The Anatomy of my Split with Eli James

From my own viewpoint, of course, this is a record of the events which have led to my current and seemingly permanent rift with Eli James.

In October and November of 2010, I had a rift with the editors of the New Ensign Magazine project that I was involved in over whether certain Nord Davis articles should appear there. The Nord Davis articles virtually celebrated arab peoples, and the idea of a “noble beast”, an idea which to me is dangerously close to Rousseau's bolshevik “noble savage” theory. For that reason I was forced to abandon the project, and began the Saxon Messenger to replace it. I respect the people involved in this dispute dearly, and so far as I am aware we are still on speaking terms.

During that rift, the people on the project that I was dealing with had appealed to Eli James, as if he could persuade me on this argument. However, while I have worked with Eli on the Talkshoe Radio programs, all of my website and writing endeavors are independent entities, and so long as I am persuaded that I am being true to the Gospel, I will not let them be influenced by the diverse opinions of others.

It was right around this time, November 11th, 2010, that Eli then sent me his latest “Beast of the Field” article. He asked me for a critique of the article before he published it. Now, of course, Eli does not need my approval before publishing anything, however it must be noted, that Eli asked me for a critique, and if I accommodate him by making one, I should have the reasonable expectation of being heard once it is provided.

Upon reading Eli's article, which was in essence an answer to the position held by Clifton and myself concerning elements of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, I realized that Eli had badly mischaracterized Clifton's arguments (and also indirectly my own), concerning the existence of other races prior to the Genesis creation of Adam. Eli also named me and misstated my position on this issue one other occasion in his article. While I had other objections to Eli's article which may be debated, these two elements were quite important to me, and should be important to everybody, because it is simply not fair to bring issues of a debate with someone to the public while mischaracterizing their arguments in your own favor.

On November 16th, 2011, I spoke with Eli James on the telephone, and expressed my concerns with his article. I asked him to review the brief critique which I provided him, and even sent him another copy of that critique in a format that his computer could open (Rich Text Format), since he told me that he had a problem opening the first copy of his article that I returned. Eli then assured me during that telephone conversation that he would look at my concerns.

On Tuesday, December 28th, and Thursday, December 30th, 2010 I appeared as a guest on Eli James' Restoration Hour on The Micro Effect. During these programs Eli and I discussed many of those same things which we discussed on hundreds of Talkshoe programs, concerning Jews, the other races, and the Covenants between Israel and Yahweh our God. Eli mentioned that there would be a third program. During the second program, during a commercial break, while I was a guest of Eli's, I noticed that I had been banned from the program's internet chat room. This incident was recorded in the Christogenea Forum on December 31st. Eli said that he would talk to the owners of the Micro Effect, but I never did get a sufficient explanation of why I was banned. Neither was that third program ever scheduled. For various reasons, I think more about the implications of this event now than I did when it occurred.

During the first week of January, 2011, Eli had his “Beast of the Field” article published on his website. Since I do a lot of the technical work for Eli's site [formerly], that is the only way I found out that he was finally publishing it in the first place. He then embarked on a week-long vacation, where I would fill in for him on the Talkshoe programs for the weekend of January 7th, 8th and 9th. On January 7th I planned to have Clifton on to discuss Jeremiah, which Eli and I had been covering. Clifton has done a lot of writing on Jeremiah, and I thought he would have a lot to contribute to the topic. In the meantime, I was quite upset, that Eli had published his “Beast of the Field” article, without having addressed any of the concerns which I had raised in my original critique, the critique that he had asked me for. He had told me that he would look at those concerns, on the phone on November 16th.

However as the January 7th program commenced it was evident that Clifton was probably even more disturbed than I was about Eli's article, and when we did that Friday program together, could not restrain criticism of Eli's statements and tactics. While I cannot agree that was the proper forum in which Eli should be so heavily criticized, I was more or less stuck between a rock and a hard place, but also realized that, above all else, these things did indeed need to be aired publicly anyway, so I proceeded with the program as it occurred. I had informed Eli on the phone that weekend, I forget which day, that I was quite disappointed in his not having addressed my original concerns about his article, I repeated them, and voiced my other disagreements. I also told him that I was writing a paper rebuffing his article, and that it was the first of what I hoped to be a series. None of these things were done in a closet. My first paper was discussed on the Christogenea European Fellowship Forum on Thursday, January 13th, and again to a greater degree on Monday, January 16th.

On Sunday, January 23rd, Eli had a Voice of Christian Israel program with Greg Howard, where he announced that he would address mine and Clifton's position on Genesis. Eli again misrepresented our positions on the existence of the other races in antiquity. Also, Eli addressed very little of the Scripture which I had elucidated in my paper of the week prior where I question his assertions concerning the Adam of creation. I have many contentions with Eli's statements throughout his entire program of that day. However, aside from differences of opinion and disputes over meanings or usages of words, far more important things were revealed on Sunday.

On Sunday, January 23rd, 2011, at the end of his program, Eli used a craftily constructed emotional appeal - coupled with a lie about mine and Clifton's teachings - in order to try to convince people that our position on Genesis cannot possibly be accepted, lest we be seen as criminals. Eli falsely portrayed our position as one of advocating the extermination of the races, and he earnestly attempted to leave his listeners with no other rational choice than to view our beliefs as those of terrorists. Coupled with obviously universalist statements which Eli made earlier in the program (such as his insistence around the 64-minute-mark that Yahweh would even save some of the Canaanites), Eli based his appeal on the need for making Christian Identity more attractive to people of other persuasions.

I sincerely believe that Eli, a psychology major, has manipulated this entire dispute so that he could break from me and still look like the good guy. My steadfast adherence to Scripture has held him back from building the "broad tent" doctrines that he really wants to espouse. I felt this rift with the relative dissonance between us on the last Restoration Hour program which we did together. It has been obvious to me that he feels that I am a liability to his motives. Now he has gone so far as to espouse the idea that even Canaanites can somehow be saved, and he still claims to be a two-seedline Christian Identist, yet he is sounding pretty much like Ted Weiland. His agenda is very clear to me. Yet I will not soft-peddle or negotiate away the truth simply to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.

Eli has adopted a veiled form of political correctness, and has worked it into his Identity theology. He can take the high road if he wants, but on Sunday he purposely attempted to marginalize Clifton and I as violent extremists, and that was wrong. He cannot debate me on the Scripture, because he is perverting the Scripture. That was fully evident to all when his response to my paper consisted of little more than misrepresentations and emotional appeals.

Here is the final proof of the flaws in the thesis which Eli presented on Sunday. Eli insists that the non-Adamic races were created by Yahweh as beasts, in the beast creation of Genesis 1:23-25. Eli admits that for that reason they are called “beasts of the field” throughout the Old Testament. This is the firm position which he has taken. Yet I would ask him, how does he then consider them to be among the “nations” of prophecy and the New Testament? How do “beasts” become “nations”? Rather, let us read what the apostle Jude says of beasts, in his discussion concerning the fallen angels: “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.” (Jude1:10, KJV) And let us see what the apostle Peter thought of these same beasts: “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;” (2Peter 2:12, KJV).

Eli is trying to trick Christian Israel Identity. He is taking “beasts” in the Old Testament and with sleight-of-hand he is promoting them to “nations” now. In New York we call this tactic a “bait-and-switch”, and it is regularly employed by Jewish merchants. They are one or the other, and they cannot ever be both, regardless of the political demarcations and current organizational structures which are a remnant and an outgrowth of our modern colonial period. He has done this in order to make Christian Identity palatable to the masses, something which it is never supposed to be – according to the words of our own Saviour.

I have often said that I would rather sit alone than to compromise what I believe to be true. I meant it. Eli may do what he will, but it was his diatribe on Sunday that was full of false accusations and ad hominem attacks, if one truly listens to the options which he gives his listeners. I believe that he did that purposely, so that our disagreement would escalate and he would not have to debate at all.

In fact, this position is supported by his having emailed several announcements of a "schism" among us, as if this were a new thing, when he knew well that we have always had certain of these disagreements, and we never let them interfere in our work together before.

If Eli cancels our weekend programs, that is his doing, and not mine. Eli took offense at some things that I said in my Open Forum program on Monday in response to his Sunday remarks. I admit that I was quite animated. I would sincerely apologize for what I said, if first Eli retracts each of the false statements and unfair arguments that he presented on Sunday – and especially his denials of basic two-seedline beliefs concerning the enemies of Yahweh our God, and admits that he was wrong. I have long seen my Open Forum as a place where we can go and air out our problems and our disputes. We need such a place, if we are to be a community, and not just another “church”. To my recollection, Eli has never attended, and he has never commonly engaged in the open discussion which I expose myself to nightly. If we cannot discuss these things honestly and openly, then we have no love for each other, or for Yahweh our God.

There are many things which I have forgiven Eli James for, or at least neglected to mention, during our two-year partnership. Among these are his questionable associations with obvious Marxists such as Arlene Johnson, his defenses of Russell Walker, his beliefs in the Mayan Calendar so-called prophecy, his own 2012 predictions which are related to that, his promotion of frauds such as Ron Wyatt and Clayton Douglas, his belief in telegony, and even his many references to products which are the work of the jew Zechariah Sitchin, such as Nibiru and his misuse of the pagan Annunaki gods (I have many of his emails which prove this, and which are comparable to Sitchin's books). Even the program where Eli was agreeable to deciding doctrine by the casting of lots, I ignored at the time that it aired (and this alone shows Eli's willingness to compromise). While all of these things are odious to me, I have kept them all on the back burner for the greater good.

There are many more points I can make here, but feel that they would do little good, because I feel that Eli has purposely promoted and exacerbated this division between us. I will continue my work regardless. If Eli is upset, it is really only because he could not drag me into the mainstream as he himself departs. That is how I see it.

In the service of our Savior,
William Finck
Christogenea.org

Added February 2nd, 2011, 5:30 PM:

It is now the 5th day, and the proof of my accusations, sent out to the Christogenea mailing list in the article which follows, has not been answered.

I do not want to continue agitating the situation that has developed since last week, however I have made the claim that Eli James misrepresented Clifton Emahiser in his Beast of the Field paper, found at http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/site/beastofthefield. Here is one point of the proof substantiating that claim. Eli not only misrepresents Emahiser, but he also misrepresents Thomas A. Davies. My points of contention with Eli's paper are boundless, however I will try to remain very brief and focused here.

First, however, I must note that Eli James said this in his paper, referring to Clifton's interpretation of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2: “Mr. Emahiser calls his thesis the Recapitulation Theory”. Yet this is not true. Clifton has never called any “theory” any such thing. Eli should be careful in his writing, not to place words in other people's mouths. I tried to warn him about this on November 17th, however he ignored that warning.

From Eli's Beast of the Field:

In addition, the correlation between Gen. 1:26-31 and Gen. 2 is not exact; and there are some major differences, which make the Recapitulation Theory suspect. But the major problem of this thesis is that Mr. Emahiser must ignore the 7th Day, the “day of rest,” as if it didn’t happen. Either that, or we are still living in this “day of rest.” It is unclear from Clifton’s thesis whether this Day of Rest ever took place or whether we are currently living in this Day of Rest. With this argument, Clifton Emahiser has introduced an entirely new concept, which no one else has ever before suggested, namely, that the Day of Rest can be ignored. I will be arguing against this idea, as I consider it to be a major error in his theology. The question that must be answered by Clifton Emahiser is this: “When, if ever, did the 7th Day take place?” Can we ignore words contained in Gen. 2:1-4? 

This a sophistical argument, invented by Eli. Clifton is not at all ignoring the “day of rest”, since Clifton's premise – as Eli admits – is that the events of Genesis 2 are a “recapitulation” of events in Genesis 1. 

From Eli's Beast of the Field:

Based upon the grammar, he concluded that Gen. 1:26-27 is about the creation of the White Race; but Gen. 2 is talking exclusively about this particular man, Adam, and his particular descendants through Eve, exclusive of the other Whites in Gen. 1. 

But Davies was not distinguishing Genesis 1 Adam from Genesis 2 Adam, as Eli argues for, and uses Davies to support that argument. Rather, anyone who would actually read Davies' book (the entire text is posted at Eli's website) would see that Davies distinguished Genesis 1:26 Adam from Genesis 1:27 Adam! Davies presents a long and convoluted argument, but here is a portion of his text which represents his conclusion: “The Genesis i. 27 records three separate acts of creation. First. The creation of HA-ADAM, or THE ADAM. Second. The creation of male. Third. The creation of female. There is no Scriptural connection between the male and female created here and the male and female made in Gen. i. 26.” The only valid conclusion is that Eli's theory is very different from Davies' theory, and Eli either did not notice this crucial difference, or did not care and used him as a source anyway. Eli's argument is to distinguish the Genesis 1 Adam and the Genesis 2 Adam. I myself trusted that Eli had quoted Davies properly, and for that reason I was wrong about Davies in my own paper, The End of Genesis Heresy. Eli's Beast of the Field paper relies very heavily on Davies' work, but Eli never explains the crucial difference between his own and Davies' theories. Either way, however, I believe both Davies and Eli to be very much in error.

From Eli's Beast of the Field:

This is where the core of our disagreement comes out. Are the “trees” of the Genesis 2 account other races or not? We agree that the “tree of life” is the Adamic Race; but Clifton asserts that the other “trees” are not races. I say they are. If they are not races, then what are they? So, the question becomes, “When and where did these other races appear?” Clifton’s answer is “They are hybrids.” But when and where did they appear? He does not address this question. 

Here is one opinion: “Basically, ‘trees’ are metaphorical people, nations and races, just like the ‘trees’ in the Garden of Eden in Genesis.” - Stephen Anderson, Book of Ezekiel, Chapter 31 notes.

Having demonstrated that the word chay cannot be used to exclude any category of living beings, we now must determine whether the chay of the earth, of Gen. 1:24-25, are forbidden hybrids or Yahweh’s own creation.

Here is where Eli seriously misrepresented Clifton. Eli has taken a dispute over the “chay” of Genesis Chapter 1 and has transferred it to the “trees” of Genesis Chapter 2. He has then taken his own contrived version of the dispute and he has placed his words into Clifton's mouth. This is a very sophistical and dishonest approach.

Eli fails even more miserably, once it is realized that – from the actual text of Genesis 2 – the trees of the garden which were pleasant to the eye and good for food, were not made to grow out of the ground until after Adam was formed, so they could not have been the “chay” of genesis Chapter 1! Secondly, Eli also attempts to include “beasts” in the category of “metaphorical people, nations and races”, a bait-and-switch which is even more dishonest!

It was at this point that my critique of Eli's paper ended, although there were many more pages. I tried to warn him about this – privately in email and on the phone – hoping to encourage a longer discussion between us. Among other things, I told him plainly, “Not necessarily. They may simply be other Whites – even from your own words. You are jumping to this conclusion. You are also putting answers into Clifton's mouth” and “This is not the argument, Eli. You are misrepresenting the argument. Yahweh clearly created the chay of Genesis. The argument is only whether any of the “other races” that we know today were in that Genesis 1:24-25 creation. Reconsider this section.” But he ignored my notes and my pleas, and published his paper. The situation exacerbates...

From Eli's Beast of the Field:

Nevertheless, the definition [of “chay” - WRF] preferred by orthodox theologians is “animal life.” But their reason for preferring this definition is universalistic. Clifton does not acknowledge this fact in any of his writings on this subject. 

Yet we see the following in Clifton's paper, A Study on the Word Chay, available at his website, and my only conclusion could be that Eli has not read all of Clifton's writing on this subject, but has rather chosen only that which it pleased him to address:

Some use the word “chay” (Strong’s H2416) at Genesis 1:24 in order to make an argument that somehow the Almighty created the nonwhite races at this point, and that somehow these nonwhite races were considered “beast of the earth”. Actually, H2416 is not translated “beast” until Genesis 1:25 where the context is “… animal or ... living thing, animal … animal, as a living, active being … wild animals, on account of their vital energy and activity … wild animal of the reeds … unclean beast … destroyer among beasts … living beings, appetite, activity of hunger … appetite of young lions … revival, renewal … thou didst find renewal of thy strength …” Brown - Driver - Briggs – Gesenius, Hebrew And English Lexicon, page 312. Starting with page #4 of this study I will show every verse in the Old Testament where H2416 appears, and the context in each case will become clear.

“From the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon found in the Libronix Digital Library: 2416 ... From 2421; Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament 644a; The NIV Exhaustive Concordance by Goodrick-Kohlenberger 2644 and 2645 and 2646 and 2651 and 2652 and 2653; 501 occurrences; AV translates as “live” 197 times, “life” 144 times, “beast” 76 times, “alive” 31 times, “creature” 15 times, “running” seven times, “living thing” six times, “raw” six times, and translated miscellaneously 19 times. 1 living, alive. 1A green (of vegetation). 1B flowing, fresh (of water). 1C lively, active (of man). 1D reviving (of the springtime). 2 relatives. 3 life (abstract emphatic). 3A life. 3B sustenance, maintenance. 4 living thing, animal. 4A animal. 4B life. 4C appetite. 4D revival, renewal. 5 community.”

From Eli's Beast of the Field:

Historically, agriculture did not make its appearance until the days of Adam, which happened around 5,000 BC. Agriculture is not mentioned in Gen. 1. This is a problem for Emahiser’s Recapitulation thesis, because the science of archeology clearly documents the existence of non-agricultural hominids predating THE ADAM. They are called the hunter-gatherers, usually ascribed to the Stone Age. But Clifton does not want to admit that either Whites or non-Whites existed before THE ADAM!!! … Clifton Emahiser has not thought about this.

From Clifton’s perspective, Nachash is the very first two-legged beast, since all non-Whites would have descended from him. If Nachash is the ONLY two-legged beast on the planet on the 6th day, then we come back to the old problem of “Where did Cain get his wife from?” 

Here again, Eli has not only changed the nature of the argument, but he has mischaracterized Clifton's teachings and he has once again placed words into Clifton's mouth. His attempt to do this is obviously – to me – an attempt to discredit Clifton in the minds of his readers, purposely trying to make him look foolish, in order to gain an advantage for his own agenda.

Here are some quotes from two of Clifton's Teaching Letters, elucidating Clifton's position on this matter, where Clifton clearly explains that there were many races of people (for want of a better word) before Adam:

WTL #113: The "serpent" of Genesis 3 is a member of that race of angels which revolted from Yahweh God, and were cast out into the earth, as described in Revelation chapter 12. We are not told when this happened, but can only imagine that it happened some time before Adam, but during the latter ages of creation. The fossil record shows that there were many races of humans here before Adam, the first Aryan White man, such as Neanderthal man, Cro-Magnon man, etc., any one of which may have been of that race of angels. Throughout Scripture angels appear as men, and are often even indistinguishable from men (i.e. Gen 18:1-33; 19:1-14).

WTL #136: Again, Who Are These Called Beasts?: Evidence is mounting from various sources, such as the Book Of Giants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the fallen angels came to this planet thousands of years before Adam and committed "miscegenation" with certain animals, producing creatures appearing half-animal and half-human-like. This evidence can be found in a book entitled The Dead Sea Scrolls, A New Translation, ©1996, by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, Jr,. & Edward Cook, chapter 33, pages 246-250. For all of those who would like further data on this, check my Watchman’s Teaching Letter, #114 in an article written by William Finck entitled The Problem With Genesis 6:1-4. The Hebrew in chapter 1 of Genesis does not support the hypothesis that they were ever created by Yahweh Elohim (but it does support that the "man" at Gen. 1:26-27 is the same "man" as at Gen. 2:7 & 8). Not only this, but the Almighty has said that He is going to root-up everything He did not plant, Matt. 15:13!

WTL #141: To understand the glorious courtship of Yahweh toward Israel we must envision it by perceiving a view of the earth before the fall of Adam, at which time the archangel Satan had usurped Yahweh’s rightful sovereignty. Not only did our adversary rebel against Yahweh, but he (Satan) influenced one-third of the angels to rebel with him, as recorded at Rev. 12:7-9: "7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Many falsely place this event in the future, whereas it happened in the remote past! If this passage is pointing to a future event then Christ was giving false witness when He said at Luke 10:18: "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." It is at Rev. 12:3-4 where it reveals the number of angels who fell with Satan: "3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth ..." From this verse, we can see that two-thirds of the angels stayed faithful to Yahweh and followed Him, whereas one-third of the angels joined Satan in his rebellion against Yahweh.

For all of these reasons and more, my break with Eli James is not about personality, it is not about personal feelings, but rather it is about Scriptural, moral and intellectual honesty.

William Finck, Christogenea.org