The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In ringing tones he sang the praises of America’s invulnerable strength and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens’ sense of morality…even with the abundant church attendances he observed in America. De Tocqueville wrote in French, and is credited with this familiar quote: AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, AND IF AMERICA EVER CEASES TO BE GOOD, SHE WILL CEASE TO BE GREAT.

Up to this time the great Puritan Christian work ethic had indeed made America great. The doctrines of Calvin and Luther, which formed and forged the pilgrim and puritan doctrines, and those men who came over here as covenanters, built up a great land they called the Kingdom. But this "Kingdom" was now beginning to fade. It was now beginning to be replaced by a "New Gospel" not taught by the Messiah, and the political and social life began to change right along with it.

De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.

First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an attack on American Christianity that continues unabated today against the traditional, Messiah-following church. This attack, which author Gordon Ginn calls “The final Apostasy,” began with a small, very wealthy, and determined European political movement. It had a dream, and the American churches stood in its way.

America's political and social life, whether we like it or not, is based upon the general theology, and therefore the moral outcome of her people. When the theology is gone the politics soon follow. During the period from around 1800 to 1850, there was a movement called the "Age of Reason". It caught a lot of men in its net who were otherwise smart, including Thomas Paine. It contained a lot of the same ideas as today's new age movement.

According to this movement, the mind is everything. The absolutes of the Bible are considered not relevant in this modern age. During this time such men as Thomas Paine, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Henry David Thoreau, abandoned the Christian ideals and opted for this intellectual stimulating philosophy which can be distilled down to the phrase, "The Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man." You have to determine in your mind, from the Scriptures, if YEHOVAH God is the Father of all and all men are brothers, or if YEHOVAH God is the Father of a certain people and not the father of others.

All across this land fraternal lodges and various kinds of orders were set up, which became the religion of the people. Into that arena came the Esau-Edomite-Khazar Karl Marx, and the evolutionist Charles Darwin, inserting their anti-Scriptural ideas into America's mainstream. All of these were first political, and philosophical ideas which, when promoted through the published materials of the day, became promoted enough, and accepted enough, by the normal people of those days to change the theology of our people.

The Fatherhood of YEHOVAH God, and the brotherhood of man, is a socialist scheme that came out of the French Revolution.

It was a thought theology, with the purpose of changing our Christian population before the greater conspiracy of world socialism could be implemented. In order to refute the Messiah's words concerning Esau-Edom, that they were of their father the devil, this theology had to be changed so that YEHOVAH God is the Father of all men and all peoples, and that Satan is not the father of any of them. Do you see how all that works? The second part of this theology is the idea that all men are brothers, which is intended to refute the Scriptural teaching and truth that all men are not brothers, and that YEHOVAH God has a chosen people, above all the people, on the face of the earth. This dichotomy you have to sort out in your mind and choose YEHOVAH's Word or man's.

If you think about it, the concept of the Fatherhood of YEHOVAH God, and the brotherhood of man, is the central theme of socialism and communism. Christianity, if you think of it apart from merely a church function, is a thought theology of government, commerce and economics. The fruits of which is a nation of liberty. and individual responsibility.

The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves, had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not any land would do, world Zionists wanted a specific property that American Christians called “the Holy Land.” But if these Zionists read Democracy in America or any of the journals of any of America’s churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self-proclaimed Jews, they were, according to the New Testament, the persecutors of the Messiah and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion. America’s traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand for a Jewish occupation of the Messiah’s homeland.

World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield. A much larger set of tools were a Jew by the name of Samuel Untermeyer and a venerable, world respected, European book publisher -- the Oxford University Press.

The Role of Samuel Untermeyer

Samuel Untermeyer was a New York lawyer who had a lifelong interest in Zionism. He and the leaders of the Jewish Theological Seminary wanted to inject their beliefs into Christianity in America. But had they attempted to introduce their ideas into the dominant Protestant culture of 1900, they would have been ignored.

Subtlety was a required deception. They needed a front man, a Protestant theologian of distinction through whom they could inject their beliefs gradually. Of course, there was no one that met this description. He would have to be created. Through some shadowy network, perhaps through contacts of the Secret Six in Boston, Samuel Untermeyer found such a man in Kansas.

In 1901, through Untermeyer’s influence, Cyrus Scofield was admitted into a sophisticated men’s club in New York. The Lotus Club promoted social intercourse among friends of literature and fine arts. Untermeyer introduced Scofield to numerous Zionist and socialist leaders, including Samuel Gompers, Fiorello LaGuardia, Abraham Straus, Bernard Baruch and Jacob Schiff. Scofield had a shady past, a criminal record, had just gotten out of jail and had never been to seminary. But this was no problem. With their control of the press, some public relations work and their international network, he was quickly transformed into one of America’s leading theologians.

Untermeyer did more than introduce Scofield to his wealthy and influential Zionist circle in New York. Soon the Kansas con man was off on a lavish tour of Europe, including an important visit to Oxford University where plans were made for the publication of his new reference Bible. Untermeyer’s network extended from Kansas to Europe and seemingly could open doors anywhere.

Samuel Untermeyer

A wolf in sheep’s clothing was the oldest trick in the book. Jacob under the direction of Rebecca put on goat skin so he felt hairy like his brother Esau. Then he lied to Isaac, carried out his fraud and got the blessing -- Genesis 27:15. It is a trick Esau never forgot and has used time and again against his brother’s descendants. They never seem to learn. Scofield was merely sheepskin.

The apostle Paul warned that after he departed grievous wolves would enter in among the church, Acts 20:29. Samuel Untermeyer was a grievous wolf. A notorious criminal lawyer, he helped drag America into World War I which resulted in a million unnecessary deaths. This opened the door for the Bolshevik Revolution which, by the time of his death in 1940, had resulted in the murder of over 20 million individuals. The church in Russia was virtually extinguished.

He declared war on Germany and established the blockade which forced World War II. And America’s entry into World War I created the nation-state of Palestine which, many believe, will trigger World War III.

His successful Scofield Bible deception perverted Christianity with the hybrid Christian-Zionism and left a church where the true, historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy, is virtually unknown. Historicism had been the standard interpretation of prophecy since the reformation.

Finally, when one brave man, the popular auto maker Henry Ford, stood up to expose the Bolshevik wolf’s den in New York, Untermeyer and his partner waged continual war against him until the threat of murder caused Ford, at his wife’s desperate plea, to cease.

John 10:12: "He that is a hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep."

The Messiah taught that it was the duty of a true shepherd, when he sees a wolf in the church, to defend the sheep and not flee. Those that are grazing unaware need to know about the man behind Scofield, a grievous wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Untermeyer's Conspiracy

The purpose of Samuel Untermeyer, and the Jews associated with him, was to find a way to get fundamental Christians to have an interest in, and support for, the international Zionist cause. This had been one of Untermeyer's life-long projects. Samuel Untermeyer died in 1941, but records prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a dedicated communist, and worked for communist causes all of his adult life. In his 20 years of membership in the Lotus club Scofield had a long association with him, and had to know about his un-American activities and his synagogue of Satan.

We should always keep in mind that the Brotherhood of God, the Brethren Movement, and its kindred of thought theology of Scofield Dispensationalism was, and still is, a class movement as thought of from the communist point of view. It is not a religious movement as you might think.

One of the Roman Catholic counterparts also supported by the Esau-Edomite Jews, is the Jesuit and Maryknoll liberation theology now sweeping Central America.

This is the very reason for the special, and unusual association, between Scofield and Samuel Untermeyer. They knew that Scofield's "any moment now" rapture doctrine, which he stole from J. N. Darby, and Darby stole it from a female Pentecostal preacher in Scotland, named Martha Mcdonald, who in turn stole it from a Spanish Jesuit Priest Emanuel LaContsa, who made it up and then published it first in Spanish under the pen name Rabbi Ben Ezra. The works of Rabbi Ben Ezra are still sold openly in Christian book stores. So you can see how it all ties together.

This was an idea they had to keep the lower and middle-class Christians in line. They said, why would Christians become concerned if the communists took over the world, or the so-called New World Order took effect if they believed the rapture could happen at any time now? Why would they become worried with thousands of problems of the totalitarianism socialism, world banking, national debt, aids, if "this world is not my home"? Why do patriotic activities when the kingdom is a warm beating in your heart as you come to love the Messiah? See how that works? Proverbs 3:36 says "Add thou not to his words lest he reprove you and you be found a liar." Well, Cyrus Scofield has been found a liar.

With the many ministers of the 1920s and 1930s preaching Scofield's Dispensationalism -- in his words, the "new testimony" -- it became common, but was not heard of prior to this time. The push was on in the late 1930s to get the Scofield reference Bible into the hands of Protestant denominations. Scofield notes stating right on the pages of King James Bible that "the Jews are all of Israel," was to set the stage for the theft of Palestine from the Palestinian people and give it, by United Nations decree, to a mixed multitude most of whose forbearers never set foot in the land for a thousand years, if ever. For those reasons alone, Scofield's notes were worth every penny that Samuel Untermeyer and his Secret Six friends paid for them.

The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield’s role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor -- probably because it needed such a man for a front. The revised bible was called The Scofield Reference Bible and, with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling “bible” in America, and has remained so for over 100 years.

A Revolutionary Book?

The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation, subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded Jewish authors of World Zionism.

Scofield’s support came from a movement that took root around the turn of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of these “reformers” were later to serve on Scofield’s Editorial Committee.

Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical trips to the U.S. selling what is today called “Darbyism.” It is from Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian-Zionist theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of The Scofield Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield’s interest in Darbyism was shared by the Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford University.

The Oxford University Press owned “The Scofield Reference Bible” from the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford’s advertisers and promoters succeeded in making Scofield’s Bible, along with its Christian-Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has been published in at least four editions since its introduction in 1908, and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.

The Scofield Reference Bible, and its several clones, is all but worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts. These invariably teach forms of “dispensationalism,” which draw their theory, to various degrees, from the notes in Scofield's Oxford Bible.

Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases recommend, the use of The Scofield Reference Bible is the huge Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World Zionism’s crowning achievement.

Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of about half of the pages and, as the Old English grammar of the King James Edition becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language footnotes.

Scofield’s notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as though all were written at the same time by the same people. This is a favorite device of modern dispensationalists who essentially weigh all scripture against the unspoken and preposterous theory that the older it is, the more authoritative. In many cases the Oxford references prove to be puzzling rabbit trails leading nowhere, simply diversions. Scofield’s borrowed ideas were later popularized under the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage today -- “pre-millennialism,” “dispensationalism,” “Judeo-Christianity,” and most recently, the highly political movement openly called “Christian-Zionism.”

A Sordid Background

Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a political animal with the charm and talent for self-promotion of a Bill Clinton. Scofield’s background reveals a criminal history, a deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self-serving lies. He was exactly the sort of man the Jewish World Zionists might hire to bend Christian thought -- a controllable man and one capable of carrying the secret to his grave.

What the Scofield supporters do not tell us is that their theological hero deserted his first wife, Leonteen Carry Scofield and his two young daughters Abigail and Helen. They ignore the fact that he never sent them any financial support -- even though he became very wealthy. They never got a dime. Women in the 1880s did not have government welfare like they do today, and good paying jobs were not usually available in those days. He treated his wife and children as though they did not exist.

According to every reference available about him and his background in the areas from which he came, he was in love with two other women, running with both at the same time, a young lady from the St Louis Flower Mission, whose name is not recorded, and a Helen Van Wark, a woman he later married. While his wife stayed abandoned for many years, she would not divorce him for Scriptural reasons. Finally, when she found out about his activities, she had no choice and divorced him, and that divorce is recorded December 8, 1883, in his home town of Atchison, Kansas. Remember now, this was a professing Christian, who wrote the most popular set of Bible reference notes in use today. The abandoned Leonteen never remarried, and died in 1936. She is buried in Mt. Calvary cemetery, Atchison Kansas.

Cyrus I. Scofield

Every time you see a Scofield Bible, think about that lady. As a so-called Christian, Cyrus Scofield embarked upon a legal and political career. After he was alleged to be "saved," he stole thousands of dollars from his Christian and secular friends. One of his financial scams was quite serious and he got convicted of forgery, and spent six months in the St. Louis, Missouri jail. He defrauded his mother-in-law of 1,300 dollars in gold, and never paid her back -- even though his finances were such he could have done so.

If the prophet Ezekiel ever preached about a modern prophet who created a widow, or who was a deceiver of the elect, devouring unsuspecting Christian-Israelites so they might not be admitted to the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God and the tree of life, or who was out for dishonest gain, it had to be Cyrus Ingersall Scofield.

Actually, Scofield never attended any college -- even for one day as a student. Scofield, however, fancied himself as a lawyer. He assumed all sorts of phony credentials, from that of a minister to that of a Bible scholar, to that of a lawyer, nothing seemed to hinder him. And, of course, he was not legitimately admitted to the Bar since he could not pass the examination. However, through the influences of Samuel Untermeyer and the Secret Six men in Kansas, Scofield was indeed admitted to the Bar. Even though he had never attended any school, and had no formal training whatever, he gave himself a theological doctorate degree.

Scofield went on, with the help of the Secret Six, to be appointed United States Attorney for Kansas, only to be forced to resign after six months when he and his friend Ingalls were caught trying to blackmail the railroads out of some money. What is important here, though, is that the Boston Secret Six assigned Scofield the task of translating the "Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man" concept into a system of Bible teaching.

It was in those long days and nights, when he was in prison for forgery, that Scofield began studying the theological philosophy of the born loser J. N. Darby, a scatterbrained Englishman, that we would call a hippie today. He never washed, never cleaned himself up -- but he became a great "scholar"!

The Incrimination of World Zionism 

Many researchers have examined Scofield’s eschatology, and exposed his original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views. Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics, published by Christ Church Vicarage, Virginia Water, England

Some researchers of the Oxford Bible have gone in another direction, focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions and deletions the Oxford University Press has continued to make to the Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of Palestine and 73 years of death and destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists, or most other American church leaders.

It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition deifies -- makes a god of -- the State of Israel, a state that did not even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. In all likelihood, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race hatred promoted by Christian-Zionist leaders in America, neither the Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be alive today.

What proof do we have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield’s death. The words tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of America.

There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew, or cared much, about the Zionist movement but, at some point, he became involved in a close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, whose law firm still exists today, and one of the wealthiest and most powerful World Zionists in America at the time. Untermeyer controlled the unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a password and a common watering hole -- and it appears that Untermeyer may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself lacked. Scofield’s success as an international Bible editor without portfolio, and his lavish living in Europe, could only have been accomplished with financial aid and international influence.

This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is significant, however, that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after Scofield’s death, Oxford accelerated changes to it.

Since the death of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield’s most significant notes from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the title, “The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C. I. Scofield.” It’s anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in genocide against Arabs, and other non-Jews, in the latter half of the 20th century.

The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible, is the content of the notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These notes are the subject of the rest of this article.

Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of The Scofield Reference Bible in 1967, at the time of the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the Palestinians’ land to the State of Israel, and specifically denied the Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:

“For a nation to commit the sin of anti-semitism brings inevitable judgment” (page 19-20, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our emphasis added).

This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism. But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American churchgoers and students, and is used by their leaders as a source for their preaching and teaching.

There is no word for “anti-Semitism” in the New Testament, nor is it found among the Ten Commandments. “Sin” is a personal concept. It is something done by individuals in conflict with YEHOVAH God’s words, not by “nations.” Even Sodom did not sin -- its people did. The word “judgment” in the Bible always refers to YEHOVAH’s action. In the New Testament, the Messiah promises both judgment and salvation for believing individuals of the modern nations of Israel, not for all “nations.”

There was also no “State of Israel” when Scofield wrote his original notes in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908. All references to Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel was granted statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University Press simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible in 1967 to make antipathy toward the “State of Israel” a “sin.” Israel is made a god to be worshiped, not merely a “state.” David Ben-Gurion could not have written it better!

The Oxford 1967 Edition continues on page 19:

“(2) God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram's seed (a) to the Nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever”

“(3) There is a promise of blessing upon those individuals and nations who bless Abram's descendants, and a curse laid upon those who persecute the Jews” (Page 19, 1967 Edition Genesis 12:1-3).

This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that NEVER occurs in the Bible itself:

“It has invariably fared ill with the people who have persecuted the Jew, well with those who have protected him,” and “the future will still more remarkably prove this principle” (footnote (3) bottom of page19-20 Genesis 12:3).

None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield Reference Bible, or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID NOT EXIST in 1945 and, according to the best dictionaries of the time, the word “Israel” only referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe, which is consistent with the Bible text. See “Israel,” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2nd (1950) Edition.

All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being really bad for those who “persecute the Jews,” reflects and furthers the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is considered “anti-Semitism,” and “anti-Semitism” is a “hate crime” punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian-Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have written this footnote.

The State of Israel’s legal claims to Arab lands are based on the United Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave the Jews only a fraction of the land they have since occupied by force. If you should ask various Israelis where they got the right to occupy Palestine from, each would invariably say words to the effect that, “God gave it to us.” This interpretation of Hebrew scripture stems from the book of Genesis, and is called the “Abrahamic Covenant”. It is repeated several times and begins with YEHOVAH God’s promise to a man called Abraham -- who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man called “Israel:”

Genesis 12:2: “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:”

Genesis 12:3: “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (King James Edition).

It is upon this promise to a single person that modern Israeli Zionists base their claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East. Its logic is roughly the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir to the John Paul Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter to someone’s cousin seven times removed containing the salutation, “wishing you my very best.” Most people are unaware of the fact that the "Jews" are not Israelites, that the people called Jews today are descended from Esau and the Khazars and, as such, have no legitimate claim to Palestine whatsoever.

Also, the timing is wrong. The real Israelites, found in the Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian and related countries of the world, are not prophesied to return to Palestine until the beginning of the Millennium.

Zionist Propaganda

The words in these 1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the Palestinians, and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose, Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more recently labeled “Christian-Zionists,” have remained mute during wars upon Israel’s enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some of it clearly Christian blood.

Now, for more evidence of the intent of the Zionist deception of Christians, let us examine some Scofield’s notes THAT HAVE BEEN ALTERED OR REMOVED by Oxford after his death. In 1908 Scofield wrote:

“The contrast, ‘I know that ye are Abraham's seed’ -- ‘if ye were Abraham's children’ is that between the natural and the spiritual posterity of Abraham. The Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people are the former; all who are ‘of the precious faith with Abraham,’ whether Jews or Gentiles, are the latter (Rom 9, 6-8; Gal, 4-14. See ‘Abrahamic Covenant’ Gen 15, 18, Note).” (Scofield’s 1945 page 1127, note to John 8:39)

Compare that with the Oxford note substituted in the 1967 Edition:

“8:37 ALL JEWS ARE NATURAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY HIS SPIRITUAL POSTERITY, CP Rom 9-6-8, Gal 3: 6-14” (Note (1) P1136, Oxford 1967 Edition, note to Jn 8:37.)

How, pray tell, can “all Jews” be “natural descendants of Abraham,” a Chaldean who lived some 3000 years ago? Persons of almost all races make up what are known as Jews, and new Jews are being converted every day from almost every race! One might as well say all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin Luther; or that all Baptists come from the loins of John the Baptist. This note could only have been written by an Israeli patriot, for no one else would have a vested interest in promoting this genetic nonsense. Shame on those who accept this racism; it is apostate Christianity.

The original Scofield note was far out of line with traditional Christianity in 1908, and should have been treated as heresy then. Yet Scofield had failed to go far enough for the Zionists. Scofield clearly recognized what the book of Genesis states, that the sons of Ishmael are co-heirs to Abraham’s ancient promise. Did not Scofield say “the Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people are…the natural posterity of Abraham”? The Oxford Press simply waited for Scofield to die and changed it as they wished.

And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?

The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider Arabs in general, and the Prophet Mohamed in particular, to be direct descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s first son and older half-brother of Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as “Israel.” Many Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham’s promise, and they correctly believe that present-day Israelis have no Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.

The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect, substitutes the word “Jews” for the words “The Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people,” as Scofield originally wrote it. The Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the Zionists want to claim the Arabs’ part of the presumed birthright right now! Read it again; “all Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity.”

And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37:

“(2) 8:44 that this Satanic fatherhood cannot be limited to the Pharisees is made clear in 1Jn3:8-10” (note SRB 1967 Edition, P1137 to John 8:44)

Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein the Messiah is speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his day, and to no one else:

John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speakest a lie, he speakest of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it” (King James Ed.).

Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what the Messiah said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred text, directing readers to their specious, apostate, footnotes. It seems the Zionists cannot deny what the Messiah said about Pharisees, but they do not want to bear the burden of being “sons of Satan” all by themselves. Now here’s the text of the verse to which Oxford refers in order to try to solve this problem:

1 John 3:8: “He that commiteth sin is of the Devil; for the Devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the work of the Devil” (King James Edition).

Fine, but this verse, spoken by the Messiah to his followers in a speech about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford’s argument that the Messiah was not talking directly to, and about, the Pharisee leaders when he called them “Sons of Satan” in John 8:44. It is a different book written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical Christian-Zionist diversion.

To find out to whom the Messiah is speaking you must read the rest of John 8 to find the context, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only one of some 77 verses where the Messiah confronted the Pharisees by name, and in many cases addressed them as “satanic” and as “vipers.” Oxford simply ignores most of these denunciations by the Messiah, adding no notes at all, and the Christian-Zionists go along without question.

These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have shaped the doctrine of America’s most politically powerful religious subculture, the “Christian-Zionists” as Ariel Sharon called them, or the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe themselves. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is carried out by this subculture -- the most vocal being the celebrity Christian evangelists -- there would be a big decrease in Mid-East wars, for there is little support for war outside of organized Zionist-Christianity.

Stephen Sizer is perhaps the most dedicated new scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as Christian-Zionism. He has quipped, “Judging Christianity by looking at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by watching Benny Hill.”

Sizer’s remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at the Middle East. Hinn was speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the American Airline Center in Dallas, when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3rd event by announcing, “We are on God’s side,” speaking of Palestine. He shouted, “This is not a war between Jews and Arabs...It is a war between God and the Devil.” Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a blood war in which the Israelis are “God” and the Palestinians are “the Devil.”

Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian-Zionists who have no problem spouting outright race hatred, and who join in unconditional support for Israel without regard for which, or how many, of Israel’s enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from whom he seeks his lavish support -- the Judeo-Christians, or Christian-Zionists -- do not shrink at his words, because they have been conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept Christian persecution, even burning them alive under Nero. Several evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn -- “the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil.” This, of course, is not talking about true Christians!

An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn’s profit-seeking fanaticism is not as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who occupy the highest positions in the area of conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of branding all Arabs as devils, but he stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation, the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine.

How can anyone interpret these words by Land, Hinn, and others, and yes, our own President, as anything less than race hatred?

About 100 million American-Christians need to recover their true faith in Yeshua the Messiah. There is not a word in the New Testament that urges any follower of the Messiah to murder one child in Iraq, or condemn Palestine to death. Race hatred is a Jewish-Zionist strategy, and should not be a Christian strategy.

Christian-Zionism may be one of the most bloodthirsty apostasies in the entire history of Christianity -- or any other religion. Shame on its leaders: they have already brought the blood of untold numbers of innocent people down upon the spires and prayer benches of America’s apostate churches.

The Legacy of Cyrus Scofield

Notes:

Oxford University Press:

The Oxford University Press is reputably one of Britain's truly great institutions, up there, or nearly, so they say, with the National Health System and the British Broadcasting Corporation. As in these other cases, its modern history has been largely dominated by the struggle to preserve its "character" against the tide of commercialism. As its secretary (chief executive) put it in 1954: "The essence of the Press is that it is not a business."

Whatever the outcome of the battle over commercialization, it didn't damage the Oxford University Press greatly. In 1970 it was not only the largest, most diverse and most respected university press in the world, but one of the main agents of British cultural imperialism after the formal British empire wearily relinquished that role in the 1960s. It also became a leading platform for Jewish propaganda.

On the surface, this acclaim seems extraordinary. For the whole of the 20th century, the Oxford University Press has been notorious for its antediluvian structure, its vague relationship with Oxford University (of which it is technically a "department"), its governance by a board of academic "delegates", and a "finance committee" that deliberately excluded anyone with business knowledge. It has been widely criticized for its secrecy and cliquishness; its internal hierarchies; its bosses' restricted backgrounds (nearly all Oxford classicists); its class, gender and anti-American prejudices; and an apparently amateur approach to all its activities, if "amateur" is defined by a lack of training in "management".

The Oxford University Press could be slow to embrace the new -- paperbacks and computers, for example. The delegates' minutes only started to be typed rather than handwritten in 1969, "94 years", as C. S. Nicholls archly points out, "after the typewriter was invented". Work always started with morning prayers. The Oxford University Press considered it infra dig to go touting for authors, instead waiting to be approached by them. It employed some odd people, including a notorious libertine to head its educational sales section; a man who kept "bodily fluids" at his desk; and at least one Soviet agent (Eton-educated) in its New York branch, whose treachery was only discovered in the 1970s.

It was notoriously slow, partly because of the care it put into its editing, which is what made scientists lose patience with it: by the time it was ready to publish their theories, they were out of date. It lost a number of authors because it refused to offer them big enough advances. Some of its books lost money, but deliberately, due to its policies of publishing non-commercial monographs if they were scholarly, and under-pricing to fit the pockets of impoverished academics.

"Standards" were not always maintained: a series of "patriotic" booklets it published during the first world war are, frankly, a disgrace; and the deficiencies of its editing of A. J. P. Taylor's otherwise excellent and popular Oxford English History 1914-45 became well known after a famous review by Henry Pelling, listing the mistakes.

The reasons it nonetheless flourished in this period are complex. The "honor" -- the prestige of its mother university -- was a vital one. Authors aren't all money-grubbers, and many preferred the kudos of being published under that venerable imprint to any amount of "advance". They also valued the personal contact they had with their editors, who were cultivated people (sometimes authors themselves). As well as this, the Oxford University Press did display enterprise in certain crucial areas.

For a start, it had a London office -- originally just a "Bible warehouse" -- which it developed semi-independently into a more commercial scion of the main Clarendon Press in Oxford. It published works that the latter considered rather beneath them, but which turned out to be the ones that established it as a "general" publisher, rather than a merely academic one. It branched out into children's fiction, for example -- Biggles was one of the Oxford University Press London's -- and music. More importantly, it took on English language primers (TEFL) in a big way, rooted in its primacy in the field of dictionaries, and spearheading its "imperial" expansion into the growing second-language anglophone world.

Having no shareholders to satisfy, the the Oxford University Press could plough profits into new, long-term projects (such as the original Dictionary of National Biography), and cross-subsidizing loss-makers. It gave editors freedom to trust their own instincts, rather than utilitarian market rationales; and to wait to find out whether new methods worked elsewhere. It also meant that the Oxford University Press was invulnerable to the takeovers and mergers (except on its own terms) that have so unsettled the publishing industry in recent years.

The Oxford University Press hasn't emerged unscathed. Careful readers will notice that its printing has been "outsourced" -- the Oxford University Press no longer has its own printing works -- and its price is way beyond the means of almost anyone, let alone impoverished academics. So far as production values are concerned, the Oxford University Press can no longer hold a candle to many American university presses.

Oxford University and the Jews: