The 10 Commandments Forbid Race-Mixing: Here’s the Proof

The Seventh Commandment states, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” We have been led to believe that means sexual relations with another’s spouse.

The Tenth Commandment states, “Thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s wife” nor any other possession of your neighbour.

Your minister will tell you, both Commandments mean the same thing. Do you believe, for one moment, that with only Ten Commandments, God would duplicate them? No, I do not believe any reasonable person would. If just thinking about it is a sin, then it is only common sense that the actual act is also sin. This makes the Seventh Commandment absolutely superfluous. If God wished to repeat for emphasis as he does many times in the Bible, he would have put the two statements into one Command- ment, connected them saying, “Again I say unto you.”

The false prophets of the world do not want you to know the true meaning of the Seventh Commandment. WHY? Let us investigate.

As you know, every civilization, invention or achievement has been accomplished by the White Race due to two facts. First, God breathed living spirit into you, his physical offspring through Adam. Second, he gave you a large pre-frontal section of the brain, which is smaller in the Asiatic and almost non-existent in the Negro. It is this section which allows you to think in the abstract. The Negro can score fairly well with the simpler questions in an I.Q. test, but it comes to the abstract questions, he is hopelessly lost. God’s spirit allows you to subjugate physical love for spiritual. Your love for your wife and family goes far beyond the physical. With a Negro any woman will do, even if she is dead.

I only ask that you approach this subject with an open mind. Use the tremendous reasoning power which God has given only to you, the White Man and White Woman.

Many words in the English language have three basic forms, noun, verb and adjective. Occasionally the word will have other less important forms. Usually the last few letters are changed to denote tense, sex or change the verb to an adverb, etc. None of this however changes the basic meaning of the word. Now, using any Standard Dictionary, read the definitions of all the different forms of the word


Adulterant – a substance that adulterates. Adulterate – to make inferior, impure, not genuine, etc., by adding a harmful, less valuable, or prohibit- ed substance. – to debase by adding inferior material or elements. Adul- terated – made inferior or impure, does not conform to legal standards of purity.

Adulteration – an adulterated substance. Adulterer – male, who adulterates.
Adulteress – female, who adulterates. Adulterine – due to adulteration.
Adultery – voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife, or between a married woman and a man not her husband.


To continue our study we must now look up another word which is tied in very closely to adultery. The word is “bastard” and supposedly means a child of unwed parents. You will find it in your Bible, the 23rd chapter of Deuteronomy, the 2nd verse: “A bastard shall not enter the congrega- tion of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, nay even forever. ” (Most modern translations omit the last three words.)

If a bastard is a child of unwed parents, would someone please explain, how could there possibly be a tenth generation bastard? How ridiculous, how asinine, how absurd; how stupid do they think we are? Most well meaning Christians accept this explanation only because they just never stopped to think about it.

Your dictionary defines “bastard” as an impure, imperfect or inferior product. It also says “a child of unwed parents,” however this is not a definition, it is merely a statement that the word is applied to a child of unwed parents. The Oxford English Dictionary states, a bastard is a “mongrel, hybrid, or inferior breed.”

Now we are really going from the sublime to the ridiculous: you are supposed to believe that this child is impure, imperfect and inferior because you neglected to pay a few dollars to an oppressive government for the privilege (license) of being married and having children. In some countries, you could get a marriage license years after the child was born so, simply by paying this fee; a genetic change took place, and your child was no longer a bastard.

The word bastard is incorrectly translated from the Hebrew word “mamzer” which means mongrel or mixed seed. See Strong ‘s Exhaustive Concordance.

Years ago there was no such thing as a marriage license; parental permis- sion was granted on both sides, and that was that. As man-made laws gradually replaced God’s laws, the state started to control your life. To put teeth in this law, they would not recognize the child; he became a social outcast, could not even inherit family name, title or property.

Now I am not against marriage laws, they are necessary for the sanctity of home and family. This is one of the man-made laws that is good. It is essential to the White Man’s culture, however God’s laws were far more strict, therefore better.

If the parents are of the same race, the fact that one or both, are single, married to someone else, or to each other, could not possibly have any

effect on their offspring. The connotation here is strictly physical, not moral, and definitely not religious as the Jews claim.


Your bleeding heart liberals will scream “how terrible, how cruel, it is not the child’s fault. ” Granted, it is not his fault, yet that does not alter in any way the fact that he is what he is, a mongrel that is only capable of producing more mongrels. Cruel, perhaps to some, but that is God’s Divine Law, and SO BE IT.

Let us see how our Father in Heaven feels about mongrelising. We refer you to the 26th chapter of Numbers. I will quote from the Ferrar Fenton Bible, the wording in your King James has been weakened but the meaning is the same.

“But Israel remained at The Acacia Woods, and the people polluted themselves by fornication with the women of Moab, who invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods. So the people ate, and worshipped their gods, and Israel joined itself to Bal-peor. Therefore the Ever living was angry with Israel, and the Lord said to Moses “Seize the whole of the chiefs of the People and hang them before the Ever living in open sunlight, so that the burning anger of the Lord may be turned from Israel

Consequently Moses said to the rulers of Israel, “each of you slay the men who have joined themselves to Bal-peor. ”

But a prince of the children of Israel went and brought to his brothers a Midianitess, in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of the Parliament of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the Hall of Assembly.

When Phineas the son of Aliazer, the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he arose from among the Parliament and took a javelin in his hand, and went after the Israelite into his tent, and stabbed both the man of Israel and the woman through their bodies, and arrested the plague upon the children of Israel. But those who died from the plague were twenty-four thousand.

Then the EVER-LIVING spoke to Moses commanding “Phineas the son of Aliazer, the son of Aaron the priest has turned death away from the children of Israel, by the zeal with which he was zealous for Me among them. Therefore I command to give to him the bond of peace; and he and his heirs after him shall have an enduring priesthood, because he was zealous for his God; therefore he shall expiate for the children of Israel. ”

From the Epistle of Jude, seventh verse: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. ”

In conclusion, these two words “adultery” and “bastard” could not be changed in all their forms because they have always been used extensive- ly in the sciences and industry. Just for example, those of you who work with tools are familiar with a “bastard file.” It is aptly named, being a tool used to correct an imperfect or inferior product. Unfortunately for the liberals, there is no such tool to correct, or even improve, a child who is imperfect and inferior

No scientist, no Jew psychiatrist, no liberal professor, no minister, no priest, no politician, not even our senile Supreme Court can improve a child genetically; only your Creator could do that, and I am sure He has no intention of doing so.

To the non-whites who may have read this article, I hate to point out your inadequacies, but I must tell the truth, there is no alternative. You see we Whites have to prepare ourselves for an after-life with our Father, YOU DO NOT.


Read the following (in-depth) study by a Harvard educated Greek expert:

Race Mixing and The Bible
By John Herrell

The Sixth Commandment (7th in the KJV)

In Exodus 20:13 (LXX), we find the sixth commandment, a commandment we find repeated in the New Testament in Romans 13:9 and elsewhere (cf. Matthew 5:27, Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19, Jacob (James) 2:11, et al.). 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 (Heb. 13:8). With God, there is no variance or shadow of turning (Jacob 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 transla- tion of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: “You will not mongrelise.”


[Editor’s Note: The Anointed Standard Translation is out of print. The best New Testament Translation available is The Christogenea New Testament found HERE]

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.”2 This, of course, is the classical definition of mongreli- zation. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation You will not mongrelize is correct.
So 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 mongreli- zation. 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 clearly and 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; any one 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 Testa- ments, 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 degener- ation 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.

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 Masoret- ic 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. |
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 verschie- dener Rassen.”
Etymological Introduction
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).3 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 dictionar- ies 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 defini- tions 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 Diction- ary 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 Anoint- ed 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 defini- tions. 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 translat- ing akeraios correctly. For example, let us read Edward P. Coleridge’s translation of Euripides’ Phoenician Women, 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.

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.
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, spuri- ous.” 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 commentar- ies) 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 illegiti- mate 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 under- stood 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 words – that 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 Transla- tion 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.”
Moich- in Greek Literature
In order to define any word accurately, a lexicographer must examine how a word or family of words was used in all of Greek literature. One mistake that is commonly made is the false assumption that there is a special ecclesiastical or Biblical Greek, and that Greek words take on a new or different meaning just because they are used in the Bible. This theory, however, has been proven wrong time and time again. In the 17th and 18th centuries, scholars assumed that since the Greek of the New Testament did not resemble any of the great classical dialects of Greek used in ancient literature, then it was somehow different and specialized, and therefore the words could have special meanings only in the Bible. This was the basis behind the King James Version of the Bible being translated into very ornate, Elizabethan English and the Luther Bible being translated into High German, neither of which were commonly spoken in England or Germany before the translation of these Bibles. However, in the late 19th century, a very great number of papyrus scrolls began to be discovered, many of which were reflective of common writing during the 1st century. These papyri contained everyday things such as letters, lists, contracts, receipts, etc. What was also discovered was that the form of Greek used in these everyday documents matched the Greek of the New Testament, now called Koine Greek or Common Greek. So, in fact, the New Testament was written in what amounts to common street language.

In addition to this, it must be understood that the books of the New Testament, many of them letters, were being read by everyday Greek-speaking peoples who had no specialized education to understand some sort of ecclesiastical language. Thus, the vocabulary carried no special meaning to them, but was merely the vocabulary they had been schooled in and which they had read all of their lives in classical authors, such as Aristotle. So how Aristotle understood a Greek word would be the same way they would understand a Greek word when they read it in an epistle from Paul.
So let us examine a few passages from Greek literature which show clearly that the popular definition of adultery does not fit the moich- family of words. First, we will read A.L. Peck’s translation of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium IX.32.6-10:
“Also another kind of eagle is the so-called true-bred. They say these are the only true- bred birds altogether; for the other kinds are mixed and adulterated by each other, including the eagles and hawks and the smallest birds.”
Here the English word adulterated is translated for the Greek word memoicheutai, an inflected form of the word moicheuo. It could have just as easily been translated cross-bred or mongre- lized. In fact, the word was translated with the phrase “spoilt by the interbreeding of different species” in a translation by D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson. These translators understood that the word moicheuo was in reference to adulteration or cross- breeding. It should be pointed out, especially since men’s salvation depends upon a complete and saving knowledge of truth, that this is the exact same Greek word used in Exodus 20:13 in the Ten Commandments and the exact same Greek word used in Romans 13:9.
We also need to make note of some other interesting features of this passage. First, the word
kind is translated for the Greek word genos, which when applied to people is translated race.
Secondly, the word true-bred is translated for the Greek word gnesios, which is defined by LSJ and by Lampe as: “belonging to the race.” This word is in fact derived from genos, which as we said before, means “race.” Donnegan defines this adjective gnesios as: “peculiar to a race, of pure race,” and his primary definition of gnesiotes is: “purity of descent,” while his primary definition of gnesios is: “purely descended.” Critica Sacra records the Latin definition “germanus” which also means purely descended or of pure descent. Finally, all of the lexical authorities agree that gnesios is the opposite of the word nothos, which means mongrel and which we will discuss later. Thus, it is agreed upon by all of these scholarly authorities and by the translator of this passage in Aristotle that the word gnesios means pure-bred, pure race, pure descent or racially pure. Furthermore, we find innumerable examples in Greek literature where this word is used as and must be translated as pure-bred or racially pure to make sense.
What is interesting is that the King James Version translates this same Greek word as the possessive pronoun own in I Timothy 1:2 and Titus 1:4.4 There is absolutely no justification for this absurd translation. In the KJV, I Timothy reads: “Unto Timothy, my own son…” And Titus reads: “To Titus, mine own son…” The Anointed Standard Translation correctly renders these two phrases as, “To Timothy, a racially pure child…” and, “To Titus, a racially pure child…” This is an example of open and willful deception on the part of the KJV translators who knew the one and only definition of the word gnesios and decided not to use it. Their deception is now perpetuated in the Judeo school of theology. Even the Old Latin translated gnesios with the Latin germanus, which again means of pure descent. It should be remembered, however, that this type of dishonesty was quite common among the KJV translators. Another notable example is the occurrence of the Greek word meaning homosexual in I Corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:10. Bowing to the pressures of the homosexual King James, the KJV translators translated this word ambiguously as “abusers of themselves with mankind” instead of homosexual so they would not offend King James.
Let us now look at another passage in Aristotle, using the translation of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson:
“While children mostly resemble their parents or their ancestors, it sometimes happens that no such resemblance is to be traced. But parents may pass on resemblance after several generations,

as in the case of the woman in Ellis, who committed adultery with a negro; in this case it was not the woman’s own daughter but the daughter’s child that was a blackamoor” (Historia Animalium VII.5).
Here we have a clear cut case of a white Sicilian woman who mongrelized with an Ethiopian negro. Aristotle is commenting on the fact that the first generation offspring was rather light-skinned, especially when compared to the second-generation. Both, of course were mon- grels, but due to genetic shuffling, the second generation mongrel was so dark that it actually resembled a pure Ethiopian negro. This was what Aristotle was discussing and once again he used the verb moicheuo, the exact same Greek verb used in the Ten Commandments. This same story is also told in four other places in ancient literature,5 and no where is the idea of marital infidelity brought up. In fact, it is clear from the other accounts and the contradictions between some of the information, that it would have been impossible for any of the ancient authors to have known whether the woman was married. Most of the authors, including the other occur- rence of this story in Aristotle’s own writings, simply say that the woman had sex with the negro. For example, in Aristotle’s Generation of the Animals, 722a 10, he says that the woman had sex with the negro, using the Greek word sungignomai, which means “to have intercourse.”
In the present passage, however, Aristotle has simply been more specific. If the translator had said who adulterated herself with a negro instead of who committed adultery with a negro, then the passage would be much clearer, but as we shall see later, the phrase commit adultery and adulterate were in fact equivalent terms at the time of the translation of the first Bibles into English.
Let us now read a passage from Aelian, On Animals, VII.39-40, where he discusses a question- able reading from Anacreon:
“Those who falsify the reading and go so far as to say that we should write [eroesses] (for [keroesses]) are soundly refuted by Aristophanes of Byzantium; and I am convinced by his refutation.”
Here, A.F. Scholfield, not to be confused with C.I. Scolfield, editor ofthe Scolfield Bible, has translated the verb moichao as falsify. Again, the clear connotation is to change, corrupt, alter from one form to another, adulterate, confuse or change the form of something. Dishonest translators should try to explain how it is possible to commit adultery with a word.
Thus far we have looked at examples in Classical Greek from Greek literature with which the writers of the New Testament and the translators of the Greek Septuagint would have been familiar, as well as the early Christians who read the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament. Let us now look at an example from an early patristic author, Methodius. Reading from the translation of Herbert Musurillo in Methodius’ Symposium 3.2:
“Rather, He probably had in mind those who adulterate the truth, who corrupt the Scriptures with pseudo-scientific doctrine and begat an imperfect sort of wisdom, mixing in error with religion.”
Here Musurillo has translated the Greek verb moichaomai as adulterate. We note that this adulteration results in an imperfect product and that the adulteration corresponds to mixing two things together. A similar idea was expressed by Synesius Cyrenesius in Epistulae 5.C, where, with the same Greek verb, he states that the Church or Body Politic was being adulterated with false-teachings, which, he says, places a trap for those who are described with the Greek word akeraios, which we have already defined as racially pure.
The emphasis in all of these quotes and throughout all of Greek literature is upon mixing two opposing elements together, whether that be truth and untruth as in the last two quotes or a white woman with a negro in the quote before those. It is true that the word can be and is used for illicit sex between people of the same race, but still the word does not primarily imply that one of the participants is breaking a marriage vow, but rather that confusion is being created in the seed-line of the man whose wife is being violated, for it will be unclear whether a resulting child is the husband’s or the other man’s. The emphasis is clearly upon mixing things up or causing confusion. In a predominately white, homogenous society, we would expect that when moichos

or a related word is used, then the emphasis would be upon corrupting the seedline within the race. But more often than not, it is clear from the study of every occurrence in the Bible that the emphasis is upon race-mixing, except in cases where the context makes it perfectly clear that race is not an issue.
Finally, let us examine an occurrence of the word moicheia in the renowned Israelite scholar Philo’s The Worse Attacks the Better 102:
“And because, with a view to the persistence of the race, you were endowed with generative organs, do not run after mongrelization and mongrelization and other non- pure forms of mixing, but only that which is a lawful means of propagating the race of man.”
This passage is very interesting. Philo uses two different Greek words, both of which have been translated mongrelization, in describing the “non-pure forms of mixing.” One of these Greek words is phthora which has been discussed extensively in other literature.6 The second word is moicheia, the subject word herein. Because Philo used two words with basically the same meaning, the translation of the passage seems redundant in English, but not in Greek, where this technique of using synonymous words in close proximity was quite common, especially in Philo’s writings. We should also keep in mind that these two Greek words would have conveyed a slightly different spectrum of meaning to the Greek reader, but both are best translated as mongrelization in English. So redundancy is not an issue in the original Greek. What is important is that Philo specifically says that both of these acts, including moicheia, are forms of “mixing,” which is translated for the Greek word mixeis and which is defined by LSJ as “mixing, mingling.”
There are other interesting things to note in this passage also. First, it must be understood that Philo was commenting on the Greek Septuagint when writing, so when he refers to the law, he is speaking of the Pentateuch. And when he says “the race of man,” he uses the term anthropos, the Greek term used in the Septuagint almost exclusively for the White, Adamic race. It is clear from the passage that Philo is concerned with the issue of race because he specifically uses the term twice, and when he says “persistence of the race,” he means so that the race will survive in its pure form. It is also clear that the issue of race- mixing is what Philo is writing about because he specifically uses the terms “non-pure” and “mixing.” So Philo has defined very specifically what the Greek word moicheia means, and he also stated very clearly that race-mixing is forbidden in the Pentateuch, that is the first five books of what is commonly called the Old Testament. Philo, an Israelite in dispersion, was of course writing about the Greek Septuagint, the Old Testament used by millions of Israelites during the 1st century AD, including the over 1,000,000 Israelites who lived in Alexandria, Egypt. Philo was a representative of these Alexandrian Israelites.
This word also occurs in II Corinthians 8:8, Philippians 4:3, Sirach 7:18 and III Maccabees 3:19. Gnesios, the adverb form, occurs in Philippians 2:20 and II Maccabees 14:8 and III Maccabbees 3:23. All of these other occurences are dealt with in detail in The Truth Unveiled.
Aristotle, GA I 722a9, Antig. 122, Arist. Byz. epit. II 272, and Pliny VII 12.51.
The reader is encouraged to consult The Truth Unveiled by Pastor V.S. Herrell, pg. 156, and especially Appendix 10 of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament for more information on this word and its related words.
Etymology of Moichos
Perhaps the most important thing regarding the true meaning of the Greek word moichos and related words is the etymology or origin of the word. Most lexicons say that these words are from an unknown root; the truth is, however, that there are at least three etymologies that have been proposed for the Greek word moichos, two of which can be discounted for linguistic reasons and one which can be logically established as accurate. We will look first at the two erroneous etymologies.
The first etymology that has been postulated states that moichos is derived from me+oikos. me
is the Greek negative particle and oikos means house, thus giving the idea of no house, or that

the house is destroyed. This is a very tenuous etymology at best, derived by some just for the sake of deriving an etymology. While in English it may sound reasonable to derive moichos from me+oikos, in Greek it is very unlikely that the Greek word moichos and all of the forms associated with it could have developed from this rather far-fetched combination. You cannot develop etymologies or relationships between words solely from how words sound. There must be some substantive proof or some definite, traceable link. This etymology was not one suggested from any ancient evidence, but rather an etymology invented by lexicographers just to fill the void of not having an etymology.
The second etymology, with an equal number of problems, though perhaps slightly more plausible, holds that moichos is derived from the verb oichomai which means to go off or away or as Symson says in his Lexicon, “to go into a strange land,” implying to go after strange flesh. This origin implies also a primary connotation of deviating from the norm. The biggest question, however, with this suggested etymology is also the most obvious: where did the m- on the front of the word come from? There are no inflected forms of the word or dialectical variances to give rise to such a change and no explanation has been put forth by any who suggest this etymology.
This brings us to the third and only reasonable explanation. Not only is this third etymology plausible, but it finds independent verification in the ancient usage of the word moichos and is also suggested by more than one respected authority. This theory, by James Donnegan in his work A New Greek and English Lexicon, among others, states that the word moichos is derived from the same Sanskrit origin as the Greek verb migo, which is the same as the Greek verb meignumi which means “to mix” (LSJ). Looking at these words may make one who is unfamil- iar with Greek inflection think that the previous two etymologies make more sense, but we need to remember two important things: first, the word moichos is not derived from meignumi, rather these two very ancient Greek words developed at the same time and share a common Sanskrit origin; secondly, when meignumi is inflected in its various forms, some of the inflected forms share more in common with moichos than the previous two etymologies suggested: e.g. meixo, meichthenai, meixomai, etc.
But perhaps the most important piece of evidence is the Greek verb om[e]icheo and its associated forms: meicho and micho. This is the Greek verb which means “to urinate,” and this is very important for two reasons. First, most scholars agree that this verb is from the same Sanskrit origin as meignumi, which is mih or miz and which means to pour. From this comes the Sanskrit miks, which means to mix, and the idea was that pouring things together resulted in mixing. Also from this was the Sanskrit mehas, which meant to urinate or make water. This entire etymology is in fact well documented.
The second reason that all of this is important is because moichos is directly related to omeicho, according to James Donnegan (A New Greek and English Lexicon, 1856), Franz Passow (Handwörterbuch der Griechischen Sprache, 1828), Sigmund Feist (Vergleichendes Wörter- buch der Gotischen Sprache, 1939), Georg Curtius (Grundzüge der Griechischen Etymologie, 1879), Liddell-Scott Jones (A Greek-English Lexicon, 1940), Hjalmar Frisk (Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 1973), and others. In fact, according to Frisk, the word moichos may have been used vulgarly for a person who urinates. This was not of course a formal definition of moichos, but the fact that the word may have been used this way strengthens the connection between moichos and the various forms of omeicho.
In any event, if ‘a’ is equal to ‘b’, and ‘b’ is equal to ‘c’, then ‘a’ must be equal to ‘c’. What this means is that just as the Sanskrit verb for to pour gave rise to two words meaning to mix and to urinate, so too developed out of those words the Greek verb for to adulterate or mix or mingle seedlines. This etymological derivation is further confirmed by an analysis of the Latin lan- guage, which, like Greek, developed from Sanskrit, and these various etymologies have given rise to our English words mix and micturate, which means to urinate. A detailed orthographic study of each stage of development of this linguistic evolution is very tedious and far beyond the scope of this present work, but it needs only be said that this etymology, more than all of the rest, is plausible and realistic. The following chart will help to clarify this development in laymen’s terms as much as possible and also serve as a guide for more in-depth study.

Other Greek Evidence
We stated earlier that in A Large Dictionary by Thomas Holyoke, Holyoke notes that the Greek word moichikos is synonymous with kibdelos. kibdelos is defined by LSJ as: “adulterated, spurious, base-born, bastard.” As we have already illustrated, the word bastard is here being used synonymously with mongrel. This word is used in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 22:11 (cf. Lev. 19:19), which reads in Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint:

“Thou shalt not wear a mingled garment, woollen and linen together.”
Here, kibdelos is translated mingled. This of course is especially important because according to Holyoke, this word is synonymous with moichikos.
Identifying Greek words that are synonymous with one another, as in this case, is usually done by noting in Greek literature where the two words are interchanged with one another in the same piece of literature. Documents of course were preserved by being hand- copied. Often, the scribes who copied the documents would change certain words that they felt were obsolete and regionalized with another synonymous word that was perhaps better known at that time or place. This is done today with copies of English literature like Shakespeare, which is constantly updated and revised for modern English-speaking audiences, oftentimes without the reader even being aware of where a change has been made by an editor. Such is the case with a pertinent example in Josephus, The Jewish Antiquities 4:24, where the Naber manuscript of Josephus uses the verb moicheusas and the Havercamp edition uses the verb notheusas in its place. Whatever ancient editor made this substitution understood these two words to be synonymous. We will discuss notheusas, a form of notheuo, later in this present work; however, what needs to be noted here is that this verb means “to mongrelize.” As we will see later in our discussion of this word, this fact is well-attested. The noun form, for example, nothos, is defined by LSJ as: “cross-bred.” This word is the opposite of the word gnesios which we discussed earlier. So this verb would mean to cross-breed, and the two verbs under discussion were understood to be synonymous. This passage in Josephus reads in English:
“But in the age of marriage, marry a free virgin, good in race, but do not intend to take one not a virgin who is living and yoking with another and mongrelizing.”
Here mongrelizing is the word in question, translated either for moicheusas or notheusas. In either case, the translation is the same.
Lexical Analysis of the Latin
Those who would pervert the truth of the Bible in order to make their new world order of evil would discount the need or validity of researching the definitions of the Latin words commonly translated, at least in Biblical texts, as adultery. And while the Latin Vulgate was certainly corrupted by the Jew-influenced Jerome, the Old Latin texts produced before the time of Jerome were decent translations and were used by early, Latin-speaking Christians. Equally important is the fact that the original Greek dictionaries, as we have already pointed out, have Latin definitions. So if we do not know what the Latin words mean, then we cannot determine, from the earliest sources, what the Greek words mean, for in fact the best source of Greek definitions is how the Greek words were translated in the Old Latin manuscripts.
Thus, now would be an appropriate place to cite the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae by Henri Estienne II, originally published in the 16th century and which is the basis for most all lexicons of the Greek language. Using the 1829 edition, we will give the primary Latin definitions of each Greek word:
moichas: “adultera.”

moichao: “adulter sum.” moicheia: “adulterium.” moicheuo: “adulter sum.” moichidios: “adulterinus.” moichikos: “adulterinus.” moichos: “adulter.”
From this list, we can see that knowing what these Latin words mean is essential to understand- ing what the Greek words mean, especially since this Greek-Latin lexicon is the basis of all lexicons. Thus, we will look now at the definitions of the primary Latin words associated with the English translation adultery, first from the Oxford Latin Dictionary (OLD), then from other Latin dictionaries where additional English terms of importance are given in the definitions.
adulter: “impure, adulterated, mixed, cross-bred, debased” (OLD). “A bastard” (Lewis- Short,
A New Latin Dictionary).
adulteratio: “adulteration” (OLD). “The corrupting of anything by base mixture” (Leverett, A New and Copious Dictinary of the Latin Language).
adulterator: “one who counterfeits or debases” (OLD). “One who adulterates, debases, lessens the value of a thing by base admixtures” (Leverett).
adulteratus: “mixed, adulterated, produced by cross-breeding, of mixed descent or origin” (OLD).
adulterinus: “adulterated, impure, adulterine, bastard, interpolated, foreign” (OLD). “Not full- blooded, that has assumed the nature of something foreign” (Lewis-Short). “Not thorough-bred, not full-blooded” (Leverett).
adulterium: “the blending or mixing of different strains or ingredients, mixture with alien elements, adulteration, contamination” (OLD). “An ingrafting” (Lewis-Short). “Debasement by foreign admixture” (Leverett).
adultero: “to mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate; to give a variety of appearances to, change, to corrupt, debase” (OLD). “To pollute, to falsify, give a foreign nature to a thing” (Lewis and Short). “To mingle” (Holyoke, A Large Dictionary).
Now it should be noted that for a few of these words, newer Latin dictionaries also list as a definition adultery or to commit adultery. It should also be noted that older Latin dictionaries gave these definitions less often, and when they did, it was as a secondary definition. But the fact that dictionaries do contain that definition will lead dishonest people to say that the definition of marital infidelity is actually what was meant by the early Latin translation of the New Testament and Septuagint. However, we do not need to leave this to speculation or guessing; there is a scientific way whereby we can determine whether or not the early Latin translations of the Bible used these words in regards to mongrelization and seedline corruption or in regards to marital infidelity. This is because the Old Latin texts were actually translated by different men or underwent revisions so that there are at least four major Old Latin textual traditions in addition to the Vulgate. Thus, we can examine a particular passage and see how it was translated in the various texts.
Hebrews 12:8 is of particular importance to this analysis. This verse reads in the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament:
“But if you are without chastisement, of which all have become sharers, then you are mongrels and not sons.”
This verse states that since all White Adamites will be chastised or disciplined, then if you are not chastised by God their Father, you must not be white. The Greek word for mongrels is nothos, a word we will discuss in more detail later. It shall suffice to say here that there is overwhelming evidence that this word means mongrel, which will be presented later. What is important here is the way this word was translated in the Old Latin texts and in the Vulgate. In

the Old Latin text A, this word was translated with the Latin word nothus, which according to the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary means: “of mixed breed, mongrel.” So it is clear what text ‘A’ was conveying with its translation. Now we turn to Old Latin text J, which uses the Latin word adulterinus, which we have already defined from Leverett as “not thorough-bred, not full-blooded.” This is also the reading of one copy of the Vulgate, while another plus the Old Latin texts I and D read adulter, which we recall was defined by OLD as “mixed, cross-bred.”
Thus, there can be no doubt that when these Latin words are used in the Vulgate or in the Old Latin that the meanings meant to be conveyed are those given above, not a meaning of marital infidelity.
Adult- in Latin Literature
There are literally hundreds of examples that could be given from Latin literature where these adult- words are used specifically for cross-breeding or for adulteration in general. This was the primary meaning of the word and this is how it was most often used. The word was used for the cross-breading of animals, the mixing of any two or more different substances together, the debasement of metals, and also metaphorically for forgery or other types of fraud in that these practices changed the appearance or nature of something with the intent of passing something off as genuine or unadulterated. So too it could be used in situations of seedline corruption within the same race, because, like the Greek family of words we have been studying, these Latin words also placed the primary emphasis on mixing seedlines together or creating confu- sion in seedlines. Thus, we will look now at a few examples in Latin literature where these words are used. Let us look first at Horace’s Epode XVI:30-34 in the translation of Lord Lytton:
“When nature’s self becomes unnatural, And, love reversing all its old conditions, Tigers woo does, the kite pairs with the dove;
When into scales the he-goat smoothes his fleeces, And quit the hill-top for the briny seas.”
Here the Latin verb adultero is translated as pairs by Lord Lytton. Contextually, Horace is using these lines to state that he will return to Philippi only when nature’s laws have been changed; in other words, he will never return. Thus, he uses the images of tigers mating with does or kites with doves, or a goat becoming a fish, all against the laws of nature. He uses the Latin word adultero, which would have been better translated mongrelizes or hybridizes. Of course, it is impossible for the kite and the dove to have offspring; thus it is not even possible for them to mongrelize or hybridize. Remember, this is the same word defined by the OLD as “to mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate,” and it is the same Latin word used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word moichao in the New Testament (Matt. 5:32, et al.). But is there any internal evidence in the Vulgate or the Old Latin texts which shows beyond the shadow of any doubt that the translators of those versions specifically meant to convey the definition of to adulterate when they used the Latin verb adultero in the New Testament? Indeed there is. II Corinthians 2:17 is absolute, irrefutable proof of this fact. This verse reads in the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament:
“For we are not as many, who adulterate the Word of God, but as of racial purity, but as of God, we speak in the Anointed in the sight of God.”
Here the word adulterate is translated for the Greek word kapeleuontes which means to adulterate (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament). In the Vulgate and other Old Latin texts, this word was translated with the Latin verb adultero, thus proving that the translators understood the Latin word adultero and the Greek word moichao, for which they supplied the Latin word adultero, to be in reference to adulteration or mixing, not marital infidelity.
Let us return to more examples in Latin literature, next examining Ovid’s Fasti, I.373-374 in the translation of Sir James George Frazer:

“By his art the wizard changed his real figure for a semblance false; but soon, by the cords mastered, to his true form returned.”
Here, the word changed is again translated for the Latin word adultero, and once again, there is absolutely no connotation whatsoever of marital infidelity, but rather of changing or altering a person’s shape or form. This alteration is accomplished in reproduction by mixing seedlines, where two distinct seedlines are mixed together, whether interracially or within the same race, as demonstrated in L. Annaeus Florus’s Epitome of Roman History, I, XXVII in the translation of Cornelius Nepos:
“The race of the Gallo-Greeks, as the very name implies, was of mixed and confused origin.”
The words mixed and confused are translated for the Latin mixta et adulterata. This was certainly not a case of race-mixing, the Gallo-Greeks were white; however, it was a case of clan or nationality mixing. This passage does show, however, that the Latin word adulterata is synonymous with mixta or mixed. What is being mixed depends upon the context. For example, Aulus Gellius used the word adulterinus to describe words of “foreign origin” as John C. Rolfe translated it (The Attic Nights 8:2).
Yet another important Latin passage to examine is Apuleius’s Metamorphoses VII:16, which reads in the translation of J. Arthur Hanson:
“There were some stallions there, fully fed and long fattened for their regular breeding services, frightening at best and certainly stronger than any ass. They were apprehensive about me and on guard against any adulterous miscegenation; so they broke the laws of the guest-god Jupiter and attacked their rival in furious hatred.”
In this passage, Apuleius is writing as if he were an ass. He states that he was recently put to pasture with a herd of horses, and here he relates that the horses, fearing that he may try to mate with one of them, attacked him to guard against any “adulterous miscegenation” as Hanson has translated the Latin words adulterio degeneri. These two words would be better translated as degenerate mongrelization, because the Latin word degeneri or degenerate is an adjective, not a noun. It is unclear whether or not Hanson translated the English word miscegenation for adulterio, as would be correct, or incorrectly for degeneri. In any event, this is yet another passage that specifically shows that the adult- family of words was used for race-mixing or hybridization, in this case between an ass and a horse.
Etymology of Adultero
According to the prestigious Oxford Latin Dictionary and most other Latin reference works, the word adultero is a combination of the Latin ad + alter, where ad is the preposition to and alter means another or different, thus together meaning to change to something different. This etymology is confirmed by the occurrence in older Latin literature of the spelling adalter- instead of adulter-, showing that the original spelling of the word was as one would expect, with the word ad and alter merely being shoved together.
The entire body of Latin literature shows clearly that this word was primarily used in the sense of to adulterate or to mix or debase. Like the Greek words we have been discussing, adultero had the primary connotation of race-mixing or of seedline corruption. When this word and the related family of adult- words was used in Roman literature, it was most often used not in reference to people but in reference to mixing inanimate objects, such as wine or metals. But when it was used of people, it was in reference to mixing different races or sometimes different classes of people, such as citizen and non-citizen or aristocratic and plebeian, but the emphasis was always upon mixing different bloodlines. As with the Greek word moichos, the idea of marital infidelity had nothing to do with the usage of this word. It certainly could be applied to a situation where marital infidelity was an issue, but this was rarely the case. The idea was not adultery but adulteration.
This statement brings us to an interesting issue. We said at the beginning of this work that if not for the degeneration of the English language (brought about in this case by the purposeful deception of men seeking to hide the truth), then the popular translation “Thou shalt not commit

adultery” might seem more in line with “You will not mongrelize.” Thus, we need to briefly document this linguistic devolution.
Changing Definition of Adultery
Understanding what the definition of the English word adultery was 300-400 years ago is very important. First of all, imagine if the King James Version, translated nearly four hundred years ago, had read Thou shalt not adulterate instead of Thou shalt not commit adultery. Obviously this has a distinctly different connotation. So did the phrase commit adultery and adulterate have a synonymous meaning 350-400 years ago? Or even back to the time of the rebellious Catholic Wyclif, when he made his translation and used those words? This is also important to be able to understand what early English lexicons meant by the usage of the phrase commit adultery. Again, we must remember that what the early lexicons and early translations used is especially important because later lexicons and later translations have been simply built upon the previous works.
In order to determine these older definitions, we need to turn to the authoritative reference work regarding the English language, The Oxford English Dictionary, or OED. Under the entry adultery, we find that the now obsolete definition is: “adulteration, debasement, corruption.” This definition also notes that the word adultery was used by many Christian writers for sexual intercourse of “a Christian with a Jewess.” This, of course, is race-mixing. This entry also cites a quotation from Ben Johnson, writing in 1609, just two years before the release of the King James Version, where he used the word adultery as a synonym for adulteration or debasement. Let us look at definitions of other related words also from the OED.
adulter: “to corrupt, debase, adulterate.”
adulterant: “that which adulterates, adulterating.”
adulterate: “spurious, counterfeit, of base origin, or corrupted by base admixture.”
verb: “to render spurious or counterfeit … by the admixture of baser ingredients.”
adulterer: “one who adulterates, corrupts, or debases.”
adulterous: “pertaining to, or characterized by, adulteration; spurious, counterfeit, adulterate.”
The most interesting thing that we learn, however, is from a note in the definition of the verb adulterate: “repl[aced] by To commit adultery.” So, in fact, the verb adulterate and to commit adultery were at one point interchangeable, and as from quotations like that of Johnson, we can see that they were interchangeable even at the time of the translation of the King James Version and the creation of the first English lexicons.
Internal Evidence of the Bible
Certainly one of the most important methods for determining what these words mean is how the Bible itself may define them. The Sixth Commandment is surely spoken of in detail somewhere else either in the Old or New Testament. Many Judeo preachers would instantly cite Deuterono- my 22:22-27 as just such an instance. This passage reads in Sir Lancelot Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint:
“And if a man be found lying with a woman married to a man, ye shall kill them both, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou remove the wicked one out of Israel. And if there be a young damsel espoused to a man, and a man should have found her in the city and have lain with her; ye shall bring them both out to the gate of their city, and they shall be stoned with stones, and they shall die; the damsel, because she cried not in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour’s spouse: so shalt thou remove the evil one from yourselves. But if a man find in the field a damsel that is betrothed, and he should force her and lie with her, ye shall slay the man that lay with her only. And the damsel has not committed a sin worthy of death; as if a man should rise up against his neighbour, and slay him, so is this thing; because he found her in the field; the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to help her.”

This passage presents the classical example of what men today would call adultery or marital infidelity. It describes in words a man having sex with a married woman and also with a woman who is merely betrothed to another man. What is interesting is that no where in this entire passage are any of the moich- family of words used. Why did not the author of Deuteronomy cite or refer to the Sixth Commandment or at least use the same word used in the Sixth Commandment if the Sixth Commandment was in fact a prohibition of marital infidelity? Would this not be the most important thing he could have quoted? The truth is the Sixth Commandment was not concerned with marital infidelity, but rather seedline corruption, first racially and secondly within the race. We further note that the above passage repeatedly mentions that the woman in question is one belonging to a neighbour. Biblically, a neighbour is defined as one of the same race; in other words, your neighbour is a fellow White Adamic. So this offence, which we note is equally worthy of death, is something that happens within the race. If this were to occur with a woman of another race, then this would be the act described with the moich- family of words, and it is also an act worthy of death.
It is clear, however, that the actions described here in Deuteronomy are not the same actions described in the Sixth Commandment. That does not mean, however, that the Ten Command- ments do not contain a law against what is described here in Deuteronomy or what is commonly called adultery. The Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:17 LXX) reads in Brenton’s translation:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.” Or translated more accurately:
“You will not lust after your neighbor’s woman.”
Obviously, by using the word lust [epithumeseis], the intent covers all subsequent sexual crimes that are precipitated by the initial lust. This then is a direct prohibition of what is commonly referred to as adultery. This raises one very obvious but important question. Why would God, giving only these Ten Commandments to Moses, ten things, repeat Himself? If the Sixth Commandment is in reference to what men call adultery as well as the Tenth Commandment, then it must be admitted that the commandments are repetitive. Why are there not two com- mandments against murder? Or two against idol-worship? Or two against stealing? But the truth is clearly that God was not repetitive, because the Sixth Commandment is a prohibition against race-mixing. The atheistic, Talmudic, antichrist Jews are, of course, well-aware of this dilemma. They are aware of the obvious repetition involved within the Commandments. So in order to position themselves to where they could spread the lie, even to the corrupting of Christian churches and theology, that the Sixth Commandment is in reference to marital infidelity, they have altered the Tenth Commandment in their Talmudic-Jew corrupted Masoretic Text.7 Thus, if you look this verse up in your King James Bible, which uses the Hebrew Masoretic Text as the source of its Old Testament translation, you will find that this verse reads:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife…”
What has happened here is that the two phrases, the first regarding the neighbor’s house and the second regarding his wife, have been inverted. In truth this does not change anything, because the second phrase is still a part of the Tenth Commandment, so the Tenth Commandment still forbids what men call adultery. However, the effect of this has been that when Judaized preachers tell people what the Tenth Commandment says, they usually say only “Thou shalt not covet,” or at best, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.” Thus, the average deceived Judaized Judeo, who does not read or study his Bible, does not perceive the repetition in the Ten Commandments, that is, if they believe the Sixth Commandment to be against marital infidelity.
So does the Old or New Testament anywhere specifically describe what is meant by the family of words containing the prefix moich? Indeed it does. Let us read Ecclesiasticus 23:22-23 from the Septuagint:
“And thus the woman that leaves her man, and brings in an inheritor by someone of another race. First, she has disobeyed the law of the Highest, and secondly, offended her man, and thirdly, in her whoredom, she has mongrelised, bringing children by a man of another race.”

Here we have in clear and explicit terms a description of what these Greek words mean. The words she has mongrelised are translated for moichos, which is usually translated using the word adultery. The words of another race in both cases are translated for the Greek word allotrios, a synonym of allogenes,8 which is defined by LSJ as: “of another race.” A more detailed Greek discussion of this verse may be found in my previous book The Truth Unveiled. What is important to notice here is the particular nature of the crime this woman committed and how it is outlined in this passage. First, we notice that the woman has left her man or her husband. We see subsequently that it is in this way that she has offended her man, her second offence. In producing a child by a man of another race, she has committed two transgressions, particularly what is listed as the first and third transgressions. The first transgression is that she has crossed-over the law of the Highest; in other words she has broken one of God’s command- ments, that is, she has mongrelised, violating the Sixth Commandment of God, “You will not mongrelise.” We note that this is different from her offence against her husband; the fact that she is married has nothing to do with it. Even if she had not been married, she would still be guilty of this first offence, that of violating God’s Sixth Commandment. Her offence is against all white men and the white race. She is guilty of murder, specifically genocide, and she is a murderer of her own posterity.
Finally, we notice that her third transgression is the fact that she also conceived a child in the process; she is already guilty of death on two counts, but now her third is that she has produced mongrel offspring. But let us notice carefully the wording of this last offence: “She has mongrelised, bringing children by a man of another race.” Again, the words she has mongrelised are translated for the Greek word moichos and this word is usually translated commit adultery. But the Bible itself here defines what is meant by the Greek word: bringing children by a man of another race. If this Greek word were actually in reference to marital infidelity, then it would have been grouped with the second offence, her offence against her husband. But the Bible defines these words as mongrelisation.
Next, the Judaized Judeo will cite Leviticus 20:10 as the lone example in the Bible where these Greek words are defined as marital infidelity. But let us actually examine this verse, first in Brenton’s translation, and then in a more accurate translation:
“Whatever man shall commit adultery with the wife of a man, or whoever shall commit adultery with the wife of his neighbour, let them die the death, the adulterer and the adulteress.”
Even in this poor translation, we can see that the verse seems to be redundant. Why would the author first say, with the wife of a man and then say with the wife of his neighbour as if the two are something separate? What we have in truth is a Biblical example of where both aspects of the moich- family of words are being brought out. Let us look at this verse in a better translation:
“The man that shall mongrelise with the woman of a man, or that shall pollute the seedline with the wife of his neighbour, let them die the death, the mongrelise or seedline corrupter and the female mongrelise or seedline corrupter.”
The author of Leviticus was here pronouncing the judgment that all violators of the Sixth Commandment are worthy of death; racial seedline corruption was the first thing the reader would have thought of when reading the passage. The natural assumption on the part of the reader was that the man spoken of was a non-white or non-Adamic, and it is interesting to note that the word man in this phrase woman of a man is translated for the Greek andros, a general term for the male sex, as opposed to anthropos, the usual word for man and a word generally reserved in the Bible for White Adamic men. It is also important to note that the word man in the phrase the man that shall mongrelise is in fact translated for anthropos, thus implying to the reader that the first man, the man whom the injunction is being issued to, was in fact Adamic while the second man was not. In other words, the author used two different words merely to show that there was in fact a difference, or to at least make the reader think about what was being said and take note that the two men were not of the same race.
However, in order to also express to the reader that this family of Greek words also serves as an injunction to seedline corruption within the race, he then adds the seemingly repetitive admoni- tion or that shall pollute the seedline with the wife of his neighbour. The important distinction

is that this is the wife of his neighbour. We have already noted that throughout the Bible the word neighbour is specifically used for someone of the same race or your racial kinsman. So the author felt it necessary to actually remind the reader that this family of Greek words also carried connotations within the race. This does nothing but reinforce the idea that the primary meaning of the word was racial seedline corruption or mongrelisation.
Let us read Hosea 4:2 from the Greek Septuagint in a good translation:
“Cursing and lying and murder and stealing and mongrelisation pour out in the earth, for they mix blood with blood.”
Again, the word mongrelisation in this verse is usually translated as adultery and is translated for the Greek moichos. We notice here that the word is clearly defined by the phrase they mix blood with blood. This, of course, can be in reference to only one thing. All of these verses and every verse in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments where moichos or a related word occurs is dealt with and literally translated in detail in my book The Truth Unveiled.
At this point, however, we should deal with two important issues that are related to this study. The first is the absurd objection made by Talmudic Jews and Judaized Judeos that in ancient times no one ever recognized any difference between the races and that no one ever spoke about it or wrote about it. If this is true, then how could Almighty God speak about and differentiate between different races or forbid race-mixing? The second
objection always raised by those who teach the Catholic theology of universalism or salvation to all peoples regardless of race is, What about the mongrel children produced in acts of race-mixing or those of other races in general? Are they excluded from entering into the congregation or Body Politic of the Lord?
For more information on the Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint, please consult my book The History of the Bible and also The Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text by David C. Tate, both available from Herrell Brothers Publishing House.
This is illustrated textually in I Maccabees 3:36 and is also confirmed by numerous lexical authorities.
Racism In Classical Times
Believe it or not there are actually people who claim that the first person to say that there was a distinction between racial types was Johann Friedrich Blumenback in the 18th Century! This is obviously absurd, yet it is frequently taught at schools across America and written about in Afrocentric books. We need only cite ancient authors like Aristotle, Pliny, Strabo, or Herodotus who wrote about racial characteristics to disprove this blatant lie. Pliny the Elder in his Natural History speaks of racial characteristics and distinctions in detail in Book VII, Man. In Book VII of Herodotus, he discusses the racial differences that existed in Ethiopia. Strabo, in his writings on geography, discusses races throughout and the difference in peoples of every land. In fact, there are very few classical authors who do not somewhere make some comment about races or the differences in them. This is true in spite of the fact that Rome and Greece were predominant- ly white cultures, where it was rare to actually see a Negro or non-white. Pliny even commented:
“For who believed in the Ethiopians before seeing them? … in the view of someone belonging to another race, a foreigner is hardly a member of the human species!” (NH, VII.6).
Many Romans and Greeks may have never even seen a Negro. So race-mixing was nowhere near as broad a problem in ancient times as it is today. Horace even praised Republican Rome in Ode 4:5:21, saying,
“The pure home is not mongrelised by illicit sexual intercourse / law and custom have driven out forbidden mongrelisation / mothers are praised for the resemblance of their offspring / vengeance closely follows guilt.”
As clear and explicit as the above stanza of Horace is in both English and Latin, translators often try to explain away what is being said by saying that it is all somehow in reference to moral purity, just as they try to contend about the Bible. But aside from the fact that the words sexual

intercourse are used, we would ask why the mothers “are praised for the resemblance of their offspring” if racial purity is not the issue?
The title of this section was “Racism in Classical Times.” Many will say that the above facts do not make these ancient authors racist. But racism is merely defined as the distinguishing between races. So if these authors recognized the differences between races, then they were racists. But does the Bible anywhere distinguish between races? This leads us to answering the second objection, and one word (which occurs in the Bible more than 45 times) illustrates beyond the shadow of any doubt that the distinction between races is indeed made in the Bible
– allogenes.
Allogenes In The Bible
The Greek word allogenes is defined by LSJ as: “of another race.” This is in fact the only definition given for this word by LSJ. This immediately confirms two things: first, the subject of race is an issue in the Bible, and secondly, races are classified and distinguished between one another in the Bible; otherwise, there would be no reason to say of another race. But there are some other interesting things about this word.
The word allogenes is a combination of the word allos meaning “another” (LSJ) and the Greek word genos meaning “race” (LSJ). Thus, the two words together mean “of another race.” This definition is confirmed by E.A. Sophocles (Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods) and numerous other lexical authorities, most of which give as either the primary or only definition of another race. What is interesting, however, is that this word is found only in the Bible and later Christian literature; in fact, it was coined by the translators of the Septuagint due apparently to the lack of such a clear term elsewhere in Greek literature.9 (This also explains why the word is used in two different senses in the Septuagint, having no literary or spoken legacy). Thus, not only did the Bible use this word but it created this word.
In the Septuagint, it is used not only of other pure races but of mongrels also. Thus, the usage of this word will shed light on the issue already raised: if race-mixing is prohibited, what about the mongrel offspring? And what is the nature of our relationship to be with other races?
One passage, where the word allogenes occurs several times, answers all of these questions: I Esdras 8:68-9:36, which relates the story of what happened when Esdras (or Ezra) returned to Jerusalem:
[Chapter 8]
68And when these things were finished, the leaders came to me, saying, 69″The nation of Israel and the rulers, and the priests and the Levites, they have not separated themselves from the nation of another race (allogenes) of this land, nor the impurity (akatharsia, used of both physical and mental impurity) from the nations: the Canaanites, and Hittites, and Pheresites, and Jebusites, and Moabites, and Egyptians, and Edomites. (cf. Deut. 7:1-3, 23:1, Ex. 34:12-16). 70For both they and their sons have lived with their daughters, and the separated seed is mixed (epimige) with this nation of another race (allogenes) of this land; and from the beginning of this trouble, the leaders and the great men have been partakers of this lawlessness.”
… [Esdras speaking]
82″And now, O Master, what will we say, having these things? For we have crossed-over your commandments, which you gave by the hand of your servants the prophets (Gen. 15:16, Deut. 9:5), saying 83the land which you go into to receive as an inheritance is a land that has been mongrelized (molusmos, see The Truth Unveiled) with the mongrelization (molusmos) of those of another race (allogenes) of the land, and they have filled it with their impurity (akatharsia). 84Therefore now will you not join your daughters unto their sons, nor will you take their daughters unto your sons, 85and you will never (apanta chronon, Lit. once and for all time, a super-emphatic statement) seek to have peace with them, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and so that you may leave the inheritance of the land unto your children to the ages.’

86″And all that has come to pass is done to us because of our evil actions and our great failures: for you, Master, did relieve our failures, 87and did give unto us such a root. But we have turned back again to cross-over your law and to mix (epimigneia) ourselves with the impurity (akatharsia) of the land. 88May you not be angry with us to destroy us, until you will have left us neither root, seed, nor authority?” … 92Then Jechonias of Jeelus, one of the children of Israel, called out, saying, “Esdras, we have failed before the Master: we have lived with women of another race (allogenes) from the nations of this land, and now all of Israel is above. 93Let us make an oath to the Master that we will remove all our women which we have taken of another race (allogenes), with their children, 94like you have decreed, and as many as do obey the law of the Master. ” … [Chapter 9] 7So Esdras rose up and said unto them: “You have crossed-over the law (in reference to the 6th Commandment) in living with women of another race (allogenes), thereby to increase the failures of Israel.” … 36All these had taken women of another race (allogenes), and they removed them with their children.
Here we have a clear and explicit story where a number of the children of Israel had committed mongrelization and were required to kill both the women and the children in order to repent. This crime was so heinous that the names of all of those who had done so are listed in these chapters – a list containing several dozen names. This is a story that is repeated also in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah specifically, and similar stories are also told throughout the Septuagint. One of the most famous examples involves Esdras’s own ancestor, Phineas. Numbers 25:1-8 reads in Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint:
“And Israel so-journed in Sattin, and the people profaned itself by going a- whoring after the daughters of Moab … And, behold, a man of the children of Israel came and brought his brother to a Madianitish woman before Moses, and before all the congregation of the children of Israel; and they were weeping at the door of the tabernacle of witness. And Phineas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, and rose out of the midst of the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand, and went in after the Israelitish man into the chamber, and pierced them both through, both the Israelitish man, and the woman through her womb: and the plague of Israel was stayed from the children of Israel.”
This passage goes on and God gives to Phineas a perpetual, eternal priesthood. Then in verse 17, God commands the children of Israel to kill all of the Midianites. We note that Phineas killed both the non-white woman and metaphorically the mongrel offspring, by stabbing her through the womb. The man also was killed, as prescribed by the law which we have previously cited. Phineas’s grandson, Esdras, faced the same problem. His final solution was again, as command- ed by God, to command the offenders to kill the women and the offspring. Phineas is recorded in Israelite history as one of the greatest of all Israelites for his action of killing this race-mixing couple. In fact, Sirach 45:23 (LXX) records that Phineas was the third in glory, behind only Moses and Aaron, among all the heroes of Israel:
“The third in glory is Phineas the son of Eleazar, because he had zeal in the fear of the Lord, and stood up with good courage of heart when the people were turned back, and made reconciliation for Israel.”
So Phineas’s actions and those of Esdras are certainly among the most honorable in the Bible. Returning to Esdras, we notice also from that passage that the Israelites were first guilty of prescriptions given by the prophets and servants regarding these non-whites. This was the injunction that they were to eliminate these non-white mongreled peoples from the land before inhabiting it. Secondly, we notice in 9:7 that Esdras tells them that they are guilty of crossing- over the law by living with women of another race. Taking the Bible in total context, this can only be in reference to the Sixth Commandment. Later, Esdras reads the entire law to these people to remind them of it. One part of the Pentateuch that he certainly read them was the following from Deuteronomy 7:1-7 (LXX):
“And when the Master your God shall bring you into the land into which you go in order to possess it and shall remove great nations from before you, the Chettite, and Gergesite, and Amorite, and Chanaanite, and Pherezite, and Evite, and Jebusite, seven nations more numerous and stronger than you, and the Master your God shall deliver them into your hands, then you

shall kill them: you shall utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, neither shall you have mercy for them; neither shall you contract marriages with them: you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter to your son For you are a
separated people to the Master your God and the Master your God chose you to be to Him a peculiar people beyond all the nations that are upon the face of the earth.”
Before commenting on this passage in more detail, we should first refute one particular lie that is coming into the mind of the average Judaized Judeo right about now: they are saying to themselves, “That was the Old Testament, that was when God was mean, but now God loves everybody and is no longer a God of war or vengeance.”
First, let us read the last verse of the above passage once more:
“For you are a separated people to the Master your God and the Master your God chose you to be to Him a peculiar people beyond all the nations that are upon the face of the earth” (cf. Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 14:2, 26:18).
Now, let us read I Peter 2:9 (AST):
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a Separated nation, a people for possession ”
That is in the New Testament. So is Hebrews 13:8 (AST):

“Jesus Anointed, the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
And this is the Jesus Anointed who said in Matthew 10:34 (AST):
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”
Finally, Jacob 1:17 says explicitly that with God “there is no variation or shadow of turning.” This literally means that God’s character and laws are immutable. In plain language, God cannot change; otherwise, He would cease being the God of the Bible.
So now let us again examine what God told the Israelites: they were to kill these mongrel nations and utterly destroy them; they were to make no covenant with them; they were to enter no marriages with them; they were to have no mercy on them. We also learned from the passage in Esdras 8:85 that they were never to seek to have peace with them. In Greek this statement is extremely emphatic; in fact, there was no more emphatic way in Greek to say never. A similar statement occurs in Deuteronomy 23:6 (LXX):

“Thou shalt not speak peaceably or profitably to them all thy days forever.”
This verse is in reference to the mongreled Ammanites and mongreled Moabites, and it could not be more emphatic.
The usual Judeo rationalization for these passages is that they are in reference to inter-faith marriages. They claim that the only thing that was wrong was that these people were married to non-believers. But this excuse cannot be made for the passages that use the word allogenes. This undoubtedly is the reason that the Septuagint translators coined this term, to show undeniably that the issue is race. If the issue had been belief, then certainly the translators of the Septuagint, who had full command of the Greek language, would have used a word which denoted this connotation. If the issue was only one of non-belief,then why would the Israelites not have been commanded to try and convert the women, or even if they killed the women, why not keep the infants and raise them correctly? The reason is because the problem was racial impurity.
Next, the Judeo will say that the issue was one of nationality, that the Hebrew people were not allowed to convert non-Israelites or marry non-Israelites (as opposed to non-whites). But this rationalization is also soundly refuted by a study of the Bible. The Israelites were allowed to convert non-Israelite white people. These people were referred to in the Septuagint by the term proselutos, like the English proselyte, a term that occurs nearly 80 times in the Old Testament. As far as marrying non-Israelite white people, this too occurred frequently. A perfect example

is Joseph, who married Asenath, an Egyptian and the mother of Manasseh and Ephraim. Joseph certainly did not and was not supposed to kill Asenath or Manasseh and Ephraim.
What we find by studying the Bible in total context is that the only explanation for the passages we have been citing is that race-mixing is what is being prohibited. All of the rationalizations that people come up with are disproved by numerous examples in the Bible; what we do not find an example of anywhere is race-mixing, that is an example which God approves of. We do find examples, but they are in stories like that of Esdras and Phineas. The only logical explanation is that allogenes really does mean what all of the lexicons say that it means: “of another race.”
So let us look at some other verses where this word occurs. Exodus 12:43 reads:
“And the Master said to Moses and Aaron, This is the law of the passover: no one of another race shall eat of it.”
Does this mean that non-Israelites are not to eat of it, as any Judeo preacher will tell you? Did not the descendants of Asenath the Egyptian eat of the Passover? Did not the proselyte wives, who were white non-Israelites, of many Israelites after the time of Moses eat of the Passover? Indeed they did. But they were not of another race.
Numbers 3:10 (LXX) is another occurrence of allogenes:
“And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons over the tabernacle of witness; and they shall keep their charge of the priesthood, and all things belonging to the altar, and within the veil; and one of another race that touches them shall die.”
Again, allogenes occurs in Jeremiah 49:17 (LXX):
“And all the men, and all those of another race who have set their face toward the land of Egypt to dwell there, shall be consumed by the sword, and by the famine: and there shall not one of them escape from the evils which I bring upon them.”
Ezekiel 44:9 (LXX):
“Therefore thus says the Master God: No one of another race, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of all the children of those of another race that are in the midst of the house of Israel.”
And Malachi 4:1 (LXX):
“For, behold, a day comes burning as an oven, and it shall consume them: and all those of another race, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, says the Master Almighty, and there shall not be left of them root or branch.”
All of these verses contain the word allogenes. This then is the answer as to the treatment of the other races. Does this include mongrels, which are not truly a race, but rather constitute a mongrel race? Indeed it does as we will see in the next section of this book.
Kittel (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) confirms that this word was first used in the Septuagint, and then later by Israelites such as Philo who quoted the Septuagint, then the New Testament and later by Christian writers. The only other known usage was at the barrier at the Temple of Jerusalem which forbade allogenes entrance into the Temple.
Mamzir and ‘Mongrel’ in the Bible
We may begin to answer this question concerning mongrels by examining the occurrence of
allogenes in Zechariah 9:6 (LXX):
“And those of another race will dwell in Azotus, and I will bring down the pride of the Philistines.”
What is important to note about this verse is that here the word allogenes was translated for the Hebrew word mamzir, which is defined by Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary as “a mongrel.”1 0 Now this definition is not at all considered controversial; it is confirmed by numerous Hebrew authorities. Some popular translations even translate it correctly – at least here in Zechariah. For example, the New Revised Standard Version translates this verse in Zechariah:

“A mongrel people shall settle in Ashdod, and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia.”
So we see that this is a commonly accepted definition for the word mamzir. Yet the same Bible translation translates the word differently in its only other occurrence in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 23:2-3 reads in the NRSV:
“Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.”
Here they have translated mamzir as those born of an illicit union while in Zechariah they translated it a mongrel people. Why? Because if they had been honest and translated the word correctly here then their Bible probably would not have been printed by the Zionistic and Talmudic Jew-controlled printing-presses and the Jew-controlled National Council of Churches as well as humanistic coalitions of homosexuals and antichrists, who would have attacked their translation and no one would have bought it. So they simply lied. But we note that these mamzir people are illustrated by the Ammonites and Moabites. Were all of these people the product of an illicit union? Yes, if we are talking about a union between a white and a non-white.
If you go and ask a Judeo preacher what this passage means, he will tell you one of three things other than the truth.
First, he will tell you that mamzir is reference to one born of an incestuous relationship. Secondly, he will tell you that mamzir is in reference to someone born out of wedlock. Thirdly, he will tell you that mamzir is in reference to someone born of a prostitute.
The truth of course is that it is in reference to a mongrel, and we have already seen numerous examples in the Bible where a mongrel certainly cannot enter into the Body Politic. We should also note that this passage in Deuteronomy goes on to say that they are not allowed to enter “forever.” We should also note that in the Septuagint, the Greek word commonly translated as congregation in this passage is the same Greek word used in the New Testament for Church or Body Politic, that is the Greek word ekklesia.
So we have four possibilities: the three given above and the true definition of mamzir, a mongrel. The easiest choice obviously is just to believe the lexicographers and accept the fact that the word means a mongrel, but we will also rule out the other three absurdities for the sake of the poor soul teetering on the fence of decision and belief and for the sake of Christ’s truth. If we can find a Biblical example of someone who certainly did enter into the Body Politic but who fit the criteria of one of the three possibilities, then we can eliminate that as a possibility.
Thus, the first lie is that mamzir is in reference to an incestuous relationship. Leviticus 20:12 and Leviticus 18:15 both define as incest a father lying with his daughter-in-law. But this was the case with Tamar and Judah. Tamar was Judah’s daughter-in-law, but she had sex with him and bore Perez. Aaron’s sons were the great-great-great-grandchildren of Perez, so this is removed as a possible definition of mamzir.
Next, we have someone born out of wedlock and we also have someone born of a prostitute or harlot. We will deal with both of these together since there is a perfect example of both in one person. That person is Jephthah. Jephthah is mentioned in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:32 where he is listed as one of the heroes of Israel (AST):
“And what more may I say? For the times will fail me telling about Gideon, Barak, and both Samson and Jephthah, and both David and Samuel, and the prophets, who through persuasion overcame governments, worked out justification, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edges of the sword, acquired power from weakness, became strong in war, made armies of other races to yield.”
Jephthah was an Israelite hero who saved the Israelites from the Ammonites; thus he was one who made the armies of other races to yield. Of course so was Gideon, who crushed the mongrel Midianites and Amalekites, and Barak, who helped Sisera kill the mongrel Canaanites, and Samson, who single-handedly killed thousands of mongrel Philistines, and King David, who led the children of Israel in war against the mongrel Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites,

and Canaanites, and, of course, Samuel, who slaughtered thousands of mongrel Philistines. But we also learn something very important about Jephthah in Judges 11:1-2 (LXX):
“And Jephthah the Galaadite was a mighty man: and he was the son of a whore, who bore Jephthah to Galaad. And the wife of Galaad bore him sons: and the sons of his wife grew up, and they cast out Jephthah, and said to him, You shall not inherit in the house of our father, for you are the son of a harlot woman.”
So we see that Jephthah was both the son of a whore and the product of an extra-marital relationship, yet he is listed in the Book of Hebrews as one of the great men of Israel because he saved Israel from the mongrel Ammonites. These Ammonites are the same people given as an example of a mamzir in Deuteronomy 23:3. It was these Ammonites who were not allowed to enter, not Jephthah, even though he was the son of a whore and an extra-marital relationship. In fact, according to the modern Judeo, Judaized definition of adultery, Jephthah was born of an adulterous relationship. Which brings us to Wisdom 3:16 and 19 (LXX), which reads in Brenton’s poor translation:
“As for the children of adulterers, they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed of an unrighteous bed shall be rooted out…for horrible is the end of the unrighteous generation.”
And in a better translation of this same verse:
“Children of mongrelizers will not be perfect and the seed of an illegal bed shall disappear … for horrible is the end of the illegal race.”
According to the Judeo definition of adultery, Jephthah should have never reached perfection and should have been rooted out. But according to the actual and true definition of adultery, as shown in the better translation, it is in fact the mamzir and the mongrel Moabites and Ammo- nites and all of the other mongrel nations that the children of Israel were commanded to eradicate and to never make peace with that are to be rooted out. This verse is saying the same thing that Malachi 4:1 said earlier:
“For, behold, a day comes burning as an oven, and it shall consume them: and all those of another race, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, says the Master Almighty, and there shall not be left of them root or branch.”
So this is more contextual proof that the family of words commonly translated adultery must be in reference to mongrelization and not extra-marital sex. Now this example of Jephthah and of other Israelites in the Bible is so iron-clad that only two possibilities exist. The first of these possibilities is that the Bible really does prohibit race-mixing or mongrelization, and that the Sixth Commandment really is a prohibition against race- mixing. The only other possibility is that the Bible contradicts itself. In fact, atheists have long used Deuteronomy 23:2 and its prohibition of mamzir ever entering the Body Politic and then the example of Jephthah and other Israelites with a similar genealogy to argue that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. But this Jewish argument only works if it is assumed that mamzir means either an illegitimate child, a product of incest, or the son of a whore. The argument does not work if we simply believe the definition given by James Strong’s Concordance for the word mamzir and accept the fact that the Bible prohibits any mongrel from ever entering into the Body Politic of the Lord. You either believe that clear, self-evident, and well-supported truth or you believe that the Bible is contradictory and you call God a liar. Let us recall Revelation 21:8 (AST):
“But for the cowardly and non-persuaded, and those having become abominable, and murderers, and whores, and pharmakeia promoters, and idolaters, and all the liars, their part is in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Not all translations have been dishonest in the fashion of the New Revised Standard Version, translating the word mamzir correctly on one hand and then being dishonest on the other. In fact, the revised Luther Bible has rendered both Zechariah 9:6 and Deuteronomy 23:2 accurately. In both of these verses, the Hebrew word mamzir has been translated with the German word ‘Mischling’, which means “half-breed, mongrel, hybrid.”1 1 This is the only thing that this German word can mean, so the revised Luther Bible, the most popular Bible in Germany, stands as proof of the accurate translation of Deuteronomy 23:2-3 from the Hebrew:

“A mongrel shall not enter into the Body Politic of the Master, even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the Body Politic of the Master. An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the Body Politic of the Master; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the Body Politic of the Master, forever.”
With all of this clear evidence as to the true meaning of the Hebrew word mamzir, we should recall once again that both Francis Gouldman’s A Copious Dictionary (1674) and Thomas Holyoke’s A Large Dictionary (1677) state that mamzir and the Greek word moichikos are synonymous, and the word moichikos, the adjective form of moichos, is usually translated adulterous but should be translated as mongrel, again further establishing the fact that the Sixth Commandment is a prohibition of race-mixing or mongrelization. The Commandment and the entire Old Testament is of a racial nature, and this was how the Septuagint was understood in the first century not just by the New Testament writers but by other contemporaries such as Josephus (who was both a general and a priest). For instance, let us examine Josephus’s Contra Apion 1:7 in the translation of Thackeray:
“Not only did our ancestors in the first instance set over this business men of the highest character, devoted to the service of God, but they took precautions to ensure that the priest’s lineage should be kept unadulterated and pure. A member of the priestly order must, to beget a family, marry a woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the genealogy from the archives and producing a number of witnesses. And this practice of ours is not confined to the home country of Judea, but where there is a Jewish [Judean] colony, there too a strict account is kept by the priests of their marriages; … A statement is drawn up by them and sent to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more remote ancestors, together with the names of the witnesses … they also pass scrutiny upon the remaining women, and disallow marriage with any who have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent intercourse with foreigners.”
This passage regarding the Israelite practice of ensuring pure marriages could be no clearer. The words unadulterated and pure are translated unmixed and pure by Whiston, but either way we see that the issue is one of race. It says that the Israelite is to marry “a woman of his own race”; it does not say a woman of the same tribe, nation, faith, religion, culture or any other arbitrary distinction that Judeo preachers invent to explain the restrictive marriage laws of the Old Testament. No, it very clearly says race, and it even says that it is to be without regard “to other distinctions,” though of course an Israelite would naturally seek to marry someone who was a fellow Hebrew believer. But lying mongrel Jews and Judeos are insistent that the marriage customs of the Israelites only concerned faith or religion, not race. But if this were true, why would it be necessary to investigate the genealogy of the prospective bride? What difference would it make if the woman had had sex with foreigners? Obviously none of these things would be important; rather, all the bride would have to do would be to convert and become a proselyte. But Josephus here explains the intent of Leviticus 21:13 (LXX), which reads:
“He will take for himself a virgin woman of his own race.”
Again, the issue is race; not nationality, not tribe. This brings us to a discussion of the primary word for mongrel, that is, the Greek word nothos.
This word may be found in the Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary under the reference number 4464.
World-Wide German Dictionary.
Meaning Of Nothos
Although this Greek word occurs only once in the New Testament, its definition is still very important to our discussion of the Sixth Commandment. We have discussed its occurrence in Hebrews 12:8, and stated that in some Latin manuscripts, it was translated with the word adulterinus. So knowing what nothos means is important to understanding what the adult- family of words mean in Latin. We have also cited evidence where the Greek verb moicheusas is shown to be synonymous with notheusas, a verbal form of nothos. So knowing the true

definition of nothos is important to understanding the true definition of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery. Thus, we shall examine this word in greater detail.12
Nothos is defined by LSJ as “bastard, baseborn, cross-bred.” The verbal form notheuo is defined as “adulterate.” G.W.H. Lampe, in his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, defines the word nothos as, “bastard, adulterated, cross-bred.” So we see very quickly that any honest lexicon will serve to show the meaning of this word, especially when we realize that the common definition of the English word bastard, until recently, was, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, “a person of mixed breed.”
We also recall that we have already stated that all of the lexical authorities state that the word nothos is the opposite of the Greek word gnesios, which is defined by LSJ and by Lampe as: “belonging to the race.” This word is derived from genos, which means race. Donnegan’s Lexicon defines the adjective gnesios as: “peculiar to a race, of pure race,” and his primary definition of gnesiotes is: “purity of descent,” while his primary definition of gnesios is: “purely descended.” Thus, since nothos is the opposite of this family of words, it must mean mongrel or of mongrel descent.
The Greek word nothos was originally defined by the Latin word nothus in early Greek- Latin dictionaries, and this Latin word was of course used in its place in Latin translations or commentaries of Greek texts, including in the Vulgate. The Latin word nothus is defined by the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary as “of a mixed breed, mongrel.” This same definition is also supplied by Leverett’s Latin Dictionary. Thomas Holyoke’s A Large Dictionary, as we have stated previously, says that this Greek word nothos and the Latin word nothus are synonymous with the Hebrew word mamzir and the Greek word moichikos, both of which we discussed above and both of which mean mongrel. Like the Hebrew word mamzir, we can turn to the German Luther Bible for an example of where the Greek word nothos has been translated accurately. In the original Luther Bible, the word nothos in Hebrews 12:8 was translated with the German word “Bastarde,” which according to the English-Deutsches, Deutsch-Englisches Wörterbuch (1956) corresponds to the English word “mongrel” (cf. A Compendious German And English Dictionary). Like the English word “bastard” which before recent times clearly meant mongrel, this German word also has been watered-down to a certain extent recently, but it must be remembered that the LutherBible was translated well-over 400 years ago, and consultation with older German dictionaries clearly shows that the original understanding of the word was that of mongrel.
Recent editors of the Luther Bible, however, do not seem to have been content in letting the degeneration of the German language serve as their tool for watering down Germany’s most popular translation of the Bible. In fact, a comparison between the original Luther Bible and the Luther Bible being sold today shows many drastic differences, one of which concerns the verse under consideration. In Hebrews 12:8, while the original Luther Bible reads Bastarde or mongrels, the newer version reads Ausgestoßene or outcasts. This modern translation is, of course, totally ridiculous and finds support in no Greek-German or Greek-English lexicons. The only purpose that such a translation serves is to rid the German Bible of the racial consciousness that existed in it before World War II. There are many more examples, one being the first verse in the New Testament, Matthew 1:1. In the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testa- ment, this verse reads:

“The book of the race of Jesus Anointed, son of David, son of Abraham.”
In the original Luther Bible, the word race was rendered with the German word Geburt, which means birth or racial origin, but in the new Luther Bible, the word Geschichte is used, meaning story or tale. Another striking example, and one that the Jews and other antichrists were concerned that the German people took too literally during World War II, is Luke 19:27, which reads in the Anointed Standard Translation:

“But these enemies of mine, those not desiring me to reign over them, bring here, and execute them before me.”
In the new Luther Bible, the Greek verb translated execute above is rendered with the German words machen nieder which means make them bend down, but in the old Luther Bible, the German Bible being circulated in 1933, the German word erwürgen was used, which means to strangle. Many more similar examples could be given, but it will suffice to say that the Luther Bible being read today in Germany is not the same Bible that was being read before World War II in Germany, and that Bible translated nothos correctly in Hebrews 12:8. This is the only New Testament occurrence of the word.
However, in the Greek Septuagint, the word nothos occurs in Wisdom 4:3, which reads in an accurate translation:
“But the multiplying race of the ungodly will not be of great number nor gain power through mongrels propagating, nor will that race be allowed to advance nor accomplish a secure foundation.”
Here we see very clearly the racial nature of the word nothos. This verse is important for those who attempt to define the word nothos as someone born out of wedlock, for the verse clearly shows that nothos was a racial designation.
The most important non-Biblical usage of nothos is in Philo’s The Special Laws, III:46 in the translation of F.H. Colson:
“Actually so great is the provisions made in the law to ensure that men should admit [allow] no unlawful matings, that it ordains that even cattle are not to be crossed with others of a different species [race]. No Jewish [Judean] shepherd will allow a he-goat to mount a ewe or a ram a she-goat, or a bull a mare, or if he does he will be punished as an offender against the decree of nature, who is careful to preserve the primary species [race] without adulteration [mongrelization].”
Here, Colson has translated nothos as adulteration. As in other passages from Philo, it is important to remember that he is commenting on the Pentateuch, and we notice that the definition of “unlawful matings” is cross-breeding or mongrelization. Also importantly, we see very clearly that the specific Biblical definition of nothos is cross-breeding or mongrelization.
A complete study of these words occurs in my book The Truth Unveiled. Much of the material presented hereafter is not contained in that work, therefore the reader is encouraged to consult The Truth Unveiled also.
The Errancy of the Masoretic Text and the KJV
It has long been the firm position of true Christians that the only legitimate source for what is called the Old Testament is the Greek Septuagint. The Septuagint vs. The Masoretic Text and The History of the Bible, as well as other Separatist literature, have presented undeniable proof that the Greek Septuagint was the Scripture used by Jesus Christ and His Apostles and converse- ly that the so-called Hebrew Masoretic Text did not come into existence until around 1000 AD, and that this Hebrew had been edited, changed, and in some cases rewritten entirely by Talmudic, atheistic, mongrel Jews. This, of course, is important because the Masoretic Text is the text behind the Old Testament translations of virtually every Bible version available today, though some claim to have at least consulted the Septuagint. Most translations, however, especially the King James Version, do not even consult the Septuagint, and those which do rarely if ever follow the Septuagint where the Septuagint and Masoretic Text differ, such as newer translations like the New Revised Standard and the New International Version.
Yet, in spite of all of the evidence which clearly supports the Greek Septuagint, most so- called Christian denominations, with few exceptions, continue to use the Masoretic text and defend it vehemently. Many also openly defend the King James Version, and in turn the Masoretic Text, as the inspired word of God. Those which use both the King James and newer translations, such as the Revised Standard or New International, and all those who use the Ferrar Fenton Bible or Rotherham’s or the New Jerusalem, are still supporting and using the Jew-contrived Masoretic

text as if it were actually divinely-inspired Scripture, because all of these translations are based upon the Masoretic text. So whether ones uses the King James Version or some other popular translation, that person is still accepting as fact that the Hebrew Masoretic text is somehow divinely inspired or preserved.
Now all of this is pertinent for several reasons. First of all, although a portion of this book has been dedicated to examining the Hebrew word mamzir, still most of the arguments presented herein make use of the Greek Septuagint. So immediately, deceived Judeos will discount the arguments because the arguments do not use the Jew-corrupted Masoretic text that they were raised to believe was somehow the Bible. Still others have been raised to believe and taught by their Jewish preachers that the King James Version itself is divinely inspired. So then not only is the Masoretic Text divinely inspired, but any mistranslations in the KJV, either of the Old or New Testament were somehow purposely put in their by God. Believe it or not, this is the claim of thousands of King James supporters, men such as Peter Ruckman, who distort the facts, throw away logic, and do the bidding of the Jews who would like nothing more that to deceive people into using the King James Version even when it blatantly contradicts the original autographs, meaning the best manuscript evidence of the Greek Septuagint and Greek New Testament. So, therefore, these men conclude that since the King James Version does not say, “You will not mongrelize,” then even if that is what the original Greek says, it does not matter because God changed when He inspired the translators of the King James Version.
What is truly incredible about this is that since the time of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it has been a matter of public record just how corrupted the Masoretic Text, and therefore the KJV, is compared to far older manuscripts, and just how accurate the Greek Septuagint is. Honest scholars have long known about the multitude of serious errors in the Masoretic Text and on the other hand the high accuracy of the Greek Septuagint. Honest scholars have long known that most of the quotes in the New Testament from the Old Testament Scriptures are found in the Greek Septuagint identically but in the Masoretic Text either not at all or in a greatly altered form. Even the Jews themselves have no problem admitting the truth regarding the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic Text because they have already so deceived Judaized Judeos (including the so-called Identity movement and what is left of the Christian Church in Germany) into believing that Talmudic Jews accurately preserved the Old Testament Scriptures. And since these Judaized Judeos believe that the mongrel Jews are God’s chosen people, then why wouldn’t they buy this lie, hook, line and sinker? No, the truth on this matter is not hidden. The Jews know that as long as they can keep white men using their Masoretic Text, then white men serve no danger to them. And, unlike their forefathers, these deceived white men may be racially murdered and therefore neutralized within a generation or two. Make no mistake about it: race-mixing is the murder of white man’s posterity. The truth is, a white man cannot be a Christian if he is still using the Jew Masoretic Text.
In The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, a new book released in 1997 from Notre Dame University, Paul Lamarche writes:
“In what version was the Old Testament used and commented on by early Christians? … it is the Septuagint, the Greek translation which, directly or indirectly, was fundamentally for all writings of the early Christian centuries, and even after Jerome it is the text which the Greek Fathers, including the Antiochenes, customarily used.”
The differences which exist between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text have in the past been accounted to corruptions in the Septuagint and mistranslations by the Septuagint translators. This, of course, has been a Jewish tactic to undermine the Septuagint in deference to the Masoretic text. But even Lamarche, in the same book, goes on to state that it is today the consensus opinion, especially after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the problems lie not with the Septuagint but with the corrupted Masoretic Text. The truth of the matter is that honest scholars have taken this position for centuries, primarily because of the quotations from the New Testament which parallel exactly with the Greek Septuagint but differ greatly from the Masoretic Text.

But the antichrist, Zionistic Jews play the issue of the Masoretic Text in two ways. First, they have convinced the goyim that it is in truth the inerrant Word of God, perfectly preserved by meticulously careful, Christ-hating, atheistic Jews. Secondly, they take advantage of the mis- takes in the Masoretic Text to attack the Christian’s claim of the inerrancy of the Bible. For the real Christian, which by definition means one who uses the Greek Septuagint, this is not a problem. Let us look at some of these claims, and as we do, we will use the King James Version since it is a favorite of most deceiving antichrists, but keep in mind that though the wording may be slightly different, the same things are true for all versions of the Bible which use the Masoretic Text. We use the King James Version herein only to further convict those liars who claim that it and all of its mistakes are divinely inspired.
II Chronicles 21:20-22:1-2. These verses read in the King James Version:
“Thirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign …”
Here is where the Bible-attacking Jews have a field day. If you are someone who believes in the infallibility of the King James Version or in the divine inspiration of the Masoretic Text, how do you explain the fact that Jehoram’s youngest biological son was two years older than he was? Obviously, the only explanation is that this is an error, that both the King James Version and the Masoretic Text are fallible, and thus the Bible-attackers have refuted the inerrancy of the Bible. But the true Christian can explain this very easily, because the true Christian knows that this is not what the Bible says. Let us now read the last verse which gives Ahaziah’s age in the Greek Septuagint (II Chr. 22:2 LXX):
“… began to reign when he was twenty years old…”
Here the Greek Septuagint proves superior, as Ahaziah’s correct age is given. But is this an isolated incident? Not at all. Let us look at II Samuel 6:23 in the King James Version:
“Therefore, Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death.” However, in II Samuel 21:8, we read in the King James Version:
“…and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.”
Thus, in one part of the King James and the Masoretic Text, it says that Michal had no children, but in another that she had five sons. Again, this problem does not exist in the Greek Septuagint, because (in the preferred manuscripts) it replaces Michal in II Samuel 21:8 with Merab, so while Michal had no children, Merab had five sons. The Bible is actually talking about two different women.
Let us now turn to I Kings 16:23, 28-29 in the King James:
“In the thirty and first year of Asa, King of Judah, began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years
… So Omri slept with his fathers … and Ahab his son reigned in his stead. And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel.”
Here we see that Omri reigned 12 years, and then his son Ahab began to reign. But the time frame is given as corresponding to the reign of Asa. So Omri began to reign in the 31st year of Asa and his son began to reign in the 38th year of Asa, which is only seven years. But we were told that he reigned 12 years. This is not simply a mistake as to which year of Asa’s reign Ahab began to reign in, but in fact the Masoretic text omits several verses between verse 28 and 29 which tell us that Josaphat, son of Asa began to reign. Thus, the Septuagint reads (note that Ambri = Omri, and Achaab = Ahab):

“In the thirty-first year of king Asa, Ambri begins to reign over Israel twelve years … And Ambri slept with his fathers … and Achaab his son reigns in his stead. (And in the eleventh year of Ambri Josaphat the son of Asa reigns…). In the second year of Josaphat king of Juda, Achaab son of Ambri reigned over Israel…”
The part in parentheses above is a small part of the passage which is in the Septuagint but which has been omitted from the Masoretic Text. We can see that the chronology in the Septuagint version is correct, but that given in the Masoretic text is incorrect.
These mistakes are unexplainable by those who claim the infallibilty of the King James Version or the inerrancy of the Masoretic Text. Let us now look at II Kings 24:8 in the KJV:

“Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign…”
And now II Chronicles 36:9 in the KJV:

“Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign…”
This difference in inexplicable, but the Greek Septuagint reads ‘eighteen years’ in both instances. These problems are all examples of internal contradiction that exists in the Masoretic Text but not in the Greek Septuagint. But the most convincing internal evidence exists between the New Testament and the Old Testament quotations.
For example, Matthew 15:8-9 reads in the AST:
“This people draws near to Me with their mouths, and honors Me with their lips; but their heart is far away from Me. But they worship Me in vain, teaching for teachings the ordinances of men.”
This is a quotation from Isaiah 29:13, which in the Septuagint is identical with the exception of a slight change in word order, but the Greek of the New Testament and Septuagint passages would be translated in English the same way, and the same vocabulary is used in both. In the Hebrew Masoretic Text, however, we find a much difference passage:
“…Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men” (KJV).
Although the two passages start out the same, the ending in the Matthew clearly could not have come from the Masoretic Text Hebrew. The ending of the Hebrew passage says something entirely different than what Jesus Himself said in the New Testament and what is recorded in the Greek Septuagint.
A very striking example of this is in Romans 3:11-18. These seven verses are quoted from Psalms 14:1-3. This quotation of over 60 Greek words differs only by three letters, which are insignificant in translation. In the Hebrew, however, only parts of verses 11 and 12 are present. Verses 13-18 are entirely absent, though in Romans, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that he is quoting the Scriptures. If his Scripture had been the Masoretic Text and not the Septuagint, then Paul would have been lying. There are an endless amount of examples of this nature where New Testament quotations could only have come from the Septuagint. In fact, of the quotations in the New Testament of the Old Testament, over 70 could only have been derived from the Greek Septuagint because the Masoretic text either omits the quotation or it exists in so changed a form as to be unrecognizable or have a completely different meaning.
Thus, the Masoretic Text is found to be corrupted both internally and in its relation with the New Testament, while the Septuagint is found to be reliable on both counts, and also the Septuagint was the universal Bible of the first century Christians. The last piece of evidence we have to consider is how the Septuagint and Masoretic Text stack up against any other known copies of the Old Testament of antiquity, specifically the Qumran manuscripts, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is best exemplified by what is commonly known as the Jeremiah Dilemma.

Analysis of the book of Jeremiah in the Masoretic Text and in the Greek Septuagint reveals two vastly different books, both in content and organization. Specifically, the Masoretic Text contains sections which are not in the Greek Septuagint and the Greek Septuagint contains portions which are not in the Masoretic Text. Those parts shared in common are found arranged differently, and various minor differences are found throughout the common portions. The four quotations of the book of Jeremiah in the New Testament, as expected, agree closely with the Septuagint, but have significant differences with the Masoretic Text.
However, in Cave 4 at Qumran, a very ancient Paleo-Hebrew copy of Jeremiah was found, which agrees almost exactly with the Greek Septuagint, and is thus very different from the modern day Hebrew Masoretic Text. Another similar example of this is a copy of Samuel found in the same cave, which I commented upon in my book, The History of the Bible. The truth is, all of the Hebrew manuscripts found at Qumran are much more closely aligned with the Greek Septuagint than with the Masoretic Text. The reason for this is clear: the Masoretic Text did not come into existence until Talmudic Jews sat down and created it between the 5th-10th centuries AD, and this is a fact easily verifiable in any en cyclopedia.
Thus, the King James Version which is based upon the Masoretic Text is equally corrupted. To say that the King James Version is divinely inspired is to say that God has made several errors wherein He must have contradicted Himself in the examples given herein and literally dozens more! This is how truly absurd the contention is that the King James Version and the Masoretic Text are infallible, yet a vast percentage of so-called Christians believe just that.
This is not to say that we do not believe in the infallibility of God’s Word and the inerrant truth in the original autographs. We do believe that the Word of God is “living, and working, and sharper than every double-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of both life and mentality, of both joints and marrows, and is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12 AST). But no translation can lay claim to being “divinely inspired,” and this is even more true for those translations based upon corrupted manuscripts.