God's first Divine Law, when He created the earth and everything upon it, was everything after its kind whose seed is in itself. He states this very clearly ten times in the first chapter of Genesis. It applies to all living matter, even vegetable.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding FRUIT AFTER HIS KIND, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, AFTER HIS KIND: and God saw that it was good."

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, AFTER THEIR KIND, and every winged fowl AFTER HIS KIND: and God saw that it was good."

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature AFTER HIS KIND, cattle, and creeping thing, and BEAST OF THE EARTH AFTER HIS KIND: and it was so."

“Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.” (NAS)

"And God made the BEAST OF THE EARTH AFTER HIS KIND, and cattle AFTER THEIR KIND, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth AFTER HIS KIND: and God saw that it was good."

“And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.” (NAS)

In these two verses God clearly makes a distinction between the cattle and the Beast of the Earth. Therefore, if one is to believe the Bible then they must accept the fact that the Beast of the Earth is not cattle, horses or any other four footed animal.

Strong’s Concordance: #2416 chay (khah'‑ee); from 2421; alive; hence, raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: KJV‑‑ + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (‑time), live (‑ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

When the word “beast” or “beasts” is used in the scripture, it often simply means “a living creature.” For example, in the Book of Revelation the term “beast” is used to identify certain heavenly creatures who sever God day and night before His throne. Thus, in Revelation 4:6, 8-11 we have the statement: ...and in the midst of the throne, and about the throne were four beasts...”

In connection with this, read Revelation 5:6, 8 and 6:1, 3, 5-7, where the word “beast” is used. We have quoted the above scriptures principally to show that there is nothing belittling, demeaning, or derogatory in the Biblical use of the term “beast.” It is as honorable as the term “angel” or “man.”

Many Bible translations, including the Revised Version, translated the Greek word “zoon” as “living creature,” rather than”beast,” and so it is used in all the aforementioned passages. The same should apply to the Hebrew word “chay (khah'‑ee),” and does, according to Young’s Analytical Concordance. Most translations, however, seem to prefer the expression “beast of the field,” or “beast of the earth,” to be the best translation of the Hebrew “chay (khah'‑ee).”

From this passage it becomes evident that two very definite and distinct types of living creatures are described in the scripture, on identified as “beast of the earth, or the field,” while the other is described as the “beast before the throne.” Very often the word “beast” is used without the phrase “of the field,” or “of the earth.”

There is a fundamental principle which every Bible student should remember. It is this: God never troubles to explain things which are not absolutely necessary for us to know. He states the factual truth as it is, and, because HE is completely incapable of untruth or error, He expects us to believe exactly what He says even when no details are given. It is here that faith and trust is the veracity of God always thrive.

It is written: “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) That statement is true! You may ask ten thousand questions about it, such as: “Where did God come from?” How did He make the earth? Where did He get the materials? How did He make the stars? How long did it take Him to create it all? And many, many others which the wisest of men cannot answer.

The Lord did not say He wanted us to understand everything He does. He simply states the indisputable facts and leaves man to believe or disbelieve as he wishes.

“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2)

The scriptures say that a certain man was named Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25). God does not explain what method He used to divide the continents and islands, but in passing, the revealing statement is made: “In his (Peleg’s) days the earth was divided.” This answers a problem which has baffled the best scientific minds for centuries. If you believe it without explanation, it answers much. If you try and pry into it, you get hopelessly lost in the fog.

Thus, in Genesis 3:1, where the scripture says that the “serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field that the Lord had made,” it becomes a baffling passage, yet wholly true.

We may ask a thousand questions about this passage. Who was the beast of the field who is here referred to as a serpent? Where did he come from? When was he made? If he was a beast, how come he could speak an understandable human language? But God leaves you and I to believe His Word and then discover its truth, “line upon line, precept on precept.” Only then does it become understandable.

In Genesis 3:1, we have an introduction to this “living creature,” called a”serpent.” The English word for “serpent” as used here, comes from the Hebrew word “nachash.” It makes sense, if we use it as a proper name as it was intended to be. Thus the text would read: “Now Nachash was more subtle than any beast of the field...” The Hebrew word for “man” is ADAM, and the translators wisely left this word capitalized, naming this first White man as Adam. Why not use the same principle with Nachash?

Strong’s Concordance: #5172 nachash (naw‑khash'); a primitive root; properly, TO HISS, i.e. WHISPER A (magic) SPELL; generally, to prognosticate: KJV‑‑ X certainly, divine, ENCHANTER, (use) X enchantment, learn by experience, X indeed, diligently observe.

Strong’s Concordance: Man #120 'adam (aw‑dawm'); from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): KJV‑‑ X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.

It is universally admitted among Bible scholars, that the Hebrew word “Nachash” presents great difficulty when translated as “serpent.” However, this difficulty disappears, when instead it is translated properly as “Nachash,” and we leave it as a proper name, as it was intended to be. Dr. Adam Clark who has become known as the “prince of Bible commentators,” has much to say on this subject.

In his labors to solve this difficulty concerning Genesis 3, he said that this was “one of the most difficult, as well as the most important of all narratives in the whole book of God.” “We are obliged,” he said, to seek for some other word to designate the word Nachash in the text, rather than the word serpent, which in every view of the subject appears to me to be inefficient and inapplicable.

In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. In such an inquiry, the Arabic may be expected to afford some help from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. ‘Ghanas, or Khansas,’ signifies that the (Nachash) ‘departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away.’ From this Arabic root comes ‘ahhnas, knanasa and khannoos,’ which all signify an ‘ape,’ or a creature similar to an ape genus.”

Dr. Clark combats the idea that the tempter of Eve was of the serpent species maintaining that none of them were ever able to walk upright. The very word “serpent” comes from “serpo” which means “to crawl.” For that class of reptiles, it would be neither a curse nor punishment to go on their belies. Furthermore, serpents have no organs of speech nor any kind of articulate sound. They can only hiss.

Dr. Clark continues with this summary: In this account we find (1) that whatever this Nachesh was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals as far as wisdom and understanding was concerned; (2) that he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied by his punishment to crawl on his belly; (3) that he was endued with the gift of speech, understandable to humans; (4) that he was able to reason, and, (5) that these things were common to this creature. There is no doubt that Eve had seen him walk upright, talk and reason and therefore showed no surprise when he accosted her in the language of the text.

“Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” It is quite obvious that there was much more to the discussion between Eve and Nachash, than what is recorded, since the scriptural record seems to begin in the middle of their c0onversation. Eve reiterated what Nachash obviously already knew when she told him that she and Adam were allowed to eat of the fruit of every tree in the garden, except that of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil,” and which was forbidden by God, on the pain of certain death.

From the little recorded of this conversation, it becomes evident that Nachash understood very well the disastrous consequences to Adam and Eve, should they disobey God, for he went about his seduction with artful cunning, which is not characteristic of lower animals, and was no doubt inspired by Satan.

It becomes evident that the Adversary of man, sometimes called the “devil” or “Satan,” used Nachash as his willing tool in corrupting mankind. There is little doubt that Nachash was morally responsible for his actions, for he was not of the lower order of animals without mind or consciousness towards God. He was one of the “beasts; the living creatures” of the field, and the wisest and smartest of them all. If he had not been morally responsible for his actions, God would not have judged him as He did. Notice in Genesis 3:14, that the curse against Nachash was directed against him as an individual and did not effect all members of his kind, as many teach. He was reduced from walking upright to a condition lower than that of cattle, going about on all fours as an ape and compelled to eat his food in the dust of the earth.

The judgment on Eve was: (1) greatly increased conception; (2) accompanied by sorrow and pain; (3) her husband should rule over her; (4) and her desire should be to him. Adam was sentenced: (1) to toil on cursed ground; (2) in sorrow would he eat all the days of his life; (3) thorns and thistles would come forth to fight the food he planted; (4) and with the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread, until he died and returned to dust. The moment Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they began to die, thus fulfilling the curse.

With these thoughts in mind, it might be well for us to consider this seven fold proposition, all relative to the “beast of the field:”

1). It would be able to speak, reason and carry on an intelligible conversation with humans;

2). It would be able to “fast,” and “pray,” and “bear responsibility before God;”

3). It would be able to wear clothing and put them on and take them off under its own power;

4). It would be biped, walking upright like a man, having hands and feet, rather than the paws and hooves of the other lowly animals;

6). That he alone of all the animal family would be able to cross-breed with man and because of this, this cross-breeding was forbidden by God; and,

The first proposition states that this “beast of the field” was not a dumb animal, but an intelligent being, able to speak, reason and carry on intelligent conversation with members of the human family. This proposition has been covered by examining the scriptural account of the conversation between Eve and Nachash. It is evident that Eve was not surprised by his ability to speak to her.

Since he was more subtle, “clever” than any others of his species, it is very possible that he had been chosen by Adam to supervise other members of the Nachash and was responsible to Adam for helping him “dress the garden.” (Genesis 2:15) Evidently in this pristine setting it was a pleasant task. It is evident that Adam was the ruler in the garden, an overseer, but not a common laborer (other wise he would not have been cursed with the curses: to toil on cursed ground; (2) in sorrow would he eat all the days of his life; (3) thorns and thistles would come forth to fight the food he planted; (4) and with the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread, until he died and returned to dust).

Adam’s authority was over all the creatures on the earth, in the seas, and under the earth. He was the master in every respect and every creature did his will. Many believe that Nachash and other members of this “beast people” were his intelligent servants, who had been given this special task by God Himself. When Adam named every creature, he gave them names suitable to their usefulness and ministry and it was not until after his disobedience that man, himself, became a servant and slave with none to serve under him. He had to make this own way, with the sweat of his brow.

It would seem rather ridiculous for God to place Adam in the Garden of Eden to be it’s caretaker, and place him in control of all creatures, and still neglect to give him intelligent living creatures to help carry out his duties. It was that way in the beginning, and will be that way when the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, comes back to rule in His restored kingdom.

In this way, Adam was first given dominion and rulership, but through disobedience was forced to do the work that his servants had previously done. When the master became the slave, then Nachash and his race were reduced to nothingness, since they had no one to serve. For this reason the continent of Africa, became known as the “Black Continent,” not because of the color of men’s skin who lived there, but because of the darkness that had descended on Nachash and his people. For over 6,000 years they have waited in darkness, ignorance and poverty, for the day when they will once more assume their appointed tasks to the King, in His Kingdom. For, in spite, of all efforts by liberals and Black leaders to manufacture a great Black civilization in Africa, there has never been any.

We have abundantly proven that this Nachash was an intelligent creature, able to think, reason, and bear moral responsibility. He was not a snake, (as the Judeo-Christian clergy would have you believe) but an intelligent creation known in scripture as the “beast of the field.” The rendering of the word “subtle,” in the Ferrar Fenton translation indicates that it means: “imprudent, lacking in modesty, contemptuous, cocky, and capable of using his intelligence for deceptive purposes, to gain his own advantage.”

The second proposition was that this being could “fast,” “pray,” and bear moral responsibility before God. If we can show this creature, variously described in scripture as “beast of the field,” is simply “beast,” is capable of fasting, prayer, and repentance. Then most certainly we are dealing with an intelligent being, possessing God-consciousness and far above the realm of serpents, who though often associated with man, is not man, or a descendant of Adam.

In Genesis 1:27‑31, it says God created male and female, tells them to be fruitful, multiply and have dominion over every living thing, and God beheld everything that He had made and it was good. Everything that God made has its seed within itself, therefore it is good because it produces only its own kind. Like begets like. Never do the simpler forms of life violate this law unless forced to by the higher form, man.

All this is in the first Chapter of Genesis with Pre‑Adamic male and female created on the sixth day (era). On the seventh day (era) God rests and finds that there is no agriculture, no civilization, no progress; these creatures are still living exactly as they did the day God made them.

A higher intelligence containing God's Spirit is needed to bring forth His Kingdom here on earth. He begins to place His own children here by forming Adam and breathing His Living Spirit into him, then makes a help‑mate for him, Eve. The previously created females were not suitable because they were of different seed. Adam and Eve have only their own seed within themselves, so can only produce their own kind. Yet we are asked by intellectual prostitutes to believe that all races came from Adam and Eve. To produce another race or species, another seed would be necessary.

When different races mix, they do not bring forth their own kind; their offspring are mongrels or hybrids. This is a transgression against Divine Law, upsetting Nature's delicate balance and producing that which is not good. Little wonder that, so often in the past, God has destroyed His own children for mongrelizing, and, you can be sure, He will again. Deuteronomy 7:6:

"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

The Adamic Race is to have dominion over every form of life previously created. This includes not only the four legged beasts, but the two legged as well. The Negro is an articulate member of this Beast Creation. For proof that they are beasts, and God calls them exactly that.

At the time when the Law was given to Israel at Sinai, this command was given by God to Moses:

“...Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death: There shall not an (any) HAND touch it (please note this carefully), but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be BEAST or MAN, IT SHALL NOT LIVE: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.” (Exodus 19:12-13)

Surely, no one reading this would be foolish enough to believe that this passage was speaking about animals. Dare we charge God with utter foolishness? When He speaks of the HAND of MAN and the HAND of BEAST, then these MUST possess the knowledge and responsibility to refrain from reaching out to touch the mountain. While we do not have time or space to explore this further, it should be accepted as it is given at the hands of two or more witnesses in the Word, and is therefore established!

God has also said of the shedding of the blood of man, that He would require it at the HANDS OF THE BEAST. What animal, again, we ask has hands:

“But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; AT THE HAND OF EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT...” (Genesis 9:4-5) KJV

Now why on earth would Almighty God require the blood of a man at the hands of an animal that has no ability to reason or to know that it is killing a man? That just doesn’t make any sense. THE BEAST HAS HANDS, AND CAN THINK AND KNOW AND REALIZE THAT IT IS KILLING A MAN!

In proposition five, we stated that the BEAST is closely associated with man. This we have already proven. He talked with Eve in the Garden of Eden. He fasted and prayed with the men of Nineveh.

He was commanded, along with man, to refrain from putting his HANDS on the mountain. In the Book of Daniel (Daniel 4:25) we have a further account of the BEASTS of the field, as they cared for King Nebuchadnezzar when he was driven from dwelling with men during the period of his insanity. God’s Word to the king was: “They shall drive thee (Nebuchadnezzar) from MEN, and thy dwelling shall be with the BEASTS OF THE FIELD, and they (the BEASTS of the field) shall make thee eat grass as an oxen and they shall we thee with the dew of heaven.” (Please note the words: “They shall make thee”). A domestic animal would have paid no attention to the king, let alone care about what he ate. But the BEASTS OF THE FIELD caused him to eat grass and sleep in the dew. No known lower animal has ever been known to do things such as this, but remember, the BEASTS OF THE FIELD are not lower animals.

There is one more thing we MUST mention, for it is of surpassing importance in our day. These commands, found in God’s Word are almost completely ignored because of a dreadful lack of understanding on the part of people, especially those who go by the name of Christian.

In Leviticus 18:23, we find this definite command given to Israel by God: “...neither shall he lie with any BEAST to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a BEAST to lie down thereto: It is confusion! And if a man lie with a BEAST, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the BEAST. And if a woman approach unto any BEAST, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman and the BEAST; they shall surely be put to death...” (Leviticus 20:15-16) Oh, how the Judeo-Christians will cry about this command. They will no doubt say:”That was the harsh God of the Old Testament. The New Testament God is a God of love.” Yet these hypocrites teach that”God never changes, and is the same yesterday, today and forever.” If this is true, then His commands against sexual union between MAN and this BEAST (which is not an animal) is as true today as when it was written some 3500 years ago, the teachings of the false Judeo-Christian clergy; Jim Bakker (Jew), Mike Evans (Jew), Billy Graham (Jew), Kenneth Copelan (Jew), Robert Schuler, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (A so-called Christian Zionist), John Hagee, V.W. Grant, Larry Buricett, Paul Crouch, Skip Heitzig, Hal Lindsey (Jew), Chuck Missler, Mark Eastman, David Hocking, Jack Van Impe, Binny Hinn (Jew), Frank Peretti, Chuck Smith, Toni Eareckson Tada, Tom Cloud, Ted Bachr, John McDowell. To name just a few.

Any sexual relationship between MAN and this servant race known in the Bible as BEASTS, BEASTS OF THE FIELD, or BEASTS OF THE EARTH, is strictly forbidden. These two morally responsible parties, who cross this forbidden boundary, were to be put to death. (Not our words, but from God’s Law, which was never changed in the New Testament)

We have reached a crucial point here. God has clearly ordered that KIND MUST BE AFTER HIS KIND! There MUST be no crossing over between MAN and BEAST (and remember, we are not speaking here about four footed animals, but about a being that walks upright, can reason, knows right from wrong, and is capable of sexual relations with man)

Any cross over between MAN and this BEAST is confusion and abomination to God according to Leviticus 18:3. The end results are so bad, that in Israel the guilty parties were to be immediately put to death, so there would be no possibility of a hybrid offspring. (Knowledgeable people know this would be impossible with any sexual union between man and lower animals. In fact, it is impossible for man and the lower animals to cross-bread. There is only one being, other than man, who can do this and this is the BEAST OF THE FIELD, which we today know as the Black Race). There is no other conclusion an intelligent person who believes the Word of God can make. (These were a part of the men CREATED from nothing in Genesis 1:27, male and female, and are completely different from ADAM man FORMED from the dust of the earth, male only, in Genesis 2:7).

Exodus 23:10‑11: "And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard."

If wild or even domesticated animals were beasts of the field, just picture what would happen to your gardens and vineyards. Note the distinction God makes here between the "poor of thy people" and the "beasts of the field" the poor of thy people shall eat first.

Exodus 9:9: "And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt."

You can be sure God was not punishing four legged beasts by afflicting them with boils.

Leviticus 20:15‑16: "And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

This certainly could not be a four legged beast that a man or woman could lie with. If it were, God would not demand the death penalty for a dumb animal with no reasoning power.

Exodus 19:13: "There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount."

Now we have a beast with a hand. Do you believe God told Moses to talk to the camels, donkeys, cattle and tell them not to touch the mount?

Jeremiah 7:20: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast..."

Jeremiah 21:6: "And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall die of a great pestilence."

Jeremiah 27:6: "And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him."

Jeremiah 31:27‑30: "...the seed of man, and with the seed of beast...But every one shall die for his own iniquity." How can an animal die for his sins and iniquity? They cannot because the do not know God’s Laws so they cannot sin.

Jeremiah 31:34; "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

It would appear this verse pretty well takes care of the liberal's so‑called Brotherhood Program.

Ezekiel 14:15: "If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts."

Ezekiel 29:11: "No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years."

Now the beast inhabitant not only has a hand but a foot as well. Animals have hoofs or paws.

In the third chapter of Jonah we find an interesting story. (This is just another case where the Bible states the truth, as it is, but does not make any explanation). We should remember, that all Israelites of that time, understood the proper identity of the “beasts of the field.” Jonah preached, on the order of God, that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed in forty days. The King of Nineveh evidently believed the prophet, and set about to seek God’s mercy for his people. (Please accept the facts as they are recorded in God’s Word without trying to make them fit into modern tradition, which is far more often wrong than right).

Jonah 3:7‑8: "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: 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."

What manner of beast would wear sackcloth; have the power of speech and once again we see that the beast has hands?

Note: “When word came unto the King of Nineveh (regarding Jonah’s message) and he rose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered himself with sackcloth (a burlap sacking, in those days a sign of sorrow or repentance), and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the 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...’ (Now consider the following words very closely) ‘But let man and BEAST be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily unto God.’” (Jonah 6-8)

Read these words again! The herds and flocks, that is, all the lower animals were to be restrained from eating and drinking, but MAN and BEAST were to put on sackcloth and ashes and pray to God and repent! Be honest now, have you ever heard of a cow or horse, or monkey putting on sackcloth and praying to God for mercy? Of course not! They are incapable of this. But the “beast of the field,”could do this, so the Word says!

Therefore let’s start examining the question and see who this creature is who is called a BEAST, but who is capable of fasting, praying, and repenting, just as man can do. The BEAST mentioned here is without a doubt, of the same race as the BEAST mentioned in the Garden of Eden, who talked with Eve and tempted her. NACHASH, the tempter of Genesis 3:1,was of the BEASTS of the field.

Note further, that not only was this being capable of fasting and prayer, but along with man, he was commanded to turn from his evil way and from violence that was in his hands (Jonah 3:8). Animals do not have hand! “BEASTS of the field” do! Lower animals are never guilty of violence that could be accounted as sin before God. So here we see several different points:

(4) Finally, like men, they are commanded to put away the violence in their hands. These are things animals cannot do, nor are they ever asked to do so in scripture. Therefore we MUST conclude that the”beast of the field” is an intelligent, morally responsible creature, similar to man, although not man.

Our fourth proposition was that this creature was biped, walking upright and having hands and feet, not hooves or paws. This proposition has been fairly well covered. But there are other passages which point out the moral responsibility of these BEASTS, and show they have hands and therefore walk erect.

Zechariah 8:10: "For before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast..."

Here we have beasts that can be hired. If these are four legged beasts that can be hired, someone should alert the Internal Revenue.

Acts 10:12: "Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air."

2 Peter 2:12: "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption."

Here we have the “brute beasts” speaking in a language that a man can understand.

Jude 1:10: "But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves."

Jude 1:4: "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

This refers to the Jews who are deluding the Negro by promising them things they can never achieve, in order to destroy the White Race trough miscegenation.

The great boast of modern civilization is its unparalleled degree of enlightenment when compared with preceding ages. While marvelous advances have been made in the realm of many sciences, in other respects we are still groping about in a clouded maze of misconceptions. Colleges and universities have been taken over by aliens and are teaching as truth philosophies which have no substance in actual fact.

For example, because the doctrines of the atheistic school of natural development are accepted as the acme of scholarship, specifically the theory of the evolution of the species, the door to understanding has been fastened shut in regard to the true origin of the races.

The Bible stands as an impregnable bulwark against Christendom's modern slogan that all men, regardless of color, are blood brothers. The patriarchs of the Bible, the prophets of old, the apostles of the early Christian Church, do not support this view. Nevertheless, under the operation of the Law of the Lord, all are entitled to equality of justice and righteousness in judgment. The simple truth regarding the origin of the races demonstrates conclusively that the Negroes and the White Race do not have a common ancestry.

A full grasp of this fact will go a long way toward solving racial problems which are menacing the entire world today. When the undeniable truth is known and acted upon, it will bring about an abrupt and complete cessation of the present attempt to elevate the colored races or Jews to positions of authority over those whom the Lord instructed: "Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." [1]

So we respectfully ask that you bring to this study an open mind in search of truth. And we feel that if you do you will find that a careful weighing of the evidence presented herein will result in an astounding comprehension of aspects of the story the Bible tells which has long been hidden from view.

On the sixth day of creation, God issued a command for the earth to bring forth the living creatures, each after his kind. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." [2]

In general terms, as differentiated from the flying and swimming creatures and from plant varieties, there are two forms of life; animal and human, one the product of the earth, earthly, "after his kind;" the other in the image of God, "after our likeness."

Each order of life has its special place in the overall plan of creation. As long as those "of the earth" adhered to the dictum, "after his kind," and refrained from crossing the boundaries of their particular species, all was well.

Equally so, those created in the image of God were to conduct themselves according to the accountability engendered by their preferential status, for Divine satisfaction with His work was expressed when it was recorded: "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." [3]

However, in the course of time the Divinely‑set barriers were crossed and the resulting defiance of the jurisdiction of the Creator brought about a chain of biological and physiological developments upon the earth leading to dire physical and spiritual eventualities.

One consequence today is that Negroes aspire to wrest a place for themselves in the White Man's domain. Impetus is given to this Negro intrusion by his very ignorance of his own origin. Martin Luther King, Jr., unconsciously sensed that basically the Negro does not belong in the White Man's society by using a revealing phrase in his statement that the Negro must attain "human dignity."

King was far more correct than he realized in his intimation that the Negro does not possess the status of the White Man. Actually he never will. He has his place, but the abortive aspirations that urge him on to violently break down the barricade God has placed between the white man and the black can never come to realization.

A phrase of particular interest appears in the Book of Jude to describe the defection of those angels whom the Apostle Peter says "sinned" before God and are therefore "reserved unto judgment" [4]

Jude says they kept not their "first estate." [5] In other words, they left their own "habitation," their natural sphere, and invaded another, entering the human plane to marry the daughters of men. This breach took place prior to the Deluge: "And it came to pass...that the sons of God [angels] saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." [6] These sons of God, who were of an angelic order, descended at that time to a lower plane and today the Negroes are aspiring to ascend to a higher plane than their normal station. Both instances involve an invasion of the human sphere, and in each case with the same objective: to satiate incest and gain power over men.

The Negro who remains in his natural habitat will be at peace, but his illegal encroachment upon forbidden areas, in an effort to obtain rights which are not his, can only produce trouble. In addition to this, the outcome can be nothing less than disastrous for both the blacks and the whites who attempt to amalgamate. This very danger makes it imperative to arrive at an understanding concerning the ancestry of peoples and recognize the specific realm of activity assigned to each race. Where are we to find the answers to the many questions raised? There is one unimpeachable source of truth and that is the Bible.

However, due to Christendom's failure to "rightly divide the word of truth," and analyze the meaning of the descriptive language used in designating the Negro apart from the White Man, the key to understanding has been lost. Knowledge of the true origin of the races will resolve the present racial dilemma and halt the trend to integrate those whom the Bible definitely teaches must remain racially apart.

We are aware of the identity of the descendants of Jacob in the world today, for modern Israel is found in the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples. Few, however, are cognizant of the fact that this race was dedicated to the service of the Lord when Abraham laid his only son Isaac upon the altar.

God accepted that dedication and Isaac's descendants, later called Israel and now known as the Anglo‑Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples, became His servants. Therefore, through the Prophet Isaiah it was proclaimed: "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen." [7]

A servant race! It is no disgrace to be a servant. The angels of God are properly a serving order and many Scriptural statements bear this out. [8]

The original place of the Negro was as a serving order. When the Negro finally becomes willing to resume his role according to the Divine design, he will be in a position to engage in the performance of beneficial labors which will be of material assistance, instead of a hindrance, to the servant people. Herein lies the solution to present‑day racial problems, confirmed by the evidence disclosing the origin of the Negro.

Many insurmountable obstacles hinder the acceptance of the orthodox position concerning the account of creation, as set forth in the first chapter of Genesis, as far as the creation of man is concerned. The endeavor to postulate a common origin, or parenthood, for both the white and the black peoples, as well as those of other shadings and colors, poses a number of problems which defy solution.

There are basic characteristics setting each race apart by itself which cannot be satisfactorily explained unless the fallacy of a common origin is admitted. There is, in fact, no other logical explanation for the divergences encountered in specific instances as the researcher delves deeply into this subject. The physiognomy of the White Man has always been known to be distinct in almost every respect from that of the Negro. Or, to state it in reverse, the Negro people are known to be distinct in almost every respect from the White Race. The exceptions stem from crossbreeding, but this produces the mulattoes, a mixed seed, whose children are misfits in the society of either race.

Furthermore, it is among the mixed seed that we find the troublemakers who stir up racial animosities, fostering the racial antagonisms which are now rampant.

It is of primary importance, therefore, if we are to properly evaluate the causes of racial problems, to comprehend the purport of the account as recorded when God said, as translated in the King James version of the Bible: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." [9]

The Hebrew word translated "man" is "Adam" and means "to show blood in the face, ruddy; to flush or turn rosy;" that is, a White Human Being. Therefore, when God said, "Let us make Adam in our image, after our likeness," this constituted the beginning of a new creation. Adam was unique in the creative work of God under the special circumstances that brought him into being.

Obviously, therefore, man was to be distinct from all other living creatures, including the black people. This is the logical deduction that follows a painstaking examination of the phases of the Creator's works of beginning. Accordingly, a careful search of all the Scriptures should not only confirm this but it should also show the Negro, who is so deficient in the characteristics possessed by the white man, to be of a different origin.

At the very outset, the question is posed: Why is the Negro black? This is directly attributable to his origin and was apparently a Divinely‑ordained distinguishing characteristic to draw a sharp line of demarcation between the white and the black.

We are well aware that this position will be challenged by those who have claimed a common origin for all the races. All that is asked, however, of those who are willing to pursue this study of racial origins, a subject that may tend in its inception to arouse strong opposition for various reasons, is that the reader maintain an open mind, seeking the truth as we have sought it, which brought us to investigate this whole subject.

The revealed facts will speak for themselves and when the truth is fully realized, it will bring an end to the endeavor to institute the deliberate integration of the black among the white people. Quite the contrary, it will reaffirm the absolute necessity for the separation of these races for the good of both the white and the black.

Moreover, it will demonstrate that this separateness is in compliance with Divine regulations, for it is mandatory to heed the Lord's instructions concerning those who are elevated to places of rulership over His people. The command is: "Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." [10]

Here we have positive direction that all beings are not to be classified as brothers. This in no wise obviates the necessity to treat every creature with equal justice before the law. Nevertheless, the practice of equity does not require the appointment to authoritative positions those who disqualify as brothers of the people over whom they are to exercise power.

Who are the "beasts" who have hands and are associated with man in a different relationship than the four‑footed domestic animals? These "beasts" were to put on sackcloth, petition God for mercy and turn from unrighteous practices. In other words, they were creatures who were morally responsible to God and could be judged or rewarded accordingly.

We are faced with the necessity to conduct a full investigation into this matter, for reference to both Strong's and Young's Concordances lists the many Scriptural uses of the term "beast," either as "beast of the earth" or "beast of the field." Let it be understood at the very outset of this study that the word "beasts," as it is to be defined here, is not necessarily a derogatory term. In the fourth chapter of Revelation, beasts are mentioned as worshipping before the throne of God ‑‑ an angelic serving order: "And when those beasts [margin: 'living creatures'] give glory and honour and thinks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever." [11]

Further emphasis was placed upon the moral responsibility of the "beast" following the Deluge. First, however, the Lord informed Noah and his descendants: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered." [12]

This was a restatement of man's dominion over the earth, but with a difference that was especially significant in regard to his association with the "beast of the earth." The words "fear" and "dread" are in the emphatic sense, actually denoting "terror," and this relationship of master and mastered was to act as a barrier to familiarity so that the wickedness that brought corruption upon the earth before the Flood might not be repeated. The purpose was absolute separateness in station. It was stated further by the Lord: "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; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man [i.e., Adam]." [13]

The whole context here indicates that the "beast of the earth" would be aware of man's origin, in the image of God, and therefore could be commanded to abstain from shedding man's blood or else forfeit his life at the hands of man. This commandment obviously refers to a "beast" endowed with an intellect in order to be morally blameworthy for his actions. Certainly he would not be in the category of those called dumb animals or brutes.

It must be understood next, therefore, that the "beast" [the "living creature"] that is associated with man is not a four‑footed animal, a quadruped; he is a two‑footed animal, a biped. Actually, he is of the ape species, but he is the most advanced order in this classification. We have already established from the record in the Book of Jonah that this "beast" is intelligent, reasoning and has the power of speech; also, that he has hands as well as feet ‑‑ a biped.

Professor Charles Carroll engaged in profound and copious research to discover the truth about the "beast of the earth," or "beast of the field," and found this "beast" to be of the ape order, or family, but not an ape. He is not human, but an animal order, after his own kind, he is black, he is the Negro. Professor Carroll states: "The Negro, being an ape [more correctly, the anthropoid ape species is derived from the genus of Negroids], entered the ark with the rest of the animals; and as the descendants of Noah spread over the earth, they carried with them the Negroes and other domesticated animals, domestic plants, metallic implements, etc.

The descendants of Noah developed those superb civilizations, the remains of which are found on every continent of the earth...No Negro Civilization has ever appeared! The White Man is preeminently the man of civilization. This is just what God created him to be."

It was man who was to have dominion over the earth and "subdue it." [14] The "beast of the earth" is mentioned separately and the conclusion may be logically drawn that a being was created by God in the animal order as nearly as possible like man to take from Adam's shoulders many of the tasks of subduing the earth, maintaining the Garden of Eden and other duties of the earth and the field. It was not until after the fall that Adam was condemned to labor by the sweat of his brow.

Originally, therefore, the beasts of the earth and field were the true "beasts of burden." It is interesting to observe in this connection that, prior to the Deluge, man was not a meat‑eater, nor was the "beast of the earth," for the Biblical record states: "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." [15]

A word of analysis in regard to "every thing that creepeth upon the earth" is appropriate here, for the general opinion is that this is confined to insects and reptiles. However, the word "creep" means "to move along with the body prone and close to the ground or other surface." Therefore, the phrase is more comprehensive than generally understood and includes all four‑footed animals that can crouch and move forward, as it were, "upon their bellies." Webster's synonyms comment that "creep" is "used more often of quadrupeds."

When Noah came forth from the Ark, the Lord said: "And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, as every beast of the earth." [16]

In the Book of Jasher we find the following verses: "And thou and thy household shall go and gather two couple of all living things, male and female.." [17]

Animals are always referred to as "pairs" not "couples." "...I will gather to thee all the animals of the earth, The Beasts of the Field and the fowls of the air..." [18]; "...and all The Beasts, the animals, and the fowls..." [19]; "...the Lord brought this about on the next day, and animals, Beasts and fowls..." [20]; "And all the animals, and Beasts, and fowls..." [21]; "And the Lord sent all the Beasts and animals that stood round the ark." [22]

It is to be noticed that the "beast of the earth" is mentioned twice. First, to Noah, God said, "of every beast of the earth with you."

In the second instance, the final two words do not appear; instead, the "beasts" are included with all those going out of the Ark. Does this not indicate that Noah had servants with him in the Ark, who were "beasts of the earth," to assist him and his sons in caring for the great numbers of animals in their charge, feeding them and bedding them down during the year of the Deluge?

It would seem so and it certainly stands to reason that a great deal of help was needed by Noah and his three sons in the discharge of this monumental task for the year of confinement within the Ark. Thus, the "beasts of the earth" who remained with Noah would be his servants and the other "beasts of the earth" mentioned would be those who disembarked from the Ark after the Flood receded and went their way.

The account of the plagues which fell upon Egypt to compel the reigning Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go is a familiar Bible story. However, a closer analysis will reveal a confirmatory truth concerning "man" and "beast:" "The Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still, Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain." [23]

This came to pass, but Pharaoh only continued to harden his heart. Therefore, that plague was immediately followed by the next: "And the Lord said unto Moses and unto Aaron, Take to you handfuls of ashes of the furnace, and let Moses sprinkle it toward the heaven in the sight of Pharaoh. And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon BEAST." [24]

There was no mention of "beast" in connection with the murrain upon the various domestic animals, but here both man and "beast" were afflicted with boils [there are no known animals which have boils]. This is the beast who is closely associated with man as his helper, the Negro, who shared the discomfort of the Egyptians when a different plague came upon them than which came upon the domestic animals. Because Egypt has always had a preferential place in the purposes of God as far as non‑Israelite nations are concerned, it has also experienced special punishment for arrant wickedness. Through Ezekiel, a prophecy was given that the land would be under Divine chastisement for forty years: "No Foot of Man shall pass through it, nor Foot of Beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years." [25] Notice in this prophecy that the "foot of beast" was not to pass through it, as well as the foot of man. Animals have paws or hoofs, but only a biped has feet as well as hands. This "beast," then, was the Negro who would be with man.

When the people of Israel were standing before Mount Sinai to receive the Law from the Lord God Jehovah. Moses was instructed: "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 be surely put to death: There shall not an hand touch it [Note: it is a hand, not a paw or hoof], but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man." [26]

The beast to whom reference is made has hands, just as a man has hands, by which he could have touched the mountain. Here again a creature of the animal world is designated, but one like unto man in that he has hands, a biped. This, then is a reference to the Negro servants who accompanied Israel when they left Egypt.

Evidence that the Israelites possessed Negro servants, who were "beasts of the field," is found in the following command: "Six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard [olive trees]." [27]

Here we have addition positive proof that the "beasts of the field" were not domestic animals, for they do not eat grapes and olives. Besides, Israel would [nor would God have commanded it] never have turned their cattle, horses, sheep, etc., into their vineyards and olive yards to browse, trample down and destroy them every seven years.

The Negroes would gather the grapes and olives and not injure the vineyards or olive trees. The Negro will eat the products of the fields, gardens, orchards and vineyards, and anything else that a man White man will eat.

The inhabitants of Canaan, who were to be driven out by Israel upon their entry into the land, were guilty of committing gross abominations in the sight of the Lord: "For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled." [28]

The Lord warned Israel, therefore, that their continued possession of the land given to them through their forefather Abraham depended upon their strict adherence to the moral laws laid down, for He said: "Ye shall be holy [set apart]: for I the Lord your God am holy." [29]

Among the Divine commands was this injunction against the crime of miscegenation: "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion." [30]

The reference here is to the "beast" who is nearly like a man, the anthropoidal Negro, who simulates many of man's characteristics and shares his moral responsibility. The violation of this law, and the failure to apply its penalty, brought into being the race of humanoids [mulattoes], with all the far‑reaching consequences now to be faced.

The Canaanites, whom the Israelites were commanded to destroy when they took possession of the land promised to them, were the owners of great numbers of Negroes, as shown by the following statement: "And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest The Beasts of the Field increase upon thee." [31]

Observe that there was no fear expressed lest the "cattle" and the "creeping things" increase upon the Israelites! But not so with the "beasts of the field" ‑‑ the Negroes.

Let us bear in mind that the country of the Canaanites was a rich, productive country, "a goodly land;" that it was a high state of cultivation ‑‑ "a land flowing with milk and honey;" that it abounded with cities, town, villages, farms, vineyards and orchards. This land was occupied by seven nations greater and mightier than Israel.

It would have been impossible for the people of Israel to immediately populate the numerous cities, towns, villages and farms and maintain this well‑developed civilization. According to the expressed desire of the Lord, the land of Canaan, with its natural wealth of every description, was to become the property of the people of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, His friend. If the occupying Canaanites were all destroyed "at once," much of their civilization would crumble into ruins for want of upkeep. It would require centuries for the Israelites to increase their numbers to the extent that would enable them to settle the entire land.

Hence, it was the better part of wisdom, as the Lord pointed out, for the Israelites to first possess only as much of the land as they could adequately maintain, leaving the remainder, with its wealth and advanced standard of civilization in the hands of the Canaanites to care for and preserve. In addition to this, there was apparently a greater number of Negroes in the land of Canaan than the Israelites could at first effectively handle.

Therefore, if the Canaanites were destroyed all at once, much of their civilization and accumulated wealth would have fallen into the hands of the Negroes to be wasted and destroyed.

In their primitive state as beasts of the earth, field and forest, they would be preoccupied with following the chase, not maintaining a highly civilized culture. Also, the prolific Negro would increase very rapidly and would soon become very troublesome neighbors, as Negroes in groups never fail to prove. Finally, it would have been a violation of the Law of God to release the Negroes from the control and protection of their former owners and not give them new masters.

When the modern Christian is approached, either pastor or layman, with a query about the identification of the "beast of the field" or "beast of the earth," he will very likely reply, "These are the domestic animals, sheep and cattle, and those of draft and burden, such as the horse and the oxen, with which we cultivate the fields."

It is well known that our domestic animals subsist on grass, hay and the cereals. Not one of them is a flesh‑eating animal. But the Biblical "beast of the field" is a flesh‑eating creature; he is the worst form of flesh‑eating animal; he is a man‑eater, a cannibal, as shown by the following Biblical incident: "And when the Philistine [Goliath of Gath] looked about, and saw David he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to The Beasts of the Field." [32]

Notice, in the first place, that the Philistine giant, who was a mixture of bloods, was incensed against David, not only because he was a young man, but because he was "ruddy and of fair countenance," bearing in mind that "ruddy" means "to show blood in the face; rosy": David was a White Human being. David was a pure‑blooded youth (This we know is true because if he had not been born of pure blooded parents he would never have been able to be the King of Israel [33] and this, in itself, infuriated the coarse, idolatrous champion of the Philistines.

After cursing David, he threatened him with death, after which his body would be thrown to the "beasts of the field." Among the "creeping things" of the earth, the quadrupeds, there are numerous carnivorous animals that will feed upon the flesh of man, but the Negro is the only "beast" [biped] that will feed upon the flesh of man.

This is amply testified to by the wide‑spread cannibalism among the black tribes in Africa. Hence, the "beasts of the field," to which the Philistine said he would give the flesh of David, and the "beast of the earth," to which David said he would give the flesh of the Philistine, were identical.

This indicates when Adam named the animals, he gave the Negro the descriptive title: "beast of the field." Both the Philistines and the Israelites recognized the Negro as a beast. Sometimes he is known as "beast of the earth" and he is frequently referred to simply as "beast."

It is significant that David referred to the "wild beasts of the earth," for this would properly designate those Negroes with cannibalistic propensities. Further support of the fact that the "beasts of the field" are flesh‑eaters is given by the Biblical account of Rizpah's touching exhibition of motherly devotion in guarding the bodies of her sons who were hanged by David's order: "And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered neither the birds of the air [vultures] to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field [cannibals] by night." [34]

The Prophet Jeremiah was informed by the Lord about the coming captivity of the southern Kingdom of Judah. At the same time he was instructed to tell the surrounding non‑Israelite kings that they would be compelled to serve Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, whom the Lord called "my servant." They were all to be brought under the yoke of Babylon, for world dominion was to be delivered into the hands of the monarchs of the Babylonian Succession of Empires for a specifically‑named period [Seven times or 2520 years].

Therefore, the Lord commanded Jeremiah to say on His behalf: "And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and The Beasts of the Field have I given him also to serve him." [35]

The records of history disclose that slaves from various Negroid tribes acted in this capacity in the palaces and homes of kings and nobles in every age. Later on, when the doom of oblivion was pronounced upon Babylon, the record states: "So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon. And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words; then shalt thou say, O Lord, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever." [36]

Today the region around the ruins of Babylon abounds in game. Wild, four‑footed animals make their lairs there. But the "beasts of the field," the Negroes along with man himself, are there no more; nor will the Arabs even pitch their tents there.

In the Book of Daniel the story of King Nebuchadnezzar's period of temporary insanity is told and newly‑revealed information now provides a greater comprehension of the details of this account. Daniel warned Nebuchadnezzar of the consequences of his pride and arrogance, giving him the interpretation of his prophetic vision concerning what would befall the king: "They shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." [37]

Nebuchadnezzar was to dwell with the "beasts of the field," the Negroes who served him, living with them in their quarters while he was insane. They would make him eat grass as oxen; that is, they would feed him as they fed the oxen.

They would compel him to remain in the open field, without shelter from the elements at night, for this was their dwelling place. We have here a literal fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, for he had foretold that the "beasts of the field" were to be given to Nebuchadnezzar "to serve him." His Negro servants cared for him day and night and undoubtedly protected him during those seven years of madness from enemies who would have slain the king and seized his kingdom. This story has a happier ending than many taken from life's pages, for King Nebuchadnezzar's sanity was restored, as he himself testified: "At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me." [38]

Howbeit, the king had arrived at a high degree of spiritual understanding following his humbling experience and he left this record for all to read: "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase." [39]

From the Bible itself we have presented proof that the "beasts of the field" [or "earth"] are a high order of animal life who are vocal, intelligent, who can sin and repent, as well as pray. They are the pure stock of the Negro, a servant order. Let us next turn our attention to the Scriptural account of the orders of creation where we will find conclusive confirmation of the truth that Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, a completely distinctive order of life upon the earth.

It has been established that the Bible refers to a species of creatures brought into being by Almighty God, the Creator, "beasts of the earth" who were bipeds, that is, tool‑making and tool‑handling, two‑footed animals. They were intelligent and gifted with speech, but not in any way related to man. It is advisable, therefore, to re‑examine the account of creation given in the Scriptures in order to discover their point of origin. Doing so, we find they came into being prior to the creation of man, who was made in the image of God, whereas they were not.

God, the Creator, treats the land animals, with which man was to be closely associated in his efforts to "subdue" the earth, very differently from the manner in which He treats the "fowl of the air" and the "fish of the sea." He divided them into three classes: "cattle," "creeping things" and "beasts" a division that is maintained throughout the Scriptures: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made The Beast of the Earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." [40]

In the Biblical classifications of quadrupeds, the word "cattle" is not necessarily confined to domestic animals. In its most general Scriptural definition, it refers to any four‑footed animal, domestic or wild. However, it does more often refer to "herds" and "flocks."

It has already been pointed out that the "creeping things" include a far greater variety of creatures than usually supposed. Since the word "creep" means "to move along with the body prone," i.e., slinking forward close to the ground, the category includes four‑footed animals that can crouch. We repeat what Webster's synonyms point out; that "creep" is used more often of quadrupeds.

The section of the animal creation under the descriptive phrase "beast of the earth" would not have presented a complex problem defying easy solution if the primary creative action, as Scripturally stated, had not been ignored. Among cattle, creeping things and beast, the Lord decreed that each should propagate "after his kind." The development of the atheistical theory of evolution [which state, broadly, that various types of animals, etc., have their origin in other pre‑existing types] was spearheaded by Charles Darwin's book, Origin of Species, published in 1859. This spurious doctrine aligned itself with the growing apostasy which was to engulf all Christendom and before long produced disbelief in the scientifically accurate but simply‑worded statements of the Bible.

In spite of the fact that the theory of evolution is based on the idea of "natural development" without the miraculous intervention of any Divine Being, it found a ready and widespread acceptance even among so‑called Christian believers.

The evil of this anti‑Biblical error spread quickly into schools, colleges, universities and seminaries until the time came when no one could read with understanding the elementary phrase, repeated many times in Genesis 1:24‑25 "after his kind!" The word "kind," as translated from the original Hebrew, means "species" and we should understand from this that each species of animal was created, in its order, according to the Divine design.

While there is great diversity in the sorts of families within a species [for instance, the many varieties of dogs], nevertheless, each species remains separate in nature from all others. In fact, the Creator's laws governing procreation do not permit one to cross over into another; most certainly one does not "evolve" into another. There is order in the Divine creation; this is why God saw that it was good. He makes it very plain that mixtures are abhorrent to Him ‑‑ they are confusion!

As a matter of fact, the Apostle Paul mentions how vital it is that, "all things be done decently and in order." [41] Then, as a part of his great discourse on the resurrection, he made this trenchant observation: "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." [42]

Contrast this Divinely‑inspired, unequivocal statement of fact with the mouthings of evolutionists: "'Evolution' means a process by which man must trace his ancestry back to some ape form, then to some quadruped, thence to some reptile, thence to some amphibian, thence to some fish, thence to an invertebrate, thence to some single‑celled creature that lived in the slime of the sea." [43]

In Great Pyramid Proof of God, George R. Riffert writes under the heading, "An Overworked Word:" "The popularity of evolution as an anti‑Christian explanation for the universe is not due to anything science has yet discovered in its favor, but rather to the decline of Christianity in the life of the people, the weakening of confidence in the Bible as God's Book of Truth and the widespread indiscriminate use of the word 'evolution' in connection with matters to which it bears no logical relation. 'Evolution' is the most overworked, misapplied and misunderstood word in the English language. Growth, development and improvement are erroneously accepted as its equivalent meanings. So farfetched and ridiculous has been the use of this word that 'evolution' is now applied to anything from the undertaker's business to the making of a universe.

When you say that a substance evolves odors or gasses and a mind evolves ideas, you have said about all that you can say and still be within the bounds of fact and truth concerning evolution. To say that a worm evolved a fish and that apes or lizards evolved men whose descendants produced a Lincoln or a Gladstone, a Handel or a Michelangelo, to say nothing of the Christ of God, is yielding to a speculative wildness of brain activity that is little better than philosophical imbecility." [44]

We are led to next consider another related scientific and Scriptural fact. In The Bible and Segregation, by C.R. Dickey, it is stated: "Paul's statement in Acts 17:26 is now so interpreted as to make it mean the exact opposite to what Paul intended. It reads: 'And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation...' Without quoting the latter part of this verse, some people make much ado over the first clause, and use it glibly to overthrow all previous Biblical teaching concerning racial separation. The key word used to prove the oneness of all mankind is 'blood;' yet, actually, it proves nothing because the word 'blood' does not appear in ancient manuscripts. It was added by translators. Ferrar Fenton gives this most logical reading of the passage: 'Himself giving to every one life and breath and all things; because He made by One [i.e. Christ] every race of men to dwell upon the whole face of the earth...'" [45]

Furthermore, we are quoting in part from an article that appeared in The Putnam Sun of Palatka, Florida, on April 20, 1961, pointing out the fatal consequences of mixed blood transfusions: "Unheralded by the kept press of the day, but certainly to have more far‑reaching effects than he discovery of the atomic bomb, is the news of recent advances in the biological sciences. These are of such a nature that we are today on the threshold of understanding how living things are created and live. No person capable of reading the printed word should miss, in the April 15th issue of The Saturday Evening Post, an article entitled 'The Messages of Life,' by James Bonner, professor of biology at California Institute of Technology.

According to Prof. Bonner ‑ 'This almost successful search for the principle, the logic, of life may someday enable us to control the step‑by‑step development of the human organism to cultivate replacement organs and perhaps even to initiate life in isolated cells. This new biology...is largely concerned with the molecular facts of life...Every day now brings new excitement as research biologists draw close to a final solution. For they have discovered that each cell of each individual contains a blueprint, an instruction manual, which gives the cell detailed instructions on what kind of chemicals to make from the available food, on how the cell shall divide or duplicate itself, on the size and shape of the systems it shall form [that is, elephant or mouse] in short, how the cell should become a part of a particular kind of living thing.'

A tremendous fact developed is that the human races are not the same ‑‑ but particular kinds of living things. The blood of the White Man differs in Molecular construction and hereditary factors from that of the Negro. The physical evidence of this difference has been commonly known as sickle cell anemia, a child killer and causing invalidism in adults. This anemia is not a disease. It occurs in the blood of the Negro as a mutation from the normal and is an inherited characteristic. It can be and is transmitted to the White Race by means of transfusion of Negro blood. Prof. Bonner remarks that 'a striking example of this ...is an enzyme found in victims of the hereditary disease called sickle cell anemia, characterized by abnormal hemoglobin of red blood cells.' Developments are gradually leaking out that the epidemics of hepatitis occurring in hospitals the last few years are closely related to blood transfusions from different races and peoples. This is now being recognized by the American Association of Blood Banks. The 'social engineers' and misguided 'do‑gooders' devoting their energies to race mixing as a basis for social adjustment now are proven wrong from every scientific point of view. Race mixing is bound to result in race suicide. The Red Cross and other blood banks who have mixed blood of the races for transfusions under pressure from minority groups, are guilty of a crime against humanity. The crime is not directed to the White Race alone ‑‑ but there is much evidence that White Blood given to a Negro has, in many cases, a much more serious result. According to the official information received from the Red Cross,' the race of the donor [of blood] has not been shown on any Red Cross records or on labels applied to the bottles since 1951.' This must not be continued in the face of the scientific evidence that mixed blood transfusions may have fatal consequences."

Our agreement is with the Science of Anthropology when its members classify all of mankind into three basic groups, viz., anthropologist Dr. Henry Field and his staff of the Chicago natural History Museum who trace the races of mankind from the three primary sources:

The three great divisions confirm and amplify those three races as set forth in Gen., Chapters 1 and 2, as the "Aw-dawm" (White or Aryan), "Enosh" (Mongoloid) and "Chayee" or "Beast of the Field" (Negroid).

Anthropology distinguishes these groups as Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid by their contrasting physical characteristics. As you will continue to discover, there is much more involved in separating each race from the other characteristically, than most MODERN scientists in fields affecting racial and social studies, will admit. Through grants and funding by large tax‑free foundations, many members of the profession of Anthropology have sold their integrity for the price of a ride on the highly profitable "liberal band‑wagon."

All of this has worked well, on the unsuspecting public, to help evolve the "one‑race" or "Brotherhood of Man" idea the enemies of Christ and His Israel people advocate. However, occasionally a few do speak out on what they find to be true regarding separatist factors among the three racial divisions as pertains to abilities and qualities reflecting upon our Western standards.

Their independent findings have withstood persecution in place of rebuttal. Dubbing a scientist a "racist" is a cowards way of avoiding the responsibility of an intelligent refutation, which seems impossible considering the evidence to be surmounted.

That evidence points to, "...the overwhelming balance of probability that racial differences exist in the morphology of the human brain which in turn account for differences in the capacity to adapt to Western Civilization."

There is no dispute about the fact that, other things being equal (such as sex, body size, proportion of parts and sulcification) the weight of the brain correlates with intelligence. This has been found to be true throughout the series of vertebrate animals. It is only denied in humans because that truth will not fit in with those who would destroy our Israel people thus destroying Christ's witnesses on earth.

Various studies have been made of the comparative average weights of white and Negro brains with results that all fall within the range of about 8 to 12% lower weight for the Negro brain. Such studies have been published by Drs. Bean, Pearl, Vint, Tilney, Gordon, Todd and others. As a racial average, the Negro brain is lighter than the white and this in turn indicates a lower average level of intelligence. In the words of Dr. Carleton Coon, past president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists: "Among living populations, absolute brain size is generally, although not necessarily individually, related to achievement."

Naturally achievement can be attributed to both mental ability (brain size) and will power. This latter attribute is a major contributory factor which must necessarily be evaluated on an individual basis. Dr. Clyde Kluckhohn, Professor of Anthropology at Harvard wrote, "On the premise that specific capacities are influenced by the properties of each gene pool, it seems very likely indeed that populations differ quantitatively in their potentialities for particular kinds of achievement."

Dr. Henry Garrett, for 15 years head of the Dept., of Psychology at Columbia, tested six cases where Negroes and Whites had the same exact environment. The tests corroborate the direct evidence from other sciences, namely that the Negroes' limitations are chiefly innate!

Other tests show that environment contributes about 25% and inheritance 75%, to human capacity; the ratio varying somewhat with different characteristics. Obviously a man's or a race's genetic limitations eventually influence their environment so that the one compounds the other. It will never be possible completely to equate White and Negro "environment" without making the Negro into a White Man. This the "Race Mixers" know! To equate the Negro with the White they must be blended into a composite which can equalize only by diminishing the higher talents of the White Race and raising those of the Negro.

Our God expressly forbids this in his 7th Commandment against adultery in Exodus 20:14. Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary defines Adulterate: "To make impure by admixture of other or baser ingredients; corrupt. Adulterated: corrupted, debased; spurious, Adulterous: from the Latin meaning, to add to, to alter."

The Latin from which our English originated was preceded by the Greek which followed the Hebrew of our Holy Scriptures. The entirety of those Scriptures are very definite regarding Adultery as the mixing of God's people, Israel, in pro‑creation, with any of the other races or mixtures of races!

To ignore this Biblical fact in preference for the modern, liberalized translation; "marital unfaithfulness" amounts to a confession of having missed what can easily be considered one of the most vital acknowledgments to be derived from the Holy Scripture. It is a case of Intellectual Dishonesty, make no mistake about it! However, the point we wish to make is that the Bible and Science do agree! Sir Julin Huxley's finding that a difference of one and one‑half percent in average I.Q. makes a difference of fifty percent in the number of those having an I.Q. of 160 or higher.

Since the Negro I.Q. ranges from fifteen to twenty percent below that of the White, it is easy to understand the relative dearth of Negro intellects throughout human history. And since a civilization is totally dependent for leadership upon a thin top layer of it's population, it is equally obvious that any amalgamation of the races would be disastrous for our culture. Such then, is the cumulative and converging testimony from anatomy, histology, physical anthropology, genetics and psychology.

While no single item may constitute proof, each item constitutes evidence, and we feel justified in saying that the total of the evidence must amount to proof to any unbiased mind. When the sum is added to the testimony from history [Here we would remind you once again: The English historian, Arnold Toynbee, has stated: 'The White Race has created some 13 civilizations, the Oriental race, some 3 civilizations.

[But] as of this date the Black Race has not, contributed to the development of one single civilization; but has, in fact, destroyed every civilization he has come into contact with through the mixing of the races - Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece, and Rome were, at one time White, but due to the mixing of the races, were eventually destroyed, because the children of mixed races are too stupid to retain a civilization, anywhere in the world.'], the result is beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing in the self‑conflicting and undocumented edicts of various scientific cliques offers anything factual in contradiction.

Our American [Israel] people have been misled long enough by equalitarian propaganda claiming support in scientific circles. It is time all of us realized that the constant parroting of denials of the existence of well established evidence does not effect an adequate refutation. We should become aware that undocumented resolutions by scientific societies have no probative value, and that the perversion of truth in the interest of race amalgamation must be stopped. Honest, conscientious Christians must adhere to God's Word on this subject.

A convincing array of scientific evidence is now adduced in support of the Biblical premise upon which the fact is established that the Negro is not of Adamic origin.

When scientists discovered striking similarities between "prehistoric" inhabitants of the earth and Negroes, they approached more nearly the truth than they realized. Their findings that the characteristics of the so‑called "Neanderthal man" and the Negro are very similar are valid because they were not describing the characteristics of a man but of the "beast of the earth." One scientific statement is significant in this context because it states: "In anthropology, the term 'Grimaldi Man' is applied to a Negroid type of prehistoric man found in the caves of Grimaldi, near Mentone, Italy."

The pure Negro, who was created before man, is of the family Simiidae, for while he did not "evolve" from apes, he stands, nevertheless, at the head of that family, as the lion stands at the head of the cat family. The Negro is of the Anthropoidea because, while he is not man, he resembles man in many of his characteristics.

It was man who was to have dominion over the earth and "subdue" it [47]. The "Beast of the earth" is mentioned separately and the conclusion may be logically drawn that a being was created by God in the animal order as nearly as possible like man to take from Adam's shoulders many of the tasks of subduing the earth, maintaining the Garden of Eden and other duties of the earth and the field.

Many scientists who, while they are not familiar with the order of creation in which the Negro is categorized, do confirm what the Scriptures maintain. It must be said that this was not always their intention, since some were exponents of the theory of evolution. This very fact, however, enhances the value of their objective testimony and Dr. Alexander Winchell, an American geologist and professor of geology and paleontology in the University of Michigan from 1879 to 1891, made these statements: "The inferiority of the Negro is fundamentally structural. I have enumerated the points in his anatomy in which he diverges from the White Race and have indicated that, in all these particulars, he approximates the organisms below. It follows that what the Negro is structurally at the present time is the best he has ever been. It follows that he has not descended from Adam."

When we turn upon the conclusions of this scientist the light of the Apostle Paul's declaration that "there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds," [48] we find that the Negro who "has not descended from Adam." and is consequently not of the "flesh of men," belongs to one of the other three "kinds of flesh." Being a land animal, he belongs to the "flesh of beasts" ‑ that is, he is of the Anthropoidea.

Let it be stated here with emphasis that the term "species" correctly applies only to plants and animals; it does not apply to mankind. The theory of evolution attempts to say that man is of the "genus of mammals usually considered as belonging to the order [Primates] which contains also the monkeys, apes and lemurs."

The dictionary definition of man takes its cue from this and designates man as the highest type of animal; that he is the human "species." this is entirely erroneous, refuting, as it does, the inspired statements of the Bible. But, then, this was the atheistic intention, supported by such evolutionists as Julian Huxley who did not propose to allow God to be anywhere in the evolutionary picture. Certainly He was not in the caricatures they drew of "early man!" Huxley is quoted to have asserted: "If you let God in one place, you may as well let Him in all along the line."

The whole theory of evolution ‑‑ postulating, as it puts it, man's descent from the ape ‑‑ is not only irrational and unscientific; it is completely unscriptural. One tragic result is that the Negro has obtained his present unjustifiable, unnatural position "in the family of man" as the result of the acceptance of the notion that man is merely a highly develop species of ape ‑‑ the "human species" ‑‑ of which the Negro is the lowest race.

Hence, our social, political and religious relationships with the Negroes are not based upon the Scriptures, but upon the teachings of atheism. This position repudiates the declaration the White Man is a distinct creation in the image of God, for our yielding to the degrading influence of the atheistic theory of evolution; to renounce kinship with God by claiming to be kin to the ape.

Contrasting Black and White ‑ Advancing his arguments that man ‑ and man alone ‑ was created in the image of God, Professor Charles Carroll took strong exception to the evolutionist position (the theory of natural development [selection]) that the White Race is a "human species," one of "five races of men."

As the Professor maintained, the number of races may be more or less, "dependent upon the whim of the naturalist who makes the classification." Nevertheless, borrowing the very phrase he detested, Professor Carroll went on to assert: "The White, the highest, and the Negro, the lowest of the so‑called [five races of men], present the strongest contrast to each other in their physical and mental characteristics...White is not a color; neither is Black a color; yet the White, colorless complexion of the White finds its strongest contrast in the Black, colorless complexion of the Negro."

The following facts are relevant here as put on record by Professor Carroll. He quotes first from a discussion by anthropologist Quatrefages in The Human Species: "With all anthropologists, I recognize the high value of the color of the skin as a character...We know that it does not result from the existence or disappearance of special layers.

Black or White, the skin always comprises a White dermis, penetrated by many capillaries, and epidermis, more or less transparent and colorless. Between the two is placed the mucous layer, of which the pigment alone in reality varies in quantity and color according to the race. All the colors present in the human skin have two common elements: the White of the dermis and the red of the blood.

Moreover, each has its own proper element, resulting from the colorings of the pigment. The rays reflected from these different tissues combine into a resultant which produces the different tints and traverses the epidermis. The latter plays the part of roughened glass. The more delicate and the finer it is, the more perceptible is the color of the subjacent parts...From the preceding we can also understand why the White alone can be said to turn pale or to blush. The reason is that in him the pigment allows the slightest difference in the efflux of the blood to the dermis to be perceived. With the Negro, as with us, the blood has its share in the coloring, the tint of which it deepens or modifies. When the blood is wanting, the Negro turns grey from the blending of the White of the dermis with the Black of the pigment."

Professor Carroll concluded from his extensive examination of this subject: “Thus, it is shown by the highest scientific authorities that the Black, colorless complexion of the Negro is not the result of climatic influence; it is due solely to the Black pigment which intervenes between the dermis and the epidermis."

Dr. Ernst Heindrich Haeckel wrote in "History of Creation," Volume II (pp. 414‑415; 1868): "The long, fine, silken hair of the White finds its strongest contrast in the short, coarse, woolly hair of the Negro. Each individual hair of the White is cylindrical. Hence, 'its section is circular.' In striking contrast to that of the White, each individual hair of the Negro 'is flattened like a tape.' Hence, 'its section is oval.'"

The Negro's hair is inserted in the vertical in his scalp, while in the White Man's scalp, the insertion is oblique.

The long, narrow skull of the White finds its strongest contrast in the short, broad skull of the Negro. The shortness and broadness of the Negro skull displays its similarity to the bodily construction of the anthropoid ape. A certain relative length of skull (i.e., high forehead) appears to be associated with energy, force and executive ability. Hence the shortness of the Negro's skull denotes his lack of these attributes. The Negro skull is very thick and solid; it is flattened on the top and well suited to carrying burdens.

The relatively short, narrow jaw of the White finds its strongest contrast in the long, broad jaw of the Negro. The jaw of the Negro extends forward at the expense of the symmetry of the face, and backward at the expense of the brain cavity. It is well known that in the Negro, the entire face, and especially the lower portion, projects forward. In the living subject, it is exaggerated by the thickness of the lips. The prominent chin of the White finds its strongest contrast in the retreating chin of the Negro. This is also a simian characteristic.

Dr. Winchell says: "The retreating contour of the chin, as compared with the European, approximates the Negro to the chimpanzee and lower mammals."

The front teeth of the White, set perpendicularly in the jaw, find their strongest contrast in the front teeth of the Negro, which set slanting in the jaw, still another simian characteristic. Dr. Haechel describes as Prognathi those "whose jaws, like those of the animal's snout, strongly project, and whose front teeth, therefore slope in front;" and men with straight teeth Orthognathi, "whose jaws project but little and whose front teeth stand perpendicularly." The relatively thin lips of the White find their strongest Contrast in the thick, puffed lips of the Negro. The prominent nose of the White is in strong contrast to the flat nose of the Negro, which has the appearance of having been crushed in. In the Negro these are both simian characteristics.

The color of the Negro brain is darker than that of the White, and its density and texture inferior. Dr. Winchell states: "The average weight of the European brain, males and females, is 1,340 grammes; that of the Negro is 1,178 grammes."

On a related subject, Dr. J. Hendree of Aniston, Alabama, in writing to Dr. Winchell, made this comment: "Let me mention one fact especially, drawn from my own experience of forty years. The coarseness of their (the Negroes') organization makes them require about double the dose of ordinary medicine used for the Whites."

Dr. M.L. Barrow, of Drayton, Georgia, in writing to Dr. Winchell, reported: "I have practiced among the Negroes over forty years...Your information in respect to the dosage of medicine for the colored people corresponds with my experience ‑ except as regards opiates, and perhaps they will bear large quantities of these as I have known some to take very large doses with impunity."

The highly developed calves, in the bodily structure of the White, find their strongest contrast in the think calves of the Negro. The calves of the White, situated low on the leg, find their strongest contrast in the calves of the Negro, set relatively high on the leg. The short, narrow heel of the White, finds its strongest contrast in the long, broad heel of the Negro. Again, all of these Negro characteristics are related to their background as of the family Simiidae.

There are certain statements in the Scriptures which have never been adequately explained by the theological approach to the study of the Bible. In fact, their context has been ignored and no analysis of the implications of words used has been made.

For example, in the Book of Jonah we are told that this prophet went to Nineveh and proclaimed in that city that in forty days it would be destroyed because of the wickedness of its inhabitants. Word of Jonah's preaching came to the king of Nineveh and he descended from his throne, put on sackcloth and issued a proclamation: "Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water." [49]

This was a command to fast and all men, and their animals, were to obey. The proclamation continued:

"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. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" [50]

Both man and beast, as well as herds and flocks, were to refrain from eating and drinking. Notice, however, that the further stipulations of the proclamation were addressed only to "man and beast" ‑‑ not to the herds and the flocks, i.e., the domestic animals. Man "and beast" were to put on sackcloth; both man "and beast" were to cry mightily unto God. Furthermore, both man "and beast" were to turn from their evil ways and refrain from the violence "in their hands."

If the results of comparative anatomy, which indicate the structural differences of the Negro, are not found conclusive ‑‑ if there is still insistence that he is a descendant of Adam ‑‑ From which branch of the Adamic family would he have descended? If we were to accept the atheistical doctrine that the Negro and the White are blood brothers, from whence came all these physical and mental characteristics which so widely distinguish the White from the Negro?

1). What changes his complexion from the colorless White to the colorless Black?

2). What turned his smooth, silken hair to short, coarse, wooly hair and changed each hair of his head from cylindrical in construction to flat?

3). What wrought the change in the way his hair was inserted into the scalp, from the oblique to the vertical?

4). How was his cranium shortened and broadened, his skull thickened and his brain made another color?

5). What reduced the number and increased the size of the convolutions of his brain, thus simplifying and approximating it to the anthropoid ape?

7). What broadened his jaw and extended it forward at the expense of the brain cavity; thickened his lips, sloped his front teeth, flattened his nose; shortened and thickened his neck, reduced his chest measurements and lung capacity?

8). What elongated his arms, reduced the size of his calves, placed them at a high elevation on the leg, lengthened and broadened his heel and flattened his foot?

These are only a few of the many fundamental differences that raise the most serious objections to the theory that White human beings and the Negroes are the descendants of the primigenial pair ‑‑ Adam and Eve.

The great tasks to which man was assigned in the Creator's plan were of such magnitude that their accomplishment would require ages of time for completion and demanded that man be endowed with a mind almost Godlike in its scope; a mind at once legislative, executive and judicial. History, tradition and the whole range of scientific research combine to teach us that man is so endowed.

This power is peculiar to man and it is this marvelous intellectual capacity that enables man to tower above the animal creation over which he was given dominion, just as the snow‑crowned mountain towers above the brooklet at its base. Fresh from the hands of his Creator, Adam presented, in his physical, mental and spiritual organisms, the acme of human perfection.

Eve, also fresh from the hands of her Creator, presented, in her physical, mental and spiritual organisms, the most sublime specimen of her lovely sex; upon whose fair brow was stamped the image of her God. The scientists take up this theme. Theodore Parker maintains: "The White differs from all other Races; he is humane; he is civilized and progressive. He conquers with his head as well as with his hands. It is intellect, after all, that conquers, not the strength of man's arm. The White has often been the master of other races never their slaves; except for brief periods when God was punishing them.

He has carried his religion to other races ‑‑ but never taken theirs. All the great, limited forms of monarchies are White. Republics are White. All the great sciences are of White origin; all the inventions are White. Literature and romance come from the same stock; all great poets are of White origin. No other race can bring up to memory such celebrated names as the White race."

In his book, Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races, De Gobineau states: “The White Race has great vigor, capacity and endurance. It has an intensity of will and desire which is controlled by intellectually.

Great things are undertaken readily, but not blindly. It manifests a strong utilitarianism, united with a powerful imagination, which elevates, ennobles and idealizes its practical ideas. The Negro can only imitate, the Chinese only utilize, the work of the White, but the latter is abundantly capable of producing new work.

He has as keen a sense of order as the yellow man; not from the love of repose, however, but from the desire to protect and preserve his acquisitions. He has a love of liberty far more intense than exists in the black and yellow races, and clings to life more earnestly. His high sense of honor is a faculty unknown to other races and springs from an exalted sentiment of which they show no indications. His sensations are less intense than in either the black or yellow, but his mentality is far more developed and energetic."

If space permitted further quotations, it would be shown by the highest authorities of the age that the pure‑blooded White alone possesses the qualities of mind which are essential in the creature whom God designed to develop the resources of the earth and have dominion over fish, fowl, cattle, creeping thing and beast. It is significant that these exalted characteristics find their opposites in the Negro.

In "The Aryan Race," Morris says: "It may be remarkable that all the savage tribes of the earth belong to the Negro or the Mongolian Races. No Negro Civilization has ever appeared. No Mongolian one has ever greatly developed. On the other hand, the White is pre‑eminently the man of civilization. No traveler or historian records a savage tribe of White stock."

Blood is a matter of life or death. Its kind determines the nature of the life, whether animal or human. Its quality decides health; its type, parentage. Its absence through loss, or destruction, or unavailability of suitable transfusion, spells death. Absorption of poisons, injection of air or unacceptable material similarly terminates life. A stoppage of the flow will destroy the brain within fifteen minutes, even though circulation may be restarted. Conversely, the transfusion of blood into a patient will visibly renew his vitality.

In 1799, President George Washington died almost certainly as the result of bleeding by his medical advisors. He was probably the most prominent of the many who perished through several centuries in which mistaken practitioners deprived their patients of the very means of life. So demonstrably true is the Scripture verse, "The life of the flesh is in the blood..." [51]

This liquid provides the transport system of the body, propelled by the heart, itself dependent on blood; regulated by nerves, salts, and chemical secretions provided by organs that are themselves maintained by it.

Absorbing simple oxygen and air, together with very many complex chemicals from food, in health blood carries them to the numerous organs, depositing them in the right places, with accurate timing and in the correct proportions. At the same time it removes all waste substances and itself is being continually and frequently changed. Thus it maintains the complexity and high quality of life ‑‑ in the case of man, for his threescore years and ten or more. It is essentially the main agent in the body for the maintenance of equilibrium of temperature, fluids, acidity‑alkalinity, food, salts, and general nutrition. Yet such a liquid is regarded by the evolutionist as the result of chance ‑‑ without cause, yet producing complex orderly effects. This vital fluid, with a specific gravity of 1.055 represents about nine percent of the total weight of a man, and amounts to some five liters or nine pints.

Apparently consisting simply of forty‑five percent by volume of moist solids or cells and fifty‑five percent plasma, a yellow liquid, both parts contain dozens of complex and vital compounds. The plasma or serum consists of about ninety percent water, nine percent protein material, 0.9 percent salts, and 0.09 percent sugar, urea, and so forth. These salts are chiefly the basic ions: sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and the carbonate, chloride, phosphate, and sulphate ions.

The concentration of these salts is allowed little variation in health. The kidneys receive a blood inflow of about seventeen hundred quarts daily, but remove only about .10 percent as urine. It is in this that most of the waste products of protein metabolism are secreted ‑‑ such as urea and uric acid, some dyes and other foreign materials, and excess salts. Other wastes and excess, except that lost through defecation, are removed in perspiration, which contains a large amount of salt. This simple compound, sodium chloride, is a necessity, not only for gastric juice, but also in the blood to prevent cramps in the muscles.

If it falls too low the kidneys cease to excrete it. Other chlorides are significant. Excess of ammonium chloride causes acidosis of the blood and produces convulsions. Too much potassium chloride stops the heart. Calcium chloride is needed to help plug wounds by assisting clotting.

The bicarbonate ions, at 210 mg per 100 ml, help in the removal of carbon dioxide from the tissues and keep the blood just alkaline at the pH value of 7.4. If this alkalinity is lost, increased and violent breathing results, and at 7.0 death is likely. Conversely, if the blood reaches an alkalinity of 7.6 it might prove fatal.

The recent research of Winston H. Price, Harvey V. Harrison, and Shirley H. Ferebee, reported to the New York Academy of Sciences, suggest that such widely different disorders as cancer, coronary thrombosis, pulmonary tuberculosis, rheumatic heart diseases, and schizophrenia all produce detectable changes in certain blood substances. These are serum mucoids, which are compounds of proteins and carbohydrates.

Seven of these provide, in healthy persons, a pattern which is disturbed by disease. Such facts hardly allow the development of variation in the composition of serum from the supposed original stock of the evolution of new species. The highly imaginative evolutionists have suggested that life evolved from the sea, as its concentration of sodium chloride and other salts is like that of blood and other body fluids. However, blood has less than one percent of this salt, whereas sea water has a 2.7 percent on average, and 0.8 percent other salts, of which some are not in blood nor would be acceptable to it.

The evolutionists would find that the Baltic Sea, with its somewhat fresher water, is still too salty; but somewhere, at a yet‑to‑be‑ discovered location, a river with suitable concentrations might be found as the site of the start of life! Of other substances in blood, marked changes from the 10 mg of calcium, 2 mg of uric acid, 30 mg of urea, or 100 mg of glucose per 100 ml are of diagnostic significance.

For example, excess of glucose, detected also through urine, is characteristic of diabetes. Nerves and muscles cease to function properly if calcium is below 8 mg. The plasma contains three essential proteins: fibrogen, which helps coagulation; serum albumin; and serum globin or globulin. These are not for food, but are part of the structure of the blood. Hemophiliacs (bleeders) lack fibrogen. Albumin and globulin, as they are large molecules, exert an osmotic pressure of 30 mm of mercury, which draws water back into the capillary blood vessels. This prevents the accumulation of water in the tissues in the condition called edema. The blood either makes or receives certain substances called antibodies, which are globulins. These are of many kinds and they provide defenses against foreign particles, including bacteria.

Should the evolutionist regard these facts of size, content, and effect as the result of chance? The merciful provision of the wise creator rather is the true view.

There are other proteins than those mentioned above that are found dissolved in the plasma, including hormones and enzymes. These latter remarkable, complex substances are in transit: enzymes to catalyze metabolism, and the hormones to stimulate development and secretions, like the working of the "brains" of a factory. For the purpose of nourishing or replenishing the tissues, there are also present in the blood amino acids, which are like "building blocks." These come from proteins that are absorbed chiefly in flesh foodstuffs and consist of chains of these acids. The evolutionist will find no comfort from the fact that human blood contains three or four of these acids different from the gorilla and only one in common with fish. Truly Scripture states: "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes and another of birds." [52]

In different races the proportion of individuals belonging to a particular blood group varies widely:

The forty‑five percent of the blood which consists of cells provides yet more striking evidence of the wonderful nature of the substances in blood. These cells consist of three main types: red cells or erythrocytes, whites or leucocytes, and platelets or thrombocytes. Each kind is produced in bone marrow, although in the fetus its liver is the main site for producing red cells, and white cells are formed in its spleen. All these cells jostle one another through the arteries, the veins, and some fifty thousand miles of capillaries which can be fifty times thinner than a human hair.

In 1658 J. Swammerdam in Holland discovered the red cells, and in 1661 M. Malphighi in Italy saw this capillary circulation. William Harvey in England discovered the general circulation of the blood in 1628. The white cells were found by J. Lieutaud in France in 1749.

The various kinds of cells have their own particular structure, functions, contents, and size. The platelets are the smallest being about 2.5 microns in diameter (the micron, a unit of microscopic measurement, is one millionth of a meter or 0.001 mm). These cells number about half a million per cubic millimeter.

They are colorless. On touching anything but the endothelium lining of the blood vessels, they disintegrate, liberating (among other substances) thrombokinase, which assists in producing from the blood protein fibrogen, the fibrin essential for clotting or plugging loopholes. A rash occurs in pupura when the number of platelets is below normal. The white cells are comparatively few at five thousand to ten thousand per cmm, or one to every five hundred or one thousand red, and are of three main types.

These are the granulocytes (60‑70%; themselves divided into three classes), the lymphocytes (25‑30%), and the monocytes (5‑10%). They are all indefinite in shape and are of sizes varying with their kind, being between eight and twenty‑two microns. Their main, but by no means exclusive function is phagocytic as they deal with foreign bodies, bacteria, and waste material, ingesting and dissolving them. In this process many of these cells become damaged and die, thus forming pus.

The lymphocytes also apparently produce the antibodies which neutralize the effect of poisonous material. When a person suffers from the serious disease leukemia, there is a population explosion in the blood by the uncontrolled formation of the white cells. All leucocytes have the power of free movement, and lead independent lives for up to fourteen days before being removed and replaced by new cells. They are thus separate lives within a life, and give blood the character of a living fluid.

Once again man has proven the Scriptures to be true. Once again man has proven that God exists because in ancient times He related in the Scriptures that there was life in the blood! "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." [54] "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." [55]

The red cells are the most numerous, numbering about five million in women and five and one‑ half million in men per cmm, totaling about 25x109 in the whole body, or ten times more than the platelets, and one thousand times more numerous than the leucocytes. A red cell can travel from the heart to the brain and back in eight seconds, and to and from the toes in eighteen seconds. These cells are specially designed to carry oxygen from the lungs around the body to the tissues. This is effected by the remarkable chemical hemoglobin. The blood of males contains about 12‑17 grams of the substance, and that of females 11‑15 grams per 100 ml. This compound apparently consists of four molecules of haem linked with the protein globin, which itself contains three hundred amino acids in two chains. The haem molecule is one atom of iron combined in its ferrous state with seventy‑four other atoms, being nearly nine percent of its weight or four percent of the whole molecule of hemoglobin.

This latter substance accounts for most of the thirty‑eight percent solid matter in the red cells. But the iron in the total hemoglobin of a man is sufficient to make only a single two‑inch nail! It was the German chemist J. von Liebig who, in 1852, discovered the combination of iron and oxygen in the blood. The hemoglobin molecule is very large, having a molecular weight of 68,000, whereas that of glucose is only 180. Hemoglobin functions by forming a loose compound with oxygen, the ferrous iron being oxidized to the ferric state to make the molecule bright scarlet. When it is reduced in the tissues by giving up the oxygen, it turns dark purple. At the same time one‑third of the carbon dioxide passes into the red cells and two‑thirds into solution in the plasma.

The difference in color between the arterial and venous blood is a valuable indicator in medical practice. The darker venous blood is returned to the lungs where it releases the carbon dioxide into the air, and the hemoglobin is recharged with oxygen. One hundred ml of oxygenated blood containing 14 grams of hemoglobin will hold 18.5 ml of oxygen, whereas a similar volume of water would dissolve only 0.38 ml. These facts are a merciful economy in the amount of blood the body would otherwise have to carry. If the poisonous gas carbon monoxide enters the lungs, this function of hemoglobin is destroyed.

This is due to the fact that hemoglobin has 250 times more affinity for it than for oxygen, and also does not release it in any part of the body. Survival is then dependent on replacement of the poisoned cells by newly made ones, or the body dies of oxygen starvation by its otherwise life‑giving fluid. Anemias are diseases in which the red cells are deficient in number or in hemoglobin content. These erythrocytes are like envelopes containing hemoglobin. Their life is much longer than that of the other types of cells, being about 120 days, after which they are worn out.

This means that about 2.5 million are made and destroyed per second, or one percent of blood is replaced daily in the body. After about three hundred thousand exchanges of oxygen and carbon dioxide the hemoglobin is destroyed in the spleen, forming amino acids. In economic fashion, the iron returns to bone marrow and the liver for further use. The red cells are of uniform shape compared with the other kinds of cells, being elastic, biconcave discs 7.5 microns in diameter and 2.2 microns thick. In certain anemias the shape is distorted.

Mathematical analysis, confirmed by the applied science department of the International Business Machines Corporation computer, showed that the normal shape is the best for giving the largest surface to the smallest volume for the function of supplying oxygen rapidly to the tissues.

The area thus provided for this purpose in the aver person amounts to about 3,500 square yards. Was such a perfect plan for cells the result of chance or the work of the Wise Designer? The Creator of all things.

A comparison of the size and number of red cells alone in various creatures shows wide differences, which do not help the theory of common ancestry. Whereas man has about five million red cells per cmm, the goat has nine to ten million; but its near relation the sheep has thirteen to fourteen million.

Birds have one to four million. Fish, supposed to be less evolved, have from 0.25 up to as many as two million, and the more developed (according to the evolutionist) frog has only 0.5 million.

The average diameter of man's red corpuscles at 7.5 microns is nearly the same as that of his good friend the dog at 7.3. The supposedly related carnivore, the cat, has cells of 6.5 microns. The herbivorous rabbit's measure 6.9, but the goat's only 4.1 and the musk deer's 2.0. It is obviously difficult to relate these sizes to activity, habitat, food, bodily size, or supposed evolutionary descent.

Also of interest here is the fact that frogs and pigeons, as examples of amphibians and birds, have larger oval, red corpuscles measuring 22.3 by 15.7 and 14.7 by 6.5 microns, respectively. Many other differences between the blood of man and that of animals show the folly of following evolutionary theory.

For instance, the granulocytes of different mammals have dissimilar appearance. Also the crystalline forms of hemoglobin derived from the blood of various animals differ greatly. Even those of supposedly closely related creatures are markedly unalike. Further, while dogs and cats have a low red cell concentration of potassium and a high sodium content, in the rat and the rabbit these relative concentrations are reversed.

As early as 1904, H.F. Nuttall published the results of thousands of blood precipitation tests in his book Blood Immunity and Blood Relationship. These were used as evidence in 1925 by H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago in the famous Scopes trial, which concerned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. N. Thompson in Outlines of Zoology, as late as 1944, quoted them in support of the theory.

Douglas Dewar in his valuable book The Transformist Illusion, 1957, pointed out the numerous absurdities in these figures.[56] Examples of these are that ungulates (hoofed animals) appeared closely related to whales, and some whales are nearer relations of man than are monkeys. The crane is apparently a close relative of the greenfinch, but far removed from the hedge sparrow.

Some humans showed they are more closely related to apes than to their fellow men, and as nearly related to carnivores, rodents, and ungulates! Nevertheless, Newman stated, "The results so far attained are so definite and clean‑cut that there is every reason to expect a great future for this type of evolutionary evidence."

However, the situation today is no clearer, and this type of appeal has been largely dropped. It is an interesting example of false evidence being used to bolster up a failing theory, and of a blind faith that blood, which holds the key to life, must also prove evolution.

In 1649 the Englishman, Francis Potter discussed blood transfusion. He was followed by Richard Lower, F.R.S. who became M.A. of Oxford during the Commonwealth. Lower successfully performed a transfusion of blood from one dog to another in Robert Boyle's presence at Oxford in 1665, and repeated the experiment before the Royal Society in London in 1669.

On 15 June 1667 Jean Baptiste Denys made history in Paris by transfusing blood from one man to another. Lower safely repeated this on 23 November of that same year in England. Such experiments subsequently caused fatalities, probably through lack of knowledge of differences in blood‑producing coagulation.

Hence they were stopped by law in most countries. The English obstetrician James Blundell early in the nineteenth century revived interest in the process by saving the lives of a number of anemic patients by transfusion of human blood.

The Austrian Karl Landsteiner in 1898 made the vital discovery which led to safer transfusion. He found blood could be classified into four main groups, according to the presence in the serum or red cells of certain substances, causing agglutination or clumping together of the cells. Group A contains one of these two main materials; group B the other, group AB has both, but the fourth group O has neither.

Hence group O may be given by transfusion as the "universal donor" to any group. AB may receive the blood of any group, but A and B are restricted to that of their own respective group. There are also a number of other factors, including some mentioned below which have to be considered; and before actual transfusion, cross‑matching of the donor's and the recipient's bloods to assure no agglutination must be done, or death may occur.

Inheritance of the group follows Mendelian laws. A, mating with A or O, produces only A, B with B or O gives only B. A crossed with B gives the AB group, and O produces only O. Here again is no evidence for evolution, as another group has never produced by a different pure pair. Groups also persist in being distinct; No new ones are formed!

There are racial variations in the distribution of the groups. Human blood is not all the same. The translation of Acts 17:26 in the King James version, unlike some revisions, inserts "blood," although the word haima does not appear in the Greek text, which is thus in accord with modern physiology!

The tables below show the percentage frequencies of occurrence of the various groups in different races. The second list is from the report of J. Moor‑Jankowsky, Alexander S. Weiner, and Charles M. Rodgers in "Human Blood Group Factors in Non‑Human Primates," published in Nature, vol. 16, no. 5, p. 54.

The figures in Table II gives little comfort to the evolutionist seeking identity between apes and men, for none are comparable with those of Table I, even allowing for wide variations in the figures. Gibbons, which have some percentages similar to those of man, are obviously very different as they are without the O group. A number of others also have no O group, which is abundant in man.

The Cebus and squirrel monkeys include some with the O group, but none with A or AB. The gorillas, often regarded as near man, are one hundred percent B.

Evan Shute in his book Flaws in the Theory of Evolution points out the vast differences found by Rabin in the distribution of blood groups between the long isolated Ona and Yahgan tribes who live adjacent to one another in Tierra del Fuego. The figures as percentages are:

On the other hand, many peoples who are racially extremely unalike have yielded almost identical distribution figures. Examples of these pairs are Australian Aborigines and Eskimos, Negrito Pygmies and Russians, south Africans and Melanesians! An increasing number of factors that can cause agglutination are being found in blood, so the number of groups is not confined to the four mentioned above.

Thus there are the Lewis, Kell, and Duffy factors, named after the families in which they were first found. Also there are the M and N types of blood, and the P positive and the P negative identified by Landsteiner and Levine in 1927. The total is in excess of fourteen, which give rise to over one hundred types of blood. Combinations of factors will produce numerous types, since 210=1024, 214=16,384, and 220=1,048,576. Thus there is great individuality in blood, which shows how remarkable the substance is and how valueless for evidence of evolution. So A.E. Hooton, himself an evolutionist, in Apes, Men, and Morons states, "The reconstructions of primitive races and prehistoric migrations that are based on serology are even more speculative and implausible than those that result from the study of skulls and bones."

Among the other factors found in blood is the Rhesus discovered by K. Landsteiner and A.S. Weiner in the United States in 1940. This factor divides blood into that type containing it and thus termed Rhesus Positive (or Rh+) and that type without it, termed Rhesus Negative (or Rh‑). A mixture of these bloods in transfusion or in childbirth can cause death.

About this time someone will always say, well the Blacks and the Whites bleed red blood, which is a stupid statement designed to strengthen their argument. And it is true, insofar as it goes, the Blacks bleed red blood, and Whites bleed red blood; but then so do horses, cows, jackasses, some fish and almost all other animals in existence. Does this mean that they all came from Mother Eve? Of course not, that is a statement so patently ridiculous that it should not have to be said.

After the fall of man all creation suffered disorganization and disarrangement. The Bible recounts the life of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race upon the earth after their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The length of their lives was thereafter limited by Divine decree and the history and chronology of mankind began.

In the eighth chapter of the Book of Romans, however, the Apostle Paul envisions the renewal of the earth and the glorious hope of resurrection life to come, and he wrote: "We know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now," [57] yearning toward the restoration which will become a reality according to the Divine promise.

How long the beast creation enjoyed an orderly culture of its own before the majority of its kind degenerated into voodooistic cultism need not be discussed here. We are now only concerned with the fact that when God created man in His own image, the beasts of the earth were to serve him as his helpers.

Professor Charles Carroll poses questions in his book which have intrigued the minds of men from generation to generation. When, and by whom, was matter created? Reason gives no answer, but at this point of impasse revelation comes to our assistance with the sublime assertion: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" [58] This, revelation, in harmony with true science and with reason, emphatically confirms the teachings of each: that there is a God; a personal God; a Creator, quite apart from His creation. Therefore, the Book of Genesis opens with the all‑inclusive statement that this universe had a beginning; that it was created; that God was its Creator. The Mosaic Record teaches that there are just three creations.

The first of these is described in connection with the heaven and the earth in the very remote beginning. The second describes the introduction of plant and animal life upon the restored earth after it had experienced a catastrophic cataclysm. The third details how man came into being ‑‑ a new and completely distinctive creation.

That the elements of life, both plant and animal, were part of the original creation, and existed in matter, is shown by the identical language used by God in commanding the earth and the waters to bring forth plant and animal life, as follows: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." [59]; "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life." [60]; "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." [61]

What was so? In obedience to the Divine command, the elements in the earth and water combined to react to the Creator's instructions and brought forth plant and animal life "after his kind."

Consciousness, which made its first appearance in the material universe, was an element distinct from matter. It was not present in light, nor in the heavens, nor in the plants, nor in the luminaries. Consciousness is the knowledge of sensations, or of what passes through the mind. Mind is an element also distinct from matter and consciousness is never found apart from mind. Hence, this new element, as present in the physical structure of the lower order of animal, the fish, was mind in its simplest form.

Following the introduction of the fish, God handled this combination of matter and mind on up through the different grades of matter and mind on up through the different grades of animals until the creation of man. The evidence of this is found in the fact that, although the higher order of fowls and beasts possess more highly developed physical and mental structures than the fish, the difference between them is merely one of degree. Animals possess the power to reason in varying degrees. The more the habits of some animals are studied by a naturalist, the more he attributes their actions to reasoning and less to unlearned instincts.

In the more detailed description of the creation of man, given in the second chapter of Genesis, we are told: "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." [62] Thus, the physical and mental organism of man, like the lower animals, was simply a combination of matter and mind. The supreme distinction between the animal creation and man lies in these Biblical statements: "And God said, Let us make man [Adam] in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." [63]

Prior to the creation of Adam, there was no connecting link, no tie of kinship between the Creator and His creation. But the bestowal of God's image and likeness upon the one to whom He entrusted dominion over the works of His hands made spiritual conception possible, giving man the ability to commune with God.

Animals think and even reason, but to man was given the natural inclination not only to think and reason, but to imagine, to spiritually perceive and envision. It is no wonder that David exclaimed: "Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour." [64]

Having been created in the image and likeness of God, both Adam and Eve and their posterity were to be endued with the power to become the sons and daughters of God [65].

The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden and Adam was placed there to dress it and keep it. What the interval of time was that intervened between the creation of man and the creation of woman we have no means of ascertaining. Of His creation up to a point, it is recorded that "God saw that it was good." But after this it is stated: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." [66] Following this all the creatures who had come into being by the act of the Creator were brought to Adam to be named: "Whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." [67]

Adam was still not entirely complete in his being. As we read the Biblical record of God's performances in creating woman as an helpmeet for Adam [his alter ego], we are led to conclude that each Divine act was a step in a process of unfoldment of His whole intention: "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." [68]

Adam and Eve were perfectly mated and they became one. Their affinity for each other was to be a spiritual intimacy of the highest order, a sublime partnership, a companionship in which they would share thoughts, ideas, joys, responsibilities and achievements. When Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he recorded their relationship as "man and wife:" "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." [69]

Moses looked back, of course, from his position many generations later, after the fall of man, who was created in the image of God. Now we will deal with the part of the "beast of the field" played in the temptation of Eve.

In the Garden of Eden, the mode of living of Adam the husbandman was comparable to a high standard of civilization, marked by abundance and tranquillity. In contrast, the beasts of the field followed the chase in the Land of Nod, the literal meaning of which is a place of "wandering." This was the original abode of the progenitors of the purebred Negroes.

Adam was lord of a vast estate and there is every reason to believe he engaged the services of the beasts of the field to do the necessary manual labor in the Garden of Eden. He would have selected, from among the inhabitants of Nod, the most competent of these beasts to serve him. This fact would account for the presence in the Garden of one of their kind who conversed with Eve. We notice that Eve expressed no surprise when confronted with a beast of the field, according to the account given in the third chapter of Genesis.

Furthermore, it is obvious that she had talked with him on previous occasions, for their conversation together indicates this. Very likely this particular beast of the field acted as an overseer, supervising the work of the rest of the laborers working in the Garden. In this capacity he would be in a position to speak to Eve, the wife of Adam.

The third chapter of Genesis opens with this statement: "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." [70]

Here a beast of the field is introduced who is described as "more subtil" than any other of his kind. The Biblical word "subtil" has many variations of meaning, all of which define the character of this beast.

The Ferrar Fenton rendering states he was "more impudent;" that is, he was lacking in modesty; he was contemptuous and cocky. He was also artful and cunning; that is, capable of using his intelligence as a stratagem for deceptive purposes, to gain his objective.

The Hebrew word translated "serpent" is nachash who, among his kind, was the most gifted. It is universally admitted by commentators that the word nachash presents a great difficulty when it is translated as "the serpent."

Notice how quickly this difficulty is resolved, however, if, instead of translating nachash as "the serpent," we leave nachash in the English text as a proper name. Then it would read: "Now Nachash was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." [71] After all, we know that the Hebrew word for man is Adam and therefore we have given the first man the name of Adam. Because the Hebrew word designating the beast of the field who confronted Eve in the Garden of Eden is nachash, then it may be logically concluded that Nachash was his name.

The catch phrase, "What's In a Name?," is borrowed from its poetic origin to be used in a variety of contexts. Nevertheless, the answer to the question is that there is a great deal in a name.

Many of the names used in the Bible have meanings revealing traits of the personality of that particular individual or associated with events during the time that the individual lived. For instance, Jacob's name means "supplanter" and he did supplant his brother Esau when he stole the blessing.

Afterward when Jacob became converted, his name was changed to Israel, which means "ruling with God," and he became the progenitor of the people who later were organized into the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai.

Peleg was named to commemorate a great physical disaster that occurred in his lifetime when, as the result of a cataclysmic earthquake, the earth was "divided." This took place when the continent of Atlantis disappeared. Peleg means: "division of land by water."

As we have already pointed out, Adam, the Hebrew name of the first man, designated him as ruddy, light complexioned, with blood making his face blush ‑ a White human being. The name Nachash, on the other hand, designated a specific beast of the field and disclosed the traits of character that motivated him in his actions.

More than a hundred years ago, Dr. Adam Clarke labored at length to solve the conundrum of the third chapter of Genesis, which he said in his Commentary was "one of the most difficult, as well as most importance, narratives in the whole book of God." He contended: "We are obliged to seek for some other word to designate the nachash in the text than the word 'serpent,' which, on every view of the subject, appears to me inefficient and inapplicable."

Dr. Clarke went on to say that "in all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information." The Lord rewarded Dr. Clarke's efforts with as much of the truth as it was the Divine purpose to have revealed in that generation. The following findings in his Commentary are of special value: "In such an inquiry the Arabic may be expected to afford some help, from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very nearly similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. Chanas, or khanasa, signifies 'he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away.' From this root come akhnas, khanasa and khanoos, which all signify an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of the simi or ape genus."

We have here a genuine clue in full support of the deduction that Nachash, a highly intelligent beast of the field, was a purebred Negro. However, the knowledge concerning the origin of the Negro was still lost in Dr. Clarke's generation and he was not in possession, therefore, of sufficient information to assist him to arrive at the whole truth.

His research, although indispensable takes us only part of the way. If the translators who gave us the Bible in the English language had know the whole truth also, they would not have tried to solve the Scriptural enigma that faced them by inserting the word "serpent" in the text where it would have been more logical to use the Hebrew word Nachash.

However, the translators were well aware of the Satanic implications involved in what brought about the fall of man in Eden. Dr. Clarke found further: "It is very remarkable also that from the same root [i.e., in the Arabic language] comes khanas, the Devil...Is it not strange that devil and ape should have the same root, so very similar to the word in the text?"

According to Young's Concordance, nachash means "to prognosticate; to enchant by magic spell." Thus this beast was properly named Nachash in view of the meaning of that name and because of what he was able to accomplish in deceiving our first parents. Again, Dr. Clarke puts it well: "Satan made use of this creature as the most proper instrument for the accomplishment of his murderous purposes against the life and soul of man. Under this creature he lay hid, and by this creature he seduced our first parents, and drew off and slunk away from every eye but the eye of God."

Dr. Clarke combats the idea that the tempter of Eve was of the serpent species when he maintains that "none of them ever did or ever can walk erect." Nor has one of them ever been able to speak, for they are totally without vocal cords. They can hiss, but they could not, nor can they now talk ‑ so much for evolution. The very name "serpent" comes from serpo, which means "to crawl."

For that class of reptiles, "it would be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies...They have no organs for speech, or any kind of articulate sound; they can only hiss."

In his summarization of the results of his research, Dr. Clarke listed many salient points to consider: "In this account we find:

1). That whatever this nachash was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding.

2). That he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied in his punishment ‑ 'on thy belly [i.e., on all fours] shalt thou go.'

4). That he was also endued with the gift of reason, thus he was able to ask Eve "hath God said?"

5). That these things were common to this creature, the woman no doubt having often seen him walk erect, talk and reason, and therefore she testifies to no kind of surprise when he accosts her in the language related in the text..."

Can you imagine for one moment that if a real "serpent" or "ape" had suddenly come upon Eve with the ability to walk and talk, she would have stayed there and had a conversation with it. Not on your life, she would have run screaming for Adam to protect her from them.

According to the first verse of the third chapter of Genesis, Nachash posed a challenging question to Eve: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" It is obvious that there was much more than this to the discussion between Nachash and Eve. Moreover, it is an undoubted fact that there is a mingling of that which is literal and that which is symbolical in what is recorded. The Bible is cryptically brief, and purposely so, in its delineation of all that occurred that day in the Garden.

It is a remarkable fact of Scriptural unfoldment that the meaning is often concealed rather than revealed by the translator's choice of English words, as well as by the arrangement of Scriptural passages, until the set time arrives when the whole truth is to be made plain. This is demonstrated again and again in the prophetic portions of the Bible, just as it is so at this very instant in time.

Eve reiterated what Nachash already knew, that she and Adam had been invited to partake of the trees in the Garden with one exception, the tree of knowledge of good and evil [That this was not a literal tree is beyond doubt, because there are no known trees that imparts knowledge, just from eating its fruit!]. The actual Divine command to Adam and Eve was: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [Margin: dying thou shalt die]."

Here many will exclaim that the Bible says: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." [72]

And will claim that Adam certainly lived more than one day after he ate of the forbidden fruit. However, they do not take into consideration that the Scriptures also say: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." [73]

Therefore Adam did live less than one day, after he ate the forbidden fruit, in the eyes of God! Nachash was well informed about this commandment, but he said to the woman: "Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." [74]

It is not advisable to read into the account what is not recorded there, but it is important to reflect upon the fact that among the sinister meanings of the Hebrew word nachash there is this signification: "to acquire knowledge by experience."

However, this is a soul‑destroying idea if the thoughts conceived in the mind are evil. Nachash was intelligent enough to know that the consequences would be disastrous if Eve could be induced to disobey the Divine injunction. Therefore, he suggested: "Why don't you touch?" "Why don't you experience?" On her part, Eve was intrigued with the idea of becoming wise and she succumbed to the persuasion of Nachash.

The Biblical statement is: "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked..." [75]

The dormant physical nature of both Adam and Eve were awakened when they deliberately partook of forbidden knowledge, "the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew." They were mentally aroused to know not only good, but evil, and for them at that juncture, this was knowledge taken out of due time.

They were without spiritual fortification against the pernicious outcome of the possession of carnal knowledge because their action together was in flagrant disobedience to the emphatic command of God. The consequences to the entire human creation were incomprehensible to Adam and Eve, but later estimations of the tragedy in the Garden of Eden in the day that Adam and Eve sinned recognize the incalculable harm done.

From the moment that Adam and Eve fell, all mankind came under a curse and Baruch speaks of "Adam's transgressions," defining its scope: "For owing to his transgression, untimely death came into being, and grief was named and anguish was prepared, and pain was created, and trouble perfected, and boasting began to be established, and Sheol demanded that it should be renewed in blood, and the begetting of children was brought about, and the passion of parents produced, and the greatness of humanity was humiliated, and goodness languished." [76]

Satan had made a willing tool of Nachash in his diabolical scheme to corrupt mankind. That Nachash was morally accountable for allowing himself to be used is made very clear by the judgment pronounced upon him. The judgment of Nachash is named first, for he was the one responsible for tempting Eve: "And the Lord God said unto the serpent [i.e., Nachash], Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." [77]

Thereafter, he was no longer able to walk upright. The curse was directed against this one creature, and against him alone, for he was to be "cursed above every beast of the field." He was reduced from an upright posture to a condition lower than that of cattle or any other beast of the field, going upon all fours and compelled to eat his food in the dust of the earth.

The judgment upon Eve followed and was indicative of the place in which women would find themselves in the generations of the human race to follow: "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." [78]

If the original sin was not sexual intercourse with Nachash and Eve, and Adam with a female beast, then Why:

2). would God greatly multiply the sorrow when the woman experienced conception?

4). would God make the woman's desire to thy husband, if it was not to reduce the chances for her being seduced by another?

Following this Adam was sentenced by God to an entirely different way of life than he enjoyed in the Garden of Eden: "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it was thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." [79]

To prove that having sex is the same as eating we present the following Scripture: "Such is the way of an adulterous woman; She eatheth, and wipeth her mouth." [80]

Moffatt renders this passage: "This is the way of an adulteress: she gratifies her appetite [sexual desires] and calmly says, 'No harm!'"

Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. Something can be done about it. If we quit passing the buck and saying 'THEY' should do something about it, and start saying I must do something about it, then we CAN, with the help of Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ do something about it!

This, then, is the purpose of the foregoing comparison between the bodily structures of the White and the Negro. It is not to degrade the one and elevate the other. Not at all. It is to show that the gulf of dissimilarities is far too wide and too deep to give credence to the idea that the black may be considered equal to the white, or that they may integrate, and eventually amalgamate. Which would eventually lead to the annihilation of both races; the ultimate desire of the mixers. Who in that way hope to dominate all humankind for all time to come. And it is to prove that both races do not have the same origin.

This, then, is the Negro's raison d'etre; that is, his justification for existence. When we turn to the Bible for knowledge and instruction, we are informed that the "beasts of the earth and field" were created among the lower "kinds of flesh" to fill their place in the Divine plan where they would be most needed. They were given erect posture, well‑developed hands and feet, articulate speech; withal, tool‑ making and tool‑handling bipeds (two‑footed beasts) ‑ possessing the essential characteristics to fit them for their position as servants.

Each division in God's creation is designed for a specific purpose and reaches its highest fulfillment when it brings itself into full compliance with the Divine will.

The White Race was and eventually is to be ‑ A servant race to Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 41:8: But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

Isaiah 44:1‑2: Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Jeremiah 30:10: Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, saith the Lord; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.

Jeremiah 46:27‑28: But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, and be not dismayed, O Israel: for, behold, I will save thee from afar off, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be in rest and at ease, and none shall make him afraid. Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the Lord: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished.

Ezekiel 28:25: Thus saith the Lord God; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.

One last thought to prove from the scriptures that the trees in the Garden f God - The Garden of Eden were people.

Our people have been taught for over 100 years that Adam and Eve ate an apple or some sort of fruit from the tree of good and evil which was in the midst of the Garden of Eden. That Adam and Eve were the father and mother of all the various races, yet the Bible proves they are lying through their teeth.

It is very possible that many of them believe that story themselves, because that was what they were taught; however there are a very large number of Judeo‑Christian Preachers today who know that is false, but will not teach the truth because they are wolves in sheeps' clothing, teaching that Christ is Christ but are working secretly to destroy the Word of God; to destroy the knowledge of Christ, Christianity from the people and to destroy Christians at some future date, under laws which have been secretly passed which will allow The Execution of Christians in America! Laws such as Public Law 102‑14.

But the truth of the matter is that the trees spoken of in the Garden of Eden were PEOPLE! not trees such as the Pear, Apple, Orange, Pecan and etc. They were people. Right about now you are thinking; "All right smart aliec prove it." So we will attempt to do so. Although we do so with the full knowledge that no one can be convinced of anything if they do not wish to accept facts when they are given. For example, there was a man in Dallas about 25 years ago who said he would give anyone $1‑million dollars if they could prove to him that the moon was not made out of green cheese. Well many tried, they took him books, papers, pictures and even some rocks that came from the surface of the moon; but no one could ever convince him that the moon was not made of green cheese because he would not accept anything they presented. So he never had to pay the $1‑million to anyone. Please turn with us to the book of Ezekiel; to chapter 31 where we read: "And it came to pass...that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar (a tree) in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees (people) of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees (people) of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. 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 (countries). Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches; for his foot was by great waters. (Now we change and go to the Garden of Eden) The cedars (people) in the Garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees (people) were not like his boughs (See the comparison, thus we know that there were other people there to compare with him), and the chestnut trees (their children ‑ or people) were not like his branches (his children ‑ or people); nor any tree in the Garden of God was like unto him in his beauty (See we know the trees in the Garden were people because they were not like the Assyrian in beauty ‑ because they were of a different color, they were not White. That is not racist it is simply a fact, even if you don't like it. For God has never cared what we like or don't like when He speaks, we either accept it or reject it to our hurt). I have made him fair (White) by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees (people) of Eden; that were in the Garden of God, envied him (trees cannot envy each other, only people can do that). Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Because thou hast lifted up thyself in height, and he hath shot up his top among the thick boughs, and his heart (trees do not have hearts) lifted up in his height; I have therefore delivered him (Now God is speaking of Adam) into the hand of the mighty one of the heathen: he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out (Driven Adam out of the Garden of Eden, because of his disobedience to Almighty God) for his wickedness. And strangers (people of other races), the terrible of the nations, have cut him off and have left him: upon the mountains and in all the valleys his branches (See he is again comparing him with a tree) are fallen by all the rivers of the land; and all the people of the earth are gone down from his shadow, and have left him (Here is were the departing of the various races left the Garden of God ‑ The Garden of Eden and were scattered all across the earth, away from Adam and his people. Thus God segregated the races from each other, so they could not mix; which is against God's Law of Kind after Kind). Upon his ruin shall all the fowls of the heaven remain, and all the beasts of the field shall be upon his branches (Here God is saying that Adam's children would always be attracted to the black race ‑ The Beast of the Earth); To the end that none of all the trees by the waters exalt themselves for their height, neither shoot up their top among the thick boughs, neither their trees stand up in their height, all that drink water: for they are all delivered unto death (All mankind will die because of Adam's sin), to the nether parts of the earth (In other words all people everywhere, no matter what race would die in their time), in the midst of the children of men, with them that go down to the pit (grave). Thus saith the Lord God; In the day when he (Adam) went down to the grave (pit) I caused a mourning: I covered the deep for him, and I restrained the floods thereof, and the great waters were stayed: and I caused Lebanon to mourn for him, and all the trees (people) of the field fainted (Here again trees do not faint, only people do that) for him. I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall (When Adam fell all the various races and nations on earth knew of his fall and shook with fear and sadness), when I cast him down to hell (the grave) with them that descend into the pit; and all the trees of Eden (people), the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, shall be comforted (Here again trees cannot be comforted) in the neither parts of the earth. They also went down into hell (the grave) with him unto them that be slain with the sword (In other words everyone will die and go to the grave); and they that were his arm, that dwelt under his shadow in the midst of the heathen (Here we are told that the trees of the Garden were people of other races, other than Adam who was a White Man, like it or not, love it or not). To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness among the trees (people) of Eden? yet shalt thou be brought down with the trees (people) of Eden unto the nether parts of the earth; thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword. (Now God goes back to Pharaoh whom He is comparing Adam and the Assyrians with) This is Pharaoh and all his multitude, saith the Lord God." [81]

We know that the Pharaoh did not go into the Garden of Eden, because there were no such thing as Pharaoh until about a thousand years later.

Other places in Scriptures where men are described as trees are as follows: Leviticus 26:4, 20; Deuteronomy 28:40, 42; Judges 9:8‑15; 1 Kings 4:33; 2 King 3:25; 1 Chronicles 16:33; Psalm 96:2; Isaiah 7:2; 10:18; 14:8; 55:12; 61:3; Ezekiel 17:24; 31; Hosea 2:12; Joel 1:12; Zechariah 1:8; 4:4‑12; Matthew 3:10; 8:24; Luke 3:9; 21:29; Jude 11:12; Revelation 7:3; 11:4. There are others but they are hard to dig out and takes much study to see that the trees, vines and etc., are indeed people.

The seventh proposition was that this being is not a nation and never has had a civilization of his own. That the Negro in God’s wise plan was created for the purpose of serving appears evident in the light of the fact that no Negro civilization, as such, has ever existed, in spite of the efforts by Blacks and Liberals to prove otherwise. All races of mankind have had their civilizations. The Chinese, the East Indian, the Arab, the Ethiopian, the American Indian; all of these had their own civilization, some highly developed, but in spite of all efforts to prove otherwise, the Negro has never had a civilization as such. His native home, given to him by God is Africa.

In his native state he plowed no fields, harnessed no oxen, developed no government, polished no gems, extracted no oil from the ground, and carried on no united projects with other tribes. Today, in areas where he has been untouched by White civilization, he lives the same as he has for the last 6,000 years, with no knowledge of the wheel, or the ability to start a fire. The only civilization Blacks have enjoyed, have been those in association with other of earth’s nations, primarily Whites. Thus, it will continue until the day when in the Kingdom of God, the Black will be raised from his present status, to the place of service God intended for him to have.

This subject is not as complex as it is vast and because of this vastness and the abundance of evidence available, we must confine ourselves to only a few questions, which will come to the minds of those of you who read this article, especially if you come from one of the Judeo-Christian churches, which teach that all mankind came from Adam and Eve. If you are honest in your desire to know the truth, it can be found, as usual, in a close study of the bible (It will not come by going to your Judeo-Christian pastor and asking him for an explanation. For he will give you the answer he was taught to give; one that is politically correct.

Thus, in dealing with the question of races, which is of paramount importance today, the above proves:

[1] Deut. 17:15.

[2] Gen. 1:26.

[3] Gen. 1:31.

[4] 2 Peter 2:4.

[5] Jude 6.

[6] Gen. 6:1‑2.

[7] Isa. 43:10.

[8] See Psalm 91:11‑12.

[9] Gen. 1:26.

[10] Deut. 17:15.

[11] Rev. 4:9‑10.

[12] Gen. 9:2.

[13] Gen. 9:5‑6.

[14] Gen. 1:28‑30.

[15] Gen. 1:30.

[16] Gen. 9:9‑10.

[17] Jasher 5:30.

[18] Jasher 6:1.

[19] Jasher 6:2.

[20] Jasher 6:3.

[21] Jasher 6:9.

[22] Jasher 6:25.

[23] Exo. 9:1‑3.

[24] Exo. 9:8‑9.

[25] Eze. 29:11.

[26] Exo. 19:12‑13.

[27] Exo. 23:10‑11.

[28] Lev. 18:27.

[29] Lev. 19:2.

[30] Lev. 18:23.

[31] Deut. 7:22.

[32] 1 Sam. 17:42‑44.

[33] Deut. 23:2.

[34] 2 Sam. 21:10.

[35] Jer. 27:6.

[36] Jer. 51:60‑62.

[37] Dan. 4:25.

[38] Dan. 4:36.

[39] Dan. 4:37.

[40] Gen. 1:24‑25.

[41] 1 Cor. 14:40.

[42] 1 Cor. 15:39.

[43] After Its Kind, by Byron C. Nelson, p. 2.

[44] Great Pyramid Proof of God, pp. 154‑155.

[45] The Bible and Segregation, pp. 16‑17.

[46] Hammond's Library World Atlas 1955.

[47] Gen. 1:28‑30.

[48] 1 Cor. 15:39.

[49] Jonah 3:7.

[50] Jonah 3:8‑9.

[51] Lev. 17:11, 14.

[52] 1 Cor. 15:39.

[53] Source: Blood Transfusion in Clinical Medicine Blockwell Scientific Publications Table 5.3, p. 161.

[54] Lev. 17:11, 14.

[55] Deut. 12:23.

[56] Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion. Evolution Protest Movement Pamphlet No. 74, 1957.

[57] Rom. 8:22.

[58] Gen. 1:1.

[59] Gen. 1:11.

[60] Gen. 1:20.

[61] Gen. 1:24.

[62] Gen. 2:7.

[63] Gen. 1:26‑27.

[64] Psalm 8:5.

[65] 2 Cor. 6:17‑18.

[66] Gen. 2:18.

[67] Gen. 2:19‑20.

[68] Gen. 2:21‑23.

[69] Gen. 2:24.

[70] Gen. 3:1.

[71] Gen. 3:1.

[72] Gen. 5:5.

[73] 2 Peter 3:8.

[74] Gen. 3:4‑5.

[75] Gen. 3:6‑7.

[76] The Apocalypse of Baruch 56:6.

[77] Gen. 3:14.

[78] Gen. 3:16.

[79] Gen. 3:17‑19.

[80] Proverbs 30:20.

[81] Ezekiel 31.