What Was [read: is] a "Mamzer"?

Scriber's Dictionary of the Bible takes the position that mamzer "means a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child" (Vol. 1, 1923, p. 257).

So what did the Hebrew word mamzer mean? Scholarship offers us three choices: a person born of adultery, a person born of incest, or a person born of a forbidden or mixed marriage. Unfortunately for our inerrantist friends, we can give them their choice of definitions and it won't matter, because all of the definitions pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. Elsewhere in this issue, my article "More Trouble for the Perfect-Harmony Theory" shows serious inconsistency between the biblical claim that God doesn't show partiality to individuals and several passages that indicate he did on various occasions show partiality. As an example of partiality, I noted the very passage that we are now discussing--Deuteronomy 23:2. If an individual were banned from the assembly because of a circumstance of birth, it really wouldn't matter whether the person being banned had been born of adultery, incest, or a "forbidden (mixed) marriage." Any one of these reasons would make Yahweh guilty of showing partiality, because people simply cannot help the circumstances of their birth. If they are born of adultery, incest, or mixed marriages, there is nothing they can do about it. So what business does an infinitely impartial god have banning people from his assembly because of circumstances related to birth? This is something inerrantists need to explain before any other problems related to Deuteronomy 23:2 are even considered.

Claiming that God doesn't show partiality is a straw man argument, because the Holy Bible is the story about a VERY partial, judgmental, and dangerous God, one who made a "racist" everlasting covenant with only ONE race, the genetic descendants of Jacob.  God has no obligation to treat mamzers favorably, even if mamzers don't have any control over the interracial marriages of their ancestors, and in fact God treats them with utter contempt, just as He should.

Something else they should try to explain is why an omniscient, omnipotent deity would choose to reveal his divine truths to mankind in an "inspired" book that no one can be sure of understanding. What does mamzer mean? If the meaning of the word is indeed obscure, this would be just the tip of an iceberg of linguistic confusion that one will encounter in studying the Bible. One may as well ask what was meant in Leviticus 6:21 or 1 Samuel 13:21 or Jeremiah 11:15 or Proverbs 22:20. These are just some of many Old Testament passages where detailed reference Bibles append footnotes to explain that some words in the Hebrew text are too obscure for translators to be sure of the meaning. In countless other cases, even when literal word-meanings are known, the language of the Bible is so vaguely and abstractly written that no one can be sure what the writers meant. Consider, for example, this statement from the prophet Ezekiel:

Then I looked , and behold, a whirlwind was coming out of the north, a great cloud with raging fire engulfing itself; and brightness was all around it and radiating out of its midst like the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also from within it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had the likeness of a man. Each one had four faces, and each one had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the soles of calves' feet. They sparkled like the color of burnished bronze. The hands of a man were under their wings on their four sides; and each of the four had faces and wings. Their wings touched one another. The creatures did not turn when they went, but each one went straight forward... (1:4-9).

This vision of the four living creatures goes on for three chapters--in fact, it's questionable where this vision ended and the next one began--and no one really knows what any of it meant. Such stuff as this has provided an endless supply of sermon fodder for preachers on cable TV who think they see signs of the end in current events--and no two ever see exactly the same thing.

This is another straw man argument, because Farrell doesn't even know what God's original charges, commandments, statutes, and laws were, the ones that encouraged God to make an everlasting covenant with Abraham through Jacob.  The problem isn't God, and the problem isn't God's words--the problem is mamzers and jews who couldn't possibly comprehend what hundreds of millions of descendants of Jacob DID understand for thousands of years, and critics who will forever fail to grasp the limitations of their insight.

In reading such passages as this, one wonders what the writers were smoking or drinking when they wrote them, and we have every right to ask if this is the best job of verbal inspiration that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could do. Whoever wrote Deuteronomy 23:2 had to mean something by the words he used, so if he were truly inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why couldn't he have said what he meant in terms so clear that no one could have misunderstood him?

The Scripture appears confising only because it was written in such a way that the only people who can understand it are Israelites of the House of Israel, and not mamzers like jews, or "errancy advocates".

The problems of divine partiality and obscurity in an inspired text aside, the statement in Deuteronomy 23:2 is incompatible with the biblical inerrancy claim regardless of which of the three previously mentioned meanings is given to the word mamzer. If the writer meant bastard in the sense of someone born of an adulterous relationship, then unquestionably, the appointment of Aaron's sons to the priesthood was inconsistent with Yahweh's decree that "bastards" would be banned from the assembly "even unto ten generations." That point has already been established, so there is no need to rehash it.

The point here is that mamzers would only be the offspring of an "adulterous relationship" if critics like Farrell knew that adultery actually means race mixing.  Since he probably doesn't, his reference to adultery is most likely to a child conceived during an extramarital affair between two parents of the same race, in which case he is correct:  this would make them a bastard and not a mamzer.

To claim that a mamzer was the offspring of an incestuous relationship will not remove the problem with respect to Aaron's sons, because Perez, the great-great-grandfather of Aaron's wife Elisheba, was, according to Jewish [sic] law, born of an incestuous relationship. Tamar, the mother of Perez, was the daughter-in-law of Judah, the father of Perez, and Leviticus 20:12 specifically prohibited "lying" with one's daughter-in-law, as did also Leviticus 18:15. So if Perez was not a mamzer in the sense of mere illegitimacy, he was a mamzer in the sense of having been born of an incestuous relationship.

Fortunately for humanity, Farrell just tripped over the evidence that Scriber's Dictionary of the Bible's definition that a mamzer is "a child of incest, not simply an illegitimate child" is wrong, not that the Holy Bible is in error.  The simple fact that Perez was born in incest but was still permitted to remain in the congregation of the LORD is proof enough that he was not considered to be a mamzer, ruling out the possibility that a child born of incest is a mamzer.

Inerrantists can't take refuge in the third definition of mamzer either, for if the offspring of mixed marriages was what the writer meant in Deuteronomy 23:2, the problem of inconsistency will merely shift from Aaron's sons to David, the Israelite king who was a man after Yahweh's own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). Ruth, David's great-grandmother, was a Moabitess (Ruth 4:13-22), so if a mamzer was the offspring of a mixed marriage, then David's grandfather Obed was a mamzer, and David, only the second-generation descendant of a mamzer should have been banned from the assembly. Obviously, though, David wasn't banned from the assembly, because the last seven chapters of 1 Chronicles describes activities in the assembly in which David participated.

Again, fortunately for humanity, we know that Ruth WAS an Israelite living in Moab whose inhabitants had been "totally destroyed" centuries before, meaning that the only Moabites at the time of Ruth were Israelites living in Moab.

Fortunately, also, this is the final piece of evidence that the ONLY offspring who is a mamzer who cannot eneter the congregation of the LORD even to the tenth generation is one born of an interracial marriage, and not one born of unmarried parents or incest.

Furthermore, if a mamzer was indeed the offspring of a mixed marriage, then David's parentage was a double problem for him. Not only would the restriction on descendants of mamzers have disqualified him from entering the assembly, but the same passage specified that Moabites and their descendants "shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation" (Dt. 23:3). So poor David would have had a double whammy pronounced on him. However, the fact that neither of these restrictions was applied to David simply shows how inconsistent the biblical text is.

Checkmate.  David was a pure Israelite, just as God's Law commanded that he must be, and mamzers are ONLY the offspring of interracial marriages just as we suspected.

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for inerrantists. They dig and dig to try to get out of the hole they are in only to find themselves in a deeper one after they have presented all of their how-it-could-have-been scenarios.

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for errantists. They dig and dig to try to get out of the hole they are in only to find themselves in a deeper one after they have presented all of their how-it-could-have-been scenarios.

Hmm, is there an echo in the house?

http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/mamzir.html

Mamzir and 'Mongrel' in the Bible

We may begin to answer this question concerning mongrels by examining the occurrence of allogenes in Zechariah 9:6 (LXX):

"And those of another race will dwell in Azotus, and I will bring down the pride of the Philistines."

What is important to note about this verse is that here the word allogenes was translated for the Hebrew word mamzir, which is defined by Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary as "a mongrel."1 0 Now this definition is not at all considered controversial; it is confirmed by numerous Hebrew authorities. Some popular translations even translate it correctly - at least here in Zechariah. For example, the New Revised Standard Version translates this verse in Zechariah:

"A mongrel people shall settle in Ashdod, and I will make an end of the pride of Philistia."

So we see that this is a commonly accepted definition for the word mamzir. Yet the same Bible translation translates the word differently in its only other occurrence in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 23:2-3 reads in the NRSV:

"Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord."

Here they have translated mamzir as those born of an illicit union while in Zechariah they translated it a mongrel people. Why? Because if they had been honest and translated the word correctly here then their Bible probably would not have been printed by the Zionistic and Talmudic Jew-controlled printing-presses and the Jew-controlled National Council of Churches as well as humanistic coalitions of homosexuals and antichrists, who would have attacked their translation and no one would have bought it. So they simply lied. But we note that these mamzir people are illustrated by the Ammonites and Moabites. Were all of these people the product of an illicit union? Yes, if we are talking about a union between a white and a non-white.

If you go and ask a Judeo preacher what this passage means, he will tell you one of three things other than the truth.

First, he will tell you that mamzir is reference to one born of an incestuous relationship.

Secondly, he will tell you that mamzir is in reference to someone born out of wedlock.

Thirdly, he will tell you that mamzir is in reference to someone born of a prostitute.

The truth of course is that it is in reference to a mongrel, and we have already seen numerous examples in the Bible where a mongrel certainly cannot enter into the Body Politic. We should also note that this passage in Deuteronomy goes on to say that they are not allowed to enter "forever." We should also note that in the Septuagint, the Greek word commonly translated as congregation in this passage is the same Greek word used in the New Testament for Church or Body Politic, that is the Greek word ekklesia.

So we have four possibilities: the three given above and the true definition of mamzir, a mongrel. The easiest choice obviously is just to believe the lexicographers and accept the fact that the word means a mongrel, but we will also rule out the other three absurdities for the sake of the poor soul teetering on the fence of decision and belief and for the sake of Christ's truth. If we can find a Biblical example of someone who certainly did enter into the Body Politic but who fit the criteria of one of the three possibilities, then we can eliminate that as a possibility.

Thus, the first lie is that mamzir is in reference to an incestuous relationship. Leviticus 20:12 and Leviticus 18:15 both define as incest a father lying with his daughter-in-law. But this was the case with Tamar and Judah. Tamar was Judah's daughter-in-law, but she had sex with him and bore Perez. Aaron's sons were the great-great-great-grandchildren of Perez, so this is removed as a possible definition of mamzir.

Next, we have someone born out of wedlock and we also have someone born of a prostitute or harlot. We will deal with both of these together since there is a perfect example of both in one person. That person is Jephthah. Jephthah is mentioned in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:32 where he is listed as one of the heroes of Israel (AST):

"And what more may I say? For the times will fail me telling about Gideon, Barak, and both Samson and Jephthah, and both David and Samuel, and the prophets, who through persuasion overcame governments, worked out justification, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edges of the sword, acquired power from weakness, became strong in war, made armies of other races to yield."

Jephthah was an Israelite hero who saved the Israelites from the Ammonites; thus he was one who made the armies of other races to yield. Of course so was Gideon, who crushed the mongrel Midianites and Amalekites, and Barak, who helped Sisera kill the mongrel Canaanites, and Samson, who single-handedly killed thousands of mongrel Philistines, and King David, who led the children of Israel in war against the mongrel Philistines, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Canaanites, and, of course, Samuel, who slaughtered thousands of mongrel Philistines. But we also learn something very important about Jephthah in Judges 11:1-2 (LXX):

"And Jephthah the Galaadite was a mighty man: and he was the son of a whore, who bore Jephthah to Galaad. And the wife of Galaad bore him sons: and the sons of his wife grew up, and they cast out Jephthah, and said to him, You shall not inherit in the house of our father, for you are the son of a harlot woman."

So we see that Jephthah was both the son of a whore and the product of an extra-marital relationship, yet he is listed in the Book of Hebrews as one of the great men of Israel because he saved Israel from the mongrel Ammonites. These Ammonites are the same people given as an example of a mamzir in Deuteronomy 23:3. It was these Ammonites who were not allowed to enter, not Jephthah, even though he was the son of a whore and an extra-marital relationship. In fact, according to the modern Judeo, Judaized definition of adultery, Jephthah was born of an adulterous relationship. Which brings us to Wisdom 3:16 and 19 (LXX), which reads in Brenton's poor translation:

"As for the children of adulterers, they shall not come to their perfection, and the seed of an unrighteous bed shall be rooted out...for horrible is the end of the unrighteous generation."

And in a better translation of this same verse:

"Children of mongrelizers will not be perfect and the seed of an illegal bed shall disappear ... for horrible is the end of the illegal race."

According to the Judeo definition of adultery, Jephthah should have never reached perfection and should have been rooted out. But according to the actual and true definition of adultery, as shown in the better translation, it is in fact the mamzir and the mongrel Moabites and Ammonites and all of the other mongrel nations that the children of Israel were commanded to eradicate and to never make peace with that are to be rooted out. This verse is saying the same thing that Malachi 4:1 said earlier:

"For, behold, a day comes burning as an oven, and it shall consume them: and all those of another race, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, says the Master Almighty, and there shall not be left of them root or branch."

So this is more contextual proof that the family of words commonly translated adultery must be in reference to mongrelization and not extra-marital sex. Now this example of Jephthah and of other Israelites in the Bible is so iron-clad that only two possibilities exist. The first of these possibilities is that the Bible really does prohibit race-mixing or mongrelization, and that the Sixth Commandment really is a prohibition against race- mixing. The only other possibility is that the Bible contradicts itself. In fact, atheists have long used Deuteronomy 23:2 and its prohibition of mamzir ever entering the Body Politic and then the example of Jephthah and other Israelites with a similar genealogy to argue that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. But this Jewish argument only works if it is assumed that mamzir means either an illegitimate child, a product of incest, or the son of a whore. The argument does not work if we simply believe the definition given by James Strong's Concordance for the word mamzir and accept the fact that the Bible prohibits any
mongrel from ever entering into the Body Politic of the Lord. You either believe that clear, self-evident, and well-supported truth or you believe that the Bible is contradictory and you call God a liar. Let us recall Revelation 21:8 (AST):

"But for the cowardly and nonpersuaded, and those having become abominable, and murderers, and whores, and pharmakeia promoters, and idolaters, and all the liars, their part is in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Not all translations have been dishonest in the fashion of the New Revised Standard Version, translating the word mamzir correctly on one hand and then being dishonest on the other. In fact, the revised Luther Bible has rendered both Zechariah 9:6 and Deuteronomy 23:2 accurately. In both of these verses, the Hebrew word mamzir has been translated with the German word 'Mischling', which means "half-breed, mongrel, hybrid."1 1 This is the only thing that this German word can mean, so the revised Luther Bible, the most popular Bible in Germany, stands as proof of the accurate translation of Deuteronomy 23:2-3 from the Hebrew:

"A mongrel shall not enter into the Body Politic of the Master, even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the Body Politic of the Master. An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the Body Politic of the Master; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the Body Politic of the Master, forever."

With all of this clear evidence as to the true meaning of the Hebrew word mamzir, we should recall once again that both Francis Gouldman's A Copious Dictionary (1674) and Thomas Holyoke's A Large Dictionary (1677) state that mamzir and the Greek word moichikos are synonymous, and the word moichikos, the adjective form of moichos, is usually translated adulterous but should be translated as mongrel, again further establishing the fact that the Sixth Commandment is a prohibition of race-mixing or mongrelization. The Commandment and the entire Old Testament is of a racial nature, and this was how the Septuagint was understood in the first century not just by the New Testament writers but by other contemporaries such as Josephus (who was both a general and a priest). For instance, let us examine Josephus's Contra Apion 1:7 in the translation of Thackeray:

"Not only did our ancestors in the first instance set over this business men of the highest character, devoted to the service of God, but they took precautions to ensure that the priest's lineage should be kept unadulterated and pure. A member of the priestly order must, to beget a family, marry a woman of his own race, without regard to her wealth or other distinctions; but he must investigate her pedigree, obtaining the genealogy from the archives and producing a number of witnesses. And this practice of ours is not confined to the home country of Judea, but where there is a Jewish [Judean] colony, there too a strict account is kept by the priests of their marriages; ... A statement is drawn up by them and sent to Jerusalem, showing the names of the bride and her father and more remote ancestors, together with the names of the witnesses ... they also pass scrutiny upon the remaining women, and disallow marriage with any who have been taken captive, suspecting them of having had frequent intercourse with foreigners."

This passage regarding the Israelite practice of ensuring pure marriages could be no clearer. The words unadulterated and pure are translated unmixed and pure by Whiston, but either way we see that the issue is one of race. It says that the Israelite is to marry "a woman of his own race"; it does not say a woman of the same tribe, nation, faith, religion, culture or any other arbitrary distinction that Judeo preachers invent to explain the restrictive marriage laws of the Old Testament. No, it very clearly says race, and it even says that it is to be without regard "to other distinctions," though of course an Israelite would naturally seek to marry someone who was a fellow Hebrew believer. But lying mongrel Jews and Judeos are insistent that the marriage customs of the Israelites only concerned faith or religion, not race. But if this were true, why would it be necessary to investigate the genealogy of the prospective bride? What difference would it make if the woman had had sex with foreigners? Obviously none of these things would be important; rather, all the bride would have to do would be to convert and become a proselyte. But Josephus here explains the intent of Leviticus 21:13 (LXX), which reads:

"He will take for himself a virgin woman of his own race."

Again, the issue is race; not nationality, not tribe. This brings us to a discussion of the primary word for mongrel, that is, the Greek word nothos.

10 This word may be found in the Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary under the reference number 4464.
11 World-Wide German Dictionary.

http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/sixth.html

The Sixth Commandment

In Exodus 20:13 (LXX), we find the sixth commandment1, a commandment we find repeated in the New Testament in Romans 13:9 and elsewhere (cf. Matthew 5:27, Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19, Jacob (James) 2:11, et al.). So we immediately notice that this commandment is explicitly stated in both the Old and New Testaments. The reason is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). With God, there is no variance or shadow of turning (Jacob 1:17). Obviously, this sixth commandment is very important. In most translations of the Bible, Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are translated: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: "You will not mongrelize."

In many people's minds, there is a very great difference between these two translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou moicheuseis.

In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans 13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo.

The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles, translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo and the Latin word adultero.

First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held in high-esteem by the scholarly community.

Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: "of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races."2 This, of course, is the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation You will not mongrelize is correct.

So now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford Latin Dictionary: "To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change . . . to corrupt, debase." Once again, when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek.

Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against race-mixing.

To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than enough to convince him that the Bible clearly and explicitly prohibits race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars would agree with these definitions; any one who would disagree with these definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.

Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.

To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred. That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie.

1 This is the Sixth Commandment in the Greek Septuagint, but in the antichrist Jew-corrupted, Hebrew, Masoretic Text it is the Seventh Commandment. For more information on the Masoretic Text, please see the last section of this book, 'The Errancy of the Masoretic Text and the KJV', as well as The History of the Bible by V.S. Herrell and The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text by David C. Tate. |

2 In the German original, Theologisches W�rterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: "auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen."

http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/adult%26lexic.html

Adultery and the Lexicons

With this understanding of the tactics of deception employed in our lexicons, we are now prepared to examine the lexical evidence of the Greek and Latin words associated with the common English translation adultery. We will look first at the Greek evidence.

Any Greek word which contains the prefix moich- belongs to the family of words usually translated adultery. When we look these words up in most any Greek lexicon, all we usually find are definitions which contain the English word adultery. What follows are a few important exceptions with comments.

LSJ (1940), for the verb moichao: "falsify." This definition is supplied by LSJ to help ease the translation of the innumerable Greek passages which cannot in any way be talking about marital infidelity, some of which we will look at later. To falsify something carries the connotation of adulteration or debasement or change.

A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the verb moichaomai: "adulterate." Here Lampe, whose lexicon is entirely concerned with early Christian literature written in Greek, also has to admit that this Greek family of words carried the connotation of adulteration and debasement. When we look up moichao in Griechisches Etymologisches W�rterbuch, a Greek-German Lexicon by Hjalmar Frisk (1973), he defines the word with the German "verf�lschen," which means to adulterate. Adulteration is the process of adding something to something else and debasing it or mingling things together. When we are talking about people being adulterated in the physical sense, we can only be talking about race-mixing or at the very least mingling family lines together and causing confusion in the family regarding issues of paternity. In fact, in my book The Truth Unveiled, the overall definition which is assigned this family of words is, first, to mongrelize or to mix or mingle races, and secondly, to mix or mingle and therefore corrupt seedlines. As we shall see later, however, the idea of mixing or mingling is paramount to truly understanding the definitions and etymology of this moich- family of words. In this definition by Lampe, we see very clearly that early patristic writers understood that this family of words was used for adulteration or mingling.

A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the adjective moichozeuktikos: "of or relating to an adulterous marriage." Again, we see that some of the early Patristic writers spoke of adulterous marriages. The obvious question is, If adultery involves extra-marital sex, then how can a marriage itself be adulterous? Obviously, the emphasis is upon seedline corruption and mingling, and all throughout Greek literature, we find that very often being married is not an issue when the moich- family of words is used.

A Comprehensive Lexicon by John Pickering (1847), for the noun moichidios: "bastard, spurious." This Greek word should correctly be translated as mongrel, and a true understanding of the English language reveals that when Pickering, in 1847, used the word bastard, he too meant a mongrel. This was a common understanding of the word in the mid-19th century and before, as we shall prove later. Pickering was not the only one, however, to understand that the word moichidios meant mongrel. In Lexicon Manuale by
Cornelius Schrevel (1796), the word moichidios is defined with the Latin word "adulterinus." According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, or OLD, adulterinus means: "adulterated, impure." Lewis and Short add: "not full-blooded." Leverett's Lexicon of the Latin Language: "begotten basely, not thorough-bred, not full-blooded, adulterated." Most importantly, however, A Large Dictionary by Thomas Holyoke (1672) states that adulterinus is equivalent (in the ancient translations and commentaries) to the Hebrew mamzir, which according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary means "a mongrel." This dictionary also states in the same definition that the Greek moichikos is equivalent to mamzir and also is equivalent to the Greek kibdelos which is defined by LSJ as: "adulterated, base." We will discuss Holyoke's definitions and the word kibdelos in more detail later, but what is important to notice here is that all of these lexical authorities agree that the Latin word adulterinus means "mongrel," and therefore the Greek word moichidios, universally defined by this Latin word, also means mongrel. Pickering's definition of bastard must be understood to have its mid-19th century meaning of mongrel.

In Lexicon: Anglo-Gr�co-Latinum Novi Testamenti by Andrew Symson (1658), under the entry "adulterer" for the Greek word moichos: "it maketh a confusion in families, through an illegitimate brood." This is very similar to the definition expressed in Latin in Critica Sacra by Edward Leigh (1662), who said of the Greek word moichos: "nam familias confundit illegitima sobole," which translated says, "for it mingles families with an illegal race." Both of these men understood that the Latin words with the root adulter-, which were used to define the moich- family of words in Greek-Latin lexicons meant to mix, mingle, etc. They are therefore here trying to explain how the idea of mixing or mingling relates to the idea of marital infidelity, and they have both defined the word very closely to the true concept behind this family of words - that of seedline corruption, both interracial and intraracial, and as we have said before, the idea of marriage is very often not an issue in ancient Greek literature where these words are used.

In A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by John Parkhurst (1769), under the definition for moichalis, we find this comment regarding Matthew 16:4: "Dr. Doddridge interprets [genea moichalis] 'a spurious race degenerated...'" In the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament, these two Greek words are translated "mongrel race," which is equivalent to Dr. Doddridge's translation, again understanding the archaic language of over 300 years ago. One reason that only a few lexicons actually use the English word mongrel for defining any Greek or Latin word is that the word mongrel was not commonly used 300-400 years ago. Since the lexicons are based upon one another, they preserve many of the archaic terms used in previous lexicons. So instead of saying mongrel, many lexicons use terms like bastard or spurious. The definitions of both of these words have subsequently changed, but that does not erase what men meant by these words when they were originally used several hundred years ago.

In any event, there is no doubt as to what Dr. Doddridge meant by the words a spurious race degenerated, and it is also clear that Dr. Doddridge, an honest scholar, understood the true definition of the moich- family of words.

Finally, we have the definition of Kittel already given for moicheuo: "of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races."

http://www.christianseparatist.org/sixth/nothos.html

Meaning Of Nothos

Although this Greek word occurs only once in the New Testament, its definition is still very important to our discussion of the Sixth Commandment. We have discussed its occurrence in Hebrews 12:8, and stated that in some Latin manuscripts, it was translated with the word adulterinus. So knowing what nothos means is important to understanding what the adult- family of words mean in Latin. We have also cited evidence where the Greek verb moicheusas is shown to be synonymous with notheusas, a verbal form of nothos. So knowing the true definition of nothos is important to understanding the true definition of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery. Thus, we shall examine this word in greater detail.12

Nothos is defined by LSJ as "bastard, baseborn, cross-bred." The verbal form notheuo is defined as "adulterate." G.W.H. Lampe, in his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, defines the word nothos as, "bastard, adulterated, cross-bred." So we see very quickly that any honest lexicon will serve to show the meaning of this word, especially when we realize that the common definition of the English word bastard, until recently, was, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, "a person of mixed breed."

We also recall that we have already stated that all of the lexical authorities state that the word nothos is the opposite of the Greek word gnesios, which is defined by LSJ and by Lampe as: "belonging to the race." This word is derived from genos, which means race. Donnegan's Lexicon defines the adjective gnesios as: "peculiar to a race, of pure race," and his primary definition of gnesiotes is: "purity of descent," while his primary definition of gnesios is: "purely descended." Thus, since nothos is the opposite of this family of words, it must mean mongrel or of mongrel descent.

The Greek word nothos was originally defined by the Latin word nothus in early Greek- Latin dictionaries, and this Latin word was of course used in its place in Latin translations or commentaries of Greek texts, including in the Vulgate. The Latin word nothus is defined by the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary as "of a mixed breed, mongrel." This same definition is also supplied by Leverett's Latin Dictionary. Thomas Holyoke's A Large Dictionary, as we have stated previously, says that this Greek word nothos and the Latin word nothus are synonymous with the Hebrew word mamzir and the Greek word moichikos, both of which we discussed above and both of which mean mongrel. Like the Hebrew word mamzir, we can turn to the German Luther Bible for an example of where the Greek word nothos has been translated accurately. In the original Luther Bible, the word nothos in Hebrews 12:8 was translated with the German word "Bastarde," which according to the English-Deutsches, Deutsch-Englisches W�rterbuch (1956) corresponds to the English word "mongrel" (cf. A Compendious German And English Dictionary). Like the English word "bastard" which before recent times clearly meant mongrel, this German word also has been watered-down to a certain extent recently, but it must be remembered that the Luther

Bible was translated well-over 400 years ago, and consultation with older German dictionaries clearly shows that the original understanding of the word was that of mongrel.

Recent editors of the Luther Bible, however, do not seem to have been content in letting the degeneration of the German language serve as their tool for watering down Germany's most popular translation of the Bible. In fact, a comparison between the original Luther Bible and the Luther Bible being sold today shows many drastic differences, one of which concerns the verse under consideration. In Hebrews 12:8, while the original Luther Bible reads Bastarde or mongrels, the newer version reads Ausgesto�ene or outcasts. This modern translation is, of course, totally ridiculous and finds support in no Greek-German or Greek-English lexicons. The only purpose that such a translation serves is to rid the German Bible of the racial consciousness that existed in it before World War II. There are many more examples, one being the first verse in the New Testament, Matthew 1:1. In the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament, this verse reads:

"The book of the race of Jesus Anointed, son of David, son of Abraham."

In the original Luther Bible, the word race was rendered with the German word Geburt, which means birth or racial origin, but in the new Luther Bible, the word Geschichte is used, meaning story or tale. Another striking example, and one that the Jews and other antichrists were concerned that the German people took too literally during World War II, is Luke 19:27, which reads in the Anointed Standard Translation:

"But these enemies of mine, those not desiring me to reign over them, bring here, and execute them before me."

In the new Luther Bible, the Greek verb translated execute above is rendered with the German words machen nieder which means make them bend down, but in the old Luther Bible, the German Bible being circulated in 1933, the German word erw�rgen was used, which means to strangle. Many more similar examples could be given, but it will suffice to say that the Luther Bible being read today in Germany is not the same Bible that was being read before World War II in Germany, and that Bible translated nothos correctly in Hebrews 12:8. This is the only New Testament occurrence of the word.

However, in the Greek Septuagint, the word nothos occurs in Wisdom 4:3, which reads in an accurate translation:

"But the multiplying race of the ungodly will not be of great number nor gain power through mongrels propagating, nor will that race be allowed to advance nor accomplish a secure foundation."

Here we see very clearly the racial nature of the word nothos. This verse is important for those who attempt to define the word nothos as someone born out of wedlock, for the verse clearly shows that nothos was a racial designation.
The most important non-Biblical usage of nothos is in Philo's The Special Laws, III:46 in the translation of F.H. Colson:

"Actually so great is the provisions made in the law to ensure that men should admit [allow] no unlawful matings, that it ordains that even cattle are not to be crossed with others of a different species [race]. No Jewish [Judean] shepherd will allow a he-goat to mount a ewe or a ram a she-goat, or a bull a mare, or if he does he will be punished as an offender against the decree of nature, who is careful to preserve the primary species [race] without adulteration [mongrelization]."

Here, Colson has translated nothos as adulteration. As in other passages from Philo, it is important to remember that he is commenting on the Pentateuch, and we notice that the definition of "unlawful matings" is cross-breeding or mongrelization. Also importantly, we see very clearly that the specific Biblical definition of nothos is cross-breeding or mongrelization.

12 A complete study of these words occurs in my book The Truth Unveiled. Much of the material presented hereafter is not contained in that work, therefore the reader is encouraged to consult The Truth Unveiled also.