The King James Only

The King James Only

Thomas Allen

The King-James-only adherents claim that the King James Version is the only true translation of the Bible. It is the inerrant word of God and is 100 percent accurate without error. A few adherents go as far as to suggest that God sat King James on His lap and dictated the Bible to him word for word. Some even imply that translations of the Bible to other languages need to be made from the King James Version instead of from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Moreover, they believe that any translation or version that is not identical to the King James Version is heresy and the work of Satan.

Which inerrant edition of the King James Version do these adherents use? There are many editions (revisions):  1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, and 1904. Do they use the:

– 1611 (“Judas” Bible) where Matthew 26:36 reads, “Then cometh Judas [instead of Jesus] with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.”

– 1631 (“Wicked” Bible) where Exodus 20:14 reads, “Thou shalt [“not” is omitted] commit adultery.”

– 1653 (“Unrighteous” or “Field’s” Bible) where 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, “Know ye not that the righteous [instead of unrighteous] shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

- 1711 (“Profit” Bible) where Isaiah 57:12 reads, “I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall [“not” is omitted] profit thee.”

– 1716 (“Sin On” Bible) where John 5:14 reads, “Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin on [instead of “no”] more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

– 1792 (“Denial” Bible) where Luke 22:34 reads, “And he said, I tell thee, Philip [instead of “Peter”], the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”

–  1801, (“Murderers” Bible) where Jude 1:16 reads, “These are murderers [instead of “murmurers”], complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.”

– 1802 (“Discharge” Bible) where 1 Timothy  5:21 reads, “I discharge [instead of “charge”] thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

– 1806 (“Standing Fishes” Bible) where Ezekiel  47:10 reads, “And it shall come to pass, that the fishes [instead of “fishers”] shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.”

– 1810 (“Wife-Hater” Bible) where Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife [instead of life] also, he cannot be my disciple.”

– 1829 (“Large Family” Bible) where Isaiah 66:9 reads, “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cease [instead of “cause”] to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.”

– undated (“Fool” Bible) where Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is a [“a” is substituted for “no”] God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

Thus, the translation of the Bible that King-James-only adherents believe is the only “inerrant” and unchangeable translation has undergone more changes and revisions than any English translation on today’s market.  Over the years, this inerrant Bible has contained many errors. Further, some of the best Greek manuscripts were not used.

If the King-James-only adherent’s Bible contains the letter “J,” it is not an original copy of the 1611 edition. “J” was not used in the Bible until the 1629 edition.

Reference

Amirault, Gary. “The King James Bible is ‘Inerrant?’”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

A Nullification That Failed

A Nullification That Failed

Thomas Allen

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the Southern States failed in their attempt to nullify federal acts that forced desegregation and integration, following the recommendations of Madison, which the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) endorses. Not only did the Southern States dislike these acts,  but most of them were unconstitutional. 

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling primarily on personal biases, sociology, and politics, with the US Constitution playing only an insignificant role. When Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not intend for it to apply to schools. Shortly after its ratification, Congress established a racially segregated school system for the District of Columbia.

According to TAC, Madison identified four appropriate methods that a State and “we the people” of that State could use to oppose and nullify an unconstitutional federal act or even a disliked federal act. A discussion of these four follows.

1. Popular protest by the people. “We the people” of a State may vigorously and vociferously protest against an unconstitutional or even disliked federal act. Southerners protested resolutely and vehemently against forced federal integration acts, but the federal government successfully suppressed their protest. Their protest did nothing more than bring more federal oppression and less liberty.

2. Refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Wholeheartedly, the Southern States not only refused to cooperate with the federal government, but they also interfered with its enforcement of federal integration acts. With great fervor, they opposed federal integration acts. Their disobedience and lack of cooperation did nothing except invigorate the federal government’s resolve to become more tyrannical and oppressive.

3. Formal protest by the governor. Few governors have ever protested unconstitutional acts of the federal government as did Governor Faubus of Arkansas and Governor Wallace of Alabama. All their protest did was cause the federal government to use military force against Arkansas and Alabama to quell their protest. Other governors protested, but to no avail. Their protest led to more subjection and despotism.

4. Legislative action. Legislative action includes resolutions formally protesting the federal government’s usurpation and unconstitutional acts. Legislatures may forbid agents of the State and its local governments from cooperating with the federal government in enforcing the federal act. It may even include interfering to prevent the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional federal act. However, legislative action does not extend to preventing federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional federal acts with imprisonment or fines. State legislatures of the Southern States took actions to thwart the enforcement of federal integration acts, short of jailing federal agents. Again, the results were the same: more oppression, tyranny, and loss of liberty.

Madison believed that if adjoining States protested against a federal act and sought to nullify it with the aforementioned actions, their actions would cause the federal act to become void. Madison was wrong. The Southern States were unified in their protest of the federal government’s integration acts. Yet, their unity did nothing to stop the federal government’s tyranny.

The Southern States did not resort to jailing federal agents attempting to enforce school integration. However, this action would have also failed because the philosophy of "might makes right" dominated the country. (With the possible exceptions of the Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge administrations, this philosophy has been the dominant governing principle of the federal government since 1861 — even superseding the Constitution.) Since the federal government used military force against Arkansas and Alabama in response to much milder forms of nullification, it would have used even greater force against a State that jailed its agents. (If a State had nullified these federal acts following Calhoun’s philosophy instead of Madison’s, these acts would not have applied in the nullifying States. Consequently, the federal government could not have lawfully used the military to enforce them because they did not exist in the nullifying States. However, since the federal government ceased following the Constitution in 1861, it would have used troops anyway.)

As a result of the Southern States’ failure to nullify the federal government’s integration acts, America’s education has deteriorated significantly. Worse, their defeat gave birth to racial quotas, political correctness, diversity-equity-inclusion, wokeism, and ultimately the death of the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization. Such has been the goal of the Puritan Yankees since the mid-nineteenth century. Only the South stood in the way of this goal; that is why Lincoln and the Republicans had to destroy the South.

Madison may have wept over the utter defeat of the Southern States’ failure to nullify these unconstitutional federal acts. However, based on inferences from its writings, TAC has not.

However, the Southern States’ attempted nullification did lead to two of the three wars that the United States have won since World War II: Eisenhower’s war against Arkansas, Kennedy’s war against Alabama, and Reagan’s war against Grenada. Defeating these three world superpowers is the height of US military prowess in the post-World War II era.

Since Lincoln’s War, States have been highly successful at nullifying federal acts against vice, e.g., prohibition, which the Constitution authorized the federal government to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and marijuana, which the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw or regulate. However, the nullification of most unconstitutional federal acts has been highly unsuccessful. The only nullifying acts that States are allowed are unenforceable protests and resolutions, and not participating with the federal government in enforcing federal laws (even this one seems to be fading under Trump).

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations on the Israel-Iran War and Trump’s response. Also, some comments on Christian Zionists are presented.

1 – Hal Turner, a radio commentator, gives a good analogy of the Israel-United States-Middle East relationship. Israel is a little bully. Because it does not like the kid next door, it punches the kid in the nose. In response, the kid hits Israel back. Then Israel runs to its big brother, crying, “He hit me! He hit me!” As a result of Israel’s crying, its subservient, compliant big brother, the United States, beats up the kid next door.

How much of the terrorism associated with Middle Eastern Muslim countries is merely a reaction to Israel bullying its neighbors and the US protecting the bully and meddling in the affairs of these countries, even to the extent of regime change, as with Iraq, Syria, and Libya?

2 – With his war against Iran, Trump has betrayed a large number of his MAGA base. Because Trump promised to end the Ukraine-Russia War and the Israel-Gaza War, many people voted for him. Not only has he failed to end those wars, but he has also started another one — or at least allied himself with Israel after Israel started another one.

One group of the MAGA base supports Trump in his war against Iran. They are mostly Christian Zionists. They want a global nuclear war because they believe such a war is necessary for Christ’s return. Since most Christian Zionists are premillennialists who believe in the pretribulation rapture, they believe that they will not have to endure the global nuclear war. They believe that they will enjoy the holocaust from a safe distance. Although this war will cause a massive slaughter of “God’s Chosen People,” whom most of the Christian Zionists worship, they look forward to this holocaust of the Jews. So much for their Christian compassion.

3– Trump ran as an antiestablishment candidate. Most of his MAGA base believed him and voted for him because they thought that he was an enemy of the establishment: neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, progressives, liberals, and most federal bureaucrats and politicians. Now, he has betrayed them. He appears to have sold out to the establishment, the military-security-industrial complex, and neoconservatives (many of whom are Jews, “God’s Chosen People,” and all of whom are Zionists). They wanted Trump to attack Iran for Israel, and he delivered. Thus, Trump again betrays his MAGA base, except for the Christian Zionists.

Christian Zionists believe that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of the United States is to serve and protect Israel and “God’s Chosen People.” To be sacrificed on the altar of Zionism is the United States' raison d'être. Such a sacrifice is the greatest of all honors. America has no higher purpose.

4– Trump seems to have become a neoconservative, who are Zionist frontmen, and an establishment conservative, who take care of the military-security-industrial complex. (Turning to the Democrats offers no escape. Not only are most Democrat leaders Zionists and protect the military-security-industrial complex, but they are also much more fascistic, promote queerdom, seek to destroy America with nonwhite aliens, and want to genocide the White race.)

5– Occasionally, Trump gives the illusion that he is not Israel’s lapdog by vigorously objecting to Israel’s actions. He has done so recently when Israel and Iran temporarily ignored his order for a ceasefire. (Does Trump really believe that he can give Israel orders? If so, he does not understand the world’s power structure: “God’s Chosen People” are in charge.) However, he never follows through with any sanctions on Israel. Is he like all Presidents since Kennedy and trembles in fear before Israel? If any US president becomes unruly, Israel will beat them into submission as it did with Kennedy.

(Apparently, such punishment was in President Johnson’s mind when he let Israel get away with trying to sink the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War. Instead of penalizing Israel for its sneak attack on the USS Liberty, he threatened the surviving crew with severe penalties if they mentioned the attack.)

6– Did Trump call for a ceasefire at the behest of Israel? Israel had expended most of its antimissile missiles and needed to replenish its stock and repair its missile defense system. It needed a ceasefire to restock its antimissiles and rebuild its missile defenses and armed forces. After that, it plans to continue its war with Iran. In the past, it has used ceasefires to rebuild its armed forces to continue fighting.

Furthermore, Iran had severely damaged Israeli infrastructure. Israel needed Trump to stop the war to save Israel from having to sue for peace before Iran destroyed it. Trump seems to be delivering. Will he use the ceasefire to bring about a peace that forces Israel to abandon its dream of Greater Israel? Or will he use it to give Israel time to repair its damage and rebuild its armed forces so that it can continue its quest for Greater Israel?

Some pro-Israel-anti-Iran folks believe that Iran agreed to the ceasefire so that it could rebuild its defenses and military. After which, it plans to attack Israel. They seem to discount Israel being the aggressor who initiated the war with its sneak attack on Iran. Also, they seem to discount the damage that Iran has inflicted on Israel, which seems greater than what Israel has inflicted on it.

7– Even if Trump wants to free himself from being an Israeli lackey, he may find such an effort impossible. He has surrounded himself with Zionists, many of whom are fervent Christian Zionists. They believe that the purpose of America and Christians is to sacrifice themselves for Israel and “God’s Chosen People,” the Jews.

8– Trump says that he does not want regime change in Iran because the change would lead to chaos. At least, he has learned one important lesson from Bush’s overthrow of Iraq; Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Afghanistan; Obama’s overthrow of Libya; and Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Syria.

Nevertheless, Israel wants an Iranian regime change. It wants a compliant government that it can control — like the governments of the United States, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Will Trump prevail, or will Israel prevail?

9– Even if Trump successfully destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, he has only eliminated Israel’s ostensible excuse for war against Iran. What Trump is overlooking is that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is just an excuse that Israel is using for its war. Israel wants to subordinate Iran to its will, and the nuclear weapons program is just an excuse for the war to achieve that goal.

If Trump has been successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel will find another reason for its war against Iran. A possible reason is that Trump failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This excuse is one that the Zionist and Jewish-controlled media are currently promoting. Another is that Israel has to continue the war to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Or Israel could come up with an excuse that is not related to nuclear weapons. Israel is not yet through with Iran.

As the old saying goes, “Israel has played Trump like a two-bit fiddle.” Perhaps Trump is realizing that Israel has used him, and that is why he is angry. Even if the United States destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel will find another excuse for war against Iran.

10– The reason that no signs of radiation have been detected at the three sites that Trump bombed is that they were empty — thus, the explanation that Iran had removed any uranium stored there before the bombing. Also, according to Scott Ritter, plans for these bombings were initiated during the Biden administration. Since any nuclear material at these sites had been removed long before the bombing, what was the purpose of the bombing? The United States and Israel must have known that they were empty. (If not, their intelligence agencies are the worst in the world and should be abolished.) Thus, the purpose of the bombing was for a political theatrical show; consequently, Trump risked American lives for a show. (See “Donald Trump Has Joined Joe Biden In The Ranks Of War Criminals” by Chuck Baldwin.)

11– Since Israel and Iran have an uncontrollable urge to fight each other, perhaps Trump should let them. If he does, he should take the divine approach of showing no partiality. Therefore, he would cease all support of Israel and remove all sanctions on Iran.

Alternatively, Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei fight each other in a no-rules bare-knuckles boxing match. The one who beats the other to death wins. As a result, the loser pays the victor a token prize of a thousand ounces of gold. Then, the people of both countries return to living their lives without molestation or threat of war from the other country. (It would also be helpful if warmongering propaganda were forbidden.) Using this approach saves many lives and prevents much destruction of bodies and property. Moreover, the two principal warmongers put their lives on the line instead of sending others to die for their vanity.

12– Trump carrying the United States to war for Israel again shows the American electorate that elections for federal offices mean nothing, especially in the realm of foreign policy. As long as the Establishment controls the Democratic and Republican parties, America can never be made great again.

It matters not whom Americans elect as President, be he a Democrat or a Republican, the Prime Minister of Israel is always the de facto President of the United States. Consequently, the foreign policy of the United States remains the same, especially in the Middle East and concerning Israel.

13– Democrats who criticize Trump for bombing Iran are hypocrites. When Obama bombed Libya to initiate regime change without notifying Congress, they did not object because he failed to notify them before the bombing. Their objection to Trump’s bombing is based on politics and not principle.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Seceded

The 1860 Presidential Election Caused the South to Secede

Thomas Allen, editor

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 92–94, G. Manigault explains how the 1860 presidential election led to the South seceding. He writes:

An election of President of the United States was to come on late in 1860, and the whole Union was greatly agitated by the canvass. The anti-slavery party chose for their candidate [Abraham Lincoln] an until lately obscure man — of little capacity or attainments, except as what is called a stump orator. He had a genius for diverting a rude Western crowd with funny stories and coarse witticisms. Some able speeches were delivered by him, but they were prepared by another man. His own serious efforts only proved his ignorance and shallowness. But he was popular in the great North-west, and was a man whom the party knew how to use for their purposes. Another party which expressly disclaimed for the Federal government any right to interfere with slavery in the States, but claimed for it the right to prohibit it in the common territories, nominated for their candidate an eminent Northwestern politician [Stephen A. Douglas], the zealous expounder of “Squatter Sovereignty.” A third party of no definite views, except peace at any price, brought out their candidate [John Bell]. And a fourth, consisting of the people of the Southern States and such people in the North as maintained the permanence and sanctity of the terms, on which the Union had been formed, and the limitations on the powers of the Federal government, nominated their candidate [John C. Breckinridge]. The result was that the anti-slavery party carried every Northern State, and the election — the fourth party carried every Southern State, and the other parties were nowhere.  

The people of the Southern States now found that they were living under a government completely in the hands of their enemies, utterly hostile to their rights and interests, and claiming a right not only to surround and hedge them out from all right in the common territories, and reduce them to complete and hopeless subjection, but to revolutionize their internal political and social organization. This was not the confederation into which they had entered; this was not the government which they had joined in creating. Unless they could submit to be revolutionized by external enemies, and become mere tributary provinces to them, it was high time to break off all connection with utterly faithless confederates, whom the most solemn treaty could not bind. The Southern States began to secede from the Union in rapid succession, and war was made upon the South to force them back into it.

More Southern articles.

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws

Thomas Allen

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution)

When the States became members of the United States, they agreed to return fugitive slaves. As time passed and the Puritan Yankee abolitionists became highly influential in New England, New York, and the upper Midwest, the Northern States began refusing to aid in the return of runaway slaves. In other words, they began nullifying fugitive slave laws.

After the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, several Northern States effectively nullified it. (Presumably, Illinois and Indiana had no problem with the fugitive slave laws because they prohibited Blacks from entering them.)

Not unexpectedly, South Carolina objected to the nullifications. One reason that South Carolina gave for seceding was that various Northern States had nullified the fugitive slave laws. The reason that South Carolina listed slavery as a reason for its secession was that it was a prime example of the North’s hostility toward it and the North’s refusal to live by the Constitution.

Ironically, when South Carolina seceded, the Northern States no longer had a constitutional obligation to return runaway slaves to South Carolina. Thus, South Carolina’s secession effectively ended the need for the Northern States’ nullification, as far as South Carolina was concerned, because it was now a foreign country.

For South Carolina to secede to preserve slavery was absurd. Despite Northern States nullifying fugitive slave laws, slavery was better protected in the Union than outside it. Regardless of abolitionist rant, Republicans stressed that they had no intentions of abolishing slavery (see “Slavery Not the Reason” by Thomas Allen).

If South Carolina wanted to keep slavery intact, it would not accomplish that goal with secession. When it seceded, the United States ceased having any obligation to return runaway slaves to it.

Nevertheless, New England’s Puritanism, lust for plunder, and hatred of Southerners prevented them from letting South Carolina and the other Southern States leave the union in peace. The Yankee Puritans had seen the righteous, holy light, and they were determined to ram their vision of a sinless world down the throats of the Southern States despite the desiderata of the South. Puritans must free the world of sin so that Jesus can return — postmillennialism. (While the underlying principle of  postmillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes stronger, the underlying principle of today’s popular premillennialism is that the Holy Spirit becomes weaker.) Moreover, they would make the South pay for their liberation from sin by stealing as much wealth from the South as possible. (To the abolitionist Puritans, the greatest sin of all was slavery, despite the Bible not condemning slavery, which is why they abandoned the Bible.)

Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, and most other proponents of nullification taught using it to void unconstitutional federal acts. Although Madison approved of nullifying constitutional federal acts that a State disliked, most of the others did not teach using it to void constitutional acts of the federal government that a State disliked.

According to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, which is quoted above, the Constitution authorized fugitive slave laws. Moreover, it obligated States to return runaway slaves. Consequently, Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws not because they were unconstitutional, but because they disagreed with them. (Since the Northern States controlled Congress, why did they not repeal the fugitive slave laws or rewrite them to address their concerns?)

Nevertheless, if a State disagrees with a federal law that is constitutional, it has the right not to participate in its enforcement. However, it has no right to actively intervene or interfere with its enforcement, as some Northern States did when they nullified fugitive slave laws. If the law was unconstitutional, which the fugitive slave laws were not, a State has the right to interfere with its enforcement.

If the Puritan Yankee abolitionists found slavery so reprehensible that they would destroy the country and its constitution and cause the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in the process, they could have bought the slaves and set them free much more cheaply and without destroying the country and its constitution. These abolitionists cared only about Black slaves in the abstract. They did not care for them personally as did their owners.

Reconstruction showed how little Northerners cared about Blacks. They threw the slaves into the free-labor market. Most slaves had few skills beyond farm labor, and most had little training in taking care of themselves. Their masters had provided their housing, food, clothing, tools, medical care, etc., and took care of them in old age and when they were unable to work. After emancipation, they immediately had to learn to do all these things for themselves. Many failed, and many died.

Also, the North could have provided freed slaves with farmland in the territories. Yet, it did not because the territories were reserved for Whites.

Unfortunately, too many Blacks still have not escaped the slave mentality. Through various federal and State welfare and civil rights programs, they depend on governments to take care of them, as they had depended on the master — they have enslaved themselves to governments. Worse, they have enslaved taxpayers to support them.

During the Jim Crow Era, Blacks were making great strides in learning how to care for themselves and to free themselves from a slave mentality. Discrimination and segregation in the North and the South forced them to become independent and rely on themselves. Then came the Civil Rights Era. Consequently, this progress was retarded and thwarted.

Appendix. The Tenth Amendment Center

The Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) is a strong supporter of nullification. However, it goes beyond the teachings of Jefferson and Calhoun. While they wrote that a State has the right to nullify federal acts that it finds unconstitutional, as far as I know, they never promoted the nullification of constitutional acts with which a State disagrees. (When the Northern States nullified fugitive slave laws, they nullified constitutional laws with which they disagreed.) 

However, TAC goes beyond nullifying unconstitutional federal acts. It not only endorses a State nullifying unconstitutional federal acts but also endorses a State nullifying constitutional federal acts that it dislikes — except for Southern States nullifying civil rights acts of the federal government, including those that are unconstitutional, such as school desegregation and integration. (I have not found TAC expressly opposing or condemning the Southern States and communities attempting to nullify federal acts outlawing segregation and forcing integration. However, it does support Communist agents and Communist-front organizations nullifying State and local segregation laws and practices. Consequently, I infer that it opposes States and communities attempting to nullify these federal acts.) Thus, TAC supports Northern States' nullifying fugitive slave laws and opposes South Carolina's objection.

TAC seems to have a low opinion of Calhoun, despite him probably being the most brilliant and original political philosopher that the Western Hemisphere has ever produced, because he supported giving nullification real teeth. Calhoun argued that a State could prevent the enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its borders by vetoing it and thus making it unenforceable, as did Vermont’s nullification of the fugitive slave laws, which authorized arresting and penalizing federal officials attempting to enforce the fugitive slave laws. TAC objects to giving nullification teeth — at least in practice. Consequently, TAC rejects a State enforcing its nullification by jailing federal agents who attempt to enforce the nullified act in that State. In its opinion and Madison’s, such nullification allows one State to impose its will on the other States by preventing the enforcement of a nullified act within the nullifying State but not in the other States. Yet, TAC only weakly, if at all, objects to other States imposing their will on the nullifying State. In short, while Calhoun advocates nullification-heavy, TAC and Madison advocate nullification-light.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More political articles.

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

Thomas Allen

According to 1 Samuel 15:35, Samuel never saw Saul again: 

And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

However, according to 1 Samuel 19:24, Saul prophesied before Samuel, which occurred after Samuel never saw Saul again:

And he [Saul] stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?

When did Samuel last see Saul?

Stenning notes that verse 15:35 is inconsistent with verse 19:24. However, according to Stenning, verses 19:18 through 19:24 are late and unhistorical. Verse 15:35 excludes the meeting between Saul and Samuel in verse 19:24. Further, Samuel being the head of the prophets is inconsistent with earlier traditions (1 Samuel 10:5). Moreover, David would have most likely headed to the South where his kinsmen were in Judea and not to the north toward Ramah. Additionally, verse 19:24 may be connected to 1 Samuel 10:10-11, which describes an event that occurred before verse 15:35.

Young disagrees with Stenning and maintains that Samuel was the superintendent of a company of prophets at Ramah. However, he does not discuss the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24.

Weaver does not comment on the inconsistencies between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24. Nevertheless, he notes that Samuel being the head of the ecstatic prophets is inconsistent with the stories of Samuel in chapters seven through ten of 1 Samuel. Also, David would have fled south to Judea instead of north. Weaver believes that a collector of stories about David eventually incorporated the story that appears in verses 19:18–24.

Clarke maintains that chronologically, the events of verse 15:35 occurred before the events of verse 19:24. Yet, from Samuel’s perspective, he did not see Saul after verse 15:35 because he no longer had any connections with Saul and no longer acknowledged Saul as king. Also, Clarke states that Samuel superintended the school of prophets at Ramah.

Bennett claims that the conflict between verse 15:35 and verse 19:24 occurs because two different sources were used.

        Although the conflict between 1 Samuel 15:35 and 1 Samuel 19:24 presents little difficulty to those who claim that the Bible is infallible (trustworthiness, incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals), it does, however, present great difficulty to people who claim that the Bible is inerrant (without error or misstatement.) Obviously, inconsistencies between passages do call into question inerrancy. Often a great deal of unconvincing mental gymnastics is required to explain away inconsistencies. Two of the favorite excuses used by adherents of inerrancy are that (1) the original autographs but not copies are without error and (2) errors are not real but are things that humans do not understand, i.e., mysteries. Although proponents of inerrancy are inclined toward being absolute literalists, they also use the argument of figures of speech and using round numbers to explain away apparent errors or misstatements. (For example, the Bible states that the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference is three [1 Kings 7:23]; this is explained away by claiming that the writer is using a round number, which is true. However, if the Bible is supposed to be correct in all matters as inerrancy folks declare, should not the writer have used a much more precise number such as 3.1415926535 — especially since most inerrancy proponents argue that the Bible is 100 percent accurate about scientific matters? Moreover, nearly all young-earth, universal-flood adherents reject the flat-earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat — see “A Response to “What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?” by Thomas Allen. Thus, inerrancy adherents are highly selective about the Bible’s correctness on scientific matters.) The only time that an inconsistency presents a problem to an infallibility proponent is when the Bible conflicts with a manmade doctrine, e.g., Paul writing that “there is one God, the Father” (1 Corinthians 8:6) To maintain their doctrine, inerrancy adherents must explain away inconsistencies; infallibility adherents do not.

References

Bennett, W.H. A Commentary on the Bible. Editor Arthur S. Peake. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Clarke, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. Abridged by Ralph Earle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967.

Stenning, J. F. A New Commentary on Holy Scripture. Editors, Charles Gore, Henry L. Goudge, and Alfred Guillaume. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1928.

Weaver, J.W. The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible. Editor Charles M.Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Young, F.E. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Editor Charles F. Pfeiffer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Israel-Iran War

Israel-Iran War

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations about Israel’s sneak attack on Iran and President Trump’s response.

Self-defense

Israel and nearly every Zionist use the self-defense argument to justify Israel’s sneak attack on Iran. According to Israel, for the last 45 years, Iran has been weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon. (If true, Iran must have some highly incompetent scientists and engineers to have failed to acquire a nuclear weapon a long time ago, when a country as poor and backward as North Korea managed to develop nuclear weapons years ago.) Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, Israel contends that Iran will immediately use it on Israel. Although Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons, Iran must not have even one. (According to Iran, if one believes Iran, which Zionists and Jews do not, it has no nuclear weapons and does not plan to build any. Unfortunately, Israel’s surreptitious attack may have changed Iran’s mind.) The primary thing that Israel seems to be defending itself against is peace.

If a supposed theoretical attack by Iran on Israel justifies Israel’s sneak attack on Iran, then it justifies Japan’s surprise attack on the United States. Indeed, Japan was more justified than Israel. 

Roosevelt was trying to provoke a war with Japan. Iran’s threat to Israel has been primarily rhetorical. However, Roosevelt’s threat was more than rhetoric. He had placed an embargo on exporting vital resources to Japan. Iran’s economic sanctions on Israel are of little consequence. On the contrary, Israel and its vassal states, primarily the United States, have placed many important sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, for decades, Israel has been threatening Iran with far more vigor than Iran has been threatening Israel. If either of them is justified in launching a surprise attack, it is Iran.

Precision of the Attack

Many Zionists boast about the precision of Israel’s sneak attack. It killed mainly Iran’s nuclear scientists and military leaders. Except for family members and others who were nearby when the attack occurred, civilian casualties were minimized.

If Israel could carry out such precise attacks against Iran, why could it not have done the same in killing Hamas in Gaza? While Iran is a large country with aircraft and an air defense system, Gaza is a tiny territory with no air defense. A precision attack against Hamas in Gaza would have been much easier and cheaper than the approach that Israel took of leveling the country and genociding the Palestinians.  Instead of killing Hamas with a precise attack, Israel chose to utterly destroy Gaza with bombs and bulldozers and to genocide the Palestinians who lived there. Obviously, Israel wants to kill as many Palestinians as possible and drive the survivors from Greater Israel. The question remaining is whether Trump or the Jews will turn Gaza into a resort area.  Perhaps Israel will let Trump develop Gaza as a reward for being such a servile slave.

Trump

President Trump has become another sleazy politician. He lied to the American people when he promised not only to keep the United States out of war but also to end quickly the Russia-Ukraine War and the Israeli-Gaza War. Although he could have ended both wars within a few weeks without any threats or expenditures by the United States, he managed not only to stretch them out but also to bring the world even closer to nuclear annihilation. (Most Christian Zionists greatly desire a global nuclear war — especially the premillennialist rapture cultists — and so does a segment of Islam. Both believe that the world must be destroyed before the Messiah comes.)

As President Wilson lied America into World War I, and President Roosevelt lied the country into World War II, Trump seems to be lying the country into World War III. Wilson and Roosevelt ran on a platform to keep America out of war. Likewise, Trump ran on a platform to keep the country out of war.

However, the US Air Force defending Israel from Iranian weapons and bombing Iranian targets for Israel is Trump’s idea of keeping the United States out of war. To anyone with a functioning brain cell, these actions involve the United States in the war. (Is Trump brain dead, or has he sold his soul to Israel and Zionism?)

Further, Trump seems to have aided Israel in its sneak attack by distracting Iran with his nuclear deal negotiations. However, his negotiations were not serious. He offered Iran a deal that he knew Iran would not and could not accept. Now, he can use the excuse that he offered Iran a way to avoid war, but it rejected the offer. Consequently, the blame lies with Iran as Trump goes to war against Iran.

Furthermore, Trump has demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender, which he knows or should know is unacceptable. He followed this demand by ordering the air force to bomb Iran. Consequently, as an obedient slave of Israel, Trump has attacked Iran for Israel.

For decades, Israel had been trying to convince the United States to strike Iran. Finally, Israel got a subservient lapdog in the presidency, who is so Zionist that he will do whatever Israel orders, to fulfill its lustful dream of Greater Israel.

At least Israel does not have to attempt another USS Liberty incident to draw the United States into war against Iran. (During the  Six-Day War in 1967, Israel attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty, which was an intelligence-gathering ship, off the coast of Egypt. Israel wanted to sink the ship and blame Egypt so that the United States would enter the war against Egypt.)

Apparently, in Trump’s mind and the minds of nearly all members of Congress, Christian Zionists, and most Zionist commentators, no sacrifice is too great to pay to and for “God’s Chosen People.”  Even the utter destruction of America and a global holocaust is an acceptable price to pay for the survival of Israel and the Jews.

Trump deserves the blame for all Americans killed and maimed by Iranian retaliation. Iran did not want war with the United States, but warmongering Zionist Trump attacked it, although it was no threat to the United States. Now, Trump has gotten the United States into another useless, no-win war.

Ever since the assassination of Kennedy, every US President, including Trump, has been a lackey of Israel. With the assassination of Kennedy, the United States became a vassal state of Israel. Since then, Israel has owned every US President and nearly all members of Congress. (Today, 100 Senators and about 430 Representatives represent Israel in Congress.) As Biden was  Zelensky’s president, so Trump is Netanyahu’s president — both of whom are Jews.

If Trump is not a slave of Israel, he needs to start acting like he is not. If he is a man of peace, he needs to stop threatening and bombing Iran and stop supporting Israel’s war machine. If he is a man for the little people, he needs to defend the Palestinians and stop Israel’s genocide of them.

Is Trump’s attack on Iran motivated in part by a desire to fulfill Bush the Younger’s police state dream? After all, Trump completed Bush’s program of the Real ID card, which is the foundation of an authoritarian police state. With his attack on Iran, Trump may have hoped to trigger Iranian sleeper cells in the United States to attack American infrastructure. Does he hope they do so that he can declare martial law and achieve Bush’s nightmare? A police state is also the vision of neoconservatives and Democrats.

If Trump were a statesman instead of a contemptible politician, he would tell Israel, “You started this war; you finish it on your own without any help from us.” Then, he would withdraw all US troops and naval vessels from the Middle East and close all the air force bases. (There is no need to give Israel American targets to attack and blame Iran and draw America into the war.)

Trump’s slogans of “America First” and “Make America Great Again” have become “Israel First” and “Make Israel Great.” As a spin-off of an old saying, “With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies?” Whereas Biden flooded the country with  queerdom and alien invaders, Trump is drowning the country in Zionism.

Jews

Most people who call themselves Jews are not true Jews. Properly speaking, only descendants of Judah are Jews. Most of today’s Jews are not descendants of Judah, and probably all of those who are are mixed with non-Jews. Some are descendants of the people of the Persian Empire who became Jews during the time of Esther for fear of the Jews (Esther 8:17). Others are descendants of the Edomites, who were prominent in Palestine during the life of Jesus. Most of today’s Jews are descendants of the people of Khazaria, who are called Ashkenazim. Yet, all these Jews are “God’s Chosen People.” Since Jews as such did not come into being until the time of the Babylonian captivity, the descendants of the northern tribes are not really Jews. Moreover, the northern tribes were not descendants of Judah.

Since both my father’s and mother’s ancestry can be traced back to Judah, does that make me a Jew? It seems to give me a stronger claim to being a Jew than most contemporary Jews have.

One final note about Jews: most people who hate Jews do not hate them because of their religion or ethnicity. They hate them because of the misbehavior of many Jews.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.