William Finck, a former law enforcement officer turned Christian Identity advocate after 12 years in prison studying scripture and archaeology, argues that Old Hebrew was lost post-65 AD, with Dead Sea Scrolls linked to Judas the Galilean’s anti-Roman sect. He claims modern Hebrew is "bastardized," tracing ancestry to Israelite tribes via Etruscan-Welsh linguistic ties and dismissing academic dismissal of Khumri/Chimerian origins as flawed. Finck ties global warming skepticism to Climategate, asserting it’s a political con, while framing biblical salvation through bloodlines—criticizing Paul’s influence and Zionist evangelicals for promoting "Jewish supremacy." His work, including Watermelons and Christogenia.org, blends unverified giant theories (Nephilim) with conspiracy-driven history, questioning institutional suppression of pre-Adamic civilizations. [Automatically generated summary]
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say, I'm excited about this big special guest, but before we meet him, let's have a word from our sponsor.
You may have noticed that gold has been doing pretty well recently.
In the last year, I think it's increased in value in sterling terms by around 50%.
And if you'd bought gold when I first started recommending it on adverts like this, you would have certainly more than doubled your money.
Now, a lot of you are probably thinking, is it too late?
Have I missed the boat?
Well, I can't definitively answer that question.
Nobody can.
But if I had to guess, I would say gold has got some way to go.
And yeah, sure, there's going to be corrections, but you really ought to be owning physical gold for lots and lots.
Not paper gold, obviously.
You should be owning physical gold.
Now, there are two ways of owning gold.
Either you can actually own it, keep it in a vault or in your own home.
There are risks, obviously, with keeping it in your own home.
You know, what if burglars come, whatever.
The problem with keeping it in a vault is that you then get paid a storage fee.
But there is another way of owning physical gold and actually getting paid interest on it unusually.
And that is with a company that I've recommended before and I use them myself.
They're called monetary metals.
Monetary metals lets you earn a yield on your gold paid in gold.
Right now, you can earn up to 4% annual yield paid in physical gold ounces, not dollars or pounds.
Instead of just storing gold and paying vault fees, your gold actually earns more gold over time.
Monetary metals connects gold owners with real productive businesses like refiners or jewelers that lease the gold.
That's how they can pay interest, by the way.
So they lease the gold and they pay yields back in gold.
This is a way to compound your wealth in ounces of gold.
There are no storage or insurance fees charged while your metal is earning yield.
You can open an account with 10 ounces of gold and start earning yield right away.
You stay in control, deploy how much of your gold you want into lease opportunities.
In today's inflationary environment, saving in paper currency means losing purchasing power.
Earning in gold means growing your real wealth.
Go to the link in the description below or go to monetary, that's M-O-N-E-T-A-R-Y-NETS.com forward slash Dellingpole, Forward Slash to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.
Welcome back to the Delling POD, William.
Think I can predict already, even before you started, that what you're going to say is going to upset loads of people, and actually upset me as well.
Um, what we're about it?
But um, we ought to have a recap.
Uh, there was stuff we didn't cover in our last involved and fascinating conversation.
Um, and there were various things that cropped up in the last 10 minutes when I was thinking about what I was going to ask you.
That I want to ask you um, but tell us briefly for those, for those who are coming to you for the first time, tell us briefly about yourself.
Tin Islands and Celtic Origins00:11:20
I don't, I don't really have anything to say about myself.
I mean I, I was um, I was in law enforcement.
I had a bad night at work.
That's all I'm going to say about that.
It ended me with a civil rights violation in prison for 12 years where I sat and studied.
I read the whole time.
I studied scripture, but I also studied conspiratorial history.
I read things like the Barnes Review, Mein Kampf.
I read the Bible and I read many Greek and Roman classics.
Studied, took copious notes, and found something called Christian Identity that I pursued because I wanted to find whether it was true.
That's why I read all of the classical histories, archaeology, archaeology journals, books, things like that.
And through the course of my studies, I was convinced that it was true.
Now, there's a variant in Britain called British Israel that's been around since the middle of the 19th century.
And I believe the 1830s, actually.
And they're dismissed today as quacks.
They weren't right about everything, but their belief came from discoveries in archaeology and putting together the connections which would lead us to believe that we are the people of the scriptures, that we, our origins, are from Mesopotamia and the Levant.
And I'm convinced of that.
I'm not going to be unconvinced of it simply because I've studied.
Look, I have to admit that I do rather like the idea that I am a descendant of one of the children of one of the tribes of Israel.
And not just talking to you about this stuff, but also reading.
I mean, you must have come across Wilson and Blackett.
Have you come across?
I have.
But I haven't read their books.
But I've read articles and things which cited them that lead me to believe that they've come to a lot of the same conclusions I have.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily recommend buying their books because the one I read was you could get the key information from a few paragraphs.
A lot of it was kind of reconstructed notes rather than a kind of written through book, which I found rather annoying.
But as I understand it, they have traced the progress of the children of Israel or some of the tribes across over the Caucasus into Europe and eventually into Britain via language,
that they found similarities between Etruscan and, well, ultimately Welsh.
And that Welsh and Hebrew, Welsh has Hebrew roots.
And they worked out that therefore it must mean that.
And also, the interesting part was they were able to decipher hieroglyphs using Welsh words, using the Welsh.
So, for example, you might get a picture of a sheaf of wheat, and they, whatever the whatever the word for the Welsh word for sheaf of wheat is, they then put that letter in, and it could tell the name of the person buried there or what was going on.
And it was quite a persuasive theory.
I haven't studied it, studied it in depth.
But I mean, you've found other reasons to believe that this is so, haven't you?
I mean, you've well, not least the historians who talk about the do you pronounce them Scythians.
Is it Scythians or Scythians?
I pronounce it Scythians, but I'm truly an idiot.
Ah, well, if you understand the root of the word idiot is the Greek word idiotes, and it simply means one who studied privately.
Oh, well, oh, yes, well, so I began to mispronounce some words because I never paid attention to what they're saying in universities.
I think we should all aspire to being idiots in that case.
Yeah, right.
It's a high school.
No brainwashing, no indoctrination.
I mean, it's possible to brainwash yourself.
It is.
Oh, yeah, I mean, look, I don't, I doubt we're gonna end this chat any the wiser, but we might have thrown up a few ideas that'll be quite interesting to explore.
So, yeah, I do like the idea that I am descended from the children of Israel.
By the way, what tribe would I be?
Would you say?
We can't know.
And people that believe the things that I do, they try to assign tribes to various nations, but we really can't know because we are truly all mixed up.
As far as the tribes that emerged from Iron Age Mesopotamia, that they warfare and migration and subsumption of Uyghur tribes, or sometimes destruction of Uyghur tribes.
It's in the very complex history of Europe, those tribes are all mixed up.
The Galatahe came out of Asia.
They didn't come from the West.
They're called Celts, but there are different groups that are lumped together as Celts.
And the first Celts, in my opinion, there were other people in southern Europe along the Mediterranean coasts.
And the Bible identifies them as Japethites all the way to Iberia.
And that's fine, but Iberia is from a Hebrew word.
And the Phoenicians, the ships of Tarshish, were in Iberia.
And the Phoenicians of Tyre were actually Israelites.
They weren't Canaanites.
That's Jewish gaslighting.
They were Israelites.
The Bible proves beyond doubt that they were Israelites.
Isaiah, Ezekiel, Kings.
So these Phoenicians made colonies all throughout the Mediterranean and in Britain and Ireland.
And as far as I'm concerned, they were the first Celts.
But that's worrying, William.
I'm sorry?
That's worrying because the Phoenicians were really baddies.
I mean, they were really into child sacrifice and stuff.
The Phoenicians at Carthage were.
Oh, I see.
Okay, so they were good.
They were nasty Phoenicians and nice Phoenicians.
Is that the deal?
Well, you know, there were nasty Israelites and nice Israelites.
There were the Israelites of the Judges period were still basically keeping the law.
And the Israelites of the later kingdom period have been corrupted with the ways of the Canaanites.
Carthage was one of the later settlements of the Phoenicians.
Ah, was it?
Yes, Carthage wasn't settled until the 9th century BC.
BC.
Where most of the Phoenician settlements were settled a little earlier.
But they traded that they had trade with Britain.
Herodotus wrote about the Phoenician tin trade, and he didn't really understand the source of their tin recently.
And Strabo had described it in a manner that it could be identified with the Skilly Islands and Cornwall.
Skilly.
They're pronounced silly.
Silly.
Okay, silly islands, silly Brits, silly islands.
I'm sorry.
They put that C in there, right?
So anyway, I've never been there and I'll probably never get to go.
They're really nice.
They've got a fantastic microclimate.
So all these sort of semi-tropical plants can grow there.
The garden at Prescott.
It's amazing, that far north.
But he had identified them as the Cassiderides, Cassides, which basically means tin islands or something like that.
So only recently, very recently, archaeologists have discovered a way to identify the source of certain metals.
And they've clarified that tin ingots found in a wreckage off of the coast of Israel, Palestine, dating to the Phoenician period, came from Cornwall.
The tin came from Cornwall.
But I've been saying this for 20 years, not from any knowledge of tin, but from history, that the tin was coming from Cornwall.
Now, in order to make tin ingots, you need a pretty large settlement of people to support their being mined and smelted.
The ore has to be smelted and poured into ingots.
That takes a sizable colony of people.
You can't do that with just a few sailors jumping off a boat and digging up some tin and bringing back ingots.
You need a settlement.
And I believe that they were the first Kelse.
They had those settlements.
The connections in the language between Gaelic and Hebrew and Gothic and Anglo-Saxon and Latin, Basque, I just rattle off basically the title of a book written by Allison Emery Drake.
Phoenician Roots Revealed00:13:57
And he was a PhD.
He's not a lightweight.
He was an academic scholar.
And he wrote that book and published it in 1907.
And I know that there are older books than that on the same subject.
So this has been, it's not anything that Wilson and Blackett just pulled out of thin air.
Right.
Okay.
So what there are, there are connections between Old Hebrew no longer exists, does it?
You can't find it anywhere.
Old, these modern Jews speak Yiddish.
They don't speak Hebrew.
They call it Hebrew.
They put up a facade, but it's really a highly evolved and more or less bastardized language that is not the old Hebrew of the Israelites or anybody in ancient times.
I could criticize the way that they speak, but I won't.
Modern Hebrew is based on rabbinical vowel points that made a lot of actual innovations in the language.
And even biblical scholarship understands the language through the lens of those rabbis, those medieval Talmudic rabbis that I try to strip away when I study the scripture and examine Hebrew.
I could read Greek, playing Greek fairly well.
I taught myself while I was in prison, but I never really learned to read Hebrew.
I'm reluctant of the sources.
All the sources are Judaized.
But I do study the language a lot here in relation to my biblical commentaries and things like that on my own because I'm an idiot, right?
So there's so old Hebrew left.
What's the oldest Hebrew that we can find?
The oldest Hebrew are just a few inscriptions.
We do have inscriptions that existed that evidently predate the Babylonian destruction of the first temple.
And we have bullet and things like that.
The silver scrolls, they're called, what were discovered, dug out of the ground near Jerusalem.
And things like that verify the biblical accounts for us.
But the actual Hebrew language, as far as I know, the oldest manuscripts of it are the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And when do they date from?
There might be some scrolls that are older, but the sectarian scrolls found among the Dead Sea Scrolls prove to me beyond doubt that they were kept by a sect in Judea, not Essenes.
Everybody believes they were Essenes.
They weren't Essenes at all.
They were probably the sect, the fourth sect of Judea, which Josephus describes as the sect of Judas the Galilean.
And they were very hostile to Rome.
And the Dead Sea Scrolls are very hostile.
The sectarian literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls are very hostile to Rome.
And I would identify the authors or the keepers of the Dead Sea Scrolls as that sect of Judas the Galilean, at least until better information comes along, which may never happen.
So because they were anti-Roman, they must have written their sectarian literature between the Roman conquest of Judea, which began in 63 BC, and the Judean rebellion against Rome, which began in 65 AD.
I would date the Dead Sea Scrolls to that period.
But individual manuscripts might be older than that because they were kept.
They weren't necessarily created by that sect.
They were copies that were kept by the sect.
But so that means, because I mean, the Bible, the Old Testament is much older than that.
So there's no literature in Hebrew.
All you've got is a few inscriptions, and that's it.
So there's no really old version of the Bible before.
Is the Septuagint Septuagint?
There's not.
It's the oldest thing we've got.
Yes.
And that's Greek.
Yes.
Right.
Yes, that's it.
Hebrew is the language.
It was sort of reconstructed.
It was invented.
When was it invented?
Okay.
Hebrew wasn't invented.
And what I'm about to say is highly contrary to mainstream academia, but I don't care.
Okay.
The Akkadian Empire, in the middle of the third millennium BC, I'm saying like 2400, 2300 BC or thereabouts, Akkad became an empire.
And we see a precursor to that in the Empire of Nimrod, which was centered in Akkad in Genesis chapter 10.
So the Akkadian Empire of Sargon I, Sargon the Great, he's called, was imposing its language upon all of the subject nations that they came to rule over during the course of their empire.
So that Akkadian became the lingua franca, the language of trade and diplomacy throughout the Mesopotamian and the world of Mesopotamia and the Levant, and even in Anatalia.
Even the Canaanites, the Hittites in Anatolia had done their correspondence and trade in Akkadian.
The entire world at that time was speaking, reading, writing Akkadian, with a couple of exceptions.
The Persians resisted it and the Egyptians resisted it and never they did do diplomacy in Akkadian when they were dealing with people in Mesopotamia, but it was evidently very limited because there were very few samples surviving.
So Persia resisted it.
The Persians wouldn't speak Akkadian, at least as their everyday language.
They wouldn't accept it.
But all of the smaller and weaker tribes in the Levant and Mesopotamia ended up speaking dialects of Akkadian.
The Assyrian language is called Akkadian by scholars today.
Now, I don't know if that's an ideal label for it, but it's the best Akkadian that we have surviving, right?
The best examples of it.
And Hebrew and Aramaic and several of the languages in Ethiopia, there's three dialects, I think.
I can't name them off the top of my head, but I know they're there.
And several other nations languages are just derivatives or dialects of ancient Akkadian.
So this idea of Semitic languages is a farce.
It's a lie.
They're all dialects of Akkadian.
So we all know what the Hebrew alphabet looks like.
How does that compare with the Akkadian alphabet?
The original Hebrew alphabet was the Phoenician script.
Oh, okay.
There was no difference.
There may have been minor petty regional differences, but the Phoenician script was the original Hebrew alphabet.
These Hebrew block letters that we see now, they started to be used by certain sub-elements of the Judeans, probably in the third century BC.
But they didn't completely supplant the original script until the end of the first century AD.
The coins of the Hasmoneans and later kings, and I believe the Herodians also had inscriptions with the original Hebrew script, not these block letters.
Right.
I'm going to have, after this chat, I'm going to have to look at what Phoenician looks like.
The Greek alphabet is from the Phoenician.
The Roman alphabet is from the Phoenician.
They're all direct descendants of the Phoenician script.
Okay.
Well, so why in the second century BC did this sort of certain areas started using this block, this block thing?
I can't prove anything in this aspect, but the block letters seem to have become popular at the same time that the Judeans were conquering the Edomites and converting them to Judaism.
Right.
Now, I can't make a direct connection.
I can't.
There's no records.
But after the ministry of Christ, when, according to the scripture itself in the book of Acts, when thousands and tens of thousands of Judeans became Christians and lost their identity as Judeans, the principal people that remained were Edomites.
And they maintained those block letters, that block letter alphabet.
But I can't prove a direct connection between that.
The Edomites did.
I believe so.
Okay.
So, I hope we can somehow connect these trains of thought.
But when I read my Bible, my Old Testament, I encounter lots and lots of different tribes that the children of Israel are pitted against at various points.
So there's the Philistines, there's the Moabites, there's Canaanites, there's Amalek, whoever Amalek are.
Is there a worst of the worst?
Were the Moabites the worst?
It's difficult to determine who were the most depraved.
It is difficult.
But the Canaanites, if we study Genesis chapter 15, and there's a list of tribes there that inhabit the land of Canaan, and there's several groups which have no descent from Noah, whose sons and the nations of his sons are listed in Genesis chapter 10.
So we get to Genesis chapter 15 and we see these strange people and we can only wonder where they came from.
And archaeologists and Bible scholars, if you want to call them that, I'm very critical, right?
They make excuses.
Oh, this word really just means villagers.
They lived in villages.
Well, no, they didn't because they lived in the mountains also.
And they still had the same name.
So this isn't a locative name.
It has to be an ethnonym.
The Rephaim.
The Rephaim are the sons of a giant named Barapha, who was actually one of the Nephilim.
And the Nephilim, the word Nephilim means fallen ones.
Genesis chapter 6, there were Nephilim giants, it's translated generally, which I don't agree with.
There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, meaning they were already there before the flood.
They were already there when Adam was created and afterward.
How do we know that the Nephilim were there before Adam was created?
Well, because the fallen angels are identified with the serpent, that old serpent in Revelation chapter 12.
Nephilim Giants Before Adam00:05:54
Right.
And that serpent, that old serpent was already in the Garden of Eden before Adam was created.
Okay, but so these are Nephilim.
These are fallen angels who, in your estimation, were there before Adam appeared, but they couldn't possibly have bred with humans because humans haven't existed at that time.
I don't think that the angels fell out of the sky.
Okay.
I think that they were an older race that was here.
That was at one time in the good graces of God and somehow corrupted themselves and that's how they fell.
Interesting.
This is, I mean, this is where we're quite speculative, isn't it?
Because there ain't much.
It is speculative.
It is, absolutely.
But there isn't a lot of information.
However, the archaeological record supports what I'm saying.
That there are older races of men here is without a doubt, the creation of Adam in scripture can only be dated to maybe 5400, 5,500 BC.
Yes.
Okay.
So do you think the original, the pre-Adamic civilization, would that include things like Atlantis?
Do you think Atlantis was real?
I don't believe Atlantis existed.
Okay.
Even Stavo of Cappadocia said that Plato made it up that he invented Atlantis to promote his republic.
If you compare the descriptions of Atlantis with Plato's model of government in the Republic, he's devised Atlantis.
He concocted the story.
He's a philosopher.
He's not a historian.
He concocted this story in order to support and promote the model of government found in his republic.
Sabo didn't go that far, but he said that Plato invented the story.
Right.
And I believe he did, because with all my reading, I can't find an Atlantis before Plato.
So all these old, old cities that Graham Hancock talks about on his documentaries, these are the pre-Adamic civilizations, are they?
I'm not, okay.
I'm not necessarily a fan of Graham Hancock.
I did read his book 20 years ago, Fingerprints of the Gods, I think.
But they are right when they point out all of these structures, which are evidently far older than we are, and have been around older than any of our own records attest.
So I do agree with that.
And yes, I would attribute those things to a race of people that were here before us and of which only remnants had existed when our civilization began to develop.
Right.
And the Bible refers to those remnants as Nephilim or fallen ones.
And they're throughout the Bible.
They're found in diverse places mentioned in scripture as late as for the word Nephilim, Numbers chapter 13.
So they were around for a while, right?
They're in Numbers chapter 13.
And of course, they're still around after that, but they're not identified by that name.
After that, they're identified by patronyms such as Rephaim or Anakim.
The Rephaim are the sons of Rapha.
And that's mentioned in Chronicles, I believe, the term sons of Raphael.
And the Anakim are the sons of Banak, who's called a Nephilim.
Right.
So are these connected, you must have seen these photographs of skull shapes.
And you've got the ruling classes over generations having these kind of elongated skulls.
Are they descendants of the pre-adamic races, of the Nephilim?
I would think that everybody who's not Adamic is a descendant of those Nephilim.
And that includes a lot of the races that we understand in the world today.
Because there's no other explanation of their existence.
Wow.
That's certainly controversial and interesting.
Aborigines and the Global Warming Scare00:02:48
So, okay.
So who are you thinking?
I mean, like Aborigines of various kinds.
Global warming is a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011 actually, the first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climategate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us.
We've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find it right.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Diet.
No, we don't.
It's a scam.
Wow.
That's certainly controversial and interesting.
So, okay.
So, who are you thinking?
Adam's View on Race Origins00:08:01
I mean, like, Aborigines of various kinds?
Basically, not going to sound like a real racist, but racism is a factual reality that we have to face.
It's a biological reality as well.
I know that there are many politically correct people in Europe and America that like to deny that race is a biological reality, but it certainly is.
The word Adam means to be ruddy.
And the word Dom is blood.
And that is why the word Adam means to be Adam means to be ruddy or reddish.
So, that being said, the Genesis 10, the nations in Genesis chapter 10 that are listed, sons of Japeth, sons of Ham, sons of Sham, they weren't different colors originally.
Okay, if I was Noah and I slept with my wife and gave birth to a baby to look like me, that'd be fine.
That's what I would expect.
If I slept with her again and the baby was black or yellow, there wouldn't be a third child.
So, there wouldn't be a third child.
I'm sorry.
Okay, that's my quip, but it explains to me, it demonstrates that the incredulity of one man and his wife having children of different races, which is what the Catholic Church has taught since the medieval period.
And it's ridiculous.
But the original Egyptians are of Ham, and they were white.
The original Akkadians were of Ham, were of Cush from Ham, and they were white.
The original Persians of Elam were white.
The original Lydians of Anatolia were Shemites.
I could mention the Medes were of Japeth, and they were all what we would call white or Caucasian.
This idea that they were of different races is absurd.
There aren't any South American natives in the Bible.
There aren't any sub-Saharan Africans in the Bible.
None.
Not even your Ethiopian eunuch.
There aren't any Chinamen in the Bible.
It's not their book.
It's the history of the generations of Adam.
That word generations, Genesis chapter 5, verse 1, is Toledah.
And Toledah in Hebrew means descent or genealogies.
So it's the book of the genealogies of Adam, of one man who's our eponymous ancestor.
And that table of nations in Genesis chapter 10 all descended from him.
Noah was preserved because he was perfect in his generations.
He was perfect in his Toledah, meaning that he was not mixed with the Nephilim that the other descendants of Adam were mixing with.
He was perfect in his genealogies.
How long is the period between Adam and Noah?
How many years?
Probably about 2,200.
Okay.
So over that 2,200 years, loads of people apart from, maybe all the people apart from Noah, were busy interbreeding with the previous inhabitants of the planet.
That went on for at least two or three generations.
Right.
the way it's described in Scripture.
It seems to be okay.
Okay, and I think it's Genesis.
Okay.
I think it's at the beginning of Genesis chapter 5.
It's at the very end of Genesis chapter 4.
And Seth had a son and began to call his name Enos.
So with the time of Enos, the third generation, that's earlier than I remembered.
Men began to call on a name of Yahweh.
Genesis chapter 4, verse 26.
And it's always impressed me that we usually don't call on God until we're in trouble.
And it seems to me that that's what that's saying.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that that's what that's saying.
And they're in trouble because they've been breeding with you.
Well, because the Nephilim were pressuring them at that time and possibly already taking their daughters.
Yeah.
Yeah.
These Nephilim, these Kenites, Kenites are the descendants of Cain, and the Rephaim are of the Nephilim.
And there's three or four other groups mentioned in Genesis chapter 15 that aren't of Noah.
In Genesis chapter 14, there are people who are identified as Zuzims.
And according to the best lexicon, Strong's Concordinates, Brown Driver, Briggs, and Josenius, Zuzim means roving creatures.
And not for nothing, I'm going to sound like a racist again.
When I hear the word zuzim and think of its meaning, I picture all those Mexicans come over our southern border in drove.
That's what I picture.
It's an alien people that are, you don't know what to call them.
They don't speak your language.
They're hostile.
They're just roving creatures.
They didn't even have a name for them.
Genesis chapter 14.
In Genesis chapter 15, there's Girgashites and Kenizzites.
There's several groups there that aren't found in Genesis chapter 10.
And the ones that are found in Genesis chapter 10 are the Canaanites.
And the Canaanites were accursed.
So you have these accursed people who are mixing with these unidentifiable people along with the Canites and the Nephilim, the Rephaim.
And that's why, or at least it's for that reason that they are considered so unredeemable that they couldn't be converted.
They couldn't be civilized.
They were just told to be wiped out.
Right.
But that presumably God made the Nephilim as well.
But did he make the rebellion?
Intellectually Inconsistent Creations00:02:48
Well, possibly he didn't.
But I mean, it does rather sort of contradict this, well, the understanding within Christianity, which is quite widespread, that this is a loving God and he made man in his image.
And it just seems intellectually inconsistent that this same character could previously have created this other race, which he just discarded.
He just couldn't stand them and got rid of them and urged them to be destroyed.
We have free will.
God created the horse and God created the donkey, but God didn't create the mule.
He didn't.
If you're a cabinet maker and I'm your apprentice and I make the most screwed up freaking, working for you for several years, I make the most screwed up cabinet you ever saw.
The hinges rocked, the door didn't close right.
Are you going to take credit for having taught me to make that cabinet?
Because that's not the cabinet you're telling me to make.
So whose fault is it?
Is it mine or yours?
If you've done your best to teach me and your cabinets come out perfect, and I make this bastardized cabinet, I can't, hey, James taught me how to make this.
I didn't.
I didn't, William.
What are you going to do?
You're going to take my cabinet and burn it and maybe put me out in the street to shovel gung or something because I can't make cabinets.
I'm not sure whether this makes things easier to comprehend or harder to comprehend your this because it's so much easier if you think of Adam as the first man.
Well, especially what's the first man-man, Cain went and built a city.
Why did he build a city?
Why did Cain say, anybody that finds me will want to kill me?
That's what Cain's described as saying, yeah, in Genesis chapter 4, anybody that finds me will want to kill me.
Who was Cain afraid of?
I had wondered that.
Because there wouldn't have been many.
The same reason he built a city.
Israel and Judah's Struggle00:15:29
All these Nephilim were already there.
In Genesis chapter 2, they are the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It's an allegory for those fallen angels that the serpent represented.
Okay.
Where at this time are the good angels that didn't rebel?
We're not told.
We're not told.
Where do you think they were?
They weren't on earth.
I can't.
I don't like to conjecture.
I really don't.
Right.
But they're not on the earth anywhere.
We know that.
Not evidently not at that time.
They're not in the purview of scripture.
So just leaping forward to the present.
Do you think all the baddies who run the world, the kind of the satanic bloodlines, the black nobility, the level above the satanic bloodlines I've heard about recently?
Are they these are the descendants of the Nephilim?
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
That would make sense.
I mean, that would explain why they don't like us, why they view us as sort of inferior.
And B, why they kind of consider themselves set apart because they are a different species, in fact.
Absolutely, but they've been-I'm going to put it allegorically.
They've been drinking our blood for 7,000 years.
In other words, they've been taking what they want from us for 7,000 years.
Yeah.
Mostly our women, but sometimes our men.
What for sort of casual sex, casual homosexual?
So do you reckon?
Do you reckon the Nephilim?
I mean, Jewish women intermarry with non-Jews all the time.
And if you're a if you're a Jew, you count your who's Jewish through the woman, not through the man.
Contrary to the patriarchy of scripture.
Yeah.
Ah.
Do you reckon that's connected?
I mean, I've only been going down the matrilineal rabbit hole recently.
You know about the theory that that's how the world is really run through matrilineal bloodlines because that's how the rabbis of Judaism count who is Jewish.
I get that detail, but we're talking about it's not just about the Jews, this it's about Phoenicians, it's about but the Phoenicians carried with them a patriarchal society for the most part, right?
Well, if we're going to talk about the Jews, um, which I know is one of your pet subjects, it's impossible to talk about the Bible in scripture without coming to the subject of Jews and the Jews, like if you went how many, how many Zionist evangelical Christians are there in America?
Is it 20 million or more?
20 million brainwashed Americans, it's probably 200 million.
If you went and asked them about the Jews, they'd say, Oh, yeah, we are not worthy.
Um, the Jews are just amazing, they're God's chosen people, and Israel, and yada, yada, yada.
And you think that this isn't right.
This is based on well, what is it based on?
When does the word Jew first appear in the Bible?
Well, technically, the word Jew shouldn't appear in the Bible at all.
However, in the English Bible, the King James Version, the word Jew doesn't appear until 2 Kings chapter 16.
I believe, which, uh, chronologically, when is that what BC?
2 Kings chapter 16 would be like the 8th century, the 9th century BC, I would think.
Okay, so just when the Phoenicians were settling in Carthage and there, it might be 1st Kings 16.
I want to check that 2 Kings 16:6.
Rezin king of Syria recovered, he left Assyria and drove the Jews from Elath.
And that's not a good translation.
It should never be Jew in the Old Testament.
It shouldn't be Jew in the New Testament.
You had Judahites, people of Judah in the Old Testament.
But the people of Judah and the Jews should not be confused.
What is the we're presumably translating from the Septuagint on this occasion?
Yeah, so it's coming from Greek.
Is that right?
Well, that was the King James Version.
But the Greek word there would simply be a translation of what the Hebrew represents, and that's Eudahius.
And that's the Hellenistic Eudahius is the Hellenistic transliteration of Yehudah or Judah.
Okay.
So, hang on, you're right, of course, that the King James was translated from the Masoretic texts, which are medieval Hebrew.
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
So the word that the word in the Bible, whether it's in the Masoretic Hebrew or whether it's in the Greek, what does it actually refer to?
Does it refer to people who come from Judea or does it refer to people who are of the tribe of Judah?
Okay.
Originally, they would have been of the tribes of either Judah, Benjamin, or Levi, but predominantly of Judah.
And they're all called Judahites because they were all under the old kingdom of Judah until the Babylonian captivity.
It consisted of Judah and Benjamin and a portion of the tribe of Levi.
Well, all of the other tribes of Israel had, for the most part, not completely, but for the most part, been taken into Assyrian captivity or killed in the Assyrian invasions.
And all of the country of Judah outside of Jerusalem was also taken into Assyrian captivity.
Was it?
But Jerusalem held out, did it?
It didn't get Jerusalem held out, so you only had the people left the remnant in Jerusalem, which was probably a sizable number of people.
It was probably at least half a million people.
Jerusalem was a large city.
Oh, and it must have been very well fortified to be able to survive the Assyrians.
Yes.
Really well fortified.
Yes.
And Hezekiah actually hid, he managed to hide an entire brook that came through the city walls.
And he had a tunnel going down from the mount to the base where that brook was to bring water up into the city.
It's pretty amazing.
Is that Kidron?
No.
What's the name of the brook?
It might be the brook Kedron.
It might be.
Yes, I was reading about Hezekiah recently.
So Sennacherib, Sennacherib, was he the king of the Assyrians?
Yes.
And he got his, his, like, he lost 250,000 of his men or something mysteriously, and it's like in some kind of god.
180,000, I think it was, 180,000, 185,000.
And God just wiped them out.
Yes.
That was amazing.
So at that time, all of Israel, which was the other tribes that aren't Benjamin, Levi, and well, the Levites are one of the 12 tribes, are they?
Benjamin, Judah.
All the other tribes, Asherah and Dan and whatever, they were taken into captivity or killed.
Or had left by sea.
Or had left by sea.
Okay.
And so obviously Jerusalem is in Judea.
Is Israel to the north of Judah?
It was really to the north and partly to the west, but that's all right.
Right.
Okay.
Ah, yes.
And I suppose Greater Israel, which is what, of course, people like Netanyahu are trying to trying to claim that, they lay claim to now.
How far west did Israel go in those days?
Okay.
Israel proper could only go as far as the Mediterranean and Tyre.
Oh, sorry.
I meant A East.
Yeah, sorry, obviously.
Before the time of the Assyrian Empire, the kingdom of Judah had controlled all of the land, as far east as the Euphrates river and as far north as the mouth of the Arantes river, which is modern day what it's in modern day Turkey.
Okay, they controlled Hamath, and that the they controlled the coast all the way to the entering in of Hamath, it's called in scripture.
But the entering in of Hamath is from the sea.
It's the mouth of the Arantis River, which flowed down as far as Hamath.
And that was, Hamath got its trade from that Arantes River.
So that's basically the entire coast of the Levant was controlled by the kingdom of Judah from the time of David until the Assyrians in the 9th century BC, maybe the late 10th century BC, yes, the late 10th century BC, I believe, started to conquer that territory and take it for themselves.
And in the scripture, in 2 Kings, it's described that Jeroboam II, the king of Israel at the time, who ruled Israel for 50 years, just over 50 years, he had taken back all of that land that belonged to Judah.
He took it back and he controlled it for the duration of his rule.
But then his successors lost it again to the Assyrians.
So there was a struggle between Israel and Assyria that we don't see in the Bible because the Bible's only concerned with what's going on in Israel and Judah proper.
For instance, there's an Assyrian inscription that explains that Ahab, the king of Israel, in the 9th century, had sent 10,000 men to face the Assyrians in league with the kings of Damascus and other kings in the north.
When the kingdom divided between Israel and Judah, a lot of the cities that Israel and that Judah had ruled over from the time of David had also divided.
And Damascus was one of those cities.
But we see the divided kingdom as just Israel and Judah.
But that's not true.
It's Israel and Judah, plus they lost a lot of their territory in the north to other men who became kings or who made themselves kings.
So these territories were eventually eaten up by the Assyrians.
And Ahab was trying to fight them off.
Jeroboam II did fight them off.
Ahab tried to fight him off and he had failed where Jeroboam II succeeded.
But by the time of Tiglath-Piliser III in 743 BC, the Assyrians had conquered all of that territory and began to bring Israelites in Galilee and across the Jordan into captivity in 743.
And during these periods of captivity, what was happening to them?
Were they used as slaves and sort of prostitutes and things?
No.
No, for the most part, they weren't.
They were settled in lands on the frontiers of the Assyrian Empire to act as a buffer state between the Assyrians and their enemies.
Oh, okay.
So, in other words, many Israelites were planted along the borderlands of Urartu.
Urartu was a powerful kingdom that had grown in the Caucasus mountain region and what we would consider to be Armenia today.
The Assyrians called it Urartu.
I'm not sure if they call themselves Urartu.
There are a couple of inscriptions surviving that I haven't gotten to yet.
So the Chimerians, the Assyrians had called the Israelites Khumri.
And they settled them along the border of Urartu.
And the Khumri became known to the Greeks as Chimerians.
Khumri And Baal Worship00:14:54
Ah.
And the Greeks called them Galata something.
That's later.
That's much later.
At first, the Greeks, okay, when the Assyrians ruled, Akkadian was the lingua franca of the East, right?
So the Assyrians, they knew, the Greeks knew Akkadian.
I mean, the Greeks were Greek mercenaries in the Assyrian and the Babylonian armies.
That the world doesn't exist in a bottle where this is my bottle and you stay out of my bottle.
You got your own bottle over there.
No, there's a lot of the exchange between the Greek world and Mesopotamia in the East.
And there's a lot of Greek myths and legends about their gods that originated in the East.
Okay.
So the Greeks, when these Khumri or Chimerians, when the Greeks first became acquainted with these people, they called them after the name that the Assyrians called them, Khumri.
But they Hellenized that into Timeroi.
Timeroi.
Timroi would be plural, meaning the Chimerians.
That became Chimerian with a C in Latin.
In Latin, the C's are always hard.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Were the Chimerians known to have any particular qualities?
Well, these Chimerians evidently grew into a fairly powerful people.
And they weren't the most powerful at the time.
But modern academic scholars think that they were invaders from the north.
And that's not true.
They simply appear in these Assyrian inscriptions under different names later in history and Babylonian and other inscriptions under different names later in history because the other nations, the Babylonians, the Persians, had different words for them, which I could get to.
But these Khumri, evidently over a couple of generations, grew into a powerful people.
And they attacked the kingdom of Urartu and defeated it.
So the Assyrians never wrote about the Khumri in their inscriptions as invaders or as enemies, never.
And all of the inscriptions from the time of Sargon II and later, which mention the Khmerians, they're just there.
And the only thing that explains them just being there is that these are the people, the Khimri, the Khumri, the Israelites that Tiglath-Pilliser took into captivity and planted in all the places where the Khmerians later appear.
And scholars don't want to make that connection.
They mock it, but it's true.
And I could demonstrate it from the inscriptions.
How?
What do the inscriptions say?
Well, the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pilisar describe the Khumri that he took and plant out of Israel and planted in diverse places in the north.
How many?
We don't know.
We only have records, as far as I know, as far as I've ever seen in inscriptions, we only have records.
We have several, many records of captivities of Israel, more than those that have actual numbers.
So Transjordania was taken, which was actually a pretty populous place, Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh had some pretty successful cities.
And Galilee was taken, but there were no numbers in the inscriptions.
The only numbers that exist, as far as I know, is the captivity of Samaria.
One city, Samaria, which was the capital of Israel.
And they took, off the top of my head, I think it's like 22,000 in change, captives from Samaria.
But that's only from one city.
And they took many other cities, even if they were slightly smaller cities.
And we have no numbers, no surviving numbers in the inscriptions.
Now, Sennacherib in his invasion of Judah took just over 200,000 captives into Assyria.
And that's a much more significant number, but he took 46 cities.
Many people must have escaped, and many people must have been killed in those 46 cities.
But he took 201,000 captives, I believe it is, and change.
Isn't that interesting in terms of the sort of the practice of the times?
Because you'd sort of imagine that in those days you just slaughtered the lemon, just wiped them all out.
But here's this policy where they're taking hundreds of thousands of enemy captives and installing them in their own territory as a buffer.
That's quite interesting.
It is, but that's what they did.
And both the Bible and the inscriptions named some of the places that they were moved to.
And that was the Assyrian policy.
And the Greeks despised that policy.
Did they?
The Persians despise it also.
Why?
And when Cyrus, when Cyrus, the king of Persia, the Babylonians continued the Assyrian policy of transplanting rebel people from rebel communities and planting them somewhere else.
And they did that to control them.
So the Babylonians continued that, but the Persians despised it.
And when Cyrus became king of Persia, conquered Babylon, he didn't really conquer it.
He just walked in.
The Babylonians were happy for him.
And for real.
And he became the king of Babylon.
He made a universal.
It wasn't just the people of Judah that were allowed to return.
He made a universal declaration that anybody that came from a different place can return to their homeland, their original land.
Not everybody would have taken them up on it.
No, wouldn't it be?
Most of the people of Judah.
This must have been many years after they've been displaced.
So why are they wanting to?
That's why.
I mean, after five, six generations and sometimes longer, who would want to leave?
You're comfortable here.
So that's why only 40,000 people of Judah, 42,000 in change, had returned to Jerusalem.
The rest were comfortable.
They were comfortable in Babylon.
I'm not very good on my ancient world chronology.
Did the Babylonians supersede the Assyrians or were they parallel empires?
They followed them.
Well, they were parallel to them, but they were a subject state of the Assyrians that tried several times to get independence and kept failing.
And finally, and the Assyrians destroyed Babylon totally in the time of Tiglath-Pilosar III and then rebuilt it in the eighth century.
So the Babylonians finally put together a consortium of Babylonians, Persians, Medes, Chimerians, and Scythians, who were also the captive Israelites or the Chimerians, and I could discuss that.
They put together this consortium of people and they destroyed the cities of Assyria.
They destroyed Nineveh.
They destroyed the Assyrian Empire in 612 BC.
And the king of Babylon at that time was the father of Mebuchadnezzar II.
The Buchadnezzar II became king, I believe, in 605 BC, and he began to reassemble the old Assyrian Empire under his own rule.
Right.
Okay.
But that empire only lasted until 539 BC.
And in terms of their kind of religious practices and stuff, were the Babylonians and the Syrians, Assyrians, into child sacrifice and stuff like that?
I don't have any particular records of that.
I don't, that I could think of.
The child sacrifice.
They were into Baal worship, especially in Babylon.
And you'll hear the names of other gods, Nebo and Marduk, but they were also used as synonyms for Baal or alternate names for Baal.
So the Babylonians had the Baal worship, the same worship that the ancient Canaanites had, which was fertility rights.
There was lasciviousness in Bao worship.
That's where people got married at altars.
You got married at the altar.
You actually had sex at the altar in the ancient Bao world.
And those fertility rites were pretty much universal in the worship of Baal, it seems.
However, the child sacrifice part of it, I have not seen beyond the ancient Canaanites and some of the Phoenicians that adopted the practice from the Canaanites.
Okay.
And who the Chimerians, who were they worshiping at this time?
Were they sticking with the original God or were they?
No, no.
The Israelites, from the time of Jeroboam I, in the Bible, this is one generation after Solomon.
Yeah.
Right?
And a divided kingdom.
And that kingdom became divided.
And Jeroboam I became the king of the ten tribes of Israel.
And he realized that as long as his people were worshiping Yahweh at the temple in Jerusalem, that he couldn't control them.
All the ancient kings understood something that we don't understand today: that our government controls us through our religion.
Kings have always worked together with priests to control us through our religion.
If our government doesn't control our religion, then our government cannot control us.
Period.
And this is something that ancient Sumerian kings understood.
But today we don't understand it.
I don't know why we don't know.
We think there's separation of church and state, and there really isn't.
It's all a gaslight.
There's no separation, especially in England, right?
Where your king is the head of the Anglican church.
Americans think there's separation and there's not.
He may be the head of the Anglican church.
I don't think he's very much interested in the Christian God, though.
No, he's not.
He's not, but he's still the head of the church.
He's the figurehead.
Right.
So, I mean, surely when the children of Israel follow God's will and don't put their children in the fire and don't build asherah poles, then things go well for Israel.
It's only when they abandon the faith that things go badly for them, isn't it?
Yes, absolutely.
And that's what we, as a formerly Christian people, are suffering today.
Yes.
We wonder why we're being overrun with aliens.
You don't have to wonder.
Read Deuteronomy chapter 28.
It's really simple.
Read the curses of disobedience in scripture.
We've accepted sodomy is generally accepted in our society today.
In fact, it's even promoted.
And we wonder why we suffer.
We wonder why we have all this crime.
That's why.
Because we've rejected Christ.
We've rejected our God.
And we're going to suffer for it until we turn back.
There's no other solution.
Period.
There is no other solution.
I was very naughty, William, because I distracted you.
Remember, we started this digression about half an hour ago.
I asked you about the origin of the word Jew.
So Jew means of the tribe of Judea, of that region.
Judean Identity Crisis00:15:29
Well, to the Greeks, it meant to the original Greeks, the Jews only had, I'm sorry, now I'm doing it.
The people of Judah only had control of Jerusalem and its immediate environs when Alexander marched into Jerusalem in 330 BC.
And those Greeks from that time referred to them as Eudahios because that is a transliteration, a Hellenized transliteration of Yehudah.
Okay.
Now, those Alexander's empire was divided into four major parts when he died.
And the Seleucids became the rulers of the part that controlled the Levant, which is basically Syria.
The Seleucid Greeks.
Seleucus is one family, one man.
The Seleucids are one family of Greek rulers to whom fell control of Syria.
And they ruled Syria until the Romans came.
So, and that would be about 70 BC, perhaps, 75 BC, when the Romans first started their incursions into Syria.
So these Seleucids actually tried to force, because Alexander believed in homogenizing the people and religions everywhere he conquered.
He was one of your first globalist universalist emperors that we should all have the same religion.
We should all be one race, right?
That was Alexander the Great.
He wasn't too great as far as I'm concerned.
So these Seleucids continued that policy and tried to force the people of Jerusalem again and again to give up their ancestral religion in favor of Greek paganism and to live like Greek pagans.
And they refused.
And finally, in 160, 156 BC, I'm thinking, they actually managed to defeat the Seleucids in battle and gain their independence.
And it was Judas Hasmoneus, the Hasmonean dynasty was founded there of high priests.
And they were called, Judas was called Maccabee, which is a hammer.
So that's where the word Maccabees come from.
Actually, Judas was the only Maccabee, but the Hasmoneans are often called Maccabees because of Judas.
So Judas and his immediate successors, they believed in running out all of the Edomites and other Canaanites who had taken over the cities of Judah and Israel since the captivities of the Assyrians and the Babylonians.
And they tried to run them out for 30 years and kept failing because they didn't have their own population wasn't great enough to inhabit those places that they ran their enemies out of.
So in 129 BC, perhaps, John Hyrcanus, who's one of the Hasmoneans, he became the high priest.
And the high priests are the rulers of the nation at that time.
He changed the policy and he began to forcibly convert those people to Judaism.
And that policy, which is against the scripture, It's totally contrary to the scripture.
But he did it for political expediency.
So he converted all of the Edomites of several major cities.
And Josephus lists Dora and Marisa among those cities.
And he died, and eventually another high priest arose named Alexander Janius, who I think may have been Hyrcanus' grandson.
I'm not sure.
Well, Alexander Janius continued that policy of forcing these people to convert, but he did it on a much greater scale, and he was far more successful.
And he converted all the Edomites in like 30 different cities and districts in Judea.
He converted them all to Judaism.
Right.
With the condition that they could stay as long as they converted.
But presumably it was, they didn't call it Judaism, did they?
No, they would have just called it the law.
The law.
Yes, the ancient Hebrews, the ancient people of Judah would have just referred to it as the law.
Law.
So from that point on, anyone sort of calling themselves a sort of a Jew or Judean, Judahite, whatever, would not necessarily be a descendant of the children of Israel.
They could just as easily have been their arch enemies, the Moabites.
Right.
The Moabites, the Edomites, other Canaanites, primarily the Edomites were the largest alien population, apparently.
At least that's the impression I get.
Did converts outnumber the original?
Yes, they did.
Eventually they did.
So in 63 BC, the Romans come and attempt to conquer Jerusalem, and they really did have a hard time.
And fighting and rebellion dragged out, and the family of the Hasmoneans became divided.
And there was actually one Hasmone, I think his name was Aristobulus, who was hostile to the Edomites.
And he thought that he should be the high priest because his brother, John Hyrcanus II, was a sellout and was in bed with the Edomites.
So John Hyrcanus II, he married his niece off to Herod, the Herod called Herod the Great.
He was a good friend of Herod's father.
He hired him to be a general in his army to help him fight the Romans.
Well, Herod's father dies and Herod sort of takes over and he marries the niece of the high priest, Maryam.
So this is how much the Hasmoneans and the Edomites are in bed with each other.
Herod betrays the Hasmoneans, sides with the Romans, and gets made king when the Romans conquered Jerusalem.
Herod killed when he got made king.
He wiped out the Hasmonean dynasty.
He had them all killed.
He had all the nobles of Jerusalem killed, and he replaced them with his own cronies who were Edomites for the most part.
Right.
Okay.
So by the time Jesus turns up, there's been this kind of Game of Thrones type blood.
Yes.
And that accounts for all the division in the New Testament.
Right.
What?
What division do you mean?
Between the Sadducees and the Pharisees?
Or?
No, between Christ and the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
Okay.
Because, okay, so where is Jesus in all this?
What's his bloodline?
Judah.
He's a true Judahite.
He's an actual Judahite.
And the apostles, there were still a lot of true Judah in Judea.
And the apostles were chosen from the true Judahites, who were actually mostly of Benjamin, it seems.
And Christ was of the tribe of Judah.
He was a true Judahite.
How would they have known?
Was it just the thing you did you knew?
Like in the English class system, you know everyone's background.
And how did it work?
It would have been hard to know.
You wouldn't have known.
It would have been difficult to know.
The apostles couldn't tell the Edomites apart.
Well, how do you know the apostles all the apostles were true Judahites?
Because the scripture tells us they are.
Right, okay.
Same with Christ.
Christ said, Have I not chosen you 12, and one of you is a devil?
Yes.
And who did, and he meant Judas Iscariot.
Yes, Judas, was Judas not a Judahite?
He was almost certainly an Edomite.
Was he?
The name Iscariot means son of Kerioth.
And that was his father's name or man of Kerioth.
Ish is man, and Keriot, the Kariot part, is from Keriot, which is a town in the south of Judah.
And it's one of the towns that were under Edomite dominion in Judah.
Right.
And that's where Judas's father was from.
But this is, I suppose, this is where it starts getting spicy.
Because I think of Jesus as this, like, well, amazingly loving person.
And I mean, he attracted all sorts of people, didn't he?
All sorts of followers came and converted to him.
Why would he differentiate between proper Judahites and converts?
Christ told the in John chapter 10 in verse 26, Christ told his adversaries, because we don't have pictures, we don't have genealogies for them, we don't have pictures, but Christ told them very plainly and simply, you do not believe me because you are not my sheep.
Yes, he did say that.
He didn't say, you're not my sheep because you don't believe me.
Run it by me again.
What did he say?
He said, you do not believe me because you are not my sheep.
Right.
But the church teaches that they're not his sheep because they didn't believe him.
But that's not true.
That's not what he said.
Okay.
Suppose you're right, William.
How come the church, all the different branches of the church, all preach the opposite?
Because it's been gaslit for 1800 years.
They don't, they didn't know this history.
They didn't have access to Josephus in the third century, fourth century, fifth century.
Books weren't that widely disseminated.
Who's doing the gaslighting?
Jews.
By which do you mean what?
Well, Paul of Tarsus spoke to Herod Agrippa II in Palestine, in Caesarea.
He addressed Herod Agrippa II, and the Roman governor was there with him, Porcius Festus, which is my favorite name in the world for Roman because it means happy fate, happy pig.
Porcuius Festus was his name.
It means festive pig is exactly what it means.
He was the Roman governor and Herod Agrippa II in Caesarea, and they had Paul of Tarsus there.
They're about to send him to Rome, but Herod Agrippa II wanted to hear him, wanted to hear his testimony first.
And Paul said he spoke about the hope of our fathers, which is what Christ represents, right?
He spoke about the hope of our fathers, which our 12 tribes have, for which I labored night and day.
I'm paraphrasing, but this is Acts chapter 26, verses 6 and 7.
And he says, for which hope I am accused of the Jews.
In other words, he distinguished the Jews from the 12 tribes as a separate entity, as a distinct entity.
But wasn't Paul a Jew?
No, he was a Judean.
You see, to us, these people that we call Jews, we associate them with Judea, but they're not to be associated with Judah because they're all mixed with those Edomites that were the enemies of ancient Judah.
It's not fair.
It's like it's like calling.
No, it's not.
I'm sorry.
If I say Londoner to you, what do you think of?
What image do you get in your head?
Because right now, most of the people in London, they're not Londoners.
No way.
So is it fair to say they're Londoners?
No.
No.
No, because you're from London.
To you, it's not fair.
So do you think Christ would want to get lumped together with these Edomites?
He wouldn't.
But I thought that one of the things he was coming about to do was to kind of sort of end that period where that's not true.
That's not what he said.
Right.
Christ And The Edomites00:04:48
He said, I've come but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
And then he told his adversaries, you're not my sheep.
You don't believe me because you're not my sheep.
He didn't care about them.
He didn't come for them.
But has there not been, has not God showed his blessing on all these people who in good faith become Christians, who are not necessarily descendants of the children of Israel?
I mean, they've produced Saints, they've produced, are they not?
Who says that?
Well.
The church.
The church, yeah.
Romans chapter 15, verse 8.
Paul of Tarsus said that Christ came to fulfill the promises of the fathers.
Right.
So if you want to know why Christ came, and this is also mentioned on two occasions in Luke chapter 1.
And it's mentioned in different ways throughout the scripture, to fulfill the promises of the fathers.
Luke chapter 1, that we would be saved from our enemies, that he came to uphold the oath which he swore to our father Abraham, that we would be saved from our enemies.
That's at the end of Luke chapter 1.
That's why he came.
That's why the Bible says he came.
That's why his gospel says he came.
So how could we say he came for anything else that's not written in his gospel?
Well, John 3, 16, I know you're thinking about John 3, 16, but John 3, 16 is taken totally out of context, out of its biblical and historical context.
Jesus loves the world, but not the world that we see.
He doesn't love this world.
And in fact, the Apostle James tells you in James chapter 5, I believe, that a friend of the world is an enemy of God.
So that world in John 3, 16, it's not what these mainstream Christians think it is.
So Paul knew all this.
Absolutely.
So where did it, so when did the message get confused then?
What point in the Genesis of the church?
Paul didn't confuse it at all.
James didn't confuse it at all.
James wrote to the 12 tribes scattered abroad.
Paul of Tarsus told the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians chapter 10, that their ancestors were in the cloud and the sea with Moses.
How is that?
I could explain how it is.
I can explain that, but I would need a whole half a podcast to explain that.
Paul told the Romans, Abraham, our forefather.
Romans chapter 4, right at the beginning, it says father in the King James Version, but it says forefather in the older manuscripts.
But either way, how is Abraham the father of the Romans?
Paul told the Galatians, and that's your Galatahi, right?
The Galatians descended from the Scythians.
Actually, the name of Scythian and the name Saka describe the same people.
And a couple of centuries later, the Greeks started calling them Galatahi instead of Scythians or Saka.
But they're the same people.
And the Galatians, Paul told the Galatians that Christ came to redeem those under the law, who were under the law.
And he told them that the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
How does that affect the Galatians?
I could tell you how, because the Galatians are the descendants of those Chimerians, those Comri.
Okay.
When Jesus applauds the Centurion for his faith, when the Centurion says, well, there, I didn't, I trust you totally.
Galatians and Centurion Faith00:02:29
I don't need to go and check.
I believe you.
And Jesus says, you know, his faith is amazing.
In Jesus' eyes, who's better, that centurion or a non-believing descendant of the children of Israel?
How do you know that Centurion isn't a descendant of the children of Israel?
Well, I don't know.
I can make connections between the Romans and the ancient Israelites in Egypt.
It's sin, but there are connections there.
That the Romans came from the Trojans and the Trojans came from the Israelites in Egypt.
It does make Christianity very much religion about bloodlines, doesn't it, though?
I mean, if that's the case.
Okay, the city of God in Revelation chapter 21 has 12 gates.
And on those 12 gates are written the names of the 12 tribes of the children of Israel.
Okay.
It's about bloodline from beginning to end.
And you're either of that bloodline or you're not.
But, I mean, you and I can probably feel fairly confident that we're okay.
I mean, you know, we're one of the.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
In the end, it doesn't matter.
Oh, why?
Well, you'll either continue to exist or you won't know the difference.
You either have those promises that God made to this one bloodline of people or you don't.
It doesn't matter in the end.
It's not going to affect us in the afterlife.
Well, we either will be there or we won't know the difference.
We don't know the difference.
What will happen if we if we don't have the spirit of God?
I don't know if there is an afterlife at all.
I think God put his spirit into the Adamic man, and that's all we know.
Eternity's Image Debate00:05:04
I mean, there are many, I could talk about it through scripture all day, but he didn't put his spirit into every man to be an image of his eternity.
The spirit is an image of the eternity of God.
That's wisdom of Solomon chapter 2.
But Paul of Tarsus also suggests it in 1 Corinthians chapter 15.
I feel At the end of this podcast, like I did at the end of the previous one, we need to see.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Life is complicated.
Yeah, it is.
It's really complicated.
And to be fair, we have tried to compress about 5,000 years of history or more, actually.
More, if you can't pre-adamic era, into an hour and a half.
Well, I gave you actually an hour and 37.
I'm sorry, there's a reason why I have 1,300 podcasts on my website.
And also, I mean, you did have to spend, you weren't actually in jail for 12 whole years, were you?
Yes, I was.
I had a 14-year sentence.
I was in for 12 years, three months.
American Central?
I've done nothing but this ever since.
So I've been studying this for 30 years.
Can I just ask you very briefly, William?
How much does it suck to be in prison for 12 years?
I mean, how do you, how horrible is it?
I had my own life in prison through my books and my writings.
I didn't start writing until 2005.
I studied for seven years before I started writing.
I just had my own life.
I worked out every day.
I went to the wreck yard.
I did my push-ups and ran and all that stuff for an hour a day and went back and took a shower and went back into my cell and just spent my whole day there reading and writing.
How do you avoid being attacked and things?
I'm like 6'4 and 250 at that time, right?
So you didn't have to make friends with Mr. Big because you were Mr. Big yourself.
That's life.
I mean, I grew up in the streets.
I was a cop for 12 years, law enforcement in corrections, which in New Jersey is being a cop.
It's, I know the ropes.
Now ask, we're going to do another podcast, obviously, because we still haven't, we've barely scrapped the surface.
But have you ever debated a sort of religious, a priest or a minister?
No, I haven't.
And I really don't care to debate because as far as I'm concerned, I don't want to hear their opinions.
I went to Catholic school for 10 years.
And I was raised in Catholic school.
I only went to school for 10 years, though.
But it was Catholic school.
I know enough of what they say.
I don't care about their opinions.
I write what I believe.
It's public.
It's on my website.
It's free.
I give away everything I do.
I don't charge her anything.
I really have about 1,700 podcasts, but some of them are on other websites.
I have 1,300 podcasts on history in the Bible at Christagenia.
So if you don't like it, walk away from it.
But you're not going to convince me of your, there's no point in debating.
You're not going to convince me ever.
I've studied.
So that sounds awfully arrogant.
I understand that.
No, William, I totally get where you're coming from.
I've actually written a piece on my sub stack a while back saying why I think the debate is a completely artificial and debasing.
Don't solve anything.
No, they don't solve anything.
The only reason it wasn't that I felt that you ought to do it.
It was more that being me, I don't have the depth of biblical knowledge to be able to ask the really penetrating questions that might, you know, understand that.
It's hard.
I do understand that.
I do.
Why I Avoid Debating Porn00:11:31
But anyway, it's I look, it's for people who've heard this, they can either go, the guy is an idiot.
Well, he is self-confessed.
So why should I listen to him?
And there'll be some who go, well, maybe he's right.
I will go and look at his website, which is called Christo Genea.
Christo Genia.
Yes, it's hard.
C-H-R-I-S-T, that's Christ.
O-G-E-N-E-A.
Which means.
I chose that name because it has three meanings.
It could be the birth of Christ or the race of Christ or translating Christos, the anointed race.
It could mean all three of those things, any one of them.
Excellent.
I will put links to it.
Actually, one more question.
I was reading this account of one of the Russian Orthodox monks who was sent to the Gulag under Stalin and I mean, cruelly tortured and things.
And he said that he had never felt closer to God than when he was in the gulag in Siberia.
Because all of the worldly distraction is shed.
Yeah.
But did you ever have that experience?
Has God ever spoken to you?
You know, I wouldn't claim that God's ever spoken to me.
I would never make the claim.
To me, I would be arrogant if I made the claim.
No, I would deny that.
I would never make that claim.
I've prayed all the time.
I mean, I'm a sincere believer that your thoughts are your prayers.
And that's why it's so important to harness your thoughts.
People that go to church and then watch porn all week, church isn't doing them any good.
They should just watch porn instead.
Just watch more porn.
No, because your mind is filled with that.
Yet your mind is filled with worldly distractions that in prison, in a hostile environment, it's really easy to shed all of that.
It really is.
And focus on constructive things.
Do you think God, from your reading of the scriptures, can God actually read your mind?
Or does he?
He can actually read your mind.
Because I was, because one of the Psalms, one of my favorite Psalms, where he says, he fashioneth all their hearts and understandeth all their works.
He doesn't say understandeth all their thoughts or fashioneth all their brains.
There's several times in the gospel where Christ knew what people were thinking.
Right.
He could have been a good character reader.
I mean, inference.
That's not.
But he knew when they were He told them explicitly what they were thinking.
And they couldn't deny it.
So, yes, I believe he can read our minds.
Yeah.
Well, I'm not going to go and look at porn after this, William.
I'm just going to have a cup of tea.
That's a good idea.
That's a good idea.
Well, it's been, as ever, it's been a roller coaster ride.
I wasn't sure where we were going to go today.
I just thought, you know, we'll see where it goes.
And thank you at least for elucidating a bit of biblical era history.
That's all you can scratch on it is to scratch the surface in an hour and a half.
I could talk about it for weeks without stopping.
I'm not bragging.
It's just 30 years of study.
Most clerics don't study history.
Yeah.
They study a Bible, maybe, maybe, or they study church dogma and doctrines if you're a Catholic.
You study the catechism and stuff like that.
No, they don't study history.
When I found that when I was confronted with this in 1997, I decided that I was going to read the classics.
So I read Herodotus and Thucydides and Strabo and Diodorus and the tragic poets and the elegaic poets and everything I could.
Josephus, Tacitus, a lot of Roman writers, all the way up to Procopius and Bede in the seventh and eighth centuries, sixth and eighth centuries.
I read 2,000 books.
I was blown away recently when I read, only in translation, reading Horace's odes and epodes.
I mean, it's genius.
It probably is, but he was also like very lewd.
Yeah, he was the Milo of his day, wasn't he?
Yeah, I'm sure it's genius, but he was very lewd.
So I've never read Horace.
I'm sorry.
Maybe not.
It's really good.
I understand that, but I just don't like to read.
I read him after my Bible reading.
I do the Psalms.
I do a bit of the New Testament.
I do a bit of the Old Testament every night.
Keeps me honest.
Well, actually, that's interesting anyway.
I translated the Wisdom of Solomon about two years ago.
And look at what happened to him.
You should really read that.
Yeah, look what happened to him.
We can all sin.
We can all sin.
None of us can claim to be without sin.
Solomon.
It's given to very few of us to sit on that scale.
You know.
A lot of people read Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, and they don't understand them.
But they're both totally genius works.
They really are.
It's very lovely, The Song of Solomon.
I just don't know what it's about.
It seems to be completely unlike anything else in the Bible.
It is, but it's not.
Because if you go look at all the sexual innuendo in the Song of Solomon, it explains what happened in Genesis chapter 3.
All right.
That's all I'm going to say.
Well, remind me, if I obviously won't remember, and I remember either, but on the next podcast, we should start off by discussing that.
Maybe that's fine.
That'd be great.
William, thank you.
I'll tell you.
But you never asked me about Gilgamesh, but that's okay.
That's okay.
Do you think, have they found the tomb?
Okay.
There is an archaeologist, a German archaeologist, George Fastbinder.
And he was interviewed several times in 2003.
And he seems to be a legitimate archaeologist, academic archaeologist.
And archaeology, I'm going to try not to do this in half an hour.
I'll try to do it in five minutes.
Archaeology is a very slow-moving discipline.
These archaeologists get funding, go out into the field, do these great digs, find all this cool stuff, take pictures, measurements, and everything that guys like me look for in an archaeological dig, right?
I want to see provenance.
In other words, I just don't want to know what was found.
I want to know the documentation of where it was found.
How deep in the ground was it?
Where was it dug up?
Things like that are very important because I want to interpret my own archaeology.
I don't want to have to rely on somebody else doing it for me.
So I want to read the studies that sometimes after that dig and that summer in that summer camp they do in the desert somewhere, they bring all their data back to some school in Heidelberg or Chicago or something.
And sometimes it sits there for years before it's published.
10, 15 years.
I want to see that study.
These little blurbs you hear on the news are always fantastic.
But even according to BBC, George Fastbinder said, I don't want to say it's Gilgamesh's tomb.
He said that.
So whether it is or not, we may never know because I can't find any news on it later than 2003.
Not on a Google search.
So disappointed, William.
That is disappointing.
I think you're going to say, and he was enormous.
He was like seven feet tall, and they found his sword, and his body was completely preserved.
I understand.
I understand the disappointment, but that's archaeology is a very slow-moving thing.
And I want to see documentation.
I want to see in-situ evidence and things that a published study would grant me, but there's no published study.
I guess they didn't have time.
I guess they had to clear out of there.
I don't know the circumstances.
I was in prison.
I know it's in the middle of the Iraq war when it was about to kick off.
So we're never going to see a study.
It's sad because those Iraqis, I mean, I've noticed Egyptians, Iraqis, they're not the true inheritors of the ancient culture.
They're basically all Arabs now.
So they don't have the care for it that we would have the care for Norse relics found on the shores of Britain.
Seven Foot Giants?00:09:04
Yes.
So in your understanding, the original Egyptians and the original Assyrians and Babylonians were all kind of white-skinned.
Yes.
Yes, but they had Nephilim among them.
They always had the Nephilim there.
Gilgamesh was one of the Nephilim.
He's actually mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls as one of the giants.
He was obviously a giant.
Yes.
And there were others.
Except I did it.
I did a podcast with a guy.
Have you spoken to the guy about Nephilim clowns?
The Nephilims look like clowns.
I heard that on a tweet on X, I think.
I laughed at it.
I chuckled at it.
I may have heard it.
You talked to him.
I did.
It was very persuasive.
I mean, it will certainly explain why we hate clowns.
You know, it's a bit like snakes and spiders.
We've got this atavistic fear of these creatures with their red noses.
I've been up close.
Back when I was in law enforcement, there was an annual Christmas party that was a charity event that the warden of the jail I worked in used to hold every year.
And he would have Tiny Tim and Andre the Giant at this event.
I don't know if you ever heard of Tiny Tim.
You probably have.
That tiptoe through the two-lip song.
Oh, there if you had him.
Andre the Giant was an ex-wrestler.
Right.
And I, he used to send me in a jail van because that was the only thing big enough to hold Andre the Giant.
I used to take a jail transport van to Greenwich Village and pick them up and bring them to this charity event.
Andre the Giant, I'm 6'4 and at that time, probably 280.
And he made me feel like a dwarf.
Did you really?
How big was he?
He had a head.
He sat on the bars.
I got him to this place in Hoboken.
They had a hole in the back, but they had a bar in the front.
Andre went straight to the bar, got a seat, sat down, and had a 12-ounce beer in his hand, maybe a 16-ounce glass of beer in his hand.
And his hand just wrapped around the whole bottle.
Looked like a shot glass in his hand.
And his head was huge.
It was this big, his head.
And this guy's like seven foot tall and 500 pounds.
If you want to know what the Nephilim looked like, just get a picture of Andre the Giant.
Did he have red hair and a red nose?
No, he had dark brown hair.
Did he know he was Nephilim?
Did you ask him?
No.
I didn't know he was Nephilim.
At that time, I was just a young, dumb cop.
It was like 1984, maybe, 85.
Did you look into his genealogy?
No, I haven't.
It says he's French.
But I've seen other giants in my life, men that I really thought descended from the giants.
And in the Caucasus mountain region, there seem to be a lot of these.
Oh, yeah.
A high frequency of them.
And there are some recorded.
You could look it up on Google, look up giants.
Well, there's the one they found in that cave in Tora Bora that took out something like a section of special forces or something.
I never, yeah, right.
I know who you mean.
I know which one you mean in Afghanistan.
Yes.
I think there are a lot of them there in places like that, in the old world.
Mountains, with caves, basically.
I have an article of a woman in, I think, in Syria.
I could be wrong, but it's neighboring to Syria if it's not in Syria, who's like well over seven foot tall.
A woman.
And it's not okay.
We could say, well, a lot of white people are seven foot tall.
There are some in our population, but they're not in her population.
The average woman's like five foot four and she's over seven foot tall.
That's not, if you have a population of men my size and somebody hits seven foot tall, that's not a big stretch from six, four to seven feet.
And I've known men that were 6'10 that were friends of mine that made me feel short, right?
But this woman is over seven foot tall and she's got to be some kind of genetic throwback.
For sure, for sure.
Some dormant genes that manifested themselves.
Yeah.
There's quite a few of them over there.
I mean, not thousands, but I've seen a lot of cases.
I've also seen a lot of old newspaper accounts of giants with old black and white photos and things like that in even in American newspapers.
But is it really buried?
You don't know what to believe when you see something from the 1890s and there's only that one report of it and it's here and gone and no artifacts.
So you don't know what to believe.
Do you not know about that?
The Smithsonian buried them all.
They burned them all.
They got that.
I've heard that.
But how do we prove that?
I'm really pragmatic.
I only want to believe what I could touch and feel and see for myself.
Even if it's just in an old book and old historical accounts or scriptural accounts, that's fine.
But I really want to test it to see if it's true.
I'm familiar with Stephen Quayle.
He's published a lot about accounts of giants throughout the world.
I haven't read his work, but I know of it and I've seen excerpts from it.
You don't know what to believe, though, when the supposed evidence is coming gone or buried.
I think you do, actually, because I think you can, you know that an institution like the Smithsonian is going to be doing the work of the evil ones.
You just do.
I mean, it's a given.
So it doesn't.
It's a question of which seems more likely.
Does it seem more likely that the story about the Smithsonian presiding over the destruction of giant bodies to discover destroy our historical knowledge is true?
Or does it seem more likely to you that that's a kind of an urban myth created by crazy conspiracy theorists to discredit an honest institution?
I understand that.
I understand that.
I understand the issues.
But what would be their motivation for wanting to destroy it?
The same motivation that all history is fake because the less we know about our past, the less we can kind of construct arguments like you construct.
That they want us in the dark.
It's very important.
They don't want us to know about prehistory, particularly about well, the giants used to build, they used to feed on Native Americans.
They used to, Native American law, as in L-O-R-E, they tell of being hunted down by these giants and eventually trapping these giants in caves and burning them.
There was the war between the Native Americans and the giant population.
Noahide Laws Controversy00:04:01
Okay.
That's way out of my area of study.
I'm sorry.
No, I mean, you can't know everything.
I mean, I don't.
This is what I do.
I'm broad-brushed.
I go beyond the Bible to giant.
Well, somebody has to make that sacrifice to be broad-brushed and offer the information to the people, right?
I mean, to your viewers.
Yeah.
Well, exactly.
I mean, I haven't got your attention to detail.
Yeah, I have to stay focused.
I mean, I do other things.
I've done a whole series on the protocols of Zeon that I called the protocols of Satan, but I got up to part 29 and a hurricane destroyed my house.
And I never have been able to get back to it since.
Do you think the hurricane was sent by the Forces of Darkness?
No, it destroyed half of the Gulf in Bay County.
It's just collateral damage.
I mean, why would the Forces of Darkness go?
I'm not going to take out Fink's place because other people might get hurt.
Yeah.
But I was blessed because the house that I'm in right now, I bought six weeks before the hurricane.
It didn't get knocked down.
No.
No, it's 40 miles away.
So you had somewhere to flee to.
That's great.
That is lucky.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I had somewhere to go.
Because the house was totaled.
I mean, I didn't know it was total.
I cleared the trees.
I talked off the roof.
I kind of repaired the roof so that I could tarp it off.
It took me three days to do that.
Then I moved here where I could take a shower.
So it was an adventure.
I'm not going to cry about it.
So, right, I'm going to have that cup of tea now.
So tell me, tell us where we can find your stuff again one more time.
Christogenia.org.
Chris Christ O-G-E-N-E-A, Christogenia.org.
If you misspell it, Google will still find it.
Yeah, Christ O-G, Christ original gangster.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Excellent.
So thank you.
And come back again.
We'll do another one.
And we can mop up.
Actually, we're not going to do this in three podcasts.
We only need more.
Probably going to open more avenues.
I'm sorry.
Yeah.
Oh, can you do?
How are you on Noahide laws?
That's such a gaslight.
Yeah, I could discuss the Noahide laws.
Yeah, because I've done a podcast on them already, but it'd be quite good to sort of back it up with.
Do you think it's not real?
No, it's false.
I incorporated it.
I did a Genesis commentary, 60-part, probably a thousand pages, commentary on Genesis.
It's probably over a million words, I think.
No, William, I don't mean are the Noahide laws.
No, I talked about the Noahide laws for half of one of those podcasts, how it was a gaslight that there were Noahide laws that they call Noahide laws that aren't even in Genesis.
No, no, I'm in agreement.
I'm sure they're completely bogus, but it doesn't mean they're not being taken seriously by some really bad people is what is what I mean.
Right.
They want us.
That's a back door that they scheme.
They really want to destroy Christianity.
Back Door Scheme Against Christianity00:00:34
Yeah, yeah.
And they'll do anything they can to eradicate Christianity.
Once they think they could make the Noahide laws the law of the land, then they could execute Christians for idolatry.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Wherever you're on that one, okay.
We'll do that another time.
Okay, William, I'm going to say enjoy the rest of your Northern Florida day.