Many of the rich modern day Sanhedrin or AshkeNazi, Sephardic, crypto-Jews, Jesuits, and Muslims are not very happy about a white protestant Donald Trump ( who is said to be part Jew) presidency because they are big enemies of white Christian western civilization just like the crypto-Jew Jesuits and crypto-Jew Muslims are. If Trump is going to be true to his protestant heritage and values he will have his hands full trying to protect what’s left of our white protestant and white catholic America from our leftist dire enemies who are using multicultural Marxism to accomplish their new age inquisition against white christian America facilitated by the elitist Zionist/Jesuit/Islamic unholy trinity out to rob, supplant, and destroy all of white western Christian civilization = Leftist genocidal Social Justice.
The enemies of white protestant and christian America are now openly protesting in our nations streets against our new white protestant president for all the world to see…who the real haters and godless killers are. Whites consist of many white tribes, clans, or nations who have married amongst their various white kindred groups over the centuries that naturally preserved their race, creeds, heritage, posterity, and nations. Nothing wrong with each different race maintaining their own natural boundaries and habitats as God wanted for us in the beginning. Since, all ethnic groups strive for racial homogeneity and religious domination we are really all nationalists by nature who are now being labelled by leftist mass murderers as racists and supremacists in order to rob us, supplant us, destroy us, and control us: Genocide through mongrelization of white christian nations.
Neoprogressives are coldblooded anti-Christian and anti-white multicultural Marxists. So, education in the USA is now an anti-white christian racial and religious affair over leftist dark foreign dominance of our Republic, and this is an underlying fact behind white protestant Donald Trump’s landslide election victory. While the lame-stream Talmudic media portrays a bunch of ignorant acting white goy kids playing with HollyJew/JesuitWood’s cultist Kabbala Ouija boards within their unrealistic anti-white protestant Christian TV shows that brainwash the white kids against their own kindred and against their Christian God’s teaching that forbids racial unequal yoking/miscegenation, witchcraft, and consulting familiar spirits/demons:
Make sitcoms using white female homosexuals to turn our Christian women against their men, children, and Christ using laugh machines for leftist indoctrination. Make a movie about a young blond hair and blue-eyed white boy who drops out of school filled with hate and blame in order to justify his doing drugs with his African and Hispanic drug dealers behind his enabling single mom’s back while she is at work…The white boy eventually gets MS and becomes a homosexual with a boyfriend cross-dresser residing within his mom’s filthy home while living on SSI for the rest of his godless non-productive life…after his mom dies of cancer at an early age:
Make a cowboy series with a vigilante Indian beating up white bad guys with a masked (crypto-Jew) white looking renegade lawman. Make sitcoms using fat middle aged men who are near-white Jews playing cops that race mix with dark skinned females in a subversive attempt to destroy God and the races he created constituting the bridal Christian church of Yahshua or the children of the house of Israel where the many parts/races/churches make up the one whole body:
Furthermore, make a sitcom centered around PC/Marxist indoctrinated young ignorant looking white goy kids who can’t hit it off with each other because the young white girls don’t like the feminized white boys and would rather race mix with dark skinned hoodratz, broken English Jin-Macaca nerds, murky mestizos, muddy mulattoes, and near white matzoboys.
Lets make a leftist episode of whitey Archie Bunker taking in a little Jew girl into his home wearing the kabbalist star of Lucifer at the end of its series, and then we we can put good ole white Archie in a cop series with an African partner in order to subtly brainwash us to the supplanting of us dumb white goy within our own positions of authority for the overthrowing of Christian communities and white western civilization through multicultural Marxism…If having a sense of true pride in kinship loyalty for ethnic survival is somehow bad or so-called racist then we are all bad and racists with the leftist laws today forbidding us all from publicly expressing our dislike for other races in order to deceptively cover up the natural competition or struggle for control over resources through gaining racial and religious domination or power over the others. We are not only in the midst of an all out dark enemy immigrant invasion within our white nations but we are also in an all out breeding war as well…
Put near white Jews and Africans hosting in or playing in all game shows, talk shows, news anchor positions, sporting events, domestic life, and in political life = Leftist white genocidal social justice. Make a movie with two young white girls driving down the road bouncing around to anti-white African ghetto rap noise who then get hooked on drugs have mudminnow babies out of wedlock and end up on welfare and SSI for the rest of their lives while protesting against white Christian culture, religion, and authority. Make a movie about how the Jew/Jesuit Bolsheviks murdered 66 million white Christians in Russia, and continue to commit more mass murder through the economic, and sociopolitical hijacking of white Christian western civilization through multicultural Marxism.
A bunch of leftist anti-white and anti-christian butt kissing of the dark minorities who are attacking and killing white christians and white cops all across our nation while screaming out hate speech against all white christian Americans using secular paganism and relativistic heathenism to destroy all other religions in order to rob, invade, supplant, subvert, conquer, and destroy others. The leftist media justifies the anti-white violence and silences the murdering of whites by the dark minorities, dark immigrant invaders, and even white cops. White nationalism is the only way for whites to survive the race traitor’s and the dark minorities onslaught against us white christians. Kiss our white arses all you multicultural Marxist Zionist/Jesuit puppets at CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and at all Zionist christian networks.
Now we are witnessing massive neoliberal media damage control to smooth things out for Donald Trump to make it easy for him to fall in line with the same leftist crooks us whites voted against. Such as: Lets keep Hillary above the law of treason and punishment so that others can do the same to us at random and get away with it too. There is white rage over what has been done to our white christian people and nation. Dark skinned minority rioters fighting against Donald Trump and white Christian America by attacking and killing whites and white cops in our streets with it all being justified and silenced by the enemy controlled Zionist/Jesuit media and their leftist politicians. So, don’t try to downplay it or soft-peddle it. Many of us whiteys are dog-tired of being robbed, supplanted, and killed off by the elitist Zionist/Jesuit/Islamic enemies 0f white christian America using the dark skinned minorities to help them facilitate their multicultural Marxist genocide against us as some twisted form of hedonistic liberation or leftist theological social justice. Now, this is very critical thinking…
FATHERS‘ MANIFESTO.net has been shutdown by our leftist enemies. A truly great white christian American website that will be missed by many. Another sad day for American freedom.
24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” John 7…
“A BASTARD shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD…. even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever.” Deuteronomy 23:2…
”The Mongrel sometimes believes he transcends Racial squabbles, and can see things clearer because he is comprised of two parts. But the Mongrel can never transcend anything because the Roots are Polluted and the Consciousness deformed. This is called The Curse of the Mongrel.”
It is in the mongrel nature to abuse women, (and animals) they are the product of mistreatment against women passed on from their fathers and ancestors as they all are products of rape and sneaky market selection – resulting in the most worthless ”men” you can imagine. Fat, dumb, impulsive, sugar-loving, base mongrel filth daring to talk about our (environmental relative) lousy women while theirs are filth themselves (environmental manifestation) with their twerking in mosques, anal obsession, big-mouthed vile talking and lack of initiative.
A conscious mongrel is like a tranny, it thinks he can choose his identity by feeeelz, then he is American (and tries to be seen as such by drinking American beer, as if drinking defines our culture and genes) and the other day he is a Shaka Zulu, the fact is, they have no roots and no potential expression except the lowest common denominator, just like secular-humanists lower everything to the sexual organs ”see, I told you he was human, he has a penis”.
”the mongrels did not bring their women with them, because they are “breeders” churning out more mongrels staying back, and sending a second wave of refugees in the next cycle.”
Tranny-mongrels don’t need wives and motherhood of traditions, they just grab it and abuse the women and think they already have our women as property.
Mongrels have no taste, that is their essence – mongrels are breeders, with whatever they breed, another tranny-mongrel comes out from it.
They have no age range, often enough don’t care about gender as well and the condition of the person; come on, they screw goats too.
Their procreation is not limited to any specific breed, regardless, it is: ”The Return of the Tyranny (mongrel) – the Cycle Continues”.
The North-American Ground Ape is even capable to become a trans-African-Egyptun semi-god in the streets of Detroit where we are still eagerly awaiting for pyramids, temples, arts and likewise architectural masterpieces to arise.
The reason for intended mongrelisation of the European peoples is to have a sampling of different human parts (pasts), and thus all gets lost like our (ancient) symbols in the excess and association to entertainment and emotional misinterpretations; different symbols to sample from as will be the reasoning for tranny-mongrels ( I am this and that and such, I am ”humanity united” ); a tranny-Frankenstein horde easy to manipulate and satisfy through past-less symbols and degenerating the superior (the hatred is obvious from the dark and mongrel hominid hordes, having disdain for our women yet desiring them).
Modern people belonging to the European breed are mongrels in spirit, they sample ideals, though similar to the main idea of equality and humanness, and use symbols as movie inspired Hollywood decorations without value, just as ”something nice to get”, wife and hubby ”connective symbols” which does not touch a single feeling, principle or own design that would indicate ”they stay together”, just as worthless as a random Modern putting a ring on the finger of the one (s)he is about to marry, a symbol only reminding their oath, showing others they have taken it (thus are possessed), but today it is the ring itself that is the centre value instead of the oath and intent with the ring merely as reminder and all other rituals to symbolize the past in continuation; for what is an oath without ritual, that is, the past of transferring – but the oath is nothing if the spirit is corrupt already, the ring is no more oath than a burger from McDonalds is actual food.
It has no value, it is no oath, nothing to remind the spirit to strive or take a stand, for others will recognize and identify (the symbols), closing doors and you have to build your own doorway, it all gets lost in ”this is just another symbol among the many” mentality.
Thus the Modern samples from different pasts of different human breeds but with the same value-system as their current Democratic system; the ‘’equal vote, equal say, equal share’’ corruption.
Mongols; they are hit and run rapists. You know why the Finnish Mari tribe in Russia are still preserved in pagan traditions?
The Mongols killed off all the males, raped the women and thus the women could do nothing else but to give birth to Mongol mongrel offspring with not a single man of their own ethnic tribe to kill the fruits of rape or to counter it by his own genetic input.
Muslim mongrels, when they rape, they also mind rape the offspring and potentially the conquered women. Hence the product of rape by Muslims extends the Islamic faith while by Mongols it merely extends their genetic input.
The (average) mongrel justifies his will to subjugate and conquer through victimhood mentality; the kind of sick mentality that gives him any ”moral right” to do whatever he pleases and relates to his ideals of anti-Europeanism.
He does not know what is coming, he thinks (current) ”Morality” is eternal or else replaced through his ”eternal” privileged position to breed and say whatever he wants on our soil among our people, and impose his value-system upon us.
We have nowhere to go but to fight these mongrel hordes on our ancestral lands and lands meant for our children to grow their fruits.
The Victimhood mentality is the same means as how Jews push their own interests; they complain about being the Chosen (eternal) victims, and should not be ridiculed or compared to other people’s such as the Armenians who suffered a lot.
Only they have the exclusive ”right” to be the Biggest Victim (all are Victims, but some are more Victim than others; except evil Europeans).
Complaining about being victims; yet, aren’t the Jews themselves selling their own Victimhood as a means of entertainment to be bought for 10$ as a cinema ticket for yet another movie centering around them, or a dvd, or a book (Hollywood, media, government, we barely have a say). Make a movie with a white catholic woman with a African looking stepson who will save the planet from aliens or a white protestant preacher with a lesbian daughter who likes Jewish women.
What is a mongrel but the product of Modern man-made leftist climate, the climate controlled alike in greenhouses. Insane it is to merely imagine, European man in the Ice Age, living in small high trust familial units to survive the cold breath of that Eternal Winter that has left its mark in us; and that out of the sudden, the dark skinned Homo Erectus came walking all the way from the South, with its pleasant climate in which it is easy to survive, that means, no need to migrate nor to survive, all the way North to the caves of Cro Magnon and just mate with each other in those dark sunless days with the absence of the sun’s warmth – to believe them to survive that migration, unadapted in every trait physically and mentally, to mix.
That is the insanity of miscegenation of the races: Tens of thousands of years of geo-isolated adaptations to the local climates and predators – and then to just mix and believe it to be healthy or at least without consequences, such as the degeneration of Cro Magnon or the weakening of climate manifested traits that can be seen as a racial immune system of whatever they endured to survive.
The mongrel is nothing but the symptom of insanity or even demonic possession and climatic degradation…
A mamzer is a mongrel
For this ye know, that no fornicator, nor mamzer, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, Ephesians 5:5
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD
Jews Claim Mamzer is “a matter of dispute“
While most jew references claim that God took Moses to the mountain for 40 days, commanded him to tell the Israelites to never permt a mamzer into His congregation, but forgot to tell Moses what a mamzer is, Israelite law makes it clear that a mamzer is the offspring of an Israelite who marries a non-Israelite, and that such offspring shall NEVER be permitted into the community.
WHAT GOD’S WORD REALLY SAYS
Wycliff translation states – De 23:2 A child borun of hordom schal not entrein to the chirche of the Lord, `til to the tenthe generacioun.
A mamzer shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD, Deuteronomy 23:2
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD forever: Deuteronomy 23:3
And mamzers shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines, Zechariah 9:6
Strong’s Lexicon H4464 ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ mamze^r mam-zare’ From an unused root mian. to alienate; a mongrel:
Dictionary.com — mamzer – \Mam”zer\, n. [Heb. m[‘a]mz?r.] A person born of relations between whom marriage was forbidden by the Mosaic law; –Deut. xxiii. 2 (Douay version).
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary — mon’grel (mun’grel), n. A cross between types of persons or things. adj. Of or pertaining to an impure or mixed breed or race.
Webster’s New World Dictionary — mon grel (mun’grel) adj. of mixed breed, race, origin, or character.
Merriam Webster Dictionary —monï¿½grel ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mnggrl, mng-) n. An animal or a plant resulting from various interbreedings, especially a dog of mixed or undetermined breed. A cross between different breeds, groups, or varieties, especially a mixture that is or appears to be incongruous. adj. Of mixed origin or character.
Webster’s 1821 Dictionary — MONGREL, a. [See Mingle.] Of a mixed breed; of different kinds.
Synonyms HYBRID, bastard, cross, crossbred, crossbreed, half blood, half-breed, mule
Matthew Henry Commentary on Deuteronomy 23
- Upon bastards and eunuchs, v. 1, 2. By bastards here the Jewish writers understand, not all that were born of fornication, or out of marriage, but all the issue of those incestuous mixtures which are forbidden, Lev. 18. And, though it was not the fault of the issue, yet, to deter people from those unlawful marriages and unlawful lusts, it was very convenient that their posterity should thus be made infamous. By this rule Jephthah, though the son of a harlot, a strange woman (Jdg. 11:1, 2), yet was not a bastard in the sense of this law.
It should be noted that this analysis depends upon the “strange woman” who was the mother of Jephthah, who was later allowed into the congregation of the LORD to have been a non-Israelite, but the mere fact that Jephthah was NOT excluded is proof positive that she was an Israelite. Jephthah was a “bastard” by the modern English definition of being the offspring of unmarried parents, but he was not a mamzer, or mongrel, or offspring of mixed race parentage.
WHERE ARE MAMZERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
They are, but they’re hidden behind the Greek words “akathartos” and “akatharsia”, which are usually mistranslated by KJV translators as “unclean spirit” and “uncleanness”, rather than mamzer or mongrel, and mongrelization, and which are misrepresented by dictionaries and concordances like Strong’s who have kept so many in the dark about the real meaning for so long.
Akathartos and akatharsia
WHO ARE THE MAMZERS
Christ Claimed jews were Mamzers: Ye do the deeds of your ancestor. Then said they to him, We be not born of miscegenation; we have one ancestry, God [of Abraham], Joh 8:41 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Joh 8:48
CAIN WAS A MAMZER
“Cain having been Born First sought to claim the Right of the FIRSTBORN, that is Inherit the DOMINION OF THIS EARTH! Because He was not born within the LAW of Kind after His Kind, Cain was DISINHERITED from the BIRTHRIGHT. Cain was a bastard (Mamzer) mongrel (OUT OF KIND) being or Seed. As such he could never enter into the CONGREGATION of the Eternal God (Deut. 23:2) Because Satan sought to get his seed into the earth as the Firstborn of the Adamic Creation…The FIRSTBORN was subsequently passed over by God in all critical times of history and we find that SETH and not Cain was chosen.”
WAS REHOBOAM A MAMZER?
Was it because Rehoboam was a mamzer that the House of Israel split up from the House of Judah:
1Ki 14:31 And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Abijam his son reigned in his stead.
ARIEL SHARON IS A MAMZER
Don’t wait for Passover, do it now! Crucify Ariel Sharon and I don’t mean figuratively. Lay that mamzer down and nail his vile butt to a stick. Dig a hole and plant this son of a dog on Haram as-Sharif/ Temple Mount and give 12-year-old Mohammed al-Durah’s mother and father nice, long spears.
CALLING JESUS A MAMZER IS BLASPHEMY
A Jew or judeo-christian who claims that Christ was a jew commits the only unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the holy spirit.
RUTH WAS NOT A MAMZER
Ruth was not a mamzer. Had Ruth been a mamzer rather than a pure Israelite, she could not have entered the congregation of the LORD, much less become a kinsman redeemer.
UN ATTEMPTS TO LEGALIZE MAMZERS
UN Law: “No discrimination by reason of race…shall be admitted in the enjoyment…of…citizenship rights…”
God’s Law: “A bastard (Heb: mamzer-mixed bread, mongrel) shall not enter into the congregation of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 23:2; Margin note by the reformers in the Geneva Bible 1599).
“This was to cause them to live chastely, that their posterity might not be rejected.”
Jews ATTEMPT TO REDEFINE “MAMZER”
Expert Rabbi Weinbach:
“But what exactly is a mamzer? [Strong’s] defines a mamzer as a child born from parents whose union is forbidden by law. How serious the violation must be to produce a mamzer is a matter of dispute.”
This is not correct. There’s no dispute in English nor with Israelites. The only possible dispute may be with jews who are mamzers themselves who don’t like the Israelite definition of the word. In the minds of those who follow the Holy Bible, though, jewish prevarication aside, a mamzer remains a mongrel, or the offspring of mixed race parents.
What is the legal definition of a “mamzer” (a.k.a. bastard)?
“A mamzer is the product of incestuous relations or adultery. (A child born out of wedlock is not a mamzer).
Aside for the fact that a mamzer may only marry a spouse of the same ilk, a mamzer is a full-fledged Jew in all respects. In fact our sages tell us ‘A mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence (in accorded respect, etc.) over an ignorant high-priest!’ The prohibition of a mamzer marrying an ordinary Jew is in Deuteronomy 23:3. The laws of the mamzer are scattered throughout the Talmud (see, for example, Yevamos 49a-b, 69a, 78b, 87b, Kiddushin 67b and 73a). They are codified in Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Relations ch. 15, and Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer, ch. 4.”
This too is not correct, but it does provide an excellent insight into what’s wrong with the jewish “cultures” around the world, and why they have such a conflict with Israelites and Christians and Muslims who actually DO follow the Torah. What kind of a society could survive if mamzers “take precedence (in accorded respect, etc.) over an ignorant” person of pure racial ancestry? This is 100% contradictory to the Israelite law described in the Holy Bible.
By Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn
“There is no more unpleasant word in Judaism than “mamzer,” or bastard. A child born of adultery or incest is a mamzer, or bastard, and may not enter the Israelite Community with marriage. A mamzer may marry another mamzer or a convert to Judaism. Some bastards have become Torah scholars, as the Mishneh teachers, ‘Greater is the bastard sage than the High Priest ignoramus.’ Nonetheless, the holy Jewish strain cannot tolerate a link with such a product of sin.”
Again, jewish “experts” themselves prove that jewish law is 100% contradictory to and in violation of Israelite law:
- Where a non-jew can “convert to Judaism”, Israelite law has no such provision.
- Where jewish law holds such a “convert” in such low esteem that they can marry only another “mamzer”, Israelite law prohibits such a scenario from even occurring.
- Where jewish law considers a “bastard”, or the offspring unmarried parents, to be a “mamzer”, Israelite law has no such provision and in fact does NOT prohibit them from entering the congregation of the LORD.
- Where this rabbi prevaricates by claiming jews “cannot tolerate a link with such a product of sin” in an article in which he tolerates it, Israelite law is specific about banning mixed race children from the congregation of the LORD.
- Over the centuries, jewish genealogy was inevitibly [further] corrupted by permitting a “bastard sage” who was born from incest to be “greater” than a “racially pure” jew, in direct conflict with Israelite law which calls for those who commit incest to be put to death:
- Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Rabbi Eidensohn couldn’t have done a better job of demonstrating the moral turpitude of the jews than he did with this one paragraph. The Torah, or Pentateuch, or Mosaic Law, or the first five books of the Holy Bible, is Israelite Law, not “jewish law”. The “jewish law” referred to in some dictionaries is contained in the Talmud and not the Torah. The Torah was written by, for, and about the house of Israel and contains all the information necessary for Israelites to comprehend what a mamzer is, and why they were prohibited from entering the congregation of the LORD, even to the tenth generation.
A mamzer is inaccurately defined in most if not all modern dictionaries as being the offspring of any of the following three types, but according to Scripture, only one definition is corrrect:
- Offspring born of unmarried parents, or bastard.
- Offspring born in incest.
- Offspring of an Israelite who marries a non-Israelite, or mongrel.
Even though there were financial disincentives in inheritance laws which kept marriages between Tribes of the Twelve Tribes of Israel to a select few, they weren’t forbidden by Mosaic Law, so their offspring are not mamzers. It’s proclaimed by jews that Israelites are jews, meaning that Mosaic Law prohibits jews from marrying non-jews. But from the Israelite perspective, this law prohibits marriage between Israelites and jews whom Christ proclaimed to be mamzers.
Unwittingly, the following critic of the “inerrant” of the Holy Bible provided all the evidence from Scripture we need to establish that the only offspring who is a mamzer is the offspring of an interracial marriage. He proved that Scriber’s Dictionary of the Bible, which takes the position that mamzer “means a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child”, is wrong on both counts.
NEITHER BASTARDS NOR OFFSPRING OF INCEST ARE MAMZERS, ONLY OFFSPRING OF INTERACIAL MARRIAGES ARE
The detractors are correct when they claim that, by Israelite law, had Ruth been a non-Israelite, and had Boaz the Israelite married her, then their offpsring would have been mamzers who could not have entered the congregation of the LORD, even to the tenth generation. The fact that all of her descendants described in the Holy Bible, who include David and Jesus Christ, were certainly permitted into the congregation of the LORD, is proof enough that Ruth was an Israelite. Please see the comments below in red for additional comments.
WHY DO ISRAELITES AND JEWS DISAGREE SO MUCH?
While the Holy Bible illustrates that Israelites view the children of mixed race parents as mamzers, this definition is not even included in jewish sources, and instead jews assert that the Israelites who spoke precise Hebrew which made their laws and customs the most widely understood in world history used a word which “was hotly disputed both among the early sages, down to Rabbi Judah”. To resolve this dilemma, the oh so gracious jews decided to take it upon themselves to alter the Torah, make a great leap of logic, refute God’s Eternal Law, and LIE about Jephthah being born of mixed race parentage. The reality is that Jephthah was a bastard in the modern English definition of the word of having an Israelite father who was not married to his Israelite mother, rather than in the old English definition of being born of mixed race parentage:
In the English use of the word, a child neither born nor begotten in lawful wedlock; an illegitimate child. There is no Hebrew word of like meaning. The mamzer, rendered “bastard” in the A. V., is something worse than an illegitimate child. He is the offspring of a father and mother between whom there could be in law no binding betrothal: issuing either from adultery between a married woman and a man other than her husband, or from incest within the forbidden degrees of kinship or affinity defined in Lev. xviii. and xx. The child of a marriage simply forbidden, as that between a cohen and a divorced woman, is legitimate but “profane”; that is, a son can not officiate as a priest, a daughter is not eligible to marry a priest. But a mamzer, according to Deut. xxiii. 3, must not “enter the congregation of the Lord,” that is, marry an Israelite woman, “nor shall his tenth generation enter,” etc., which includes also the female mamzer (?id. iii. 12; Mak. iii. 1). The older Halakah, however, was more rigorous, Akiba declaring any child of a forbidden connection a mamzer (Yeb. iv. 12, 13; Yer. ib. 6b; Bab. ib. 44a, 49a).
Whether the child of a daughter of Israel and of a Gentile or bondman is a mamzer or not, was hotly disputed both among the early sages, down to Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, and among the later teachers in Palestine and in Babylonia (Yeb. 23a, 45a). But the rule finally adopted is that such a child is not a mamzer, even when the mother is a married woman. This is the decision in the modern code (Shul?an ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 4. 19), though it is admitted that the child is unfit for the priesthood. Maimonides decides to the same effect (Issure Biah, xv. 3). The law laid down in Deuteronomy against the mamzer and against his distant offspring seemed so harsh that every opportunity was taken to confine it to the narrowest limits.
Where incest or adultery takes place among Gentiles, and the offspring embraces Judaism, the flaw in his descent is ignored. He is not deemed a mamzer (Shul?an ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 4, 21). The child of an Israelite by an unconverted Gentile mother is a Gentile, and when converted becomes an Israelite to all purposes, without regard to his father.
As shown under Agnates, the illegitimate child of a Jew (unless born of a Gentile woman or a bond-woman), even a mamzer, inherits from his natural father and other kindred (for example, his father’s legitimate sons), just as if he were legitimate; the words of Scripture, “if he have no son” (Num. xxvii. 8), being taken literally “a son from any source,” except the son of a Gentile or bondwoman, who follows the status of his mother (Yeb. ii. 5); and the child being bound by all duties flowing from his or her natural kinship.
This construction of the law runs counter to ancient popular sentiment, which crops out in the historic books. The legitimate sons of Gilead drove Jephthah from his home because he was the “sï¿½n of another woman” (Judges xi. 2). Where a child is born in wedlock, the presumption in favor of its being the offspring of the husband is very strong, as in other systems of law. The Roman law says: “pater est quem justï¿½ nuptiï¿½ demonstrant.” But the Jewish law, unlike the English common law, does not uphold this presumption when the child is born so soon after the nuptials (“nissu’im”) that it must have been begotten before them. Even when the date of birth points to conception after the betrothal (“erusin”)—which in olden times preceded the wedding by several months—the presumption of the betrothed man being the father is comparatively weak, as a connection between him and the bride while she is “at her father’s house,” though not a deadly sin on the part of either, is an act of lewdness (Shul?an ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 4, 27; see Ket. 36a).
On the general principle that a person’s confession of his or her own turpitude is not admissible as legal testimony, the wife and mother can not, by her assertion, stamp her offspring as an adulterine Bastard. For the rules of presumption and evidence in cases of doubt, see Shul?an ‘Aruk, Eben ha-‘Ezer, 4, 14-16.
What Was [read: is] a “Mamzer”? Farrell Till…
Despite various challenges we have issued for someone to write an article in response to “No Bastards Allowed” (TSR, Spring 1994, pp. 7, 12, 16), no one has yet accepted the challenge. This article focused on problems for the Bible inerrancy doctrine raised by Deuteronomy 23:2, which prohibited bastards from entering the assembly of Yahweh “even to the tenth generation.” A central point of the article focused on the issue of Aaron’s sons, whom Yahweh ordained to serve as priests in his assembly (Num. 3:1-3), even though they were fifth-generation descendants of the bastard Perez through their mother Elisheba (Gen. 38:24-30, Ruth 4:18; Ex. 6:23). At my debate with Jerry Moffitt last May, Marion Fox, Moffitt’s moderator, told the audience that he would write an article that would present some “good answers” to the problem, but we have yet to hear from Mr. Fox. With so many “good answers” at his disposal, we have to wonder why he wouldn’t have submitted his article by now. Perhaps he, like Lindell Mitchell, doesn’t want to humiliate me publicly.
Despite the loud silence on this issue from those we have directly challenged to explain why Deuteronomy 23:2 doesn’t destroy the myth of Bible inerrancy, we did receive two letters from subscribers who proposed similar solutions to the problem. Their explanation centered on the meaning of the Hebrew word mamzer, which is translated “bastard” in this verse. According to both letter-writers, the word didn’t mean “bastard” in the sense that we assign the word in English. A mamzer, we were assured, was someone “born of a forbidden marriage.”
Both letter-writers cited two authorities in support of their position, Strong’s Concordance and the NIV Bible. Strong states that mamzer is “from an unused root, meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e., born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother:–bastard,” and the NIV renders Deuteronomy 23:2 like this: “No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.” Hence, the letter-writers concluded, only those born of forbidden marriages were banned from the assembly and not “bastards” in the English sense of the word. Both Elisheba and Aaron were of Jewish [sic] descent; therefore, Elisheba’s sons were not mamzers and were qualified to enter into the assembly of Yahweh.
Obviously, a lot depends upon the meaning of mamzer, so we need to take a careful look at the word. It appears only twice in the Old Testament (Dt. 23:2 and Zech. 9:6), and both times it is translated bastard in the KJV and ASV. Most other versions translate it bastard or equivalent in Deuteronomy 23:2, but some of them give it the sense of “strangers,” or “mongrels” in Zechariah 9:6. In defining “bastard,” Eerdmans Bible Dictionary also indicated a degree of uncertainty:
A name given to those begotten in adultery or incest (Heb. mamzer, Deut. 23:2; NIV “born of a forbidden marriage”). This violation of marriage was such a serious offense that such persons and their descendants were denied admission to the assembly of the LORD, first in the temple and later in the synagogue, to the “tenth generation” (Deut. 23:2)–i.e., forever. At Zech 9:6 “a mongrel people” [KJV, JB “bastard”; NIV “foreigners”] refers to a nation of mixed population (1987, p. 129).
Scriber’s Dictionary of the Bible takes the position that mamzer “means a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child” (Vol. 1, 1923, p. 257).
So what did the Hebrew word mamzer mean? Scholarship offers us three choices: a person born of adultery, a person born of incest, or a person born of a forbidden or mixed marriage. Unfortunately for our inerrantist friends, we can give them their choice of definitions and it won’t matter, because all of the definitions pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. Elsewhere in this issue, my article “More Trouble for the Perfect-Harmony Theory” shows serious inconsistency between the biblical claim that God doesn’t show partiality to individuals and several passages that indicate he did on various occasions show partiality. As an example of partiality, I noted the very passage that we are now discussing–Deuteronomy 23:2. If an individual were banned from the assembly because of a circumstance of birth, it really wouldn’t matter whether the person being banned had been born of adultery, incest, or a “forbidden (mixed) marriage.” Any one of these reasons would make Yahweh guilty of showing partiality, because people simply cannot help the circumstances of their birth. If they are born of adultery, incest, or mixed marriages, there is nothing they can do about it. So what business does an infinitely impartial god have banning people from his assembly because of circumstances related to birth? This is something inerrantists need to explain before any other problems related to Deuteronomy 23:2 are even considered.
Claiming that God doesn’t show partiality is a straw man argument, because the Holy Bible is the story about a VERY partial, judgmental, and dangerous God, one who made a “racist” everlasting covenant with only ONE race, the genetic descendants of Jacob. God has no obligation to treat mamzers favorably, even if mamzers don’t have any control over the interracial marriages of their ancestors, and in fact God treats them with utter contempt, just as He should.
Something else they should try to explain is why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would choose to reveal his divine truths to mankind in an “inspired” book that no one can be sure of understanding. What does mamzer mean? If the meaning of the word is indeed obscure, this would be just the tip of an iceberg of linguistic confusion that one will encounter in studying the Bible. One may as well ask what was meant in Leviticus 6:21 or 1 Samuel 13:21 or Jeremiah 11:15 or Proverbs 22:20. These are just some of many Old Testament passages where detailed reference Bibles append footnotes to explain that some words in the Hebrew text are too obscure for translators to be sure of the meaning. In countless other cases, even when literal word-meanings are known, the language of the Bible is so vaguely and abstractly written that no one can be sure what the writers meant. Consider, for example, this statement from the prophet Ezekiel:
Then I looked , and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves’ feet. They sparkled like the color of burnished bronze. The hands of a man were under their wings on their four sides; and each of the four had faces and wings. Their wings touched one another. The creatures did not turn when they went, but each one went straight forward… (1:4-9).
This vision of the four living creatures goes on for three chapters–in fact, it’s questionable where this vision ended and the next one began–and no one really knows what any of it meant. Such stuff as this has provided an endless supply of sermon fodder for preachers on cable TV who think they see signs of the end in current events–and no two ever see exactly the same thing.
This is another straw man argument, because Farrell doesn’t even know what God’s original charges, commandments, statutes, and laws were, the ones that encouraged God to make an everlasting covenant with Abraham through Jacob. The problem isn’t God, and the problem isn’t God’s words–the problem is mamzers and jews who couldn’t possibly comprehend what hundreds of millions of descendants of Jacob DID understand for thousands of years, and critics who will forever fail to grasp the limitations of their insight.
In reading such passages as this, one wonders what the writers were smoking or drinking when they wrote them, and we have every right to ask if this is the best job of verbal inspiration that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could do. Whoever wrote Deuteronomy 23:2 had to mean something by the words he used, so if he were truly inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why couldn’t he have said what he meant in terms so clear that no one could have misunderstood him?
The Scripture appears confusing only because it was written in such a way that the only people who can understand it are Israelites of the House of Israel, and not mamzers like jews, or “errancy advocates”.
The problems of divine partiality and obscurity in an inspired text aside, the statement in Deuteronomy 23:2 is incompatible with the biblical inerrancy claim regardless of which of the three previously mentioned meanings is given to the word mamzer. If the writer meant bastard in the sense of someone born of an adulterous relationship, then unquestionably, the appointment of Aaron’s sons to the priesthood was inconsistent with Yahweh’s decree that “bastards” would be banned from the assembly “even unto ten generations.” That point has already been established, so there is no need to rehash it.
The point here is that mamzers would only be the offspring of an “adulterous relationship” if critics like Farrell knew that adultery actually means race mixing. Since he probably doesn’t, his reference to adultery is most likely to a child conceived during an extramarital affair between two parents of the same race, in which case he is correct: this would make them a bastard and not a mamzer.
To claim that a mamzer was the offspring of an incestuous relationship will not remove the problem with respect to Aaron’s sons, because Perez, the great-great-grandfather of Aaron’s wife Elisheba, was, according to Jewish [sic] law, born of an incestuous relationship. Tamar, the mother of Perez, was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the father of Perez, and Leviticus 20:12 specifically prohibited “lying” with one’s daughter-in-law, as did also Leviticus 18:15. So if Perez was not a mamzer in the sense of mere illegitimacy, he was a mamzer in the sense of having been born of an incestuous relationship.
Fortunately for humanity, Farrell just tripped over the evidence that Scriber’s Dictionary of the Bible’s definition that a mamzer is “a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child” is wrong, not that the Holy Bible is in error. The simple fact that Perez was born in incest but was still permitted to remain in the congregation of the LORD is proof enough that he was not considered to be a mamzer, ruling out the possibility that a child born of incest is a mamzer.
Inerrantists can’t take refuge in the third definition of mamzer either, for if the offspring of mixed marriages was what the writer meant in Deuteronomy 23:2, the problem of inconsistency will merely shift from Aaron’s sons to David, the Israelite king who was a man after Yahweh’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). Ruth, David’s great-grandmother, was a Moabitess (Ruth 4:13-22), so if a mamzer was the offspring of a mixed marriage, then David’s grandfather Obed was a mamzer, and David, only the second-generation descendant of a mamzer should have been banned from the assembly. Obviously, though, David wasn’t banned from the assembly, because the last seven chapters of 1 Chronicles describes activities in the assembly in which David participated.
Again, fortunately for humanity, we know that Ruth WAS an Israelite living in Moab whose inhabitants had been “totally destroyed” centuries before, meaning that the only Moabites at the time of Ruth were Israelites living in Moab.
Fortunately, also, this is the final piece of evidence that the ONLY offspring who is a mamzer who cannot eneter the congregation of the LORD even to the tenth generation is one born of an interracial marriage, and not one born of unmarried parents or incest.
Furthermore, if a mamzer was indeed the offspring of a mixed marriage, then David’s parentage was a double problem for him. Not only would the restriction on descendants of mamzers have disqualified him from entering the assembly, but the same passage specified that Moabites and their descendants “shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation” (Dt. 23:3). So poor David would have had a double whammy pronounced on him. However, the fact that neither of these restrictions was applied to David simply shows how inconsistent the biblical text is.
Checkmate. David was a pure Israelite, just as God’s Law commanded that he must be, and mamzers are ONLY the offspring of interracial marriages just as we suspected.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for inerrantists. They dig and dig to try to get out of the hole they are in only to find themselves in a deeper one after they have presented all of their how-it-could-have-been scenarios.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for errantists. They dig and dig to try to get out of the hole they are in only to find themselves in a deeper one after they have presented all of their how-it-could-have-been scenarios.
Hmm, is there an echo in the house?
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 Ammonites 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 nonpersuaded, 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.
10 This word may be found in the Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary under the reference number 4464.
11 World-Wide German Dictionary.
The Sixth Commandment
In Exodus 20:13 (LXX), we find the sixth commandment1, 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 translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: “You will not mongrelize.”
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 mongrelization. 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 mongrelization. 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 Testaments, 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 degeneration 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.
1 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 Masoretic 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. |
2 In the German original, Theologisches Wï¿½rterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: “auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen.”
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 Wï¿½rterbuch, a Greek-German Lexicon by Hjalmar Frisk (1973), he defines the word with the German “verfï¿½lschen,” 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, spurious.” 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 commentaries) 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-Grï¿½co-Latinum Novi Testamenti by Andrew Symson (1658), under the entry “adulterer” for the Greek word moichos: “it maketh a confusion in families, through an illegitimate 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 understood 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 Translation 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.”
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 Wï¿½rterbuch (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 Ausgestoï¿½ene 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 Testament, 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 erwï¿½rgen 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.
12 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.
“bastard,” 1562, from L.L. mamzer, from Heb. mamzer, left untranslated in Deut. xxiii.2 in the Vulgate.
A base-born man either resembles in character his father, or his mother, or both; he can never conceal his real nature. That nation in which such bastards, sullying (the purity of) the castes, are born, perishes quickly together with its inhabitants.
Genetic heritage is paramount in the Old Testament, and genealogies were used as proofs of untainted bloodlines. There are unmistakable passages condemning mixed marriages. The Bible goes on to say to Israelites who marry non-Israelites, “so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you.” (Deuteronomy 7:4) It is worth noting that there is considerable doubt expressed in the Torah about the status of the offspring of an Israelite (male or female) married to a non-Israelite, with the Torah pronouncing the offspring mamzers (bastards) following the (non-Israelite) status of the father or mother. It is written in the Torah that “No mamzer shall enter the congregation of the Lord.” (Deut. 23:3.).
A mamzer is created in two sorts of situations:
- A child born to a mother or father either of them mamzerim, or
- When two people who are not mamzerim but cannot marry each other under Torah law have a child together.
Israelite law does not allow mixed marriages. The children of such marriages are illegitimate (mamzer) under Israelite law. It is the mamzer’s parents who have participated in the adulterous union, but the mamzer himself (or herself) who is barred from marriage within the Israelite community.
Bastard: In the Old Testament the rendering of the Hebrew word mamzer’ , which means “polluted.” In Deuteronomy 23:2, it occurs in the ordinary sense of illegitimate offspring (the offspring of a prohibited union or marriage). He and his descendants to the tenth generation are excluded from the assembly of the Lord. In Zechariah 9:6, the word is used in the sense of foreigner. Zechariah, after prophesying the overthrow of three Philistine cities, declares of the fourth: “And a bastard (the Revised Version, “a bastard race”) shall dwell in Ashdod,” meaning that a “mixed population” (BDB) of aliens shall invade and settle in the capital of the Philistines. In Hebrews 12:8, the word (Gr. nothoi) is used in its ordinary sense, and denotes those who do not share the privileges of God’s children.
The Old Testament clearly decries the mixing of the “holy seed of Israel”. Ezra’s racialist motivation can be seen by his exclusive concern with Israelite men marrying foreign women because the children of unions with Israelite men would be brought up in the Israelite community while those of an Israelite female marrying a foreigner would be lost to the community. Moreover, despite the concentration on investigating female relatives to assure family purity, the goal was to maintain the purity of the male line. Ezra goes on to list 107 men who renounced their foreign wives and their children by them as part of their obedience to God.
Racial purity is encoded in sexual purity, which is possessed by women and enforced by men, and miscegenation is a violation of both. From the corruption of women chaos of genes and castes results. This admixture of genes gives rise of a population of undesirable (mixed) progeny completely eradicating the time honored spiritual traditions of the family and nobility of lineage. Good population in human society is the basic principle for peace, prosperity and spiritual progress in life. The orders of society (the social system of sanctified occupational and spiritual orders) were so designed that the good population would prevail in society for the general spiritual progress of state and community. Such population depends on the chastity and faithfulness of its womanhood. He who carefully guards his wife, preserves (the purity of) his offspring, virtuous conduct, his family, himself, and his (means of acquiring) merit. As the male is to whom a wife cleaves, even so is the son whom she brings forth; let him therefore carefully guard his wife, in order to keep his offspring pure.
On the failure of such system of social divisions (the divine system of occupational and spiritual orders of society), unwanted children flood the human race at the risk of war and pestilence. When we shatter the ideals enshrined in immemorial traditions, when we disturb the social equilibrium, we only bring chaos into the world. From the pollution of blood proceeds the confusion of races, from the confusion of races, the loss of memory, from the loss of memory, the loss of understanding, and from this, all evil: culture and race alike perish, giving rise to chaos of castes and a confusion of genetic and cultural identity in society.
When women lose their genetic purity, degeneration of the stock follows. The body affected by genetic degradation is no longer capable of efficient activity. There is a decline of good health and beauty, and the energy levels also deviate from their original form. The respective family customs and caste duties from time immemorial thus cannot be performed properly, leading to a state of chaotic frustration.
The most aggravated case of doubt is connected with male insecurity about paternity. One scholar, McKane, exaggerates the link between jealousy and offspring by asserting that the purpose of the biblical text is to resolve cases of doubtful paternity: “We have to suppose a situation where a woman is pregnant and her husband has doubts whether he is the father of the child: this is the nature of his jealousy.” The possible consequences if a pregnant suspected adulteress is guilty are dire. The child of her illicit extramarital union is considered by the biblical text to be a mamzer, a “bastard.” S/He and her/his offspring are prohibited from entering into the community of Israel for ten generations. Therefore, the fate of many people was potentially to be decided by means of the application of this text. The process of seeking the hidden truth about a secret act itself reveals meaningful insights into ritual, power, and gender relations in the biblical corpus.
Considerations of purity in the adultery matrix imply a link between sexual relationships and relationships with God. One purpose of the holiness codes that pertain to every aspect of ritual, sexual, culinary, and burial functions is to ensure that the community is fit for encounter and engagement with God at the heart of the camp of Israel. Purification cycles were observed in order to enable intimate contact with holiness.
Patriarchal cultures have consistently deterred women from adultery and enforced adherence to codes of fidelity through moral and religious sanction, legislation, and, in some cases, brutality. Psychoanalytic traditions investigate deep structural causes of cultural behaviors, norms, and institutions. Here, I use feminist analytic theory to interpret the problematic gender roles manifest in the sotah (suspected adulteress) texts. The sotah texts are constitutive of, as well as a symptom of, gender identity. They reinforce gender roles by inscribing them in a canonical sacred tradition; they also manifest underlying fears, power relations, and symbolic structures. One of the implicit features of adultery is the possibility of illegitimate children. Controlling indeterminate paternity has been essential to the stability of patriarchal society. Alice Jardine lists among the narratives that have forged our sense of legitimacy in the West: “the link between father and son, the necessary paternal fiction, the ability to decide who is the father.”
A significant component of mature male gender identity is sexual potency to procreate. Whereas women are the obvious mothers of progeny, fathers are necessarily imputed. Masculinity, as expressed by differentiation from the feminine and sexual potency to father, is therefore more vulnerable than femininity and requires more assertion by means of patrilineality, patriarchy, and phallocentrism, for example. Struggles for male power and authority are expressed through complex gender relationships in intimate, social, legal, political, and religious domains. The more that masculine and feminine genders are polarized in any given culture, the more that they oppose each other through struggles to express potency.
Adultery represents a failure of the man as a masculine figure, as a sexual partner, and as a father and authority over his progeny.
It is commanded in the Book of Deuteronomy that a mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh even to the tenth generation. It is clear, then, that a mamzer is the offspring of a union not permitted under Israelite law. A mamzer, male or female, may marry only another mamzer. If a man not a mamzer marries a female mamzer (mamzeret), or a male mamzer marries a woman who is not a mamzeret, the marriage, once performed, is regarded as valid even though, according to the law, it was a prohibited marriage, and if the husband divorces his mamzeret wife, or leaves her a widow, she is entitled to the money promised her in the ketubah for such an eventuality. However, the children of such a marriage are mamzerim, and so are the descendants of these children for generations to come. They are set apart from their people, as it were, because none except other mamzerim are permitted to marry them.
Knowledge of the Torah changed nothing; the mamzer who mastered the Torah remained in the caste of the mamzer, so that while if he lost his ass along with others, his would be returned first, still, he could not marry the daughter of an Israelite. That means the transformation in no way affected the being of the man, but only his virtue. A mamzer who studies Torah remains a mamzer unfit to marry an Israelite.