Biblical Racial Law & The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Our Christian Bibles are racial books from beginning to end, Old and New Testaments alike, including some of the Apocrypha. Today, the Holy Bible of is considered anathema to all the left-wing liberals, who loudly proclaim we must be “politically correct”.
The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.”
These “politically correct” manipulators go so far as labeling we Christians who quote passages from our Bible concerning “race” as “S.T.G.”, or “security threat groups”! Even less intelligent imbeciles loudly spout that the subject of “race” is never mentioned in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth!
This “politically correct” propaganda is like the giant taconite crusher that was developed after we ran out of softer iron ore, which was crushed by conventional rollers. These taconite crushers applied relentless pressure rendering taconite amenable to conventional blast furnaces to extract iron. This “politically correct” propaganda has now altered the mental and spiritual awareness of nearly every White-Caucasian-European-American for the worse, and it IS NOT Biblical! Therefore, we will have to demonstrate just what is Biblical and what is not!:
To prove that the Holy Bible is undisputedly about “race” from Genesis to the end of Revelation, I will start by citing W.E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, under the heading of “KIND”, which is #G1085 in the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. To grasp his explanations to a greater degree, I will quote each Scripture passage cited by Vine as we proceed along (and some editing will be necessary):
“Kind: … GENOS (γένος), akin to ginomai, to become, denotes (a) a family, Acts 4:6: ‘And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.” …(This family were Edomites converted to Judaism, Josephus’ Antiq. 13:9:1, C.A.E.)… ‘kindred’ Acts 7:13, ‘race’ Revised Version: ‘And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren; and Joseph’s race became manifest unto Pharaoh’, (Authorized Version), ‘kindred; Acts 13:26, ‘stock’, ‘Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.’; (b) an offspring, Acts 17:28, ‘Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.’; Rev. 22:16: ‘I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star’; (c) a nation, a race, Mark 7:26, Revised Version, ‘Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. And she besought him that he would cast forth the demon out of her daughter.’ ‘race’ (Authorized Version, ‘nation’); Acts 4:36, Revised Version, ‘(a man of Cyprus by race)’,‘And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race …’, cf. Authorized Version, ‘And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus …’ [Notice the watering-down of the KJV, from ‘race’ to ‘country’! Both cannot be correct! C.A.E. – Back to Vine] … genos does not mean country, the word here signifies parentage. (Jews had settled in Cyprus from, or even before, the reign of Alexander the Great [*Note that W.E. Vine does not distinguish between Edomite-jews or the true tribe of Judah, C.A.E – Back to Vine.]; Acts 7:19, Revised Version, ‘race’, ‘The same dealt craftily with our race, and ill-treated our fathers, that they should cast out their babes to the end they might not live.’ (Authorized Version), ‘kindred’ & ‘born’; Acts 18:2, 24, ‘And found a certain Jew [sic *true natural Judahite] named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews [sic *true natural Judahites] to depart from Rome:) and came unto them’ … ‘And a certain Jew[sic *true natural Judahite] named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.’ ‘by race’ cf. Revised Version, ‘And he found a certain Jew[sic *true natural Judahite]named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome: and he came unto them … Now a certain Jew[sic *true natural Judahite] named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the scriptures.’ … 2 Cor. 11:26, ‘countryman”, ‘In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren …’, Gal. 1:14, Revised Version, ‘… and I advanced in the [perverted] Jews’ religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.’ Cf. Authorized Version, ‘And profited in the Jews’ [debauched] religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.; Phil. 3:5, ‘stock’; ‘Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee …”, 1 Pet. 2:9, Revised Version, ‘But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light …’ cf Authorized Version (generation), which is watered down; ‘But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light …’; (d) a kind, sort, class, Matt. 13:47, ‘Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea [of people], and gathered of every kind [i.e., genos, (γένος), ‘race’; in some mss. in Matt. 17:21, Authorized Version ‘kind’; Mark 9:28, ‘kind’; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, ‘kinds’ (Authorized Version), ‘diversities’; 1 Cor. 14:19 (ditto).”
[Note: The last two lines above are insignificant, C.A.E.]
While W.E. Vine did quite well on the subject of “race” in his Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, he goes astray in other areas, adjusting the meaning of certain Greek words to agree with unsound churchianity dogma! Therefore, we should be careful how we use Bible commentaries, lexicons and dictionaries! Next, I will cite genos, (γένος), Strong’s #1085 from Zodhiates’ The Complete Dictionary New Testament. Zodhiates is quite biased in this Greek word, avoiding the English word “race” as if it didn’t exist, but he tripped himself up in his explanation, as we will see next:
“1085. γένος génos; genitive. génous, neuter noun from gínomai (1096), to become. Offspring, posterity (Acts 17:28, 29; Rev. 22:16: Septuagint: Jer. 36:31). Family, lineage, stock (Acts 4:6 where some translate it as ‘sect’ or ‘order’; Septuagint: Jer. 41:1; Acts 7:13; 13:26; Phil. 3:5); nation, people (Mark 7:26; Acts 4:36; 7:19; 18:2, 24; 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 1:4; 1 Pet. 2:9; Septuagint: Gen. 11:6; Esth. 2:10); kind, sort, species (Matt. 13:47; 17:21; Mark 9:29; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; 14:10; Septuagint: Gen. 6:20; 7:14; 2 Chr. 4:13).
“Derivative: agenés (36), base things; allogenés (241), stranger; gennáō (1080), to give birth; eugenés (2104), more noble, nobleman; monogenés (3439), only begotten; suggenés (4773), countryman.
“Antonym: allóphulos (246), of another race or nation.”
We should take notice that the Greek word #246, allóphulos, is used only once in the New Testament, at Acts 10:28 thusly:
“And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew [sic full blooded Judahite of the tribe of Judah] to keep company, or come unto one of another nationG246; but Yahweh hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.”
Zodhiates tripped himself up by stating: “Antonym: allóphulos (246), of another race or nation.” Especially since allóphulos is not necessarily an antonym of génos.
To clear up Acts 10:28 above, I will cite William Finck’s Christogenea New Testament translation:
“Then on the next day arising he went with them, and some of the brethren from Ioppa went with him. 24 And the next day he entered into Caesareia. And Kornelios was expecting them, having invited together his kinsmen and the necessary friends. 25 And it happened that upon the entering of Petros, Kornelios meeting with him falling at his feet worshipped. 26 Then Petros raised him saying ‘Stand up! I myself also am a man!’ 27 And conversing with him he entered in and finds many gathered together, 28 and he said to them: ‘You know how it is unlawful for a Judaean man to join to or associate with another tribe. Yet Yahweh has explained to me not to call any [White Adamic] man profane or unclean’...” [brackets added by C.A.E.]
With Finck’s translation, it should be very apparent that both Cornelius and Peter were not necessarily of different races, but of different tribes, and both were certainly men in the Biblical sense. To understand what Yahweh did not want Peter to consider “profane or unclean” we must go back and examine “what God hath cleansed” (Acts 10:15, 11:9).
Comparing W.E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words with Zodhiates and his The Complete Dictionary New Testament, it is quite clear that Vine was much more faithful in rendering GENOS as “race”! William Edwy Vine lived 1873-1949, and belonged to the Plymouth Brethren which believed the dispensationalism and premillennialism taught by John Nelson Darby. Cyris Ingersoll Scofield, influenced by Darby’s writings, spread these misleading premises abroad. The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones are all but worshiped in the ranks of indiscriminate Christians, beginning with the first media icon, the evangelist Billy Graham. Therefore: Is it any wonder, then, why we should be extra cautious using lexicons influenced by such beliefs?
On the other hand, we have Spiros Zodhiates who calls himself a “Doctor”, best known for his developing AMG (Advancing the Ministries of the Gospel) International, a Christian missions relief agency in forty countries, and published The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible.
Born of Greek parents at Cyprus, his father and family journeyed to Port Said, Egypt and Khartoum, Sudan searching for work. His brother, Argos Zodhiates, converted to Christianity as a Protestant under an evangelical minister, and witnessed this to his mother and brother, who did likewise. Inasmuch as Zodhiates neglected to kiss a Greek Orthodox priest’s hand, he was expelled from school. A lady friend, Katherine, pitied him and taught him English. Upon completing his Greek education, he attended the American University in Cairo, Egypt, receiving a Th,B degree from National Bible Institute (later Shelton College, closing its doors in 1990) in New York City, and then an M.A. from New York University. In 1978 he obtained his Doctor of Theology from Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville Florida, then receiving several honorary doctorates.
Upon coming to the United States in 1946, he was invited by the American Committee for evangelizing the Greeks (now AMG International), becoming president in 1966. Under his leadership, AMG expanded from a small ministry focusing on the land of Greece, to a worldwide relief ministry….NEED I SAY MORE? Abridged from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiros_Zodhiates
We must grasp that those who are called “Greeks” today ARE NOT the same “Greeks” that occupied the western Mediterranean 2000 years ago! They may speak a form of Greek, but it is not the koine Greek used in the New Testament. Hence, we will have to question the ethnicity of the whole Zodhiates family!
I purchased the two volumes of The Complete Word Study Dictionary, both Old and New Testaments, by Spiros Zodhiates about twenty years ago, and upon reading and studying the book of Genesis I discovered he was using the wrong Strong’s number for the English word “men”, making it #H376, where it should have been #H582, a very serious blunder indeed! This he did twenty-two times before I stopped counting them! I then checked Zodhiates against The Interlinear Hebrew-Aramaic Old Testament, by Jay P. Green, Sr., vol. 1, and Green showed all 22 should have been #H582.
This misuse of #s H376 & H582 shows that Spiros Zodhiates is desperate to do whatever he can to deny the exclusive racial covenant! #H376, iysh, in the Enhanced Strong's Lexicon, simply means a male of any race of man, or a male of an animal or beast of any species. Sometimes the word “beast” can be an idiom for a non-Adamite! #H582, enowsh, in context, means a man of any race, but not of animals. The reader must discern by the context whether it is speaking an Adamite or non-Adamite, or a half-breed bastard of some kind. More often than not, “enowsh” is applied to Adam-man, referring to man in his mortal aspect!
The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Hebrew):
“582 אנוש, [’enowsh /en·oshe/] noun masculine; Authorized Version translates as ‘man’ 520 times, ‘certain’ 10 times, ‘husbands’ three times, ‘some’ three times, ‘merchantmen’ twice, ‘persons’ twice, and translated miscellaneously 24 times. 1 man, mortal man, person, mankind. 1a of an individual. 1b men (collective). 1c man, mankind.”
“376 איש, [’iysh /eesh/] noun masculine. Contracted for 582 [or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant]; 1639 occurrences; Authorized Version translates as ‘man’ 1002 times, ‘men’ 210 times, ‘one’ 188 times, ‘husband’ 69 times, ‘any’ 27 times, and translated miscellaneously 143 times. 1 man. 1a man, male (in contrast to woman, female). 1b husband. 1c human being, person (in contrast to God). 1d servant. 1e mankind. 1f champion. 1g great man. 2 whosoever. 3 each (adjective).”
When the founders of the United Stated formulated a lawful Constitution, they had to address Who, What, When, Where, Why and How! With this composition on “race” we will examine the proven fact of how the wolves not only deny their obvious designs to completely mongrelize the White race out-of-existence, and have simultaneously sabotaged the intent of our founding fathers in our United States Constitution by including nonwhite people. We need only analyze every word and phrase of the Preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis mine]
Therefore, the Preamble to The United States Constitution establishes the WHO for all legal documents and treaties, including the The Declaration of Independence; & the United States’ Constitution itself, along with its Amendments (some of which should be rewritten or stricken)! The qualifier “to ourselves and our Posterity” should precede each Amendment! [Notice: “ourselves”, “our” & “Posterity” are collective singulars!]
For instance, if the 2nd Amendment were enforced according to the Preamble, only White-Caucasian-European- Americans could own and carry guns!
Here are verifying excerpts from the website:
liberty-virtue-independence.blogspot.com/2008/12/secure-liberty-to-ourselves-and-our.html
“Secure Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity
“Noah Webster proposed a Constitutional Convention as he traveled from New Hampshire to North Carolina in 1785 to 1787. He produced Sketches of American Policy; a 48 page document presented to George Washington at Mount Vernon in 1785.
“Webster was in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention and was visited by: Washington, Franklin, Rufus King, Abraham Baldwin, Edmund Randolph, William Johnson, Oliver Ellsworth, James Madison, Roger Sherman, William Livingston, and John Marshall.
“Two days before the Convention adjourned, Thomas Fitzsimmons, delegate from Pennsylvania, requested that he prepare an essay in support of the Constitution. Although Noah Webster wasn’t a delegate to the Constitutional Convention; his counsel, advice, and guidance were momentous. Noah Webster is our authority if we are to understand the terminology of the Constitution ...” The website continues:
“I quote Noah Webster [again]:
“Posterity” [1828 ed.]:
“1 .Posterity, descendants, children, children’s children &c. indefinitely the race that proceeds from a progenitor. The whole human race are the posterity of Adam. 2. In a general sense, succeeding generations opposed to ancestors.”
It is quite clear that Noah Webster’s advice was sought by the framers of the United States Constitution in order that no ambiguity in the meaning of any word or phrase would be misinterpreted in the future. While Webster did quite well in bringing “race” into the equation, he left some obscurity by using the words “indefinitely” and “whole”! From the Library Of Universal Knowledge, vol. xv, p. 323, we read in part:
“... In 1807, he (Noah Webster) published A Philosophical and Practical Grammar of the English Language, and commenced his American Dictionary of the English Language; but finding difficulties in etymology, he devoted ten years to its study, and prepared a Synopsis of Words in Twenty Languages; then began his dictionary anew, and in seven years completed it ....”
From this bit of information we can see how Webster may not have been entirely sure when using the words “indefinitely” and “whole” in this context! However, Webster showed no signs of being confused about the term “race”, as he used it two times in his definition of “posterity”! The following is the definition of “race”, as a people, from Noah Webster’s original 1828 dictionary:
“Origin of ‘RACE’: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza. First known use, 1580.
“3race,noun, definition of race: 1. a breeding stock of animals. 2. (a) a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock; (b) a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics; 3 (a) an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; (b)also: a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group; (c) a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits; 4 obsolete: inherited temperament or disposition. 5. distinctive flavor, taste, or strength.”
In Latin the noun for “race”, genus, means: birth, descent, origin, noble, birth, offspring, race, kind, family, nation; a derivative of the Latin “gens”, meaning: clan, tribe, family, race. Therefore, Noah Webster could only mean by his definition of “posterity” the word “race”. And by the definition of “race”, means: “... 2. (a) a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock & 3 ... (c) a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits ....” In Latin, “posterity” is posteri and minores meaning: “posterity” or “a lesser, or younger”, etc.
Almost all sources of scientific data today are in denial that there are any physiological differences between races, but I found the following data in the 1971 World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 16, p. 59:
“Race and Blood Groups: Scientists have studied the use of blood groups to classify races. They use three main blood-grouping systems. These are (1) the ABO, with groups A, B, AB, and O; (2) the MN, with groups M, N, and MN; and (3) the Rh, with groups Rh negative and Rh positive. Each system has many subdivisions. Using these systems as a basis, scientists recognize 13 races: Early European, Lapp, Northwest European, East and Central European, Mediterranean, African, Asian, Indo-Dravidian, American Indian (including Eskimo), Indonesian, Melanesian, Polynesian, and Australian. This type of racial classification is similar to that based on physical traits alone.”
If blood types can truly identify differences in race, so likewise it should show up in the DNA of a person. After all, every cell in one’s body has a copy of the original DNA double-helix (including the red blood cells) which were formed when the 23 chromosomes from a female oocyte merged with the 23 chromosomes of a male sperm, forming an embryo which grew into a fetus. It is simply ridiculous to make the claim that the blood has a different DNA than the rest of the body!
