BC have been found in Peru; and the archeology of pre-agricultural communities in Mesopotamia clearly predates Adam and Eve. The era of the dinosaurs and megafauna, such as mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, giant sloths and giant beavers, also precedes Adam and Eve; and human remains have been found in mass graves with mammoths and giant elk.

In my Enmity Series, I have suggested an alternative reading of Genesis 1-4, which takes the fossil record into account. My thesis is that the Adamic Race was created in Genesis 1:26-27 and that Genesis 2 is talking about the individual person, Adam, and his wife, Eve. Most Identists are of the opinion, as expressed by Dr. Swift, that Adam and Eve were the first Whites. I cannot accept this doctrine, because it is opposed by the fossil record. They were the first Adamites, but not the first Caucasoids. My thesis is that Gen. 1:26-7 are referring to the creation of our Race and that Gen. 2 is talking about a later development, some time after the creation of the Race in Gen. 1. This specific episode is localized in the Garden of Eden. This thesis regards the events of Gen. 2 as chronologically after the events of Gen. 1. This chronological interpretation of the Genesis account fits the fossil record and the known archeology.

So, to restate the case, the specific doctrine is this: Genesis 1:26-27 are talking about the creation of the White Race, but Gen. 2 is talking about the more localized and later events that took place in the Garden of Eden. For me, this is the only interpretation that makes historical and Scriptural sense.

After I published this thesis (http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/site/node/181 ), many people wrote to me saying that this idea had also occurred to them, but that no one had ever expressed it before in writing. Swift’s thesis, which assumes a 4,000 BC creation date for the Adamic Race, was based upon the known archeology of the time, which was dominated by the theory of evolution, which states that all of the races “evolved” from some black lady umpteen million years ago. All Identists reject the fable of evolution as un-Scriptural and unscientific. The problem is how to reconcile the fossil record with the language of Scripture.

I believe I have done this in the Enmity series; but not all in Identity share my views. Some adhere to the doctrine shared by Swift, Comparet and Emry, which is based upon the back-dating method of Archbishop Ussher (Masoretic time scale), which results in a “creation date” of 4,000 BC. The orthodox, Judeo-Christian view is that all of the races were created at the same time. But this view has the inevitable problem of “Where did Cain get his wife, if the only humans alive were Adam, Eve and Cain?” No other humans are recorded as existing at this time in Scripture, or so they believe.

Also, Cain, as he was being ejected from the Garden after killing Abel, states, “Behold, you have driven me out this day from the face of the land; and from Your face shall I be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the land; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that finds me shall slay me.” (Gen. 4:14.) Who are these “everyone,” if not the humanoids living outside of the Garden? Hence, in verse 15, a mark is placed upon Cain, so that those others will not kill him. Cain was obviously afraid that others would take vengeance upon him. The idea that there were no other humanoids on the planet at this time is simply foolish. Of course, there were. They are not specifically named, but their presence is implied by the words, ‘everyone’ and “the land of Nod,” where Cain found a ‘wife’ and “built a city.” Where did she come from and who helped Cain and his wife build the city? Rather than deal with such historical questions, the rabbis of Judaism and the Judeo-Christian theologians ignore them, teaching that all races descended from the unions between Adam and Eve and their subsequent offspring. However, Cain’s wife is not specified as one of those offspring. Cain found her in a completely different territory, before Adam and Eve could have had any other children. So, the conventional view fails for many reasons.

Clifton Emahiser’s Recapitulation Thesis

Others in Identity follow the teachings of Clifton Emahiser, whose opinion is that the events of Gen. 1:26-27 and the events of Gen. 2 occurred at the same time. In addition, Emahiser follows the Septuagint reckoning of the life spans of the patriarchs, which places these events 1,000 years earlier, around 5,000 BC. I agree with Clifton that the Septuagint reckoning is more accurate than the Masoretic chronology. Mr. Emahiser calls his thesis the Recapitulation Theory because he believes that the events depicted in Gen. 2 were contemporaneous with the events depicted in Gen. 1:26-27. He argues that the events of Gen. 2 simply provide us with more details about Gen. 1. This means, however, that all of the events depicted in Genesis 2-4, and even afterwards, occurred on the 6^th Day of Creation! He thus denies that the events in the Garden happened AFTER Yahweh’s Day of Rest (Gen. 2:1-4). This line of argument creates a serious chronological problem, namely, that it is not possible for Yahweh’s Day of Rest to have taken place after Genesis 2, since the Bible gives us an unbroken chronological record from Adam and Eve down to the present.

In addition, the correlation between Gen. 1:26-31 and Gen. 2 is not exact; and there are some major differences, which make the Recapitulation Theory suspect. But the major problem of this thesis is that Mr. Emahiser must ignore the 7^th Day, the “day of rest,” as if it didn’t happen. Either that, or we are still living in this “day of rest.” It is unclear from Clifton’s thesis whether this Day of Rest ever took place or whether we are currently living in this Day of Rest. With this argument, Clifton Emahiser has introduced an entirely new concept, which no one else has ever before suggested, namely, that the Day of Rest can be ignored. I will be arguing against this idea, as I consider it to be a major error in his theology. The question that must be answered by Clifton Emahiser is this: “When, if ever, did the 7^th Day take place?” Can we ignore words contained in Gen. 2:1-4?

Who Created the Non-White Races?

The other major difference between Mr. Emahiser’s thesis and those of other Identists is that he believes that the other races were not created by Yahweh Elohim at all. He believes that only the Adamic Race was created by Yahweh. The other races must, therefore, be the exclusive offspring of Nachash or one of his fallen angels. In other words, according to Emahiser, the other races are hybrid creations. Such hybrids can be of two types: 1) between the fallen ones and the White Race, or 2) between the fallen ones and non-humanoids, such as monkeys, apes and orangutans. I totally agree with Emahiser that the fallen ones were conducting hybridization experiments with virtually all species; but I disagree that all non-White species of humanoids are mere hybrids. I will elaborate on my reasons for this throughout this essay. In particular, one must understand the reproductive capacities of hybrids. As I will show, the science of genetics and hybridization does not fit Emahiser’s thesis. Creating viable hybrid species is not as easy as Emahiser assumes.

I concur with Dr. Swift in stating that the other races were created by Yahweh Elohim and that they were already here when the Garden of Eden scenario took place. But I differ from Swift concerning the age of the White Race. Swift argued that the White Race is no older than 4,000 BC. It is my opinion that the White Race was ALSO already here, since Gen. 1:26-27 is a reference to the creation of our Race, while Gen. 2 is speaking only of the two individuals, Adam and Eve, which are events that took place in the Garden, after Yahweh’s Day of Rest.

I have to admit that my thesis is also unique, because most commentators have always assumed that all races had sprung from Adam and Eve. But this belief ignores the known laws of genetics and Yahweh’s law of “kind after kind,” which are one and the same law. With regard to Gen. 1-3, my operative premise has always been this: Since Yahweh authored BOTH the natural world and Scripture, the two records MUST AGREE. As Bertrand Comparet also taught, Scripture and nature cannot and do not contradict each other. Hence, natural history cannot be ignored, if we wish to understand the Creation account in Genesis 1. The two must tell the same story. And I discovered that a careful study of the meanings of the Hebrew words destroys the orthodox assumptions of Gen. 1, as referring to literal 24-hour days. In addition, a very careful analysis of the Hebrew words reveals that Adamites and non-Whites cannot be derived from the same parents, as this violates Yahweh’s Law of “kind after kind.” These facts make it obvious that orthodoxy is incorrect in stating that no other races were in existence before the Garden of Eden. Yahweh is not the author of confusion, but Judeo-Christian theology has us all confused. I have composed this document in the hope of setting the historical record straight.

Awdawm

In the Enmity Series, I have presented the chronological, historical and pre-historic evidence for suggesting that the non-White races were created in Gen. 1:24-25. Having already come to this conclusion, I was pleasantly surprised to discover the book, Genesis Disclosed, by Thomas A. Davies, published in 1872. (http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/site/genesisdisclosed ) Mr. Davies had read Hebrew for over 30 years, when he had come to the same conclusion that I had, namely, that Gen. 1 refers to the creation of all the non-White races in Gen. 1:24-25, and the subsequent creation of the White Race in Gen. 1:26-27. Consequently, Gen. 2 is not about the creation of the races, but about later events depicting two individual members of the White Race, THE ADAM and THE EVE. I had come to this conclusion, based on my comparison of natural history and Scripture. Mr. Davies had come to this conclusion, based upon the known differences among the races and upon the GRAMMAR of the Hebrew. He states that the Awdawm of Gen. 1 does not have the definitive structure, eth-ha-Awdawm, meaning “this man, Adam,” which is contained in Gen. 2.

Based upon the grammar, he concluded that Gen. 1:26-27 is about the creation of the White Race; but Gen. 2 is talking exclusively about this particular man, Adam, and his particular descendants through Eve, exclusive of the other Whites in Gen. 1. No one else had ever done such an in-depth study of the Hebrew grammar, so this understanding of the differences between Gen. 1 and 2 has never been understood. Either that, or this language has been deliberately ignored. Like most Christian Separatists, Mr. Davies also taught that the other races DID NOT DERIVE FROM ADAM AND EVE, but that they were created separately by Yahweh Elohim. This is exactly the position that I had taken in my Enmity series. From this perspective, the events of Gen. 1 PRECEDE the events of Gen. 2; and the 7^th Day of Rest intervened between Gen. 1 and the Garden story. Hence, I refer to my thesis as the Chronological Account.

The chronological account is often referred to as the “8^th Day Creation” theory; but that is not what I teach. Yahweh did not create any new species in Gen. 2. He merely took an already existing man, from an already existing Race, and formed him into a new, higher creature. The intended purpose of this reformation was to make Adam’s genetic code capable of accepting the Shekinah Glory, or Holy Spirit. In order to accomplish this task, Yahweh set aside a portion of the globe called the Garden of Eden; and it was Adam’s task to tend this Garden, not the whole planet. Gen. 2:21-25, the concluding verses of Gen. 2, are the verses which deal with Adam’s Rib. In Enmity, Part 4, I explain why these verses are talking about Adam’s DNA. The bone marrow of our ribs is a rich source of stem cells. {See this link for the latest research: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp } Stem cells contain the biochemical programs generate specific types of tissue. They are responsible for the differences between the heart, spleen, muscle, brain, etc. I believe that these verses are telling us that Yahweh Himself was performing microbiological changes in Adam’s DNA, thus preparing him and Eve for the acceptance of the invisible energy field of the Holy Spirit.

With regard to Elohim’s creation of the other races, I also agree with Mr. Davies, as I had taken this position based upon my analysis of the Hebrew word ‘chay.’ ‘Chay’ is the word that is translated “beast,” as found in the expressions, “beast of the field” and “beast of the earth.” The expression, “beast of the earth,” is first encountered in Gen. 1:24; and all two-seedliners, before Clifton Emahiser’s new thesis, have considered this “beast of the earth” to include non-White hominids, as well as many lower species, such as simians (monkeys), quadrupeds, etc. It is my contention that Clifton Emahiser misunderstands the meaning of the word chay. This is because he limits his discussion of chay to only a few, select verses, which do not convey the real meaning of the word.

Here is a list of some Identity teachers, as to whether they believe that Yahweh created the other races. Question: “Did Yahweh create all of the known races?”

YES NO UNDECIDED

Eli James Clifton Emahiser William Finck

Jason Blaha

Bertrand Comparet

Wesley Swift

Nord Davis Jr.

Willie Martin

Thomas Davies

Conrad Gaard

Jack Mohr

Arnold Kennedy

William Gale

Dan Gayman

Clifton’s position on this matter is unique and novel. I think it is fair to say that, until Clifton Emahiser proposed this idea, no one else had ever thought to question whether Yahweh had created the other races.

Why would Clifton Emahiser propose such an idea? This question will be addressed later. It has to do with eschatology and whether or not non-Whites will retain a place on planet earth after the Day of Judgment.

Before getting into a comparison between my Chronological Account versus Clifton Emahiser’s Recapitulation Thesis, we need to take a quick look at Genesis 2 and 3, to find evidence for the fact that THE MAN ADAM was already alive and well outside of the Garden, and that he was later placed into the Garden.

Created Versus Formed

Gen. 2:8. “And Yahweh Elohim planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put THE MAN whom He had formed.”

Gen. 2:15. “And Yahweh Elohim took THE MAN and put him into the Garden to dress it and to keep it.”

Gen. 3:23, when Yahweh kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden for their sin: “Therefore Yahweh Elohim sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from where he was taken.”

Virtually all commentators have missed this language, which clearly tells us that our progenitor, Adam, was already living somewhere outside of the Garden of Eden, for an unspecified period of time, before being put into the Garden! Did he or did he not have living parents of the White Race? If Mr. Davies is correct about the grammar of Gen. 1:26-27, then these two verses are talking about the creation of the Race, both male and female, just as all of the other creatures were designed and created in male and female form, from their very beginnings. “Male and female created He them.” (Verse 27.)

These two verses are talking about our species. Gen. 2 is not talking about our species. It is talking about a particular Awdawm, a member of this already existing species, the White Race. The Hebrew word, Awdawm, has only one meaning: “to show blood in the face.” It does NOT mean “man,” in the generic sense of all races. Mr. Davies goes out of his way to correct the universalists in this point. There is NO WAY that the word, Awdawm, can mean anything but the White Race, because only the White Race is capable of showing blood in the face.

But, in Genesis 2, THE MAN ADAM is without a female partner. How is this possible, if the Awdawm of Gen. 1 was created “male and female”? There is only one explanation. It is because Gen. 1 is talking about the creation of the Race; and Gen. 2 is talking about the formation of a particular individual of that Race and the additional formation of his female partner.

The Hebrew word for “create” is bara. Bara is Strong’s #1254. It is defined as “to create.” This is the meaning of the word in its absolute sense. Whether it means to “create out of nothing” or “to create out of an invisible substance” can be debated elsewhere. It is not relevant to this discussion, which is about the differences in meaning of two different words. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1944, has this to say about creation: “The act or operation of God whereby he calls into existence what did not before exist. The verb always has God for its subject, and the result is an entirely new thing.” - p. 119. Strong’s Concordance has 41instances of the Hebrew word, bara, and each instance has only Yahweh Elohim performing the action.

The Hebrew word for “form” is yatsar. Yatsar is Strong’s #3335. It is defined as “to mold into a form, esp. as a potter.” Yatsar can have artisans and craftsmen as subjects, such as potters and engravers, so its usage is not confined to the singular subject, Yahweh, as is the case for bara. Hence, the Westminster Dictionary discussion of the word bara is accurate. Only Yahweh has the power to create (bara). All actions subsequent to the creation are actions (yatsar) taken upon what Yahweh has already created. This describes the essential difference between these two words.

Although these two words can be used interchangeably, just as they are in English, there remains a fundamental difference between the two. For the purposes of this discussion, bara is what took place during the Creation “Week.” Yatsar is what took place in the Garden, after the creation was done. The substance that was being formed or shaped, as by a potter, was already in existence. Like a potter’s clay, it was being shaped into a new form, although the changes were in our DNA. Such biological changes would also have mental and spiritual effects.

THE ADAM of Gen. 2 is distinguished from Adam in Gen. 1 by the fact that the Adamic Race was created in Gen. 1, but THE MAN ADAM, whose substance was already in existence, was being formed or reshaped into something quite special and unique. Nothing like this had ever been done before. But it was not a new creation. It was, rather, a very special change in nature of Adam’s physical and spiritual make-up. This NEW MAN, ADAM, was to be the special progenitor of a new kind of White Man, one who, by having the breath of life breathed into him by Yahweh Himself, would have a potentially immortal body. Unlike the Race from which they derived, Adam and Eve’s bodies were designed and intended to live forever. Unfortunately, their sin cut their immortality off.

As quoted above from the KJV, Gen. 2:15 contains the article ‘the’ in front of the word, ‘adam.’ Therefore, it is translated as “the man.” Thomas Davies says that verse 7 also contains the article, but the KJV translators, for reasons only known to them, left it out. As it reads from the KJV:

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

Let’s compare Mr. Davies’ translation:

“And the Lord God formed THE ADAM (By translators, man) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and THE ADAM (By translators, man) became a living soul.” The word the (eth in Hebrew) always specifies a particular from the general. Apparently, the KJV translators felt that this particularization from the general population was too insignificant to retain in the translation. But, the word, the, is never insignificant! It always specifies a very particular object, or in this case, a particular adawm.

From the KJV and all other orthodox translations, one would never suspect that there has been a change in language from the Race to an individual! Hence, Mr. Davies argues that what the Hebrew is really saying here is this: What Yahweh has done here is to “form” a special progeny, or line of descent, or seedline, from this particular Awdawm, and this particular Eve. That’s why the language of Genesis 2 is about these two individuals, whereas the language of Gen. 1 is about the creation of the various species. Gen. 1:26-28 is about the species known as the White Race. From all of the archeological, geological and historical records, there is no doubt that all of these races existed before the events in the Garden took place. The fact is that Gen. 2 is talking about a narrowing of the seedline, with THE ADAM being culled from among the larger White Race. What happened to THE ADAM did not happen to the others of this already existing Race.

It is worth noting that this type of narrowing of the seedline is a regular feature of the Book of Genesis. After Noah’s Flood, only eight souls were left. But all of the White nations of Genesis 10 descended from these eight. This is Yahweh’s method of Special Selection! Out of these thousands of descendants and dozens of tribes, only Abraham continued this special seedline. Then it was passed through Isaac. Then through Jacob. This is the formation of the COVENANT RACE, the seedline of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which was specifically selected from out of the larger White Race. The same thing is going on in Gen. 2. But the sloppy translations of the universalists obscure this exclusivity, as they endeavor to make the Bible apply to all races of people, in spite of the fact that the Bible states specifically that it is exclusively about the descendants of Adam (Gen. 5:1-2)! Very consistently, throughout the translation, the universalists fail to take note of the particular versus the general. This is very sloppy scholarship; and it would be unforgiveable in the translation of any modern work, especially if it is non-fiction!!! But, this is the process by which Adamites, who exclusively show blood in the face, mistakenly become “man,” in the generic sense. This is how “gentiles” magically become “Spiritual Israelites”!!!!! And this is how all races, according to Judeo-Christian theology, get to inherit the promises intended exclusively for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: the Twelve Tribes of Israel!!!

Do you see how the translator’s bias is built into the translation? Plain English is not plain if it fudges the difference between the thing versus everything. It is confusion.

Let’s do some more word studies.

Chay

Clifton Emahiser, in his own writings, and in his correspondence with me, insists that Yahweh Elohim did not create the non-White races. Here is one his statements, from his, “Identifying the ‘Beast of the Field,’ Part 1”:

But there are some who will go beyond Campbell, and refuse to take “no” for an

answer, as they will seize on Strong’s #2423 (a Chaldean word) where it says, “... from

2418 châyâh (another Chaldean word), found only in the book of Daniel). Once arriving

at #2418, they will notice Strong’s #2417, another Chaldean word also found only in the

book of Daniel (except for the lone exception at Ezra 6:10), and assume there must be

some connection. Upon observing Strong’s #2417, they will notice this Chaldean word

is articulated “chay”. Then immediately above #2417, they will notice Strong’s #2416,

also articulated “chay”, and will cry “Eureka”! Then they will seize on the Hebrew #2416

“chay” and apply it to Genesis 1:24-25, which amounts to little more than intellectual

dishonesty. All this to somehow include negroids and mongoloids in Yahweh’s creation!

Really, we have to take the entire context of Genesis 1 into consideration before we

concentrate on verses 24 and 25. Here is an example: • Genesis 1:4: “And God saw the light, that it was good ...”

• Genesis 1:10: “... and God saw that it was good ...”

• Genesis 1:12: “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:18: “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:21 “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:25 “... and God saw that it was good.”

• Genesis 1:31 “... And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

You will notice from all of this that God didn’t create anything in Genesis chapter

1 that was not good. Well, then, if we conjecture that the non-whites were created in

verses 24 & 25 (somehow being “good”), we are sending a message to our children,

grandchildren and great-grandchildren that there is nothing wrong with mingling racially

with them! Source: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/Other%20PDFs/BOF1.pdf

I will deal with the concept of “good” a little later, but Emahiser’s analysis of the Hebrew word, chay, is clearly wrong. Emahiser is arguing that non-White bipeds cannot be included in the concept of “beast of the earth” or “beast of the field.” But I will show that even White bipeds are chay. Yahweh Himself is also chay; and there is no denying this. Mr. Emahiser wants to exclude non-White bipeds from the fifth day of creation, merely because they are non-White. I am going to argue that this is an artificial exclusion, which is not justified by Scripture. If our aim is to arrive at Scriptural Truth, then we must do a thorough study of the word, ‘chay.’ A partial investigation will not do!! Mr. Emahiser states that non-Whites can’t be “good.” But, this is his subjective opinion of what the word ‘good’ means in these verses! Furthermore, he complicates the issue by suggesting that anyone who believes that non-Whites were created by Yahweh must also be an advocate of race-mixing.

This is another artificial argument, the fact being that most two-seedliners, including Dr. Wesley Swift and Bertrand Comparet, hold both positions simultaneously, namely, that race-mixing is evil and that Yahweh created all of the known races. This is my position as well.

The irrationality of Clifton’s argument is immediately apparent, if we apply Emahiser’s logic to other species, which he concedes were created by Yahweh, let’s say, donkeys and horses. Everyone agrees that donkeys and horses were created by Yahweh. Does that mean that we believe that donkeys and horses should interbreed? Of course not! The Bible specifically states that hybridization is forbidden (Lev. 19:19). Mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys, are a forbidden hybrid, so the Israelites did not breed mules; but they received them or bought them from other countries. (I Kings 10:25; II Chron. 9:24).

So, this argument is clearly false. There is no logical connection between advocating Yahweh’s creation of non-Whites and advocating race-mixing. The two ideas are completely unrelated. It matters not by whom the non-Whites were created. The fact that they WERE created by Yahweh does not make hybridization any more acceptable, as is proven by the fact that Yahweh forbids the interbreeding of His entire creation, not just the two-legged variety. So, we can throw this line of argument out the window. It is a false argument. In fact, it is nothing more than an insinuation. The law of “kind after kind” is to be followed, no matter how the species originated.

Now, to the word, chay.

Here are some of the Biblical usages of the word ‘chay’.

Chay (#2416): This word simply means “alive” or “life.” It must necessarily include all living creatures, no matter how they were formed or created. The word ‘chay’ cannot be limited to any lower species, such as four-legged animals, as most traditional commentators assert. Nor can it be limited to any particular species. The fact that chay is often translated as “beast” does not change its broad, general meaning. This is but a translator’s decision, based upon the context of any given verse.

These are the meanings of the Hebrew word chay, according to various Bible scholars:

Gesenius: alive, living; lively, vigorous; reviving; raw; fresh [Not a hint of any particular species or order of living beings, such as mammals, etc., but certainly not excluding hominids or quadrupeds.]

Dictionary of Biblical Languages: alive, i.e., the state of animal life; nourishment; exist, formally living, pertaining to…biological existence; raw; vigorous. [The same principle applies here as in Gesenius. This dictionary gives the correct definition as ALIVE, and then it gives numerous examples. “Animal life” is only one example of the uses of this word. This is where Clifton is getting his definition from. Note, however, that this definition is only an example of the much broader meaning of ALIVE. Limiting the designation of chay to this single example or usage is NOT Scriptural. As used in Scripture, it applies to all life, even in the realm of spirit. ]

The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon: adj. alive, living; of God, as the living one; kinsfolk; living thing, animal; community; having the vigor of life; life. [Here, again, the definition is ALIVE. “Animal” is only one of the many examples. One of the definitions is “kinsfolk.” Is this term ever applied to non-humans? Clifton falsely argues that we must limit ourselves to his preferred definition, when translating Gen. 1:24-25. But even this definition is fatal to Emahiser’s preference, because ALL BIPEDS, White or non-White, are still animals!!!]

From all three commentaries, we can see that none of them agree with Clifton that ‘chay’ can only mean “wild animals” or “non-Whites.” This word, chay, according to Adam Clarke (Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary) means, simply, an animal, in the most general sense. Hominids are animals, just like every other living creature that roams the earth. No living creature can be excluded from this broad category. In fact, the word chay is used most often in reference to Adamites and other hominids. Contrary to what Clifton Emahiser is teaching, all of these authors confirm that the word chay designates a very broad category of living beings. In each case, the listed sources define the word chay as meaning ALIVE. To exclude non-White bipeds from this broad category is tantamount to saying that they are not alive!!

Nevertheless, the definition preferred by orthodox theologians is “animal life.” But their reason for preferring this definition is universalistic. Clifton does not acknowledge this fact in any of his writings on this subject. Church theologians deliberately leave biped life out of their preferred definition precisely because they want to categorize all hominids (humanoids) as MAN. It is ironic that Clifton is using the preferred definition of the integrationists in order exclude non-White hominids from the categories being described in Gen. 1:24-25. This is their natural place. Whereas orthodoxy excludes non-Whites from the category of chay because they want to include them in the category of awdawm, Clifton excludes them from the category of chay because he can’t believe that Yahweh might have created them on the 5^th Day!!!

I think we have better reasons for distinguishing between Whites and non-Whites, as I will show later. It is also possible that post-Medieval Bible scholars did not like to think of themselves as “animals,” rightly sensing that the two-legged variety is of a much higher intelligence level. Hence, they applied their own distinctions between bipeds and quadrupeds and decided that the word ‘chay’ must include all bipeds, thus excluding quadrupeds and lower life forms. Having thus excluded all bipeds from the category of LIVING, we must all be dead! Right? Where does this leave the Adamites? Are we not also alive? Let’s look at some examples of how the word chay is used in Scripture:

Genesis 3:20: And Adam called his wife’s name Eve [chayah, or havah]: because she was the mother of all living [chay]. This verse proves that the word chay designates Eve herself. Is she not alive? Of course, she is! Eve is chay (alive)! Now, she also happens to be a biological life form. If we apply Mr. Emahiser’s logic, concerning the word chay, to Eve, she must be some kind of “wild animal,” and nothing more!!! After all, he insists that “wild animal” is the correct meaning of the word chay!

From a thorough study of the usages of the word chay in Scripture, there is no doubt that ‘chay’ is very broadly defined and CANNOT be arbitrarily assigned to any zoological category, or any particular range of living animals. It cannot be used to EXCLUDE any species that lives, despite the opinions of commentators who wish to exclude humanoids by limiting the meaning of the word chay to lower order species. This is like saying that the word ‘green’ can be used for grass, shrubs and bushes, but should not be used for trees! You should realize that those theologians, who wish to limit the meaning of the word chay to lower order animals, have done so for the express purpose of distorting the meaning of the word ADAM, which they falsely translate as “man,” in order to INCLUDE the OTHER hominids (the other races) in the domain of Adamkind. This is why these distortionists have deliberately left hominids out of the category, chay. From their perspective, then, neither chay of the field nor chay of the earth can refer to hominids, but this is incorrect! This is universalist thinking and interpolation; and it fits right in with the Jewish agenda! Clifton Emahiser perpetuates this error in his own thinking.

In arguing against the true meaning of the word chay, Clifton Emahiser relies heavily on the opinions of these very people, who are themselves integrationists!

The word chay cannot exclude any living creature. The closest English translation is, simply, LIFE, LIVING, ALIVE. For example: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s [Adamite] life (chay), in the second month….” – Gen. 7:11. “…the tree of life (chay) also in the midst of the garden…” – Gen. 2:9. “…the moving creature that has life (chay)…” – Gen. 1:20.

Since our “tree of life” is the Adamic seedline, I don’t think that Clifton would want to say we Adamites are mere “wild animals.” Following Clifton’s preferred definition, we cannot raise the Adamic Race up from his own logic. I think it is fair to say that Clifton has failed to think his thesis through, with all of its logical ramifications.

Let us now focus our attention on the phrase, “beast of the field,” which CAN be narrowed down to a biological category. This is NOT TRUE of the word chay. The word chay remains as one of the broadest categories of life. When referring to animals, it is most correctly translated as “living creature.” This is how Stephen Anderson translates it in his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. This certainly includes the Adamic species. It also includes non-Adamic bipeds, hybrid or not.

This is where the core of our disagreement comes out. Are the “trees” of the Genesis 2 account other races or not? We agree that the “tree of life” is the Adamic Race; but Clifton asserts that the other “trees” are not races. I say they are. If they are not races, then what are they? So, the question becomes, “When and where did these other races appear?” Clifton’s answer is “They are hybrids.” But when and where did they appear? He does not address this question.

Here is one opinion: “Basically, ‘trees’ are metaphorical people, nations and races, just like the ‘trees’ in the Garden of Eden in Genesis.” - Stephen Anderson, Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 31 notes.

Having demonstrated that the word chay cannot be used to exclude any category of living beings, we now must determine whether the chay of the earth, of Gen. 1:24-25, are forbidden hybrids or Yahweh’s own creation.

Earth

In Genesis 1, the word ‘earth’ comes from the Hebrew, erets, #776. It is defined as “from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.” [The X in a Strong’s definition means that the usage is idiomatic. Thus, “common” and “nations” signify idiomatic usages. The + sign means that the usage is part of a phrase, which includes other, unspecified, Hebrew words. Thus, the translation as “wilderness” would require the other word to appear next to erets in the Hebrew text.]

Since Genesis 1:24-25 describes the creation of the beast of the erets, we are talking about the living creatures that were designed to live on land. This, of course, includes hominids. Since we know that most beasts of the earth require a specific habitat, the word erets also has a wide range of meanings, from a particular territory or habitat to the entire planet. Hominids can live anywhere on the earth, from the coldest to the hottest environs. But most living creatures are confined to specific habitats, and they find it difficult to survive outside of a certain temperature range and without specific food sources. From this information, we can see that we are talking about a very wide range of “beasts.” The expression, “beast of the earth,” means, primarily, land animals. This concept does not exclude bipeds.

“And Elohim said, Let the earth (erets) bring forth the living creature (chay) after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast (chay) of the earth (erets), after its kind: and it was so. And Elohim made the beast (chay) of the earth (erets), after its kind, and everything that creeps upon the earth, after its kind: and Elohim saw that it was good.” - Gen. 1:24-25.

From these two verses, it is clear that Yahweh Elohim had made the “beast of the earth.” Of this, there is no doubt. Can we logically exclude non-White hominids from this category? If the other races reproduce after their own kind, then we cannot exclude them, because this means that their genetic code was created by Yahweh Himself. Only Yahweh can design DNA. The rest of us can only hybridize. If, as Clifton Emahiser maintains, non-White hominids are all hybrids, then we can logically exclude them. But this is an assertion that must be proven. In making this claim, Clifton Emahiser must be prepared to discuss the science of genetics. In my essays in the Enmity series, I have shown that virtually all cross-species hybrids are sterile. The fact is that the science of genetics admits that there is no known hybrid, which is capable of reproducing without reverting back to the original, racial strain. Practically speaking, this means that, if a White man were to move into the densest jungles of Africa and produce hybrid children, these hybrids would die out, as his DNA represents an outside admixture. After a few generations, all traces of White genetics would leave this population of Blacks, since these Balcks have no White DNA to contribute to any future offspring. As long as there is no additional admixture of White DNA into this population, each succeeding generation will produce blacker and blacker offspring. The first generation will be a half-breed, White and Black. The second will be ¼ White, ¾ Black. The third will be 1/8 White, 7/8 Black, and so on. This is a well-known law of genetics, as I will show later.

This is another strike against Emahiser’s hybridism thesis. Is there any evidence that Blacks and Mongolians are hybrids, and not true races? No. There isn’t. And this can be demonstrated by the science of genetics and the history of the world. We cannot substitute our personal opinions for Scriptural meanings. This is what Clifton is trying to do. There is not a hint that the land animals of Gen. 1 exclude bipeds. Nor is it true that all land animals are mere “wild animals.” Some are domesticated animals and some are acculturated hominids. Therefore, the expression, “beast of the earth” cannot be arbitrarily defined as or limited to the idea of “wild animal.”

Now, let’s tackle the expression, “beast of the field.”

Field

Gen. 2:5. “… when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.” Note that, due to the lack of rain, there was no “herb of the field” or “plant of the field,” but Gen. 1:29-30 states that there were herbs, trees and fruits of the earth (erets). This represents a major difference between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2. What, exactly, is the difference? The word field comes from the Hebrew sadeh {#7704}, meaning “to spread out: a field as flat.” This word implies cultivation, as for farming. “The Hebrew sadeh is not adequately represented by our ‘field;’ the two words agree in describing cultivated land , but they differ in point of extent, the sadeh being specifically applied to what is unenclosed.” - Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 3, p. 551. The appearance of the field (sadeh) does not occur until the Adam was placed into the Garden, because no one had yet cultivated a garden. There had been, as yet, no agricultural community.

Historically, agriculture did not make its appearance until the days of Adam, which happened around 5,000 BC. Agriculture is not mentioned in Gen. 1. This is a problem for Emahiser’s Recapitulation thesis, because the science of archeology clearly documents the existence of non-agricultural hominids predating THE ADAM. They are called the hunter-gatherers, usually ascribed to the Stone Age. But Clifton does not want to admit that either Whites or non-Whites existed before THE ADAM!!! If that is the case, then, who or what were the hunter-gatherers? If the events of Gen. 2 happened on the 6^th Day of creation, where is the historical flow from the hunter-gatherers to the farmers? Clifton Emahiser has not thought about this.

The expression, “beast of the field,” appears prominently in Genesis 3:1. In this verse, the intelligence, cunning, craftiness of Nachash is being compared to a chay of the sadeh. If the Cyclopedia is correct, then sadeh is the word for a cultivated field, meaning either farmland or a garden orchard for growing specific plants, vegetables, fruits, etc. Throughout recorded history, this type of leveling has been done by the plow. We all agree that Adam was the first agriculturalist (farmer). Did Adam have other hominid helpers? No farmer that I know of has ever released four-legged animals into a cultivated field. They are used to pull plows or wagons. Only two-legged animals are allowed into the field while it is being cultivated. Four-legged animals will only destroy or damage the crop, either by eating it up or trampling it underfoot.

Virtually all scholars, secular and religious, agree that large-scale farming first made its appearance around 5,000 BC. Genesis 2 is giving us the details as to who invented farming and how he tended the first cultivated Garden. Once again, the Bible and natural history are in reasonable agreement! From the meanings of the Hebrew words, therefore, the expression, “beast of the field,” implies a field hand or a farm hand. This can only be a two-legged beast, with hands for picking crops. Verse 5 supports this conclusion, as it states that one of the reasons for forming Adam was to “till the ground.” Verse 15 also supports this conclusion, because Adam is there instructed to dress and keep the Garden. No quadrupeds can do this!

Behemah and Chay

As Nord Davis puts it, in Star Wars, Lesson Six:

Beast is a frequently used and widely misunderstood word found in Scripture. When one thinks of a Beast in today's modern English usage, the concept is limited to those four-legged animals with hooves, paws and claws. However, the Hebrew word Chay does not only refer to ordinary animals, but in the English of the days of King James, it was not uncommon to refer to the hard working Negro people as Beasts of Burden.

Thus, we see the unusual language of our Bible that uses this term for them. It did not carry the degrading or derogatory thought that such usage would imply today. Until we come to grips with this Biblical phrase, "The Beasts of the field," there is no way that we can grasp advanced, Biblical Truth. Students should run this phrase through Strong's Concordance, but let me show with a few verses what I am getting at here. I think that these few verses will give a deeper meaning to the first chapters of Genesis, the foundation of all of God's Word. Genesis 9:5-6 states: "...And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast [chay] will I require it at the hand of every man... Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Here you see that these Beasts are described as having hands, not paws or hooves. The contest, if you will examine it, indicates that these Beasts of the earth would be aware of man's [Adamkind – Eli] origin, made in God's Image, and therefore [the Beast] could be commanded to abstain from murder or forfeit his life. Such a Beast would have to have sufficient intellect to be morally responsible for his actions. As we have stated in the Footlight, the best word for these Negro people would be Chay, Strong's Hebrew word #2416. However, a more generic word for Beast, used in Exodus 19:11-13 and 23:10-11 are from the Hebrew word behemah, Strong's Hebrew word #929, and discuss Beasts which eat grapes and olives. No farmer in his right mind would turn their cattle, sheep and horses into their vineyards and among their olive trees to trample and destroy them. So, these behemah Beasts can also refer to mankind who are not of the Adamic race. If you ask your pastor, he will probably tell you that the Beasts of the field are domesticated animals, but none of these are flesh-eating animals. Yet, as stated in I Samuel 17:44-46, and II Samuel 21:10, the Beast of the field is a cannibal, a man-eater.

Source: http://www.israelect.com/reference/extra/StarWars/Star%20Wars-06.htm

In the last two citations by Nord Davis, the Hebrew word for “beasts” is chay.

Jonah 3:7-8 states, “…Let neither man [awdawm] nor beast [behemah], herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: But let man [awdawm] and beast [behemah] be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily to God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.”

This verse is describing what the inhabitants of Nineveh must do in order to repent. The “beast” (behemah) being spoken of here is being asked to repent. It is capable of performing human activities: dressing in sackcloth (penitential clothing), crying out to God, turning away from evil; and it has hands, just as in Gen. 9:5, where the Hebrew word is chay. Zech. 8:10 says that these “beasts” are to be paid for their labor. In this case, the word ‘beast” is translated from the Hebrew, behemah. As with the word, chay, the world of orthodox theology has falsely defined it as meaning “quadruped,” exclusively. Had they paid closer attention to what these verses actually say, we know that this preferred definition does not hold for all verses. There are times when the “beasts” are the two-legged variety. Clearly, the passages quoted here refer to behaviors that are common to non-White hominids, not quadrupeds, like cattle and sheep! The definition, “quadruped,” is artificial and does not fit how the word behemah is used in the quoted passages. It may refer to quadrupeds on other occasions, but it is clear that behemah, like chay, can also designate bipeds.

Conclusion: Non-Adamite bipeds are often referred to as chay and behemah. The KJV translators have either missed this or covered it up.

Clifton still insists that this is not possible. Rather, he says: There is positively no way that the “beast” mentioned at Exodus 23:29 could be negroes. Also, there is absolutely no way that the “beast” mentioned at Genesis1:24 could be negroes or mongoloids or any other nonwhite race.

One argument he offers is this:

The 17th chapter of 2 Kings addresses the second of three deportations of Israelites from Samaria of the northern kingdom by Assyria under king Shalmaneser. After king Shalmaneser had deported the greater part of them, he repopulated Samaria with aliens. (Read 2 Kings 17:24-26!) Verse 26 states: “Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the

God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.” This is proof positive that the “chay”, translated “beast” of Genesis 1:24 and Exodus 23:29, is speaking of wild animals such as buffalo, jackal, wolf, hyena, lion, bear, tiger, leopard & lynx rather than the nonwhite races! The “beast” at Gen. 1:24 typifies wild animals, not the nonwhite races!

We have read the verses that Clifton cites; and they prove absolutely nothing!! These verses say nothing about either chay or behemah, so his conclusion, from II Kings 17, with respect to Gen. 1:24 and Ex. 23:29, is illogical, or meaningless, whichever you prefer! The only beast mentioned in II Kings 17 is the lion, and this word is never translated from either chay or behemah. Rather than being “proof positive” of his contention, he just proves that lions are not the chay being spoken of at Gen. 1:24. He is comparing apples with oranges!!

But this gets us to the core of our differences with respect to the words, chay and behemah. Clifton seems to think that, if the word ‘chay’ is correctly translated as ‘wild animal’ in one verse, it absolutely MUST BE translated as “wild animal” in Gen. 1:24-25. Yet, he elsewhere admits that “beast of the field” can mean bipeds. (Part 3 of his series on “Identifying the Beast of the Field”.) He does not make this same admission for the expression, “beast of the earth,” but we are getting closer! The burden is on Mr. Emahiser to prove that it DOES NOT MEAN bipeds in Gen. 1:24-25. The fact is that chay is the operative word in these verses. His conclusion is false, because he ignores the numerous examples and passages where chay and behemah speak of species higher than quadrupeds. And there are dozens of these. I have already cited several herein.

Nor does the word “tree” always mean a literal tree in every passage. Sometimes, it means a nation or race of people, as it does in both Gen. 1:24-25 and Gen. 2:9. “And out of the ground made Yahweh Elohim to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life [chay] also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” The first two trees are literal in that passage. The latter two are clearly figurative, especially since no literal tree has any knowledge of either good or evil!

The question is, what do these figures represent? I interpret the “tree of life” to mean the Adamic Race. Some interpreters consider this phrase to be a metaphorical reference to Jesus Christ. Yahshua did indeed say, “I am the root and the offspring of David.” But, if we take Clifton Emahiser’s preferred definition, it becomes “the tree of wild animals.” How uninteresting! I interpret the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” to mean the mixing of good and evil seed, i.e., the mixing of two different family trees. This is classic two-seedline doctrine.

Emahiser’s additional studies in this series offer no better arguments for accepting his thesis. In Part 2, Emahiser argues from various sources that “beasts” cannot possibly be non-Whites, but can only mean lower-order creatures. Here, again, he relies on the opinions of those who are unaware of the true definition of awdawm as meaning Whites only. None of these sources can be relied upon for their opinions, for virtually all of them are either universalists or integrationists. Of course Clifton never points this out! This is like quoting Jews bout the ethnicity of Jesus Christ!

One example from Part 2: Gen. 1:30: “And to every beast (2416 ‘hYx" ) of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

Comment: Here, God is dividing His “living creature” creation into three categories: (1 animal, (2 fowl, and (3 reptile, and the “beast” at this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the nonwhite races! Source: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/Other%20PDFs/BOF2.pdf

My comment: On the contrary, non-Whites eat the herbs of the erets, just like Whites and other animals! Emahiser’s exclusion of non-Whites from Gen. 1:30 is completely arbitrary. He forgets that non-Whites also have “every green herb for meat.” So, Gen. 1:30 cannot possibly be used as an exclusionary verse. He also fails to point out that the word ‘life,’ in the same verse, is likewise translated from the word ‘chay,’ (#2416), where it is a reference to creeping things. Nor are his three categories mutually exclusive, as fowl and reptiles are also animals. Category 1 includes categories 2 and 3. This is because of his failure to properly define the word chay. It leads to confusion. Since both Whites and non-Whites are both alive and eat herbs, they cannot be excluded from Gen. 1:30. Chay is also the source word for “life” in the following verses: Gen. 1:20, 1:30; Gen. 2:7, 9; 3:14, 17, 22, 24; 6:17; 7:11, 15, 22, and dozens more. From these examples, we can see that trying to limit the definition of chay to a specific range of living animals, wild or unwild, is a futile enterprise.

Emahiser’s Part 3 is devoted to Adam Clarke’s belief that Nachash was an orangutan. Now, Adam Clarke was one of the few Bible commentators to realize that the Nachash had to be some kind of non-Adamite. His commentary is a sincere effort to identify what Nachash actually represents. He finally concludes that Nachash was some kind of ape; but this is based on a comparison of Arabic words (khanoos and satyrus) with Hebrew words. His conclusion is based on Arabic meanings, not on Biblical meanings. But his opinion is about the word, Nachash, not “beast of the field.” He does not discuss the word chay at all, although hr indirectly refers to it by suggesting that Nachash, in this verse, is thereby the head of all “inferior animals.” He finally concludes that Nachash must have been an orangutan, quoting: It therefore appears to me that a creature of the ape or ouran outing (orangutan) kind is here intended; and that Satan made use of this creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man. Under this creature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents, and drew off or slunk away from every eye but the eye of God. – Clarke’s Commentary, Vol. I, p. 48.

Clifton expresses his agreement with this opinion.

And although Clarke is surely incorrect about a third party “agent” seducing Eve,

we must seriously consider his equating satyrus (satyr), ape and ouran outing (orangutan) with the “serpent” and “beast of the field” at Genesis 3:1! Surely the phrase“the beast of the field” is a foundational Hebrew idiom for the existence of the nonwhite peoples who were not created by the Almighty, but are a product of fallen angelkind mixed with animal-kind! And the ape family are four-footed/quadrupeds as are the #929, “bhemah” in the many (but not all) passages where the nonwhite races are meant.

Source: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/Other%20PDFs/BOF3.pdf

Herein, he admits that the expression, “beast of the field” is a “foundational Hebrew idiom for the existence of the nonwhite peoples who were not created by the Almighty.” Clifton here re-asserts his hybrization theory, but still has not provided any proof for it. Hybrid or not, Clifton is admitting that the “beast of the field” is a nonwhite. So, clearly, these nonwhites are in the Garden of Eden, in Gen. 3!!! But he is not willing to accept the proposition that these nonwhites are one of the “trees” of Gen. 2! The question now becomes: “When did this hybridization occur?” Since the “beast of the field” can be found at Gen. 2:20, these nonwhites are already there, for comparison with Nachash. Because Clifton does not address the subject of chronology, it is impossible to tell when these nonwhites came into being. He is adamant that they are not there in Gen. 1:24-25 (5^th day of creation), but he is now admitting that they are in the Garden, on the 6^th day of creation. Clifton needs to address the chronology.

Orangutans, although capable of standing upright, knuckle-walk on all fours and they have prehensile feet, so they are not true hominids. With regard to organs of speech, they can grunt and howl, but they are not capable of speech. Clarke himself warns against assuming any miraculous abilities of orangutans to speak in Gen. 3, so his analysis is admittedly highly speculative. Can we take seriously the idea that Eve had a conversation with an orangutan? Or that Eve allowed herself to be seduced by monkey? These are the extremes to which we must go, in order to avoid admitting that the “beast of the earth,” of Gen. 1:24-25, means non-Whites.

Emahiser admits that the phrase, “beast of the field,” can mean non-Whites, but he adamantly refuses to admit that the “beast” of Gen. 1 can mean the same thing!! I assert that both phrases, “beast of the field” and “beast of the earth,” mean non-Whites, with regard to the passages under discussion. The only difference between the two expressions is that, since Adam invented farming, there were, as yet, no cultivated fields to speak of in Genesis 1.

In Part 4, Emahiser talks about a non-Hebrew word, cheyva, and debunks it as a possible source word for chay, but this is irrelevant, because the Bible does not use this word. It’s a straw-man argument. The balance of this essay is devoted Bassou, the monkey-man of Africa, who appears to be a rare hybrid of Black and monkey. This is presented as possible evidence that Blacks can produce mixed offspring with apes, but it does not prove anything concerning the events of the Garden. Source: http://emahiser.christogenea.org/Other%20PDFs/BOF4.pdf

The Recapitulation Syllogisms

I must at this point address the chronological problems implicit in Clifton’s theology.

Recapitulation Syllogism #1:

1.) No Negroids or Mongoloids at Gen. 1:24-25.

2.) This is the fifth day of creation.

Therefore, according to Clifton, there can be no hominids of any species alive on the 5^th day.

Recapitulation Syllogism #2:

1.) Only the White Race is represented in Gen. 1:26-27. (Clifton and I agree on this point.)

2.) The events of Genesis 2 occur on the 6^th day of creation.

Therefore, according to Clifton, only Whites exist on the 6^th day.

BUT

Recapitulation Syllogism #3:

1.) The “beast of the field” does indeed inhabit the Garden at Gen. 3:1.

2.) By Clifton’s own admission, the beast of the field in Gen. 3:1 represents “nonwhites.”

Therefore, non-Whites exist in the Garden.

Also, from Gen. 2:20, we know that these non-Whites are in the Garden. This narrows down the time as to when these non-Whites were either created by Yahweh or formed by hybridization. But there is nothing in the passages between Gen. 1:24 and Gen. 3:1 that even remotely suggests that some kind of hybridization has taken place. Rather, the existence of these non-Whites is granted by Gen. 2:20 and they are used as a creature of comparison with Nachash in Gen. 3:1.

If Clifton concedes that the beast of the field is a non-White at Gen. 3:1, why not at Gen. 2:20? In my opinion, the inescapable conclusion of all this is that the non-Whites are already in existence in the Garden before Gen. 3:1. If, as Clifton argues, the non-Whites did not exist on Day 5, then they had to have been either created by Yahweh or hybridized by Nachash on Day 6.

FINALLY

Recapitulation Syllogism #4:

1.) Non-Whites DO NOT exist on Day 5.

2.) Non-Whites DO exist on Day 6.

3.) Gen. 2:17 states that the Adam should not “eat” of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”

4.) Literal trees do not have any knowledge of good or evil.

Therefore, this tree represents the forbidden act of race-mixing, which has already been forbidden before Nachash appears on the scene, at Gen. 3:1.

Conclusion: Non-Whites are the subject of Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 2:20. Clifton Emahiser cannot tell us by whom they were “created,” but there is no doubt that they are already present in the Garden.

The Serpent: Snake, Quadruped, or Hominid?

In its verb form, the word ‘nachash’ invariably means to enchant, bewitch, deceive, etc. The verb form appears in such places as Gen. 30:27, 44:5, 15; Lev. 19:26; Deut. 18:10; 1 Kings 20:33; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chr. 33:6. The noun form is used at Num. 23:22 and 24:1, and it means deceiver, enchanter, whisperer. What this Nachash critter did to or with Eve is not something that can be done by literal snakes, monkeys or quadrupeds.

Gen. 3:1 states that Nachash was more cunning, wily, crafty, deceitful than any chay of the sadeh. The only craftiness snakes possess is their ability to hide and strike by surprise. But Nachash was having philosophical discussions with Eve, regarding issues of morality and divinity. Snakes do not talk; and humans do not have conversations with snakes, except in the performing arts. (Even Adam Clarke rejected this possibility, as it would have “surprised” Eve and chased her off! Similarly, quadrupeds do not speak, nor are they as cunning as the bipeds of other races. Although Balaam’s donkey was made to speak by Yahweh, the Scriptures clearly tell us that this was a supernatural event. Supernatural events are always cited in the Bible, as either the actions of angels, or by Yahweh Himself. The miracles of Yahshua were always cited as supernatural events. We cannot assume a miracle in order to promote a particular thesis, as the Judeo-Christians do! Unless the Bible says something miraculous occurred, there is no justification for assuming that a literal snake had a conversation with Eve. Thus, we cannot assume that a literal snake was made to speak.) Hence, we must go with the figurative language of “serpent,” meaning enchanter, deceiver or whisperer, like the devil, who whispers in our ears, deceiving or tempting us. This is not something that snakes or quadrupeds are capable of. The fox is the quadruped most renowned for its wiliness. Such animals cannot whisper things in our ears, as the Nachash creature did to Eve. Is Nachash being compared to a biped or to a quadruped?

The word Nachash also means to “shine like brass.” It is possible that Eve was fooled by the artificial or reflected “light” of Nachash, mistaking it for the Shekinah Glory of Adam.

Can we be expected to believe that Eve, who would have been the most intelligent woman to ever walk the earth, was tricked by anything less than a highly advanced humanoid? Virtually all seedliners agree that Nachash was a humanoid, and quite possibly a fallen angel, in the shape of a humanoid. The Book of Enoch gives this fallen angel a name: Gadrel. Gadrel is a lieutenant of Satan. His cunning is being compared to that of humanoids of lesser intelligence than himself, not to any quadrupeds or snakes. Since we have already demonstrated that the “beast of the field” can have hands, the most logical interpretation of Gen. 3:1 is that the beast of the field of Gen. 3:1 is a biped of another race. Anything less would be an insult to the intelligence of both Eve and Nachash.

Recapitulation Or Chronologism?

Clifton Emahiser’s thesis is that all non-Whites are hybrids between Whites and whatever Nachash represents. The problem with this view is that it ignores the possibility that the beasts of the earth, in Genesis 1, can be two-legged “beasts.” But I have proven, from Scripture, that the two-legged beasts of the field were already on the planet and in the Garden, at Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 2:20. From Clifton’s perspective, Nachash is the very first two-legged beast, since all non-Whites would have descended from him. If Nachash is the ONLY two-legged beast on the planet on the 6^th day, then we come back to the old problem of “Where did Cain get his wife from?”

Do you see the paradox? If Nachash is the source of all hybrids, then where did Cain’s wife come from? No other children, besides, Cain and Abel, are yet recorded from the loins of our two protagonists, Adam and Eve, and their antagonist, Nachash. As most critics have rightly observed, Cain’s wife was already out there in the land of Nod. There is no record of any other children between Adam and Eve until Gen. 5, well after the events of Gen. 4. Did Cain marry a monkey? Can a half-monkey, half-Kenite critter build cities? Who did Cain fear would kill him, out there in the land of Nod?

Natural History, Races and Hybrids

In my mind, the fatal blow to the Recapitulation Theory is delivered by natural history. Clifton Emahiser does not consider natural history in any of his arguments. He confines his thesis to Scripture and commentaries on Scripture. But if these arguments contradict natural history, which was also written by Yahweh, then there is a real problem.

The fossil record clearly shows that all of the biped life forms had been roaming this planet for thousands of years before the Garden of Eden. And this includes the Caucasian Race. If all races are derived exclusively from race-mixing with Adamites, then, logically, the fossil record would have to begin in 5,000 BC. By arguing that Gen. 2 is a mere recapitulation of Gen. 1:26-27, Clifton boxes himself into the Septuagint chronology of the Biblical patriarchs, which cannot be started any earlier than the 6^th Day. By making this equation of Gen. 1:26-27 with the events of Gen. 2, he is saying that the White race cannot possibly be older than 5,000 BC. Nor can the other “races” be any older, because, according to his thesis, they did not exist on the 5^th Day. By denying that non-Whites were created on the 5^th Day, he is logically saying that none of the currently existing races could have existed prior to 5,000 BC.

There is simply no way to reconcile this doctrine with the record of natural history.

The Biblical chronology of Adam’s seedline, from the Septuagint, says that our Seedline began around that time. If Mr. Emahiser’s thesis is correct, then there can be no trace of hominid races at all before 5,000 BC. If no races appeared before 5,000 BC, then natural history is meaningless. Mr. Emahiser would have to explain the fossil record as the Creationists try to do. Their date is 4,000 BC, following Masoretic reckoning. They teach that all of the various geological strata, which are formed by sedimentation that typically takes thousands of years for each layer, were all laid down in six literal days! Mr. Emahiser would have to refute any archeological evidence that any of the races were in existence before 5,000 BC!! That is a tall order, which I perceive that Clifton is not prepared to tackle.

The fossil record militates against both the Creationist view and the Recapitulation Theory. My argument is that Cro-Magnon man is the very White race spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27; and I show, in photographic evidence at the end of this essay, that their skeletal remains are identical to the skeletons of the modern Caucasian Race. There is one exception to this similarity. Cro-Magnon had larger brain capacity, which means that they were very likely more intelligent than modern Whites. This fact cannot be explained by the fable of evolution.

In my Enmity, Part 5, I quote a Hebrew scholar who argues, as we in Identity also do, that the Hebrew word, yowm, in Genesis 1, means “era, eon,” not a literal day. There is really no way of knowing how old our planet is. In terms of the numbers of years, thousand or millions, it’s all guesswork, by both scientists and theologians. But we do have an established sequence of events; and the Recapitulation Hypothesis contradicts it. The Bible gives the ages of the patriarchs, and calculating back in time puts the formation of Adam around 5,000 BC. Hence, according to Clifton’s own argument, all of the races MUST have originated around 5,000 BC. For Clifton Emahiser, there is no getting out of this box. His Recapitulation Theory has logically hemmed himself into this time frame. His theory demands that all of the races be no older than 5,000 BC.

On the other hand, if Mr. Emahiser accepted Mr. Davies’ analysis of the Hebrew and my analysis of natural history, all of these problems are resolved. Cain would have gotten his wife from any of the pre-existing races, which would even include any survivors of the White Race, from Gen. 1:26-27. The Chronological Account, by which the non-White races are represented in Gen. 1:24-25, and the pre-Adamites (Cro-Magnon) are represented in Gen. 1:26-27, is the only approach which avoids all of the contradictions created by the alternative theories.

Hybridism

Part of Mr. Emahiser’s thesis is that the other races could not have been created by Yahweh, because Gen. 1 says that this creation was “good,” or “very good,” implying that any creation containing Blacks and Orientals cannot possibly be “good.” But that is a value judgment on his part, which does not accord with Scripture. That is imposing his opinion upon Scripture. What about mosquitoes, bed bugs and cockroaches? What about jackals, hyenas, and swamp things? Are these creatures “good”? I think our planet could do without hundreds of critters, like leeches, cockroaches and Jews, but only the latter are of any significance; and I agree with Mr. Emahiser 100% that Jews are viable hybrid breed. The Jews, in fact, are not a race at all. They have the most mixed-up set of genes of all breeds, as they did and still do hybridize with all of the other races. This explains why Jews have the world’s highest rate of genetic diseases.

The subject of hybridism is very complex. The general rule is that cross-species hybrids are infertile and cannot produce self-replicating offspring. In fact, there is no example of such a hybrid in the scientific literature. It is taught, however, as a maxim of evolutionism, because this is the supposed mechanism of “evolution.” Although the scientific literature states that cross-species hybrids are sterile, sub-species hybrids are capable of reproducing. For example, one type of dog can mate with a different type of dog. One type of cat can mate with different types of cats. But dogs (Genus: canine) cannot mate with cats (Genus: feline) and produce viable offspring. It has never happened and it cannot happen, because the genomes are too far apart. The two different genomes are too dissimilar for cross-breeding. Genetically, within a given species, sub-species can hybridize, although they will still revert back to their original DNA, once the process of sub-species hybridization stops. Here, we have to assume that certain sub-species (wolves, hyenas, dingoes), also called landraces, occur naturally and were created by Yahweh. They are naturally fertile and they breed true, kind after kind. These sub-species are the stock used by breeders to produce man-made breeds. For example, different sub-species of canines (dogs, a species) can be forced to interbreed, although foxes, wolves, hyenas and jackals (natural sub-species) do not interbreed naturally. (This is a very good article on the subject of dog breeds, species and sub-species: http://www.netpets.com/dogs/healthspa/bragg.html Disregarding the author’s assumption of evolutionary selection, this statement cogently summarizes the situation: It must be realized that canine breeds are manmade, created by artificial election out of the endless diversity of the canine gene pool. Breeds must not be confused with species or even subspecies, which occur naturally under the influence of natural selection; dog breeds are only unstable manmade varieties which would not survive unchanged in the natural world without human management.

Naturally occurring sub-species actually avoid each other and do not desire or attract mates of the other sub-species. Many of these sub-species live on different continents and would never associate were it not for human interference. Forced breeds must be maintained by constant interbreeding; and this is done by the breeder. From this standpoint, I agree with Emahiser that Jews, whose DNA has long been mixed with other hominid sub-species, are a hybrid breed. Technically, Jews are what dog breeders call “mutts.” If you let the various breeds out on the street, mutts happen!!! This means that, in order for Cain to be produced by a sexual union between Nachash and Eve, the DNA of Nachash had to have been similar to that of Whites. Assuming that Eve was the first White woman, Cain would have been the first specimen of such a sub-species hybrid. By the way, Yahshua refers to the Jews as a “brood of vipers,” a comment which confirms our suspicions!!! (Matt. 3:7, 12:34, 23:33; Luke 3:7.)

The question before us is when did these hybrids make their appearance? Before the Adam and the Eve, or after they were put into the Garden? The book of Enoch asserts that the Watchers were just such a breed of fallen angels!! Gadrel would have been one of their number. Virtually all of the fallen angel legends tell us that the ones who chose to leave their first estate were almost exclusively males. Only a small number of females are mentioned. Presumably, Lilith was a female example. With such a high percentage of males, they had to seek out females of the existing races. They had none or very few of their own genome of females with which to mate! Hence, Gen. 6:2 tells us that the “ben elohim,” the fallen ones, mated with the daughters of Adam. This is why Jewish men are always seeking out White women. Jewish men mating with Jewish women produces a less viable offspring. Also, it is much easier for a male to rape a female. This would be another reason why the fallen ones incarnated as males. The principle of hybrid vigor would account for the first generation being giants. Giantism would drop off in succeeding generations, as history shows.

These fallen ones could have interbred with any or all existing races, but the Bible is only concerned with the fact that Adamite women were being so debauched. That’s why Yahweh had to clean the Adamic house, genetically, in Genesis 6. Noah was perfect in his genealogy; and so were his direct descendants. (Gen. 6:8-9.)

There is no way of knowing how long ago the fallen ones descended to this planet. Cross-breeding and interbreeding appear to have been on their agenda from the moment they landed on terra firma. Their descendants, the Canaanites, were still doing these things in Biblical times. That’s why Yahweh ordered the Israelites to exterminate everything in Canaanland, including their breeds of animals!!! The important consideration for us is that the fossil record shows that the various races of hominids had existed for thousands of years before the Garden of Eden.

But Clifton does not take the fossil record into consideration. He is only willing to accept one possibility: that all of the other races are hybrids of matings with the fallen ones, not creations of Elohim. As already stated, this argument forces all of human history to begin in the year 5,000 BC, as the Septuagint chronology demands. We have to get this right. We cannot allow our value judgments to determine the meaning of Scripture.

The Hebrew word for “good” in Gen. 1 is towb, #2896. It’s definition is “from 2895; good (as an adjective) in the widest sense; used likewise as a noun, both in the masculine and the feminine; the singular and the plural…beautiful, better, bountiful, cheerful, at ease, goodly, kindly, loving, pleasant..”

None of these meanings imply a moral evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of the things being discussed. These verses are talking about the whole creation. There is no hint that non-White hominids cannot be included. These are statements about the ecology, that the ecology was functioning well. All of the species were interacting well with each other and with the plant kingdom, the atmosphere, etc. Reproduction was occurring kind after kind, and the various species had plenty of food, oxygen, habitat, etc. Consequently, to suggest that these verses must contain a value judgment about the worthiness of the non-Whites to exist is a stretch. That is imposing our values upon these Scriptures. Clifton Emahiser is imposing his pet definition of the word ‘good’ upon the Scriptures. We may want to agree with his opinion, but Scripture does not say what he wants it to mean.

With regard to the future worthiness of particular ethnic groups, Scripture only foretells the destruction of a particular breed: the Canaanite, Edomite breed. (Gen. 3:15, Obadiah, Zech. 14:21, Romans 16:20.) And these people are indeed sub-species hybrids. But this does not mean that the other races will be exterminated. On the contrary, the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah show that the pure-blooded Israelites of the House of Judah had no intention of killing of their forbidden offspring. Neither one of these priest-kings demanded their extermination. Instead, the House of Judah was advised to spurn their company and were forbidden by those two law-abiding priests from further engaging in race-mixing. The men of Judah had to put them away, however, meaning that they had to be sent back to Idumea, the land of the Canaanites, Samaria, or elsewhere. The Israelites had long since missed their opportunity to exterminate the hybrid offspring of the fallen ones. Numbers 33:55 predicted that these forbidden hybrids would become pricks in our eyes and thorns in our sides. Although Yahweh Himself killed Er and Onan, Judah’s first two sons by a Canaanite woman, He did not kill off Shelah or his descendants. The reason for this is that Judah had fathered two Adamite sons, Pharez and Zarah, through Tamar, granddaughter of Shem. These two sons were legitimate offspring in the racial sense, even though they were born out of wedlock! Yahweh’s intention was to preserve a pure seedline through Tamar and Judah, even though Judah was not aware of it at the time. Some people cannot forgive Judah for his sin. Others completely ignore it. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah clearly state that the Israelite genome, of the House of Judah, was preserved, by putting away the forbidden wives and hybrid offspring of the men of Judah. By this means, the seedline of King David was continued, as prophecy had foretold. (II Samuel 3:10, 18.)

All of Biblical history is a lesson about what happens to our Race when we fail to remain segregated from other peoples. Only those of us in two-seedline are showing any awareness of having learned this lesson. We cannot be His Chosen if we are polluting our blood with foreign DNA. Those Whites who fail to learn this lesson are literally destroying themselves and also making themselves liable for judgment, at the Great Day. So, beware! Take it from Pastor Eli James: ALL THOSE WHO PROMOTE RACE-MIXING ARE GOING TO HELL! The Jews and the Judeos are going to be in for a tremendous surprise, intense shock and disappointment, as the self-righteous boasting of the integrationists is based on the Jew-inspired lie that race-mixing is good!!!

From a moral perspective, the fact is that the hybrid is the innocent product of an illicit fornication, race-mixing. The mamzer has not committed any sin. The mamzer’s parents are guilty of the sin; and it is the parents who should be held responsible. Although Numbers 14:18 states that the sins of the fathers will visit upon subsequent generations, this is not the fault of their children. They become the innocent victims of their parents’ iniquity, just as we all have become the victims of Adam and Eve’s sin. Sin came into our species because of what they did!!! The Bible clearly states that the children are not guilty of the sins of their parents (Eze. 18:20, John 9:2); but this does not mean that we don’t suffer the consequences as innocent victims. The only way to overcome this state of affairs is by obeying the Law ourselves. At the Judgment Day, our planet will endure a tremendous cleansing. This will be similar to the cleansing that took place in the days of Noah, but on a much vaster scale, with 7 billion lives at stake! Jesus said, “It shall be as in the days of Noah.” (Matt. 24: 37. Race-mixing is rampant again!!) When the Kingdom comes, Yahweh’s laws will be enforced with an iron rod, and hybridization will be forever banned. Any White person who knowingly engages in such activity will be subject to banishment or even death. This is Yahweh’s law!!! Yahshua Himself will see to it that the laws of genetic purity are obeyed.

Matt. 15:22 is instructive here. The Canaanite woman’s daughter was healed because she acknowledged that Yahshua is the Son of David. Even though Yahshua told her that the “children’s bread” (inheritance) is NOT TO BE GIVEN TO DOGS (mongrels) like her, He yet healed her daughter. We have no right to execute judgment upon those who have not sinned. The children cannot be prosecuted for the sins of the parents; but we have the responsibility to ensure that this type of sin never happens again in Israel and in the Adamic Race.

When the Adamic Race is restored by Israel’s Inheritance of the Kingdom, then we can execute judgment upon the race-mixers. This will be done according to the Law. The race-mixers will be put on trial and executed if found guilty. But their offspring are not guilty of this crime. They are the products of it. They will be allowed to live out their lives among the other races; but they will not be allowed to inherit that which belongs exclusively to the Children of Israel. No mamzers will be allowed into our congregation. (Deut. 23:2.) As such, the hybrids will die out and will never bother the Adamic Race again. Apparently, this is not good enough for Mr. Emahiser. Since he does not want any of the other races around after the Judgment Day, he has marked them all for extermination by declaring them to be uncreated “hybrids.” This is the real motivation behind Clifton’s thesis. If Yahweh didn’t create them, then they can’t be allowed to live!!!

If Clifton lives long enough, he may get the opportunity see some of this judgment.

The fact is, however, that, were it not for Jewish incitement of the other races, Adamkind would not even be burdened by them. It is only because of the Perfidious Jew that these other races are even a problem for us. Historically, fear of the White Man (Gen. 9:2; Deut. 11:23-28) has always been the rule, until the day that the Edomites fulfilled Isaac’s prophesy that Esau would have temporary dominion over Jacob. (Gen. 27:40.) This began when Napoleon’s armies let the Jews out of the ghettos (Rev. 20:1-3, 7-8), during the Napoleonic wars; and the House of Rothschild began their international banking dynasty (Mystery Babylon), in 1815. The Jews bribed Napoleon’s generals into relaxing the ghetto laws, thus the chain holding the Jews in the ghettos was removed, and Satan was let loose upon the world, in the form of Talmudic Judaism, communism, Zionism, and usury banking. They have ruled the nations through the deception of usury banking ever since. But their days are numbered. Their “little season” is just about over. We will be victorious.

Since Yahweh promises to protect us from all enemies, if we would only obey His Laws, we have nothing to fear from any creature. That’s the one condition.

Since hybrid offspring are not guilty of any sin, Yahweh will not punish them for that alone. (Obviously, many of them will deserve death and/or punishment for other things!) Rather, they will be allowed to die off. But the Edomites, Canaanites and Khazars, whose death sentence has already been determined by Yahweh, will be lawfully executed. Thinking that they rule the world, they are actually on death row!!! The planet earth is their holding cell. Even Paul verifies the “liquidation” of the Edomites in Romans 9:12-22, calling the Edomites “vessels of wrath fitted for destruction.” Along with these Edomites, those who promote race-mixing will also be executed, for they cause our people to sin. This includes many of our own Race, who have joined the Perfidious Jew in the active process of trying to destroy our Race through miscegenation. This includes every minister of every denomination which condones or excuses the abominations of fornication. In fact, the ministers of the churches of fornication will receive a double measure of judgment, for leading Yahweh’s flock astray. (Isa. 61:5-9.) After this cleansing, True Israel will become a “crown of Glory.” (Isa. 62:1-3.)

It is not true that all Blacks and Orientals are evil. There are many who are sincerely trying to work hard and be self-reliant individuals; but most find this extremely difficult to do, as they cannot compete with the White man.

Here is the true promise of salvation, as it applies to True Israel: Only those of Adamkind, through the restorative work of the redemption at the cross and the preservation of His Remnant of True Israel, will inherit immortal flesh bodies, protected by the Holy Spirit. This is the true meaning of “salvation,” for Israel and the White Race. The other races, which were indeed created by Yahweh Elohim, will continue to exist; but they will not inhabit our lands. Hybridization will henceforth be a capital offense and will be punished accordingly. Here is how Isaiah puts it:

“Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of Yahweh of hosts, and in the day of His fierce anger. And it shall be as the chased gazelle, and as a sheep that no man (#120, awdawm) takes up: they shall every man (#376, iysh) turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land.” - Isa. 13:13-14.

The Blacks will go back to Africa. The Orientals will go back to China. The Mexicans will be sent back to Mexico. The Jewsraeli Viper State will be wiped off the face of the map; and we Adamites will keep the lands that Yahweh has given to us. And there will be peace and prosperity everywhere, after Adamkind gets restored to the condition intended for our parents, Adam and Eve. Clifton, there will be no more race-mixing! Praise Yahweh! They will be under our dominion. There is no reason to fear them or to even desire their extermination. In any case, we shall soon know who is correct, me or Clifton!!!

Since only Adamkind was promised dominion, these other races will have to submit to our dominion, as stated in Gen. 1:28-30. Even for them, their best days are ahead of them, because the Perfidious Jew, the hybrid race of the fallen angels, will finally be wiped off the face of the earth. Is this a radical teaching? This is what the Bible teaches, in no uncertain terms!!!

If Mr. Emahiser has a different interpretation of Matt. 15:22-29, let him declare himself. By the way, that passage concludes with the words, O woman, great is your faith: be it given unto you even as you will. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” Even though she was a “dog,” not an Israelite!

Would that all of True Israel had that kind of faith!!! Yahshua did not say to her, “Go to hell. You’re a Canaanite.” Given what I know about Jews, however, I doubt that more than one-tenth of one percent will bend the knee to Yahshua Messiah. And those who do will have a very high percentage of White DNA, as opposed to viper DNA.

The seedline of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has provided all nations and races with untold blessings, but the other races and nations have little or no appreciation for the level of civilization we have provided, thanks to Jewish infiltration of our governments. The Jews have trained them to expect us to provide for their livelihood from here to eternity. These Jew-trained ingrates only want more of what we have and are incapable of operating at the Adamic level. Hence, we MUST segregate. As one prisoner expressed it in a letter to me, “Us as the White Race have bent over backwards to appease their lives, civil rights, so-called equal opportunity, welfare, giving them even our daughters, by the Judeo bull crap religion. It is a war, Brother. They will never accept Yahweh’s Laws. They hate Him, His people and will not stop till we are destroyed.”

Yes, there is a great hatred of the White Race. It has been getting worse ever since the Edomites of the House of Rothschild have been dictating terms to our nations. But this does not mean that all members of the other races are worthy of extermination. There is nothing in the Bible that says this. The closest verse in the Bible to this idea is in Ezekiel 39, verse 2, speaking of the armies of Gog and Magog: “And I will turn you back, and leave but the sixth part of you.” Even after smiting five-sixths of these armies, the beasts of the earth will be around to devour them. They are cannibals, after all.

The natural fact is that, left to themselves, the races voluntarily segregate. This is true of all prison populations. It is true of all free nations. Integration must be FORCED upon us, against our will; and the churches have been in the forefront of promoting this abomination of abominations. It is only the Jewish propaganda machine and their anti-White, anti-Christian agenda that have created this failing multiculturalism. But because the Adamites in our churches have stupidly given up their dominion, the Canaanites, Edomites, and Khazars have filled the void. As long as the Jew is in control of our society, injustice and race-mixing will flourish, until Yahweh says, “Enough! I will visit!”

Our job is to re-establish White civilization, for Whites only. There is no other way; and there is no need to exterminate the non-White races. They will be under our dominion. With our Shekinah Glory restored, no one, nor anything, can ever harm us again. Isn’t that a promise worth anticipating, worth praying for?

Yahshua promised that, when He returns, He will vanquish all evildoers. Let us keep His laws and prepare for His Coming.

“Beast of the Field” in Genesis 3:1

Genesis 3:1 compares Nachash to a “beast of the field.” From our word studies, we know from the broad meaning of the word, chay, that it includes both White and non-White hominids…because the Bible clearly uses this word of all living creatures, including Yahweh Himself. There is no Scriptural or logical justification for classifying chay creatures as only four-legged creatures, or “wild animals.” The universalism of the churches has led to a failure to address any of the hominid applications of chay and behemah, as these words are used in Scripture. And this false tradition has led to the erroneous belief that all races descended from Adam and Eve. As a result, we have been force-fed an un-Scriptural and an unnatural classification living creatures, which is used to promote the latest modernist heresy, by which Whites must race-mix. But this is merely the propaganda phase of the Race War against Adamkind. As we begin to wake up to our True Identity, the tide will turn; and race-mixing will be forever outlawed.

Those who wish to amalgamate the races lump “man” into the category of all bipeds and ‘chay’ into the category of non-hominids, meaning simians, four-legged creatures and below. But this is not how the Bible classifies the natural world of living beings.

Here is the universalist classification:

Man Chay

All races of “mankind,” i.e., hominids Simians, four-legged creatures and below

But the Bible has a completely different classification:

Adamites (Gen. 1:26-27) Non-Adamites (Gen. 1:23-24)

The White Race (chay, showing blood All other hominids, simians, four-legged critters, in the face) marsupials, birds, creepy crawlers, etc. (chay and behemah)

Scripturally, the White Race stands apart from the rest of creation, as a Race apart. Why is this true?

• Because only Adamkind shows blood in the face.

• Only THE ADAM had the breath of life breathed into him by Yahweh Himself. This characteristic was also provided to Eve, as his helpmate.

• Only Adamkind was made in the image and likeness of Elohim (Gen. 1:26; 5:3)

• Only THE ADAM fathered the specific progeny that would result in the Chosen People, True Israel, also known as the Covenant People.

• Only Adamkind was conceived before the physical universe was created. (The doctrine of predestination. Rom. 8:29, 11:2, I Peter 1:2.)

• Only Adamkind is “fair and ruddy,” meaning white-skinned and rosy cheeks.

• Only Adamkind was given dominion over the earth.

• The Bible was written to, by, for and about Adamkind (Gen. 5:1; Gen. 10).

Let us now revisit the opening quotation of this sermon, Gen. 3:1: “Now, the Nachash was more subtle than any beast (chay) of the field, which Yahweh Elohim had made.” From this verse, there can be no doubt that Yahweh created the beasts of the field, as it specifically declares that Yahweh made them. The question is this: Is this chay a hominid of another race, or merely a wild animal (quadruped)?

For the various reasons stated above, I can only conclude that, in this verse, the intelligence of Nachash is being compared to the most intelligent non-Adamite in the cultivated Garden (sadeh means a flattened field, as for cultivation). Fields are flattened by the plow. Four-legged creatures are used to pull the plow, but they are kept out of such fields after they are planted. Gen. 3:1 is not talking about wild animals. It is talking about the bipeds of the other races that already existed, creatures that are capable of maintaining a cultivated field, and that includes itinerant Amerindian laborers, hired for the purpose of harvesting our crops. Let me quote Clifton again: Surely the phrase“the beast of the field” is a foundational Hebrew idiom for the existence of the nonwhite peoples who were not created by the Almighty, but are a product of fallen angelkind mixed with animal-kind!

But he has not proven that the non-Whites were not created by Yahweh. That is his assumption, which has yet to be proven. Since Clifton Emahiser has admitted that that this idiom is a reference to non-Whites and that these non-Whites were indeed in existence on the 6^th day, which includes Gen. 2:17, Gen. 2:20, and Gen. 3:1, there can be no doubt that they were IN THE GARDEN during the 6^th Day. Now the first sentence of Gen. 3:1 contains these words: “Now the serpent was more subtle than any BEAST OF THE FIELD WHICH YAHWEH ELOHIM HAD MADE.” These words are fatal to Emahiser’s thesis, as they specifically declare that Yahweh made the beasts of the field.

Recapitulation Syllogism #5

Recapitulation Syllogism #5:

1.) Clifton Emahiser admits that “beast of the field” is an idiom for non-Whites.

2.) Gen. 3:1 specifically states that Yahweh created the beast of the field.

Therefore, Yahweh created the non-Whites.

Syllogism #5 settles the matter as to who created the non-Whites. His denial of this idea is directly contradicted by Yahweh Himself, through Moses.

Nor can Cro-Magnon be ruled out as a “beast of the field,” because THE MAN ADAM was elevated above them as well. Any and all races could have been in the Garden; and archeology proves that all of the current races were already in existence for thousands of years before the Garden. Even Adamites are designated as ‘chay’ in numerous places in Scripture. Just look up the words, alive, life, live, liveth, and living, and you will see the full variety of living beings that are referenced by the word, chay, proving that this word cannot possibly be limited to the definition, “wild animal.” Clifton Emahiser ignores this fact. He only focuses on those verses that designate “beasts” as chay. A thorough word study he has not done!!!

The KJV translators have also taken liberties with this expression, “wild beast,” as in II Kings 14:9, II Chron. 25:18 and Job 39:15, inserting the word ‘wild’ in front of the Hebrew word chay, where there is no Hebrew word for“wild” in the text. They simply translated chay as “wild beast,” to fulfill their own prejudices. In this case, representing an artificial inclusion of a word!! Clifton has allowed this false teaching to influence his thinking, which is just as erroneous as theirs. If you read II Kings, 14:9-10, you will see that the context is “thistles and cedars.” Jehoash is using thistles and cedars, metaphorically, to refer to the two Houses, Israel and Judah. Thus the “wild beast” in that verse is a probably a human chay of the invading Assyrian army, wanting to take Israelite women as booty. (Today’s Black men like White “booty” too!!!) The Hebrew has many different words for “wild.” Chay is not one of them.

Gen. 1:20-23 tells us of the “waters that bring forth life (chay)”, and the “fowl” being created on the fifth day. This would probably include all birds, as we are not merely talking about chickens. Gen. 1:24-25 is talking about the land-dwelling animals, as distinguished from the birds and sea creatures already in existence (Gen. 1:20, 22). Some of these sea creatures are mammals, such as whales, but most of them are fish, crustaceans, etc.

Gen. 1:24-25 brings us to the rest of the land-dwellers, except for Adamkind. This includes all of the “beasts (chay) of the earth” that Elohim had made, which, to me, includes the other races. The Israelite reader has the right to disagree but also the duty to think carefully and honestly about these things. If I am wrong, I ask Clifton Emahiser to show when and where these other bipeds were introduced, if not in Gen. 1:24-25. Because they are clearly with us in Gen. 2, but NOT in Gen. 1:26-27!

Finally, the Race that was destined to be the Crown of Creation, the White Race, is created on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26-31). The government of this Race is to be placed into the hands of the 144,000 of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Rev. 21:12).

In both its nominative and adjectival forms, Scripture uses chay in the same sense that English employs the words, LIFE and LIVING, or ALIVE. In Scripture, it is used of EVERY LIVING CREATURE, from the lowest to the highest forms, including Yahweh Himself. I don’t care what the theologians or commentators say. They have their own prejudices. This is what the Bible says. We cannot arbitrarily limit the definition of a Hebrew word to suit our preferences. We must take all designations into consideration and not limit the definition to a preferred range of designation, such as “wild animals.” Actually, if Clifton really thought more carefully about this issue, he might consider that Negroes are also “wild animals,” especially as they exist in the wilds of Africa!!! So, his artificial exclusion doesn’t really exclude Negroes and Mongolians, after all! Does it? Without the White Man’s imposition of civilization, Negroes have, at best, a tribal mentality, not capable of producing anything like our level of civilization. Before the entry of the White Man into darkest Africa, there was no wheel, and there was no such thing as a two-story house, only grass shacks. There was only an animal level of existence, just like Detroit, New Orleans, DC, Haiti, and wherever Blacks have the misfortune rule over each other. And it is even more unfortunate for us to have them in our midst! Injustice always prevails when oxen and horses are forced to pull the same wagon!

I’m not even saying that we have any obligation to improve their lot in life. All I’m saying is that we Israelites have been destined to be a blessing to ALL NATIONS, including non-White nations. Just as the Apartheid system of South Africa raised the level of prosperity for all Blacks who were a part of it, so will the Kingdom raise the level of existence for both Whites and non-Whites, who are lucky enough to live in it.

I know that Clifton will want to debate this point too, as many believe that the word ‘nation’ (goy in Hebrew) only applies to the White nations. But this is also incorrect. Clifton himself quoted one of the verses that proves this idea to be false. In II Kings, 17:26, one of the nations that was relocated into Samaria was the Sepharvaim. They were Babylonian Canaanites, not Whites. Also, at Gen. 25:23, Rebecca was told by Yahweh Himself that “TWO NATIONS ARE IN YOUR WOMB.” One nation was Jacob/Israel. The other nation was Esau/Edom. No one in Identity would be willing to admit that the Edomites are Whites. But Yahweh Himself says that both family trees are nations.

Hybrid Viability

In determining the meaning of the word chay, the Bible is our guide; and the Bible says that all living creatures were created by Yahweh, with the stipulation that they are all capable of reproducing according to their own kind. This is not true of cross-species hybrids. Such hybrids are not part of this creation. They are a product of the subtlety of Nachash. They are not capable of reproducing after their mixed kind. Only sub-species hybrids are capable of reproducing, but even these will die out, because subsequent generations will revert back to the dominant, original genome. This is the science behind the matter. As stated earlier, dog breeders must continually force breed such hybrids, in order to keep the breed going. In nature, the various sub-species of canines do not normally mix. (For those who are interested, this link explains the technical details of dog breeding: http://www.appleblossomart.org/dogdesk.htm ) In like manner, the Jews must continually force breed with the other races. This is why Jews MUST propagate with other races, so as to maintain the genetic material of the fallen ones within the bodies of those who have living blood!!! This means that Jewish DNA is parasitic; and the other races are the carriers of this parasitic DNA!!! It is only through miscegenation that the Jewish people can survive. If this parasitic breed were forced to live exclusively among themselves, they would die out in three or four generations, for their own blood is dead! If the book of Enoch and the Bible are correct that virtually all of the fallen ones were males, then this breed of Kenites/Canaanites/Edomites is lacking the female half of the genome!!! They had to get it into their offspring by raping White women. This is why Nachash was so desperate to seduce Eve! This also explains why the Jews are so sex-obsessed. The only chay they really have is maintained by intermarrying with our Adamic genome. Like all parasites, they have fooled the host into believing that they are just like us!!! Since the fallen ones have no self-replicating genetic code, they must hybridize in order to keep this genetic material passed on. As such, their genetic material parasitizes onto the genetic code of a true species.

Since the various races of the world have lived in their habitat for hundreds and probably thousands of generations, without showing any sign of dying out, they cannot be hybrids. They are true races, with replicating DNA of their own. As all geneticists know, races breed true. Hybrids die out, unless someone keeps the hybrid going by artificial means. The Jews are such a breed; and the rabbis are the breeders.

This scientific analysis of hybridization proves the point:

The scientific study of hybridization dates back to Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778). In 1757, as part of an investigation as to whether or not plants reproduce sexually, Linnaeus produced hybrids between two species of goats-beard (Tragopogon porrifolius and T. pratensi ). Although this work served primarily as proof of the sexual nature of reproduction in flowering plants, Linnaeus argued that "it is impossible to doubt that there are new species produced by hybridization generation." Shortly thereafter, Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter (1733-1806) revealed two important flaws in Linnaeus's conclusions. Kölreuter first showed that hybrids from interspecific crosses are often sterile "botanical mules," a result that led him to conclude that hybrids are difficult to produce and unlikely to occur in nature without human intervention or habitat disturbance. He went on to demonstrate that, although early generation hybrids are often morphologically intermediate [half-breeds – Eli] to their parents, later generation hybrids tend to revert back to the parental forms. This finding apparently refuted Linnaeus's earlier suggestion that hybrids were constant or true-breeding and represented new species.

Source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3408000185.html

Unlike us Adamic farmers and builders, who are infinitely adaptable to all earthly environments, Jews are sedentary creatures, who can only survive by parasitic interbreeding in the metropolitan habitat. Rare is the Jew who can live outside of the parasitic, cosmopolitan environment. Little does the parasitic Jew realize that, by exterminating the White farmer, he cuts off his own food supply. The parasite always lives in danger of committing suicide by killing the host. Whether they realize it or not, this is why Jews are so paranoid. All parasites have a death wish towards the host, even though they depend upon the host for survival. Knowing this, aren’t you glad that you’re not a Jew? Talk about being conflicted! Sigmund Fraud had no idea!!! Neither did Nietszche!

Given this information about hybridism, there is no doubt that the Jews would die out, as a hybrid population, if they were prevented from interbreeding with Adamites!!! Since we are not able, politically, to prevent, at the present time, this ongoing debauchery of our species, we must do everything possible to segregate ourselves from them. This is why the Bible says, “Come out from among them, and BE YE SEPARATE”! - II Corin. 6:17. If our people would simply stop having intercourse with them, both sexually and commercially (Rev. 18:1-4), this parasitic infestation would be cured. It is simply a matter of quarantining the Jews out of our company; but our people refuse to do what’s right and necessary. This is why Yahshua will have to do the job when He returns. The parable of the wheat and the tares applies here. Do you see how scientific the Bible is, when you eliminate all of the Judeo jargon?

Free Will

One more concept must be taken into consideration; and that is the concept of Free Will.

The fact is that Yahweh created some species with the capacity to determine right from wrong. Four-legged critters and below do not have this capacity. Apes do not have this capacity, either. Lower order animals are creatures of appetite and instinct. I know of no philosopher or scientist who has ever suggested that apes or quadrupeds have a moral sense, although they obviously have the capacity for affection towards their human owners. Nor do we suspect that they have the capacity for abstract thought, unless humans teach them in the laboratory. Negroes, Mexicans, Mongolians, Australoids and Dravidians DO have the capacity to tell right from wrong, and the vast majority of these people intend us no harm; but it is obvious that their racial instincts are what binds them together. Only Whites have been trained to hate their own Race. For the more offensive specimens, fear of the White Man is the only thing that makes them do right; but once the White assumes his proper dominion, even these creatures respect and fear us.

For example, the Ku Klux Klan, after the Civil War, made it very clear to Blacks that they must keep their hands off of White women. Any Black male caught violating this law was given a lesson in noose-making. The Jim Crow laws also forbade race-mixing. If the public officials refused to carry out the penalty for interracial rape, then the Klan would enforce the law.

In this way, Blacks became aware of the White Man’s law; and they were thus capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. This cannot be said of dogs, cats, horses, cows, or even apes, which animals do not have the capacity for abstract thought, which is a requirement for moral thinking. When they are hungry, they hunt. When in heat, they mate.

Of all of the hominids, the White Race has always had the highest capacity for both morality and abstract thought. This is because Yahweh has provided us with the greatest level of Free Will. Higher level beings have a greater amount of Free Will. It is by Free Will that Satan rebelled against Yahweh. It is by Free Will that we violate His laws. But it is also by Free Will that we come to know ourselves as rational, moral beings, and as sons and daughters of the Living (chay) God. Doing injustice to other rational beings is the most offensive thing that another rational being can do. This is why slavery has been abolished. Likewise, humans are capable of having compassion on lower order animals. Even in the case of killing animals for food, we kill livestock as quickly as possible, because we do not wish to prolong their suffering. This is called compassion, although vegetarians may disagree!!

There is no question that all hominids have the capacity for compassion and also understand when they are inflicting pain and anguish on other creatures. At least to this extent, they know the difference between right and wrong. The problem is that there are some, even among the White Race, who choose to disregard this knowledge and even take pleasure in inflicting pain on others. Of course, this is always forbidden by Yahweh. We are not to take pleasure in the suffering of any creature. There are those who take pleasure in deception. And this is the type of subtlety that is being talked about at Gen. 3:1. No four-legged creature is capable of suggesting this type of subtlety to Eve!

Subtle

Subtil. Strong’s #6175: aruwm; passive participle of 6191 [aram]; cunning (usually in a bad sense): - crafty, prudent, subtil.

Aram (#6191): a primitive root, properly to be (or to make) bare; but used only in the derivative sense (through the idea perhaps of smoothness), to be cunning (usually in a bad sense):- X very, beware, take crafty [counsel], be prudent, deal subtilly.

We can see from aruwm and its root, aram, that we are dealing with creatures that are capable of “taking crafty counsel.”

Also from the root word, aram, we have arowm (#6174). Arowm: from 6191 (in its original sense [bareness, from the smoothness of the bare skin – Eli]); nude, either partially or totally: - naked.

The Bible talks a lot about sex and fornication. Judeo-Christians avoid this subject, as if it were foreign to them!!! The root word, aram, means nakedness. Only hominids wear clothing, although it is true that African savages never concerned themselves with this type of modesty, except for loincloths, until the White Man imposed this modesty upon them. Only hominids are aware of the difference between nakedness and dress. Only hominids get undressed in order to have sex, although there are times when this rite is not observed. Rape is one of the exceptions! All other creatures are naturally undressed and have no concept of nakedness. But we know, from our word studies, that SOME OF the “beasts” [whether chay or behemah] of the Bible wear clothes (Jonah 3:8), get paid for their labors (Zech. 8:10), know the difference between right and wrong (Jonah 3:8), are punished for their evildoing (Gen. 9:5; Lev. 20:15), have hands (Jonah 3:8), can have sex with Adamic women (Exo. 22:19), are capable of speech, and are capable of crying to Elohim (Jonah 3:8). Only hominids are capable of lusting after a hominid of another species. Only hominids are aware of each other’s nakedness, or partial nakedness (aram), which is a requirement for sexual intercourse.

Since subtlety and nakedness are related ideas in the Hebrew, the implication is that both Nachash and the beast of the field are aware of the significance of nakedness and forbidden sex. Nachash is more “subtil” than any beast of the field, in terms of being able to seduce Eve via craftiness or deception. No four-legged beast would be capable of any such thing. This is why Moses makes this comparison in Genesis 3:1. Nachash was most capable of seducing Eve, precisely because of his hominid appearance and because of his fallen angel intelligence. It has taken decades of intense, subtle propaganda to seduce our modern Eves into falling for the same trick that Eve fell for, 7,000 years ago!!!

Even domesticated horses have to be blindfolded in order to engage in sexual intercourse with a donkey. An unblinded horse will actually kill the donkey before having sex with it. An infertile mule is the result of such forced hybridization. Mules are also forbidden by Yahweh.

An awareness of nakedness is not true of quadrupeds or apes, even though people will dress them up for entertainment purposes. Although some apes have hands and are capable of standing upright, they do not have true feet. Their “feet” are actually more like hands, with moveable thumbs, thus providing grasping power, which true bipeds do not have. Nor are such apes capable of running on their hind “legs” for more than a few steps. When they chase prey, they do it on all fours. Likewise, when they are being chased.

From all of these considerations, there is no doubt that the “beast” of Gen. 3:1 is a hominid of another race. And this race existed before the Garden of Eden scenario, as it was created by Elohim in Gen. 1:24-25.

Instead of considering how the Bible actually uses these words, Clifton Emahiser confines his arguments to the opinions of experts, who limit their discussion of biblical references that suggest that chay are “wild animals,” by which he and they mean quadrupeds, but he does not acknowledge those Scriptural verses that suggest hominid or higher life, even though these references actually outnumber the others; but these meanings of the word chay are not listed under the word, ‘beast.’ They are listed under the words, life, alive, live, living, etc. In his articles on this subject, Clifton quotes from the same theologians, such as those provided earlier herein, under the heading of Chay. From these definitions, he should understand that the word ‘chay’ means life in the most general sense; and it cannot be zoologically categorized as “four-legged life,” “creeping life,” “swimming life,” “wild animals,” or any specific species.

Contrariwise, the expressions, “beast of the earth” and “beast of the field” are more commonly used for bipeds than quadrupeds. We also know that the Bible clearly singles out Adamic life as being very special and also as the highest order of life. Paul even states that we will judge angels (I Cor. 6:3), so the fallen ones are in for some serious payback, when the time comes!! From the way that chay and behemah are used in Scripture, it is not possible to honestly exclude hominids from these two categories of living things. Clifton Emahiser has not done the thorough word studies necessary to prove his thesis. He has only focused on one of the many definitions of the word, chay, where it is translated as “beast,” “creature,” or “animal.” As I said earlier, the Bible must be our guide, not the opinions of theologians, especially theologians who approve of race-mixing! But even these opinions prove that the word chay cannot mean, simply, wild animals. That is only one possible meaning, among a great many.

All of the non-hybrid races were created by Elohim in Gen. 1. If there is any merit to Emahiser’s thesis, he would have to prove that Blacks and Orientals, or the aborigines of the Amazon and Australia, do not reproduce after their own kind. The fact that these races have existed for thousands of years, perpetuating their own species, well before Adam was formed in the Garden, is scientific proof that they were already present on the earth before Adam and Eve were placed into the Garden. The fact that many of these races have existed, unknown to Adamkind for generations, as in the Amazon jungles, unmixed with White blood, is also proof that they are not hybrids.

Emahiser is adamantly insistent that all non-White populations are the product of hybridization between fallen angels and either Whites or lesser animals. I cannot accept this proposition on logical, chronological, scientific, or Scriptural grounds.

As the archeological record clearly shows, all of the races were pre-existent, leading up to the Garden of Eden scenario, well before 7,000 BC. The scientific literature traces these creatures to thousands, and hundreds of thousands, of years into the past. Certainly, the orthodox idea, that all of the races descended from Adam and Eve, is pure holy hokum. The Hebrew record of Genesis, the science of genetics and natural history all tell us that this never happened, nor is it genetically possible, as all DNA is designed to replicate itself. Mutations and experiments in hybridity have never produced a viable race. Both are a dead-end street, unless a breeder exerts constant effort to keep a fertile breed alive. Despite all of this evidence, evolutionists still preach that mutations and hybridism can result in a new species. Sorry! No evidence! No proof! No chance! Coming from the integrationist churches, which preach instant evolution after Noah’s Flood(!!!!), it is religious mumbo-jumbo, deliberately fabricated for the purpose of promoting the destruction of the White Race. On this point, Clifton and I are in total agreement.

Summary

I reject Clifton Emahiser’s Recapitulation Theory on many grounds. Here is the short list:

1.) It is NOT TRUE that advocating Yahweh’s creation of non-Whites is a blanket acceptance of race-mixing. Nor does this line of argument hold up with any other part of Yahweh’s creation. The mere acknowledgement that Yahweh created any other hominid species DOES NOT even remotely imply that those two species should intermix. On the contrary, Yahweh’s laws clearly forbid interbreeding, no matter what the species. The factor of who exactly created the two species is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Yahweh forbids it. End of story.

2.) Emahiser refuses to consider the possibility that the other races were part of Yahweh’s creation in Gen. 1:24-25, although he recognizes them as non-Whites in other passages of Scripture. His attempt to define ‘chay’ as “wild animal” is un-Scriptural. His analysis of the word chay is incomplete, ignoring the vast array of living creatures that are covered by that word. He tries to narrow the definition down to undomesticated quadrupeds, but this is merely one of the many categories of chay. Hence, his exclusion of non-White bipeds from the category of chay is an artificial exclusion. The true definition of chay is LIFE, LIVING; and this concept includes all non-White hominids, including those of Gen. 1:24-25. The word applies to Adamites as well, who are also living creatures.

3.) The recapitulation theory ignores Yahweh’s Day of Rest, even though it is mentioned three times in Gen. 2. If this Day of Rest did not occur between the sixth day and the events of Gen. 2, then when did it occur? Did it ever occur? If the events of Gen. 2 occurred on the sixth day, as Emahiser would have us believe, why is there no mention of this day of rest after Gen. 2? If Emahiser says it never happened, are we still living in the sixth day? Did Yahweh ever rest? Was Yahweh resting when He formed Adam and Eve? Emahiser must ignore this subject, because his position contradicts Gen. 2:1-3.

4.) Logically, this recapitulation/hybridity hypothesis means that the White Race was created FIRST, before any other featherless bipeds. Although Clifton doesn’t see it, this position is very similar to the Judeo-Christian teaching that all of the races sprang from Adam and Eve!!! Of course, there is a difference. Nachash was there too! Question: Just how many hybrid offspring did Eve have with Nachash? The Bible only records one: Cain. Even this is too much!

5.) Given the problems of hybrid viability, how many hybrid offspring would the fallen ones have to produce, before any viable hybrids were produced? The science of hybridism gives no credible evidence for viable offspring produced by inter-species mating. It just doesn’t happen. When such interbreeding is forced upon two genomes, the genomes always return back to their original genome. This is the known science. Clifton has to assume an unscientific proposition that is not in evidence today! The evolutionists also make this assumption!

6.) Logically, the recapitulation theory demands that all races be no older than 5,000 BC, since he states that Gen. 1:26-27 are contemporary with Gen. 2. In other words, Clifton is saying that the portion of archeological science, which dates and racially categorizes human bone fossils before 5,000 BC, is incorrect. If only the White Race was created during the Creation week, then Clifton must be able to adjust the archeological record accordingly. According to the Septuagint chronology, the creation of Adam, by Emahiser’s own thesis, cannot have been any earlier than 5,000 BC. But the archeological record clearly shows that all races existed as far back as the last Ice Age, which ended around 10,500 BC. Post-Ice Age archeology abounds with fossils (both bones and artifacts) of the cave-dwellers of the Cro-Magnon race, plus that of other races as well. All of this occurred BEFORE Adam invented farming around 5,000 BC. In addition, a very important question arises, namely: “Who were the hunter-gatherers, that clearly preceded the Adamic farmers?” Were they monkeys? I don’t think so! The pre-farming record of natural history cannot be squeezed into the last 7,000 years. This record takes us clear back to the previous Ice Age. In other words, Clifton Emahiser is saying that all archeological records of pre-agricultural communities must be wrong! He has not considered the extra-biblical consequences of his hypothesis.

7.) Emahiser’s Recapitulation/Hybridity Thesis demands that the current non-White races could only have been produced during the Sixth Day or later. This hypothesis brings us back to the age-old question of “Where did Cain get his wife, if the only humans in the Garden were Adam and Eve?” The fact that Nachash, a humanoid, was an additional male, does not solve this problem. Either Cain married one of his biblically unmentioned and undocumented sisters, OR the other races already existed on the planet. Of course, Cain could have married a monkey, but monkeys are incapable of building cities. I don’t think Bassou, the modern monkey man, has the intelligence or dexterity of a human. The Bible only speaks of Adam and Eve having more children until well after Cain was ejected from the Garden.

8.) There IS a difference between being “created” versus “formed,” as discussed earlier. A “creation” is something brand new, something which had never existed before; and only Yahweh does any creating. A “formation” is something that is performed upon an already existing object or substance. Chronologically, the Adamic Race was “created” (bara) male and female; but Adam was “formed” (yatsar) first, then Eve. Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:7 contradict each other, unless they are taken chronologically. The White Race was first created, male and female. Then, in the Garden, Adam was formed first, then Eve.

From archeology, history, genetics and the Bible, there is no question that basic two-seedline doctrine is correct: The other races were already present on planet earth, before Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden. And the subsequent mixing of Adamic seed with non-Adamic seed is symbolized by the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” which represents the hybrid offspring of these forbidden unions.

I think I have cited a sufficient number of serious problems with Emahiser’s thesis, concerning Gen. 1 - 4. If you wish to do more study, you can compare Emahiser’s writings on this subject with mine. My approach is to organize natural history, ancient mythology, genetics, archeology and the Bible into a consistent narrative about our past, both pre-historic and modern. Emahiser does not touch on any of these subjects. He confines his analysis to citations of Judeo-Christian commentators and select Bible verses that deal only with the passages that translate chay and behemah as “wild animal.” He ignores the greater number of passages that define chay as the very broad category of ALIVE, LIVING. He also discounts the passages where both chay and behemah as described as hominids. Where he acknowledges such passages, he argues that they have no relevance to Gen. 1:24-25. As I have stated, I feel that his decision to do this is arbitrary. Because this artificial exclusion is demanded by his thesis, he ignores the relevant Scriptures, which contradict his viewpoint.

To summarize, what Clifton Emahiser has done is this: He has taken a Hebrew word, which means, very simply, “alive, living, life,” and has tried to redefine it to mean “non-hominid.” This is exactly what the Jews have done to the word, ‘goyim,’ which simply means, “nations.” For their own purposes, the rabbis of Judaism have redefined ‘goyim’ to mean “non-Jews.” There is no Scriptural justification for either change in meaning. By insisting on his narrow definition of the word ‘chay,’ Clifton is trying to make Scripture conform to his theory, but this creates all kinds of logical and chronological problems, which are as bad or worse than the universalistic theories that we have already rejected. We should always try to make our theories conform with Scripture, not vice-versa. It sets a bad precedent in Christian Identity, as we, unlike the Judeo-Christians and Jews, should never impose our own definitions of words upon the Scriptures.

For further study, you can find my writings on this subject in the Enmity Series, at

www.anglo-saxonisreal.com. Clifton’s writings on this subject can be found at http://emahiser.christogenea.org/site/ . Read, compare, decide for yourself which analysis is more in accord with the known facts and the pertinent, wider range of relevant Scriptures.

Appendix: Internet Articles for Further Study

What Really Happened in the Garden? By Dr. Wesley Swift

http://ucoy.christogenea.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65%3Aswift-edengarden&catid=29%3Athe-cms&Itemid=37&lang=en

Was Adam the First Man? By Charles Weisman

http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/TruthPage/adam.html

Adam Was Not the First Man, by Bertrand Comparet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6c_MkCoHPXY

Conrad Gaard on the Two Seedlines

http://www.israelect.com/reference/ConradGaard/Studies%20in%20Genesis.htm

Beast With a Hand? By Jason Blaha

http://www.israelect.com/ChurchOfTrueIsrael/beastofbible.html

Geological and Archeological Evidence of Pre-Adamic Times

The next three articles provide more evidence for my Reconstruction of Natural History, using all possible data, including the Bible, as presented in my Enmity Series.

From the evidence assembled in the Enmity Series, the continent of Atlantis was once a part of the European continent. This former continent was also close to the African continent, if not also connected to it by land bridges. This would mean that the Mediterranean Sea was once even more landlocked than it is today. Here is the geological evidence that the Mediterranean Sea was once an inland sea, many thousands of years ago: http://www.nasca.org.uk/Medit/medit.html

Genesis and Geology (The following report is taken from a website that also tries to correlate natural history with the biblical record. The author concurs with my opinion that Cro-Magnon Whites existed before Adam and Eve. Other Identity authors who agree with this opinion are Nord Davis, Jr., Willie Martin and Jack Mohr. Source:  http://www.kjvbible.org/lifeform.html ) Two important things should be noted from the composite graphic (below) which shows the Earth's average atmospheric temperature (top part) and volcanic activity markers (bottom part) for the past 18,000 years BP.  1): There is a pronounced increase in indications of volcanic activity between the time when the megafauna extinctions begin (about 14,000 BP) that ends just slightly before the date of the regeneration of the heavens and earth (about 6,000 years ago- Genesis 1:2).  2): The end of the extinction phase terminates in a relatively sudden and dramatic drop in global temperatures, marked by the Younger-Dryas cooling event. Clearly, the data indicate there were rapid temperature changes, an onset of intensive geologic activity, and probably changes in the levels of solar activity at this point in Earth's history. The latter fact is supported by reported fluctuations in radiocarbon concentrations in the Younger-Dryas cold period between 12,700 and 11,500 years BP.  In sum, this was anything but a normal pattern of events. Why would so many animals perish at one time (at the END of the Ice Age, when things were warming up) after surviving several thousand years through the harsh glacial conditions in the Pleistocene epoch? The scientific community is greatly divided on the issue. Some hold that they were killed off by "man" for food, by disease, their inability to adapt to a changing post-glacial climate, or some combination of all. This form of causal reasoning precipitates from a uniformitarian paradigm that is colored by our culture's preoccupation with political correctness and environmental issues like Global Warming. Now a new theory on the cause of the Megafauna extinctions may hold the answer. Abundant tiny particles of diamond dust have been found in sediments dating to 12,900 years ago at six North American sites. This adds strong evidence for Earth's impact with a rare swarm of carbon-and-water-rich comets or carbonaceous chondrites, precipitating the Younger-Dryas.  (Diamonds suggest comets caused killer cold spell). Needless to say, the Biblical notion of a universal catastrophic destruction of all living things in the recent past and a Supernatural regeneration of the world by the Lord God is not something many men and women of science today would ever consider. So expect even more new theories to emerge as scientists continue to wrestle with this problem. Would it not seem logical that a global event of this magnitude and severity, which wiped out the giant mammals, would also wipe out the humanoids that hunted them? Could a population of nomadic hunters quickly switch to an agriculturally sustained society, especially at a time when the Earth's average temperatures had plummeted sharply? I don't think so. Keep in mind that according to the Bible, Adam and his linage began as tillers of the soil and herdsmen after Adam's fall. The first indication of "hunting" does not appear in the Bible until after Noah's flood. (See Nimrod Genesis 10:9.) Consequently, if the Paleoclimate data are valid, and the Biblical time line of Adam and modern mankind is valid, then we must conclude it was not the descendants of Adam and Eve who hunted the now extinct mammoths. Those who did so were a race of manlike beings which were on the Earth before Adam and Eve; the Pre-Adamite race of hominids, not made in the "image of God," a fact which begs the question, in whose image were they made? With the recent advent of the science of DNA testing, the supporting proof for this incredible hypothesis is coming to light, much to the consternation of the evolutionary uniformitarian school of human origins. For example, DNA testing of Neanderthal remains clearly shows that modern man is NOT descended from the Neanderthal. The DNA from three (3) different sets of Neanderthal remains showed that there is no genetic link between modern man and the Neanderthal. More recent studies of Neanderthal DNA and Neanderthal Skull Characteristics further confirm this finding. This is forcing the evolutionists to start looking even further back in the fossil record for a common "ancestor" or "missing link" branch from the primates. They won't find it. And guess what? They just identified ANOTHER one! Recently the remains of an "anatomically modern human" (Cro-Magnon) found in Australia have revealed that it was at least 60,000 years old and had a mitochondria DNA generic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side. This find has raised serious debate between the "Out of Africa" and "Regional Continuity" evolutionary camps. Will future testing of other Cro-Magnon remains reveal similar DNA surprises? If the Bible is true, then the prediction is that they will. Even more recently, and closer to our time in natural history, strands of very well preserved "human" hair were found in a Pleistocene age deposit in Oregon. These strands were dated to be between 10,000 - 12,000 years old.  They present a mystery to science because DNA analysis has shown that they are not genetically related to any modern humans. See story: 12,000-Year-Old Human Hair DNA Has No Match With Modern Humans. Evolutionary mainline science still cannot provide a fully satisfactory answer to origins of modern man. As the tools of science improve (e.g., DNA analysis) the mysteries only become more mysterious as is demonstrated by the above cases. Reasoning from a uniformitarian paradigm, and in reference to the above-cited cases of no DNA connections to present humans, secular scientists will say that this only means those particular lines of humans must have been a branch of mankind that perished.  They would have to make the claim that, as Evolutionary "theory" demands, that there was continuity of the human race. However, the link between the evidence from the past and present is still yet to be "scientifically" established. In fact, evolutionary research is finding just the opposite. Today scientists are claiming that human evolution has greatly accelerated, particularly since about 10,000 years ago. The truth is there are big morphological differences between "modern man" and "primitive man," and pronouncing a sudden acceleration of evolution is their only way of explaining the findings within the accepted evolutionary paradigm. The Bible has a better answer: Modern man is a new creation.   Skeletal Evidence of Cro-Magnon and Modern Caucasians Cro-Magnon Versus Caucasian (Please disregard the evolutionary mumbo-jumbo and the exaggerated early dates in the article here presented. It is the fossil evidence that is relevant here. At the website linked, you can compare compare the Cro-Magnon skull to the others, which represent different races. – Eli) Cro-Magnons The Cro-Magnons were the immediate predecessors of modern Caucasians. They lived in Europe about 40,000 to about 10,000 ya. They were slightly more robust than modern Caucasians and, like Neanderthals, they had brains that were larger (about 4%) than modern Caucasians, 21 though their skulls were thicker and brow ridges heavier. (Howells, 1948, p. 186). With the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture, tool kits started to become markedly more sophisticated. A wider variety of raw materials, such as bone and antler, were used and specialized tools were made for producing clothing, engraving, and sculpturing. Fine artwork, in the form of decorated tools, beads, ivory carvings of humans and animals, clay figurines, musical instruments, and spectacular cave paintings (Fig. 15-1a, 15-1b, & 25-3) appeared. (Leakey 1994). Figure 2-9 shows a Cro-Magnon skull. This 30,000 year old, fully modern, Cro-Magnon skull was found in Les-Eyzies, France. The skull shows traits that are unique to modern humans, including the high rounded cranial vault, and a nearly vertical forehead. There are no large brow ridges, nor a protruding jaw. Note how the eye sockets are slightly sloped and are flattened far more than in the other fossil skulls, possibly an adaptation to protect the eyes from the cold. 23 The flattened eye sockets that are observed in some North African skulls may be the result of Cro-Magnons migrating there during the worst of the last ice age.

Figure 2-9

Source of Cro-Magnon skull photograph: http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap2.html

Modern Caucasian skull:

There is no detectable difference between 10,000 year-old Cro-Magnon skulls and modern Caucasian skulls, except that the Cro-Magnon actually had a slightly larger brain capacity. The White Race (Awdawm, Cro-Magnon) was created on the sixth “day.” (Gen. 1:26-27.) The Man, Adam (eth-ha-awdawm), who was a member of this Race, was put into the Garden after the “day” (yowm, eon) of rest. This was NOT an “8^th-day creation,” even though this has become popular terminology, because this event took place after the Day of Rest. Rather, the formation of the Man Adam was a molding or shaping of an individual, specifically selected by Yahweh, for the purpose of being the patriarch of a special seedline. As discussed, this type of narrowing of the seedline is a common feature of Scripture. This was an act of special selection by Yahweh Himself.

From all of the evidence at hand, I am convinced that the Chronological Account of Genesis 1-4 is the correct reading. Since Yahweh Elohim authored both natural history and the Bible, it is not possible that the two accounts can contradict each other. Unlike the false paradigms that currently exist in garbage science (evolutionism) and garbage theology (all races descended from Adam and Eve), I have endeavored to eliminate these contradictions. By correctly translating the Hebrew language of Genesis and by dumping evolutionism, we find that there is no contradiction between real science and true theology.

Pastor Eli James

www.anglo-saxonisrael.com

Other authors who taught that the “beast of the field” and the “trees” of the Garden are other peoples or races:

Who Was Cain’s Wife? By Willie Martin

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Cain'sWife.htm

Race-Mixing: A Social and Spiritual Disaster, by Colonel Jack Mohr. Jack Mohr also considered the possibility that the White Race, male and female, was created in Gen. 1, but that Gen. 2 is about our two direct ancestors, Adam and Eve, the parents of our seedline.

http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html2/jm0074a.htm

The Faith of Our Fathers, by William Gale

http://swift.christogenea.org/content/vol-7-no-3-174-highlights-faith-our-fathers-pt-1-wp-gale-and-scripture-thought-provokers-and

ADL Review of “The Two Seeds of Genesis 3:15,” by Dan Gayman.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/gayman.asp

The Cain-Satanic Seedline of Genesis 3:15, by Bertrand Comparet

http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/comparet/compcainsatan.html

Prophecies Against Esau/Edom, Aryan Nations

http://www.aryannationsrevival.org/Esau-Edom.htm

The War of the Royal Gods

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/royal_battle_partfour.htm

Who Killed Christ? By Sheldon Emry

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/killedchrist.html

Jesus Was Not a Jew, video with Pastor Ken Gregg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6FdJrHhDu8

Below: Drawing of Cro-Magnon woman, circa 8,000 BC, 3,000 years before THE ADAM was placed in the Garden, showing an anatomically modern White woman, wearing skins, shoes and headdress. This is an example of the Gen. 1:26-27 White Race. {Source: http://atlantisquest.com/CaveDrawing.html }