>>509969259
I haven't read that version so will refrain from an opinion. Maybe a knowledgeable anon can chime in.
It looks innocent enough, using the King James Bible with his annotations.
If I had to take a guess going by when it was written - early 1900s - he's probably making the error of saying modern jews are related to Bible jews.

>>509268556
you must be a strong warlock, being able to post here without succumbing to demonic possesion and eternal damnation.