Bible Believers' Newsletter 720
"We focus on the present Truth – what Jesus is doing now. . ."
Christian greetings in the precious Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, we appreciate your fellowship.
Pastor Nadarkhani remains imprisoned in Iran and our contact who is a friend of President Ahmadinejad has raised the matter with him but is not sufficiently familiar with Christian doctrine or in a position to press his case. Our most recent news is from Present Truth Ministries advising that the Iranian government has in effect requested our Brother to help them to "save face" and dismiss the matter by conceding that Mohammed was a prophet sent by God. Please continue to uphold our Brother, his companions in the faith and tribulation, and his family by your prayers.
We should all take great care whereupon we think we stand lest we build our foundation upon the sand of men's opinions rather than the unmovable rock of faith which is the mind of Christ (Hebrews 12:25-28). Many fall into error by standing on the "letter" of the King James Bible, or William Branham's Message, when the "letter" without the "Spirit" is death.
God is not known by the "letter," but by the Spirit which discerns error and rightly divides the Word of Truth. In this issue we feature the scholarship of Pastor V.S. Herrell (Christian Separatist Church), who, observing many errors in the "letter" of the King James Version, wrote the Anointed Standard Translation of the Bible and constructed "a list of very real reasons why the King James Version of the Bible, or the Authorized Version as it is called, does in no way, shape, or form represent the original writings of Jesus and His ambassadors".
This Newsletter serves those of like precious faith. Whoever will receive the truth is welcome to feed their soul from the waters of the River of Life. Everything here presented should be confirmed personally in your own Bible.
Your brother-in-Christ, Anthony Grigor-Scott
Genealogy Surprise-ordained Bible Code!
An awesome prophecy emerges when the meanings of all 72 names in the genealogy from Adam to Jesus are read sequentially!
The meaning of a name was very important in Bible days. Sometimes the Bible itself informs the reader what a name means. Famous biblical persons such as Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his 12 sons, all have the meaning of their name explicitly given in the Bible. Their names tell the story of why or how they were born.
Some have wondered whether these names (with their meanings) were intended by God to be strung together in succession to tell some larger story. Already there have been attempts to string together the first 10 names in the Bible from Adam to Noah. In general, this is what the first 10 names of the Bible read when the meaning of each name is rendered in the order given in the Bible. Full story: youtube.com
Dear Jewish Times: Please rethink Call to Assassinate Obama
January 20, 2012 As the editor of a mainstream Jewish publication, you have an awful lot of chutzpah to January 20th, 2012 for the assassination of the President of the United States by the Mossad . . . Now, after watching one Zionist outrage after anotherthe most important being the neocon-Zionist coup d'état on 9/11/2001 and the ensuing war on Islam for IsraelI am committed to putting an end to Zionism.
And I'm far from the only one. I am told by people in a position to know that disgust with Israel is at an all-time high at the upper levels of the US military command . . . Maybe the best way to redefine the problem would be to forget about plans for mass-murdering Palestinians, Lebanese, and Iranians, forget about plans for assassinating the President of the United States, forget about plans for more big false-flag attacks, and go back to square one. Admit Israel's responsibility for the dead-end situation it is in. Admit who is really the aggressor, and who is the victim . . .
Imagine if Netanyahu gave a Yom Kippur speech along these lines: "We're sorry. You Palestinians are right. We are the aggressors, and we have perpetrated a grave injusticenot just in 1967, but in 1948 and before that. Your demands for right of return plus compensation, along with a return to the 1967 borders are almost pathetically minimal and reasonable". Full story: veteranstoday.com Orders from Tel Aviv: Murder Obama youtube.com
Comment: Andrew Adler is a real "self-hating Jew" wanting MOSSAD to assassinate Jewish president Obama, Dunham, Soetoro, or whoever he is. "I'm proud that even in these difficult times we've fought for and secured the most funding for Israel in history," Obama said during the 71st General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism at National Harbor, in Maryland last December. Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League said, "The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler's column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately existseven in some segments of our communitythat maliciously labels President Obama as an enemy of the Jewish people".
Human Rights Investigations on Crimes of Obama and His NATO in Libya
November 1, 2011 HRI have published numerous objective and thorough human rights investigations on the crimes committed in Libya by the Islamist rebels against POWs, African workers, and Libyan civilians. Horrific atrocities executed with direct military and political support and directions from Obama and his NATO mercenaries which included: Sarkozy; Cameron; and Al-Thani (of Qatar). These persons and states must be brought to national and international justice and pay for their horrendous crimes. Full story: libya360.wordpress.com
Comment: Candid film and reportage on the unspeakably cruel cowardice of blooded bestial men of the reviving Holy [sic] Roman Empire's NATO militaries in support of the CIA's murderous al Qaeda, MI5's Muslim Brotherhood and other Western-financed blackguards that destroyed Libya.
US Aircraft drop Spy Devices in Syrian Town
December 22, 2011 Citizens have found spy devices in the hills that surround the town of Afrin, in Syria, dropped last week by US aircrafts which entered Syrian airspace through the Turkish border. . . The sources explained that the aircrafts that dropped the devices were American, not Turkish. They added that the aircrafts took off from Incirlik air base, southeast of Adana, which is 130 km away from the city of Afrin, mainly to belong to the Kurdish nationalists. . . "This action aims at eavesdropping on communications between the Syrian troops, locating their spots accurately and collecting any information about them in order to provide it to US and Turkish authorities, and perhaps to the Syrian Free Army as well as monitoring any military movement by the PKK in the region" . . . Full story: almanar.com.lb
Free Syrian Army commanded by Al Qaeda Military Governor of Tripoli
December 24, 2011 The UN Security Council members are at loggerheads over the interpretation of the events that are rocking Syria. On one hand, France, the United Kingdom and the United States claim that a revolution has swept the country in the aftermath of the "Arab Spring," and suffering a bloody crackdown. On the other hand, Russia and China's take is that Syria is having to cope with armed gangs from abroad, which it is fighting awkwardly thereby causing collateral victims among the civilian population it seeks to protect.
The on-the-spot investigation undertaken by Voltaire Network validated the latter interpretation. We have collected eyewitness testimonies from those who survived an armed attack by foreign gangs. They describe them as being Iraqis, Jordanians or Libyans, recognizable by their accent, as well as Pashtus. In recent months, a certain number of Arab newspapers, favorable to the Al-Assad administration, discussed the infiltration into Syria of 600 to 1,500 fighters from the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya (IFGL), rebranded Al Qaeda in Libya since November 2007. In late November 2011, the Libyan press reported the attempt by the Zintan militia to detain Abdel Hakim Belhaj, companion of Osama Bin Laden and historic leader of Al Qaeda in Libya, who became military governor of Tripoli by the grace of NATO. The scene took place at Tripoli airport, as he was leaving for Turkey. Finally, Turkish newspapers mentioned Mr. Belhaj's presence at the Turkish-Syrian.
Such reports have been met with disbelief on the part of all those who regard Al Qaeda and NATO are irreconcilable enemies between whom no cooperation is possible. Instead, they reinforce the thesis which I have defended since the attacks of September 11, 2001, that Al Qaeda fighters are mercenaries in service to the CIA. Full story: federaljack.com
US to send Old Warship to Persian Gulf
January 22, 2012 On board of the oldest US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, Panetta told the crowd of 1,700 sailors that the 50-year-old ship is heading to the Persian Gulf region in a direct message to Tehran. . . The USS Enterprise is the oldest active duty ship in the American naval fleet and its mission dates back to the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and the Vietnam War. . . Full story: presstv.com
Comment: Old nuclear rust bucket, ten escorting warships and thousands of sailors are US bait in the tradition of Pearl Harbour to provoke another war with peaceful Iran.
The Sixth Commandment
by Pastor VS Herrell
Published by HBPH, PO Box 130, Kodak, TN 37764 USA
The True Meaning of the word 'adultery' from the original Hebrew and Greek:
In Exodus 20:13 (LXX), we find the Sixth Commandment, a commandment repeated in the New Testament in Romans 13:9 and elsewhere (cf. Matthew 5:27, Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19, James 2:11, et al). [This is the Sixth Commandment in the Greek Septuagint, but in the antichrist Jew-corrupted, Hebrew, Masoretic Text it is the Seventh Commandment. For more information on the Masoretic Text, please see the last section of this book, The Errancy of the Masoretic Text and the KJV, as well as The History of the Bible by V.S. Herrell and The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text by David C. Tate]. So we immediately notice that this Commandment is explicitly stated in both the Old and New Testaments. The reason is that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). "With God, there is no variance or shadow of turning" (James 1:17). Obviously, this Sixth Commandment is very important. In most translations of the Bible, Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are translated: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: "You will not mongrelize".
In many people's minds, there is a very great difference between these two translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou moicheuseis.
In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans 13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo.
The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles, translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo and the Latin word adultero.
First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held in high-esteem by the scholarly community.
Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: "of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races." [In the German original, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: "auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen"]. This, of course, is the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation "You will not mongrelize" is correct.
Now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford Latin Dictionary: "To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change . . . to corrupt, debase." Once again, when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek.
Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against race-mixing.
To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than enough to convince him that the Bible explicitly prohibits race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars would agree with these definitions; anyone who would disagree with these definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.
Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.
To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred. That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie.
When using lexicons or dictionaries to define words or research etymologies of Greek or Latin, it is very important to have an understanding of the development of the modern lexicon or dictionary and other tools used in translating Greek or Latin into English. For translating Biblical passages or researching Biblical words, it is also very important to understand how the Catholic Church, through the Latin language, has controlled how both Latin and Greek words are defined. These facts are certainly no truer than in the case of the word adultery.
The history of modern Greek and Latin lexicography, especially wherein Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries are concerned, starts in about the 15th-16th centuries, a time when also the first English translations of the Bible were being made (from the Latin Vulgate). [This of course excludes the Wyclif Bible, which was made in 1384, being totally complete in 1397, thus missing the designation "15th century" by three years. But, its scope and importance certainly lies in the 15th century and it was the beginning of many of the problems that would come to be associated with all subsequent English translations, since most were, in some way or another, based upon those translations which came before. I highly recommend that the reader consult my book The History of the Bible for more information]. At this time, the universal language of scholars was Latin and the source of Latin knowledge was primarily the corrupt Catholic Church. The purpose of the first English translations was to bring the Bible to the common man who could not speak Latin. But Latin was and remained for a very long time the common language of all scholars and scholarly books.
Thus, the first Latin dictionaries did not have English definitions as a Latin dictionary today might have, but rather Latin definitions. Known as Thesaurae, these Latin-Latin dictionaries were much like current day English dictionaries which have English definitions; they were intended for those already fluent and skilled in Latin to better understand Latin words with which they might not be familiar. The greatest of these was the Dictionarium seu linguae latinae thesaurus, printed first in 1531 by Robert Estienne. Not surprisingly then, the first Greek dictionaries were Greek words with Latin definitions meant once again to help scholars already fluent in Latin understand Greek also. The greatest of these was the Thesaurus graecae linguae, a 5 volume work first printed in 1572 by Henri Estienne, the son of Robert.
We will examine the definitions of some of these types of lexicons later in this present work. What needs to be understood at this point, however, is that when Catholics like Wyclif first translated the Bible (again, from the Latin Vulgate), the only Latin dictionaries they had were Latin-Latin thesauri, and in later years when Reformation era translators began consulting the original Greek texts, the only Greek dictionaries that they had were ones with Latin definitions, prepared, of course, by Catholic scholars.
By the time the first Greek-English, Greek-German, or Latin-English, Latin-German dictionaries were prepared, many translations of the Bible in English or German had already been made, as well as of other classical writings. In fact, after the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, many non-Biblical Greek and Latin texts were translated into English for public consumption, and nearly all of these documents were being translated either by Roman Catholic priests or Catholic trained scholars or by Jews who controlled many of the printing houses. The effect of this was that the translations were heavily influenced on the one hand by Roman Catholics, who would not dare to contradict any of the then current Roman Catholic teachings in any of their translations, such as universal salvation, and on the other hand, by Zionistic Jews who had their own agenda and motivations to hide truth.
By the time the first Greek-English and Latin-English lexicons were made, the English definitions given were simply whatever English words were being used by translators in the current translations, especially wherein the Bible was concerned. This is much like the Greek Dictionary found in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which gives as definitions either the same word used in the King James Version or a definition of the English word used in the King James Version. Thus, the first Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries contained in them all of the theological prejudices of the Catholic Church and the calculated corruption of antichrist Jewish printers, in the same way that Strong's Concordance contains the calculated prejudices of the Protestant English churches. Subsequent Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries were often mere revisions and expansions of previous dictionaries, with maybe a few more textual references and a slight rewording of the same definition.
An example of this may be found in the current reference standard for the Greek language: Liddell-Scott Jones Greek-English Lexicon. This edition, finished in 1940 (with a subsequent emendations volume being published) was a revision of the eighth edition of the original A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, edited by Henry Jones and Roderick McKenzie. The original Liddell and Scott lexicon, published in 1843, was itself based upon the Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache by Franz Passow, printed in 1828, which was a revision of the Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache by Johann Gottlob Schneider. Schneider himself based his lexicon on previous works in one fashion or another, making great use of the Thesaurus graecae linguae first printed by Henri Estienne II in 1572 and subsequently updated.
Thus, it is rare, if ever, that a Greek or Latin word has been given fresh consideration, and even then it is often that errors still remain. To demonstrate this, we will examine such an error regarding the Greek word akeraios, which I have already dealt with in my previous book The Truth Unveiled. This word has been translated pure-blooded and nonmongrelized in the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament where it occurs in Philippians 2:14-15, which reads:
"Do all things separate from murmurers and disputers, in order that you may be perfect in our kind: pure blooded and nonmongrelized, faultless children of God, amidst a race perverse and having been corrupted, among whom we appear like luminaries in the orderly arrangement."
This Greek word is translated harmless in the King James Version, which is a far-cry from pure-blooded and nonmongrelized. But reconciling this difference is a perfect application of what we have learned about the history of lexicons. Let us first look akeraios up in a pre-1830's Greek Lexicon, the Novus Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus by John Schleusner, published in 1829. This was a Greek-Latin lexicon printed in London. The first part of the definition of akeraios reads: "[A keraizen], . . . innocentem. . ." The first thing that we are told in this definition is that akeraios is the opposite of keraizen, then it is defined (in Latin) as harmless. Now it should be understood that when an alpha was placed at the beginning of a Greek word, it often served to negate the word. So what Schleusner and most lexicographers before him assumed was that akeraios was the opposite of keraizen.
When we look keraizen up in Liddell-Scott Jones, we find that it means: "to ravage, plunder." Or in other words to harm, so the opposite must be harmless or inviolate, unravaged, untouched, etc. This was what was assumed at the time of the translating of the King James Version and other early translations, in the 16th-17th centuries, and this explains why the term harmless was incorrectly used in the KJV. Now, however, let us take careful note of the definition of akeraios in A New Greek and English Lexicon by James Donnegan, published in 1839 (first printed in 1832). He gives the following definition: "unmixed, pure . . . unharmed, uninjured . . . Some derive from [keraizo], but it seems merely another form of [akeratos] and of [akerasios]. Th. a priv., [keranummi], [kerao]."
We notice three important things here. First, that Donnegan gives the definition of unmixed and pure as the primary definition. Secondly, we notice that Donnegan corrects the false origin of the word akeraios assumed by Schleusner and others. The word is, in fact, the opposite of keranummi and kerao, which are the same Greek word, and this word is defined by LSJ as: "to mix, mingle . . . mixed half and half . . . mix, blend . . . compound." Thus, the opposite of that word would mean unmixed, unmingled, etc.
The third important thing we notice about Donnegan's definition is that although he had the courage and intelligence to realize that his predecessors were wrong about the origin of this Greek word, still he failed to omit their definitions. He still defines akeraios as unharmed and uninjured even though there is absolutely no basis whatsoever etymologically for these definitions. This is an example of how each lexicon is built upon previous lexicons and that even when a mistake is found; it is not deleted but rather added to. So now Donnegan has left the user of his lexicon with a choice of definitions to use, even though he himself admits that one of the definitions is wrong.
Let us now look up akeraios in the LSJ: "pure, unmixed . . . unalloyed . . . of persons, pure in blood . . . II. unharmed, unravaged." Once again, although Liddell and Scott were honest enough to admit that when the word is being used of persons it means pure in blood, still they have preserved the erroneous definition. In non-Biblical works, translators have no problem translating akeraios correctly. For example, let us read Edward P. Coleridge's translation of Euripides' Phoenician Women, p. 942-943:
"Now thou are our only survivor of the seed of that sown race, whose lineage is pure alike on mother's and on father's side, thou and these thy sons."
Here Coleridge translates akeraios as lineage is pure. But translators and lexicographers cease to be honest when it comes to the Bible and other early Christian literature. For example, let us look at an accurate translation of Barnabas 3:6:
"So then, brothers, the long-suffering One foresaw that the people whom He prepared in His Beloved should be persuaded in racial purity. . ."
According to LSJ and Coleridge, this is an accurate translation, rendering akeraiosune as racial purity. However, other translators, such as Kirsopp Lake, use the word guilelessness, a totally absurd translation unsupported by any true scholarship, but used only because the translators capitulate to political and religious correctness. If these translators throw away their integrity on the subject of race-mixing, then it is no large step for them also to endorse homosexuality or other things at the expense of God's Word.
Adultery and the Lexicons
With this understanding of the tactics of deception employed in our lexicons, we are now prepared to examine the lexical evidence of the Greek and Latin words associated with the common English translation adultery. We will look first at the Greek evidence.
Any Greek word which contains the prefix moich- belongs to the family of words usually translated adultery. When we look these words up in most any Greek lexicon, all we usually find are definitions which contain the English word adultery. What follows are a few important exceptions with comments.
LSJ (1940), for the verb moichao: "falsify." This definition is supplied by LSJ to help ease the translation of the innumerable Greek passages which cannot in any way be talking about marital infidelity, some of which we will look at later. To falsify something carries the connotation of adulteration or debasement or change.
A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the verb moichaomai: "adulterate." Here Lampe, whose lexicon is entirely concerned with early Christian literature written in Greek, also has to admit that this Greek family of words carried the connotation of adulteration and debasement. When we look up moichao in Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, a Greek-German Lexicon by Hjalmar Frisk (1973), he defines the word with the German "verfälschen," which means to adulterate. Adulteration is the process of adding something to something else and debasing it or mingling things together. When we are talking about people being adulterated in the physical sense, we can only be talking about race-mixing or at the very least mingling family lines together and causing confusion in the family regarding issues of paternity. In fact, in my book The Truth Unveiled, the overall definition which is assigned this family of words is, first, to mongrelize or to mix or mingle races, and secondly, to mix or mingle and therefore corrupt seedlines. As we shall see later, however, the idea of mixing or mingling is paramount to truly understanding the definitions and etymology of this moich- family of words. In this definition by Lampe, we see very clearly that early patristic writers understood that this family of words was used for adulteration or mingling.
A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the adjective moichozeuktikos: "of or relating to an adulterous marriage." Again, we see that some of the early Patristic writers spoke of adulterous marriages. The obvious question is, If adultery involves extra-marital sex, then how can a marriage itself be adulterous? Obviously, the emphasis is upon seedline corruption and mingling, and all throughout Greek literature, we find that very often being married is not an issue when the moich- family of words is used.
A Comprehensive Lexicon by John Pickering (1847), for the noun moichidios: "bastard, spurious." This Greek word should correctly be translated as mongrel, and a true understanding of the English language reveals that when Pickering, in 1847, used the word bastard, he too meant a mongrel. This was a common understanding of the word in the mid-19th century and before, as we shall prove later. Pickering was not the only one, however, to understand that the word moichidios meant mongrel. In Lexicon Manuale by Cornelius Schrevel (1796), the word moichidios is defined with the Latin word "adulterinus." According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, or OLD, adulterinus means: "adulterated, impure." Lewis and Short add: "not full-blooded." Leverett's Lexicon of the Latin Language: "begotten basely, not thorough-bred, not full-blooded, adulterated." Most importantly, however, A Large Dictionary by Thomas Holyoke (1672) states that adulterinus is equivalent (in the ancient translations and commentaries) to the Hebrew mamzir, which according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary means "a mongrel." This dictionary also states in the same definition that the Greek moichikos is equivalent to mamzir and also is equivalent to the Greek kibdelos which is defined by LSJ as: "adulterated, base." We will discuss Holyoke's definitions and the word kibdelos in more detail later, but what is important to notice here is that all of these lexical authorities agree that the Latin word adulterinus means "mongrel," and therefore the Greek word moichidios, universally defined by this Latin word, also means mongrel. Pickering's definition of bastard must be understood to have its mid-19th century meaning of mongrel.
In Lexicon: Anglo-Græco-Latinum Novi Testamenti by Andrew Symson (1658), under the entry "adulterer" for the Greek word moichos: "it maketh a confusion in families, through an illegitimate brood." This is very similar to the definition expressed in Latin in Critica Sacra by Edward Leigh (1662), who said of the Greek word moichos: "nam familias confundit illegitima sobole," which translated says, "for it mingles families with an illegal race." Both of these men understood that the Latin words with the root adulter-, which were used to define the moich- family of words in Greek-Latin lexicons meant to mix, mingle, etc. They are therefore here trying to explain how the idea of mixing or mingling relates to the idea of marital infidelity, and they have both defined the word very closely to the true concept behind this family of wordsthat of seedline corruption, both interracial and intraracial, and as we have said before, the idea of marriage is very often not an issue in ancient Greek literature where these words are used.
In A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by John Parkhurst (1769), under the definition for moichalis, we find this comment regarding Matthew 16:4: "Dr. Doddridge interprets [genea moichalis] 'a spurious race degenerated. . .'" In the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament, these two Greek words are translated "mongrel race," which is equivalent to Dr. Doddridge's translation, again understanding the archaic language of over 300 years ago. One reason that only a few lexicons actually use the English word mongrel for defining any Greek or Latin word is that the word mongrel was not commonly used 300-400 years ago. Since the lexicons are based upon one another, they preserve many of the archaic terms used in previous lexicons. So instead of saying mongrel, many lexicons use terms like bastard or spurious. The definitions of both of these words have subsequently changed, but that does not erase what men meant by these words when they were originally used several hundred years ago.
In any event, there is no doubt as to what Dr. Doddridge meant by the words a spurious race degenerated, and it is also clear that Dr. Doddridge, an honest scholar, understood the true definition of the moich- family of words.
Finally, we have the definition of Kittel already given for moicheuo: "of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races."
The original sin took place when Satan deceived Eve by his sophistry and hybrid God's unchanging Word (Genesis 3:1-7; II Corinthians 11:1-3; I Timothy 2:15; Revelation 22:18-19). Eve was seduced by the Serpent and her firstborn was the hybrid, Cain, whose father was not Adam's son (Genesis 3:15; I John 2:13-14; 3:12). As a consequence Cain and his offspring are not in the Book of Life, which is the genealogy of Adam, and Jesus Messiah is not their KINSMAN Redeemer.
Genesis 6:4, "There were giants in the earth in the days of Noah; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [as Ham committed incest with his father's wife, the Serpent's seed Naamah], and they bear children to them [like Canaan], the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown".
Thus the physical Serpent's seed is extant, and the fruit of intermarriage is genocide to Adam's race since the offspring of such unions is hybrid and not in the genealogy of the first Adam whom the last Adam died to redeem. The offspring of incest or adulteryintramarriagewithin Adam's race may be "saved," but is excluded from the election (Deuteronomy 23:2, 3).
Naturalists appreciate nature's diversity and go to great lengths to preserve it. They separate animals in zoos so as to avoid hybrids that would not occur in nature, and rejoice at the rediscovery of any species that was thought to be extinct. They show no such concern about humans, however, and condemn parents as bigotsespecially when they are whiteif they want their children to marry within their race, showing their inspiration is of the same spirit that incarnate the Serpent to deceive Eve.
The final section of Erectus Walks Amongst Us, a book containing many interesting observations by evolutionist Richard Fuerle is a plea to cherish human variation as much as plant or animal variation. He writes of the unique alleles that have been sorted out among the different races. An allele is one member of a pair (or any of the series) of genes occupying a specific spot on a chromosome (called locus) that controls the same trait. For example, a pair of alleles controlling the same trait, i.e. eye color: one allele codes for blue eyes, another allele for brown eyes. In humans, simple traits such as eye color may be caused by the interaction of only one pair of alleles. But for complex traits, such as height, they are usually caused by the interactions of series of alleles. Some alleles are dominant over other alleles, as in the case of heterozygous pairings (where paired alleles are different, in contrast to homozygous pairings where alleles are the same). In the above example, since the alleles code for different eye colors they are heterozygous. All humans have a gene for hair colour but all don't have the same colour hair. The exact colour of our hair is determined by an allele, or combination of alleles, of the gene for hair colour. Colloquially, the term gene is used when referring to an inherited trait that is usually accompanied by a phenotype as in 'tall genes' or 'bad genes'but the more proper (scientific) term for this is allele. In cystic fibrosis, alleles of the CFTR gene will determine if a person has, or is a carrier of, the disease:
"[I]t takes only an instant of miscegenation to scramble them up again. The selection of some of those alleles required the suffering and death of hundreds of thousands of people who did not have them, so the creation of racial differences was not without great cost. To destroy this monumental natural creationusso thoughtlessly and permanently, is akin to desecrating graves, dynamiting ancient statues, bombing cathedrals, and burning the library at Alexandria. What is the most valuable possession populations have that they can pass on to the next generation? It is not wealth or even knowledge. It is their genome, their ability to reproduce themselves as the unique people that they are. To squander that by miscegenation is the ultimate betrayal of one's heritage."
Today, whites are the only major racial group that faces oblivion through miscegenation and sub-replacement fertility, yet whites are also the only race that welcomes racial aliens into their homelands. This is a new phenomenon in human evolution because, as Mr. Fuerle points out, it has always been the rule that "a homeland is so vital to survival that an ethnic group will go to almost any length to have and hold one." He adds that "if whites do not defend their homelands, they will soon have no homelands, and not long after that, there will be no more whites."
As he explains: "The carrying capacity of the earth will eventually be reached, and it has probably already been reached in some countries. When that happens in white countries, our descendants will be in a life-and-death struggle for survival with the descendants of the non-whites that whites foolishly let into their homelands . . ."
What is more, most of the newcomers have relatively low IQs. Mr. Fuerle writes that their arrival in large numbers will eventually make it impossible to maintain modern civilization and that the West will be hopelessly outstripped by East Asian nations that have carefully limited immigration.
The destruction of Adam's race, particularly white Christian peoples, by multiculturalism is a repetition of the original sin foretold by Jesus Messiah (Matthew 24:37; Genesis 6:1-4) and announced by Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich before a special meeting of the Emergency Council of European Rabbis in Budapest on January 12, 1952 concerning progress towards their NWO. ". . . We will openly reveal our identity with the races of Asia and Africa. I can state with assurance that the last generation of white children is now being born. Our Control Commissions will, in the interests of peace and wiping out inter-racial tensions, forbid the whites to mate with whites. The white women must cohabit with members of the dark races, the white men with black women. Thus the white race will disappear, for mixing the dark with the white means the end of the white man, and our most dangerous enemy will become only a memory . . ." (Pawns in the Game by Captain William Guy Carr, p. 104-106).
Goyim are defenseless against this ongoing iniquity since governments worldwide have enacted racial hatred legislation that would criminalize not just physical acts of racial violence but indict anyone who made public statements that might cause offence to any minority such as homosexuals as a group and the criminals executing this plan. This Machiavellian legislation in which truth is no defense was crafted by San Francisco lawyer Joseph Ribakoff for a competition sponsored by the ADL of B'nai B'rith. (Ribakoff was subsequently suspended for misappropriating client funds).
Today, any white who speaks out for the preservation of his people or race is condemned as a "racist," but it is only by putting its interests first that any group survives. Mr. Fuerle marvels at the mentality of whites who think it virtuous to decline in numbers while others take their lands and inherit what their ancestors built: "These white anti-racists don't like what they are. How could creatures evolve who are capable of not liking themselves? Surely, such creatures would have been driven extinct long ago by others of their kind who do like themselves." Oblivious to apostasy he adds: "Why so many whites eagerly embrace white-hating, however, remains to be explained." Mr. Fuerle suspects the problem may be altruism run amok. Whites rose to the top, not only through high intelligence but through cooperation with and even sacrifice for others. When whites sacrificed for other whites it promoted their genetic interests, but today's "promiscuous altruism" means sacrificing for non-whites. However this takes no account of the grace of God and the blessings which follow obedience to His revealed Word and the curse on a people who "draw nigh to Christ with their mouth, and honour Him with their lips; but whose heart is far from Him. For in vain do they worship Jesus, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:8-9).
As it was in the days of Noah, spiritual hybreeding of God's Word by reasoning with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Revelation 22:18-19) precedes physical miscegenation, for the natural types the Spiritual as idolatry types physical fornication and adultery, and woman types the church. However, as we are approaching the consummation of life when "all the proud, yea, and all who do wickedly. shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall burn them up so that it shall leave them neither root nor branch" (Malachi 4:1; Daniel 9:27; Luke 3:17), miscegenation is championed under the deceptive euphemism 'multiculturalism' by impersonators "like Jannes and Jambres who withstood Moses, and these also resist the Truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith" (II Timothy 3:6).
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob hates hybreeding, in agriculture or animal husbandry: "You shall keep My statutes: you shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind, you will not sow seed of two kinds in the same field, nor wear a garment made of linen and wool woven together" (Leviticus 19:19), nor adulterate your seed. Deuteronomy 32:8-9: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance [determined in Genesis 10], when He separated the sons of Adam [from the seed of the Serpent], He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel [so that it should possess a land corresponding to its population (Genesis 9:25-29; Deuteronomy 2)]. Because the Lord's portion is His people, Jacob His allotted heritage." Numbers 23:9: "Israel will dwell alone, and remain distinct from every other nation".
Our God is a God of variety. He made a world of hills, mountains, valleys and plains, divided by oceans, rivers, ice and sandy deserts populated by an infinite variety of life over which he ordained that men and women of a variety of colours, shapes and sizes, cultures and abilities should hold dominion. Contrary to the Judaeo-Catholic and Judaeo-Communist one world government programs, He divided the Earth in the most orderly manner among the sons of Noah according to their nations with every nation ranked by its families, so that every nation was assigned its own territory, and in every nation the tribes, and in every tribe the families, were located separately by themselves. It is said that the earth was divided according to divine instruction made probably through Eber, and his son "Peleg" ('division') was named in memory of that event (Genesis 10:25). When men did not disperse but mingled in Nimrod's Babel, "the Lord confounded the universal language and scattered them abroad upon the face of all the Earth" to develop separately in sovereign nation states without hybreeding or mongrelizing (Genesis 11:9).
I believe this notice refers not to the general dispersion subsequent to the Deluge, but to the division of the Semitic family of Eber himself between the Abrahamic line in Peleg, who remained in Mesopotamia (there is a town named Phaliga at the junction of the Chaboras with the Euphrates), and the Arabic line in Joktan who migrated into Southern Arabia.
Brother Branham said, "I don't believe in mixing marriages. I believe that a white man should not marry a colored girl, or a colored girl marry a white man, or a yellow marry a colored, or a white . . . I believe the brown, black, white, and races of people are like a flower garden of God, and I do not believe they should be crossed up. I believe that's the way God made them, and I believe that's the way they should remain."
"It fools me that I seen some real pretty colored girl, intelligent, nice looking kid, just as pretty as any woman you'd want to see. . . What does she want to marry a white man and have mulatto children? What would an intelligent colored girl want with such a thing as that? Is because that something. . . that communist. . . And how would a fine colored man want to marry a white woman and have mulatto children?"
"I believe you should stay just what we are. We're servants of Christ. If He made me, my color black, I'd be happy to be a black man for God. If He made me yellow, I'd be a happy yellow man for Christ. If He made me white, I've a happy white man for Christ. If He made me brown, or red, an Indian, whatever it is, I'd stay my same color. That would be me. I want to be like my Maker made me" (C.O.D. p. 1179:166-168).
From the very beginning God commanded: "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. . . And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. . . And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. . . And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24, 26, 28). There is no such thing as the evolution of species; God created every living creature by His spoken Word, and commanded that all life reproduce after its own kind from seed within itself.
The satanic objective of opposing creation by teaching evolution is to usurp God and destroy men's souls by the spiritual Serpent's seed of reasoning against faith, while the satanic objective of multiculturalism is to eliminate Adam's physical race from the Book of Life through miscegenation, as the amalgamation of nation states is intended to transform God's natural order into chaos out of which Lucifer can establish his totalitarian one world government.
Mongrelization is contrary to nature and miscegenation is explicitly forbidden by God's unchanging Word as expounded in Esau/Edom, and the Trail of the Serpent. This understanding was lost when English Bible translators replaced four unique Hebrew words: ger, toshab, Nokriy, and zuwr with the English "stranger" disregarding distinctions in meaning such as race because they had no understanding of the original sin, and their scholarship, perhaps intentionally hindered by Hebrew-speaking advisers has hidden this essential revelation from Christendom for centuries.
Leviticus 19:33-34, the "stranger [ger] who dwells with you shall be as one home-born." A temporary inhabitant or newcomer, racially identical with Israel but lacking inherited rights, was called the 'ger,' and conceded rights. The word was used of the Patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6; Judges 17:7), and particularly of free aliens residing among them.
The Hebrew word 'toshab' is used to identify one who is different, in an unspecified way to the 'ger,' like an alien or estranged person. Perhaps a less permanent sojourner like a resident guest visiting the house of a priest in Israel who was denied further rights. In contrast to the 'gerim,' His children could be bought as perpetual slaves with absolutely no recourse to redemptionthe Law of Jubilee did not apply to them (Leviticus 25:45). While permitted to reside in Israel, they had no legal status except in respect of justice, beyond which he had no rights whatsoever.
The word 'Nokriy' ('ben nekhar'), covers everything of alien or foreign character, regardless of the place of residence, and is defined by the context in which it appears. It embraces the Canaanites, who descended from Ham's incest and the Moabites and Ammonites who descended from Lot's incest with his own daughters. These 'Nokriy' were strictly taboo with no rights or privileges in the Israel community. Their status was that of a bastardin Hebrew, a "mamzer," meaning one of mixed or spurious origins specifically prevented by divine Decree from entering the congregation of the Lord [election] even to his tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:2-3). That is, never! Marriage with the 'Nokriy' is positively forbidden (Genesis 24:3). The Serpent's seed are Nokriy.
The Hebrew word 'zuwr,' takes its definition, like the other words, from the context. The word appears in connection with enemy aliens or a foreign race (Serpent's seed) with no rights whatsoever in Israel. Even justice is denied the 'zuwr.' In all of Israel's national disasters, the 'zuwr' is reckoned the main contributing factor. And in each of the following three examples this judgment has befallen Israel because like Eve, it broke God's Covenant. Isaiah 1:7: "your country is ruined and desolate, your cities are burned, and while you watch helplessly strangers ('zuwr') destroy and plunder everything in sight . . ." Hosea 5:7: "They have dealt treacherously against the Lord, bearing strange ('zuwr') children." Hosea 7:9: "Strangers ('zuwr') have devoured his strength, and he knows it not."
Romans 7:3 provides an illustration of intraracial adulteration or mongrelization, proving once again that woman is not part of God's original creation but a byproduct of man, made so she can deceive and be deceived and showing that the original sin was adultery, or mongrelization. "If, while her husband lives, a woman marries another man, she shall be called an adulteress [Gk. 'moichalis']: but if her husband is dead she is free from that Law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." A woman who remarries while her first husband is alive adulterates or hybrids seed contrary to God's Law as in incest or adultery so that the offspring as an affront to God's Word yet pure Adamite is excluded from the election.
Brother Branham said, "But now that the Seals are opened, the Spirit of Truth directs us to the Word. That explains why all the mistakes has been down through the ages, because the Seals was not open. This was not revealed. It's true. Notice, you can't make the shadows fail (as I preached to you last night about the shadow across the floor); it's got to come out right. How can there be a shadow of an elephant coming across the floor and a little, bitty, spindly man come out to be the elephant, or the elephant, to a little, spindly man? Now, if you'll notice it in perfect type . . .
Now, that is a true woman. A true woman, virgin, that marries her husband and lives and she's a blessed thing to the man. If God could've give His Son any better thing than a wife, He would've give that to Him. But she's designed to be a sex act. And no other animal is designed like that; no other creature on the earth is designed like that. That's the reason you see polygamy, because of that. That's what brought it in.
In the final analysis, look, there is one Jesus Christ (is that right?), one Man: God Immanuel. You believe that? But the members of His Wife are many (See?), thousands times thousands of thousands. Is that right? His Wife, the Bride, the church. . . You understand now?
That's why He said to Adam before sex was ever introduced, "Multiply to replenish the earth," when he was yet in the beginning, when he was yet both male and female in himself. There it shows then that the Bride's got to come from the Word, by spiritual multiplication (See?), replenishing the earth.
Now, in the sex act. . . See, the school's got those two things mixed up. Therefore, you can't do it. You've got to bring it back to the truth of it, in the beginning. And at the end there will be one Lord Jesus and His Bride many: singular. You get it? There was one David on one throne, one king after God's own heart, with five hundred wives. Jesus, setting on His throne (Hallelujah!) in the millennium, with a Wife like it was at the beginning, created out of the earth by the hand of Almighty God in the resurrection, of many members. There you are.
Women, struggle to be that. Come into Christ, then you'll not be in that filthy mess out there. But as long as you're just a church member, trying to live morally good yourself, you'll never make it. Neither can a man make it outside of Christ. As Paul went on to say, "But in Christ there is neither male nor female"; they're all one. But to get this marriage and divorce straightened out so that you would know which was right and which was wrong . . .
Now, He plainly shows here in these types there is one Christ and many members of that Wife. Notice, He can put us away for spiritual fornications and false doctrine anytime He wants to, but how dare you try to put Him away and make it. The man can put away his wife and marry another, but not the woman put away her husband and marry another. See all the shadows and types there perfectly balanced out? See? The original creation, not the byproduct nowhere; not the church, the Bride through the Word; not the woman, the man; each time. . . Never says anything against the man doing it; it's always the woman. That's exactly. But she can be the Bride of Christ by being. . . And remember, she being a part of a man, the Bible said she can only. . . "Nevertheless I suffer not a woman to teach, or to usurp any authority, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the byproduct was deceived. Notwithstanding she shall be saved if she continues in holiness and sobriety and in childbearing and all such. . ." (because then she becomes a part of this man; [Genesis 2:24; Galatians 3:27-29]).
Why didn't God kill Sarah setting right there denying, a-lying right in the face of God, setting there as a mortal man, eating flesh, eating bread, drinking milk. And He said, "Why did Sarah laugh back there in the back, behind Him in the tent (He'd never seen her), saying, 'How can these things be?'"
She said, "I never said it." Oh. Ooh, my. Tell God that He's a liar to His face. But He couldn't take her. Why? She's a part of Abraham. He couldn't hurt her without hurting Abraham. Now you women see where you belong? And the Bible said, you women, be like Sarah was, which adorned herself in modest apparel, live honest and true to her own husband, loving him so much that she called him her lord: ruler, ownership.
And you, some of the women put on these nasty clothes, eat out here to throw yourself before men. Jesus said, "Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart." Then who's guilty, the man or you? He's a male, made so he could take this act. See? And you're the female that ought to refuse. And why do you put yourself out like that? It ain't for comfort. You know it can't be, when you're half froze to death with them shorts on. See? Can't be for comfort. Then what is it? It's for filth. You won't admit it, but the Bible said so. It's the truth. It's a filthy spirit that's in you. You don't want to be filthy, but you don't realize spiritually you are filthy, because you're presenting yourself filthy.
Now, a man, his old, dirty, knotty knees, and if he had on hardly any clothes at all, it wouldn't make any difference; his body is not tempting. Why? He was in the original creation: character, should be. But you're the byproduct to tempt by.
God have mercy. Oh, my, this sinful world, I'll be glad when it's over.
Notice, he can put away his wife any time he wants to, but she can't put him away. He can throw me in the dust any time He takes a notion to, but oh, brother, I'd better not try to throw Him there; I'm finished.
Solomon could marry any woman that wasn't married. He could marry any women he wanted to. A priest could marry only a woman that was a virgin. Solomon, like David, he married. . . What was her name? Abigail, which was a man called a fool. He had a nice wife, and he died. And Abigail was married to David. He was a king, not a priest. See? So he married, but a priest could not do that because he'd touched or got a woman to be his wife that was already been some man's wife.
So that shows the virgincy of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bride will have to be unadulterated the Word, not one Word missing nowhere. Certainly. Could you imagine a correct bride, one breast off and the other one something or other wrong, you know? That's not going to be the Bride of Christ; She's perfect. She's everything the Word, not one Word failing anywhere. No.
Notice, He can put her away, but she cannot put Him away. He did it, and proved it in the days when Luther, Wesley, and in Pentecost, when they refused to become the further part of Him by having spiritual sexual affair to become pregnated with further part of the Word. You understand? She refused. . . The Lutheran church refused for Christ to have any more desire with her. Luther refused it. And let me say this (going to call me something anyhow), so is it today with every one of them [Matthew 25:1-13; Revelation 18:4]. They fail to take that Word. They refuse Christ. And any woman that refuses a man his child has no right to be a wife to him. Amen.
You remember in the Bible when the king married Esther because the queen refused. He just got him another one. . . What happened when she refused to come out with the king, to obey him? The same thing it is with a woman that refuses to be wife to her husband.
And so is it with the church that refuses to become pregnated in the age that we now live in to bring forth children of this age. We're not Lutherans; we're not Wesleys; neither are we Pentecostals. We've got to be the children of this age through the pregnancy of the Word of God to bring forth a Child of this age, the Seed Child. Amen. I hope you understand. Couldn't be pregnated, no. So what did He do? Put her away in divorcement. That's right. But she dares put Him away. He put her away.
He went right on revealing His Word to the Body and vindicating His same by Himself. His children begin to kinda look more like Him because it's fully maturing, or they become children of the Word, not children of the church; children of the Word. And the Bride will be a lovely little Lady of the Word, unadulterated, not touched by any man's organization, any manmade theory. She'll be purely unadulterated Bride of the Word. Amen and amen. I hope you get that out on the air. She'll be the pregnated daughter of God.
See what a great honor a woman can be? See what a great thing the church can be? But you see where filth has got her to? Then trying to compare that church out there, with the church here; you can't do it. And try to compare the street harlot with the church of the living God; or the woman, the correct woman, with the harlot.
Why is there such things as that? It's a law of God, the law of contrast. How would we know how to enjoy the daylight if there wasn't a night? How would we know how to enjoy the dry weather if there wasn't rain? How would we know to enjoy and respect a real woman if there wasn't a dirty one?" (Marriage and Divorce, p. 34:233-261). nl720.htm
Pass it on . . . please send this article to someone you know
Brother Grigor-Scott is a non-denominational minister who has ministered full-time since 1981, primarily to other ministers and their congregations overseas. He pastors Bible Believers' tiny congregation, and is available to teach in your church.