Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven science - not just unproved theories. One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact that science knows that human beings have lived on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the Bible, and the common belief that the Bible says that Adam was the first man. But the truth is that the Bible nowhere says that Adam was the first man; yes, I know that most of the preachers say that, but the Bible doesn't! It merely says that Adam was the first WHITE man. Let us look at the record.

The many mistranslations in the King James Version obscure much of the truth. For example. Genesis 1:1-2 - "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In the Hebrew, it says, "Now the earth HAD BECOME chaotic and empty." (See Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.) That is, some early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not "without form and void" before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations, for their wickedness. Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision of it: "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end." Therefore, we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam, and skeletons which can be dated by the "carbon 14" process as many thousands of years older. But the Bible itself tells us about this.

Next, the Bible tells of the creation of men. in the plural, in Genesis 1:26-28, saying, "male and female created He THEM" (1:27), and God told these people, "Be fruitful and multiply, and REplenish the earth" (1:28). Pleanish is an obsolete English word, meaning "to fill"; and you cannot REplenish what was never plenished, or filled, before. In the next chapter, Genesis 2, we find THE ADAM (in the singular) was created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion" - a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the White Race.

Bible scholars know that Genesis 3:20 - "And Adam called his wife's name 'Eve'; because she was the mother of all living" - is a later interpolation, which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt's Trans.)

The 4th chapter of Genesis records the birth of Cain and Abel; in the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth, when Adam was 130 years old - certainly long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over 100 years earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to God that "any one that findeth me shall slay me" (4:14). Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. These were the pre-Adamite races.

The Garden of Eden was not a plantation of ordinary trees and shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation, just to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears, when He already had millions of pre-Adamite peoples available for that sort of work. We are told that the Garden of Eden contained 'the tree of the knowledge (or experience) of good and evil." No tree of the forest has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. And Ezekiel 31 says: "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough, and of an high stature... Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long... all the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations... THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; NOR ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD WAS LIKE UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE TREES OF EDEN, THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD ENVIED HIM." Obviously, the trees in the Garden of God in Eden were "family trees" of races and nations, who admired and envied the early Assyrian Empire. These made up the "garden" That Adam was to cultivate. That is, Satan had been what we might call the Superintendent of this planet, to rule it in obedience to God's will, until he forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to take his place. It was Adam's job to rule the various nations and races of the earth as God's representative here, educating them in God's laws, and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and nations had been here long before Adam.

Therefore, the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all descended from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth, already old, already numerous, when Adam was created. And among these other races there are the several who are simply pre-Adamic; and one, at least which is Satanic. If you will read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that, immediately after the Fall of Adam, when God required them to answer what they had done, God condemned Satan. The word mistranslated is the Hebrew word "naw-khash," which literally means "enchanter" or "magician" - and, no doubt Satan, still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter or magician. It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted, in the original Hebrew. Cain was the son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word "begat" with monotonous regularity; but the first time the Bible ever says that Adam ever ''begat" anyone is Genesis 5:3, where it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." But to get back to Genesis 3:15 - God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between THY SEED and HER SEED." The same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both cases; Satan was to have just as literal "seed," or descendants; as Eve. God's own word - being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually happening; and we do. Jesus Christ, Himself, tells us of it.

In Matthew 13:38-39, explaining the Parable of the Tares Among the Wheat, Jesus says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children OF THE KINGDOM; but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED THEM IS THE DEVIL." Again, in John 6:70-71, Jesus had been talking with His 12 disciples, and we read: "Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is A DEVIL? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the twelve." And again, you should read carefully the eighth chapter of John, where Jesus told those who hated Him, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was not being vulgarly abusive, in either of these cases, for He never resorted to name-calling for abuse. He did call some of them "hypocrites" - which they truly were, so His statement was precisely accurate; He did call some of them "serpents, children of vipers" -which, again, was accurate. Long before this, they had adopted the serpent as a symbol of Satan; that is why their tradition had given the word "naw-khash" the translation "serpent," when it really means "enchanter." Jesus, therefore, was telling them that they were of their father the devil (or serpent, if they preferred that word). In this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision, and identifying the persons of this ancestry.

Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what modern science has proved true, don't you believe it. The things that many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth, as we all know; but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go back to the Bible, not to any man-made doctrines; and double-check it for accuracy of translation. You will find that what the Bible really says, in its original languages, is accurate with a precision our scientists have not yet achieved.

MAN AND BEAST

In these discussions, it has been our custom to frequently review current events in detail, because these show the fulfillment of Bible prophecies in our day. However, in covering the subject I now want to discuss, I shall not have much occasion to list these events in detail, and this for a definite reason. There are times when it is not so important to count every bead on the string, as it is to see whether they are all strung on the same string: When you learn that, you will know where to look for the next bead. My purpose is to show the existence of certain definite principles, which govern the events which we see happening, as these principles have governed them for thousands of years.

For ages, it was well understood by everyone that various nations and races had certain characteristics, which usually would be demonstrated in the actions of these peoples. National and racial policies and conduct developed out of national and racial character. There were, of course, the rare exceptions; and these, a certain type of mind seizes upon as proof that there was no general rule. "The exception merely proves the rule." Similarly, we can note that among crows, one bird in every 38 million is white, an albino; but this only emphasizes the rule that all of the other 38 million crows are black. Therefore, reasonably consistent conduct can be identified as the rule, notwithstanding an occasional exception which surprises us when we find it.

Among the ancients, nobody pretended to be ignorant of the characteristics of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Romans, or what they were likely to do in order to execute their purposes. Roman military ability in war and harshness in rule over conquered peoples were well understood, and nobody was surprised to meet them. The extreme ferocity and cruelty of the Assyrians was known to all. Centuries of history demonstrated a consistency in these characteristics which only a fool could ignore.

In our own times, everyone understood that the Japanese were a warlike people, and had been for two thousand years; therefore, only the ignorant or the stupid were surprised to learn that Japan wanted to conquer many other nations. (However, we had to learn by terrible, first-hand experience that the Japanese also had the Asiatic characteristics of treachery and senseless cruelty for its own sake. This cruelty was not just typically Japanese: it was typically Asiatic, for we see the same traits displayed by the Red Chinese in their treatment of the people of Tibet, as well as their cruelty to our soldiers whom they captured.)

During both the First and Second World Wars, those strange, alien people who are so busily brain-washing us today to suit their own purposes, then propagandized us into believing many hideous lies about the Germans; and from these lies, we were expected to believe that the Germans were so inherently wicked that they were about to invade Beverly Hills or Las Vegas! Then they taught us that inborn, racial characteristics would be manifested in conduct whenever the situation called for it. But now this alien Minority Group teaches us (by corrupting most of our schools, our newspapers, our news commentators, even many of our churches) that there are no longer any racial characteristics or tendencies, no fixed, long-range national purposes: in short, that all people in the world, white, black, yellow or brown, civilized or savage, are exactly alike, as interchangeable as Ford parts. They have spent many millions of dollars on a high-pressure propaganda campaign, designed to blind us to the racial and national characteristics and purposes which are molding the course of history today, as they have molded history through out all time. (It might be well to ask ourselves, "What makes this worth so much money to them? Just how are they planning to get back this enormous investment?")

We can get a better perspective on present-day affairs if we view them as a continuation of thousands of years of uninterrupted history: and if we look not only for what happened, but also why it happened. Nothing important is a true accident: for every occurrence there is a cause. History is usually written as merely a list of effects; that is why we learn so few lessons from it. We will never really understand history until we list the causes, also.

Past history, current events, and the coming events of the future, all consist of the actions of people. Whether their actions are good or bad, people do what they do, because they are what they are: the kind of people who do good or bad things. Conduct is the product of character. The man who is kind and trustworthy by nature doesn't become a Jack-the-Ripper or a kidnapper of children: his own nature prevents it;. and the man who is by nature cruel or dishonest will, sooner or later, act like what he is. The dull do not become brilliant merely because they receive legal permission to do so. And, since nations and races are just great numbers of individual people, they will display those traits which are characteristic of most of their people. Therefore, if we can learn something about what kinds of people there are, this may help us to understand their actions, even to learn what to expect from them in the future.

For their own purposes, men make various classifications of things and of people: but usually, the conclusions they wish to reach dictates the classification which will best support it. Wishful thinking vitiates the result. On the other hand, God who views all eternity with a single glance, has His own classifications, based upon the eternal realities. For this, as for all other truths revealed to man, we must look to the Bible. There, we will find that God has classified several different kinds of beings, all of whom we lump together indiscriminately, under the one term "men"; but God distinguishes between them by using distinctive names for the different kinds of beings. Let us examine them, and see if the different words used have any significance as to the kind of people they denote, the level of character and spiritual understanding to be found in the different kinds of beings thus identified by their different names.

Several different Hebrew words have all been indiscriminately translated "man" or "men" in the King James Version of the Bible, although some very important differences of meaning show clearly on the face of these words. First, let us consider the word which denotes our White Race. The Hebrew word "AW-DAWM" - called "Adam" in your Bible - is from a root word meaning "to be of a ruddy complexion, to show blood in the face" - obviously not applicable to Negroes or Mongolians, but only to the White Race. When used to denote the first White Man, Adam, the Hebrew always says "The Awdawm"; when used of his descendants, the Hebrew just says "Awdawm." But your King James Version translates it "man."

Another word used in contrast to "Awdawm" is "ENOSH." It is always used in a derogatory sense. Its root meaning is "mortal," and implies weakness, physically or morally; wretchedness. It is applied to NON-Adamic races, which are, of course, all PRE-Adamic. It should be noted that the pre-Adamic races are not limited geographically to just certain parts of the earth, but some of them are found mingled among the Adamites.

A third Hebrew word translated "man" is "Ish" (Eesh). Literally, it means "a male person" or "a husband." It is used for mankind in general, and can be applied to either an Adamite or a pre-Adamite. The feminine form is Isha (eesh-shaw); the plural of which is "naw-sheem." This is so similar to the plural of "enosh" - "Anashim" that they have often been confused, leading to many mistakes in translation.

There are three other, closely related words, "gheh-ber," "gheb-ar" and "ghib-bawr," which are all derived from a root meaning "to be strong"; and these are usually translated "mighty man" or "warrior." These last three can cause no confusion, so they need not concern us further.

Now, let us note a few examples of the use of these words in the Bible. In place of the English word "man," I will use the Hebrew word used in the original. Ezekiel 34:31 - " And ye, My flock, the flock of My pasture, are AWDAWM, and I am your God, saith the Lord God." Psalm 115:16, "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's; but the earth hath He given to the children of AWDAWM." But note how God uses AWDAWM and ENOSH in contrast: take Psalm 90:3, "Thou turnest ENOSH to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of AWDAWM. "While destruction is visited upon the pre-Adamite ENOSH for their persistent wickedness, God leads the children of AWDAWM back to Himself in repentance.

He distinguishes between AWDAWM and ENOSH in many places: for example, Psalm 8:4, "What is ENOSH, that Thou art mindful of him? And son of AWDAWM, that Thou visitest him?" Note that, while God is mindful of what the ENOSH do, it was the sons of AWDAWM that God visited when Jesus Christ came to earth. Both racial groups must be disciplined, but the distinction is kept clear even there: Isaiah 2:11 says, "The lofty looks of AWDAWM shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of ENOSH shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." In 2 Samuel 7:14 we read, "I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of ENOSH, and with the stripes of the children of AWDAWM." If these were not distinctly different races, there would be no point in using the different words.

The ENOSH were wicked, and are so spoken of. Deuteronomy 13:13 warns that "Certain ENOSH, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and worship other gods, which ye have not known." When they gain power, they are brutal oppressors; so Psalm 10:17-18 says, "Lord, Thou hast heard the desire of the humble: Thou wilt prepare their hearts, Thou wilt cause Thine ear to hear: to judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the ENOSH of earth may no more oppress." The ENOSH have no spiritual understanding: that is the reason for their continual wickedness. Proverbs 28:5 says, "Evil ENOSH understand not judgment: but they that seek the Lord understand all things." This distinction is still in effect, today: For Daniel 12:10, speaking of the Time of the End (which is our own time), says, "None of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

But this is not all. Some races God classifies as animals Their nations are symbolized as beasts in numerous prophecies. Do you say that this isn't what you have been taught to believe? Then let us look into this a bit, and see what the Bible says about it. For example, when Jonah finally went to Nineveh with his prophecy that God intended to destroy the city for its people's wickedness, they believed him. This is not as surprising as it may seem: for the people of Nineveh worshiped Dagon, the fish god. Since they had heard that a great fish had delivered Jonah on the shore, they thought he must be a prophet sent from Dagon, and they were ready to believe him. The 3rd chapter of Jonah says that the king was worried, "And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let NEITHER MAN NOR BEAST, herd nor flock, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water: But LET MAN AND BEAST BE COVERED WITH SACKCLOTH, AND CRY MIGHTILY UNTO GOD: YEA, LET THEM TURN EVERY ONE FROM HIS EVIL WAY, and from the violence that is in their hands.. And God saw THEIR works, that THEY TURNED FROM THEIR EVIL WAY, and God repented of the calamity that He said that He would do to them, and He did it not." Now what kind of "BEASTS" were these, who put on sack-cloth, cried to God, and turned from their evil way? It says that this was the command for "Man and BEAST" and that they did so. Is your dog that well-trained? Then who was the Bible calling BEASTS?

Let us look into this a bit further. In the 9th chapter of Genesis, God promises Noah and his family protection; in the 5th verse, God says, "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the HAND of every Beast will I require it and at the hand of man." These "BEASTS" have hands, like a man! But there were no monkeys in that region, so these beasts with hands must have been men. Again, in Exodus 19:12-13, when the people of Israel were gathered at the foot of Mt. Sinai while Moses climbed the mountain to receive the Ten Commandments from God, God warned him, "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall surely be put to death. There shall not a HAND touch it, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; WHETHER IT BE BEAST OR MAN, it shall not live." Again, we find that, whether it be beast or man, it must not touch the mountain with a hand.

The second chapter of Genesis tells us that God is looking for a suitable wife for Adam, and brings in review before him what your King James Version calls "every BEAST OF THE FIELD" to see if a good wife for Adam could be found among them. Do you really think that an all-wise God had to carefully look over a female scorpion, a female toad, a female giraffe and a female elephant, to decide whether one of these would be a suitable wife for Adam? Of course not! And Moses didn't write any such foolishness when he wrote the Book of Genesis. This is purely the work of the translators. In the original Hebrew, the account makes good sense, and tells us much a bout the other races.

There are two closely-related Hebrew words used here - KHAH-EE and KHAW-YAW - each of which means "a living creature": the meaning is far too broad to be translated merely "beast" or "animal," for it includes all living creatures, from microbes to men. Where the King James Version says "beast f the field," the word is always either KHAH-EE or KHA -YAW; so a correct translation would be "THE LIVING BEINGS IN THE COUNTRY." That these "living beings" include men is clear from the same word being applied to Adam. You have read Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" In the Hebrew it reads, "Then YAHWEH God formed THE AWDAWM out of dust from the ground, and breathed in his nostrils breath of life; and THE AWDAWM became NEPHESH KHAW-YAW" ("a breathing creature having life"). So "the beast of the field" - "the KHAW-YAW of the field - or more correctly "the living beings in the countryside" - actually included the pre-Adamic races.

Now Genesis 2:18-20 makes sense: God saw that Adam needed a wife; and, not condemning anybody without a fair chance to make good, God carefully looked over the pre-Adamic races (African and Asiatic) to see if one of them could be found who was suitable to be Adam's wife and the mother of the new race; but He couldn't find one. In the Hebrew, this reads thus: "And YAHWEH God said, Not good for THE Awdawm to be alone. I shall make him an helper - AS HIS COUNTERPART. And YAHWEH God formed from the ground every living being of the fields, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto THE Awdawm to see what he doth call it; and whatever THE Awdawm calleth a NEPHESH KHAW-YAW, (a breathing creature having life), that is its name. And THE Awdawm calleth names to all the cattle, and to fowl of the heavens, and to every living being of the fields; and to him hath not been found an helper AS HIS COUNTERPART." That is, God recognized that Adam's wife must be HIS COUNTERPART, having the same qualities of spiritual understanding, to be able to transmit to her descendants the same qualities for which God specially placed Adam in the world; but God could not find even one out of these pre-Adamic peoples who was Adam's COUNTERPART, having these necessary qualities.

Before someone gets the idea that I hate other races, let us look at this thing a little closer. The Black Race has been on earth at least 40,000 years, for identifiable Negroid skeletons have been discovered which can be scientifically dated as that old. Yet in all those 40,000 years there has never been a Negro civilization. Yes, I know that a few Negro tribal chiefs have conquered other tribes and built themselves up a larger kingdom: but it takes more than the brutal tyranny of a successful war-chief to make a civilization, and that was all they had. Don't speak of Egypt; Egypt was in Africa, but never Negroid. The beautiful portrait sculptures left by the ancient Egyptians show them to have been clearly a pure white people; in the days of Egypt's greatness, any Negro found north of the first cataract of the Nile River was summarily killed on sight.

We don't hate Negroes; we want them to be well-fed, well-clothed, comfortably housed, and in no danger of being eaten by other Negroes - something they have never had except in a civilization created and maintained by White Men. Despite all propaganda, every Negro in the United States is far better off than those in Africa: just try to find any who want to go back to any black nation in Africa! But neither Negroes nor Whites will have the blessings of civilization in a nation reduced to black standards of thinking: If they were capable of producing a civilization at all, 40,000 years is long enough to do it.

Yes, I know that in Asia, 2,300 years ago, Confucius taught some high ethical principles - but without a word of religion in them; and I know that the Ming Dynasty saw the production of some nice pieces of porcelain. But what did either of these do for the Asiatic people? Did it ever teach them how to produce enough food to fill those fine porcelain bowls? Shouldn't 2,300 years of Confucian philosophy be enough to develop something more than poverty, disease and misery? Again, the Asiatic mind lacks the true spiritual understanding which God saw was needed. Aren't the Asiatics who live in the United States better off than those who live in Red China, Korea, or Southeast Asia? We don't hate them; but we don't want them to reduce us to their level. This is what God was talking about in the second chapter of Genesis, when He said that the other beings living in the country 'round about could not produce a suitable wife for Adam, "AS HIS COUNTERPART."

Because of the spiritual understanding which God put in The AWDAWM, today the White Race has the highest civilization, the greatest freedom, the highest standard of living, in the world: they are the so-called "have" nations. We have not hated the other races: we have tried to help them, to show them our ways. But all of them have hated us; in the centuries when we were very few against their many, they repeatedly tried to conquer and destroy us, but God's watchful care over His people didn't allow that to happen, although several times they came dangerously close to success. In lands rich with minerals, they sit in wretchedness and poverty too lacking in enterprise to mine the enormous wealth beneath their feet; in lands where the fertile soil and ample rainfall cover the land with lush growth, they live in perpetual hunger, because they are too dull to clear the land and plant it to food crops. If we provide the capital to pay them for clearing their land and planting and harvesting useful crops, or for digging and refining the minerals in their soil, they curse us for "exploiting" them; but if we don't, they curse us for being indifferent to their misery. Now, through the United Nations where they outnumber and outvote us, they plan to rule us, plunder us, enslave us, reduce us to their level. Well did God classify them as "ENOSH," lacking utterly in the spiritual understanding necessary to follow God's ways.

Perhaps you may say, "All these were quoted from the Old Testament; but in the New Testament, God changed His mind and changed all that." So, let us see what the New Testament says about them. In his Epistle to Titus (1:12), Paul says, "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, EVIL BEASTS." The word "THERION," means "a dangerous animal." Jude 10 says, "But these speak evil of those things they know not: But what they know naturally, as BRUTE BEASTS, in those things they corrupt themselves." And 2 Peter 2:12 says, "But these, as natural brute BEASTS, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not, and shall utterly perish in their own corruption."

These ENOSH were commonly called "DOGS," both in the Old and New Testaments. For example, Psalm 22 is recognized by all Bible scholars as prophetic of Jesus Christ's first coming and crucifixion. In the 16th verse, it says: "For DOGS have compassed Me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed Me: they pierced My hands and My feet." God is certainly not complaining that some four-footed dogs barked at Him; and there is no record that any ever did. He is speaking of those who delivered Him up to be crucified. The use of this word is common, in the New Testament. In Philippians 3:2, Paul says, "Beware of DOGS, beware of evil workers." The four-footed dogs are no more "evil workers" than cats and cows; Paul and those to whom he wrote knew that these "dogs" were the two-footed kind.

If you say, "This is discrimination between races!" you are exactly right. Has someone told you that monstrous falsehood, that "It isn't Christian to discriminate between the races"? Let us see what Jesus Christ, Himself, did. In Mark 7:25-29, we read, "For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of Him, and came and fell at His feet: the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not right to take the children's bread and to cast it unto the DOGS. And she answered and said unto Him, Yes, Lord: yet the DOGS under the table eat of the children's crumbs. And He said unto her, For this saying, go thy way: the devil is gone out of thy daughter." Jesus Christ certainly did discriminate; and not until the woman recognized the righteousness of the discrimination did He help her. She had first asked help of Him on the same basis as the Israelites, true AWDAWM. On that basis, she was not entitled to it. Jesus told her, Let the children first be filled with the Bread of Life; then they will establish the Kingdom of God on earth, and from this God's blessings will be extended to such others as can understand and receive them in the proper spirit. Meanwhile, Jesus Christ did not hesitate to openly call the ENOSH "dogs." When the woman indicated that she understood that the blessings would come to others out of the abundance which God gave to His own children, then He told her that "for this saying" He had healed her daughter.

Again, Jesus Christ carefully warned His disciples never to make the mistake of failing to discriminate, never to try to bring the ENOSH, who lack understanding, into the Kingdom of God on the same terms as the AWDAWM. In Matthew 7:6, He warned them, "Give not that which is holy unto the DOGS, neither cast ye your pearls before SWINE, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Strong words? Yes: but the direct command of Jesus Christ, Himself. We have disobeyed Him, and WE ARE NOW FACING THE TRAGIC PENALTY. We have tried to treat the other races as equals: we have expected them to learn the same lessons from our religion that we do; we have expected them to behave with some self-restraint when they find power in their hands. But this is exactly what Jesus Christ warned us not to do, "lest they trample our pearls under their feet, and turn again and rend us." Of our advanced technology, they want only to learn how to make weapons to use against us: In fact, they are even using the very food we send them as a weapon against us, for the surplus food will allow them to take more men off the farms and put them into armies and weapons factories. To thus strengthen our enemies is only a fool's method of suicide.

To His disciples, Jesus said (in John 14:16-17), "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever: Even the Spirit of Truth. whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." Therefore, it was logical to speak of those whose minds lacked the spiritual understanding as "beasts," because of their nature. In the Book of Daniel, the prophet traces the rise and fall of four great world-empires ruled by these people. First he interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image, whose head was of gold, his breast and arms of silver, his belly and thighs of brass, his legs of iron, as prophesying the successive dominance of four great empires, Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon being the first of these, the golden head, and the others being Medo-Persia, Alexander's, and Rome. But in chapter 7, Daniel had a vision of four remarkable beasts, rising one after the other out of the sea. We know that, in prophecy, the sea is symbolic of mankind in general, all people - the great majority of whom are the ENOSH, the pre-Adamic races. Out of them came the four beasts: the first, a lion, symbolized Babylon, like the golden head of the image; the second, a bear, symbolized the great empire of Media and Persia; the third, a leopard, for the swift-striking empire of Alexander the Great; and the fourth, a very terrible beast with iron teeth, ten horns, and great strength, symbolized Rome. This was exactly the same series, in the same order, as the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Its repetition was to confirm the first one as true prophecy.

As further confirmation, in the Book of Revelation we again find a beast, representing these world empires, rising out of the sea. In Revelation 13, we are told that this strange beast had the mouth of a lion, the feet of a bear, yet was otherwise like a leopard, but it had ten horns, like the fourth beast which Daniel saw. The fact that the qualities of all four are now combined in one beast is to show that the four great world-empires were all of one origin, all manifestations of Satanic power, all arising out of the sea of non-Adamic races. They came to power in succession; each gained enormous power over the peoples who lived in great areas; but the rule of each was harsh, tyrannical, brutal, each one more so than those before it. Man's planning, man's skill in putting his plans into effect, man's ability to judge what was needed in ruling an empire - these they had; but the spiritual understanding, the capacity to receive the thoughts of God, the capacity to organize and rule a nation under God's laws - this they lacked.

Revelation 13 shows that this composite "beast" gained its power from the dragon, Satan. Surely, these empires demonstrated their Satanic character. Finally, to make sure that the symbolism of the vision would not be misunderstood, Revelation 13:18 concludes, "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the BEAST: for it is the number of a MAN."

If these "beasts" were nations of men, why symbolize them as beasts? We have seen that God's prophets, and even Jesus Christ Himself, bluntly called certain races "beasts." A nation made up of Chinese people must be a Chinese nation; a nation made up of Negroes must be a Negro nation; then, a nation made up of those whom the Bible calls "beasts" must be a beast nation - and it is so stated.

The fall of the Roman Empire ended only the vast extent of power in the hands of those who served Satan; it has not ended their desire to regain that power, nor their struggle for it. So the Book of Revelation shows a continuation of the struggle for power, carried on by a new beast, right down to the time of the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, when the beast makes war against Him, but is conquered by our Lord. We see this struggle for power going on in the world, today: the non-Adamic peoples, now organized into many nations so as to multiply their voting power in the United Nations (where just the cannibal tribes of Africa, alone, are recognized as about 30 nations, having 30 votes to our one). There is not one of them which stands reliably on our side; once in a while, they find it to their advantage to seek something which we also want to accomplish, and on that one issue they vote with us. But next day, they either proclaim their "neutrality" in our struggle for the survival of the free world (with which they have no sympathy), or they actively support Russia against us. It is inevitable that those who are of the same race, the same origin, having the same qualities, the same ambitions and ideals, should align themselves together, working for their common purpose. In the great world-empires of the past, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Alexander's short-lived empire, and finally Rome, they had what they wanted, a system which expressed their own true character. They want to restore this system: and the United Nations is made-to-order for their purpose, as God prophesied. In Revelation 13:14, we are told that the new beast "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by means of the miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image of the beast which had the wound by the sword, and did live." They seek to give the United Nations world-wide empire, like that of Babylon and Rome, only greater; an empire which crushes and dominates all nations, enforcing its will by bestially brutal forces, as we have seen in the Congo; an empire which repudiates the one true God, where the name of Jesus Christ cannot be mentioned because it offends those who hate Him, and where the only reference to any divinity is the statue of the pagan god Zeus in the lobby; an empire ruled by those whom the Bible calls "beasts" - for they now outnumber the whole White Race 8 to 1 in voting strength: though we have 1/6 of the world's population, by this juggling of voting power we are reduced to 1/9 of its voting strength. When we see their plans for world rule developing, we can begin to understand the dreadful prophecy of the coming day when no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast...."

Nevertheless, the return of Jesus Christ will overthrow their plans. Their power will be destroyed, and they will be put in their proper place. This place emphatically does not include rule over the nations: that has brought too many thousands of years of misery and sorrow. And in the final end, when God's New Jerusalem is set up on earth, we are told (in Revelation 22:14-15), "Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the City, FOR WITHOUT ARE DOGS..." and various others. This doesn't mean that you can have your pussycat, canary and goldfish, but Faithful Fido is excluded: these "dogs" are the ones Jesus Christ names.

"Discrimination!" do you say? Yes, indeed! But from start to finish, from Genesis to Revelation, God Himself has commanded discrimination. I would not oppose it if I could.

 Gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ
  

WHAT HAPPENED TO CAIN?

"What Happened to Cain?" is a question in the minds of many Believers. The Bible does not trace Cain very far, and yet the fact is that Cain is a definite historical character of whom you can learn as much outside the Bible as you can from the Bible itself. Do not let anyone tell you that these Old Testament people are myths. They are not. They are definitely a part of history. The Bible states that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden - eastward, evidenced by Cherubim being placed at the east of the Garden to guard it against their possible return. - If they had gone to the south or to the west, guards at the east side would not have meant a thing. Obviously, they went to the east; and, as we learned when we were studying Noah's flood, Adam's migration actually took him and Eve into the Atrium Basin, in what is today called Sinkiang, in the extreme southwestern part of China. The migration undoubtedly took a considerable period of time. It was a long way to walk, but they had time in those days. Adam lived 900 odd years.

In the area where they settled, Eve gave birth to two children - Cain and Abel. Much is lost in the mistranslations in your King James Version. Genesis 3:15 establishes the theme of the entire Bible, and all the rest of it is a development of that theme. Eventually, God called before Him; Adam, Eve and Satan to give an accounting of their misdeeds. Please do not get the idea, as your King James Version and all the traditional translations tell you, that Satan was a snake - a long scaly thing, wriggling along the ground, because that is not what the Hebrew says. The word they mistranslated snake is "nachash', (naw-khawsh) whose root meaning is "enchanter" or "magician." You will recall that while Satan was expelled from Heaven and his wings clipped considerably, he nonetheless retained possession of a good deal of his angelic powers. In the course of time, his children (and I do mean children, just as the Bible says) came to adopt the serpent as a symbol, an emblem of their father; and, over a period of centuries, the word was given a secondary meaning of "serpent," which was not its basic meaning.

Cain murdered Abel and was expelled from that region. Referring back to Genesis 3:15 (and this is before Cain comes on the scene) God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed," etc. In the idiom of the Hebrew language "seed" and "fruit" are used not only to literally mean grain and the fruit that grows on the tree, but is also used quite regularly to refer to the descendants of people. The same Hebrew word for "seed" was used both referring to Satan and to Eve. Satan was to have just as literal children as was Eve.

God goes on to say "...it shalt bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." In other words, you have here, in the Bible, the first recorded promise of the coming of The Redeemer. Evidently God went on to tell them a great deal more than that, which the Bible does not at that point record. Abel brought as his offering the Blood Sacrifice. Whereas, Cain, who also had flocks and herds, though he was primarily a farmer, brought fruits and vegetables and dumped them down, as much as to say to God, "Well, landlord, here's your crop rent." And then he wondered why his offering was not acceptable to God!

Cain murdered Abel and he was driven out "from the face of the earth." In the King James Version it quotes Cain as saying to God, "Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth" (Genesis 4:14). The implication here seems to be that he climbed into his rocket ship and went off into inter-stellar space, which of course we know is not what happened. He did not say you have driven me off the face of the earth. The word earth, used there, happens to be "adamah" which means merely "the ground, "but it had little deeper significance. He had been a farmer, and God told him that as a curse upon him, the land - the ground -"which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.. shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength..." (Genesis 4:11-12). To this day, who ever saw a Jewish farmer?

The actual reading in the Hebrew of these verses Genesis 4:13-17 is this, "And Cain said unto Yahweh, Great is my iniquity beyond bearing: behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the land and from Thy face I shall be hidden and I shall become unsettled and wandering on the earth; and it will come to pass anyone finding me will kill me."

If, as the churches teach, Adam was the first human being of any sort, then no one was left alive at this stage except Adam and Eve (who were not going to kill Cain) and Cain himself. Yet, he expected to be killed in the immediate future when he ran into someone. This is simply another instance of the Bible's recognition, in several places, of the existence of pre-Adamic races.

The next verse says, "...and Yahweh said unto him, Therefore, anyone killing Cain, sevenfold shall he be avenged, and Yahweh made for Cain a sign in order that anyone finding him not smite him. And Cain went out from before Yahweh and settled in the Land of Wandering." Your King James Version gives the Hebrew word "Nod" - but it means wandering - eastward of Eden.

It goes on to read (verse 17), "And Cain knew his wife (where did he get a wife if there was not anyone else on earth in those days?) and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city." So, there were enough people on hand not only to furnish him a wife, but to build a city under his direction - "and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." Cain, in his wandering, traveled to and built his city in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley district.

The rivers overflowed their banks every flood season and would drive the people out. In between flood seasons, they could plant crops, anything maturing quickly enough to be harvested before the next flood season. Then the overflow would drive them out again.

Evidently Cain was a man of great ability and great intelligence. He taught them something they probably vaguely realized they should do, but they did not have what it took to get organized and do it. He taught them to build dikes, to make embankments along the sides of the river channel, just as we have in our own Mississippi River valley - dikes which would hold the rivers within their channels even during the flood season - all of which stopped it from being a "land of wandering." This enabled them to build their cities with the assurance that they would not be washed away next flood time. To this day you can find traces of the ancient embankments by which the river channels were protected.

There is a group of languages spoken from the Persian Gulf and the Zagros mountains west to the Mediterranean, which are all related in their origin. Aramaic was spoken over a vast area and it is even today a living language spoken by some people in Syria. It is also the language which Jesus Christ spoke, because that is the language the people about Him could understand. It was their contemporary language. The old classical Hebrew had become, at that time, pretty much of a dead language. The scholars knew it, like they today know Latin and Greek, but the common people did not speak it. So there was the old Sumerian, the much more important Aramaic, and Hebrew. The Phoenician Cities -spoke another dialect - a Semitic dialect, rather closely related to Hebrew.

In Hebrew, they called the city after Cain's son's name, Enoch. An actual city was built with a name so close to that, that the only difference is the difference between the two languages.

In the lower Tigris-Euphrates Valley, now named Sumeria, their civilization was very ancient. In fact, it undoubtedly goes back to the first chapter of Genesis. Some of their records date the beginning of their own settlement there from about 14,000 B.C., and their records of astronomical occurrences would seem to bear this out. The important events were noted in the chronicles of all the ancient peoples. In fact, this is the only way we have been able to work out any kind of synchronization of ancient history. They had no general date scale like our own, as we say this is the year 1976 A.D. But in each kingdom their own records would show that something occurred on the 11th day of the 8th month of the 14th year of the reign of King somebody-or-other. Then, when he died, they started it all over again, with the first day of the first month of the first year of the reign of King somebody-else. They noted in these records important events, such as their wars. This is one way in which we have been able to work out a synchronization of ancient history. When the records of ancient Babylonia show a war with Egypt, which the records of Egypt also show, we can learn that the 15th year of King somebody-or-other of Babylonia was the same as the 8th. year of Pharaoh somebody-else of Egypt. One other thing they did was to record the major eclipses, total or nearly total eclipses, of the sun. One can calculate to the exact day when such an eclipse would be visible in that locality. This is not a matter of guess-work. However, you do have to know the astronomical cycle to work it out. The fact that records go way back, thousands of years. before Adam, correctly showing these cycles when the eclipses occurred, seem to lend a fair amount of truth to them. At any rate, we have their current records. I do not mean records where they say that this city was settled so many thousands of years ago. I am talking about their then current record of events of the time when they were written. We have their current records from about 4500 B.C or about 500 years before Adam. For example, the records of Enshagkushana the King of Kengi which was a city in Sumer, mentions that he was also "patesi" (priest) of Enlil in the city of Nippur. This record it also dates back to around 4500 B.C. It also mentions the city of Kish and Gursi.

Alusharshad the King of Kish about 4000 B.C. left records in which he claimed to be King of the World, which was, as we may note, a rather substantial exaggeration.

So, when Cain moved into that locality, he found a civilization already in existence, with quite extensive commerce reaching clear to the Mediterranean Sea, but apparently it needed some more of his engineering skill. The geological evidences that are found indicate that the entire area there, including some of the Arabian Desert, was a luxuriant well-watered grass land, with abundant grazing animals on it, and trees (and that sort of thing) up to around 4500 B.C., when the climatic change began over a period of perhaps 500 years or so, extending down to say, roughly, 4000 B.C.

There was a gradual drying up of the area, and from being a Nomadic people, able to live like the American Indians when they followed the herds of the buffalo, these people had to settle down in the river valleys and see to it that their crops were planted, irrigated and harvested.

In this lower Tigris-Euphrates Valley, these two great rivers brought enormous loads of silt year around, carried down from their upper reaches, where they were running swiftly. The Valley of the Nile is famous for the fine silt soil. In the Imperial Valley, you find the same kind of rich silt, left there by the Colorado River. This is beautiful, fine silt soil, and perhaps nowhere in the world is there a clay so perfectly adapted to the making of tile and bricks as this clay silt of the Tigris and Euphrates Valley.

Into this scene of ancient civilization comes a definite historical character; not just somebody that people centuries later wrote about, but a man who left his own records which are in our museums today, and that is Sargon the First, Sargon the Magnificent. This is not the Sargon who was mentioned in your Bible, a king of Assyria back in 722 B.C., a son of Shalmanezer and father of Sennacherib, kings of Assyria. He simply borrowed the name of this hero of many thousands of years before. Your Bible does not mention the original Sargon under the name of Sargon. In a single reign, somewhere in the period between 3800 and 4000 B.C., Sargon the Magnificent built up this enormous empire. In the ancient records, his name is found in several various forms, depending upon which language in which his name happens to appear - Sumerian, Akkadian or Babylonian, but definitely referring to the same man in each of these different languages.

Sar or Shar means King and it is perhaps a basic derivation of the later forms of Shah, Czar, etc., which have persisted as titles of kings. "Sharukinu" - this kinu is a Sumerian form of Cain. Genesis 4:17 tells us that Cain built the city and called it Enoch. Sargon built a city at that place, which he called in their language Unuk," a slight variation due to the difference in languages. The early bricks of this city had stamped on them - that is molded - the name "Unuk." In the latter Akkadian Babylonian it was called Erech, but in the early Sumerian it was Unuk.

This Sargon created a very phenomenal empire. He finally established his capital citY at Akkad. His own records show the remarkable size of it. His empire extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. He made three expeditions to what he called the Great Sea, which at the least was the Mediterranean (and there is good reason to believe it was the Atlantic). In at least one of these expeditions he said he crossed the sea and brought back loot from conquered lands. He brought cedar beams from the mountains of Lebanon for his temples. We know definitely that his expeditions into the Mediterranean included the islands of Cyprus and Crete. Very clear traces of his early Babylonian culture are found on the Island of Crete. For example, the tiles and sewer drainage system found in the cities of Phara and Knosos on Crete are exactly like that of Nippur in Akkad.

In Crete, a cylinder seal inscribed with the name of Sargon's son or grandson, Naram Sin, was found. Babylonian inscribed clay cylinder records have been found in the Cretan tombs. In the ruins of the palace of Knosos, there is a rather elaborate alabaster coffer with the name of Cain carved in the lid of it. And also there was found an immense bronze sword with a golden hilt, of very beautiful workman-ship, larger than any other ancient sword ever found, which might possibly have been his.

The Bible tells us that Cain founded this city, the name of the city Enoch, after his son, and the Sumerian records of the city of Unuk and Akkad show that Sargon the First founded the city and called it in Sumerian, Unuk.

Sargon the First called these Sumerians "black heads." Whether that meant a dark complexion or merely refers to a brunette people as distinguished from the blond we do not -know. We do not have sufficient records. Sargon's own records, in our museums today, show that he conducted raids on nations to the east, certainly at least into Media, and quite possibly going back to pick up some of his own people from the Tarim Basin region. They show that he deported captured populations to make cities that he founded in the regions of Akkad. In one of his records he states "5,400 men daily eat bread before me" - the courtiers and servants of his palace. He divided his empire, which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, into districts, which were ten hours march across, and each was governed by one of "the sons of his palace," as he called them. One of his inscriptions says this: "For forty-five years the kingdom I have ruled and the black heads I have governed. In multitudes of bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands. I governed the upper country (that would be Akkad). Three times to the Great Sea I advanced."

We know that he had a very high degree of civilization. But a high degree of civilization does not always imply a high degree of morality; but, so far as civilization is expressed in the arts and sciences, and that sort of thing, they had it. Their art advanced to a degree greater than was found anywhere else in ancient times. Two cylinder seals of his time are among the most beautiful specimens of jewel engraving ever known. Evidently they did not have the secret of making paper, or if they did, they knew how perishable it was. They may have put some documents on parchment, but in the main they used this beautiful clay that they had to make thin tiles or tablets of clay. While it was still moist and soft they wrote upon the clay. Then the signature was in the form of a seal. Each man of importance had his own seal. These were in the form of a little cylinder. Back in Sargon's day, so far as we can judge by some specimens found, they were usually about the diameter of a lead pencil. I do not mean the lead, but the wood that it is made of, and would run from half or 5/8 of an inch in length to perhaps to 3/4 of an inch. Perhaps :the most beautiful of these ancient seals, which goes back to the time of Naram Sin, is approximately 1/4 inch in diameter by 5/8 of an inch long. The engraving of the design on it is the most beautiful I have seen in jewel engraving. It was obviously done under a magnifying glass, because the details on it are so tiny and so perfect. When this seal was rolled across the wet clay, it molded an impression of the design on the seal into the clay. Have you noticed signet rings in jewelry store windows, which have an engraved jewel with an initial engraved in them - carnelian or some such stones? You will not find, in any jewelry store today, as perfect jewel engraving as was characteristic of this ancient empire of Sargon or Cain. Roads connected the principal cities. There was a postal service. In those days, to send a letter, they would first make one of these clay tablets, write the message on it while it was wet, dry it out, and burn it hard in the kiln. Then they would coat it again with wet clay for an envelope, write the address upon that and again burn it hard in the kiln. Delivered to the person to whom it was written, he would then break off this outer shell, and within was the letter sent to him. Today, in the Louvre Museum in Paris are some of these ancient letters, bearing a clay seal upon them, another lump of clay with a special seal design which constituted the postage stamp, showing that postage had been paid for the carrying of this letter back in this empire of Sargon the Magnificent.

No doubt bronze and possibly iron were in use in that day, for weapons and other implements. Bronze would serve well for swords, but not for engraving tools. There was no known way to sufficiently harden copper or bronze to do that. Only within the last 50 years or so, has such a way been discovered. If they were good enough metallurgists to learn to make carving chisels out of copper or bronze, we can give them credit for that. Otherwise, they must have used hardened steel: 6,000 years of rust would have taken their toll of any iron or steel implements in that time. Babylonian art was, at this time, more highly developed than at any later time.

Beishazzar was the man who was running the city of Babylon at the time of its fall to the Medes and Persians. His father, Nabonidus, was an oddity for ancient kings. Usually they were military conquerors, people interested only in how many people they could kill or enslave, and how much loot they could steal. Instead, Nabonidus was a scholar, particularly an archeologist and antiquarian. In fact, he became so deeply interested in it that during his lifetime he turned over all the authority and responsibility of running Babylon to his son, Belshazzar, who was a worthless, drunken wastrel. Had he turned it over to his daughter Belshalti, who was quite brilliant, Babylon might possibly have had a different fate. Under Belshazzar it reached that degree of rottenness where it fell from its own internal corruption. Nabonidus made a hobby of going to the sites of the ancient cities and digging down to find the sites of their early temples and other public buildings, and in those cities which were still existent, find and restore their earliest temples. One of his records in our museums today says that he had restored the temple of the Sun at Sippar. Sippar, meaning book town, from its enormous libraries, is another name for the same city of Akkad which was founded by Sargon the First. He said that he had restored the Temple of the Sun, and indigging down to uncover the foundation, he had uncovered the cornerstone laid by Naram Sin, "which none of my ancestors, the kings of Babylon, had seen for 3200 years." Taking his own time for this, probably in the neighborhood of 550 B.C., add 3200 more to it, takes you back to 3700 B.C. as the probable time when this temple had fallen into such ruin that this foundation stone was totally covered up. This dates back to the time of Naram Sin, who was the son of Sargon, whom we can identify as Cain. Incidentally, this very same foundation cornerstone, with the inscription showing it was founded by Naram Sin, is now in the Museum at Yale University.

We have another clue, or series of clues, to indicate that Sargon was Cain. We find this in the pagan religion that he founded. The records show that the earliest forms of Babylonian religion were monotheistic. They believed in one God. Whether it be the God we know, I am not sure; but at least they had a god, and not a multiplicity of them. Their religion contained a rather garbled, but still recognizable version of the story of creation, as given in the first chapter of Genesis. But about the time of Sargon, there developed polytheism - pagan gods. The three chief ones were Anu, Eia, and one whose name sometimes appears as Enlil, sometimes Mul-lil. By the myths told about these gods, you can identify and determine the origin of each god. The myths about them would identify Anu as being Adam, Eia as Eve and Mtil-lil or Enlil as Satan. Those are recognizable in these myths. Later Mul-lil becomes Bel or Baal, who was the chief god of Babylon, and indeed became the most important of the pagan gods, from there to the West, clear to the Mediterranean coast. The pagan priests garbled things somewhat in their legends, possibly intentionally. In a few of them Eia is represented as male, but most of these legends have Eia as a goddess, identifiable from these myths as being Eve. Legends about the early form of Eia are exactly the same as the later legends about Ishtar. So, Cain had carried in his own remembrance the occurrences in his own early life, and then had decided to make gods of Adam, Eve and Satan.

In Sargon's own time he was not deified. He founded pagan Satan worship, but he did not promote himself up to the top. Later he was deified. There are a few inscriptions that say "Sargon is my god." It is natural that among pagans he should become a patron god of Babylon. Babylon's patron god, whose name appears in your King James Version, usually as Merodach, although Mardach would be a more accurate translation, is derived from Marad which means "to rebel," and Cain was indeed a rebel. He is called in their legends the first born of Eia. Other legends say he was the eldest son of Ishtar and Anu was his father. Cain was the first born of Eve. Merodach is the god of agriculture. Cain was a tiller of the soil, whereas Abel was primarily a herdsman. The legends say that Merodach brought order out of chaos by separating land from water and founding homes for men. We say that Sargon, or Cain, reigned in this lower swamp land, and directed the building of the dikes and drainage canals that separated the waters from the land, enough so they could build more permanent cities.

First John 3:12 recognizes that Cain was a son of the evil one. Your King James Version does not use the word "son," because the translators had to meet accepted doctrine. In your King James Version it says (inverse 12), "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." If you will turn to the third chapter of the Gospel of Luke, in your King James Version Bible, you will find that it gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It starts with Jesus Christ and works backwards to Adam. As you know, in your King James Version, where you find words printed in italic type, these are words added by translators, which were not actually wriffen in the original languages and manuscripts, because they were implied or understood in those languages. The English does not imply it, and therefore to make the English idiom conform to the idiom of the Greek or the Hebrew the translators have supplied the words in English which were understood in the earlier languages, and they appear in italics. Take your King James Version and look up the genealogy of Jesus Christ (in Luke 3). It begins with verse 23: "And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Meichi," and so on down through verse after verse. Note that beginning with "the son of Heli," the words "the son" are in italic type, indicating they were not written out in. the Greek. In other words, if you said "John was of William" it meant in the Greek idiom "John was the son of William." I have heard people try to deny this idiom in First John 3:12, relative to Cain, stating it meant merely that Cain was morally bad, like the evil one, not referring to any father and son relationship. If that be a true translation of the Greek, and only referring to morality, let us apply it to Luke and see if it is correct. I do not think that they developed a completely new and different Greek language between the writing of the Gospel according to Luke and the First Epistle ofjohn. Would it make sense to say Joseph, who was morally no better than Heli, who was just as bad as Matthat? Of course not. In the First Epistle of John, it is the very same Greek language, and it says "Cain, who was of that wicked one." As a matter of fact, if you look it up in Weymouth's Modern English Translation, you will find he translates it correctly: "Cain, who was a child of the evil one...." Furthermore, if you will look up the fifth chapter of Genesis, which gives the descendants of Adam, you will find that it nowhere lists Cain among them. With monotonous regularity the Bible says that so-and-so begat whozis and whozis begat such-and-such, and so forth, verse after verse. You cannot find any place in the Bible where it says that Adam begat Cain, because he did not. The first time it says Adam begat anyone is in the fifth chapter of Genesis, verse 3: "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth."

People like to bring up verse one of Genesis, chapter four, and try to make it mean something it does not say, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain." The Bible records things that happen, but it does not once say that there was a cause in sex relationship. I could. tell you, with absolute truth, that upon a certain evening I went to a movie, and the following morning the sun rose in the east. I could prove it by witnesses, but I did not say that the fact that I went to the movie was the thing that caused the sun to rise in the east. It is true, very true that Adam and Eve had intercourse; it is very true that Eve bore Cain; but it is not true that Cain was the son of Adam, and the Bible does not anywhere say that Cain was a son of Adam.

One of these ancient Akkadian inscriptions about Sargon says this, "The divine Sargon, the illustrious King, a son of Bel the Just, the King of Akkad and of the children of Bel." Bel, or Baal, was a later form of this obviously deified Satan, known in the earliest forms as Mul-lil or Enlil. Here they recognized that Sargon was a son of him whom we know to be Satan. Other legends of Sargon's origin say that he was adopted by Akki and raised as a gardener. The basic root of Akki is found in the Hebrew word Nachash: Naka, the Egyptian word for serpent; Naga, the Hindu word for serpent, particularly serpent god; Ahhi, a serpent water god; Arriman, the Persian devil, source of all evil.

Cain was a tiller of the soil. Sargon was raised as a gardener. One of Sargon's own inscriptions found in our museums today, says this, "While I was a gardener Ishtar loved me." Yes, he was still near the Garden of Eden - not in the Garden of Eden, but in the same part of the world to which Adam and Eve had gone. So, you can identify the Cain of the Bible as an actual historical character, the records of whose own kingdom are in our museums today.

To further convince you, we can carry it a bit further. Sargon's own records show that at least three times he went to the Great Sea; at least once he crossed it. What was that "Great Sea?" There are indications that it was the Atlantic because in Central and South America there are legends in their mythology, which cannot be accounted for on any basis except that they were brought over there by someone who knew the early mythology of Sarg6n's time. In turn, you find in the Babylonian religion the use of certain words and phrases that are Mayan.

The story of the worship of Cain appears among the Mayas of Yucatan and the Quichis of Guatemala. The Mayas say that their kingdom was found by King Can, and "Can" means "serpent" in their Mayan language; a change from Cain to Can, from one language to another, is very small. (Notice what we do today in our modern languages. The name in English we call William is in French Guillaume; in German it is Vilhelm; in Italian it is Guglielmo. We make more change from one language to another today with the same word than they did in those days.) There was a family of seven the father, mother and five children. Their serpent king, his wife and children were symbolized by a seven-headed serpent. Incidentally, that same emblem of the seven-headed serpent is worshiped today in India, in Indochina and in Siam, or Thailand, as it is known today.

This person who came and brought them this form of worship was deified in their legends as Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent, a serpent having feathers instead of scales. Their legends say that out of the east, on white-winged ships, came white men who taught these Mayans their civilization; and finally sailing away, back to the east on these white-winged ships, saying, "Some day we will return." Since then, these people have worshiped Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent, as their god, the white man who taught them their civilization. A very interesting bit of more recent history is that when Cortez landed on the shore of Mexico, he was received with relatively little hostility. Out of the East, in white sailed ships, came white men. He was greeted joyously with friendship. He had practically no difficulty marching on up to Montezuma's capital city, Mexico City, where he was greeted with reverence and friendship. In the minds of the people, this was the promised return of Quetzalcoatl. We know, of course, that Cortez was nothing but a thief and a murderer, there in search of loot. Evidently the prisons of Spain had been emptied of the worst cut-throats to provide him with soldiers, because they were out to steal what they could get. They were accompanied, of course, by a couple of Spanish Catholic Priests. It is a matter of record in their report that on one of the pagan festival days, these priests wandered into one of these pagan temples in Mexico Citv and they observed the pagan priests putting on a Catholic mass, perfect in every detail, except it was not spoken in Latin. So the Catholic priests stormed out in a furious rage, saying "These pagans are mocking us." They incited the soldiers to a general massacre of the inhabitants, promising them, in advance, absolution for all the murders, rapes and other crimes they might commit in the process. What these Catholics did not know was the fact that they had received their ceremonies from the same ancient source as did the Mayas.

That is a very interesting study. If you want to trace it in great detail, get Hyslop's book "The Two Babylons," and you will see the Babylon origin of much of the Catholic ritual.

Among these people are ancient legends which say that one of Can's sons, coveting the kingdom held by another of his sons, treacherously killed him, stabbed him in the back with a spear and took his kingdom, which is probably their version of the murder of Abel by Cain, even though garbled, somewhat, down through the centuries.

The Incas of Peru were probably Mayan colonies, because the language of Peru, which was Quichua, shows their descent of the Quichis of Guatemala, who were a branch of the Maya nation.

Other events show how this culture was carried back and forth. In much of Central America, after the winter rains, comes the spring dry season. Then, there are summer rains. At the beginning of the month of May, at midnight, the Southern Cross Constellation stands exactly perpendicular above the southern horizon, right in the meridian, and shortly thereafter the next rainy season begins. The natives recognize this as a sign that rain is coming soon. The Cross was a very ancient symbol among all nations. The form in which we have it in Christianity today, with the cross bar going below the top of the vertical post, is a much later form.

The earlier form of the cross was the Tau cross, with the cross bar just resting on top of the vertical bar. This cross is found in Egyptian records, as far back as you can find anything in Egypt. The very name Tau is derived from Mayan. T-a-u means literally "here water month." In other words, when this Southern Cross Constellation stood exactly vertical above the southern horizon, right on the Meridain, it indicated the beginning of the water month - the month when the rains would start. This is the month for rain. The month of May is named from Maia, the Goddess, the Good Dame, the Mother of the Gods. If you investigate the Catholic religion, you will find The Feast of the Adoration of the Holy Cross is May 3, beginning of the water month. It is the day also consecrated particularly to the Mother of God, The Good Lady. In other words, straight out of Babylonian and Mayan paganism, which again we trace to its source, in its beginning, to Cain or Sargon.

From this, you can see that we can trace these ancient religions not only to Babylonia, Sumer and Akkadia, but we can trace Cain, a real person known to history under the name of Sargon, even to Central and South America. Cain is not myth!

We trust these pages will enable you to answer, without any doubt, "What Happened to Cain?"

NOAH'S FLOOD WAS NOT WORLD WIDE

Among the many mistaken and un-Scriptural notions commonly taught in nearly all churches is the idea that the Flood, mentioned in the Bible, covered all the earth, and drowned everybody on earth excepting only Noah and his family, who escaped death by being in the Ark. So many churches have firmly insisted that the Bible says this--when there is ample proof that the Flood was not worldwide - that they have destroyed the faith of multitudes of people in the Bible, made atheists or agnostics out of hundreds of thousands of people who might have become Christians if they had only been taught the truth about the Bible.

Part of this mistaken idea about the Flood is due to the many mistranslations found in the commonly-used King James Version of the Bible; but also, part of it appears plainly to be false if you merely carefully read even the King James Version. Let's have a look at it.

In Genesis chapter 6, we read that God found the people so corrupt that He regretted that He had ever created them, so He decided to wipe them out by a flood; and He warned righteous Noah of the coming flood, and told Noah to build a great boat, or ark, in which he and his family might find safety, and where they might preserve a few of each kind of the animals. In chapter 7, it tells how Noah received the final warning that the time was now at hand, and he should move into the ark. Then it says - according to the King James Version - "And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights... And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; and every man... And the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days. And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged... And the waters returned from off the earth continually, and after the end of the 150 days the waters were abated. And the ark rested, in the 7th month, on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the loth month; in the l0th month, on the 1st day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."

Now, first, let us see what the translators have done to what Moses originally wrote. You remember that the King James Version says that the rain was upon "the earth," and the waters increased greatly upon 'the earth"; and that "all flesh died that moved upon the earth." But are they right in translating this "the earth"? Definitely not! Remember that in Genesis 4:14, when God has driven Cain away in punishment for his murder of Abel, the King James Version quotes Cain as saying "Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth." So what did Cain do? climb into his rocket ship and take off for outer space? Of course not! He was not driven from the face of "the earth," and he never said so - -only the translators said so. The word Cain used was "ad-aw-maw," meaning "the ground": God had told him that his farming would no longer be successful, so Cain said "Thou hast driven me off of the ground." (And you have probably noticed that Cain's descendants today are not farmers: they run pawnshops and other money-lending institutions.)

When we come to the 7th chapter of Genesis, where it is talking about the Flood, wherever it says that the Flood covered "the earth," the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was "eh-rets," meaning "the land" - the flood did cover the particular land where it occurred. That is, it was a local flood which covered one particular region or land, not the whole earth.

Again, notice that it specifies that "15 cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." In ancient times two different lengths of the cubit were in use: the Hebrew sacred cubit of 25 inches, and the common cubit of 20-5/8 inches. Therefore, the waters rose above the tops of the mountains it is speaking of by either 25 feet 9 inches or 31 feet 3 inches, according to which cubit you use. If this meant that all the mountains on earth were covered, the waters would have to cover Mount Everest, which is nearly six miles high: therefore, all the earth would be covered by water six miles deep. In that case, where could it have run off when the Flood subsided? No, I don't mean that the Bible was that badly mistaken: only the translators made that mistake, because they took a Hebrew word "eh-rets" which means "that land" and mistranslated it to mean the whole world. A little later, we shall look over the evidence which proves where "that land" was.

But if the whole earth was covered by six miles of water, then all nations must have been completely exterminated. Yet Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break. The Bible gives the date of Noah's Flood as commencing in 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C. In lower Sumer, later called "Chaldea" (and which occupied the same "Plains of Shinar" to which Noah's family journeyed after the flood), the City of Ur of the Chaldees was the leading city from about 2400 B.C. until about 2285 B.C., and its history is not broken by any flood in this period. Farther to the north, Babylon was rising to power from about 2400 B.C. on, and reached a great height of civilization under the famous King Hammurabi, who lived at the same time as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham (about 2250 B.C.), and again there is no break in this history due to a flood. In Egypt, the Eleventh Dynasty began to reign about 2375 B.C. over a great and powerful nation; the Eleventh Dynasty ruled to about 2212 B.C., and was followed by the Twelfth Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 B.C. There was no break in the Eleventh Dynasty at the time of Noah's Flood, 2345 B.C.; and the nation continued to be large and powerful throughout this period.

Accurate history of China begins nearly 3000 B.C. The Shu-King, historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 B.C. - 11 years before the start of Noah's Flood - and ruled China for many years after the Flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu-King reports that the Hwang Ho River (which drains mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province) had excessive floods for three generations. Here, again, there was no break in history, the Chinese nation was not wiped out, but its own records show that it continued in existence right through the period of Noah's Flood.

Therefore, the Bible is correct in stating that the Flood covered only "eh-rets" - "that land"; and the translators are wrong when they change the meaning of what Moses really wrote in the 7th chapter of Genesis, and say that the Flood covered all "the earth."

This leaves us ready to inquire where the Flood did occur. For this, we will have to start with Adam and Eve, and trace where they and their descendants went. They started out in the Garden of Eden. Genesis 2:10 to 14 tells us that a river went out of Eden, and this river divided into four Streams. It names these four rivers: Pison and Gihon (neither of which can be identified among the rivers existing today), and Hiddekel (which is the ancient name of the Tigris River) and Euphrates. The Tigris and Euphrates rise in what is today extreme southeastern Turkey, a little north of modern Iraq. Making some allowance for the fact that many rivers have changed their courses considerably in the course of several thousand years, this still places the Garden of Eden at the northern end of ancient Akkad.

When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:24 tells us that God placed cherubim with a flaming sword at the east side of the Garden of Eden, to keep Adam and Eve from returning and having access to the tree of life. If this guard was to accomplish anything, it must have been placed between Adam and the Garden of Eden, so we see that Adam and Eve were driven out to the east. From Eden, Adam's course would naturally have led him across northern Iran, around the southern end of the Caspian Sea, into what was formerly called Chinese Turkestan, and today is known as Sinkiang province in the extreme west of China.

In the southern part of Sinkiang, there is a great basin, rimmed by high mountains on all sides, but with an outlet on the eastern end of it, through the mountains where the headwaters of the Hwang-Ho River, the Yellow River, rises. This basin is today nearly all desert; but it bears the evidence of a fertile and heavily inhabited past. Explorers have found ruins of ancient cities, uncovered by the drifting sands of the desert. Also, the known geological structure shows that, in ancient times at least, beneath this desert lay enormous underground natural reservoirs, caverns filled with water - the same geological structure which furnishes artesian water in many parts of the world today. These underground reservoirs were covered by waterproof layers of rock, which kept the waters beneath from overflowing out on the land surface above them. In this mountain-rimmed basin, then a fertile, well-populated land, Adam and Eve - or at least their descendants of a few generations later - settled.

You who listen to this program already know that Adam was not the first man: he was only the first man in the present White Race. Adam and Eve found this land to which they had come already populated by an Asiatic people, among whom they had to live. Through the following generations, the inevitable happened: wherever there is integration, intermarriage and mongrelization of the races follows. But if God had no purp(~ses in mind which could not be properly served by the Asiatic and Negro races, there would have been no reason for Him to create Adam: neither could the purposes which Adam and his descendants were intended to serve be fulfilled by a mongrelized race. The consequences of this mongrelization are described in Genesis 6:5, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Again, we find that the word there mistranslated "earth" is the Hebrew word "eb-rets," which means only "the land" - that particular land; and there is reason for using that Hebrew word, for this was the place where integration and mongrelization had taken place, with its degenerative effects as compared to the qualities possessed by each race separately.

We find confirmation of this in the reason why God spared Noah. In Genesis 6: 9, your King James Version Bible tells you that Noah was "perfect in his generations" - a meaningless phrase. When anything in the King James Version of the Bible fails to make good sense, it is a sign that you should go behind the mistranslation and see what the words were in the original Hebrew or Greek. The word here translated "generations" was the Hebrew word "to-ledaw," which means "ancestry." That is, Noah was "perfect in his ancestry" - a thoroughbred, not a mongrel. Noah and his family were the last remaining pureblooded Adamites in (that part of) the world: therefore, God needed to save them to carry out the purposes He had planned for the Adamic people. The mongrelized people among whom Noah and his family lived must be removed, or they would be a trap which would eventually lead to the complete end of the pure-blooded Adamites. (It was part of God's plan for one of Noah's sons to produce the line of racial descent into which God would later embody Himself as the Messiah, and by His Crucifixion pay for the redemption of His people; for this reason the lineage had to be kept pure.)

Have we any other evidence to support our view that this was the region where Adam and Eve and their descendants settled? Yes. Remember that Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden to the eastward. Later, when Cain murdered Abel, and as a punishment was banished from the land where Adam and Eve lived, Genesis 4:16 tells us that Cain "went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden." The Hebrew word "nod" means "wandering." That is, in the upper Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, at the north of Eden, these rivers were running swiftly downhill from their mountain sources: therefore, they cut themselves deep channels in the ground; and even today, we can find the traces of the ancient diversion dams, built by the ancients to raise the water level up close to the surface of the ground, so they would not have to pump it so high to get it into their irrigation canals. Farther to the south, in the lower Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, where the slope was no longer steep, the accumulation of silt picked up by the rivers where they ran swiftly was now settling to the bottom of the river beds, constantly raising the level, so that every high-water season the rivers overflowed their banks and flooded the valleys, exactly the same as we have had in our own Mississippi Valley. These annual floods washed away the people's houses and sent them fleeing far away to high ground: therefore, it was correctly called "the Land of Nod" - "the Land of Wandering." Here Cain settled, and taught the people to build high dikes along the river banks - just as we have done along the banks of the Mississippi River. This enabled them to stop the annual floods, so they could now build permanent cities of good houses in the lower Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, the land then called by its own inhabitants "Sumer," and later called "Chaldea." In a very few places, the Bible calls it "the Plain of Shinar." That is, Cain went back westward from where Adam and Eve lived. It was thus that Cain started his great empire. Yes, Cain is a well-known historical character, not found only in the Bible (but he is known in history under another name). He established an empire which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea, and even took in some of the larger islands in the Mediterranean Sea. Some day I will tell you about Cain and his empire; but that is another story.

Another bit of evidence is found in Genesis 11:2, which tells us that after the Flood, Noah's descendants "journeyed FROM the east," until they came to the land of Shinar. Therefore, they must have come from some place east of the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys; and the only place where such a flood as the Bible describes could have occurred, eastward from the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, is this mountain basin in Sinkiang which I have been talking about.

Another bit of evidence is found in the high-water mark found in many places along the mountains which rim this basin, showing that at one time this basin was a lake, extending to this well-marked shoreline. The mountains which rim this valley were not fully covered, for many of them range from 16,000 to 25,000 feet in height, and one even rises over 28,000 feet. But within the basin are several smaller mountains, which could be fully covered by a flood held within the higher rim of the valley. In short, this basin, through which flows the Tarim River, and which is sometimes known as the Tarim Basin, in southern Sinkiang, is identified as the site of Noah's Flood.

In your King James Version Bible, Genesis 7:11-12 reads: "in the 600th year of Noah's life, in the 2nd month, the 17th day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights." More careful translation makes clear what really happened. in Moffatt's Modern English translation we read, "the fountains of the great abyss all burst, and the sluices of heaven were opened." In Smith and Goodspeed's American Translation, it says "the fountains of the great abyss were all broken open, and the windows of the heavens were opened." That is, a great earthquake broke up this water-proof layer of rock over the immense, water-filled abyss or cavern beneath this Tarim Basin, causing the floor of the valley to settle, and allowed the enormous underground reservoir to overflow and submerge the valley
 

46
 
 

floor: the great earthquake in the Himalaya Mountains about ten years ago produced similar effects in some places. Of course, the 40 days oftorrential rains added to the flood. This filled the valley high enough to submerge the low mountains which were inside the valley, exactly as Genesis 7:19-20 says. Don't be misled by the mistranslation, "all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered." The word mistranslated "heaven" is merely the Hebrew word "shaw-meh," meaning "the sky." Since this Tarim Basin is somewhat more than 350 miles wide by more than 650 miles long, all the sky visible from anywhere near the center of this valley would cover only this valley, and therefore only those lower mountains which were within the valley itself, would be covered by water.

But what about Genesis 8:4, reading, "And the ark rested in the 7th month, on the 17th day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."? Sometimes failure to translate can be as misleading as mistranslation. Most people understand this to mean Mount Ararat, in Armenia, some 1,600 miles west of the Tarim Basin. But this is NOT what the Bible says. First of all, note that it says "mountains of Ararat," mountains being in the plural, while Mount Ararat in Armenia is only a single peak. But Mount Ararat in Armenia was known until comparatively recent times as "Mount Massis," and nobody had ever heard of it being called "Mount Ararat" in Bible times. Furthermore, the Hebrew word "ararat" means only "the tops of the hills." Therefore, correctly translated, Genesis 8: 4 merely says that the ark came to rest upon the tops of the high hills - some of the lower mountains which were within the valley.

A recent newspaper report mentions an expedition, equipped with the latest electronic equipment, which is going to Mount Ararat in Armenia to find the Ark, and which will melt the ice which covers the Ark by coating it with black powdered carbon. They won't find Noah's Ark, for it is not there. Several expeditions have gone to Mount Ararat to find the Ark; some of them got within sight of a mass on the side of the mountain which, from that particular point of view, looked to be shaped somewhat like a ship. That point has been very carefully inspected from the air, by airplanes flying over it very close, and it has proved to be nothing but a ledge of rock which does give a silhouette shaped like a ship, when seen from the right direction. I need not mention the many places - such as the Grand Canyon, etc - where similar "ship rocks" can be seen - and none of them are Noah's Ark.

So, when we carefully examine the whole affair, and correct the mistranslations, we find that there is no conflict between what the Bible really says and either science or history. In fact, there never is any such conflict: it is only the preachers who find themselves contradicted by either science or history; and that is only because they either won't take the trouble to find out what the Bible really says, or they have made the mistranslation a supposedly sacred church doctrine, and now they are stuck with it. Don't let any church shake your faith in the Bible: the Bible is always right, even if the preachers are often wrong.

Let us remember another thing: the Chinese historical record, the Shu-King, records that during the reign of King Yao, at a time beginning about the date of Noah's Flood, the Hwang Ho River carried excessive floods for three generations. Drainage out of the Tarim Basin to the eastward would have been carried off in the Hwang Ho River, and would account for this.

Now we come to another false doctrine taught in many churches: that since nobody survived in all the earth except Noah and his family, everybody now living is a descendant of Noah and related by blood, no matter what race they belong to. But we have already seen that the Flood did not cover the whole earth but only one valley about 350 by 650 miles in size; that Chinese history was not interrupted by it, although they do record purely local floods in the Hwang Ho valley where the waters were draining off; we have seen that Egyptian history is not interrupted by the Flood, so the continent of Africa was not touched by it and the Negro race continued unaffected by it. It would be absurd to think that Noah and his wife, both of them being White, could have one white child, one Negro child, and one Chinese child. Remember that in Genesis 1:11-25, when God created the world and its inhabitants, and made the laws governing their reproduction, He did not make it absurd chaos, with whales giving birth to cattle and fish hatching out of birds' eggs: His law, several times repeated for emphasis, is always that each creature must bring forth strictly "after his own kind." The churches which teach this false doctrine of everybody being descended from Noah never got it out of the Bible - that is, in any true translation of the Bible. As Moses wrote it in the Hebrew language, under divine inspiration, the Bible correctly tells that Noah's descendants went out into a world already populated by people who had lived right through the time of the Flood and were still going strong. Ferrar Fenton's Modern English translation gives this correctly. In Genesis 10:1-5 we read of the descendants of Noah's son Japheth, and it says, "From these they spread themselves over the sea-coasts of the countries of the nations, each with their language amongst the gentile tribes." Genesis 10:20 tells of the descendants of Noah's son Ham, "These were the sons of Ham, in their tribes and languages, in the regions of the heathen." Genesis 10:31 completes it: "These are the sons of Shem, by their tribes and by their languages, in their countries among the heathen."

So never let anybody tell you that the Bible consists of the fables of a primitive people. It is perfectly consistent with all true science and all true history: it is the history of our Race, the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and Teutonic White Race.

ADDENDUM to NOAH'S FLOOD

Editor's Note: The distinguishing mark of a real scholar is a continuing desire for additional knowledge and a willingness to cast aside previously held concepts the moment they are found to be false; and the honesty to acknowledge such changes in understanding is most commendable. When Dr. Comparet wrote the foregoing article on Noah's Flood, he placed the Garden of Eden near the headwaters of the present Euphrates River; in other words, in northern Mesopotamia. But he subsequently learned that the Garden of Eden was more likely located in the Pamir Plateau of central Asia, immediately west of the Tarim Basin, and now accepts the views of Frederick Haberman on the subject as being entirely correct: the views expressed in Mr. Haberman's interesting and authoritative book called TRACING YOUR ANCESTORS - and the following is taken from pages 11-14 of that book:

"Our next problem is to discover where the Adamic or Aryan race originated. According to Scripture it began in Eden. But where was Eden? Concerning the location of Eden we read in Genesis 2:10-14: 'And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good: there is bdelhum and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel; that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.' Because the Euphrates is mentioned here, people have assumed that Eden must have been located on the banks of the historic Euphrates river in Mesopotamia; but as the Euphrates and the Tigris merge into one river, the situation in no wise corresponds to the description given in Genesis, which states that one river went out of Eden and divided into four heads. If we wish to accept the Bible statement as descriptive and authoritative, we are compelled td look elsewhere for a group of four rivers originating from one source.

"Such a location of four rivers starting from one source we find on the Pamir plateau in Central Asia, between the Tian Shan mountains on the north and the Hindu Cush on the south. Cush is the original word for Ethiopia and is a word older than the division of languages. From the lakes of that plateau issue four great rivers: the Indus, the Jaxartes, the Oxus, and the Tarim. The Oxus is still called by the natives the Dgihun or Gihon; the Chitral branch of the Indus answers the description of the Pison; the Jaxartes is the original Euphrates; and the Tarim going toward the east is in all probability the Hiddekel.

"Concerning this identification, Prof. S. H. Buchanan on Pages 125 and 126 of his work, The World and the Book, quotes the great French Orientalist, M. Renan: 'If we search to determine the country which best satisfies the geography of the first chapters of Genesis, it is necessary to avow that all conducts us to the region of the Imaus, where the most solid inductions place the cradle of the Aryan race. There is found, as in the Paradise of Genesis, gold, precious stones, bdellium. This point is that of the world of which one is able to say with the most truth that four rivers issue from the same source. Four immense currents of water: the Indus, the Helmend, the Oxus, and the Gaxartes, take there their rise, flowing in directions the most opposite. The second chapter of Genesis presents to us a traditional geography which has no connection with the ordinary geography of the Hebrews; but which on the contrary, offers the most astounding resemblance with the Turanian system. The Pison, which issues from the Garden of Eden, situated in the East, is very probably the high Indus, and the country of Havilah, seems well to be the country of Darada towards Chachmises, celebrated for its riches. The Gihon is the Oxus, and it is without doubt by substitution of more modern names that we find the Tigris and the Euphrates at the side of the other rivers indicated. Thus, all invites us to place the Eden of the Semites at the point of the separation of the waters of Asia; at the umbilic of the world, toward which, as with an index finger, all the races seem to point as that recognized in their most primitive traditions.'

"Sir Gaston Maspero, late director-general of Egyptian Antiquities in his Ancient History of the Orient, also identifies the Pamir plateau as the location of the Garden of Eden. Ris quotation is also taken from Prof. Buchanan's book, Pages 124-125:

"'All have preserved, mixed with the vague legends of their infancy, the memory of a primitive country where their ancestors had lived before their dispersion. This was a high mountain, or better, an immense plateau of a square figure, and so elevated that it seemed as if suspended between the heavens and the earth. From the interior flowed a great river, which soon divided itself into four arms or canals, spreading out over the four surrounding countries. There was the umbilic of the world and the cradle of humanity. The people settled between the Mediterranean and the Tigris located this legendary country in the East. The people of ancient Persia and India conceived its situation in the North. The moderns have succeeded in determining its site more exactly than the ancients had done. They have placed it in the mountains of Belurtag, near the point where the chain unites with the Himalaya. There in effect, and there only, is found a country which satisfies all the geographic descriptions preserved in the sacred books of Asia. From the Plateau of Pamir, or better, from the mountain mass of which this plateau is the center, four great rivers issue, the Indus, the Helmend, the Oxus, and the Gaxartes, which flow in directions the most diverse corresponding sufficiently to the four rivers of tradition.'

"This plateau of Pamir all the people Asia consider to be the original Eden and the central part of the world as Prof. Renan tells us, quoted by Buchanan, Pages 123-124:  'Thus everything invites us to place the Eden of the Semites (Aryans) in the mountains of Belurtag, at the point where this chain unites with the Himalaya, toward the Plateau of Pamir...We are conducted to the same point, according to Brunoff, by the most ancient and authentic texts of the Zend-Avesta. The Hindu traditions also contained in the Mahabharata and the Puranas, converge to the same region. There is the true Meru (Ararat) (of the Hindus), the true Albordj (of the Persians), the true river Arvanda, from which all rivers take their source, according to Persian tradition. There, according to the opinions of almost all the populations of Asia, is the central point of the world, the umbilic, the gate of the universe. There is the uttarakura - 'the country of happiness'  - of which Magesthanes writes. There is, finally the point of common attachment of the primitive geography, both of the Semitic and the Indo-European races.'

"The Pamir plateau of today is of course a different place from what it was five or six thousand years ago. At that time the whole of Asia was lower than it is today; at that time a large inland sea covered the steppes of southern Siberia, of which the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea are remnants; and over the now frozen steppes of northern Siberia roamed the mammoth and the sabre4oothed tiger. All the indications are that northern Siberia then had a semi-tropical climate, and ideal conditions prevailed on the Pamir Plateau. A study of our map shows that this plateau occupies a unique position; it is called 'the roof of the world' and forms the watershed of Asia. The plateau itself has today an altitude of 15,000 feet, and upon it stand peaks 10,000 feet higher. Four great rivers derive their waters from the valleys or pamirs, the lakes and glaciers of that region. The main branch of the Amu Dana or Oxus forms an outlet to Lake Victoria, several others of its tributaries flowing also from the plateau.. The Oxus is still called by the natives the Gihun. Both the Chitral and the Gilget branches of the Indus have their origin close to Lake Victoria on the southern side of the Pamirs, and so also has the Yarkand River, which together with the Kashgar forms the Tarim River. The Tarim river, as will be seen, has no outlet towards the sea, but disappears in the Tarim Basin at a place that is five hundred feet below sea level. This Tarim Basin is the greatest sinkhole in the world, although it is surrounded by the highest mountain peaks in the world; yet its floor lies in many places below the level of the Indian Ocean, indicating that a great cataclysm tore the earth here in a bygone age.

"The northern branch of the Tarim, the Kashgar River, flows out of the Alai valley on the northern end of the Pamir Plateau and not far from where a branch of the Oxus originates. From the same valley also flows in a northerly direction a branch of the Syr Dana, or Jaxartes River, whose name indicates that it is probably the original Euphrates of the ancients. The Helmend, which Renan and Maspero identify with the Hiddekel does not have its origin on the Pamir plateau, but starts several hundred miles south of it in a valley of the Hindu Kush; but it is probable that the Kashgar river is the original Hiddekel, flowing towards the East.

"Only the Pamir Plateau answers to the geographical couditions described in Genesis 4:10, 'A lake also sprang up in Eden to supply the Garden with waters, and from there it divided and became four rivers' (Fenton translation of the Bible). Such a condition exists nowhere else in Asia, four streams coming from one group of Alpine lakes, which may once have been one lake; and all the people of Asia look with awe to the 'forbidden Pamirs' as the place of the original Paradise. There on the 'roof of the world' is located the mythical Taurus or AIai mountains, the legendary Chinese Qucs Kiu or Lake of Stars and the Rang Kul or Dragon's Lake, from which the Serpent is said to have come.

"Today the Pamir Plateau is uninhabited. Its high altitude of 15,000 feet or more makes it too inhospitable a place to live in: and, covering a territory of about 180 by 180 miles, it forms a blank and mysterious spot on the map of Asia.

"In the next chapter we shall see that all the circumstances point to the Tarim Basin, lying just east of the Great Pamirs, as the homeland of the Adamites; both locations and their peculiarities make it evident that the cradle of the Adamic or Aryan race was located in these mysterious mountain fastnesses of Central Asia."

 Gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ
  

THE MIRACLE OF THE ORIGIN OF OUR RACE

Those who hate to believe our Israel identity doctrine like to snarl at us, "Ah, what's so special about the White Race, anyway?" They like to close their eyes to the fact that all civilization existing in the world today is the product of that race: what the dark people have was taught to them by us. But I want to take up this challenge, and show that there is something very special about our Race, altogether aside from our abilities and accomplishments: that the very origin of the true Israel of God, the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, Germanic and related peoples, was in itself a miracle from the hand of God.

You will remember that God first made His promises of a marvelous future to Abraham, telling him "I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered" (Genesis 13:16). "My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4); "And I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant" (Genesis 17:7), and told how these nations would be a blessing to all the earth.

Abraham had 8 sons; but God told him that only his son Isaac was to be the ancestor of the promised line, called by God to become His people, saying, "I