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.


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!


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.


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.


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.

[1] While hundreds of ancient Old Testament texts in Greek have been found throughout the middle east from Egypt to Europe, often in monasteries, no copies of the O.T. in Hebrew have ever been found except for those two pieces at Qumran which must have never gone public, and likely appeared after the time of Christ, probably from Jerusalem Jews.

[2] Jesus and his disciples spoke Greek, as did all Palestine and Egypt under Alexander and the Ptolemies, for several hundred years prior to Jesus. At Jesus' day, Aramaic was still somewhat common to the entire area in the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Syriac dialects, used by the non-Israelite races. The Jews (returnees from Babylon) had abandoned their old Israelite Phoenician language and came back to Jerusalem with their new Hebrew dialect, developed from Babylonian Aramaic. Undoubtedly, they could also speak Greek, as did everyone. And, Jesus did use Aramaic occasionally in Jerusalem when speaking to them. In Mark 5, Jesus spoke to a young girl saying, Talitha Cumi, in Aramaic. And again, while on the cross, Jesus said, Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, in Aramaic. Mark felt it necessary to note for his readers that he was translating it into Greek. If New Testament writers had written in Aramaic, like some people want to believe, then these translation incidents would not be given a translation by their authors. It is common for neighboring languages to infiltrate a native language, as Aramaic infiltrated into Greek, and as Latin is often used by English writers. Many Latin phrases and words are common to the educated English world today.

[3] Philo and Josephus were Israelite historians, about the time of Christ, writing in Greek, and they quoted many passages of the Old Testament, always quoting directly from the Greek Septuagint, even at those few times in which they wrote in Aramaic language! Obviously they had no Hebrew O.T. text to quote from! They were scholars of that day, and if a Hebrew Old Testament existed, they would certainly have used it instead of the Septuagint! This alone is convincing evidence that no "Hebrew" text existed yet. Nor is there any mention of such a text by any of them! Above, I mentioned Aristeas the Exegete who lived a couple centuries BC, who also used the Greek LXX exclusively. Both Philo and Aristeas wrote commentaries on the Old Testament. Aristeas is even called an "exegete," which is a scholar who studies original language words for the sake of determining the most accurate meaning of the text. If Aristeas wanted to determine what God was really communicating through the words of the Bible, he would, as would any exegete, study the words in the language which he believed to be that in which the text was originally written. Aristeas exclusively used the Greek Septuagint, and never hinted or implied that there was any "Hebrew" text available anywhere. If an ancient "Hebrew" text existed, he would have used it!

[4] Jesus said, I am the Alpha and Omega. Those are letters of the Greek alphabet. Jesus did not speak Aramaic to his Galilean friends; He spoke Greek, as did they, for Galilee was a Greek-speaking area where some descendants of the former Israelites still lived. He picked eleven of his disciples from those non-Jewish Israelites (Judas was an Edomite Jew). Keep in mind that the Galileans, and Jesus, were Caucasians, not that darker, miscegenated Jewish race.

[5] Jesus spent some of his ministry condemning the Edomite Jews and making clear to them that He was not one of them, because their father is the devil (John 8:44). Jesus only visited Jerusalem once each year for an annual festival, and then it seems his purpose was mainly to indict the Jews for their fraud. The rest of his ministry was in the northern-kingdom area of Galilee and Phoenicia, as he said his ministry was to none except the lost sheep of Israel.

[6] About 126 A.D. a Jew named Aquila produced a Greek version of the Old Testament in order to counter arguments by Christians who were quoting Greek Septuagint passages in support of Christ. Aquila simply altered the objectionable Messianic passages to support Jewish, anti-Christian polemics. Aquila could do this easily, copying from the existing Septuagint, making alterations necessary to support his arguments. If Aquila had in his hands a Hebrew Old Testament, he could have simply referenced it. Obviously, there was none available. Most likely the Masoretes used Aquila's doctored version to create their Hebrew text.

[7] Eastern Orthodox Christianity still uses the Greek Septuagint as they have always done. They did not switch to the new Masoretic Hebrew text produced by Jews between the 5th and 10th Centuries A.D. But the Roman Church did adopt the new Hebrew text for their Old Testament Canon. It would not have been necessary for the Jews to spend three centuries producing the new Masoretic Hebrew text if they already had one! Most likely they copied from the Septuagint, just massaging it enough to make it more Jewish and less Christian. The Masoretes openly hated Christianity. Their Jewish text is still used by Western Christianity for our English versions, such as King James, et al. It angers me that the Edomite Jews have given us true Israelites our own Israelite history which they produced, and Western Christianity took it, hook, line, and sinker!

[8] Jesus and N.T. writers often referenced O.T. passages and always quoted the Greek Septuagint, not any Hebrew text.

[9] I can find no references in other classical or patristic literature to indicate the existence of any Hebrew text. The Septuagint is the version always referenced or quoted. If anyone has information to refute this, I would most anxiously welcome it.

[10] And perhaps most convincing to me is that the Israelites of the 700s B.C. & 580 B.C. diaspora to Europe, never had a single piece of any writing in that Hebrew script. If that Aramaic/Hebrew dialect had been the language of the Old Testament peoples, of Abraham, of the twelve tribes, of David, et al, then we would see some evidence where the true Israelites carried it into Europe, but it is not there. Zara, son of Judah, and his descendants, spoke Phoenician as they founded the city of Troy, and the dialect evolved into Greek. The Israelites who populated Europe carried no hint of any non-Aryan language! Certainly, Jeremia would have carried copies of his sacred writings along with the other treasures he carried to Ulster. But that foreign language of Hebrew seems not to have existed for Jeremia. The Welsh language is said to be nearly identical to the ancient Phoenician, which is good evidence that our patriarchal ancestors used Phoenician before the mongrel language of Hebrew was developed.

[11] Then, there is the comparison of races to consider. While we are all Semitic: us, Jews, and Arabs, it is common usage to call Edomites the Jewish Race. In this case the racial-distinction is more than just the mix of Judahites in Babylon with Edomites, but it is also a fact of deeply different spiritual natures. Whites have produced a civilized world while the Jews have merely exploited it. Their nature is that of Esau, of the devil, of cheating, lying, manipulating, and exploiting. So, it is terribly incongruous that the sacred Hebrew language of the Jews could also have been native to God's children who were of Aryan lineage.

[12] It is most likely that the Judahites became enthralled with the Chaldean mystery-school stuff while in Babylon and this led to the Qabbalah. I've looked into the Qabbalah with considerable interest over the years, and concluded that it offers little of real spiritual value. It promises a lot but delivers little, like most of the mystery school religions. All occult practices use magic. For the Qabbalists, the tetragrammeton YHWH is the magic element. All magics marshall earth-energies or forces which are the opposite of true God-Spirit (spiritual) forces. All magics use similar techniques to do this, and I am a little familiar with this. I see the tetragrammeton as a tool for such practices, and I think the creation of Qabbalah is nothing less than a chasing after other gods, like those of the wicked Babylonians. Recently (Feb 96) , on TV, Charlie Rose interviewed the Jewish author, Elie Weisel, who said he had studied Qabbalah under a Master, along with two friends. His two friends both went insane and Weisel states that he would also have gone insane had he continued. Rather than being a true path to the tree of knowledge or of realizing the messiah, the Qabbalah is more likely an ungodly device. One should suspect that any results from use of these practices are rewards from the Prince of Darkness who rewards his own.

[13] The Dec 18, 1995 issue of U.S. NEWS shows excavation materials from the City of David, about 1,000 B.C., at the very time of David. Many clay seals were unearthed, some of which have names of Biblical characters written with Phoenician cuneiform lettering. Those are certainly not Hebrew characters like the Jews would have us believe were native to them back then.

[14] I was just reading in Jeremiah regarding the disappearance of sacred items (like the Ark and Jacob's stone) from the Jerusalem temple at the time of the Babylonian captivity. The Masoretic text (English versions in KJV, RSV, et al) says in Jer. 27:22: "'They shall be carried to Babylon, and there they shall be until the day that I visit them,' says the Lord. 'Then I will bring them up and restore them to this place.'" (Jer. 22:27) It occurred to me that since the stone was carried by Jeremiah to England, it could never be restored to Jerusalem. So I checked the same passage in the Septuagint which reads (the chapters are in different order) in 34:16,17: "Thus said the Lord; 'Hearken not to the words of prophets that prophesy to you, saying, Behold, the vessels of the Lord's house shall return from Babylon: for they prophesy to you unrighteous words. I sent them [the prophets] not.'" That's from the 285 B.C. Septuagint. I chuckled, thinking, God caught those Masoretes in their lie that time!

[15] The Septuagint (LXX) text is more unorganized and varied in many ways than the Masoretic, as though it retained its rough-original qualities, while the Masoretic text is all consistent and well-massaged, being the carefully-worked product of Jewish editing and manipulation over three centuries. It doesn't make sense that scribes would at some ancient time copy from a perfect Hebrew text to make an unorganized Greek Septuagint text . Rules of Textual-Criticism would assign the rougher LXX to be the earlier text. And IF the Masoretes worked from ancient Hebrew texts, where are they? If they had them in ninth century A.D., they'd still have them and they'd flaunt them. I think they never existed. Consider this: the Jewish Masoretes spent three centuries producing the text which is now the Hebrew text upon which our English Bibles are based. They completed their work in the tenth century AD. Supposedly, the Masoretes used those three centuries to divide the text into separate words from the alleged continuous text, and they inserted the pronunciation marks. They claim that they used the ancient original Hebrew text, of which there is no evidence at all. Let's assume that they did use an ancient Hebrew text for their work. Their "original" Hebrew text in Herodian Script would have been created AFTER the time the square letter script was invented, at the time of Herod. So, the Masoretes would have been using a text that was not very old at the time. One might also wonder why it took them three centuries to do their work, in light of the legend that the Greek LXX was translated into Greek in only 72 days. It is understandable that a long time would be necessary if the text had never existed before in Hebrew, and that the newly developed Hebrew language needed a lot of work to make it valid.

[16] I think Jesus would have given some indication if the human language (letters and sound) of God's name was of great importance. He did not. He spoke Aramaic occasionally to the Edomite Jews, and Greek to the rest. I think the Supreme Almighty God is not claimed or manipulated by any mantric magic of sounds. I think God values a sincere heart and spiritual devotion, regardless of the language which expresses it. So, what value is there to require an English speaking person to address God in a foreign, repugnant, non-Aryan, Jewish tongue? Besides, there is danger in founding a new religion around some minor distinction (like a personal name for God, as YHWH), as some denominations have done; such icons detract from true spiritual worship.

[17] It is clear that the Judahites did not speak Aramaic when taken captive to Babylonia because Daniel 1:4 tells how Nebuchadnezzar asked for prospective Israelite servants to be taught the Chaldean (Babylonian Aramaic) language so they could serve him. They were placed in a THREE YEAR program to learn the foreign Aramaic language. That single fact makes it pretty clear that the Israelites of Palestine did not speak "Hebrew" which is a dialect of Aramaic! A friend pointed out to me how difficult it must have been to learn to write from right-to-left for them. So, consider this, if the diasporan Israelites to Europe, eventually speaking German and Anglo, had traditionally written from right-to-left prior to their dispersion, then what great influence could have forced them to reverse their language as they settled in Europe? The diasporan people were loose migrants, under no compulsion to abandon their old ways and their Aryan language! And they obviously did not abandon their Phoenician/Greek type language. Conversely, it took a three year program of coercion by Nebuchadnezzar to force Judahites to abandon their tradition and learn to read and write from right-to-left.

[18] The Hebrew language was just born following the Assyrian captivity. It developed as a dialect of Aramaic. It is only a few centuries older than the Septuagint of 285 B.C.. The O.T. certainly could not have existed in Hebrew prior to the Assyrian captivity! But some of it certainly existed in an Aryan language (Phoenician) from the time of Moses, about 1400 BC. Furthermore, the Jews brought back to Jerusalem, about 510 B.C. their Babylonian Talmud which became the new religion of Judaism. Other than just referencing our Old Testament, the new religion of Jerusalem was based on the Talmud, so they had no reason to make a translation of the O.T. into their new Hebrew language until many centuries later when it would serve their fraudulent claim to be God's chosen people. Without any evidence to support them, the Masorete Jews claimed the O.T. was originally written in Hebrew and the Western Christian church has never questioned it!. (Although, the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the Hebrew text as the original to this day.)

[19] St. Paul was a Jerusalem Pharisee; he grew up in the Jewish religion, and was even a member of the Sanhedrin. We would assume that Paul grew up in the Hebrew language. Yet, in all his N.T. writings, he has no tendency to use Hebrew. He uses Greek at a scholarly, intellectual level. He never extols the primary book of the Jewish religion at that time: the Babylonian Talmud, and he never addresses the idea of YHWH being a sacred name for God. Beside the Jewish historians, Philo and Josephus, who quoted the Greek Septuagint, if any person would ever have emphasized a sacred value of Hebrew language, it would have been Paul IF Hebrew had any sacred value! Also, of the New Testament writings, the one piece most knowledgeable of the Old Testament is the letter To the Hebrews. The author, probably not Paul, uses the most scholarly and beautiful Greek of any New Testament writer, yet he is the very one who best understood the significance of Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The introductory notes to the book of Hebrews, in the New Open Bible, says, "the writer of Hebrews apparently did not know Hebrew."

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.


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 Koin´┐Ż 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!


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.


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.