While the migration paths of the so-called lost-tribes-of-Israel are well known and many books have been written about them, validating the Europeans and Americans as those Israelites, I've been confused by an anomaly: some of the same people who recognize our Aryan race as God's Adamic race reject our Aryan language of Greek as sacred to our God, for sake of choosing the Afro-Asian language of Hebrew! As best I can learn from my research, the Afro-Asian Hebrew (a dialect of Aramaic) was first developed following the Assyrian Captivity, 700's BC, and continued to develop as the Phoenician speaking Israelites, taken captive to Babylon in 586 BC, merged their native language with the Babylonian Aramaic language.

For linguist readers, I would mention that there is a pre-exilic script (prior to 700's B.C.) that came to be used for some later Hebrew writings, which bears no resemblance to the square-letter script of the Hasmonean period (152-37 B.C.). It was actually a cuneiform script, using the Phoenician alphabet. It shouldn't surprise us to yet find some incident of Old Testament text in that Old Hebrew someday, since it could have been produced after the time of the Assyrian exile, where Israelites held captive in Babylon had to assimilate the Aramaic language. Translation of Old Testament writings from Phoenician into that Old Hebrew could have been requested by their captors. In the Qumran caves, there is small evidence of such translation. But, there is so much unknown about the particulars of this, that no assumption is justified that any original Old Testament texts were ever written in Old Hebrew. That singular appearance of the Hebrew language in the religion from Abraham is anomalistic.

One needs to keep in mind the political situation at the time of the Assyrian captivity/exile, along with the changing demography. The Assyrians, in mid-eighth century, purged much of the Palestine region of Israelite people. Most of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom were scattered (the Diaspora) and most of the region of the southern kingdom was also purged, except for the three towns of Jerusalem, Lachish, and Azekah. Actually, there were many Israelites around the Galilee region who did not disperse, and continued to live there with their native Phoenician language, which later evolved into Greek. Jesus and His friends came from such families of true Israelites who never did go to dispersion or to Babylon. After most of the Israelites were driven off, the Assyrians restocked the cities of Samaria with other Aramaic speaking foreigners. "The king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria in place of the people of Israel." (II Kings 17:24) These foreign races became the Samaritans we meet in Jesus' time. Josephus says they "are called in the Hebrew tongue 'Cutheans;' but in the Greek 'Samaritans.' (Antiquities: book IX, ch. XIV:3) Then, Aramaic became the dominant language of the greater Palestine region, except for the families of Israelites who maintained their own culture and language around Galilee. The so-called "Hebrew" language developed from the eighth century BC by Israelite captives who had settled in Assyria and combined their Phoenician language with the Aramaic of their neighbors there. Later, when the returnees came back from Babylon to Jerusalem, they brought with them that new mongrel language of "Hebrew," which was used only in Jerusalem among the Talmudists. Evidence supporting this thesis is the archaeological discovery of correspondence done during the time of Jeremiah, about 590 B.C. It is the Letters from Lachish, written between military officers, probably Israelite, in the new "Hebrew" language, using Old Hebrew script. [Thomas, D. Winton, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times, (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd), p. 212. Letters from Lachish chapter regards eighteen Ostraca, written in ancient Hebrew, dated about 590 BC, discovered in 1935]  Keep in mind that the Hebrew square-letter alphabet wasn't developed until the century before Christ, the Hasmonean period; also called "Herodian script."

It is difficult for us to now imagine how mixed-up the Palestine region was during those seven hundred years prior to Christ; the Israelite presence became a minority among the Aramaic speaking peoples that were brought in. In spite of a few pieces of text-translations at Qumran, it is not known that there was any Old Testament in that newly developed post-exilic "Hebrew" language and new square-letter alphabet until Origen's Hexapla about 240 AD. By the time of Origen, the Hebrew language translation of the Old Testament had been in the works for a couple centuries, and dispute developed between the Edomite Jews who claimed the new Hebrew text as their authority against the Greek Septuagint O.T. from centuries before Christ. The Hebrew language Masoretic version is the basis of all English Bible versions today; it was created by the Edomite Jewish Masoretes between the 5th and 9th Centuries A.D. The oldest known Hebrew Masoretic Text is more recent than 1,000 AD. It is not known what texts were used by the masoretes to create their new Hebrew language Old Testament. Most of the Qumran materials are in Greek, with only a few examples of the new Hebrew alphabet being used for a piece of Deuteronomy and the Psalms. There is no evidence of any existence of a Hebrew language Old Testament prior to Christ.  At the time of Christ, the  Greek Septuagint was the only Bible being used in Jerusalem, Galilee, or Asia Minor. The first-century Jerusalem Temple had very little use for most Old Testament books because the ruling Edomite Jews based their Babylonian Talmudic Phariseeism religion on Talmudic writings. In the introduction to the Greek Septuagint of Brenton (1851), he says, "The veneration with which the Jews had treated this [Greek Septuagint] version gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them in argument; hence they decried the version, and sought to deprive it of all authority." So, here is the reason why the Edomite Jews needed an Old Testament version different from the Greek Septuagint, namely to weaken the messianic references.

One powerful argument against the existence of any "Hebrew" language Old Testament is that of Aristeas the Exegete, a Jewish author who lived a couple centuries before Christ. In his work, titled: On the Jews, he relied exclusively on the Greek Septuagint. (See Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, page 380) Consider that he was a Jewish author who would have used a "Hebrew" language Old Testament if one existed. Instead, he used the Greek LXX exclusively, and there was no mention made of any other in existence.

ARYAN ROOTS

This chapter is addressing the subject of language. Clearly, historical evidence points to the white race as the race from Adam and Eve. Noah, Sem, Moses, Abraam, Isaac, Jacob, King David, and Jesus were all white (Caucasian, Aryan, Adamic). All White-race languages can be traced to the same parent language, called "Aryan" by philologists (linguists). Sanskrit, of northwest-India's Punjab, and Phoenician are the oldest known derivatives of Aryan. Greek, Latin, and Teutonic are later derivatives. The Zend of Zoroaster is a dialect of Phoenician. English belongs to the Teutonic group, as does German. These are all Aryan languages, called "Indo-European" or "Aryan" by language scholars.

It puzzles and concerns me that Christians have adopted text materials for OUR Old Testament from a non-Aryan tongue: Hebrew, which is an Aramaic dialect of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages, quite foreign to the Aryan group. The twelve tribes of Israel were Aryan and spoke native Aryan languages! The Aryan language of Phoenician was most likely the language of Abraam. Abraam lived in Chaldea where Aramaic was spoken by non-Israelites who were Cainites, et al. But Abraam came from the line of Seth, an Aryan, speaking a dialect something between the Sanskrit of the Punjab (from which Eber came) and Phoenician, the Aryan language that was common a few centuries after Abraam. Surely, God would not have selected Abraam as Father of His nations if he had already abandoned the Aryan language of his native culture! God then pulled Abraam out of Chaldea before he founded the new religion of Lamb veneration at the beginning of Aries!

NEW "HEBREW"

The Jews who returned from Babylon with a new language called their language "Hebrew," because those who went captive to Babylon in 586 B.C. had truly been Hebrew people. However, many who returned from Babylon were no longer true Hebrews; they had mixed with races God warned them against, and had multiplied seven-fold during their captivity. About 7,000 fighting men went into captivity where they married women of other races, and about 49,000 returned later to Jerusalem, being nearly a different race with a new language. They should no longer be called Hebrew. But they did claim the name, and even gave it to their new, non-Aryan language. I think that is just the beginning of a great fraud by which the Jews would then deceive the whole world. Everything about them came to be fraudulent; they were no longer the tribe of Judah, as the word, "Jew," would imply. What's more, there are books published today, written by Jews, which claim that 90% or more of today's Jews are stock from the Khazars of the Southern Steppes of Russia and have no ancient Hebrew blood. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Khazars claimed they came from Mount Seir, which makes them Edomites: descendants of Esau. Some of their Khazar/Jew web sites claim they are of the lineage of Japhet, not of Sem, making them non-semitic. But, if the Khazars did come from Mt. Seir, they are Edomites, and are from the line of Sem, and from Abraam. This seems most likely.

Now, regarding the subject of language; the Israelite captives adopted an ungodly non-Aryan language in Babylon, mixing it with their native Phoenician, and brought it back to Jerusalem about 510 BC. The Edomite Jews, for whom the Aramaic language had been their native tongue, easily adopted the new Hebrew language. During centuries after Christ, those Edomite Jews have perpetrated a language fraud so successfully that most people of the world believe the ancient language of the Israelites was actually that Aramaic dialect called "Hebrew." Modern scholars and theologians do not question the claim. The lying Jews present no ancient records to support their claim, and their lie has been successful. What's more, they can't even produce manuscript evidence that the Old Testament books were written in their Jewish language prior to the tenth-century after Christ! That's right, there is no evidence that the Jews had an Old Testament in their so-called "Hebrew" language until the Jewish Masoretes produced the Masoretic Text (MT) of the Old Testament about the tenth-century A.D. I must qualify this statement a little; I'll soon show there was one piece of a translation into the Jewish language around the time of Christ, but it never made it to public market, so was unknown to anyone until 1947 when it was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is one other manuscript worth noting, which supports my thesis regarding the Hebrew language. The Samaritan Pentateuch (first five books of Moses) was written between 100 B.C. and the time of Christ - written in the Hebrew language by using Phoenician script. Isn't that interesting?

The Hebrew square-letter alphabet was being developed just prior to the time of Christ, although the Hebrew language itself had come back from the captivities with the returnees. If there had been a Hebrew script available to them, those Samaritans would certainly NOT have used the Phoenician script for their Hebrew Scripture! One of the modern Hebrew scholars, Ellis R. Brotzman, says the Samaritan Pentateuch "differs from the Masoretic Text of the Pentateuch some six thousand times. The Septuagint agrees with the Samaritan Pentateuch against the Masoretic text in about nineteen hundred cases." (Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994), p. 67. Brotzman is chairman of the Old Testament department at Tyndale Theological Seminary, The Netherlands. He holds a PH.D. in Hebrew and Semitic Languages. He says on page 58, "A variety of evidence indicates that the Old Testament books were first written and copied in the Phoenician script." But on page 52 he says, "It is therefore well within reasonable limits to suppose that Moses knew how to read and write, not only his own native Hebrew (Canaanite) language, but also Egyptian hieroglyphics." He offers no explanation of why Moses, who could allegedly write Hebrew, would write his Pentateuch original in Phoenician! More mysterious is how Moses could write Hebrew when there was no Hebrew script for that language until the Herodian script was invented during the first century BC. I've lived with an awe toward scholars for most of my life, envying them their PhD's and their intellectual achievements. As I've studied these materials in the search for Truth, I've been terribly disappointed and saddened that such academics have shown themselves to be so biased and willing to deliberately distort truth in order to serve their own careers. If the acclaimed theologians and scholars can be so corrupt, then who else in the entire world might we look to for integrity? I am very saddened by this.

Lacking any evidence for existence of Hebrew square-style script prior to the time of Christ, the most rational conclusion is that the Samaritan Pentateuch was copied from the Greek Septuagint into the fairly-new Hebrew language using one of the two scripts common to the area at that time, namely Phoenician; the other script in common use was Greek.

It is also notable that no archaeological digs have produced any Hebrew writings prior to this first century B.C., while countless artifacts have been found in Phoenician, Greek, and Cuneiform scripts throughout Mesopotamia.

DEAD SEA SCROLLS

It is an interesting problem that there is no evidence of an O.T. manuscript in the Hebrew script at the time of Christ, other than a couple pieces found at Qumran, at the northwest corner of the Dead Sea. Text materials discovered there are mostly in Greek (the language dominant in the area, known to everyone), a little Aramaic (the language common to the area before Alexander the Great, Aramaic material being written in Phoenician script), and very little Hebrew (the Aramaic dialect of Jerusalem-Jews since the Assyrian captivity).

All of the books of the Old Testament, excepting Esther, have been found in the Qumran Caves, in Greek. Isaiah and part of Deuteronomy are found there in Hebrew. In the caves there are 19 copies of Isaiah, 25 of Deuteronomy. What puzzles me is this: if some Hebrew materials existed here, why weren't they commonly available to the public? Why isn't there evidence of such material in the region outside Qumran? The absence of evidence seems profound!   Where those Hebrew materials came from is a mystery. Some Jewish scholars are now suggesting the most likely source of the scrolls, was probably from the Jerusalem Temple. Between 60 and 70 A.D., when under attack from the Romans, someone buried these writings; the world wouldn't see them until 1947, and there is no evidence that any other person, around the time of Christ, ever saw any of the Hebrew texts which were buried in the Qumran caves. Perhaps some Jerusalem Jews brought the Hebrew texts to Qumran for hiding. Since the Hebrew square-style alphabet was just being developed, it is reasonable to suppose that someone was beginning to translate some O.T. texts into Hebrew. It is also strange that there aren't more such materials, a fact which supports the thesis that Hebrew wasn't used by anyone except the few Edomite Jews of Jerusalem. Israeli scholars have recently published books which propose that the Dead Sea Scrolls were probably created in the Jerusalem temple rather than by Qumran Essenes. This theory makes sense, because that fortress at Qumran, overlooking the Dead Sea, was a strategic military sight used by the Romans. It is extremely unlikely that an ascetic group of Essenes could have lived at Qumran without being evicted by the Roman military. Another point. it is also true that the Dead Sea Scrolls are more akin  to the religion of the Jerusalem temple than to Essenes.

JEWS DIDN'T HAVE A HEBREW TEXT!

It is amazing to me that modern Christian scholars just presume the so-called "Hebrew" language of the Old Testament to be the native language of ancient Israelites without any more proof than the mere claim of Jews, whom Jesus called "liars" as he told them their father was not God, but the devil. (John 8:44) So, I want to list some of the arguments which seem to support my thesis that the Jews never had any complete text of the Old Testament in their falsely-called "Hebrew" language until they produced the Masoretic version between the fifth and tenth centuries A.D.

It is amazing how God blinds the minds of people, in order to fulfill His purpose. Look how He cursed the Israelites to never know who they really were until He placed them in a new land to be born as a new nation after the 2,520 yr. curse, which would be about 1776 A.D. The historical information had been there for them, about their origins, but they never could see it. Until now.

THE SEPTUAGINT, 285 B.C.

Since I have mentioned the Septuagint (known as "LXX"), an introduction to it might be helpful for those not familiar with it. It is a Greek Old Testament. It was commissioned by King Ptolemy II, a Greek from Macedonia, who became ruler of Egypt following Ptolemy I (a general under Alexander the Great who ruled Egypt after Alexander's death in 323 B.C.). The legend (now disproven) goes that Ptolemy II hired 70 or 72 Israelite scholars to compile their sacred writings for the new Great Library at Alexandria, Egypt, his pet project. Since there were thousands of true Israelites, not Edomite Jews, long living there near Alexandria, Egypt, who had escaped the Assyrians in the 8th century B.C., and since Greek was already their native language, they completed the compilation of Israelite scriptures in 72 days, according to legend. The Greek dialect of the Septuagint is Alexandrian Greek, only slightly different from the Palestine region's Koinê Greek of our New Testament. Scholars say the Greek language of the Septuagint is a mature and knowledgeable language usage, not that of some Hebrew-speaking Jerusalem Jews who recently arrived in Alexandria and were newly learning the Greek language in order to be able to translate into Greek. It is likely that the Old Testament writings had long been in Greek and these 70 scholars merely compiled the set, probably updating the language as they copied, just like the English KJV has been updated several times over the years. It is highly unlikely that these scholars translated from a Jewish Hebrew script into Greek in such a short time, and highly unlikely that any Hebrew manuscript even existed since the Hebrew alphabet hadn't even been created yet. 72 days isn't very long, considering that the Masoretes spent three centuries producing their "Hebrew" version. One should ask why it took them so long, if they already had an original Hebrew version as they claim.

I should note that the Greek Septuagint does NOT EVER use the word "Yahweh." If "YHWH" was a sacred name for God, it WOULD appear in the Septuagint! True Israelite translators would have no reason to exclude it!!! While Chaldean magicians might have convinced the Babylonian captives to hold a special name for God as sacred-mantric-magic, those Israelites in Alexandria since the Assyrian purge would not have been influenced by that. There is plenty of evidence that the word "YHWH" was used loosely and irreverently by Aramaic-speaking common people. Rather than being a word sacred and unspeakable, it was just the common Aramaic word for God. [Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, by Wm. F. Albright, Ph.D., Litt., D.H.L., Th.D., LL.D., Dr. Hon. Caus. (Member of the Youal Danish, Flemish, and Irish Academies & Corresponding Member of the Instituted of France) and by W.W. Spence, Professor of Semitic Languages in Johns Hopkins University, Formerly Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem (New York: Funk & Wagnalls). Ref. Also: Documents from Old Testament Times, edited by D. Winton Thomas, (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, 1958), pp. 212-217.]  The Septuagint uses the Greek word "Theos" for God, and "Kyrios" for Lord, just as in the N.T. "YHWH" is the Aramaic generic word for God, adopted by the Babylonian Talmudic Pharisees as a replacement for their Phoenician or Greek word for God.

The Septuagint contains more books than the 39 of our modern Old-Testament. It includes the Apocryphal books of: I Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Son of Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremia, Song of Three Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, I, II, III, IV Maccabees, and the Prayer of Manasseh. Those Apocryphal books were written in Greek, a fact never disputed, and they have never yet been translated into Hebrew. Those books were all accepted as valid by the early Christians. Jesus and his disciples quoted regularly from the Greek Septuagint, including those Apocrypha, (not from any Jewish/Hebrew text), and so did many other writers of that time, including Jewish writers. It is only during the past couple centuries that the Apocrypha has been omitted from our popular Bibles.

Septuagint scholars claim the first five books of the Tenth Century Masoretic version are in pretty fair agreement with the Septuagint, but there are significant variances in most other books. Jeremia, Daniel, and Isaiah (Esaias) seem to be the worst. We might wonder if the differences are due to the fact that those three are the most messianic books of the O.T.! Shouldn't a sincere seeker, who values the New Testament Savior, be a little bit concerned which text, Septuagint or Masoretic, points most to the Savior, and which has been neutered?

Here is a sample of the English translation of the masoretic Hebrew text  compared with the Septuagint text. Hopefully, you will be astounded at the difference! Perhaps you will ponder whether Christianity might be different if we used the same Old Testament that Jesus used.   First the KJV of Isaiah 49:1-6, then the LXX. I will underline some differences.

"KJV 49:1 - Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; [omission] The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (2) And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; (3) And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. (4) Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God. (5)And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. (6) And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the Earth.

LXX 49:1 - Hearken to me, ye islands; and attend ye Gentiles (ethne = tribes of Israel); after a long time one will arise, saith the Lord: from my mother's womb he has called my name: (2) and he has made my mouth as a sharp sword, and he has hid me under the shadow of his hand; he has made me as a choice shaft, and he has hid me in his quiver; (3) and said to me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, and in thee I will be glorified. (4)Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have given my strength for vanity and for nothing: therefore is my judgment with the Lord, and my labour before my God. (5)And now, thus saith the Lord, that formed me from the womb to be his own servant, to gather Jacob to him and Israel. I shall be gathered and glorified before the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. (6) And he said to me, It is a great thing for thee to be called my servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to recover the dispersion of Israel: behold I have given thee for the covenant of a race, for a light of the Gentiles (ethnoon = tribes of Israel), that thou shouldest be for salvation to the end of the Earth.

Note the deliberate omission in the KJV of the prophecy that one shall arise, namely Christ. Christ is given a purpose to gather Israel back into the fold, but the masoretes inserted the nonsense phrase, "Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious." The Edomites despised such an idea as the reclamation of the dispersed sheep. Finally the masoretes said, "It is a light thing" where the text really says, "It is a great thing." It is an outrageous crime against God and His children, that Christ's enemy, the Jews, have rewritten our history, which we then accept like ignorant sheep. Of course, the Jews despise all the O.T. books of the prophets because they foretell of the final judgment, condemnation, and annihilation of the Edomite race, nor do they have any books of the prophets on their scrolls. I spend this time illustrating this difference between the so-called Hebrew O.T. and the one which Jesus used because this truth will be important to the enlightening of the race of Israel (often called "Gentiles" in English Bibles). By the way, the mention in verse 49:1 of the "islands," which occurs many times in the prophetic books, is a reference to the British Isles where the throne of David was taken by Jeremiah about 580 BC, and where God's race of Israel (ethne = tribes, clan, race = gentiles) has been preserved. God certainly was not speaking to non-Israelite "Gentiles" in this passage!

ENGLISH

Finally, I want to make a suggestion. IF we, the white race of Europe, Britain, and the U.S., are the lost sheep of Israel, and IF the United States is the regathering of the true Israelites in the new Jerusalem as the prophets predicted, and IF the Aryan languages are those designed by God for his elect children, then why don't we consider honoring our English language rather than despising it. English has become the most world-wide powerful language in all history. I don't believe that has happened by accident. I do believe that God is preparing this nation for its future: the inheritance of the kingdom-of-God! I believe that after the world crashes and is reborn, the true children of God will begin to fulfill their sacred purpose: dominion. And English is the language being prepared for the task. I, personally, consider English to be the most beautiful of all languages. Having studied a few others, I think English is capable of expressing nuances and spiritual concepts better than any other. It is the most free! It is not limited by tight structures of declensions and conjugations. It is a language for poetry and hymns and spiritual expression! It is this language in which I address my Father, my Lord, my God. I will not profane his name by using the Afro-Asian, Babylonian language with occult magic names for our God like YHWH  and El.

JEWS

I think the Judahites, who were taken captive to Babylon, sold out their Israelite birthright there, like so many birthrights are sold, and like Esau did as the true father of the new race of Jews. That doesn't mean we should follow suit and give our Ephraim & Manasseh birthrights to the fraudulent Jews for the sake of protecting their lie! Most of the Christian church refuses to challenge this fraud, seemingly content with the lie. Modern Christians aren't following Christ's example of exposing Jews for their evil as He did so boldly time and again in Jerusalem, which is what got him killed. Read the Old Testament Prophets, and you see that the Babylonians and Edom typified evil. In today's world, the Jews have the same reputation. It is common slang that "to Jew someone" means to cheat them. Jesus might have visited Jerusalem only once each year, but some of his ministry was spent condemning the Jews. I suggest you read the Gospels, watching for Jesus' words to and about Jews. Look at Mat. 15:1-14; Mat. 21:12,13; Mat. 23:13-36; John 8; Rev. 2:9; 3:9. He called them "liars," "serpents," "brood of vipers," "blind-guides," and "hypocrites." Today we can be jailed for copying Jesus' example! And many of Jesus' parables pointed at the Jews, such as being wicked tenants who killed the messengers and then the Landowner's Son.

It's sad that in our world today, it's the Christians who teach their children the lie that those who call themselves "Jews," are God's true children! Look at Rev. 2:9 & 3:9. Jesus points specifically at the Jews as "the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie." What He means by "lie" is that truly there is a people who could claim the designation of "Jew" legitimately, namely the descendants of Judah. But those who call themselves "Jews" today are not those descendants. The word in our Bible for "Jews" is, in Greek: [Ίoυδαίoυς] which means "belonging to the Jewish race or Jewish as respects birth, race, religion" (Thayer, p. 305). Jerusalem's so-called Jews were not of the Judahite race, but claimed it fraudulently (they were and are Edomites). The true Royal line of Juda had already gone to Britain about 550 B.C.! So, those who "say they are Jews, and are not, but lie," are guilty of being, as Jesus says, of "the synagogue of Satan." Jesus made it so explicitly clear that the Jews are liars and frauds and the devil is their father,  how on earth can we accept that they, with their foreign language, are authorities over OUR scriptures? Take a moment and let the thought register in your mind, that the Bible is the story of OUR race; the patriarchs are OUR ancestors, NOT ancestors of the falsely-so-called "Jews!" So, if they are frauds, as Jesus proclaimed, why should we want to claim their Jewish/Hebrew language and magic as sacred when it never was a language of the true Israelites? When are the true Israelites going to esteem and honor our own heritage, including our Aryan language which God has given us?

My research has confirmed my suspicion that the Jewish language is foreign to the Israelite race. If there is any evidence that we should adopt it and hold sacred the Qabbalistic name for God, then I've been unable to find it and would greatly appreciate anyone who could point it out to me and save me from error.

Until then, I cannot imagine stepping before my eternal Father and addressing Him with the language of His enemy; to me that feels blasphemous and profane.

It seems to me that Jews perpetrated the "Yahweh" fraud; the Roman Catholics bought it and promote it; the Protestant Christians follow blindly; and some sincere people in our country are making a religion of it. Until someone shows me otherwise, I'm confident my Father hears me best when I simply address him as "Father." For, I AM his beloved child.

Click <HOME> to go to the index page.