Geneses the Beginning

Geneses the Beginning

Thomas Allen

The King James Version translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

        1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Most other translations render verse one “in the beginning” like the King James. A few translate it “when God began to create the heavens and the earth.” Also, with one exception, Fenton’s translation, all translate verse five as “day.” Their difference lies in that some use “the first day,” as in the King James, while others use “day one.”

In The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903), Ferrar Fenton translates Genesis 1:1–5 as follows:

1 BY Periods GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth.

2 But the Earth was unorganised and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of GOD rocked the surface of its waters.

3 GOD then said, “Let there be light;” and light came. 

4 And GOD gazed upon that beautiful light; and GOD divided the light from the darkness. 

5 And to the light GOD gave the name of Day, and to the darkness He gave the name of Night. This was the close and the dawn of the first age.

Instead of using “in the beginning,” Fenton uses “by periods.” Instead of using “day,” he uses “age.”

To explain his use of “by periods,” he writes, “Literally ‘By Headships.’ It is curious that all translators from the Septuagint have rendered this word . . . B'reshith, into the singular, although it is plural in the Hebrew. So I render it accurately.”

Fenton’s translation of yôwm, which the King James translates as “day,” is also valid.  The word means day both in the literal sense of from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next, or in the figurative sense of a space of time of unspecified duration, era, or age. For example, Genesis 2:4, “day” refers to the entire period described by the six days of creation in chapter one. (For more on “day” meaning “age,” see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen, pages 26-38.)

According to Unger, “in the beginning” could refer to a relative beginning rather than the original creation of the earth and universe. That is, it could refer to God’s creation of the earth at a much later period: God refashioned the earth at a later point in geological history.

About the days of creation, Unger writes:

If Gen 1:1 does not describe the original creation of the earth ex nihilo before the entrance of sin into the pristine sinless earth (Job 38:7), then the six days represent either (1) literal 24-hour days of re-creation, (2) literal 24-hour days of the divine revelation of re-creation to man, (3) or extended geologic ages or epochs preparatory for the eventual occupancy of man. Since the Genesis account itself is indecisive view (2) or (3) is possible, view (1) being sometimes assumed: untenable in an age of science. If Gen 1:1 describes the original creation of the earth out of nothing, and not the refashioning of an earth that suffered chaos in connection with the entrance of sin into the universe, then the six days represent the same possibilities, 1-3 as indicated above.[1]

Fenton’s translation solves much of the apparent disagreement between God’s word and God’s geology (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen). It eliminates the need to explain away geology that shows that the Earth is much older than 6000 to 10,000 years. It eliminates the need to try to fit the Earth’s ancient geologic history into a 144-hour week, i.e., six 24-hour days.  Moreover, it eliminates explaining away the paleontologic record as do the young-earth advocates by having it mostly created by a global flood about 4300–4400 years ago. (The geological record does not support such a flood.) Furthermore, it eliminates the need to explain away Chapter 1 of Genesis as myth or allegory to make it fit the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history. With his translation, most of the conflict between the Earth’s ancient geologic and paleontologic history and Chapter 1 of Genesis is eliminated. Additionally, the seventh day is described as God's day of rest; this day has not yet ended and, therefore, extends a long time.

Endnote

1. Merrill F Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960), p. 38.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Some Observations on Israel, Iran, Russia, Islam, and Christianity

Thomas Allen

The following are some comments on the Israel-Iran War, especially concerning Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Jews, and Russia.

1– Israel knows that it cannot defeat Iran on its own. It planned for the Jewish lobby, the Jewish-controlled media, neoconservative Zionists, and the Christian Zionists to draw the United States into its war with Iran. That plan has worked.

2– A major problem that Muslim countries have in the Middle East is that their religious disagreements prevent them from uniting against Israel. Israel has used these disagreements to its advantage.

On the other hand, Zionists have no such problem. Christian Zionists, Jewish Zionists, and atheist Zionists unite against the Muslims. They value Zionism above their religion. Indeed, for many of them, Zionism is their religion.

3– Zionists and other pro-Israel people rant endlessly about the vileness of Islam and Muslims. Other than their claim that such vileness is innate in Islam and the Koran, they never try to discover the cause of Muslim hostility toward and hatred of Jews and, particularly, Israel. To them, Muslim hostility and hatred have nothing to do with Jews terrorizing the Palestinians and stealing their land.

After the Balfour Declaration (1917), Jews began moving to Palestine and terrorizing the Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, and taking their land. (In 1920, 500,000 Muslims, 70,000 Christians, and 60,000 Jews lived in Palestine. In 1940, the population was 948,000, 121,000, and 464,000, respectively.) Before the Balfour Declaration, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived peacefully in Palestine. 

Moreover, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel and Jews have nothing to do with the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. Nor do they have anything to do with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 or Israel’s attacks against its neighbors in 1967 (the Six-Day War), 1973 (the Yom Kippur War), 1982 (the 1982 Lebanon War), and 2006 (the Israel–Hezbollah War), and the almost continuous offensive assaults against its neighbors since 1948.

Furthermore, Muslim hostility and hatred of Israel, Jews, and the United States have nothing to do with Israel getting its vassal, the United States, to destroy Iraq and Syria for Greater Israel. Now, Israel is trying to get the United States to destroy Iran. (As a result of its subservient support of Israel, many Muslims consider America the Great Satan and chant, “Death to America.” Without the succor of its slave, the United States, Israel would collapse.)

All these ignored issues have much more to do with Muslims’ loathing Israel and the Jews than does the Koran or anything innate in Islam.

4– Many people who believe that Islam is an innately vile religion ignore many non-Christians viewing Christianity as an innately vile religion — and for many of the same reasons. Before Muslims arrived in the Middle East and North Africa, these regions were predominantly Christian, among whom Jews lived. After the arrival of Muslims, the population of Christians and Jews significantly declined over the years. The implication is that Muslims either killed them or drove them out of the Middle East and North Africa. What is often overlooked is that many converted to Islam to avoid paying the jizya, a tax levied on non-Muslims.

Islam is criticized for using the sword to force its religion on others. Once Christianity became the state religion under Constantine, Christians not only used the sword to convert others, but they also used it to settle theological disputes. The Catholic Church became notorious for using the sword against Christian sects that did not adhere to what the Catholic Church declared to be orthodoxy. An early example was the wars between the Trinitarians, who were usually the aggressors, and the Arians. Later, the Catholic Church used the sword to oppress Christian sects, such as the Waldensians, who refused to recognize the Pope’s authority. Perhaps the bloodiest conflict of Christian intolerance was the Thirty Years' War. 

Moreover, in Christendom, Jews were often persecuted. At various times, many European countries forbade Jews from living in them.

Before Bush the Younger destroyed Iraq for Israel, Iraq had a thriving Christian population. Now, the Christians who remain are struggling to survive.

Does this mean that the Bible and Christians are vile? (The Bible does contain stories where God orders his people to kill and genocide others.) If judged by the same standard that people who consider Islam innately vile, it seems to imply that Christianity is innately vile.

Furthermore, Islam has a much higher opinion of Jesus, who is the central figure of Christianity, than does Judaism. According to Islam’s holy book, the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet, second only to Mohammad. According to the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, Jesses is a blasphemer, a bastard, and a sorcerer. 

5– Iran is as much of a threat to the United States as Iraq was in 2001 — none. Like Iraq, Iran is mostly a threat posed by the propaganda of the Jewish and Zionist-controlled media, federal bureaucrats, and politicians of both parties. 

6– If Iran falls, Russia and China are in great danger. Iran serves as a buffer to Russia because it prevents the CIA from sending jihadists into Russia’s Muslim provinces. Also, if the United States gain control of Iran’s oilfields, China could lose a major supplier of its energy. How long will Russia and China stand by and let Israel and the United States have their way in Iran?

Russia and China may have prevented this war if they had a public defense pact with Iran and had placed it under their nuclear umbrella. However, it is unlikely that this action would have stopped Israel, but it may have slowed, if not prevented, the United States’ entry into the war. Now, Russia and China may have to enter the war directly.

7– Some wonder why Putin signaled his approval of an Israeli attack on Iran by announcing that Russia’s treaty with Iran did not include military support. 

What happened to Iran’s air defense? Russia had provided Iran with antiaircraft missiles. Did Russia prevent Iran from using them? Were they faulty, or were they inadequate for the job?

Putin and Russia seem to be continuing the extinct Soviet Union’s policy of aiding Israel surreptitiously by undermining its ostensible Muslim allies when they warred against Israel. President Sadat of Egypt realized this betrayal when he expelled Soviet agents from his country in 1972, several months before the Yom Kippur War.

The Soviet Union, which Jews founded, aided Jews in Palestine before 1948 and in Israel afterward. During the Zionists’ struggle to drive the British and later the Palestinians from Palestine, the Soviet Union, through Czechoslovakia, was a major supplier of arms to the Jews in Palestine. 

Furthermore, it joined the United States in partitioning Palestine and giving a large portion of it to the Jews. With Soviet-supplied weapons and aircraft, Israel won its war for independence. Later, Ben Gurion would thank the Soviet Union for providing Israel with the arms that it needed to win independence and for its support of Zionism in the United Nations.

President Truman gave Israel de facto recognition on May 15, 1948, the day that Great Britain’s mandate in Palestine expired. However, the Soviet Union extended de jure recognition to Israel on May 17, 1948, and, thus, became the first state to recognize Israel fully and officially. 

To win favor and influence over Israel’s Arab neighbors, the Soviet government instituted a campaign to suppress some petty Jews in the Soviet bloc. Also, it openly denounced Israel and supplied weaponry to Israel’s Arab neighbors. Later, the Soviet Union would use its influence over Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries to aid Israel.

8– Iran is one of the seven Muslim countries that Israel and the Zionists have identified for destruction. Five have been destroyed: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, and Sudan. Iran and Saudi Arabia remain. Israel’s updated list now includes Pakistan. Turkey may soon be added; a small part of it falls in Greater Israel. Destroying Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and possibly Turkey for Israel will be an extremely expensive chore for the United States. Additionally, Egypt must be included since all of Egypt east of the Nile belongs to Greater Israel. Likewise, Jordan will need to be destroyed because it is also part of Greater Israel. China will be the real winner of such an undertaking because America will be so exhausted from these wars that it will fall into China’s hands as easily as an overripe plum.

9– In “US State Department Spokeswoman Says Israel Is Greater Than America,” Caitlin Johnstone makes some interesting and informative remarks about the Israel-Iran War (https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2025/06/23/us-state-department-spokeswoman-says-israel-is-greater-than-america/):

Top Ten dumbest things we’re being asked to believe about Iran:

1. That the Iranians want to be bombed.

2. That the guy bombing Iran wants peace.

3. That regime change interventionism is a swell idea this time.

4. That anyone who doesn’t want war with Iran hates Jews.

5. That this time the government and the media are telling us the truth about an American war.

6. That this time the neocons are smart and correct.

7. That bombing Iran makes it LESS likely to try to obtain nukes.

8. That Iran is trying to assassinate the US president when all US presidents have the same foreign policy.

9. That Iran (a country that never starts wars) cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel (a country that starts wars constantly) can.

10. That attacking Iran benefits Americans.

10– Paul Craig Roberts writes, “Iran has done nothing to America. It has not attacked us, sanctioned us, frozen our bank reserves, forbidden trade with us, assassinated any of our leaders. These are things that Washington has done to Iran. Why? Because Netanyahu told us to.” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/06/19/is-trumps-constituency-netanyahu-or-maga-america/)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles. 

Unicorns and Satyrs

Unicorns and Satyrs

Thomas Allen

Two mythical creatures, the unicorn and satyr, are mentioned in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. A unicorn is a mythical animal that has the body of a horse with one horn on its forehead. A satyr is a mythical animal that is half man and half goat.

In nine verses, the KJV translates the Hebrew word rah-ame’ as “unicorn.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 7214, rah-ame’ or rame means “a wild bull (from its conspicuousness) — unicorn.” According to Hebrew Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar), the word probably means “the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.”  Fausset’s Bible Dictionary notes that “unicorn” was not intended to refer to the classic one-horned animal but to the wild oxen or urus, which is also known as the aurochs (Bos primigenius). (Since every edition of the KJV since 1611 has used “unicorn,” the common understanding of which is the classic one-horned horse-like animal, one must assume that the translators meant the classic one-horned animal, or else they would have changed it.) Because the Hebrew word referred to an animal with which the original translators were not familiar, they assumed that it was a unicorn.

Some translations, e.g., KJ21, follow the KJV and translate rah-ame’ as “unicorn.” Most, e.g., NIV, translate it as “wild oxen.” DARBY translates it as “buffaloes,” and YLT transliterates it as “reems.”

In two verses, the KJV translates the Hebrew word sa`iyr as satyrs or satyr. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 8163, sa`iyr or sabir means “shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun:–devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.” The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary notes that sa`iyr typically refers to a “he-goat,” but at times, it also signifies a “goat demon.” The Fausset’s Bible Dictionary states that sa`iyr is literally a shaggy goat and is sometimes used for a demon dwelling in the desert or an object of heathen worship. As with rah-ame’, the KJV translators did not know what the Hebrew word sa`iyr meant, so they used “satyrs.” 

Some translations, e.g., KJ21 and RSV, follow the KJV and translate sa`iyr as satyrs. Many, e.g., NIV, translate it as “wild goat.” The CEB, NRSVA, and TLV translate it as “goat demons” while TLB and OJB translate it as “demons.” The LSB, MEV, and NASB translate it as “shaggy goats” while RGT translates it as “hairy goat.” The DRA and ISV translate it as “hairy ones.” (For definitions of these Bible abbreviations, see https://www.biblegateway.com.)

Since King-James-only adherents believe that the KJV is 100 percent correct without error — inerrant (without error or misstatement in all matters), they must believe that unicorns and satyrs actually existed and must defend their existence. Any translation that translates rah-ame’ and sa`iyr as anything other than unicorn or satyr is an incorrect and deceptive translation. They are deliberately distorting the word of God. Therefore, they are satanic translations.

Furthermore, not only is the KJV 100 percent accurate in expounding doctrine on faith and morals, but it is also 100 percent accurate and without error on all scientific matters. Since the inerrant KJV presents unicorns and satyrs as real creatures that really existed, they must be real and actually physically existed. They are not merely mythical creatures.

Proponents of biblical infallibility (the Bible is trustworthy and incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith and morals, but not necessarily so on scientific or historical matters) do not have to argue that unicorns and satyrs were once real creatures roaming the earth. Although they believe that the Bible is without error on theological matters, they do not believe that it is without error on all scientific matters — unlike the adherents of inerrancy. Thus, they can accept including mythological creatures in the Bible without having to claim that they once existed.

(Interesting, almost no proponent of biblical inerrancy believes that the Earth is flat and the solar system is geocentric. With rare exceptions, they believe that the Earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric. Yet, the Bible clearly describes the Earth as flat and the solar system as geocentric. [See “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, they are inconsistent in their belief in biblical inerrancy.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles. 

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.

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Two schools of salvation are discussed with a focus on salvation according to the Israel Identity folks. Israel Identity is known as British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity.

Salvation

Two schools of salvation are (1) salvation is by faith and faith alone, and (2) salvation is by faith plus some other condition. The first school reads John 3:16 literally and does not attach any conditions. The second school reads John 3:16 with conditions attached, although the verse and surrounding verses do not mention any conditions. John 3:16 reads:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

According to the salvation by faith-only school, anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah who guarantees everlasting life has everlasting life as taught in the Gospel According to St. John. According to the faith plus school, a person must not only believe in Jesus but must also meet some other qualification to be saved. To be saved, he must also:

– be baptized, although the proper form of baptism is disputed,

– repent,

– be obedient until he dies,

– attend church regularly,

– be a member of the proper denomination (several denominations contain the condition),

– believe the Trinity Doctrine,

– be chosen by God for salvation,

– be a descendant of Israel,

– whatever, or

– any combination of the above.

Thus, the second school reads John 3:16 as follows:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life if he is baptized, repents, is obedient, attends church regularly, is a member of the proper denomination, believes the Trinity Doctrine, is chosen by God, is a descendant of Israel, or complies with whatever.

Most Israel Identity people believe that the Bible is written about and for the Israelites and applies only to them and no other ethnicity. Therefore, John 3:16 reads:

For God so loved the world [i.e., meaning the Israelites], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [i.e., meaning Israelites and only Israelites who] believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Israel Identity

The following is a further discussion of Israel Identity on salvation. Most of it is based on the works of Arnold Kennedy. He is typical of the Israel Identity adherents.

According to Kennedy, the Bible is written about and for the Israelites and applies only to them and no other ethnicity. Jesus came to redeem and save only the descendants of Israel; therefore, no other people, including non-Israelite Whites, can be saved unto everlasting life. Only unadulterated descendants of Israel can be saved.

In one place, Kennedy suggests that non-Israelites cease to exist when they die. Yet, in another place, he suggests that since the Bible does not say what happens to non-Israelites when they die, people should not speculate about their fate. (Which is it, Kennedy? In one place, you speculate that they cease to exist when they die, and in another place, you write that people should not speculate about their fate.) 

According to Kennedy, racial genes come from the male side only. Consequently, males determine the race of the offspring; females never do. Therefore, the genes that fix a person's race are on the male Y chromosome. If true, how do women, who lack this chromosome, acquire their race? Although racial genes come from the male side only, the female must be of suitable stock for the offspring to be genetically acceptable to God — presumably, a descendant of Israel, but he does not define what makes a woman suitable stock.

When an Israelite male begets a child by a Negro female, the offspring is a mulatto. Why, if the male fixes the race? Should not all the children of a male Israelite be White? Anyway, the Negro female is not a suitable stock, and, therefore, the offspring is not genetically acceptable to God.

Moreover, according to Kennedy, God incorporated a "spirit" component into the Y chromosome of Abraham. This spirit component passed to Isaac, then to Israel, afterward to his twelve sons, and onward to all their male descendants. Somehow, Esau failed to receive this spirit component. Furthermore, he suggests that possessing this spirit component is essential for salvation, even though females do not receive it because they do not have the Y chromosome. (He is unclear whether a male offspring of an Israelite male and a non-Israelite female inherits this gene. He seems to imply that he does not; for this gene to pass, the Israelite’s mate has to be a woman of suitable stock. In any event, dilution of the spirit content from race-mixing leads to rejection by God.) Since females lack the Y chromosome, they do not possess this spirit component. If this spirit component is necessary for salvation, then how are women saved? 

Like all Israelite Identity adherents whom I have encountered, Kennedy fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. Whites also descended from Japheth or Shem who are not descended from Israel. Since the law requires Israelites to marry only Israelites, then one has to be able to distinguish between the two so that he does not violate the law. (Joseph's wife was a White non-Israelite Egyptian, who bore Ephraim and Manasseh; she was not an Israelite. Was she suitable stock? If she were not, Israelite Identity collapses. If she is, then at least some females who are not descendants of Israel are suitable stock. Who are they? [According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh's descendants inhabit the United States.])

Without an accurate genealogy tracing all of one's ancestry back to Israel (Jacob), how does one prove without question that he is an unadulterated descendant of Israel? (I do have a genealogy that traces my ancestry back to Israel, but I have no confidence in it, especially when it gets into the Dark Age and beyond. Much of it was probably invented to satisfy some king's ego. However, I cannot trace all my ancestors back to Israel.)

Based on conjecture and speculation, Kennedy is convinced that he is an Israelite. However, he offers no convincing evidence that he is. Although Kennedy seems certain that he is an Israelite, how does he know that he is? Does he have an accurate genealogy that traces all of his lineage back to Israel with no adulteration? Can he prove that all his male ancestors and female ancestors are descendants of Israel? If he can, he is the only human who can. His belief that he is an Israelite is based on supposition and wishful thinking.

I have not read all of Kennedy's works, so he could have resolved some of the issues that I have raised in the unread articles and books.

(For more discussion on Israel Identity and salvation, see “Israel Identity” by Thomas Allen. Also, see "Questions on Israel Identity" by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Thomas Allen

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever;

Hebrews 1:8 is another verse that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine. This verse calls Jesus God. Therefore, it proves that Jesus, who is the Son of God, which Trinitarians interpret as God the Son, is the second person of the Triune God. Adam Clarke writes, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. If this be said of the Son of God, i.e., Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ must be God; and indeed the design of the apostle is to prove this.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, 1967, p. 1249.)

Like Unitarians, Trinitarians note that the author of Hebrews contrasts Jesus, the Son of God, with the angels. However, according to the Trinitarians, Jesus rules as God and, therefore, is God.

According to Trinitarians, the exalted Jesus is superior to the angels, and they minister to him — with which Unitarians agree. Moreover, he is a sovereign sitting on a throne, and the angels worship him because he is their creator and God. Although angels may change according to God’s will, Christ is the unchangeable, ever-reigning King because he is God. Thus, in this verse, God declares His Son to be God.

Hebrews 1:8 supports Modalism as much as, if not better than, it supports Trinitarianism. After all, it refers to Jesus as God and not as the second person of a Triune God. Hence, it refers to a different manifestation of God and not to a different person of God.

Both Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that Hebrews 1:8 describes Jesus, the Son of God. However, they disagree about the meaning of “God” in reference to Jesus. For Trinitarians, “God” means the Supreme God. For Unitarians, “God” means that Jesus is the perfect agent of God, i.e., Jesus is the Messiah.

Also, both Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that the author is using Psalm 45:6 (“Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.”) to describe Jesus. However, according to Unitarians, the writer of Hebrews is not suggesting that Jesus is God. He is contrasting the Son with the angels and asserting that the Son is superior to the angels — with which Trinitarians agree. Therefore, the Son can be addressed as God. Moreover, he can be called God because he is God’s agent, just as judges in the Old Testament were called god because they were God’s agents. Only Jesus is the perfect agent, the Messiah. In Hebrews 1:8, “God” means a divine hero who reflects divine majesty. Further, in Psalm 45:6, “God” refers to the king of Israel. Thus, the author of Hebrews is applying the title given to a king of Israel to Jesus as the Messiah. This verse is part of the author’s proof that Jesus is the Messiah, who is a man. He is not arguing that Jesus is the preexisting God-man, the second person of the Triune God. Because of his perfect obedience, Jesus qualifies to be the righteous ruler of the world.

Also, the Bible does not always use the term “god” to mean the Supreme God. For example, Moses is called god in Exodus 7:1.

Moreover, since chapter one of Hebrews proves that Jesus, the Son of God, is superior to the angels, he cannot be God (or God the Son). Proving that God is superior to angels is unnecessary. Further, Jesus cannot be an archangel because archangels are angels, and Jesus is their superior.

Additionally, some Bibles provide an alternative translation. Instead of reading “. . . your throne, O God, . . .,” they read, “ . . . God is your throne . . .”. The alternative translation undermines the Trinitarian interpretation of this verse.

Further proof that Hebrews 1:8 does not support the Trinity Doctrine is Hebrews 1:9 (“Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”). This verse declares that Jesus has a God. If the exalted Jesus is God, how can he have a God? The Supreme God has no God. If Jesus is God, this verse is nonsensical. Thus, “God” in verse 8 is used in an inferior sense as a title designating Jesus as a king who is a superior being and does not mean the Supreme Being.

When Hebrews 1:8 is read in context, it refers to the post-resurrected Jesus and his exaltation to God’s right hand. God has given him the privilege to rule along with his Father, God Himself. Because he is God’s perfect agent, Jesus can be called God in the sense that human representatives of God were called god in the Old Testament. Nevertheless, Jesus still has a God, the one true God, his Father, to whom he is accountable.

Even some Trinitarians agree with the Unitarians. They do not view this text as proof of the Trinity. It stresses the exalted function of God’s Messiah as the ruler of men. (Most of the Trinitarian commentators that I consulted do not give any weight to Hebrew 1:8 as supporting the Trinity Doctrine.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”

Thomas Allen

The following is an analysis of “How did all the different ‘races’ arise (from Noah’s family)?”, chapter 18. Unfortunately, I do not know who the author is or the title of the book from which this chapter comes.

The author is a racial nihilist who preaches the new morality and has no qualms about sacrificing the races on the altar of humanity. Although he claims to be a creationist, he is really a creationist evolutionist. Like orthodox creationists, he is a monogenist and claims that all humans come from a common origin, Adam and Eve, and, consequently, rejects polygenism, i.e., the various human races are descended from a different set of parents. Like all monogenist creationists, he resorts to using evolutionary principles to prove his theory, and, thus, he is really a creationist evolutionist. (For the difference between monogenism and polygenism, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.)

Moreover, the author rejects the term “race” and prefers to use the term “people group”; most orthodox evolutionists prefer “geographical population.” Species is a more accurate term (see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen). Whether the Negro is called a people group, a geographical population, or a race is irrelevant. The essences and traits of the Negro do not change regardless of the name.

The author claims that “all humans descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve” (p. 223). He is wrong. Since the Nephilim existed before and after the Noachian Flood, they could not be descendants of Noah. (Their existence before and after the Flood proves that the Flood was not global.) No indication is given in the Bible of Noah taking them on the ark; on the contrary, the Bible indicates that they were not on the ark since God sent the Flood to destroy them. The Nephilim were of the giant people group, Homo gigantus.

To support his claim to a common origin of all humans, he uses the evolutionary principle of the Mitochondrial Eve, which claims “to show that all people today trace back to a single mother” (p. 224 fn). His main disagreement with most orthodox evolutionists is the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA. He has the mutation occurring at a much higher rate than orthodox evolutionists originally thought. However, more recent studies show that the mutation rate is high enough to place it in the biblical time frame. On the other hand, he and other creationist evolutionists reject mutations as proof of evolution because most mutations are degenerative, and the remaining mutations are neutral. What never occurs to him is that God may have used a common mitochondrial DNA for all people groups instead of giving each people group a different mitochondrial DNA. Or he gave the original parents of each people group the mitochondrial DNA that the people groups have today.

Unlike orthodox evolutionists, who believe that the various people groups evolved over tens of thousands of years, creationist evolutionists like this author believe that they evolved (or developed as they prefer to say) over a few generations. If the creationist evolutionists are correct, then the North American Indians, White Europeans, and Black Africans should be virtually indistinguishable in the United States since they have been living in the same environment and, to some extent, interbreeding, for 400 years, which is about 10 to 13 generations. Yet, after 10 to 13 generations, these people groups are still distinguishable.

The author notes that all human people groups can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although true, it does not prove that all humans are the same species (see “Christians and Creationism” by Thomas Allen). Also, he notes that the DNA differences of the various people groups are slight. Thus, he rejects the notion that God would use mostly the same DNA in His creation of the various human species. (Evidence shows that the genetic difference between a male and female human is one gene.)

As do nearly all creationist evolutionists, the author has a fixation on skin color that exceeds that of any stereotypical racist. Except for distinguishing between Aryans and Melanochroi, skin color is of secondary importance in distinguishing one people group from another. An albino Turanian (East Asians, Southeast Asians, and Turks) can be easily distinguished from an albino Negro (sub-Saharan Africans). (For more on skin color, see “Skin Color” by Thomas Allen.)

The author adheres to the young earth (God created the earth about 6000 to 8000 years ago) global flood model (the Noachian Flood occurred about 4400 years ago), although God’s geology refutes such a model (see “Geology Disproves a Global Flood 5200 Years Ago and a Young Earth” by Thomas Allen).

According to the author, Adam and Eve were mongrels and possessed all the genetic material necessary to form all the extant and extinct people groups (the identities of the extant and extinct people groups are given below). Yet, the Bible describes Adam as White (Aryan) — see “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen. Since Eve was made from Adam, she would also have been an Aryan. Moreover, God forbids mongrels in His assembly (see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen).

A characteristic of mongrels is that they do not breed true. As the author notes, the descendants of mongrel humans can range from extreme dark to extreme light and can have all sorts of mixtures of racial attributes. Yet, today’s people groups breed true. Their offspring possess the same racial attributes and traits as their parents. (The author describes Adam and Eve as looking like Melanochroi. However, as the author notes, they would have had to be mongrels if they possessed all the genes of today’s people groups.)

Also, according to the author, Noah and his sons and their wives were mongrels. Since all the people spoke the same language and lived in the same area, they would have continued to interbreed — mongrels producing mongrels. Yet, the Bible says nothing about the skin color of the people who built the Tower of Babel.

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author asserts that the various people groups resulted from the confusion of languages while the people were building the Tower of Babel — thus, proving that God is a segregationist (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Amazingly, all the people of the people group that possessed the traits and attributes of the Negro (Black, Homo niger) spoke the identical language and, consequently, segregated and separated themselves from the other extant people groups (Turanians [Mongolians, H. luridus], Aryan (Whites, White Caucasians, H. albus), Melanochroi [Brown Caucasians, H. brunus], Indo-Australian (Australian aborigines, H. australis), and Khoisan [Hottentots, H. khoisanii] and the extinct people groups (Neanderthal [H. neandertalensis], H. erectus, giants [H. gigantus], Denisovan man [H. denisova], and Florisbad man [H. heidelbergensis]). Likewise, each of these people groups coincidentally spoke the same language and consequently segregated and separated themselves from all other people groups. Such segregation and separation of human people groups should prove to creationist evolutionists like this author that God wants the people groups to be separated and not to integrate and amalgamate. But, sadly, it does not.

Furthermore, the way that the author describes the formation of the people groups following the confusion of languages seems to conflict with “the Hardy-Weinburg theorem, which states that genetic diversity cannot be bred out, i.e., the population will not grow more nearly uniform over successive generations. A group that separates from one race will not acquire the characteristics of another race. It will not lose its racial characteristics. At most, various racial characteristics will occur with a different frequency in the new group than occurred in the parent group. According to the great anthropologist Carlton Coon, ‘selection alone cannot produce changes of race or species; new genes must appear from which the selection can be made.’ One race of man cannot produce another race of man without the introduction of new genes. Genetic mutation is required to produce a new race.”[1] Thus, a mongrel people group will always produce mongrels even if divided into small separate people groups. For a people group, e.g., the Negro, to be formed from a mongrelized people group, a beneficial genetic mutation must occur. Creationist evolutionists reject the notion of beneficial genetic mutation.

According to the author, the evolutionary principle of natural selection produced the people groups of today after they left Babel. Oddly, natural selection seems to have stopped forming people groups millennia ago. The lack of new people groups being formed over the last thousand years is strange since as the author states, only a few generations are needed to change one people group into another people group, that is to have a new people group spin off an existing people group. Yet, for thousands of years, no new people group has been formed although some have become extinct.

Perhaps the author and other creationist evolutionists err because they reject the Biblical principle of “kind after its kind.” He asserts that a mongrel people group can produce different kinds (Negro people group, Turanian people group, etc.)

Also, like other creationist evolutionists, the author rejects the notion of immutable people groups. Consequently, he disagrees with Jeremiah, who declared that people groups are immutable (see “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). Like orthodox evolutionists, the author believes that people groups are mutable and that a large people group can change into several different smaller people groups.

He describes natural selection leading to lighter-skinned people inhabiting higher latitudes and darker-skinned people inhabiting lower latitudes. However, he identifies some exceptions, such as Eskimos and Pygmies. Apparently, it does not occur to him that genetics determines people groups and not the environment.

The author concludes by stating that a large interbreeding people group of mongrels at Babel became the extant people groups of the Negro, Turanian, Aryan, Melanochroi, Indo-Australian, and Khoisan and the extinct people groups of the Neanderthal, Homo erectus, giant, Denisovan man, and Florisbad man within a few generations after the confusion of languages. Natural selection instead of God formed these people groups. Furthermore, no new genetic material was needed to form these people groups. Whatever gene mutations that did occur had a degenerative effect.

Then, he states that (1) if God did not create the world in six literal 24-hour days, (2) if all humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his sons and their wives, (3) and if the Noachian Flood was not global, then the remainder of the Bible is not trustworthy. (For arguments to the contrary, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen; also, see Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Coley Allen.) Yet, I would be surprised if he believes the geocentric flat earth model although the Bible clearly describes the earth as flat and geocentric (see “A Response to ‘What’s Wrong with Progressive Creation?’) According to his logic, if the earth is spherical and the solar system is heliocentric, then the Bible is untrustworthy.

Also, he claims, “One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately.” (P. 235.) Yet, people discriminated against other people groups and even within their own people group millennia before the theory of evolution came into being. Could racial discrimination result from people obeying God’s law not to produce mongrels (see “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen)? 

Further, he cites Acts 17:26, but like all creationist evolutionists, he focuses on the first part of the verse. The first part reads, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Thus, since the verse says that God made of one blood all humans, all humans descended from a common pair, Adam and Eve. Whatever “blood” means in this passage, it does not mean that all people have the same blood. A person’s people group can be determined with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen.)

He ignores the implications of the second part of the verse because it leads to the notion that God created the various people groups (species of humans) at different times and at different locations. The second part reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.”

Moreover, the author errs when he claims that Rahab the Canaanite was an ancestor of Jesus (see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen). Also, he errs when he claims that Ruth, an ancestor of Jesus, was a Moabite. Being a pious man, Boaz would have followed the law, which prohibited marrying Moabites (Deuteronomy 23:3), and would not have married Ruth if she were a Moabite. He knew that she was an Israelite. 

Then, he asserts that God discourages (forbids) interfaith marriages but does not forbid interracial marriages. The stories of Dinah and Ezra requiring the Israelite men to send their foreign (strange) wives and children away refute this assertion.

To marry Dinah, the Hivites converted to her religion. Nevertheless, her brothers killed them — not because of their religion as they were of the same religion as Dinah, but because of their people group, which differed from hers.

Ezra’s separation was based on people groups and not on religion. The Israelite men had ceased following the Israelite religion, or else they would not have married strange women. They expelled their strange wives and children regardless of whether they followed the Israelite religion. The division was based on people groups instead of religion.

(For more on Ruth, Diana, Ezra, and similar stories, see “A Response to Bibleinfo's Justification of Miscegenation,” “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all creationist evolutionists, the author resorts to evolutionary principles to support his explanation of the origins of the human races or people groups, which is his preferred terminology. Natural selection is the primary evolutionary principle that he uses. Also, when he can use genetic mutations to his advantage, he uses them. Otherwise, he rejects mutations because they are usually degenerative or, at best, neutral. However, while claiming that he is a creationist, he refuses to give God credit for creating the various human races (people groups).

The author abandons the basic principles of zoology in classifying man. To support his dogma, he must abandon these zoological principles and adopt new methodologies. Thus, he rejects the principle of Straus-Durckheim: “In treating this subject [human races or people groups], as it ought to be, simply as a question of pure zoology, and upon applying to it the same principles as to the determination of other species of animals belonging to one genus, one arrives, in fact, at really recognizing many very distinct human species. . . .”[2]

Endnotes

1. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (TC Allen Company, Franklinton, North Carolina, 2001), p. 7.

2. J. C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth; or New Chapters of Ethnological Inquiry (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1857) p. 613.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Thomas Allen

Jeremiah 13:22–24 (emphasis added):

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

23 Can the Ethiopian [Cushite] change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.

The implication is that an Ethiopian cannot change his racial characteristics, and a leopard cannot change its spots. Jeremiah is using irony to show that the people whom he is addressing have become so accustomed to practicing evil that they cannot and do not want to change their ways and do good. They are as fixed in their evil ways as an Ethiopian is in his racial attributes, and a leopard is in its spots. The chance of them becoming good is on the same level as the chance of an Ethiopian, i.e., a Melanochroi, changing his biological racial characteristics, which is never. If the racial traits of a Melanochroi can change, then Jeremiah’s analogy fails. Moreover, a leopard can change its spots. Consequently, Jeremiah has declared that the biological attributes of the races, or more accurately, species, of humans are immutable.

The attributes of a species are fixed; they are not fluid and do not change over time.  According to Jeremiah, the biological races of humans, as opposed to cultural and ethnic races, are fixed, and, therefore, they should be considered species. Thus, several extant species of humans exist: Aryan (Homo albus), Turanian (H. luridus ), Negro (H. niger), Melanochroi (H. brunus), Indo-Australian (H. australis), and Khoisan (H. khoisanii).  Lumpers have mistakenly grouped all of these species into a single species, contrary to Jeremiah. (Whom do you believe? Jeremiah, whom God inspired, or modern-day lumpers and Darwinists.) Also, several species of humans are extinct; they include Neanderthal (H. neandertalensis), Homo erectus, giants (H. gigantus), e.g., Nephelium and kindred people mentioned in the Bible, Denisovan man (H. denisova), and Florisbad man (H. heidelbergensis).

(According to Darwinism, species are fluid; they are not fixed. Over time, one species can change into another species. Jeremiah’s analogy, which requires that the characteristics of the various human races, or more correctly species, be immutable, is incompatible with Darwinism. Moreover, under Darwinism, a leopard can change its spots.)

Appendix 1. Melanochroi.

The King James Version and many other translations translate the word “Cushite,” which is a literal translation, as “Ethiopian.” Others use “Cushite.” Regardless of which word is used, both are referring to a Melanochroi. A few erroneously translate it as “a black man, “a black Moor,” or “an African.”

Melanochroi are predominately found in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, coastal Iran, southern Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya south of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria south of the Atlas Mountains, and central and southern Morocco.

Appendix 2. The Superiority of Hybrid Theory.

Some people argue in favor of interracial breeding using the “superiority of hybrid theory,” i.e., the superiority of mixed-racial people. Thus, the offspring of parents of different races is superior to the parent races in most, if not all, aspects — intelligence, beauty, strength, health, character, temperament, personality, etc. Even if true, which it is not, the advantages of hybrids are lost in the next generation. The offspring of hybrids are inferior not only to the hybrid parents but also to the parent races of the hybrids. For this reason, hybrids are not bred.

The notion of the superiority of hybrids comes from agriculture. People who promote this theory observe that some crosses of chicken breeds result in superior egg layers. However, if these hybrids are bred, their offspring are inferior to the hybrids and the original parent breeds. Likewise, with hybrid seeds, which result in some superior traits, such as disease resistance and yield, their descendants are not planted because they produce plants inferior to the hybrids and the parents of the hybrids. Furthermore, the proponents of this theory overlook two things. First, many hybrids are discarded before a hybrid with desirable traits is found. Second, unlike human hybrids, which are developed by random breeding, selective breeding develops livestock and seed hybrids. Consequently, the superiority of hybrid theory is highly flawed.

The proof that the superiority of hybrid theory is invalid is Kamala Harris. She is a hybrid — a cross between a Melanochroi (an Asian Indian) and a Negro (a Caribbean Black). Obviously, she is inferior to the average Negro and the average Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

King on Paul’s Letter to American Christians

Thomas Allen

In "Paul’s Letter to American Christians," Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 145–153, Martin Luther King, Jr. presents an imaginary letter from the Apostle Paul. This letter expresses King’s views and objectives. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

This imaginary letter begins with the imaginary Paul discussing scientific and technological advancements. Then, Paul observes “that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress, your mentality outdistances your morality, and your civilization outshines your culture. . . . Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but you have failed to employ your moral and spiritual genius to make of it a brotherhood.” (P. 146.) (Hereafter, I substitute King for Paul because King is the real author of the letter.)

Next, King expresses his concern about Christians giving “their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs.” (P. 146.) They fear being different and want to be accepted socially. For many, “morality merely reflects group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that what is right is determined by Gallup polls.” (P. 147.) (King is chastising Christians for supporting segregation instead of integration. They supported segregation because they feared being different and wanted to be socially accepted. Today, many Christians support integration because they fear being different and want to be socially accepted. Would King condemn these Christians? Most likely, he would not. Nevertheless, the Christian segregationists follow the teaching of the Bible while the integrationist Christians do not. [See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen.])

Quoting Paul’s letter to the Romans, King urges Christians not to conform to this world. (Since integration dominates America today, conforming to this world requires one to be an integrationist. That King would condemn conformity today is highly unlikely. More likely, he would rebuke nonconformity because today nonconformity requires one to be a segregationist.)

Thus, King correctly states that a Christian’s “highest loyalty is to God, and not to the mores or the folkways, the state or the nation, or any man-made institution.” (P. 147.) (Since God created humans “and the bounds of their habitation” [Acts 17:26], God is a racial segregationist and not a racial integrationist. Therefore, Christians should support racial segregation and oppose racial integration. King urges Christians to do the opposite of what the Bible teaches.)

Continuing, King remarks that if “any earthly institution or custom conflicts with God’s will,” (p. 147) Christians have to oppose it. (Since segregation is God’s will, then Christians have to oppose racial integration.)

Next, King states, “You must be willing to challenge unjust mores, to champion unpopular causes, and to buck the status quo.” (P. 147.) (For those who lambaste me, I am merely following King’s advice. I am challenging unjust mores of diversity, inclusion, equity, discrimination against Whites, and the genocide of Southerners. I am championing unpopular causes of racial separation, anti-Zionism, and non-interventionism. I am bucking the status quo of integration, amalgamation, American imperialism, and Zionism. Today, King would condemn anyone following his advice because today’s mores, causes [except peace], and status quo are what he advocated.)

Then, King condemns what he considers the misuse of capitalism. He denounces having concentrated wealth in the hands of a few and having “taken necessities from the masses and given luxuries to the classes.” (Pp. 147-148.) However, Communism does not solve this problem because “Communism is based on an ethical relativism, a metaphysical materialism, a crippling totalitarianism, and a withdrawal of basic freedom.” (P. 148.) (At least, King recognizes the evils of Communism. Nevertheless, Communism is the ultimate merger of big business with big government as the two become one.)

King asserts that America’s “powerful economic resources to eliminate poverty from the earth,” must be used to eliminate domestic and global poverty. (Thus, he promotes the redistribution of wealth.)

Next, King discusses the church. He notes, “When the church is true to its nature, it knows neither division nor disunity.” (P. 148.) (When the church replaced the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, which grew into wokeism, the church became so divisive that many people left it.) He sees the multiplicity of denominations as a tragedy. (A nineteenth Methodist clergyman agreed with King. He believed that all the denominations should unite as one. According to him, when all these denominations agreed that the Methodist doctrines were the correct doctrines, then they could become one.) King is a proponent of ecumenicalism. (So are Communists and Communist sympathizers [ see “Ecumenism” by Thomas Allen].) He endorses the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches and notes that most major denominations are affiliated with one or both councils. (Members of these councils have abandoned the gospel of Jesus and preach the gospel of King, wokeism, amalgamation, and the LBGTQ+ agenda.)

Continuing, King complains about having a White church and a Negro church. (In the South, both Whites and Negroes went to the same church until Negroes wanted to segregate. They wanted to be independent. King wanted to strip them of this independence. Did he prefer Negroes being dependent on Whites?)

Then, King moans about Christians using the Bible to justify segregation and to assert that the Negro is innately inferior. (First, many stories in the Bible teach segregation. Few, if any, teach integration. Second, King does not define what he means by inferior. In surviving and reproducing in the higher latitudes, Whites are superior to Negroes. In surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes, Negroes are superior to Whites. Turanians are superior to both because they can naturally survive and reproduce in both the higher and lower latitudes. Further, in boxing, Negroes have an advantage over Whites because they have thicker skull bones and a longer arm reach.)

To support his claim that the Bible supports integration, King cites Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (I assume that King is emphasizing “neither Jew nor Greek.” Jews and Greeks are ethnicities of the same race, the White race. So it does not support racial integration. Moreover, if Paul is taken literally, he is endorsing transgenderism and bisexualism —”neither male nor female.” [If Christian integrationists can use this verse to support integration, then LGBTQ+ adherents can use it to support transgenderism and bisexualism. After all, it more clearly supports transgenderism and bisexualism than it does integration.])

Continuing, King cites Acts 17:26: “. . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (P. 149.) (First, whatever blood means in this verse, it is not what King implies. A person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from an analysis of his blood [for a detailed discussion, see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen]. Second, King fails to quote the end of this verse, which reads, “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” He does not cite it because it supports segregation. More than supporting segregation, it supports racial separation.)

After citing these verses, King urges Americans “to be rid of every aspect of segregation.” (P. 149.) (Americans did get rid of every aspect of segregation. It has granted Negroes benefits and privileges beyond King’s imagination. It has opened its borders to unlimited numbers of nonwhites. Integration has been so successful that some Negroes now seek segregation. White America is dying and traditional American culture is dead. The Constitution is meaningless trash. Queerdom, wokeism, and Zionism, which controls all, now dominate. Black power has replaced White power. Is the country now better off following King than it was before 1960?)

King claims that segregation “destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.” (P. 149.) (Integration has been far more destructive. America was much more unified under segregation than under integration. Integration is tearing the country apart — that is the mentality behind integration is tearing the country apart.)

Further, King hopes that “the churches of America will play a significant role in conquering segregation.” (P. 150.) (They did, and the country is dying because of their victory.) The church must challenge the status quo. (Since integration is now the status quo, King would object to the church challenging today’s status quo.) “The church must move out into the arena of social action.” (P. 150.) (It did and now the church is dying. That is the price it paid for replacing the gospel of Jesus with the gospel of King, wokeism, and social justice.)

Then, King offers Negroes advice on overthrowing segregation. They should “[n]ever succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter.” (P. 150.) (Many did, and many still are although they have won nearly everything that King sought and are now the dominating race in America.) They should “move with dignity and discipline using love as your chief weapon.” (P. 150.) (Few Negroes followed this advice. Even King failed to follow it. He claims that love was his weapon, yet his chief weapons were violence and the threat of violence.) Further, they should never hate. (Again, King and many Negroes failed. He hated most Southerners and all segregationists.)

King writes, “If you sow the seeds of violence in yourself you sow the seeds of violence in your struggle, unborn generations will reap the whirlwind of social disintegration.” (P. 151.) (King and other civil rights leaders sowed the seeds of violence. Now, we are reaping the whirlwind of social disintegration.)

Continuing, King states, “In your struggle for justice, let your oppressor know that you have neither a desire to defeat him nor a desire to get even with him for injustices that he has heaped upon you.” (P. 151.) (King, most other civil rights leaders, and most Negroes wanted Whites to know that the Negro had defeated them. To let Whites know that the Negroes had soundly defeated them, Negroes demanded and Whites gave them benefits and privileges that Whites never enjoyed even at the pinnacle of White supremacy and Jim Crow. Thus, Negroes got their revenge.)

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.