The Genealogy of Jesus Christ, Jesus’ Bible, The Virgin Birth, Jesus Was Not A Jew, And Other Things Jews Deny, Gestational Evolution, and The Value of Pi and Biblical Inerrancy

The Genealogy of Jesus

The purpose of this article is to discuss the genealogical record given for Jesus in the New Testament in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and to refute some popular misconceptions and Antichrists criticisms of the genealogical record. Many of the problems relating to misunderstanding the genealogies of Jesus are due to the usage of the Talmudic Jew-corrupted Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint, which was the Bible of Christ and the Apostles and all early Christians. That this is a fact is demonstrated by the genealogies, particularly the genealogy of Mariam (Mary) given in Luke 3 (see Table).

Before proving the accuracy and Christian usage of the Septuagint and the opposite for the Masoretic Text, it should first be understood that the Matthaic and Lucian genealogies are different. The reason that they are different is that the genealogy given in Matthew 1 is the genealogy of Joseph, and that genealogy is abbreviated since it is not of the same importance as is Mariam’s genealogy (because, of course, Joseph was not a biological contributor to Jesus, as was Mariam). Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Mariam, and it is complete, generation upon generation, all the way back to Adam.

It is in the genealogy of Mariam in Luke 3 that we find confirmation for the Christian usage of the Greek Septuagint and a repudiation of the Masoretic Text. This involves Cainan (64), son of Arphaxad (65), and father of Salah (63). Luke 3:35-36 (AST) reads:

“… of Eber, of Salah, of Cainan, of Arphaxad, of Shem…”

There is no question regarding this reading in the Greek manuscripts. This is definitely the original genealogy as given by Luke. The problem occurs when we go to the Old Testament to confirm this genealogy. In the Hebrew Masoretic Text, this genealogy is found in Genesis 11:11-15, which reads in the King James Version:

“And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years and begat Salah. And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber. And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.”

This verse in the Hebrew directly contradicts Luke by omitting the generation which would contain Cainan. More than this, the wording of the Hebrew makes it impossible to assume that there could be another generation inserted. In other words, in some genealogies in the Bible, such as the genealogy of Joseph in Matthew 1, some generations are omitted, and the genealogy basically records the more important people in the genealogy and the gaps can be filled in by studying other Scriptures. However, here in Genesis, the specific documentation of the ages of each person and the ages when the child was born excludes the possibility that a generation might have been passed over. So if the Hebrew Masoretic Text is used, then Luke must have been wrong when he included Cainan in the genealogy of Mariam. But the problem is not with the divinely-inspired Gospel of Luke, but the problem is with the Jew-corrupted Masoretic Text.

When we consult the Greek Septuagint for this same passage in Genesis, we read:

“And Sem lived after he had begotten Arphaxad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters and died. And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan. And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan four hundred years , and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Canaan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters, and died. And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years and begot Heber. And Sala lived after he had begotten Heber three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.”

Thus, we notice that not only is the Cainan generation included in accordance with the Lucian genealogy, but also the years of several of the generations are different, which creates a different chronology going all the way back to Adam (see “Gestational Evolution” below). Thus, the irreconcilable contradiction that exists in the King James Version and other Bibles based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text is not a problem when we use the Scriptures which were actually used by the Apostles and Jesus Christ and the Christian Church, that is, the Greek Septuagint. Therefore, any apparent contradictions that are raised by Jewish antichrists regarding the genealogy of Jesus based upon readings of the Hebrew Masoretic Text are immediately discredited. We will begin to look at some of these blasphemous contentions, quoting from a letter from such an antichrist and dealing with each of his points. The quotes from this blasphemous letter will be marked by a line to the right.

The first objection involves the virgin birth of Christ.

“Then in verse 16 [Matthew] goes on to say, ‘and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, OF WHOM was born Jesus…’ So it is clear that this is Jesus’ genealogy and then we go on to see that Joseph is put down as Jesus’ biological father. That is the only way to take this verse – in a literal sense. There is NO indication to take it otherwise. Š The subordinate clause is, ‘was born Jesus,’ the subject and main clause is, ‘Joseph the husband of Mary.’ So we can see clearly that Matthew, a writer inspired by God, either made one BIG mistake, or he did NOT believe that Jesus was supernaturally born, or he had never even heard of the ‘divine birth.'”

All of these blasphemous contentions are absurd. This antichrist is trying to prove with his poor understanding of English grammar that the relative phrase “of whom” refers to Joseph and not Mariam, and therefore he is arguing that Matthew states that Jesus was literally born to Joseph. But leaving aside his absurd and unfounded interpretation of the English grammatical construction, we may easily refute this contention by examining the grammar of the original Greek, which leaves no room for ambiguity due to the highly precise nature of the Greek language.

In the AST, this verse reads: “…and Jacob fathered Joseph, the man of Mariam, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Anointed.” The central point of the antichrist’s argument is the phrase “of whom.” These words are translated for the Greek ex es, and es is the genitive, singular, feminine pronoun. In other words the subject of the word whom must be only one person, and that person must be female. This means that the subject is Mariam. Had Matthew wished to include Joseph, he would have used the masculine plural, genitive pronoun, or if he had meant only Joseph, he would have used the masculine singular, genitive pronoun. But by using the precise word that he did, he left no doubt that he was only referring to Mariam when speaking here of the birth of Christ. So the antichrist who made this contention immediately demonstrates himself to be unqualified to speak on the subject matter and either incredibly ignorant or willfully deceptive.

As far as the last two claims of this antichrist are concerned, that is, that Matthew either did not believe in or had not heard of the virgin birth, these blasphemous contentions too are easily refuted by reading only two verses later in the first chapter of Matthew (1:18-23 AST):

“Now the birth of Jesus Anointed was thus: (for His mother Mariam had been betrothed to Joseph) before they came together, she was discovered to be pregnant in the womb by the Mentality of Separation. Š Now all this happened so that might be fulfilled that spoken by the Master through the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, the virgin will conceive in womb and will bear a Son, and they will call His name Emmanuel,’ which is, translated, ‘God with us.’


The Genealogical Table of Jesus Christ

The Genealogical Table of Jesus Christ

These verses show precisely what Matthew believed regarding the virgin birth, and even if verse 16 was ambiguous, which it most certainly is not, then these verses leave no room for doubt regarding the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. However, as we shall see, the favorite tactic of our Antichrist Accuser is to take verses out of context and/or misquote them in order to promote his Jewish contentions.

This antichrist’s next point regarding the virgin birth involves the parallel to Matthew in Luke. He says:

“Luke chapter 3 states Jesus’ genealogy also. Luke 3:23 states, ‘And Jesus being about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) THE SON OF JOSEPH, which was the son of HeliŠ’ There is already a contradiction. Matthew states Jacob as Joseph’s father and Luke states Heli as his father. Besides that it does say that Jesus was Joseph’s son.”

This Antichrist goes on to look up the word “supposed” in the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary and claim that based upon this definition Luke is not actually denying that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Then he cites the fact that the two genealogies do not agree with one another until the Davidic generation and he states that Luke does not specifically state the doctrine of the virgin birth to remove any ambiguity.

Let us first read Luke 3:23 from the AST:

“And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years, as was supposed, the Son of Joseph, of HeliŠ”

Now rather than use the Webster’s Dictionary, a completely irrelavent source, let us look up the Greek word for which supposed is translated and determine what that word means. We will do this from the Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon for the verb nomizo. In addition to the meaning of supposed or believed, the word specifically means: “to be the custom, …to be ordered and governed after old laws and customs …to be considered as.” This Greek verb, related to the Greek word meaning law, is an idiom which implies that something is believed or done because of the law or custom, meaning that Joseph was recognized as Jesus’ father not because he was His natural father, but because he was legally His father since Joseph was married to Mariam. The whole reason that it was necessary to use this phrase was because Luke was explaining how Joseph was Jesus’ father since the reader, of course, realized that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father.

As far as the discrepancies in the two genealogies that our Antichrist thinks that he has found, we have already explained that the two genealogies are clearly not supposed to be the same, but one is of Joseph and one is of Mariam. Heli was Mariam’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law, and the genealogy of Mariam is recorded in the traditional, male-oriented custom, by including the males. This is a perfectly normal and acceptable way to record a woman’s genealogy in ancient times. So in fact there are no discrepancies but two separate genealogies.

This Antichrist’s next set of objections relates to the so-called Cursed Branch of Kings, the old Jewish argument meant to argue that Christ could not have ruled on David’s Throne. The Antichrist says:

“Also Matthew presents a family line that goes straight through the Cursed Branch of Kings, Jehoiakim and his son Jeconiah (also known as Coniah/Jehoicachin). Matthew either intentionally or mistakenly omits King Jehoiakim from the list. But Jehoiakim (not Jeconiah) is undeniably the son of Josiah, and Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim. … In Jeremiah 22, both kings, Jehoiakim and Jeconiah, are cursed and their descendants forbiddn to suceed in the Throne of David (see also Isaiah 14:18 about the Abominable Branch). Jeremiah 22:30 says, ‘Thus says the Lord: Write this man (Coniah or Jeconiah) down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for NONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS SHALL PROSPER, SITTING ON THE THRONE OF DAVID, AND RULING ANYMORE IN JUDAH.’

“Now this verse is referring to Jesus Christ’s forefather. …But the holy prophecy said that he would be childless. But that failed as we have seen that he is a forefather of Jesus Christ. … Matthew [sic] and Luke’s version of the Genealogy do agree on this one point. … So the question comes up. How could Jesus Christ be the ‘Messiah’ and at the same time be descended from kings that were cursed and the kings [sic] descendants, including Jesus himself, be banished and forbidden, by a direct command of God, from the Throne of David FOREVER???”

In presenting this argument, our Antichrist shows his desparation and his utter lack of Biblical knowledge. His first mistake involves his conclusion that the two father and son pairs, Zerubbabel and Salathiel, in the Matthaic and Lucian genealogies are the same set of men. In fact, we see clearly that they are not. The father and son pair who are the ancestors of Mariam are not the same pair who are ancestors of Joseph. In Mariam’s genealogy in Luke, we see that the father of Mariam’s Salathiel is Neri. This is not the father of the Salathiel that our Antichrist speaks about. An analysis of the chronology, which is complete in Mariam’s genealogy since Luke lists every generation, shows that Mariam’s Salathiel is approximately five generations after the Salathiel in Joseph’s ancestry. The fact that there are two sets of father and son with this name is not at all suprising, because the Salathiel and Zerubbabel in Joseph’s genealogy, the pair which our Antichrist means, were actually Israelite heroes, because they led the remnant of Israel back to Jerusalem after the Exile. So this means that in fact Jesus is not a descendant of the so-called “Abominable Branch” because Joseph was not a biological contributor to Jesus, and Mariam’s ancestors are not the men in question. But even with this being said, it should still be pointed out that our Antichrist has grossly misinterpreted this so-called Abominable Branch, partly because he is using the Talmudic Jew-corrupted Hebrew Masoretic Text and partly because he blatantly misquotes the passage. Jeremiah 22:30 is actually in reference to Jeconiah, the son of Jehoiakim. Jeconiah was the father of Jechonias and the grandfather of the Salathiel mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy of Joseph. In the King James Version, based upon the Masoretic Text, Jeremiah 22:30 reads:

“Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”

We notice that the verse does not say “forever” as our Antichrist purposely and falsely insinuates. In fact, the straightforward reading of the verse in context merely implies that none of Jeconiah’s sons, of which he had seven when the verse was written, would replace him as king. In fact, I Chronicles 3:17-18 lists the names of these seven sons and the records of the kings throughout the Old Testament confirm that none of his seven sons became kings. This shows how this Antichrist has misquoted this verse, but he should not have been quoting it from the Masoretic Text in the first place. When we turn to the Greek Septuagint, we read here:

“Write this man as an outcast, for none of his seed shall grow up to sit on the Throne of David, or as a prince yet in Juda.”

Notice that this verse in the Greek Septuagint says nothing about Jeconiah being “childless” as does the Masoretic Text. Furthermore, the wording of the Septuagint, specifically the words “none of his seed shall grow up to sit” makes it clear that the verse is only in reference to his immediate sons. There is no indication of perpetuity in the verse, no mention of “forever,” and no reason to believe that the so-called “curse” had any bearing on anyone but his immediate children. Even Matthew continues the judgment against Jeconiah and his father Jehoiakim by not mentioning them in the genealogy of Joseph. As we have said before, Matthew omitted several generations in his genealogy, basically hitting the high points, and given the command by God to entirely dishonor both of these men, it is only natural that Matthew would not mention them in a list that clearly was a place of honor. There is one other interesting point regarding these men. The account in Matthew lists Zerubbabel as the son of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel as the son of Jehoiachin. This order agrees with Ezra 3:2, which states in the Septuagint:

“Then stood up Jesus, the son of Josedec, and his brothers the priests, and Zorobabel, the son of Salathiel, and his brothers, and they built the altar of the God of Israel, to offer upon it whole-burnt-offerings, according to the things that were written in the law of Moses, the man of God.”

However, I Chronicles 3:16-19 (LXX) reads:

“And the sons of Joakim: Jechonias, his son, … And the sons of Jechonias: Asir, Salathiel, his son, Melchiram, and Phadaias, and Sanesar, and Jekimia, and Hosamath, and Nabadias. And the sons of Phadaias: Zorobabel…”

So Ezra and Matthew say that Zorobabel or Zerubbabel was the son of Salathiel, but I Chronicles states that Zorobabel was the son of Phadaias, not Phadaias’ brother Salathiel. This apparent contradiction is easily explained by the occurrence of a levirate marriage. A levirate marriage occurs if a man dies without a son by his wife and then his nearest male relative is bound to take his wife and have a child, and the first child is to be raised as the dead man’s. This is described in Deuteronomy 25:5 (LXX):

“And if brothers should live together, and one of them should die, and should not have seed, the wife of the deceased shall not marry out of the family to a man not related: her husband’s brother shall go into her, and shall take her to himself for a wife, and shall dwell with her. And it shall come to pass that the child which she shall bear, shall be named by the name of the deceased, and his name shall not be blotted out of Israel.”

So the evidence indicates that such a marriage occurred after the premature death of Pedaiah (or Phadaias); his brother Salathiel (or Shealtiel) entered into a levirate marriage with Pedaiah’s widow, and the first born son of the union, Zerubbabel, was legally Pedaiah’s, but genetically and biologically it was Salathiel’s. So Matthew and Ezra have listed the biological father, especially since Matthew’s concern would have been the actual genetic ancestors of Joseph, whereas Chronicles, which is concerned with regal inheritance, listed the child’s legal father, though deceased. All of these facts serve to show that many of the so-called points of contradiction which are brought up to try and discredit the Bible are actually nothing more than Jewish confusion introduced through the Jewish-corrupted Hebrew Masoretic Text. These contradictions do exist if one uses the Jewish-corrupted King James Version or other such Bibles based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text, but when the best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and the best Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament Greek Septuagint are used, these so-called “contradictions” disappear. These and many more “contradictions” were inserted into the Hebrew Masoretic Text by the Talmudic Jews as a way to discredit the New Testament. All of these contradictions were inserted after the time of Christ and the distribution of the New Testament. The Hebrew copies of the Old Testament that existed at the time of Jesus Christ, as evidenced by the fragments found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, agreed with the Greek Septuagint and therefore did not contain these perversions. But immediately after New Testament times, antichrist Jews began changing the text in an attempt to discredit Jesus as the true Messiah and also the New Testament writings.

Changes in the Messianic prophecies included the change of the Hebrew word for virgin to almah which means young woman, which has been used by Jews for hundreds of years to claim that Jesus was not the true Messiah. If this would not work, then they inserted a prophecy in the Hebrew Masoretic Text to convince Christians that Jesus had been prophesied to say on the cross, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” in an attempt to convince Christians that Jesus forgave the Jews for His murder when in fact He did not.

Finally, in order to attempt to discredit the New Testament in general, the majority of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old Testament were changed in the Masoretic Text to create these and many more apparent contradictions. But these contradictions evaporate when the Greek Septuagint is used, which is the oldest source of the Old Testament Scriptures and the source used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Jesus’ Bible

It is a fact of scholarship that all of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Masoretic Text. This is not a new discovery, but something that honest scholars have known for 2000 years. The reason that Charles Thomson began making the first translation of the Greek Septuagint into English in 1789 was because he was shocked to learn that all of the quotations in the New Testament came from the Greek Septuagint yet no English translation had ever been made. Yet, despite this uncontested fact, many people still do not understand that the common language of first century Israelites was Greek. It is true that pockets of Israelites continued to speak Eastern or Western Aramaic, depending upon their geographical location, but Israelites in the area of Alexandria spoke Greek exclusively. Also, Israelites in Galilee and in the area of Jerusalem preferred Greek. This is not to say that many Israelites were not bilingual or even trilingual, but the semi-official language was Greek. This fact is confirmed by Luke 4:16-19, where Jesus read in the Synagogue in Nazareth:

“And He came to Nazareth, where He was brought up, and He went in as was the custom to Him, on the day of the sabbaths, into the synagogue, and stood up to read. And a scroll of Isaiah the prophet was handed to Him. And having unrolled the scroll, He found the place where it was written, The Mentality of the Master is on Me; therefore He anointed Me to proclaim the good message to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to captives, and new sight to the blind, to send away the crushed in deliverance, to preach an acceptable year of the Master.”

Note that one of the synagogue scrolls was handed to Jesus; in other words, a scroll which was kept in the Synagogue was handed to Jesus. In what language was this scroll of Isaiah written? It was in Greek, taken from the Greek Septuagint. A comparison between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the source of this compound quote, Isaiah 58:6 and 61:1-2 shows that the passage could only have come from the Greek Septuagint. For example, Jesus reads in this passage, “Šand new sight to the blind.” The Greek Septuagint preserves the exact same phrase, identical in the Greek. But the Hebrew Masoretic Text says nothing in the entire passage even remotely similar, and it says nothing about the blind at all. Instead of “heal the brokenhearted,” the Hebrew says “bind up,” but again the New Testament Greek and the Septuagint Greek agree. These types of differences cannot be explained by claiming that they have arisen from translation from Hebrew to Greek or through paraphrase.

Therefore, there can be no question that Jesus was reading from the Greek Septuagint, and this of course means that the copy of Scripture kept and used for reading in the synagogue at Nazareth was the Greek Septuagint. Thus, the fact that Jesus and His apostles exclusively used the Greek Septuagint is well-known and agreed upon by scholars. It is also true that Jesus and most, if not all, of the apostles had some degree of fluency in Aramaic, Latin, and perhaps some other dialects and languages. But the idea that Aramaic was the primary language of Galilee and the area in that vicinity, while Greek was merely a secondary language imposed upon the population by the government, is false. The synagogue at Nazareth was the synagogue of Jesus’ childhood and the fact that they used the Greek Septuagint for readings in the synagogue shows that Greek had already become the dominant language in the area and therefore Greek was the primary language that Jesus was raised in. The historian Josephus was also from Galilee and was a near-contemporary of Jesus. He wrote his histories in Greek and he also used the Greek Septuagint, though he too was likely fluent in Aramaic.

The people in the area of Galilee were all likely bilingual if not trilingual. Nevertheless, the primary language was not Aramaic, but Greek. More important, the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles and by other Galileans, such as Nathaneal, was the Greek Septuagint.

The Virgin Birth,
Jesus Was Not A Jew,
And Other Things Jews Deny

All across the world, everyday, in nominal Judeo Christianity, there is a so-called minister who teaches the blasphemous doctrine that Jesus Christ was a Jew. If you ask the average deceived blasphemer who calls himself a Christian who Jesus was, he will tell you that Jesus was a Jew. Nothing could be further from the truth. Jesus was not a Jew racially, Jesus was not a Jew politically, and Jesus was not a Jew religiously. Anyone who disagrees with the expressed teachings in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is
guilty of blaspheming the doctrines of Christ.

To call Jesus Christ an antichrist Jew is to call God an antichrist Jew, because the simple truth is for those who will read their Bibles that there are a number of reasons why Jesus Christ could not have been a Jew. First of all, he could not have been a Jew because he was God in the flesh. For those of you who do not believe this, you need to read John 1:18 (AST):

“No one has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, Who is in the bosom of
the Father, He explains.”

Now you may say, “Well, that is not in my King James.” That is true. This is not in your King James Bible. But it is in the original Greek autographs of the New Testament. The original Greek reads monogenhjqeoj (monogenes theos) instead of monogenhj uioj (monogenes uios), which is what the King James translators had in the limited texts they used. The fact of the matter is, however, that nearly every Greek text before 400 AD and most every early quotation of this passage read Only-Begotten God.

Antichrist Jews do not believe in the God of the Bible; instead their political and religious philosophy is the philosophy of Babylon and it is stated clearly in their Babylonian Talmud. To say that Jesus Christ was a Jew or of the Jews is nothing less than willful Bible ignorance. The antichrist Jews and the atheistic philosophies that they have spawned and bred across this world have always attacked true Christianity by attacking the deity, that is, godship, of Jesus Christ.

It is the Talmud that says that Jesus should have been boiled in his own excrement and it is the Talmud that says that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier. It was the Jews who murdered the Only-Begotten God, Jesus Christ, as clearly recorded in your Christian Scriptures. In fact, when the Jews murdered Jesus, they cried out for His blood to be on their hands and the hands of their children, even though they try today to blame His death and place the guilt of His blood on the Romans. (Notice in the following passage that
Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the guilt of the blood of the Only-Begotten God.)

“Pilate said to them, ‘What then may I do to Jesus called the Anointed?’ They all (the
mongrel Jews) said to him, ‘Let Him be crucified.’ But he said, ‘For what bad thing did He do?’ But they the more cried out, saying, ‘Let Him be crucified!’ And Pilate, seeing that nothing is gained, but rather an uproar happened, taking water he washed the hands before the crowd, saying, ‘I am innocent from this blood; you will see.’ And answering, all the people said, ‘His blood is on us and on our children'”(Matthew 27:22-25 AST).

From this passage, it should also be noticed that when the mongrel atheistic Jews were asked what bad thing Jesus had done, they gave no answer. This is the same Jewish tactic that they employ today. Anyone who speaks out against the Jew and openly displays the Jews to be the enemies of God that they are, as did Jesus Anointed many times, is usually exploited, lied against, and destroyed by the Jews and those who help them, even though he or she committed no crime.

It is very obvious that those we know as Jews today, those descendants of the murderers of Jesus Anointed, are just as guilty of His blood as their ancestors. They are indeed Christ-killers, and anyone who associates with Jews and helps the Jews is also guilty of their murderous crimes; they are guilty of the blood of Jesus Christ, and will be for all eternity. It is clear that the Jews hate Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ hates the Jews. Jesus told the Jews in John 8:21-47 (AST):

“…I go away, and you will seek Me. And you will die in your failures. Where I go,
you are not able to come. … You are from below; I am from above. You are from this
world, I am not from this world. … If you were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me … Abraham did not do this. You do the works of your father … If God were your Father, you would love Me … you are not able to hear My Word. You are of your father the Diabolical One, and the lusts of your father you wish to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I speak the truth you are not persuaded by Me. … for this reason you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

Now I know what you are thinking. Did Jesus not forgive the Jews on the cross? Did He not say, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Absolutely not! To say this is to blaspheme the blood of Christ and the Mentality of Separation. To say this is to believe a lie and be damned! Once again, all honest scholars agree that this verse was not in the original autographs of the New Testament. All honest translations omit this passage. All honest preachers teach that Jesus never said this. Everyone else is
simply making and helping make a lie, for even if translators accept this spurious passage, then they should translate it Father forgive them not, for they know what they are doing . (See footnote at Luke 23:34 in the AST). Instead, these dishonest, Jewish, and Jew-influenced traitors to the White race (if they are white at all) fall into the category we have already stated, namely, “…outside [the gates], the dogs and pharmakeia promoters and the whores and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone loving and making a lie” (Rev. 22:15 AST).

These people are guilty of the sin or failure described in that same chapter in Revelation, verse 18 (AST):

“For I testify together with everyone hearing the words of the prophecy of this
Scroll: If anyone adds to these things, God will add upon him the plagues having been written in this Scroll. And if anyone takes away from the words of the Scroll of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the Book of Life, and out of the Separated city, and of the things having been written in this Scroll.”

Another Jewish lie is the claim Jesus was not born of a virgin. If the Jews are going to destroy the Christian faith and eradicate it from American institutions, including the schools and churches, it is very important for them to convince people that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin, as our Christian Scriptures explicitly tell us He was, and they must convince people that Jesus Christ’s birth was not miraculous.
Whenever a person denies the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, he blasphemes the doctrines of Christ and he blasphemes the Word of the Living God and he is, therefore, antichrist. The World Counsel of Churches and the National Counsel of Churches are nothing more than Jew-orchestrated, Jew-inspired front groups created for the purpose of destroying Christianity; and I want you to know that they have been extremely successful in the last fifty years in institutionalizing their antichrist humanistic philosophies in America and
in white Christian nations. It is a blatant lie and gross act of intellectual dishonesty to deny that the Scripture does not say that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. We read in Matthew 1:23 (AST):
“‘Behold, the virgin will conceive in womb and will bear a Son, and they will call
His name Emmanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.’

The word virgin is translated for parq[!] noj(parthenos), and as Liddle and Scott and every other Greek scholar agrees, this word means “a virgin, an unmarried youth, pure, chaste.” This word was translated into the Latin virgo from which we get virgin. Thus, anyone who says that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin is an antichrist Jew liar. Antichrist Jews do not like this verse anyway because once again it shows that Jesus was God with us or God in the flesh.
Those groups who deny these things and others like them were infiltrated and created by Communist Jews and antichrists. They were evil in their conception and creation. Such groups sponsor the perversion of the Word of God, and they set themselves up as phony-teachers who are willing to lie about the Greek language. These people fit the profile of those described in the Bible as having itching ears and ever learning but never able to come to a saving knowledge of truth.

“For these are those creeping into houses and leading silly women captive, having been heaped with failures, being led by various lusts, always learning and never being able to come to a full knowledge of truth” (II Timothy 3:6-7 AST).

These antichrist, mutual admiration societies have invaded every denomination that they could infiltrate in the last fifty years, all for the express purpose of corrupting that which, in many cases, was already corrupt. What we are talking about here is Jew strategy. I want to explain to you why it is important for the antichrist to deny the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is really very simple, for if Jesus was not born of a virgin as the ungodly try tell us, then that means that He was just another religious figure or just a prophet. Some of the humanist antichrists usually admit that He was a “good man,” and in
much of their literature, that is the approach that they use. However, they use this strategy so that they may deny the truth while they appear to be at least credible.

The problem with this evil thinking, however, is that it calls God Almighty a liar, because God’s Word expressly teaches that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. Those of you who think that the Jews believe the Old Testament need to wake up to the truth. If they believed the Old Testament, they would believe in Jesus Christ, because all of the prophecies of the Old Testament were fulfilled with His first coming, and all
the prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in His second coming, which began on the Day of Pentecost and culminated in the destruction of the Jewish economy in 70 AD.
The only thing that Jews and ungodly white men believe in is their appetites, passions, and money. So it is important for these ungodly antichrists to deny the truth of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, because if you believe that lie, then you will be believing in another Jesus. You will not be believing in the Jesus of the Bible. If you believe that lie, you will be believing another gospel and not the gospel taught in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Paul said that such people who believe in a phony Jesus, a mythical Jesus that has no reality in the Holy Writings of the New Covenant, they were accursed, and I believe him. And they are believing in another Jesus if they believe that Jesus was a Jew as well.

Now for those of you who will take the time and go back and study the so-called early Christian Church fathers, you will find that the antichrist Jews have not changed their tactic in attacking the deity of Jesus Christ since the first century. The Jews were always trying to get the Christian Church to compromise the essential principles of the Christian faith, and top on their list was to deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I said before, if a person refuses to believe the teachings of the New Covenant about the virgin birth of Jesus, they are not a Christian. That does not mean that they are not religious, because we know that they are. But they would be a lot better off to have no religion at all than to have the wrong religion not based on the Word of God. A person with the wrong religion, the wrong belief system is just as damned as the atheist, but of course even the atheist is religious in an irreligious way. So when we look at the early records, we find that the Jews were busy making bad translations of the Bible and even of the Septuagint.

We find that there were Jews who wanted to call themselves Christians but reject the belief of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. We find that there were Jews seeking to infiltrate the Christian Church right from the very beginning of Christianity. So there have always been people who were willing to admit that Jesus Christ was a religious prophet or that He was a good man and they try to make Jesus to conform to their perverted religious philosophy. But I am here to tell you today that that is an impossibility. You do not conform Jesus to your subjective and perverted philosophies, you either conform to Jesus or you suffer the second death, period. All of these people, off in never-never land, practicing perverted religions that have no reality in the Word of God, are lying to themselves, and most of them enjoy lying to themselves.That is why they do not study their Bibles, why they do not read in total context; they get their religion out of pamphlets and from antichrists behind the pulpits. They go to their churches out of guilt or for social
advantage, some to make money, some to pick up women, some because they like music.

But Christ is not a reality to them. Christianity is just a form and a fashion. It is as meaningless as the lies that they tell themselves. They soothe their conscious with a hot iron. They play religious games and they are willingly deceived, and so it should not surprise us that they go into deeper deception, into more extravagant speculations and speculative philosophies. Why? Because they have turned their back on the Son of God. They have refused to bend the knee and enter the communion of God’s Appointed Savior. So it is a case of the blind leading the blind into a ditch of destruction. No, Jesus Christ could not have been a Jew, because His Father was Almighty God. More than this, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ was God Almighty in the flesh, Emmanuel.

He was not just a good man, not just a religious figure on the same par and equality of Mohammed and Buddha and Confucius. This is what the antichrist Jews want to teach people. They want people to believe that Jesus Christ was no better than Buddha or Mohammed and that the Christian religion is just another world religion, possibly no better or no worse than Judaism or Buddhism or any of the other -isms of this ungodly world. If you believe that goddamned lie, then you are a goddamned person, and my friends, I
am not cussing, I am not cursing, I am telling you the Bible truth.

“The one persuaded in Him is not judged, but the one not persuaded has already
been judged; for he has not been persuaded in the presence of the authority of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness more than the Light, for their works were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the Light and does not come to the light, that his works may not be exposed” (John 3:18-20 AST).

Anybody, and I do not care who they are, who is willing to place the Christian faith of the New Covenant on the same equal basis with other world religions is an antichrist, and has never known or met the real Jesus. This includes all of the Masons, all of the Rosacrucians, all of the Humanists, all of the deists, and all of the antichrist Jews. The Lake of Fire is going to be filled with all of those liars and all those who help make lies, even though it was created for the Devil and his messengers. You see, that is the point, if
you are helping the liars of this world, then you are helping them make a lie. If you call yourself a Christian and you do not accept and believe in the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, then you are a liar, because you are not a Christian.

If you are a sexual pervert, homosexual, voyeur, lesbian, and you lie and call yourself a Christian, you have sealed your doom. You see, men may lie to one another, but they cannot lie to God’s true preachers, and they cannot lie to anybody that has ever really read the Bible and cares what it says, and if you cannot lie to God’s true servants, then you sure as the Lake of Fire and as sure as the second death cannot lie to God.

Someone may say, what right do you have condemning all of these people to
everlasting punishment?, and my answer is that I have no right, but God has all rights, for God is Just and all that I am doing is repeating the Just Judgments of the Just God.
Because God’s Word exists, all men are judged now, today, all men are pre-judged in the Word of God and especially those evil liars and ungodly scumbags who call themselves Christians and deny the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, or deny the deity, the godship, of the Lord Jesus Christ. No, there is no compromising the essential truths of the Word of God; compromise is the opening of the door to the antichrist Jew. Why is the Methodist Church so corrupt? Why are the Baptist Churches so corrupt? Why are
the Lutheran Churches so corrupt? It is because they let the leaven in. It does not take much. In the beginning, it may have been just one little precept or principle that they compromised, one little thing, but in the end we know, as did Paul, that,

“Your boast is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens all the lump?”
(I Cor. 5:6 AST).

At the turn of the century, Jews and half-breed Jews had infiltrated the Christian colleges and seminaries. The Jew money power had gained control of the publishing companies, and from that time forward, they began promoting their antichrist philosophy of Humanism. In the late 1800s, they promoted the Masonic lodge which they had gained control of through the B’nai B’rith, and through the efforts of Albert Pike, the Jew who wrote Morals and Dogma . And so in the absence of real Bible preaching, the Devil filled the vacuum with his perversion of truth.

What you see in America (and occupied Europe) today, the lawlessness, the tyranny in government, the break-down of moral order and decency, the Plutocratic philosophy of modern America, is all a result of orchestrated planning, wherein a corrupted, God-hating, minority of people were determined to corrupt the majority of decent, God-fearing white people. They did not just begin in the 1880s, the antichrist Jew has been around for
two-thousand years, documented by your New Testament, but the World Zionists set in motion a plan, even before the Civil War in America, and by the 1880s they began the big push for the destruction of Adamic, Christian America (and occupied Europe). Everything that I am telling you is easily documented. If you do not believe that the nominal Christian seminaries and colleges in this country are utterly corrupt and void of the presence
of Almighty God, then you need to read the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and then ask yourself if the professors are teaching what It says. You need to go ask the professors why they are not teaching what the Word of God really says.
I do not care what denomination you care to cite, they are all corrupt and the vast majority are utterly blasphemous and make God sick to His stomach. You may still believe that you can be a member of some church because they are just a little wrong here or a little wrong there. But God said you are either with Him or against Him (Luke 11:23 AST). Yes, these people do in fact make God sick to His stomach, and we know what happens when someone get sick to his stomach, as we read in Revelations,

“So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit you
out of My mouth” (Rev. 3:16 AST).

So you see, it was important for the Jews to spread the lie that Jesus was not born of a virgin. It was important for them to change the word virgin to young woman in their corrupt versions of the Scriptures, because if they can destroy the truth of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, they know that they can destroy American (and Adamic countries) Christianity and European Christianity, because if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then He was not God in the flesh and He was not the Christ, and God was not His Father, and you have no Savior today, and you have no hope of eternal life. That is the truth.

But thanks be to God that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh and that He paid the blood debt of honor on Calvary that you might be saved, if you will only believe Him. You see, that is what it really means to believe in Jesus, to believe what His Word tells you, and to act on it and stand on it and live on it. And when I say salvation, I am speaking both spiritually and racially, and if you do not know that, you had better get some Separatist literature and find the real Jesus. A lot of these Judeo types that I have run into, and that you will run into, can only be described as grossly ignorant and disturbed people and a lot of them can also only be described as demented or demon-filled people. You can know this by some of the excuses that they come up with to defend their antichrist pastor and some of the lies that he has told them while he pick-pockets their life savings and helps the Jews damn them and their children.

I have far more regard for a deceived believer who is simply an occasional so-called church-goer than I will ever have for the antichrists in the pulpits, because to call yourself a pastor or a preacher is to claim to be a religious authority on Christianity. More than this, it is to claim to be appointed by Almighty God as a teacher in your generation. That is a very solemn and holy appointment, and all of the perverts in the pulpits who aid and abet the antichrists on a weekly basis are without excuse, because they have a Bible, and most of them pretend to preach from the Bible. But we of course know that they do not and that they actually preach what they are told by their superiors. You see, the Jews have to control the pulpits, because if the preachers were to start actually studying and preaching what the Bible really says, some of them might find the real Separated Jesus and become wild-eyed Christian fanatics, like the Separatist ministers, and that thought scares the living hell out of the goddamned antichrist Jews.

All right, maybe I miss-spoke, how can you scare the hell out of Hell? The antichrist Jews are the Kingdom of Hell. Anyway, that it is what the Jews fear, they fear the truth of the Word of God. They fear real Separatist Bible study. So, invariably, when you run into some of these deceived and damned Holy Spirit haters called Judeos, who speak the blasphemy that Jesus was a Jew, they always try to rationalize their ignorance by ignorance. They say, Does it not say in the Bible that Jesus was a Jew? And the correct
answer to this is, No, that is not what it says, it actually says that he was a Judean. Some others say, Does it not say that Jesus was King of the Jews? No, Jesus never said that about Himself, that sign was merely placed over His suffering body as mockery, and what the sign actually said was that He was King of the Judeans.

Some try to make Jesus a Jew because He kept the law of Moses. But the Jew’s religion has never been in the keeping with the laws of Moses, but only in the perverting of the teachings of Moses, because the law of Moses taught racial purity. The Jews who live today are not of pure Israelite stock. This is a point of some confusion for many people. They do not realize that the Jews today are not the Hebrews or the Israelites of the Old Testament, and they do not realize that at the time of the writing of the New Testament the term ‘Jew’ did not mean the same thing as the term ‘Jew’ does today.

This leads us to the question, what was meant by ‘Jew’ at the time of the King James translation? The answer is the word ‘Jew’ was in reference to the seedy money lenders and foreign traders who were well known in Europe and England as Jews. They were for the most part a dark swarthy people, either Hasidic or Ashkenashe. They were well known to be an anti-Christian race of infidels.

So at the time the word Jew was put into the King James Version, it was in reference to people who  were thought to have come from Palestine or the so-called “Holy Land.” We say put in because the original King James translation did not contain the word ‘Jew,’ just as the AST does not contain the word ‘Jew.’ The Ashkenashe and Russian and Polish Jews were a people who never had any kinship to the Israelite or Judean peoples. That is to say, by racial heritage. They were a people who had become Jewish by a decree of a king, who, according to tradition and legend, had called to the kingdom of Kazar or Kazaria
representatives of the three major prevailing religions, that of Christianity, Muhammadanism, and Judaism.

After hearing each of the three make their cases about their religions, he chose materialistic atheistic Judaism as the official religion under threat of death for all the people under the Kazars. It is the Kazar peoples of Russia on the southern Russian plains who became the well-known Ashkenashe Jews. So, we see that it becomes very important to define what is meant by the term “Jew.” Thus, at the time of the paraphrasing of the King James or the paraphrastic King James Version, the term Jew was not defined clearly in the public mind. To the clergyman, it was translated for the term Ioudeas . To the
average person it was in reference to the immoral money-lender or local pimp. To the educated bishop and clergyman who had studied the Latin and the Greek, they understood that the Greek word translated Jew in reality was primarily a word used in reference to a geographical location or a people living in a geographical location. They knew that the Judeans were composed of children of the tribes of Israel, and that therefore the term Judean stood for any and all Israelites who had come to live and be governed in
the kingdom of Judea.

They also understood that the geographical term encompassed any people that had come to live in Judea such as Canaanites and the Edomites. These were very specific racial terms that were also geographical terms, as was true of most racial and national designations early in the history of the Middle East. At the time of Christ for example, the term Galilean was primarily used in reference to a Celtic people who had settled in that region a hundred years or so before the birth of Christ, having its origin in the word Gaul (as with the Galatians of the New Testament).

Thus, while Christ was indeed of the tribe of Judah, and while He was indeed a Judean Israelite, He was not a Jew (the Jews are the proverbial “a rat born in a stable does not make it a horse”). He was of the tribe of Judah through His mother Mariam as recorded in her genealogy in Luke 3:23, and He was of the tribe of Judah through His mother’s husband Joseph as recorded in Matthew 1:1. But He was not a mongrel Jew.

From the time of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Edomite and mongrel Canaanite population of Palestine became clearly manifested as enemies of the Living God by practicing an unsanctified and an unapproved, illegal, and illicit religion that from that day forward became know as Judaism.

As we have said before, Jesus may have practiced the laws of the Old Testament Israelites, but that did not make Him a Jew by religion. Contrary to misinformation and propaganda, the Jews do not accept or believe in the Old Testament as their rule of faith and practice. They do not even accept as their rule of faith the first five books of the Old Testament or the Pentateuch, supposedly the Torah, as they like to call it. Judaism is clearly predicated upon the atheistic philosophy of Talmudism. They may go around spouting off Old Testament Scripture but what they are really quoting is their own Jewish Masoretic text, the so-called Hebrew of the Old Testament that was prepared by a bunch of mongrel Talmudic Jews in the last 1100 years. They do not quote and practice the Old Testament as recorded in the Septuagint, the only Scriptures that Jesus Christ and His Apostles read, quoted, and believed. The Jews claim that their “traditions”, and especially those oral traditions that became written down in the Talmud, supersede and carry far more authority than anything written in the Old Testament or Mosaic writings. In fact, the Jews claim that Moses cannot even be understood without the explanations of the Talmud.

Thus, Judaism, or Satanism, is simply a carrying forward of the syncretic, mystical, materialistic philosophy of Babylon. They claim that the ignorant man studies the Bible, the learned man studies the Talmud, and those of the highest calling study the Cabalah, which is the insanity of the Sephiroth and Quiphiroth tree, what they call the tree of good and evil. This has nothing to do with the Bible, nor is its foundation to be found therein. Moreover, history clearly proves that the atheistic philosophy known as Judaism was first adopted by race-mixing Jews who had been captured and were taken to Babylon and who capitulated to their God-hating captors. Judaism is not Israelitism or Hebraism. The indisputable facts of history prove beyond dispute and denial that the atheistic philosophy know as Judaism, and in modern terms known as Zionism, is completely atheistic and God-hating, according to the Christian New Testament. It is a religion built by non-believing mongrels who have sought to counterfeit the true Israelites and the true Judeans.

You may say that they cannot be atheists because they do believe in God and I will tell you that you have been deceived by these atheistic scumbags and that you have not read II John:
“Everyone transgressing and not abiding in the teaching of the Anointed does not
have God. The one abiding in the teaching, this one has the Father and the Son”(v. 9 AST).

That is the truth, clear and simple. If they do not have Jesus, and we already know that they don’t, then they cannot have God. If they do not have God, then they are by definition atheists. No amount of semantics can get them out of the grave of death they were born to die in.

Many people find it difficult to understand why it was in the beginning Jews who financed the Communist Bolshevik revolution in Russia. They find it difficult to understand why it was the “American Jews” who stole and conveyed the secrets of the atomic bomb to the Russian. How could Jews be so loyal to Stalin, who had murdered and imprisoned so many of them? The answer is very simple, godless Communism is atheistic in theory and in practice. Judaism is atheistic in theory and in practice. Jews can no more pray to the God of the Bible than Communists can pray to Stalin. It is all a matter of their perverse
and insane imaginations. Nevertheless, humanistic, atheistic materialism predicated upon an insane philosophy is the same deceptive animal, whether it calls itself Judaism, Communism, or Zionism.

The declared goal of the Jewish, Zionist God-hating antichrists was to bring about a Jewish state in Palestine. In order to do this, they have been more than willing to destroy any and all other nations and any and all persons who might stand in the way of the achievement of their goal of the world-state of so-called Israel. Jewish philosophy is fundamentally insane philosophy predicated upon un-provable and insane speculations. This does not mean, however, that the Jews are not diabolically a clever and deceitful
people. For even the Christian Bible recognizes them to be diabolically deceitful.

On the one hand, the Zionistic Jew promotes atheistic world Communism in order to create divisions between the Europeans, white Russians, the British and the Americans. At the same time, the Jew works internally in his target nations to demoralize the national will or any resistance toward Jewish thought, through relentless Jewish misinformation and propaganda. Case in point, the world Zionists have from the earliest times used the British-Israel perversion of misinformation to influence and build thereupon a humanistic,
syncretic, and materialistic philosophy of Masonry. Masonic philosophy is fundamentally religious Humanism. Humanism, as a philosophy, is the creation of the Jewish mind, as is gnosticism and the Thelemites of the OTO. World Masonry was but a revival of paganism wrapped in humanistic philosophy.

Masonry is the exhortation of man at the expense of God under the old lie of the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man. Each of the basic principles of Masonic Humanism was predicated upon a cleverly conceived system of lies. Masonry became and has always been fundamentally all things to all men presented in such a way as to be pleasing to all. However, the fundamental principles of Masonic romantic philosophy may be summed up in the tenets of Humanism. It is agreement upon the beliefs and notions of
modern Humanism that has become the prevailing materialistic religion of the twentieth century. It is through the preaching of Humanism that the Jews have subdued the European Christians, and neutralized any opposition from these denominations.

You ask how they have subdued the godless denominations? They have done so through the propagation of little lies that grow into big ones. The little lies pretty soon have everybody believing that Jesus was a Jew, that the Jews are God’s chosen people, that the Masoretic text is somehow God’s Word, that Mary was not a virgin and that she was raped by a Roman soldier, that Jesus was not really God in the flesh but only a nice guy with long hair, that Jesus forgave the poor, persecuted Jews on the cross for killing Him, that Jesus is coming back to rapture everyone up into Heaven, that the Jews are going to get a second chance, that all races can be saved, that white people are equal to niggers, that you have to be dunked in water to be saved, that you cannot eat pork and go to Heaven, that it is just as right to be one religion as it is another, that Jews believe in the same God as Christians, that faggot sodomites can go to Heaven, that we should hate the sin but love the sinner, etc.

We would do well to remember what the Apostle Paul said in Titus 1:13-14 (AST): “This witness is true, for which cause convict them severely, that they may be sound
in the persuasion, not listening to Judaizing myths and commandments of men, having perverted the truth.”

All of the Jewish lies that I have just listed above are exactly what the Apostle Paul is talking about when he says “Judaizing myths.” If you believe any one of these, you are going to be damned and you are going to go to Hell with all of the rest of the Jewish scumbags in the world. If you believe any of these lies, you need to understand that you are deceived and you need to get your Bible, specifically you need to get an AST, and you need to read it and you need to believe it. If your eternal salvation means anything to you, if the Blood of Jesus Christ means anything at all to you, then you need to get some literature and you need to read it and you need to get your Bible and do as you are commanded and see if these things are so. “But test all things, hold fast to the good”(I Thess. 5:21 AST). You need to stop believing men, and start believing God, for the Bible clearly states: “But let God be true and every man a liar” (Romans 3:4 AST).

Gestational Evolution

When fundamentalist Judeo Christians approach the subject of evolution, they immediately shun the idea, believing that it is necessarily anticreationist. When atheists and humanists approach the idea of creation, that is creation as it is traditionally described by Judeo Christians, they shun the idea as being unscientific. But as with so many topics, the truth seems to be almost inevitably in the middle. But the Jews have encouraged the idea that the gap between creation and evolution is not able to be bridged in order to sow seeds of dissension among Christians. Children are taught the story of a literal one week creation a little over 5000 years ago, and then when the children go to school and take science courses, they are convinced that their parents are liars and that the Bible is not true.

The scientific evidence that supports evolution cannot be ignored, neither can evidence supporting theories for the initial creation of the world such as the “Big Bang” theory. However, the conflict that arises between evolutionists and creationists cannot be ignored either. We are told that to support evolutionary theories is to rule out God and a Biblical creation. It is always drawn as a natural conclusion that if evolution is true, then mankind is the result of a freak accident, not an ordered creation. The other extreme is the view-point of the Judeo creationists who would like us to believe that the world was created in seven days and that evolution of any kind is unbiblical. These Judeo creationists have a tendency to ignore scientific evidence that contradicts them. Even the Judeos that will admit to the fact that the Book of Genesis is an allegorical or metaphorical account of creation still block out any evolutionist theories. It must be remembered that they are just that, theories, but whether the theories are true or not, still the evidence that these theories are built upon must be accounted for and whatever we propose to explain this evidence must be consistent with it.

Therefore, the problem is this: if evolution is true, and we are still evolving, then mankind is ever-changing and the idea of a certain plan is ruled out, in turn ruling out creation. This becomes even more important when examining Biblical principles such as seed after its own kind. The Humanists would argue that if man is ever-changing, then it would be fine for a white to mix with a nonwhite because this would aid in natural selection, and we know that this contradicts Biblical principles. Secondly, if creation is true, and there is absolutely no room for evolution, then tons of scientific evidence go unaccounted for and cannot be accounted for, and proven scientific principles are contradicted. Thus, What model of the creation of the world will stand without contradicting either the Bible or science? The answer lies in a theory of creation called Gestational Evolution.

In order to understand Gestational Evolution, we must first understand childbirth. When conception occurs and the egg of the mother is fertilized, there is only one cell in the fallopian tube, which later attaches to the uterus of the mother. Within this cell is contained a blueprint for the entire baby. This blueprint is the child’s DNA and it has plans which will be followed until the baby is fully formed, including its arms and legs and a head and torso and a brain and eyes and ears even down to the smallest blood vessels and proteins. All of the information needed to produce this intricate array of different structures that work together to form a healthy baby is contained in the DNA of a single cell. During the Gestational period, that is the 267 days a child is carried in the womb of the mother, the baby will develop or evolve from this one cell into an entire baby, and it will do so according to a plan.

Now the development or evolving that takes place in the womb during gestation is not the same as growth. Growth takes place after the child is born, and this is both mental and physical. Although the child will learn and grow in size, he will not grow new limbs or another head outside of the womb. All changes of this type, of the actual creation or evolving of different types of structures takes place in the womb. Once the child is born, this function ceases and the child will only grow or mature. Thus, the child’s evolution stops the day the child is born.

Now the importance of understanding all of this is simple. We are trying to learn from science and from nature what the likely circumstances were surrounding the creation of the world and all the things on the earth, including man. Thus, we look to nature for examples of what might be calledcreation. The creation of a child or of any animal is certainly the closest example available, and it contains all the key elements that we are looking for: the parents are the creators and are the ones responsible for giving the plan for an ordered creation of the child. Then we have evolution, wherein the child evolves from a single cell to an entire baby, and this occurs during the gestation period. Finally, we have the birth when the evolution stops completely and the cycle of growth begins. So now we can apply this to the creation of the universe and everything in it. The Book of Genesis begins:

“In the beginning, God made the heaven and the earth.”

Thus, the first things created were the universe and the planets. Science explains this with the Big Bang theory, and the model of Gestational Evolution agrees and adds that God was the Originator or the Creator of that small ball of hot matter that exploded and eventually formed all that we know today. The rest of the first chapter of Genesis outlines the creation or genesis of the universe and all that it contains. We find that the order in which things are created in Genesis correspond with how science explains each item would have evolved. The simplest of things were created first, this agrees with the evolutionary model; then increasingly more and more complex things were created right down to the most complex of all: Adamic man. This too agrees perfectly with the order that the evolutionary model says that things would have evolved. The order of Genesis is:

1) The planet and the universe in a raw form (v. 1);
2) Stars and our sun (v. 3);
3) The formation of a steady atmosphere (vs. 7-8);
4) The formation of continents (vs. 9-10);
5) The creation of the simplest botanical life (v. 11);
6) The creation of more complex botanical life (vs. 11-12);
7) The creation of simple amphibian life (v. 20);
8) The creation of birds and more complex aquatic life (vs. 20b-21);
9) The creation of more complex land animals and mammals (vs. 24-25);
10) The creation of man (v. 26).

This order of creation in Genesis corresponds with the order of creation according to the Big Bang and Evolutionary model. Thus, the Gestational Evolution model states that God was the origin of the Big Bang that started the formation or evolution of the universe and everything in it. This directly corresponds to the model of the father who contributes the sperm to fertilize the egg and begins the process of the creation of a baby. But here is where Gestational Evolution differs drastically from the evolutionists: if we are to follow our comparison with human gestation, then we see that the father, when fertilizing the egg of the mother, gives a genetic code, DNA, that specifically outlines the development of the evolution of the child. The formation of the child is not an accident ­ there is a plan.

The Evolutionists will argue that everything occurred by a freak of nature; they will argue that plants and animals and the universe could have evolved in an infinitely different number of ways. The Judeo creationists come along and say that the chances of this happening are so astronomical that we cannot even calculate them. It is true that evolution occurring as the humanist evolutionists say is extremely improbable; but the chances for evolution to occur as the result of a plan, just as a baby is created as the result of a plan, is 100%.

We know that there is a genetic plan for all living things, but is there a parrallel to this type of plan for non-living things, and if so, could such a plan for all the universe have been contained in the small ball of hot matter that existed at the moment of the “Big Bang” in the same way that the information for a child is contained in a single cell at the moment of fertilization? The answer to this question has neither been proven nor disproved by science, but everyday, scientists are finding more and more information to suggest that the answer is yes.

In any event, we do know that nature operates according to specific laws, such as cause and effect. We know that a particular chain of events set into motion will have a particular outcome. It is easy for us to understand systems and chains of events with only a few variables. With computers, we can analyze systems with several thousand variables. But the creation of the universe would have an infinite amount of variables that is far beyond our comprehension. But such a system is not beyond the comprehension of God. The laws of nature that governed the Big Bang and the resulting evolutionary system were created by God and the results of these systems could only have one specific outcome, as planned by God.

Science has been able to successfully understand the formation of the universe all the way back to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang occurred some 10-20 billion years ago. But science cannot explain the cause of the Big Bang. In fact, a true understanding of the Big Bang and the evidence supporting is strong proof for the existence of God, because the only explanation for how it could have happened is if the Bible is true and God spoke, thus setting into motion the Big Bang.
In a similar manner, evolution itself is very strong proof that God exists. The process of the evolution of many different animals and plants has been carefully documented, and the evolution of even specific proteins and amino acids can be explained with great detail. The scientific evidence for such a process is overwhelming. At the same time, however, there exists a principle called Irreducible Complexity. What this means is that there are certain systems in every organism and certain protein systems in every biological organism that exist at such a high level of complexity, interdependence, and equilibrium, that the laws of evolution cannot account for how these systems originated. For example, our system of vision, including the eye and the portion of the nervous system that interprets visual stimuli, exists at such a state of complexity that the various parts of the eye and the nervous system would have had no reason to evolve unless the other parts already existed. This indicates that there must have been a plan for the various parts to simultaneously evolve and then come together to produce vision.

Irreducible Complexity has been compared to the following analogy: If you were walking along a beach and saw a pocket watch lying on the sand, you would immediately know that the watch was created by an intelligent being. The watch is so complex and so out of place in its surroundings that it could not merely be the product of some natural event. In the same way, the many examples of Irreducible Complexity confirm that intelligent design played a part in their creation.
Many Judeo-Christians have conceded that the evidence regarding evolution and the Big Bang is overwhelming and have adopted a model which they call Theistic Evolution. However, Gestational Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in one very important detail, as we shall see.

Both Gestational Evolution and Theistic Evolution contend that evolution occurred, but it did so more in a sense of development in that it followed a certain plan. Now we come to the heart of the model of Gestational Evolution and its major deviation from Theistic Evolution. Just as in the case of the child, wherein it evolves or develops during the time of gestation according to a certain plan, and then stops evolving when it is born, so too the earth and everything in it, including man, evolved according to a certain plan and then stopped evolving on what might be called Adam’s Birthday. This derails Humanist contentions that since man is still evolving then it is perfectly natural for him to do anything he wants including race-mix. After all, according to the humanist evolutionists, that would only aid the process of evolution. But white men and all other living organisms are no longer evolving. Their development has stopped.

The scientific evidence also indicates that the evolutionary development of living organisms has ceased. In fact, the vast majority of all evidence regarding evolution indicates that it ceased about 10,000 years ago. Many creationists have pointed out that there is no evidence of evolution in the past several thousand years when we would expect the most evidence to have survived. The Evolutionists too are aware of this seeming problem, and because of this, in 1972, the Punctuated Equilibrium Model of Evolution was developed. This Model contends that there are rapid bursts of evolution followed by periods of stability. It is contended that we have been in one of these periods of stability for the last few thousand years. The creationists use this period of stability to attack evolution, but they also ignore all of the evidence that does exist beyond this 10,000 year modern period. The truth is that the evidence supports Gestational Evolution. The evolution did occur but stopped approximately 10,000 years ago. In other words, evolution stopped at Adam’s Birthday. The millions of years of development leading up to Adam’s Birthday are irrelevant, because it was at Adam’s Birthday that God specifically pronounced good all that had been created and instituted the law of seed after its own kind. This is evidence that evolution had stopped. Evolution was merely the mechanism that God used, in accordance with the laws of nature, to create the world, and there is nothing in the Bible that limits God in the way in which He created the world. The only specific fact that creationists point to in the Genesis account to contradict evolution is the specific six day period in which God created the universe. They contend that God literally created the world in one week approximately 6000 years ago. But there are two important facts which must be kept in mind. First, the Bible specifically says in II Peter 3:8 (AST),

“But do not let this one thing be hidden from you, beloved, that one day with the Master is a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

This means that we cannot constrain God to any finite boundary of time, for God is infinite and the concept of time has nothing to do with God. A better understanding of Genesis might be had by substituting the word era for the word day. The second point that must be kept in mind is that it is absolutely absurd to contend that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Every branch of science contradicts this ridiculous contention. Therefore, there is nothing in the Bible to limit God in how He created the universe.

Thus, we see that Adam was the finished product, and God saw that he was good. Then God breathed into Adam the Breath of Life and this is what distinguished Adam from everything else which existed at that time or at any time prior to that.

“And God moulded man of a heap of earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living life” (Gen. 2:7 LXX).

This was Adam’s Birthday, and if we take the chronology of the Bible literally, then we find that this event occurred at approximately 5872 BC, or nearly 8000 years ago. This date is based upon the Greek Septuagint, not the Hebrew Masoretic Text which gives a date of 4004 BC, or approximately 6000 years ago. We find that the date of the Greek Septuagint corresponds with the scientific evidence of evolution, in that the evidence of evolution ceases at approximately the same time. Adam’s Birthday corresponds with the literal birth of a baby, whose development or evolution ceases and the child takes his first breath. However, there is still left the aspect of the growth of the child.

Still, if we assume that the chronology is not to be taken literally, then we must notice that the Bible is emphasizing the twice-born nature of Adamic man. White, Adamic man was the creation that God made for Himself; that is, He created man (Adam) in His image and found him suitable to indwell. Thus Adam was given physical life first, and then the ability to be indwelled by the Mentality of God, which leads to eternal life. This is what is meant by Adam being inbreathed with the breath of life.

When the baby is born, his evolution ceases and his growth begins. So too is the case of the earth and its inhabitants. The earth itself shows signs of growth or change. An example of this is continental drift, etc. And so too the white race is growing in the same sense as the child. The white race grows physically every time a baby is born. This growth is a never ending process, unless it is stunted or killed. Again, the importance of seed after its own kind, for race-mixing stunts the growth of the white race and will eventually kill it if it continues.

Thus, Gestational Evolution accounts for the explicit facts of science as well as the facts of Biblical creation. It is the only logical model of creation that satisfies all of the known facts.

The Value of Pi and Biblical Inerrancy:-

One of the oldest quests of civilized man has been to accurately determine the value of pi, which is the ratio between the circumference of a circle to its diameter. An exact value for this number has long been important to engineering and other scientific pursuits, and today the value of pi can be known with almost limitless accuracy using computers (3.141592653…).

As early as 2,000 BC, the Babylonians had determined a value for pi of 3 1/8 or 3.125, which of course is a slightly low value. At about the same time, the Egyptians had determined a value of 4(8/9)2 or 3.16, a slightly high value. With the accurate value being between these two extremes, nearly all attempts to calculate pi since that time have been increasingly more accurate and closer to the true value. Today the number is calculated using complex mathematical algorithms, but in ancient times it was calculated simply by trying to measure as accurately as possible the circumference and diameter of an object and then dividing. This method is limited by the accuracy of the measurements and of the measuring tools, and then by accuracy and precision of the computation.

The value of pi is of great interest to the Bible student because the value of pi is given indirectly in the Old Testament in I Kings 7:23 (and its parallel in II Chronicles 4:2). These accounts of the construction of the “molten sea,” fabricated for King Solomon’s temple, were recorded in the sixth century BC. In the Revised Standard Version, translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, I Kings 7:23, 26 reads:

“Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. … Its thickness was a handbreadth; and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily…”

A cubit was the length between the elbow and the tip of a fingertip, while a handbreadth was considered 1/6 cubit. If we divide the circumference of thirty cubits by the diameter of 10 cubits, then we get a value of pi=3, which is inaccurate and is therefore an error in the Scripture. It is also incorrect to contend that the numbers were “rounded off,” as we shall see later since there was no need to round off.

The Greek Septuagint version of this verse, however, records that the circumference of the “molten sea” was thirty-three cubits, while the measurement from rim to rim is still given as 10 cubits:

“And he made the sea, ten cubits from one rim to the other, the same was round in a circle: its height was five cubits, and its circumference thirty-three cubits. … and its rim was as the work of the rim of a cup, a lily-flower, and the thickness of it was handbreadth.”


Note that everything is basically the same except for the circumference. It should also be noted that Brenton mistranslates handbreadth in this verse as span; but Thomson translated the word correctly in his Septuagint and the Greek means handbreadth. Ten cubits is not representative of the entire diameter. Remember that the thickness of the brim was a handbreadth or 1/6 of a cubit, but the brim was like that of a cup or a lily; in other words it flared out at the top and therefore the amount that must be added to the circumference is greater than 1/6 of a cubit. While there is no way to determine exactly how much the brim flared out, a reasonable geometric estimate of the total brim width, including the flare, is 1/4 of a cubit. Therefore, the total circumference to the outside of the brim would be 10 1/2 cubits.

This, then, is the total diameter. The only reason that this would not be the accurate diameter is if the circumference had been measured in the inside of the brim, but the text implies that the circumference was measured with a line or string; a string could easily be stretched around the outside of a bowel, along its most extreme, protrusive point, but there is not an easy way to measure the inside of a bowel. Thus, the Septuagint states that the circumference along the outside of the brim of the bowel was 33 cubits, and the total diameter of the bowel was 10 1/2 cubits.

Thus, when we divide 33 cubits by 10 1/2 cubits, we find a Septuagint value of pi=3.14, which is an accurate value given the number of significant digits, which are determined by the precision of the stated measurements. Archimedes had been the first to determine the value of pi to this accuracy, but the issue is not really about the value of pi at all. Remember that the value of pi is given here only indirectly. The text does not mean to imply the value of pi; it just so happens that such a value can be calculated from the available data. What the text is supposed to do is accurately record the measurements of the “molten sea.”

The mathematical relationship between circumference and diameter merely demonstrates that the Septuagint values are tenable and realistic, while the values preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text are obviously corrupt and could not be authentic.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text was either corrupted by accident or deliberately changed in this verse, while the Greek Septuagint preserves the authentic dimensions which can be confirmed by the value of pi. If the Masoretic Text were deliberately changed (which is likely since the change occurred in two places), then what logic would have led to such a change? The answer lies in the Babylonian Talmud. A writing from the Talmud from around 400-500 AD states that “that which in circumference is three hands around is one hand broad.” In other words, the Talmudic definition of pi is 3.

This Talmudic definition was likely taken from a Babylonian value that was then common (and not as accurate as the Babylonian value some 2000 years earlier). When the Masoretes, who were the same Jews who had created the Talmud a few centuries earlier, created the Masoretic Text, they changed the passage so that it represented what they thought was the authentic value of pi, but of course they were wrong. This is by no means the only place where Talmudic corruption has infiltrated and corrupted the Masoretic Text, but it serves as an additional proof that the Hebrew Masoretic Text can in no way be considered divinely inspired or preserved or in any way representative of the Word of God.

By Pastor V.S. Herrell

A Christian perspective on “Table Talks”

We have demonstrated in a variety of ways that the public record illustrates and proves the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and indeed of the true National Socialist movement. We have further shown that many popular historians are now admitting this fact. Yet, detractors to these facts often point to a number of alleged quotations of Hitler contained in so-called private records, most of which, after wide circulation and publicity, have been admitted or proven to be forgeries and spurious in nature. These sources are at best hearsay and are of such a dubious nature and have such questionable chains of transmission that none of them could ever be used as evidence in a court of law. On the other hand, in the public record, including Mein Kampf, published during Hitler’s lifetime, his large number of speeches, preserved on film, audio recordings, and newspaper accounts, the official publications and proclamations of the NSDAP party, and even letters which bear Hitler’s signature, we find nothing to contradict what we have stated so far. It is only in these questionable sources, published after the war and after Hitler’s death, that we find the supposed evidence that Hitler was not a Christian or that National Socialism was not based on Christian Principles (see: link Christian Principles in National Socialism) & The Problem With David Irving and the spurious Table Talks

Thus, it is necessary to deal with these spurious sources and set the record straight. The most popular of these sources is Hitler’s Table Talk, with a popular English translation by Cameron and Stevens and with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper. In fact, this is the only complete English translation available.

The following is illustrative of the types of quotations that are popularly cited, all from the Trevor-Roper edition:

“If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. … Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. … What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.”

“I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors ­ but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.” [also part of this sentence: I adopted a definite attitude on the 21 st March 1933 when I refused to take part in the religious services, organised at Potsdam by the two Churches, for the inauguration of the new Reichstag.]

In German: “Ich persönlich werde mich einer solchen Lüge niemals fügen, nicht weil ich andere ärgern will, sondern weil ich darin eine Verhöhnung der ewigen Vorsehung erkenne. Ich bin froh, daß ich mit denen keine innere Verbindung habe. … Wie wir am 21. März 1933 zur Kirche gehen sollten, habe ich mich geweigert. Ich habe mich nie in der Partei nie darum gekümmert, welcher Konfession meine Umgebung war. Ich möchte nicht im Umkreis von zehn Kilometern einen Pfaffen sehen, wenn ich heute beerdigt werde. Wenn mir ein solcher helfen könnte, dann würde ich an der Vorsehung verzweifeln. Ich handle entsprechend dem, was ich erkenne und begreife. Ich kann nicht verhindern, daß so einer still betet, aber Fluch dulde ich nicht, und auf deren Gebet verzichte ich.” [attention: yenta yeager]

Must be “Hitlers’ ghost here:

Tag von Potsdam, Rede Hitler in Garnisonkirche. Reichspräsident von Hindenburg tod! Der historische Tag von Potsdam am 21. März 1933. Reichspräsident von Hindenburg in der Garnisonkirche während der großen Rede Adolf Hitlers.

Tag von Potsdam, Rede Hitler in Garnisonkirche. — Der historische Tag von Potsdam am 21. März 1933.
Reichspräsident von Hindenburg in der Garnisonkirche während der großen Rede Adolf Hitlers. Inside the Garrison Church – Hitler speaks as President Hindenburg (lower right) and Germany’s old guard listen.

(The above event in German: “Das Programm sah nach dem Staatsakt in der Garnisonkirche für den Reichspräsidenten und die evangelischen Abgeordneten einen Gottesdienst in der Nikolaikirche vor, für die katholischen einen in der Peter-und-Paul-Kirche und, nach einem Triumphmarsch durch die Stadt, den anschließenden Festakt in der Garnisonkirche.) — The Day of Potsdam (FOUR CHURCHES) took place at the tomb of Frederick the Great, with a ceremony marking the beginning of the Third Reich. The First Reich had been the Empire of Karl der Grosse (Charlemagne), and the Second Reich had been the German Empire (1871–1918). Hitler, President Hindenburg, and former Crown Prince Wilhelm appeared together in a ceremony choreographed by the Ministry of Propaganda to symbolize the transition between Germany’s past before World War I, to its future under National Socialist rule.

Outside the church, a bemused Chancellor Hitler chats with the Kaiser's son and heir, Crown Prince Wilhelm.

Outside the church, a bemused Chancellor Hitler chats with the Kaiser’s son and heir, Crown Prince Wilhelm.

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.”

However, the Table-Talk also is filled with many quotations like the following:

“We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.”

“An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal).”

“It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself.”

So we appear to be presented with two different extremes in the same document. It should further be pointed out that nowhere in the Table-Talk does it record Hitler denouncing Jesus Christ or his own Christian faith.

It is very likely that the Table-Talk is indeed based upon actual statements of Hitler (taken from other sources), but given the numerous internal inconsistencies and statements that appear to contradict the public and published statements of Hitler, we need to determine if these writings have undergone editing or interpolations. To do this, we must understand how this book came to be.

It first should be stated that not one of the conversations supposedly preserved in the Table-Talk is preserved in any other form such as audio, film, or radio broadcast, and that none of these purported conversations were published during Hitler’s lifetime.

The reported source of the documents is from stenographers chosen by Martin Bormann to record these conversations. This presents the first potential problem with the documents. Bormann was not a Christian and he maintained his deistic agenda, all the while walking a fine line in his own statements to avoid losing favour with Hitler.

Bormann issued the following directive:

Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me.

In other words, Bormann reserved for himself editorial rights over the notes which were taken, and as we will see, he frequently made use of this self-claimed right.

The stenographers used were Heinrich Heim and Henry Picker. The documents were then given to Bormann, and this could have provided an opportunity for Bormann to edit them as he wished or perhaps insert statements that were more to his liking. At some point, Bormann supposedly made two copies of the documents, one of which was kept at Munich, and another sent to Berchtesgaden. The copy at Munich was reportedly burned at the end of the war. The copy at Berchtesgaden is supposedly the source of the published version we have today. It was known as the Bormann Vermerke or Bormann Notes, and this text belonged to François Genoud, who first published the text.

Genoud was a Swiss banker who claimed to be a “Nazi”, but his real motivations are highly questionable. He was known to peddle in many so-called “Nazi” texts, not a few of which have proven to be complete forgeries. He bought the manuscript from an Italian official in 1948, who reportedly acquired it from Bormann’s wife Gerda, who went to Italy after the war.

There appears also to be a forty-two-page fragment of the manuscript reportedly burned in Munich in the United States Library of Congress, placed there by a Mr. Joseph Schrasberger, who supposedly found the document in Munich after the war.

The stenographer Henry Picker, who replaced Heim, served in that capacity for only a very short time (March 21, 1942 to August 2, 1942). He claimed to have kept a copy of the notes he made during that time and also a copy of the notes Heim had made before him. He had no notes past August 2, 1942, when Heim returned. He claims that Bormann did not edit the notes that he personally made, though the notes given to him from Heim had likely been edited or influenced by Bormann to some degree. Indeed, Picker said that “no confidence can be placed in Bormann’s editing of it,” and also spoke of Bormann’s alterations…” (Trevor-Roper.) Nevertheless, Picker kept the notes he had been given by Heim and his own notes.

Thus, there are three sources in German for the Table-Talk: the Bormann Notes copy of Genoud, which contains the full brunt, of Bormann’s editing’s; the fragment of the Bormann Notes in the Library of Congress; and the limited German text of Picker.

Today, according to Richard Carrier (yes, we know he is an atheist, like you yenta) [but, this is NOT about his “atheism” or yours, IT IS ABOUT THE RELIABILTY OF HIS TRANSLATION FROM GERMAN TO ENGLISH) and other sources, there are four main published versions of the Table-Talk.

The first published was the German manuscript of Picker, which contains no entries subsequent to August 1942, and has only five months of entries which Picker attests are free of Bormann alterations. The second to be published was a French translation by Genoud of his copy of the Bormann Notes. The third was the English translation of Stevens and Cameron, edited by Trevor-Roper. This was a translation of the Genoud’s French translation, and was not based upon the German. The fourth and last edition was a printing of Genoud’s German original, prepared by Werner Jochmann.

Before we can begin to sort through whatever alterations Bormann himself may have made to the text, it first should be pointed out how faulty the Trevor-Roper edition is, and the Genoud’s French translation upon which it is based.

Carrier has described the Trevor-Roper edition as “worthless,” and in fact, he has shown that all of the major anti-Christian passages commonly cited by historians, including the three at the beginning of this chapter, are frauds and are not contained in the original German, in his article “Hitler’s Table-Talk: Troubling Finds.”

Let us look at these three popular quotes one by one, in light of Carrier’s article. The first, often quoted passage is:-

“If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But, I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one’s will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others’ bodies and tyranny upon others’ souls.

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.

What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.”

This quote is supposedly from February 27, 1942, when Heim was stenographer. Carrier provides the German of Jochmann and Picker which agrees, except in a difference of one word, then his own translation of that German:

“I am here due to a Higher Power, if I am necessary for anything. Leave aside that she is too cruel for me, the beatifying Church! I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to stand your ground in the world without force. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!

The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.

We are growing into a sunny, really tolerant worldview: Man shall be able to develop his God-given talents. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: that of the Jewish-Bolshevist world. That’s what I must destroy.”

The difference in these two passages is astounding!!!!

There is no mention of a “disease of Christianity” which will end, but rather Hitler speaks in general of his then present world order. He does not mention that he “owes nothing to the Church.” He boldly states that he is “here due to a Higher Power,” rather than saying “If I am here…” Rather than speak of Moses condescendingly, he identifies with Moses in his desire to see the Promised Land. He envisions a world free of Jewish-Bolshevism where men will be able to develop fully their God-given talents. So the English edition of Trevor-Roper contains here a complete fabrication, and this fabrication, particularly the line about “the disease of Christianity,” is perhaps the most frequently quoted passage by those who attempt to deny the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Movement.

Carrier points out that in the same entry in the German, the English and French translations have also omitted an important line. In the same conversation, Hitler said,

“Das, was der Mensch vor dem Tier voraus hat, der vielleicht wunderbarste Beweis für die Überlegenheitdes Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, das es eine Schöpferkraft geben muss!”

Or in Carrier’s translation:-

“What man has over the animals, possibly the most marvellous proof of his superiority, is that he has understood there must be a Creative Power!”

The blatant omission of this passage is proof-positive that the mistranslation of the above passage was a deliberate attempt to take a pro-Christian statement of Hitler and turn it into an anti-Christian statement. This is why it was necessary to entirely omit the above passage, so that the inconsistency of the entry would not be readily apparent.

The second often-quoted passage that Carrier deals with is:-

“I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors ­ but to devote myself deliberately to error that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. In acting as I do, I’m very far from the wish to scandalize. But I rebel when I see the very idea of Providence flouted in this fashion. It’s a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally foreign to that world.”

But again, the actual German is quite different.

Carrier’s translation:-

“I know that humans in their defectiveness will do a thousand things wrong. But to do something wrong against one’s own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally accept such a lie. Not because I want to annoy others, but because I recognize therein a mockery of the Eternal Providence. I am glad if I have no internal connection with them.”

Again, the favourite sentence of liars is, “I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.” But this sentence is not in the original German at all! It apparently was inserted into the French by Genoud’s (“Je ne m’accommoderai personnellement jamaisdu mensonge Chrétien“) and then copied into the Trevor-Roper English edition.

Thus, so far, we have an example of the perversion of the text in translation, omission from the original, and addition to the original.

The last example is:-

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery”

But Picker’s German contains four important words that have been omitted by Genoud and Trevor-Roper. The English should be:- “The Christianity that teaches Transubstantiation is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human brain in its delusion, a mockery of all that is godly.”

According to this, Adolf Hitler did not say that Christianity was an invention of sick brains, but that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was the invention of sick brains.

However, even this point is controversial as Adolf Hitler remained a devout Catholic, was never ex-communicated and the “statement” is rather the view of a bigoted “Protestant”.

In nearly every other supposedly negative statement about Christianity contained in the Table-Talk, the statements are not about Christianity but about perversions of Christianity.

In fact, the Table Talk makes it clear that Hitler, as time went on, was becoming decreasingly optimistic about the chances of a successful reformation of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, not once is Hitler’s belief in Jesus Christ or his own Christianity a question. But he did come to more and more question the Church.

Thus, in dealing with the Table-Talk, we have many problems. (like the problem with promoters of this mongrelized book, such as the never-ending trouble-maker Yenta Yeager, not to mention her affiliates Hadding Scott, Tanstaafl [married to a Jew] who kicked her out of thewhitenetwork (LOL) and her Polish Shoah Friend [who stand in defense of his “comrade Ilya Ehrenburg”] [The very same Pole who by the way, dug out a so-called speech of Adolf Hitler on behalf of Yenta Yeager –  “found” by the Jew Reginald H Phelps, a (once) dean at Harvard (1949-1975), as to be an “authentic” Adolf Hitler speech? It was actually Ferdinand [von] Wiegand (according to the “original” pamphlet of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte) who had it typed up [Erste Schriftführer der Partei, Ferdinand [von] Wiegand, der die Herstellung des Manuskripts bewirkte] (why did yeager not include this?), he was expelled from the party for molesting BDM girls! The very same Phelps who sat on the board of the allied controlled syke-war machine “Institut für Zeitgeschichte”, the very same Phelps (and Jack M. Stein another Jew involved), who were responsible of what “German lessons” are supposed to be taught from kindergarten to twelve grade to anyone studying German in the USAssr & EUssr]). These lot will fall in the category of Table Talks’ “I don’t see much future for the Americans. It’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social of social inequalities . . . Everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half Judaized, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together – a country where everything is built on the dollar?”

As to my person, herewith my answer to you Yenta, in the words of Rudolf Heß

„Ich verteidige mich nicht gegen Ankläger, denen ich das Recht abspreche, gegen mich und meine Volksgenossen Anklage (inklusiv meiner Ahnen und mir) zu erheben. Ich setze mich nicht mit Vorwürfen auseinander, die sich mit Dingen befassen, die innerdeutsche Angelegenheiten sind und daher Ausländer nichts angehen. Ich erhebe keinen Einspruch gegen Äußerungen, die darauf abzielen, mich oder das ganze deutsche Volk in der Ehre zu treffen. Ich betrachte solche Anwürfe von Gegnern als Ehrenerweisung. Es war mir vergönnt, viele Jahre meines Lebens unter dem größten Sohne zu wirken, den mein Volk in seiner tausendjährigen Geschichte hervorgebracht hat. Selbst wenn ich es könnte, wollte ich diese Zeit nicht auslöschen aus meinem Dasein. Ich bin glücklich, zu wissen, daß ich meine Pflicht getan habe meinem Volk gegenüber, meine Pflicht als Deutscher, als Nationalsozialist, als treuer Gefolgsmann meines Führers. Ich bereue nichts. Stünde ich wieder am Anfang, würde ich wieder handeln wie ich handelte, auch wenn ich wüßte, daß am Ende ein Scheiterhaufen für meinen Flammentod brennt. Gleichgültig was Menschen tun, dereinst stehe ich vor dem Richterstuhl des Ewigen. Ihm werde ich mich verantworten, und ich weiß, er spricht mich frei.”

First, the only English translation available, the Trevor-Roper edition, is hopelessly corrupt; it is a translation of Genoud’s translation, and Genoud’s translation has been purposefully altered. What did this Swiss banker who claimed to be a “Nazi” really have planned? At best, he was a confused atheist who sought to de-Christianize National Socialism, á la Bormann; but at worst, and probably more realistic, he was an agent of the Jew propagandists who spent much of his personal fortune buying up Nazi relics and distributing supposedly authentic texts like the Table-Talk.

The pseudo-historian David Irving has stated that Genoud admitted that he personally forged a document called Hitler’s Last Testament. Genoud also spent years in court trying to sew-up copyrights to the Table-Talk to ensure that his perversion of the document would be the only one available. Indeed Picker’s German text was not complete, so that left Genoud plenty of room to falsify the text all he wanted. It was not until 1980 that Jochmann’s complete German text was published, but even this is merely a printing of a text that the forger Genoud had in his possession for nearly thirty years, plenty of time to corrupt the post 1942 entries all he wanted, since he knew that his manuscript was the sole source for these entries.

Then there is the issue of Bormann. To what extent did he pervert the Table-Talk and the notes of Heim? Again, there exists only five months’ worth of entries in Picker’s text which have not in some way been influenced by Bormann; and of course we are assuming that Picker, who was selected by Bormann for the position as stenographer, was not his willing accomplice, who only later sought to distance himself and his text from Bormann and therefore Genoud’s text, since the two were involved in a potentially lucrative copyright dispute. Many scholars and historians have elucidated places in the text where Bormann has clearly edited it or added his own comments. Carrier comments on an alteration by Bormann that tried to make Hitler’s mention of God appear deistic and not theistic. How far did Bormann take this perversion? It is clear that Bormann is responsible for two statements in the Table-Talk that are anti-Paul. But how much and how often Bormann has perverted the text will forever remain unclear.

Finally, we must also wonder how complete and accurate the notes of Heim and Picker are. These documents were written in shorthand, often in very abbreviated format, only later to be fleshed out by Bormann. How much did they miss while trying to take down the dictation of the fast-speaking Hitler? And how did these missing parts affect the context of what was being said? Also, the Table-Talk does not record when the conversation was meant to be sarcastic or joking. Are we to believe that Hitler never spoke in jest or sarcasm?

The answer to these many questions will never be known. Thus, what importance can the Table-Talk be? It is of importance only when it agrees with the public record. If in any point it provides new information that does not correspond with the public record of Hitler and National Socialism, it cannot be trusted, particularly when we can identify a cause for such a perversion, such as Bormann’s deism.

There are many other sources of quotations and statements from Hitler. After the war, literally dozens of people who purportedly met Hitler wasted no time in writing their accounts of Hitler (ed note: The Third Reich and National Socialism is quickly becoming the era of the most avid (secret) Diary and Memoir keepers of the century. Something like the constant appearance of the spurious books of the “Bible”). Most of these were written without the benefit of any notes and were supposed to contain accurate remembrances of what someone may have heard Hitler say 10, 20, or even 30 years earlier. Needless to say, this is an almost impossible task. Psychologists have studied people’s memories and found that people are more likely to invent than to recreate. So, even if someone were trying to be honest and accurately record what they thought Hitler might have said 20 years earlier, it is more likely that they will create what they thought Hitler might have said, based upon their own prejudices and certainly affected by how the Jewish media had painted Hitler over the years.

More than this, however, it must be understood that all of these books and articles that were reported to contain the intimations of Adolf Hitler were being financed and published by Jewish-controlled publishing companies. So only those books that contained something of value to the Jews were likely to find a publisher.

Nevertheless, there are some sources of private conversations of Hitler that can be given more credence than others. In order for a source to be even halfway reliable, it must be based upon notes or diaries made at the time of the conversation. Even then, those notes run the risk of incorporating the author’s personal biases. Still, these types of sources have proven to be much more reliable; though another caveat is that the original author of those notes or authors should be the one, while still living, to publish them. This is because there have been a whole line of forgeries that have made it to print. So it is necessary for a verifiable chain of custody to exist.

Thus, in general, all sources of sayings, quotations, or conversations of Hitler that did not come from Hitler himself should be held in question. In Mein Kampf and the thousands of speeches of Adolf Hitler, as well as various other notes and documents in his hand or bearing his signature, there is more than enough information to know what Hitler thought, and anything contradictory to that public body of information should be discarded.

An example of just how daring forgers will go is The Hitler Diaries. In 1981, the editor of the German magazine Stern paid $2,000,000 to buy a 62 volume set of diaries that were reported to be Hitler’s personal diaries. Two independent handwriting experts confirmed that they were authentic based upon a sample of Hitler’s handwriting they were given. Rupert Murdoch, the Zionist Jewish owner of Fox television and dozens of other media outlets, bought the translation rights to the diaries, and after authentication by his own expert, began publishing them in his British Sunday Times in 1983. Later that year, the West German police examined the paper and inks and bindings of the diaries. They found that the paper contained a chemical invented in 1954. The bindings contained polymers that did not exist during Hitler’s life. And all four of the inks used throughout the diaries did not exist during Hitler’s lifetime. As it turned out, handwriting experts had been fooled because the handwriting sample they were provided that was supposed to contain authentic handwriting of Hitler was actually made by the forger, and provided to them by Stern staff journalist Gerd Heidemann, who was an accomplice of the forger, Konrad Kujau. Both were sentenced to prison. It should be noted that Hugh Trevor-Roper, the editor of the previously discussed English edition of the Table-Talk, was one of the original “experts” who said that the diaries were authentic. He had published an article in The Sunday Times testifying to their authenticity.

Was this elaborate forgery just an attempt to make some money, as it was initially claimed? Apparently not. In 2002, Der Spiegel published evidence that showed that Gerd Heidemann had been a member of the Stasi, which was the East German equivalent of the CIA. Heidemann was in fact a Communist agent, positioned in the West German media. He had been working for them for 30 years when the forgeries were published. Heidemann had been a deeply planted agent, who gained many inroads into the circles of former National Socialists, befriending men such as former SS official Klaus Barbie, Wolf Hess, the son of Rudolph Hess, and even dating Edda Göring, the daughter of Hermann Göring. Starting in 1978, his file indicates that he began working for the Stasi’s foreign espionage department. Apparently, his first assignment was this failed coup by the Communist Jews to forever claim for themselves the right to tell people what Hitler really thought, as revealed in his own personal diaries.

The Hitler Diaries is but the most famous example of such forgeries, but by no means the only example. The fraud failed because the Jews were too brazen. They have learned that it is much easier to corrupt existing documents or forge writings by lesser-known figures than Hitler. But these and other attempts, some exposed, some not, all serve to muddy the water and serve as source material for Jewish historians.

Albert Speer is another unfortunate example. His memoir, Inside the Third Reich, is a favourite of the Jewish propagandists. Yet, the diaries appear to have been corrupted. David Irving first inquired of Speer in 1966 why the English edition of the book differs so greatly from the German edition. Speer confided that the book had been thoroughly re-written by staff-members of the publishing company, a fact that Irving later confirmed from the publishers. Speer told Irving in 1979, when Irving asked him why he did not publish the original book, “That would be impossible. That manuscript was quite out of keeping with the modern nuances. Even the captions to the chapters would have caused difficulties.”

Irving has also documented in his introduction to Hitler’s War a number of other forged or heavily tampered-with documents. Here, we will provide just a brief list.

– Works by Konrad Heiden, Hans Bernard Gisevius, Erich Kordt, and Fritz Wiedemann have also proven to be concoctions.

– Carl Jakob Burckhardt’s diary.

– Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler is largely embellished and fictional.

– Fritz Thyssen’s I Paid Hitler.

– The forged Christa Schroeder diary, actually written by Albert Zoller.

– Large sections of The Testament of Adolf Hitler are probably fictitious.

– The diaries of Vice Admiral Wilhelm Canaris.

– Eva Braun’s diaries (forged from the diary of Countess Irma Larisch-Wallersee). There did exist an authentic diary of Braun, which was recovered after the war, but this diary disappeared shortly thereafter and has never been seen again.

– The diary of Feliz Kersten, the reported masseuse of Himmler and Ribbentrop, is also a complete fraud.

– There are obvious corruptions and frauds in Count Galeazzo Ciano’s famous diaries.

– Luftwaffe Chief of Staff Karl Koller’s published diary is a forgery.

And the list goes on. Even authentic diaries, memoirs, or accounts are likely to contain corruptions or interpolations from the publishers, even if the author is alive, such as Speer’s Inside the Third Reich, or even David Irving’s Hitler’s War, which, when translated to German, was altered significantly by the German publisher.

The number of corruptions and forgeries seems almost endless. Even authentic documents, accurately published, often times contain old lies and fraudulent claims that have been put forth by the Jewish propaganda machine since the 1920’s. Thus, the reliable sources are few, but they are sufficient to accurately piece together an authentic account of Hitler and the Third Reich.

As a last personal note:

“This was and will always be a religious war, finally one sees that clearly. A war between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and Anti-Christ.” (1919, Dietrich Eckart stated about World War I in (“Auf Gut Deutsch”)

People have NO CLUE how firm these men in the NSDAP were rooted in Christianity and it was their zeal and love for Christianity that inspired them. You cannot be a National Socialist and not be a Christian! They are inseparable!

“We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian.” – Adolf Hitler

Gottfried Feder wrote:
“The same must be said of all the coarse, stupid attacks on Christianity. Expressions such as “Christianity has only done harm” merely show that the man who utters them has neither human and political intelligence. It is wrong to abuse in general terms the greatest phenomenon in European history to abuse in general terms because of the perversities, erroneous ideas and defaults of individuals. The Christian Religion has uplifted and strengthened millions and millions, and brought them to God by the way of suffering.”