By Jim Jester
December 2, 2018
Scripture Reading: Acts 17:22-28, ASV
“And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you. The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”
In the recent mid-term elections, the Republicans avoided a worst-case scenario: the “Blue Wave.” Many good Americans breathed a sigh of relief. But, what about the “brown wave” (immigration). The margin of Republican victories gets smaller with each election. Democrats are not far behind and the few victories they had were in highly populated areas, such as the cities. These areas are mainly of the darker races, which usually vote democratic. There will be no relief. As long as the races of color keep coming in, so the “browning” of America will continue. The “browns” will nearly always vote Democrat because they care not about the laws of God, or conservatism. Thus, the Democrats will regain political power in the near future and more states (like Texas) will turn Blue (like California). Demographics is everything – the brown wave will translate into a blue wave. We hope America does not have to face a Bolshevik type communist revolution. Unless, America repents, there will be no relief from increasing wickedness and oppression of Christians. We need God’s Law: White immigration only.
In recent days, we have heard of some of our people whose families have had someone marry into another race. As time goes on, it seems, this terrible sin becomes more widespread. And, it will continue regardless if our people are in church or not (because most churches go along with it).
Moreover, who is responsible for this adulteration of our race? Sure, we can point the finger to the archenemy of Christianity, the jews and other politicians; but besides them, it lies in the heart of all “judeo-Christian” churches and their seminaries. And narrowing it down even more, many of these churches get their information and advice on the race issue from none other than “Answers in Genesis” (of course, most of their answers are wrong). This parachurch organization (a 501c3) works outside and across denominational lines and specializes in things that individual churches may not be able to specialize in by themselves.
While A.I.G. claims to be a Christian apologetic organization, I believe they do more harm than good in proclaiming the Christian message. They feed doctrinal error to individual Christians and churches who come to them for advice. I’m sure they feel the same about us in Christian Identity.
The book entitled “One Race, One Blood” by Ken Ham and Dr. Charles Ware of the “Answers in Genesis” organization takes a prominent role in all that the organization stands for. Not only is the book for sale on their web site, but chapters of it are posted online along with other articles that parrot their philosophy of racial integration, inter-racial marriages, egalitarianism and anti-racism, all with a Christian twist. There is also a children’s version of the book and a Vacation Bible School program for sale called “The Incredible Race.” All of these resources are designed to encourage children to race-mix, which in turn will eventually lead to more inter-racial dating and marriages with brown offspring.
Their ultimate goal will lead to White genocide, for no combination of any hybrid couple can produce a White child. The only reason any of us today are White, is that our ancestors (for thousands of years) chose to marry within their own race. If liberals were to achieve their goal of breeding Whites out of existence, how is that achieving diversity? A world of brown people? No Whites? No variety in hair color? No variety in eye color? If Whites were gone, the world will be far less diverse than it is now.
Egalitarians are hypocrites when they say they want “diversity” because the White race is the most diverse race of all the races in the world. Of course, in the mind of the liberal, White people do not count or measure up to their definition of “diversity.” So, how is making everyone brown being diverse? Also, we never hear of liberals wanting to make Africa “more diverse” by pushing for White migration into Africa. The same could be said of other “darker” countries.
From the “Answers in Genesis” web site:
It's a Vacation Bible School like no other!
Kids will race from continent to continent uncovering clues and attempting challenges as they fill their score cards.
They'll also discover that, no matter where we live, what shade of skin we have, or what language we speak, we are all part of the same race—the human race—and all part of the same family from Adam and Eve.
As they examine the events surrounding the tower of Babel, kids will learn that God is calling people from every tribe and nation through his Son, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. And that he wants us to share this good news in kindness and love with our neighbors nearby and far away.
Join The Incredible Race and experience God's love for every tribe, language, and nation!
[What a disgrace – what abomination]
My Message to A.I.G.
To the credit of Answers in Genesis, they do have some valid Christian positions opposing the theory of evolution. However, the little good they provide will never outshine all of the darkness they promote by encouraging America’s youth to destroy forever their racial progeny. This treatise will prove them wrong. Their philosophy of “only one race” (the human race) is a blatant lie. A.I.G. loves to clothe itself in Bible garb (in its name is Genesis), yet in practice they quote very little of the Bible. Instead they quote from specially selected “scientists” that are supposedly experts in their field.
While A.I.G. condemns evolution (and rightly so), they turn around and support evolution to explain the various races. They believe in a very fast evolution of a little less than 300 years of change. Then they turn around again and say there actually are no races, for “races” are only “social constructs.”
Paul at Mars Hill
Our Scripture reading is the account of Paul addressing the Greeks of the court (Areopagus) on Mars hill. His speech was somewhat of a shock to the prideful Greek culture. The Greeks took much pride in the accomplishments of their nation; indeed, they were the measure of all things; and every nation around them wanted to be like them. (“Man is the measure of all things.” A statement by the ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras, 420 BC. It is usually interpreted to mean that the individual human being, rather than a god or an unchanging moral law, is the ultimate source of value.) The Greeks constructed five of the Seven Wonders of the World. The Greeks looked down on anyone else as inferior (barbarians) to them, even those of their own racial brethren. This is why Paul spoke of God, the creator of all things, who had “made of one, every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Acts 17:26, ASV).
The companion verse to this: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations. And from these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” – Genesis 10:32 (no mention of blood here either).
Paul is simply stating biblical history for the Greeks. In so doing, he “popped the balloon” of Greek arrogance. We could say that Paul wanted the Greeks to be more inclusive. But it was not the kind of inclusiveness of today’s egalitarian. It was the inclusiveness within our own race.
Then, moving on to verse 28 of our passage, Paul adds this comment, “for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’” This is a familial term – it is racial. Evidently, some of the Greek poets must have admitted that they were the “offspring” (children) of God the Creator; but they did not know His name or who He was. Well, Paul knew who this God was: He was the God of Israel. And Paul knew these Greeks were descended from the tribes of Israel many centuries ago. This is easily proven by how Paul uses the term “Gentiles” in his letters. The people of the N.T. are the same as in the O.T.
Paul was being charged (as seen in Acts 17:18-20) with bringing in new doctrines; and perhaps false gods. But he assures them he was not. He saw what the city was like – everywhere he looked, there were gods. Acts 17:16, “Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” Surely, Paul must have defended himself of these charges by saying something like, “you have plenty of gods already, and I do not need to add any more.” Matthew Henry comments:
“Socrates, who had exposed the pagan idolatry, was indicted in this very court, and condemned, not only because he did not esteem those to be gods whom the city esteemed to be so, but because he introduced new demons; and this was the charge against Paul. Now he tacitly owns the former part of the charge, but guards against the latter, by declaring that he does not introduce any new gods, but reduce them to the knowledge of one God, the Ancient of days.” –M. Henry
Paul did not condemn the Greeks for paying homage to “the unknown God” but says, this is the God I want to speak about.
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” – Acts 17:22-23
The use of the word “superstitious” in our language today sounds a little too negative and Paul was not expressing such, but was very respectful of the Greeks and their culture. Many translations use the word “religious” instead.
Concerning this passage, the JFB Commentary says:
“I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious — rather (with most modern interpreters and the ancient Greek ones), ‘in all respects extremely reverential’ or ‘much given to religious worship,’ a conciliatory and commendatory introduction.”
Paul was quite a diplomat in reaching his race, his fellow Israelites. This is biblical inclusiveness (within the race); and, the historic background for the passage in question.
With a book that has in its title, “One Blood,” using Acts 17:26 as its theme and proof text, one would expect there to be some analysis of that verse. But there is no study or biblical exegesis of this verse. There is no study of related scriptures. There is only presumption that it means what the authors say it means. In fact, One Blood, One Race hardly uses any Scripture at all to support the authors’ beliefs about race. Any book trying to build a doctrinal position based on one verse is very foolish. Any theologian studying the Bible knows very well that in order to conclude on a certain doctrine, one must examine all of the Scriptures of that particular subject in question.
Proof that “One Race, One Blood” is one big lie, is the fact that the word “blood” was originally absent from the text of the best authorities, including the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the 3rd edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. Likewise, some translations do not use the word “blood.” It is well-known that there have been errors made in the Masoretic text (from which the KJV comes) of the Bible. This also brings up the possibility that the Masoretes (jews) also deliberately inserted words to sway the meaning of the text. After all, Jesus Christ said they were “liars” and would do the work of their father the devil. Proper understanding reveals that the word “blood” is awkward for these reasons:
- When we use the term “blood” today, we often use it to denote race, heritage, lineage or relationship. We might say someone is of royal blood or is mixed blood, etc. But the Bible does not use the word in this biological way. “Blood” is used to refer to the life-giving principle common to all, even animals. Following the same manner of the interpretation (presumption) of egalitarians would mean that we are also related to animals! The usage of the word blood to indicate a biological relationship is archaic, because up until recent times we had no knowledge of DNA or blood types: A, B, AB, O. It is a little known medical fact that the blood between the races is not the same. Yet, A.I.G. uses the word blood to indicate a biological relationship, claiming it is “scientific.” These four blood types alone prove that not all blood is the same, or “one.”
- The only other way the Bible uses blood is in reference to sacrifice or atonement. It was not used to indicate the biological relationship of people. Therefore, it is a monstrous error, or blatant lie, to say that “one blood” in Acts 17:26 means “all people are related.”
- The word “blood” was never used in the Bible to convey the idea of one who is a relative or biologically related. Instead, it uses the words “bone and flesh” to note biological relations:
Genesis 2:23, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
2 Samuel 19:12, “Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh:”
Ephesians 5:30, “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”
In modern language, those speaking these verses might have said, “you are of my blood.” But that meaning did not exist in biblical times, so they used “bone and flesh.” If our verse in question (Acts 17:26) had said, “God has made all men of one bone and flesh”, the egalitarians might have a fair argument. But, as it is with “blood”, they have no argument.
- Since we are not talking about genetics in Acts 17:26, we could admit that all people do have the same “blood” (in the sense that blood means “the essence of life”). Mankind, humankind, and animals all have this “essence of life”. Blood carries oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies to the cells and tissue and takes away the carbon dioxide and waste. All races and mammals have that in common.
- The subject of our verse in question is not blood, but nations.
“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26, KJV).
The verse does not say that individual men are from one blood, as this verse is often read, but rather that nations (which consist of men) are from one. Most people do not see this because of the erroneous teaching (and lies) of egalitarians such as A.I.G. In our society, nearly everyone has a mental block regarding race.
Once we understand that the issue is nations, we can see that the word blood only confuses the matter. The word “from” is more important than the word “of,” and it should be interpreted that way:
“And He made from one every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth appointing the times ordained and the boundaries of their settlements” (Acts 17:26, CNT).
- Even if the word “blood” belongs in the verse, it cannot mean the equality of all races, because the verse uses the word “men”, which in biblical terms means “Adam.” He was the first white man and wherever the word “man” is used in the Bible, it refers to the Adamite. Other bipeds of color are hu-man (hue meaning color) and are properly not considered men in the Bible. This is all that the verse is speaking of; it is not including everyone on planet Earth.
If not one blood, then one what? It is one man. That man was Adam, the first White man who was placed by God to take the position of authority in the garden, to be fruitful, and to multiply. Adam provided the racial line descended from Seth.
Bullinger’s Companion Bible: One Blood – The texts omit “blood.” The “one” here means either Adam, or the dust of which he was formed.
The Interpreter’s Commentary: from one (some manuscripts add “blood”), i.e., from Adam.
Peake’s Commentary on the Bible: “From one.” The Western text adds ‘blood’, probably failing to realize that the reference is to Adam.
But, we should remember that the verse would not read, “God has made of Adam all men.” Rather it would say, “God had made from Adam all nations.” In this verse, Paul is stating biblical history to the Greeks.
This is the cross reference to our verse in Acts:
“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of Israel” (Deut. 32:8, KJV).
Notice how similar this is to Acts 17:26. The N.T. is based on the O.T. and the Bible is its own commentary. Adam is the man that God used to create Adamic nations. These are the only nations of which Yahweh had a purpose and a Covenant destiny. Notice, the sons of Adam were “separated” and the borders (natural or figurative) were established according to the sons of Israel. Certainly, there is no multi-racial society in existence under these conditions. “This is the historical record of Adam’s generations. When God created mankind, he made them in his own likeness” (Gen. 5:1, ISV). Adam’s descendants became the nations spoken of; and they were White (as any lexicon will admit). This was the beginning of the kingdom of God on Earth.
Two Family Trees
Did all races from Adam? A.I.G. says yes, in order to justify their theory that “race” is a “social construct” and therefore it is normal to marry among all humanoids. However, Eve also bore Cain, who married and had his own family tree of descendants. Thus, there are two family trees: one from Cain and one from Seth. One was wicked and the other righteous. Therefore, not all races on the planet came from one man. Then why does our scripture in question speak about one man? Because the Bible is God’s revelation about the salvation of one racial line of descendants, i.e., the Israelites, God’s Covenant creation. The lines of Cain are cursed and are not the objects of God’s grace. They are not included under the Covenant.
We assert that all the races did not come from Adam. Some races or “people groups” came from the line of Cain (of the serpent) through Eve (by a double pregnancy). A.I.G. denies this and believes Adam fathered both Cain and Seth (and most Christians are taught to believe this). They must also deny 1 John 3:12, “Not as Cain who was of the evil one, and killed his brother.”
The scientific facts of biology are easily found:
“Superfecundation is the fertilization of two or more ova from the same cycle by sperm from separate acts of sexual intercourse, which can lead to twin babies from two separate biological fathers. The term superfecundation is derived from fecund, meaning the ability to produce offspring. Heteropaternal superfecundation refers to the fertilization of two separate ova by two different fathers. Homopaternal superfecundation refers to the fertilization of two separate ova from the same father, leading to fraternal twins.” – Wikipedia
Eve’s own testimony as to what happened in the garden:
“And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat” (Gen. 3:13).
The word (H5377) for “beguile” is naw-shaw’, and means, “to lead astray, that is, (mentally) to delude, or (morally) to seduce: - beguile, deceive, X greatly, X utterly.” –Strong’s
In the Greek Septuagint the word for “beguile” is hepatese, which is is defined by Bauer as “deceive, cheat, seduce sexually.” Thus, Eve has confessed to having been seduced sexually by the serpent. This does not mean, necessarily, that she had sex with the serpent, but she did have sex with someone.
Checking with verse three in this chapter: “But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die” (Gen. 3:3).
The word (H5060) for “touch” is naw-gah’, and means, “properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman)” –Strong’s. Once again, consulting the Septuagint, it uses the word haptesthai (a form of hepatese), which means “sexual intercourse.” Bauer: “to touch, take hold of, someone, of intercourse with a woman, touching.” Other lexicons define it similarly.
So in both of these verses there is a sexual connotation. Now while these words can be used in a non-sexual way, the context shows that something sexual was going on in Eden. The Bible also uses the same language in Genesis 20:4-6,
“But Abimelech had not come near her. And he said, Lord, will You also kill a righteous nation? Did he not say to me, She is my sister? And she, even she herself said, He is my brother. In the sincerity of my heart and innocency of my hands I have done this. And God said to him in a dream, Yes, I know that you did this in the sincerity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me. Therefore I did not allow you to touch her.”
Someone might object and say that Eve was speaking of trees. But, is it possible that this account should be considered metaphorically? Yes. Ezekiel chapter 31 speaks of the Assyrian nation as a great Cypress tree and speaks of other peoples using a tree as a representation. Near the end of the allegory, it even speaks of the “trees of Eden.” Thus, the tree can refer to a race or nation of people. We use the metaphor of a “family tree” today to describe our ancestry.
There has always been enmity and conflict between the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Although most churches have never considered the truth found in this verse, it is undeniable that there are two seed-lines in view here. Therefore, these seed-lines must have come through Eve’s superfecundation (heteropaternal). Where else could it have come from?
The question may arise, “Whom then did Eve have sex with (besides Adam)?” She admitted that the serpent seduced her, but did this creature, whoever he may be, actually impregnate Eve?
There are two theories held by those in Christian Identity: 1) that the serpent was Satan (angelic being) who actually impregnated Eve. 2) that the serpent convinced Eve to copulate with a person of another race that was in the garden. This person was a representative of the serpent. Eve’s act was in direct contradiction to God’s command “not to touch it, lest ye die.” In either case, Eve being the first miscegenator, brought death to her race (or her family tree). She also convinced Adam to do the same. It was not an apple that they were eating. It was a sexual event.
Whoever this person was that created another seed-line through Cain and caused such enmity in the world, as Genesis 3:15 states; he was evidently a pre-Adamite, non-white and part of “the beasts of the field” spoken of in the Bible (which will not be a part of this study).
Science tells us there were civilizations older than the time of the Bible. The Bible is simply silent on those pre-Adamic periods because it is the history of Adam, not these other races. The Bible tells us that Cain traveled to the east (Gen. 4:16); and likely went to part of the same racial group of his father. There in the land of Nod, Cain married and built a city. It is evident that a “city” is filled with people. These were not Adamite and not people of God. It is foolish to think that Cain married one of his sisters (from Eve), for who in the family would permit a murderer to marry their daughter.
Genesis 3:15 Summary
All of the false judeo-Christian churches try to say that the only meaning behind Genesis 3:15 is the future coming of Jesus Christ. While this is certainly true, the main import of racial consciousness in this verse is left out, or deliberately ignored (partly because of the tainted Masoretic Text).
1) R. L. Harris, explaining the Hebrew word zera‘, or “seed” in Genesis 3:15, was right in stating that it described the “whole line of descendants as a unit”... Yet the descendants of the serpent, who were in first century Judaea represented by the Edomite Jews, are also a “line of descendants as a unit” down through Cain, Canaan, and Esau, and called “Satan”, the Adversary, among other epithets, often in the New Testament.
2) [The lexicographer,] Gesenius, explains that the seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15 is not a single son only, but rather “offspring, progeny, descendants” as it plainly means elsewhere, and that theologians who think otherwise are “polemic.” Surely somehow these “polemic” [a strong verbal or written attack] theologians are well-represented today, and we who agree with Gesenius are accused of polemicism! – Finck
Therefore, the woman’s “seed” of Genesis 3:15 is the entire line of Adam’s descendants through Seth; which of course includes our Lord Jesus Christ, but not Him exclusively.
Strangers in the Bible
The judeo-Christian of the “Answers in Genesis” persuasion may ask, “Is there any proof in the Bible that other races exist?” Yes! The verses where God told Israel to kill the cursed races (of Cain) in the land; and the races mentioned that are classified as “beasts of the field”; there are also places that refer to the “stranger” (or alien).
There are two sets of original words that have been translated into the words stranger, strangers or alien. One set of Hebrew words refers to a “stranger” as one who is an Adamic kinsman of the Israelites. The other set refers to the “stranger”, that is of another race. Here is just one example of the stranger indicating the same race.
“And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Gen. 15:13).
The word “stranger” here is “geyr” (H1616): “properly a guest; by implication a foreigner: - alien, sojourner, stranger.” There is one Hebrew synonym for this word: toshab (H8453). It is found in Leviticus, and means practically the same thing.
“And the sabbath of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant, and for thy stranger that sojourneth with thee” (Lev. 25:6).
These are verses speaking of the same kind of people. In both cases, there is no implication of hostility or ill will.
The set of Hebrew words that refer to a “stranger” of another race are: nakar, noker, nekar, and nokriy (Note: don’t these words sound like “nigger”?). These words connote a very different view of the word “stranger” than the others. Nokriy is defined: “From H5235 (second form); strange, in a variety of degrees and applications (foreign, non-relative, adulterous, different, wonderful): - alien, foreigner, outlandish, strange (-r, woman).”
The placing of the word adulterous with words: non-relative, alien, and outlandish is significant. In ancient Israel, sex with a non-Adamic person was considered adultery. Furthermore, study of the Greek words of the Septuagint that mean adultery, also confirm that this is true. The English word, adulterous, means “something mixed.” This is the way that Strong is using the word. Clearly, relations with this kind of “stranger” led to dire consequences then, and are still a curse today. This “stranger” is one of another race (not Adamite).
“Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother” (Deut. 17:15).
In this verse, nokriy (H5237) is used. Evidently, God Almighty does not believe that all races are brothers.
Another Hebrew word translated as “stranger” in this sense is the word zur (H2114). It means: “to turn aside; hence to be a foreigner, strange, profane; specifically, to commit adultery.” Again, note the connotation of adultery. The word zur first appears in Exodus:
“And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy” (Ex. 29:33).
As has been proven, the English word “stranger” can mean two different things: either a racial brother living in another location, or a racial alien.
Furthermore, when the Greek Septuagint is used, the exacting language of the Greek makes these issues of race quite clear. Over and over, in the Septuagint, the word allogenes (allos = another, genos = race) is used to show prohibitions regarding these kinds of “strangers.” Properly interpreted, this word means “of another race.” To deny that races exist is to reject the meaning of the Greek. This word, allogenes (another race), should be remembered as great ammunition (the “silver bullet” or nemesis) against those who come against us saying, “there is no race,” for it proves them wrong. They may not accept the two types of “strangers” (as found in the KJV) but how can they deny a second witness of the truth as found in the Septuagint (allogenes), which our Lord Jesus used as the Word of God. If you remember nothing else in this sermon, do not forget this word (Greek: Allogenes).
Did all the races come from Adam and Eve, as Answers in Genesis and others teach? They claim that Adam and Eve were “mid-brown” and carried the genes for the other races. Through the process of what they call “speciation”, the other races appeared. But this theory is a genetic impossibility; for hybrids (heterozygous) do not produce their own kind. Once a population becomes hybrid (mixed) they continue to produce hybrids. It would be infinitesimal for one of them to find the complete genetic package to result in the “speciation” of the four major races we see today (Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Australasian). According to Dr. Larry Blanchard,
“The earliest date of the biblical flood is 3275 B.C. using the Septuagint dates. Archaeology has unearthed drawings made on some walls in Egypt depicting four distinct races that dates back to 3000 B.C. That means that this remarkable process of “speciation” took place in less than 300 years! There is no possible way, apart from divine intervention, that this could happen. It would require far more faith to believe this fantastic theory then to simply acknowledge that God in His sovereign wisdom created the different species and races we see today.” – Did All Races Come from Adam, p. 90.
The sixth commandment says, “You will not mongrelize” (Exodus 20:14 & Romans 13:9). This is the true meaning of the Law, not as it is usually translated as “adultery” which commonly is defined as “marital infidelity.” In these two references, the original words for “adultery” are defined in Strong’s dictionary as “to commit adultery.” What’s wrong with this picture? Didn’t your teacher in school tell us we must not define a word using the same word? The teacher was right! In our Exodus reference of the KJV Bible the word is naw-af, which in Strong’s means: “adultery, woman that breaketh wedlock.” And, in our Romans reference, the word is moicheuo, which in Strong’s means: “to commit adultery.” Now while there is some truth in these definitions, overall they are misleading and incomplete, thus left open to any private interpretation. The dictionaries and lexicons have changed over the years, and newer editions usually copy from the previous editions.
The word for “adultery” is the Greek word, moicheuo. This family of words is found throughout the Bible. It is used in the Septuagint (Exodus ref.) and the New Testament (Romans ref.). According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, it means, “of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races.” That is quite a difference in meaning (and another “silver bullet” for the race-mixers)! This definition is the classical definition of mongrelization. In the Latin Vulgate, the Latin word is adultero, which means: “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” (Oxford Latin Dictionary). Here again, a similar definition; and when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. Therefore, we find an ancient agreement between the Greek and Latin meanings of these verses, i.e., an explicit prohibition against miscegenation. These definitions should be enough to convince any intellectually honest person of the truth found in the Bible.
The lesson here is to beware of those who come citing Greek and Hebrew words to support their race-mixing views, because they may be using the wrong dictionary. Furthermore, remember the rule you learned in school: never define a word using the same word.
Hosea said (5:7, ASV), “They have dealt treacherously against Jehovah; for they have borne strange children: now shall the new moon devour them with their fields.” Miscegenation is a great sin against our God.
Ezra said (9:1-3, ASV), “Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. [Aren’t these racial types with us today in their progeny?] For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my robe, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down confounded.” Was he upset over nothing? Was he a racial bigot? No, Ezra knew the Law of God.
“Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law” (Ezra 10:3, ASV). Was Ezra wrong for following God’s Law of White Separatism?
After examining the Bible, we can plainly see that Answers in Genesis and the authors of the book, One Race, One Blood, are really no different than any other cult that pulls one verse out of the context of Scripture and builds a false doctrine upon it. The doctrine that allows for race mixing and miscegenation is causing the death of the White race; and ultimately, Christian civilization. Furthermore, all who are guilty of it are worthy of death according to the Law of God.
Here are some quotes by well-known men concerning race.
“As a social anthropologist, I naturally accept and even stress the fact that there are major differences, both mental and psychological, which separate the different races of mankind. Indeed, I would be inclined to suggest that however great may be the physical differences between such races as the European and the Negro, the mental and psychological differences are greater still.” – L.S.B. Leakey, The Progress and Evolution of Man in Africa, Oxford University Press, 1961.
“I have given my life to alleviate the sufferings of Africa. There is something that all White men who have lived here, like I have, must learn and know: that these individuals are a sub-race. They have neither the mental or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with White men in any functions of our civilization. I have given my life to try to bring unto them the advantages which our civilization must offer, but I have become well aware that we must retain this status: White the superior, and they the inferior. For whenever a White man seeks to live among them as their equals, they will destroy and devour him, and they will destroy all his work… Never accept them as your social equals or they will devour you. They will destroy you.” – Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), Christian physician and medical missionary in Africa, a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
I believe these men, but more importantly, I believe the Scriptures. These are authoritative, not “Answers in Genesis.”
One can choose to believe the theories of A.I.G. and their lying judeo churches on race. You can ignore professional experts in their field of study, such as quoted above. You can deny the facts of genetics and heredity and the fact of God’s law of “kind after kind.” You can deny the Bible’s plain statements about racial consciousness. But if you live long enough to see the death of a race, then it will be too late for you to do anything about it. You cannot have it both ways: either God is right and man is lying, or man is telling you the truth and God is lying. Whom will you follow?
We, the churches of the Fellowship of God’s Covenant People, call on Answers in Genesis, et al, to repent of their sins of encouraging inter-racial marriages, miscegenation, conspiracy to commit White genocide, promotion of the book, One Race, One Blood, and the VBS program, “The Incredible Race.” It should be understood that to properly repent would also mean for A.I.G. to remove such materials from publication.
We call on all churches that have bought their Vacation Bible School program, “The Incredible Race,” to repent of promoting race-mixing and perverting the young minds of Christian children everywhere; and that they return the said program to Answers in Genesis for a refund of God’s money.
If A.I.G and the associated churches will not, or cannot, repent, then obviously they will be left to the judgments of God. Our prayer is, may Yahweh protect our dear Christian children from the likes of A.I.G. and judeo-Christianity. Amen.