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.

The Promised Land

The Promised Land

Thomas Allen

In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)

God promised to give the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8 and 17), i.e., the land that became Palestine, to Abraham’s descendants. Zionists claim that this promise has never been fulfilled. Many Zionists claim that the promised land includes all the territory between the Euphrates and the Nile. That is, it includes not only Palestine, but also Iraq and Syria west of the Euphrates, Lebanon, Jordan, northwest Saudi Arabia, and Egypt east of the Nile. Moses describes the promised land in Numbers 34:1-12.

According to Joshua, God gave the Israelites all the land that He had promised to Abraham:

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war. (Joshua 11:23)

And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. (Joshua 21:43)

Thus, the Abrahamic land promise was fulfilled in Joshua’s lifetime.

While Joshua claims that God’s land promise to Abraham was fulfilled in his lifetime, Zionists contend that the promise remains unfulfilled. Some Zionists contend that before the Abrahamic land promise is fulfilled, modern-day Israel must occupy all of Palestine. To fulfill this promise, other Zionists assert that Israel must occupy all the land between the Euphrates and the Nile.

Who do you believe: today’s Zionists or Joshua?

Furthermore, Jews using Genesis 15:18 to justify God giving them Palestine is one of today’s greatest ironies. It is ironic because so few Jews may be descendants of Abraham.  Nearly all of today’s Jews are descendants of the people of the extinct Khazar Empire. (The Khazar Empire covered what is now southeastern Russia, southern Ukraine, Crimea, and northeast Kazakhstan.) Moreover, unlike the Jews, most Palestinians may be descendants of Abraham.

What some commentators have written about Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 11:23 and 21:43 follows:

– Halley: God promised the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan.[1]

– Gore: The land promised to Abraham’s descendants was not achieved until the peak of Solomon’s reign.[2]

– Holmes: Joshua conquered the land described in Deuteronomy.[3]

– A. Clarke: The southwestern border was not the Nile but was the Sichor River on the border of Egypt near the Isthmus of Suez. The Abrahamic land promise was fully accomplished during the reign of David and Solomon. Whatever land in Canaan that the Israelites did not occupy paid tribute to prove their submission.[4]

– L. Clarke: The Israelites occupying all the land between the Nile and Euphrates was never more than a dream.[5]

– Mann: The extent of the promised land was idealized and was approximately achieved during the reigns of David and Solomon. Moreover, the River of Egypt refers not to the Nile but probably to the brook of Egypt.[6]

– Smith: All the land that God had promised the Israelites, Joshua took.[7]

– MacDonald: The Nile probably means the Wadi el-Arish, a small stream south of Gaza.[8] Further, Joshua’s stating that Israel occupied all the land that God had promised Abraham’s descendants from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates should not be understood literally; it means that the land that Joshua divided among the Israelites fulfilled God’s promise to give the Israelites the land on which they walked.[9]

Endnotes

1.  Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965), p. 94.

2. Charles Gore, “Genesis,” A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, ed. Charles Gore, Henry L. Gouge, and Alfred Guillaume (New York: The Macmillian Co., 1928), p. 51.

3. Samuel Holmes, “Joshua,” A Commentary on the Bible, ed. Arthur S Peake (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.), p. 254.

4. Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967) p. 38.

5. W.K. Lowther, ed., Concise Bible Commentary (New York, New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1953), p. 348.

6. John Marks, “Genesis,” The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), p. 15. 

7. Robert Smith, “Joshua,” The Interpreter’s One-volume Commentary on the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 130, 133.

8. William  MacDonald, Believer's Bible Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1989), p. 50.

9. Ibid., p. 231.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

King on the Death of Evil upon the Seashore

Thomas Allen

In “The Death of Evil upon the Seashore,” Strength to Love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1963, 2010), pages 75–86, Martin Luther King, Jr. discusses evil, Israelites gaining their freedom from the Egyptians, colonialism, slavery, and segregation. The following is a critical review of King’s essay.

King begins by discussing the reality of evil and comments on the Biblical description of evil. Evil exists; it is real. He remarks, “We see it [evil] expressed in tragic lust and inordinate selfishness. We see it in high places where men are willing to sacrifice truth on the altars of their self-interest.” (P. 76.) Evil is seen “in imperialistic nations crushing other people with the battering rams of social injustice.” (P. 76.) It is also seen in war.

Next, King discusses the Israelites held as slaves in Egypt. “Egypt symbolized evil in the form of humiliating oppression, ungodly exploitation, and crushing domination, and the Israelites symbolized goodness in the form of devotion and dedication to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (P. 77.) (King uses the Israelite enslavement in Egypt as an analogy. Egypt represents the South, which is evil, and the Israelites represent the Negroes, who are holy.) “Pharaoh [Southerners] stubbornly refused to respond to the cry of Moses [King]. . . .” (P. 77.) When the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they left Egypt. (Here, King departs from his analogy of the Egyptians enslaving the Israelites. When the Israelites gained their freedom from Egyptian oppression, they left Egypt. They did not integrate with the Egyptians. If King were true to his analogy, when he freed the Negroes from the oppression of segregation and discrimination, he would have led them out of the South. Instead, he led them to integrate with their oppressors [Southerners].)

Then, King notes “that evil is recalcitrant and determined, and never voluntarily relinquishes its hold short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.” (P. 77.)

Continuing, King notes that the story of the enslavement of the Israelites and their subsequent freedom “is revealed in the contemporary struggle between good in the form of freedom and justice and evil in the form of oppression and colonialism.” (P. 79.) Then, he comments on colonialism. According to King, “most of the Asian and African peoples were colonial subjects, dominated politically, exploited economically, and segregated and humiliated by foreign powers.” (P. 77.) (Most Asian and African countries subjected to European imperialism have a higher standard of living today than they would have without European imperialism.) With a focus on India, he comments on the colonies freeing themselves from European powers.

Next, King discusses the Negro’s struggle for freedom and justice. “In America the Negro slave was merely a depersonalized cog in a vast plantation machine.” (P. 80.) (Southern compassion brought down the South. When the Jewish Dutch slavers brought their leftover slaves that they failed to sell in the Caribbean to Virginia to sell, the Virginians should have refused to buy and let the Dutch dump their unsold slaves in the ocean. Instead, being compassionate, they bought the Negroes and treated them as indentured servants. When they had worked off their purchase price, they were set free. However, one Negro, Anthony Johnson, refused to let his Negro servant go free and got the court to declare him a lifetime servant, i.e., a slave. [See, “Two Great Black Leaders” by Thomas Allen.] Thus, a Negro brought Negro slavery to what would later become the United States.)

King writes, “For more than two hundred years Africa was raped and plundered, her native kingdoms disorganized, and her people and rulers demoralized.” (P. 80.) (He gives the impression that Europeans did the plundering.  On the contrary, Negroes did the plundering. Negroes would raid neighboring tribes and sell their captives to Europeans and Arabs.)

King comments on Jefferson’s opposition to slavery and the agony that it caused him. (However, King does not comment on Jefferson’s recommended solution, which was the physical separation of the races — the Biblical solution.)

Then, King comments on Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation. According to King, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. (Like most people, King fails to understand that the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. It only applied to slaves in areas beyond the control of the Union army. Slaves in the Union States and slaves in the parts of the South controlled by the Union army remained slaves. Moreover, slaves in the South gained their freedom before slaves in the Union States gained theirs.)

Continuing, King declares that although “Negroes enjoyed certain political and social opportunities during the Reconstruction,” Southerners were determined to keep them in slavery. (During Reconstruction, many Southerners were stripped of their political rights. [About the Battle of Gettysburg and Reconstruction, H.L.  Mencken wrote, “The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.”] To cope with the sudden flood of ignorant, gullible, freed Negroes on the labor market, the Southern States enacted labor codes modeled after those in the North. However, the federal government quickly voided these codes in the South. Before Lincoln’s War, both free and enslaved Negroes were more integrated in the South than they were in the North. Negro collaboration with carpetbaggers and scalawags during Reconstruction to plunder the South is a root cause of the racial problems in the South. Also, because of the large number of Negroes in the South, the South resorted to statutory regulation of race relations. Because of the small numbers of Negroes in the North, the North could rely on customs, deed restrictions, labor unions, etc. to regulate race relations.) King considers segregation a new form of slavery.

King writes, “Despite the patient cry of many a Moses, they refused to let the Negro people go.” (P. 81.) (When Pharaoh let the Israelites go, they left Egypt. Never did King have any intention of leading the Negroes out of the country. If they were going to leave the country, they would have received a great deal of support and almost no opposition. However, even if King had tried to lead them to another land, most Negroes would not have followed him. Despite segregation, discrimination, and oppression, they knew that life in the United States, even in the South, was better for them than anywhere else that they could go. Nevertheless, the Pharaoh-Moses approach would have solved America’s race problems.)

King approves the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling. However, the ruling is just the beginning; more is needed. (The more needed was forced integration. The desegregation ruling quickly turned into forced integration. Desegregation allows a student to go to the school of his choice, i.e., a Negro child could go to a White school if he so chooses and vice versa. Integration, like segregation, assigns students to a school based on race. Desegregation quickly degenerated into integration because the only way that a school could prove that it was fully desegregated was to be fully integrated.)

Continuing, King notes, “that evil carries the seed of its own destruction.” (P. 82.) (Being contrary to God’s law, integration is evil and carries the seed of its own destruction. The deterioration of the United States is evidence of this seed of destruction.)

Next, King states, “Because sin exists on every level of man’s existence, the death of one tyranny is followed by the emergence of another tyranny.” (P. 83.) (We are currently living in the tyranny of the civil rights movement, Zionism, and fascism in its various forms.) People in the civil rights movement must “avoid a superficial optimism [and] . . . a crippling pessimism.” (P. 83.) 

Then, King comments on God working in the world. He is convinced that God is on his side. (Except for atheists and perhaps agnostics, most evil-doers are convinced that God is on their side. That God was on King’s side is questionable because what he promoted is contrary to what the Bible teaches. If God were on his side, it is in the sense that He was on the side of the Assyrians and Babylonians when He sent them to punish Israel and the Jews by removing them from their homelands.)

In closing, King discusses some of the evils that Negroes have endured. (First, despite all the evils that have been inflicted on Negroes in America, Negroes in Africa have endured worse evils. Second, all races have suffered from evil.)

Throughout this essay, King uses the analogy of Moses (King) freeing the Israelites (Negroes) and leading them across the Red Sea (out of the country). However, King had no intention of completing the analogy.  He was not going to lead the Negroes out of America or even the South. On the contrary, he wanted to do what God would have prevented Moses from doing. Unlike Moses, who wanted to lead his people from the evils of Egypt, King wanted to integrate his people into the evils of the South. (For King, everything was evil in the South except the Negro and Communists.)

King often implies, if not right out states, that the Bible commands integration and condemns segregation. However, the opposite is true. The Bible contains stories promoting segregation and separation — the Exodus story, which King uses in this essay, is the best known. I know of no stories in the Bible supporting integration and amalgamation. On the contrary, there are stories condemning such acts.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Why Does God Allow Suffering

Why Does God Allow Suffering

Thomas Allen

In “Suffering and the God of Love,” Glad Tidings of the Kingdom of God, issue 1666, pages 13–17, Chris Furniss attempts to explain why God allows suffering. His argument seems to center around disproving the atheist’s assertion about the nonexistence of God.

He admits that suffering “has probably caused more people to lose faith, and prevented more people from finding faith, than almost any other problem.” (P. 13.) Although he does not discuss prayer specifically, unanswered prayer has done more damage. In Matthew 7:7, Jesus said, “Ask and it shall be given you.” As everyone who has ever prayed knows that this promise has not been kept. (See “Why Elijah Defeated the Baal Priests” by Thomas Allen.)

Furniss summarizes the atheist’s argument that God does not exist:

Christians believe in a loving, all-powerful God. But such a God would want to stop all the suffering in the world. He has not stopped the suffering, therefore either:

a He is all-powerful but not loving, or 

b He is loving but not all-powerful, or 

c He does not exist. (P. 13.)

Furniss does not discuss an argument that is not atheistic. According to this argument, only two of the following propositions can be true:

1. God is all-knowing, omniscient.

2. God is all-powerful, omnipotent.

3. God is a God of love, benevolent.

If God possesses the two attributes, omniscience and omnipotence, commonly given to Him (and the Bible supports these attributes), then He is not benevolent. Instead, He is malevolent. If God is benevolent, then He lacks one or both of the attributes that the Bible claims that He has.

Furniss asserts that the atheist’s argument is based on four false assumptions:

1.  that God is in some way responsible for suffering,

2.  that suffering is necessarily bad,

3.  that if God allows suffering when He has power to stop it, He is therefore lacking love, and

4.  that because God has not so far stopped suffering, He therefore never will. (P. 13.)

Then, Furniss proceeds to refute these four propositions. He presents four arguments against the first proposition.

First, deliberate acts of humans cause suffering. These acts include crimes and wars. Furniss believes that blaming God for these acts is unfair. (Yet, God is omniscient and omnipotent. Since He does not intervene to prevent such acts of suffering, He is at least partially responsible. Moreover, He commanded the Israelites to war against the people of Canaan, so He is solely responsible for the suffering of the Israelites and the people of Canaan caused by these wars.)

Second, humans unintentionally cause suffering. Furniss uses famine and starvation as examples. According to him, God has provided the world with more than an adequate food supply, but people refuse to share. (Furniss fails to realize that most famines are political. They result from wars or political leaders deliberately starving their people. No amount of sharing will relieve these types of famines. Nevertheless, since God is omniscient and omnipotent and since He fails to intervene to relieve the suffering, He is at least partially responsible.)

Third, human foolishness causes suffering. As an example, Furniss uses a drunk driver causing an accident. He asks who is to blame. The implication is that the drunk driver is solely to blame. (True, the drunk driver is to blame. However, being omniscient and omnipotent, God could have prevented the accident. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

Fourth, suffering is beyond a person’s control, i.e., the suffering is not the fault of the sufferer. An example is a child born deformed. (Again, since God is omniscient and omnipotent, He can prevent such suffering. Therefore, He is at least partially responsible.)

(I am not sure which one of the four above arguments Furniss would place the plagues of Egypt that occurred just before Moses led the Israelites from Egypt. Nevertheless, God was responsible for the plagues as He caused them, and, therefore, He was responsible for the suffering that they caused.)

In response to the second proposition, Furniss argues that suffering is not necessarily bad. In his argument, he confuses pain with suffering. For example, when a person touches a hot object, he feels pain, which causes him to withdraw his hand and prevents him from suffering a third-degree burn. Furthermore, Furniss states that according to Paul, suffering is a gift from God and good for the sufferer. (Consequently, following Furniss’ reasoning, child abuse, battery, etc. are gifts from God and are good for the sufferer. Thus, he makes God appear malevolent. Moreover, his argument for this proposition contradicts some of his arguments for the first proposition since people attempting to relieve suffering are depriving the sufferer of a gift from God.)

For the third proposition, Furniss argues that God deliberately allows people to suffer because He loves them. (Do parents show their love for their children by beating their children unmercifully? Following Furniss’ reasoning, they do. Or, do they show their love by sparing their children from as much suffering as possible?) Although God can prevent suffering, Furniss claims that God is completely innocent of all human suffering. (However, other than assertions, Furniss offers no convincing argument on why an omniscient and omnipotent benevolent God bears no responsibility for human suffering.) Furniss blames sin as the cause of suffering.

Furniss answers the fourth proposition by claiming that God will eventually end suffering. God ends suffering by removing the cause of suffering: sin. Then, Furniss offers two ways for God to remove sin.

First, God makes it impossible for people to sin. According to Furniss, the only way that God can prevent people from sinning is to strip them of their free will and turn them into robots.

Second, God sets forth a plan that shows people how to live and provides a way to salvation. (How following God’s plan, even perfectly, prevents suffering beyond a person’s control, Furniss does not explain. Moreover, if God can only prevent sin by stripping people of their free will and converting them to robots — as Furniss asserts, then saved people in the hereafter must be robots with no free will. If not, they would start the sin cycle again. Not only can people sin willfully, but they can also sin accidentally or because of ignorance or stupidity.)

For Furniss’ arguments to be valid, at least one of these three must be true:

1. The sin of omission does not exist, i.e., failure to act is not a sin. (For more on the sin of omission, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

2. If the sin of omission does exist, then God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, is the greatest sinner of all.

3. If the sin of omission exists and if God is not a sinner, then God is held to a lower standard than are humans.

Trying to refute the atheist, Furniss attempts to present God as a benevolent God who shows his love for people by allowing them to suffer. However, he portrays a God who either revels in human suffering or is limited in knowledge and power like humans.

Copywrite © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Chodorov on Joseph

Chodorov on Joseph

Thomas Allen

In One Is Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist (New York: The Devin-Adair Company,  1952, pages 104-108), Frank Chodorov explains how Joseph became a statist. The following paraphrases Chodorov’s explanation.

Chodorov begins his story about how Joseph ended up in Egypt. Soon after he arrived, Potiphar, an Egyptian bigwig, acquired Joseph. Because of his cleverness, Joseph soon became the chief foreman of Potiphar’s estate. However, Potiphar’s sex-starved wife, whom Chodorov speculates was a homely woman whose husband misunderstood her, attempted to seduce Joseph. He rebuffed her advances. Like a scorned female, she framed her jilter, and her husband sent Joseph to jail.

While in jail, Joseph acquired a reputation as an interpreter of dreams — thus, beating Freud by many centuries. (He began his dream interpreting years earlier at home. His interpretations got him in trouble with his brothers, and they sold him to a caravan going to Egypt.)

Pharaoh began having disturbing dreams. None of his advisors had the psychiatric skills to help him. Then, one of his servants remembered that Joseph had correctly interpreted his dream when he and Joseph were fellow prisoners, and recommended Joseph to Pharaoh.

Joseph cleaned himself up and offered his services to Pharaoh. Pharaoh described his dream, and Joseph replied that the answer was simple. He explained that Egypt was about to experience the well-known business cycle, commonly called the “boom and bust” cycle. “‘The knowledge came to him by divine revelation,’ he said, which was far more reliable than the wisdom of the Harvard school of economics” (p. 105).

Joseph’s positiveness of his prediction astonished Pharaoh. Showing his true statist mantles, Joseph presented Pharaoh with a plan to solve the problem, that is, a plan to cheat Jehovah out of his bust. Joseph’s plan called for laying up a reserve during the years of plenty. To execute the plan, Pharaoh appointed Joseph as Secretary of Agriculture. Since the Senate did not exist in those days, Pharaoh did not have to wait for Senatorial approval, so his appointment was immediate. Having no Bible or Constitution to swear by, “Pharaoh made the appointment stick by putting his own signet ring on Joseph’s hand and a solid gold chain around his neck. For lack of an automobile, an official chariot was assigned to the new dignitary” (p. 106).

No longer did Joseph need to interpret dreams. He was now an administrator who had a plan to execute. Because Egypt’s economy was completely agricultural, Joseph’s position made him the top commissar, the real boss of the economy.

“The first thing he did was to pass laws; without them no plan can work. And the first law on his agenda was, quite naturally, a tax-law. One-fifth of all that these profligate farmers should produce, during the years of plenty, must be taken from them and put under lock and key. It is reported that this 20 percent income tax yielded quite an amount; the grain piled up ‘as sand of the sea,’ and undoubtedly there was a shortage of bins, barns and elevators, for ‘it was without number’” (p. 106).

After seven years of boom, the depression hit. However, whether the depression resulted from overproduction or underconsumption is unknown. (“[A]t that time the learned professors had not yet discovered the sun-spot theory or even the velocity theory of money. The magicians of that day were without benefit of postgraduate courses in economics” [pp. 106-107].)

This depression was called a “famine.” However, what is not told is the cause of the famine. Did a “drought, pestilence or other unforeseeable accident, or,  perhaps . . . the constant sapping of the economy by seven years of heavy taxation” (p.107) cause it?

However, the chronicler does suggest that Joseph may “have anticipated the consequence of his taxing scheme: the abject subservience of the Egyptian proletariat” (p. 107). Soon hunger filled Pharaoh’s kingdom. People came to Joseph, the Secretary of Agriculture, and begged him to return the grain that he had taken from them. Instead of giving them the grain, he sold them the grain. (Thus, he was not a proponent of the welfare state.)

When the people ran out of money, they traded their horses, cattle, and other livestock for grain. “Still the hunger was upon the people, which was natural, for their capital was all gone, and without capital there is little production” (p. 107). Joseph had brought state capitalism to Egypt. The only jobs available for the hungry masses were with the state. As the state was the sole employer, the people had to work for what the state condescended to offer. “They offered themselves as ‘servants unto Pharaoh’ in exchange for bread. Then Joseph said unto the people: ‘Behold I have brought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and you shall sow the land.’ In common parlance that means that he had nationalized the land and the labor of Egypt” (p. 107).

Joseph’s plan was great for Pharaoh and Joseph. However, most likely, “some of the proletariat were perturbed over a moral principle: the right of a man to his property” (p. 107).

Joseph ordered farmers to be moved from one part of Egypt to another. Was the migration the result of a slave revolt?  Was it Joseph executing the well-known migratory purge? The chronicler does not explain the cause.

A delegation of Egyptians came to Joseph and told him that they were willing to be Pharaoh’s servants. Thus, “the proletariat had come to terms with collectivism (since that was the only way to get by in this world) and were content with whatever security the Secretary [Joseph] would provide” (p. 108). Nevertheless, Joseph “had to make some concession to private property, perhaps to encourage more taxable production; he restored to some of the Egyptians the land he had taken from them in their adversity, on a rental basis” (p. 108). His rent was one-fifth of the annual production.

Chodorov concludes his story of Joseph:

Though the succeeding monarchs and the succeeding commissars did well under the plan introduced by Joseph, it seems (according to later historians) that it put upon the proletarians a moral blight, so that when conquerors from other lands came to Egypt they met with little resistance; those who had nothing to lose had nothing to fight for. So that even the monarchs had to beg the invaders for administrative jobs. And lots of dust fell on the civilization of Pharaoh (p. 108).

(Since statism is a form of idolatry, was Joseph an idolater?)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Who sold Joseph to the Egyptian?

Who sold Joseph to the Egyptian?

Thomas Allen

Did the Midianites sell Joseph to the Egyptians (Genesis 37:36: “And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard”), or did the Ishmaelites sell him (Genesis 39:1: “And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither”)? Moreover, did Joseph’s brothers sell him to the Ishmaelites as Genesis 37:25–27 implies? Or, did the Midianites steal Joseph from the pit where his brothers had thrown him and sell him to the Ishmaelites as stated in Genesis 37:28.
According to some modern critics, the writer or editor of Genesis has combined two stories taken from two different sources: the Jehovistic or Yahwistic and the Elohistic. (The Jehovistic source uses the divine name of Jehovah, Yahweh, whereas the Elohistic source uses the divine name of Elohim.) These two stories explain Joseph’s arrival in Egypt differently.
According to the Jehovistic story, Judah saved Joseph by selling him to the Ishmaelites, who later sold him to the Egyptians. As stated in the Elohistic story, Reuben saved Joseph by persuading the other brothers to cast Joseph into a pit from which the Midianites later stole him. They do so without any of the brothers witnessing the kidnaping. Then, the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites according to Genesis 38:28 or directly to the Egyptian according to Genesis 38:36. (Genesis 40:15 [“for indeed I {Joseph} was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews . . .”] supports the Midianites kidnaping Joseph.) Apparently, the author attempted to make the stories agree by having the Midianites selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but for some reason left in the sentence about the Midianites directly selling Joseph to the Egyptian.
Some commentators skirt the apparent conflict by claiming that Midianite merchants were accompanying the Ishmaelites caravan. The Midianites kidnaped Joseph and sold him to the Ishmaelites. Then, the Midianites continued journeying to Egypt with the Ishmaelites, and the two tribes arrived in Egypt together. From here the Ishmaelites and Midianites get confounded with one story identifying the Midianites as selling Joseph to the Egyptian and the other identifying the Ishmaelites as the seller. Nevertheless, this explanation fails to identify who really sold Joseph to the Egyptian: the Midianites or the Ishmaelites.
Others claim that the Midianites and Ishmaelites were the same people. (A major problem with this explanation is that the Ishmaelites stole Joseph and sold him to themselves.) Many commentators avoid the apparent conflict of the two stories by not mentioning it.
A possible resolution of the conflicting stories follows. Judah and his brothers discussed selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites whom they see approaching, but they did not sell him. Instead, they left him it the pit where Reuben had persuaded them to put him while they departed to eat lunch — perhaps continuing their discussion of selling him. While his brothers were eating, Reuben returned to the pit to rescue Joseph. However, before he returned, the Midianites discovered Joseph in the pit, took him out, and sold him to the Ishmaelites. Unfortunately, this explanation does not eliminate the problem of Genesis 37:36, which states that the Midianites, not the Ishmaelites, sold Joseph to the Egyptian.
Why did the author keep Genesis 37:36? Only God knows. Without this sentence, the two stories can be made to harmonize. However, this sentence creates a conflict that cannot be easily explained away, if it can be explained away at all. So, the question remains: Who sold Joseph to the Egyptian? The weight of the evidence supports the Ishmaelites selling Joseph to the Egyptian. However, Genesis 37:36 makes this conclusion uncertain as it clearly states the Midianites sold Joseph to the Egyptian, although Genesis 37:28 clearly states that the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites. The solution to this dilemma may never be known. Thus, lacking a satisfactory answer are these two questions: (1) To whom the Midianites sell Joseph: — the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28) or the Egyptian (Genesis 37:36), and (2) who sold Joseph to the Egyptian — the Midianites (Genesis 37:36) or the Ishmaelites (Genesis 39:1)?

Appendix
The Ishmaelites were descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar, a Mizraim (Egyptian). They inhabited the desert of northern Arabia between Havilah, Egypt, and the Euphrates. Also, allied desert nomads who inhabited the region inhabited by true Ishmaelites were often included among the Ishmaelites.
The Midianites were the descendants of Midian, Abraham’s son by Keturah. Like the Ishmaelites, they were desert people. Their habitat was the northwest Arabian desert, east of the Gulf of Aqaba, and south of Moab. Moses’s wife was a Midianite.

References
Davis, John D. A Dictionary of the Bible. 4th rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Baker Book House: 1957.

Eiselen, Frederick Carl, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey, editors. The Abingdon Bible Commentary. New York, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1929.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Peake, Arthur S., ed., A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, n.d.

Laymon, Charles M., Editor. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1971.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

Thomas Allen

In Solving the Exodus Mystery, Volume 1 (1999), Ted Stewart identifies the Pharaoh of the Exodus and the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph Vizier. His arguments should convince everyone who is not an orthodox Egyptologist.

According to Stewart, the Exodus occurred in 1446 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1498.) According to the orthodox dating system of Egypt, Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty was the Pharaoh of the Exodus; his reign according to one orthodox chronology was 1479 to 1426 B.C. (Another orthodox chronology gives his reign as 1504 to 1452 B.C.) However, nothing in the history of Thutmose III’s reign matches the events of the Exodus.

Steward argues that the orthodox Egyptian chronology, which has changed over the years, is about 300 years too long. Consequently, he places Thutmose III’s reign from 1140 to 1086 B.C.

None of the Egyptian historical records of the Seventeenth or Eighteenth Dynasties match the description given in the Bible about Egypt in the time of Joseph or Moses. Therefore, many modern scholars consider the Biblical accounts of Joseph and Moses to be myths.

However, Stewart argues that the Egyptian and Biblical scholars are looking at the wrong dynasties. He evidences that Joseph and Moses lived during the Twelfth Dynasty and that Egyptian records of that Dynasty match the Biblical Account.

Moreover, Steward also adjusted the traditional Biblical dating of Ussher, Beecher, and others. Scholars who use the New International Version and like translations have the Israelites being in Egypt for 430 years beginning when Jacob entered Egypt and ending 430 years later with the Exodus. Scholars who use the King James Version and like translations argue that the 430 years begin with God’s promise to Abraham. Steward agrees with the scholars who follow the King James translation. Consequently, Steward reduces the time that the Israelites were in Egypt from 430 years to 210 years. With the adjustment to the traditional Biblical chronology, Biblical chronology matches his revised Egyptian chronology.

According to the Biblical account, Stewart states that Joseph became Pharaoh’s Vizier in 1665 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1716 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1723 B.C.) Based on his chronology, he identifies Sesostris I as the Pharaoh who appointed Joseph Vizier. His chronology gives Sesostris I’s reign from 1667 to 1625 B.C. (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia gives his reign as 1971 to 1926 B.C., and the New Encyclopaedia Britannica gives 1916 to 1876 B.C. Carbon 14 dating is 1680 B.C.)

Based on his revised chronology and the Egyptian historical record, Stewart identifies Amenemhet IV as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. According to his chronology, Amenemhet IV reigned from 1456 to 1446 B.C. (According to the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, he died in 1792 B.C.) Amenemhet IV seems to have vanished in 1446 B.C. Nothing is heard of him afterward, and his tomb has never been found. His sister-wife became queen and reigned four years until 1450 B.C. when the Twelfth Dynasty ended.

Thus, Amenemhet I, the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty, was Pharaoh when Joseph entered Egypt in 1678 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1718 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1736 B.C.). Sesostris I appointed Joseph Vizier in 1665 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1716, and Beecher’s is 1723 B.C.) When Moses was born in 1526 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1571 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1578 B.C.), Sesostris III was Pharaoh. He was the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph. During the reign of Amenemhet III, Moses fled Egypt in 1486 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491 B.C., and Beecher’s is 1989 B.C.) When Moses returned to Egypt in 1446 B.C. (Ussher’s date is 1491, Beecher’s is 1498), Amenemhet IV was Pharaoh. Soon after Moses’ return, came the plagues and the Exodus.

By adjusting the Egyptian and Biblical chronology, Stewart has identified the Pharaohs of Joseph’s and Moses’ time. He confirms that the Twelfth Dynasty is the correct Dynasty by comparing the Biblical account of Joseph and Moses with the Egyptian historical record.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Israel Identity

Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Israel Identity, also called British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity, claims that the lost tribes of Israel became the Germanic and Celtic tribes that invaded Europe and settled in Western Europe. The following presents Charles Weisman’s version of the Israel-Identity doctrine as it relates to salvation as given in Is Universalism of God? In this book, Weisman refutes the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans are eventually saved regardless of race or merit.

Weisman appears to be a Calvinist — only more so. Calvin believed that God arbitrary chooses whom to save to everlasting life and whom to condemn to everlasting torment without any foreknowledge of merit. (Thus, Calvin declared that God is not omniscient.) Unlike Calvin, who seems to believe that people of every ethnicity and race have a chance of salvation, Weisman seems to argue that only the unmixed descendants of Israel are saved. However, he is somewhat fuzzy about non-Israelite Whites. Sometimes, he seems to allow the descendants of Abraham (except the Arabs) and possibly Heber a chance of salvation. At other times, he seems to include non-Hebrew Whites in the salvation lottery, but, at other times, he excludes them.

Like all Israel Identity adherents, Weisman includes all Israelites and their modern-day descendants in the salvation lottery. Nevertheless, he is unclear about which Israelites are saved. Does God save nearly all, most, many, or just some? (Israel Identity adherents run the gamut from nearly all to just some.) According to Weisman, if a person is saved, he is merely a robot whom God has programmed to believe in Jesus — although he is not this blatant. As mentioned above, Weisman is hazy about whether God chooses any non-Israelite White for salvation, although he seems inclined to believe that God does not choose any non-Israelite White for salvation. However, he is certain that God chooses no nonwhites for salvation, and, by that, He condemns all nonwhites to eternal damnation.

At the time of Israel’s birth, circa 1844 or 1837 B.C., and the Israelite migration to Egypt around 1715 or 1706 B.C., Whites inhabited most of the Middle East, and much of Egypt and North Africa. Whites also inhabited Europe then. Consequently, Whites vastly outnumbered the Israelites, who were probably less than 100 persons. (Pure Israelites were 13.)

As far as known, none of Israel’s sons married their sisters. Thus, none of Israel’s daughters-in-law were true Israelites. According to the Bible, Joseph married an Egyptian by whom his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were born. (According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh’s descendants inhabit the United States.) How can the descendants of Israel’s sons be pure Israelites if their mothers were not genetic Israelites?

Since the Israelites settled in lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, and Europe that already had a population of Whites greater and often much greater than the Israelite immigrants, what happened to these non-Israelite Whites? The Israelites did not kill all of them or even most of them. Apparently, the Israelites lived among these other Whites or alongside them.

Moreover, how does one distinguish between an Israelite White European and a non-Israelite White European? Like other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman does not satisfactorily answer this question. The closest that he comes to an answer is to declare that the people of the Nordic racial type are true Israelites. If true, this suggests that other Whites are either non-Israelite Whites or a mixture of Israelite and non-Israelite Whites.

As God saves only true Israelites, then He condemns these other Whites to eternal death. Consequently, since only a small number of Europeans are Nordic, God condemns most Whites to eternal death. (Exposure to the sun is the easiest test to determine if one is a Nordic. While most Whites tan when they expose themselves to the sun, Nordics redden.)

That most Israel Identity adherents are Nordic is highly unlikely. Moreover, that most Israel Identity adherents are some pure descendants with no admixture of non-Israelite Whites is even more unlikely. Therefore, if Weisman is correct, few, if any, Israel Identity adherents qualify for God’s salvation lottery.

In his book, Weisman exposes the error of the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans regardless of race or merit are eventually saved to everlasting life in heaven. He does so by arguing that God chooses only Israelites for salvation to everlasting life. Nevertheless, at times, Weisman suggests that some non-Israelites Whites are saved, while at other times, he suggests that no non-Israelite Whites are saved. Like other Israel Identity adherents, he fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. However, he is certain that God chooses not to save any nonwhites.

In part, Weisman condemns the Universalist salvation doctrine because it reduces the need for repentance and salvation and removes the fear of judgment; thus, it creates a false sense of security. Such notions encourage licentiousness and otherwise unchristian, unholy lifestyles. Yet, the salvation doctrine of Weisman does the same thing — even more so. As God has already decided whom He will save, then how a person behaves or what a person believes is irrelevant. If behavior and belief are important to salvation, then God programs the person to be saved how to behave and what to believe.

Since God never saves nonwhites, then their behavior and beliefs do not matter. They may as well live by their passions and appetites. Likewise, the same is true for Whites. Since no one knows for sure whether he is an Israelite or whether God has chosen him — although, like all other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman is convinced that he is an Israelite whom God has saved — he may as well act the way that he wants to act and believe whatever he wants to believe. God’s choice and his ancestry decide his salvation and not his behavior or beliefs.

However, Weisman is correct in that Universalism is an egalitarian doctrine that  leads to and encourages the sin of miscegenation. Moreover, Universalism is a false doctrine. Nevertheless, the Israel-Identity doctrine that Weisman substitutes for it is highly questionable.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Cush and Ethiopia

Cush and Ethiopia

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Footnotes in the original are omitted. The footnotes contain the King James Version of the scripture being discussed.]

    There is good evidence that “Cush” or Kûwsh, son of Ham, is not synonymous with the region south of Egypt, biblical African Ethiopia. In the Scriptures, it is seldom, if ever, used as a synonym for biblical African Ethiopia. This is especially true for Genesis 2:13, 10:6ff; Numbers 12:1; 2 Samuel 18:21; 2 Chronicles 14:8ff, 21:16; Psalm 87:4; Isaiah 11:11, 20:3, 43:3, 45:14; Ezekiel 28:10; and Habakkuk 3:7.
    Most, if not all, biblical dictionaries identify Cush with Ethiopia, a region south of Egypt. However, most mention the existence of an Arabian Cush. The biblical African Ethiopia stretched from Aswan in present-day Egypt through northern and eastern present-day Sudan into northern present-day Ethiopia. It was the region between the junction of the Blue and White Nile to the First Cataract, the location of present-day Aswan and biblical Syene.
    In the Septuagint and Vulgate, “Cush” is usually translated “Ethiopia.” In the King James Version, Kûwsh is translated “Cush” eight times and “Ethiopia” nineteen times. Kûwshîy (“Cushite”) is translated “Ethiopian” eight times and “Ethiopians” twelve times. Many other translation follow the King James Version. The Hebrew words should have been consistently and correctly translated “Cush” or “Cushite.” Such translation would have avoided the confusion of identifying Cush with modern-day Ethiopia, Nubia, or biblical African Ethiopia.
    Most often, Cush refers to a people or region in Arabia instead of the region in Africa south of Egypt. As noted above, a number of Scriptural passages support this conclusion. Some of them are reviewed below.
    First, Moses married a Cushite woman (Numbers 12:1) of Midian (Exodus 2:16,21; 3:1). Midian is in northwest Arabia and eastern Sinai. Zipporah is the only wife of Moses mentioned in the Pentateuch. Did Moses travel to the Upper Nile to Nubia or Abyssinia to find his wife or did he take a wife in eastern Sinai or northwest Arabia? The latter. (Some commentators claim that Zipporah is not the Cushite woman. Their argument is based on rejecting Midian as part of Cush. However, if Cush was Arabia, as most Scriptures referring to Cush imply, instead of Abyssinia or Nubia, then this claim loses its weight.) Cushites include Midianites and other Arabic people. In Habakkuk 3:7 Cushan is mentioned in parallel with Midian identifying two names for the same region. (In Hebrew “cushan” (kûwshân) is believe to be derived from “cush”(kûwsh).  Hence, “cushan” is another name for “cush.”) In Judges 1:16, Moses’ father-in-law is called a Kenite. The Midianites, Kenites, and Cushites referred to in these passages are all the same people.
    Second, in Ezekiel 29:10, God says that He will make Mizraim (or Egypt) a land of desolation from the tower of Syene (Seveneh) to the borders of Cush. Syene was Aswan near the Nile’s first cataract on the border of Egypt and Nubia (Ethiopia). If Cush is synonymous with Ethiopia, then the passage reads, “from Ethiopia to Ethiopia,” which is nonsensical. However, from Syene to Cush beyond the Isthmus of Suez gives the passage sense. Cush refers to Egypt’s eastern border, not its southern border. Hence, Cush refers to Arabia or a region of Arabia.
    Third, in Genesis 10:7-8, lists the descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba, Dedan, and Nimrod. Nimrod is associated with Mesopotamia. The remainder are associated with the Arabian Peninsula. However, Seba appears to have crossed over to Africa and settled along the coast of present-day Ethiopia and Djibouti.
    Fourth, in Genesis 2:13, before the Noachian Flood, Cush was identified with Mesopotamia. This identification assumes that Eden was in or near Mesopotamia. However, because “Cush” is translated “Ethiopia,” some place Eden in present-day Ethiopia. Thus, the four rivers flowing from Eden are the White Nile, The Blue Nile, the Atbara, and the Tekezé (Takkaze). More likely, Eden was where the Pamir Plateau of Central Asia is now with the four rivers being the Indus, the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), the Oxus (Amu Darya), and the Tarim (see Allen’s Adam to Abraham for a more detailed discussion). This would place the original Cush in Central Asia. In any event, it is not in Africa where the King James version places it. However, if the Noachian Flood was global, trying to locate Eden based on post-Flood geography is ridiculous. After the Flood washed away all land and covered much of the planet with sedimentary deposits, which in some place is more than a mile thick, the geography before the Flood bears no resemblance to the geography after it.
    Fifth, the description given in Isaiah 11:11 indicates that Cush is Arabia. This verse names countries to which the Jews were dispersed during the Exile. Pathros was part of Egypt (Ezekiel 29:4). Hamath was north of Phoenicia. Elam and Shinar bordered the Persian Gulf. Islands of the sea were the islands of Greece and the Mediterranean. Cush must have represented Arabia and not some country 1500 miles away. If Cush is Arabia, then the countries named circumscribe Judea. That Jews were dispersed to nearby Arabia, part of which was under the rule of Babylon, is highly probable and likely. That Jews were dispersed to a far away country beyond the southern border of Egypt and beyond Babylon’s rule is highly improbable and unlikely. Furthermore, if Cush here is not equivalent to Arabia, then this immense peninsula, which was very familiar — much more so than Ethiopia — to the Judeans, would be omitted from the list of countries around Judea. (The King James Version got this one right.) Moreover, the Jews were recalled from the regions in which the remnant remained. However, at that time, the Jews had never colonized Ethiopia and were never carried there in their captivity.
    Sixth, according to 2 Chronicles 14:13, the Cushites (or Ethiopians) fled to Gerar, which is located in southern Palestine in the foothills of Judean mountains in southern Philistia; it was between the Kingdom of Judea and the wilderness of Shur and Paran. Hence, it is the extreme northwest of Cush (Arabia) to which Zerah fled. Thus, the battle was in northwest Arabia. Zerah was probably a powerful chieftain coming out of Arabia instead of a Nubian from south of Egypt.
    Seventh, in 2 Chronicles 21:16, the Arabs are described as being near, living near, or located by the Cushites (or Ethiopians in most translations). In this verse, Cushites must be in Arabia instead of Africa. Arabs at this time were much nearer Arabia than Africa.
    Eighth, in Psalm 87:4, the Psalmist names Rahab (or Egypt), Babylon, Philistia, Tyre, and Ethiopia (Cush). This verse describes the countries encompassing Zion or Judea: Rahab to the south and southwest, Philistia to the west, Tyre to the northwest and north, Babylon to the north and east, Cush to the southeast and south. Here Cush must refer to Arabia, not Africa, to complete the encompassing.
    Several verses are occasionally cited to prove that Ethiopia (Cush) was south of Egypt and, therefore, Ethiopians were Negroes. These verses include 2 Kings 19:9; 2 Chronicles 14:9-14; Isaiah 20:3-5, 43:3, 45:14; Jeremiah 13:23, 46:9; and Ezekiel 30:5, 38:2-6. A few of these are discussed below.
    First, Jeremiah 13:23 is used to prove that Ethiopians were Negroes; thus, Ethiopia would then be in Africa south of Egypt. This verse does not identify the race of the Ethiopians and, therefore, does not prove that Ethiopians were Negroes (they were Melanochroi regardless of their location in Nubia and Abyssinia or Arabia). However, this verse does imply the immutability of the races, species, of humans.
    Second, in 2 Kings 19:9, Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (Cush) was more likely an Arab than an African. The king of Assyria observed Tirhakah advancing toward Hezekiah. The Assyrian king’s ambassador advised Hezekiah that Tirhakah would not save Judea from the Assyrians. Was it more likely that the Assyrians learned of an African army before Hezekiah, whose kingdom was contiguous Africa? Or, was it more likely that the Assyrians would have notice an army coming out of Arabia before Hezekiah did? One point in favor of Tirhakah coming from Africa instead of Arabia is that African Ethiopians had recently gained control of Egypt.
    Third, excluding Magog, which is unidentifiable, although some believe it is Russia, the nations described in Ezekiel 38:2-6 are in or around Assyria if Cush is understood to mean Arabia instead of the region south of Egypt and Libya is not the region west of Egypt. The King James Version translates bow as Libya. Most other translations translates bow as “Put” (In Genesis 10:6 and 1 Chronicles 1:8, the King James Version translates bow as Phut, and elsewhere it translates it as “Libya” or “Libyans.”) Although the location of Put or Phut is disputed, most place it in Africa. It is most commonly identified with Libya. It is also identified as east Africa bordering the Red Sea, i.e., from Upper Egypt to Somaliland. Based on the assumption that Cush is the region south of Egypt, Put has been identified with Punt, present-day Somaliland. If Cush is in Arabia and Lud refers to the Lydians in northeast Egypt (see the discussion on Lud below), then Put would be to the east of Egypt. “According to Glaser the name [Put] first referred to E. Arabia, was then transferred to the S. Arabian incense coast, and was eventually applied to the African coast of Somaliland” (Davis p, 504).
    Fourth, Ezekiel 30:5 mentions Cush (Ethiopia, KJV) together with Put (Libya, KJV), Lud (Lydia, KJV), and Chub. Chub or Cub is probably Lub or Lubim. Like Lub, Cub is generally identified as Lybia. Likewise, Lud or Ludim is often identified as Libya. However, some identify Lud with the Lydians who came from Lydia in Asia Minor and settled in northeast Egypt. Others identify Lud with a Berber tribe, a tribe in Cyrenaica, or Ionian and Carian mercenaries. Another possibility is mercenaries from Lydia in Asia Minor. In any event, Lubim were mercenaries, who were famous as archers. Nevertheless, the connection of the countries mentioned in Ezekiel 30:5 implies a geographical proximity. However, the proximity may be to the east of Egypt as well as to the south of Egypt. Arabia is a better choice because the Cushites are known to have settle in Arabia. However, that the Cushites or any other Hamites settle south of Egypt is doubtful.
    When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, the Septuagint translation, the translators translated “Cush” as “Ethiopia.” It is this maltranslation that has led to confusion of the Arabs with Nubians and the Arabian Peninsula with the Upper Nile.
    In Greek “Ethiopian” means “scorched-face” or “burned-face.” Hence, “Ethiopian” is a dark-complexioned person, such as a suntanned Arab. It was applied to the inhabitants of Arabia and northwest India. Herodotus described Asiatic Ethiopians in the army of Xerxes, who were different from the African Ethiopians. Only later, after 525 B. C., did the Greeks become aware of the Nubians, who were Melanochroi, and true Negroes south of Egypt. Over time “Ethiopian” became reserved only for these people.
    In summary “Cush” refers to Arabia in its widest sense and Arabian tribes, who are mostly a dark-complexion, Melanochroi, in chapter ten of Genesis. With perhaps the exception of a few passages in the later books of the Bible where geographical precision is sacrificed for poetry, “Cush” means Arabia not Abyssinia or Nubia. Where it may refer to an African people, it refers to Nubians and true Ethiopians, neither of whom are Negroes, but who are Melanochroi. It never includes any of the Negro races.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Allen, Thomas Coley. Integration Is Genocide. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1997.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Fausset, A.R. Fausset’s Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1949.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Miller, Madeleine S. and J. Lane Miller. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 6th ed. New York, New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1959.

Unger, Merrill F. Unger’s Bible Dictionary. 3rd edition. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1960.

Winchell, Alexander. Preadamites or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam; Together with a Study of Their Condition, Antiquity, Racial Affinities, and Progressive Dispersion over the Earth. Fourth Edition. Chicago, Illinois: S.C. Griggs and Company, 1888.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

People of Africa

People of Africa

Thomas Allen

    Many people mistakenly believe that all Africans are Negroes except the late arriving Aryans of southern Africa. A result of this misconception has resulted in the claim that Negroes created the ancient civilization of Egypt. The people who created the ancient Egyptian civilization were the Mizraim, an Aryan nation, who arrived in Egypt around 3200 B.C.
    Five of the six races, species, of humans inhabit Africa. They are the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii), Negro (Homo niger), Melanochroi (Homo brunus), Aryan (Homo albus), and Turanian (Homo luridus). The Khoisans are the original inhabitants of Africa; they originated in Africa probably around 75,000 years ago. Next came the Negroes, who appear in Africa between 55,000 and 40,000 years ago. Following them were the Melanochroi, who arrived around 35,000 years ago. Next came the Aryans, who probably began arriving around 7500 B.C. with more substantial numbers arriving shortly after 1500 B.C. These later Aryans are the ancestor of most Aryans of North Africa. Finally came the Turanians, who landed in Madagascar starting in the first century A.D. with substantial settlements by 1100 A.D. Most Madagascan Turanians are from these settlers.
    The following map, which is based on Carleton Coon’s map,[1] shows the approximate areas inhabited by Khoisans, Negroes, Melanochroi, Aryans, and Turanians around 1500 A.D. During the last 500 years, the major changes that have occurred has been the area inhabited by the Khoisans has greatly contracted as Negroes encroached from the north and Aryans from the south. Also, large numbers of Melanochroi from British India were imported into the British colonies of East and South Africa. Along with a significant number of these later Aryans, a significant number of these Melanochroi still inhabit South Africa.

    The Negro is the primary human species inhabiting Africa. The racial types of Negroes found in Africa are Sudanese (True Negroes, Nigritians), Palaenegroes (Forest Negroes), Pygmies (Negrillos, Twides), Nilotes (Nilotic Negroes), Nilo-Hamites (Negro-Hamites), Bantus (Kaffirs), and Negro Malagasy.
    Sudanese are found predominately along the Guinea coast of West Africa from Senegal to Cameroons. They are a principal type in the countries along the Guinea coast from Gambia to Cameroons, and in southern Mali and Burkina Faso (Upper Volta). Included among the Sudanese are the Ashanti, Felup, Hausa, Ibo, Krus, Mandingo (Malinke, Bambara, Dyula, Kassonke, Soninke, (Jallonke), Mossi, Sara, Serer, Songhai, Toucouleur (Tacuror), and Wolof.
    Palaenegroes live in the interior forests of west and central Africa. Included among the Palaenegroes are the Balunda and Batoka.
    Pygmies are found predominately in the equatorial forests of Africa. They live in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Zaire, Rwanda, Burundi, and Zambia, but are only a minor part of the populations of these countries. Included among the Pygmies are the Bambutis, Batwa, and Babinga.
    Bantus are found predominately in central and southern Africa. They are a principal type in Zaire, Zambia, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other countries of southern Africa. They are also found in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, and Gabon. Included among the Bantus are the Eastern Bantu (Buganda, Bunyoro, Chaga, Karagwe, Kikuju, Luyia, and Rwanda Rundi), the Western Bantu (Bassa, Bemba, Duala, Fang [Pangwe], Kuba, Luba, Lunda, Mbala, Soko, Songo-Meno, Teke, and Tetela), and the Southern Bantu (Herero, Ndebele [Tebele], Shona, Shoto, Tsonga, Tswana, and Zulu).
    Nilotes are found predominately in the upper Nile valley and adjacent lands from Khartoum to Lake Kioga and the northeast shores of Lake Victoria. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan and much of Uganda. Included among the Nilotes are the Abaka, Abukaya, Anuak, Beir, Belanda, Dinka, Jaluo, Kamasia (El Tuken), Latuka, Lendu, Luba, Madi, Mittu, Moru, Nuer, Shilluk, and Wira.
    Nilo-Hamites are found predominately in east and east central Africa. They are a principal part of the population of Kenya, Uganda, and northen Tanzania. Included among the Nilo-Hamites are the Lotuko, Lumbwa, Kipsigis, Masai, Nandi, Suk, Teso, Toposa, and Turkana.
    Negro Malagasy are found predominately in Madagascar and account for a majority of the island’s population. They include the Antankarana, Antandroy, Bara, Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Sihanaka, and Mahafaly).
    Tables 1 and 2 describe six racial types of Negroes: Sudanese, Negro Malagasy, Bantu,Nilote, Nilo-Hamite, and Palaenegro. Excluded is a description of the pygmy[2].

    

    Next to the Negro in importance is the Melanochroi.  Three racial types of Melanochroi are found in Africa; they are the Saharan-Hamites (Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (Ethiopians), and Egyptians.
    The Saharan-Hamites are predominately found in and around the Sahara Desert. They are a principal type in central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya. Included among the Saharan-Hamites are the Bale, Fulas, Mangbattus of Chad, Niam-Niam (Zandeh) of Chad, Shluh of Morocco, Tibbus (Tedas) in the Fezzan, Tibesti, and Tuaregs of the Sahara.
    Eastern-Hamites are predominantly found in the countries between Egypt and Kenya and east of the Nile River. They are a principal type in eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Included among the Eastern-Hamites are the Agau, Amhara, Barabra (Nubians), Bejas, Beni-Amer, Berberine, Bilins, Bisharin, Bogos, Danakil (Afar), Ethiopians, Falasha (black Jews), Gallas, Hadendoas, Kafacitos, Saho, Sidamo, Somali, and Wata.
    Egyptians are found predominately in Egypt where they are a principal type. They include the Fellahins.
    Table 3 describes three racial types of Melanochroi found in Africa. They are the Saharan-Hamite, Eastern-Hamite, and Egyptian.

    In the Maghreb is the Aryan racial type Southern Mediterranean. Southern Mediterraneans are predominately found in Morocco and Algeria from the southern slopes of the Atlas Mountains northward to the Mediterranean. They include the Berbers of Tunisia and Cyrenaica, sedentary tribes of Jebel Nefuse of Libya, the Kabyle, Mzab, and Shawia of Algeria, and the Riffian of Morocco. Except for recent arrivals in South Africa, they are the only type of Aryan  commonly found in Africa. Recent arrivals from to South Africa are primarily from the Netherlands and Great Britain.
    In Madagascar is the Turanian racial type Malayan Malagasy. Malayan Malagasy are found mainly in Madagascar on the central Imerina Plateau. They make up less than a third of the island's population.
    The Khoisan is the least populous human species inhabiting Africa. They include the San (Bushmen), Khoi (Hottentots), Sandawe, and Hatsa (Kindiga). The Sans and Khoi are found primarily in Namibia,  Botswana, and southern Angola. The Sandawe and Hatsa live in Tanzania. Khoisans are also found in South Africa in the form of the hybrid coloureds. Except for the coloureds of South Africa, Khoisans are a minor to insignificant part of the populations in the countries where they are found.
    Table 4 describes the Southern Mediterranean, Malagasy, and Khoisan.

References
Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Comas, Juan. Manual of Physical Anthropology. English edition. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1960.

Coon, Carleton S. and Edward E. Hunt, Jr. The Living Races of Man. New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Coon, Carleton S., Stanley M. Garn, and Joseph B. Birdsell. Races . . . A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1950.

Deniker, J. The Races of Man: An Outline of Anthropology and Ethnography. London, England: Walter Scott, Limited, 1900.

Haddon, A. C. The Races of Man and Their Distribution. New York, New York: The Macmillian Company, 1925.

Keane, A. H. Ethnology. Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1896.

Kroeber, A. L. Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Peschel, Oscar. The Races of Man, and Their Geographical Distribution. New York, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1885.

Seligman, C.G. Races of Africa. 3rd edition. London, England: Oxford University Press, 1957.

Taylor, Griffith. Environment, Race, and Migration. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1937.

Endnotes
1.  Carleton S. Coon and Edward E. Hunt, Jr., The Living Races of Man (New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965), p. 26.

2.  A description of the Pygmy is found in Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Allen, pp. 101-103.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on anthropology.

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In his book Segregation and the Bible[1] (1958), Everett Tilson, a Methodist minister, attacks several Biblical arguments that opponents of integration and interracial mating used. He picks out a few of the weakest and often absurd Biblical arguments used by segregationists to examine. Moreover, he often obfuscates his contention by confusing and confounding biology (race) with religion and race with nationality and ethnicity. Some segregationists are also guilty of this confusing and confounding.
    One is that all the races of humans descended from Noah’s sons. Aryans (also called Homo albus, the White race, and white Caucasian) descended from Japheth. Turanians (also called, Homo luridus, the Yellow race, and Mongolian) descended from Shem. Apparently, this descent made the Hebrews Turanians although proponents of this descent usually claim that the Hebrews were Aryans. Negroes (also called, Homo niger and the Black race) descended from Ham because of the curse Noah placed on Canaan, Ham’s son.
    Alternatively, some claim that the descendants of Shem were the Aryans who settled in the Middle East. The descendants of Japheth were the Aryans who settled in Europe and the Turanians of Asia. How Japheth sired two different races, or more correctly two different species[2] (in this article race is used as a synonym for species), they seldom attempt to explain. Ham is the father of the Negro.
    Ironically, young-earth Christians, Christians who believe that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, make the same claim. They claim that all the races of humans descended from the sons of Noah. However, most omit the Negro descended from Ham because of Noah’s curse. To explain this descent, they resort to Darwinism in spite of rejecting evolution.
    Tilson correctly notes that “no reputable scientist has yet attempted to account for the origin of the three major racial groups within a single generation from a set of common parents.”[3] To get around this problem, a few segregationist creationists maintain that God created the races from Noah’s descendants. Unfortunately for them, the Bible offers no hint for this conclusion.
    At times, Tilson appears to adhere to the doctrine that races of humans do not exist. However, he appears to hedge his position enough not to deny the existence of races completely. If human races do not exist, then racial discrimination and racial segregation cannot exist. One cannot discriminate against and segregate from that which does not exist. Furthermore, one cannot integrate with something that does not exist. Without the existence of the human races, his book is meaningless. Tilson seems to want both: Races do not exist; however, racial segregation and racial separation are egregious sins.
    If God finds racial segregation, racial separation, and miscegenation abhorrent sins, why did He not include them in the Ten Commandments? He includes the sin of miscegenation with the Sixth Commandment: the prohibition against adultery (mongrelization). (To commit adultery means to mongrelize.)[4] It also violates the Fifth Commandment, which forbids killing or murder. Interracial mating results in the death of the races involved. Moreover, miscegenation is included in the Fourth Commandment: honoring one’s parents. When a Negro mates with a Turanian, both dishonor their parents. They reject the greatest gift that their parents can bestow on them: their special God-given racial traits. Miscegenation also violates the Seventh Commandment: the prohibition of stealing. For example, when a Negro mates with an Aryan, the Negro is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Aryans, such as, lighter skin, straighter and lighter colored hair, a narrower nose, larger ears, etc. The Aryan is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Negroes, such as, darker complexion, thicker lips, smaller ears, thicker skulls, longer arms and legs, etc. Interracial mating violates the Tenth Commandment, which forbids covetousness. People covet another race’s particular traits so much that they mate with the race that possesses the coveted traits to destroy its God-given traits. If they cannot possess these traits, no one else will.[5]
    What Tilson and especially the segregationists whom he criticizes fail to realize is that the descendants of Noah’s sons are Aryans. The other races have different origins and different parentage and ancestry.[6]
    Either God created the races of humans or they evolved. Although Tilson offers no explanation of their origins, he seems to be in the evolutionist camp. (Ironically, most Christians who believe that the Noachian Flood covered the whole planet and who are creationists typically resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of human races.) If God created the races of humans, should Christians support and promote conditions, laws, and policies that lead to their demise? Tilson does; he supports and promotes conditions, laws, and policies that result in their destruction. Perhaps he does so because he does not credit God with their creation.
    To justify miscegenation, Tilson cites several verses that he claims support interracial marriages. They are Genesis 16:3, 38:2, 41:50, Exodus 2:21, 12:38 Leviticus 24:10, Numbers 11:4, 12:1, and Deuteronomy 21:10-13. He also cites Rachab in Jesus’ ancestry (Matt 1:5) and Ruth, another ancestor of Jesus.
    Genesis 16:3: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” When Abram married an Egyptian, he did not marry outside his race. He did not violate the Scriptural prohibition against interracial marriages and mating. He married an Aryan of a different nationality.
    “Egyptian” in this verse is the translation of Mizraim. For much of its ancient history, two racially distinct people inhabited Egypt. They were the Mizraim, who were Aryans, and the Pathrusim, who were Melanochroi (also called Homo brunus and brown Caucasians). The Mizraim lived mainly in Lower Egypt and were the Egyptians encountered most often by the Israelites. The Pathrusim lived mainly in Upper Egypt although they were not uncommon in Lower Egypt. These Pathrusim are the ancestors of today’s Fellahins.[7]
    Moreover, according to Deuteronomy 23:7-8, a marriage to an Egyptian was an acceptable marriage. The only restriction placed on these marriages was that the descendants of these marriages could not enter God’s assembly until the third generation.
    Genesis 38:2: “And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.” Judah did marry a Canaanite. According to Deuteronomy 7:1-4, marriage with Canaanites was prohibited. Unfortunately for Tilson, nowhere does the text hint that this marriage was acceptable. On the contrary, it was a sin, and it led Judah to another sin: incest. This verse does not prove that mixed-racial marriages are acceptable. It just proves that humans, even Aryans, are sinners. If this verse proves that interracial marriages are acceptable, then Chapter 38 of Genesis also proves that incest and prostitution are acceptable.
    Genesis 41:50: “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.” In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian. As noted above, Egyptians at this time were of the same race as the Israelites, or at least the upper echelon of Egyptian society was although the peasants may have been of a different race.  Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly the worshiper of Egyptian gods and not of Jehovah. Her name means “worshiper of Neith.” She may have converted later, but no evidence is given of such conversion. These verses are evidence that the Scriptural prohibition against mixed marriages is racial and not religious. A footnote in The Berkeley Version of the Bible to Genesis 46:20 affirms this: “Her training of Manasseh and Ephraim would hardly be in the Hebrew faith.” Therefore, Joseph married someone of his race who most likely was not of his religion.[8]
    Exodus 2:21: “And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.” Numbers 12:1: “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
    In Numbers 12:1 Moses had married an Ethiopian or a Cushite. (“Ethiopian” is the translation of Kûwshîy, which is literally “Cushite.”) Cush refers to Arabia in general, and Cushite refers to the people of Arabia in general.[9] Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite as well as a Cushite. Cush was a region, Arabia. Midian was an area within this region. The Kenites were a tribe or people inhabiting this area. An example of an English colonist who came to the United States helps illustrate this phenomenon. An Englishman living in Virginia could correctly be called an American (Cushite), a Virginian (Midianite), or an Englishman (Kenite). So closely related to the Israelites were the Kenites that they were later considered a part of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:55; 1 Samuel 27:10). The woman referred to in Exodus 2:21 is the same woman referred to in Numbers 12:1. The Bible gives no indication of Moses ever having more than one wife. Therefore, Moses’ wife was of the same race as he, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Exodus 12:38: “Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.” Since the Israelites were fleeing Egypt, assuming that these other people were Egyptians, Mizraim, is logical. As discussed above marriages with Egyptians were acceptable as they were racially identical to the Israelites.
    Numbers 11:4: “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?” The explanation for this verse is the same as Exodus 12:38. The mixed multitude were Egyptians. (Perhaps, some of these Egyptians created most of the turmoil, complaints, and rebellion that the Israelites experienced in their journey to the Promised Land.)
    Leviticus 24:10: “And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.” As shown above, marriages with Egyptians (Mizraim) were not prohibited because Mizraim were Aryans.
    Deuteronomy 21:10-13: “(10) When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”
    These verses need to be read in the context of Deuteronomy 7:1-3. Deuteronomy 7:1, 3 reads, “(1) When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; (3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
    The only logical conclusion is that God did not reverse Himself in Deuteronomy 21:10-13. The prohibition in Deuteronomy 7:1-3 remained in effect. (The people identified in Deuteronomy 7:1 were most likely Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids.) However, He was clarifying that the Israelites could marry Aryans, such as the Philistines, who resided in the region of their present and future conquests. (What is not mentioned either way are the Rephaim, Anakim, Nephilim, and related people who lived in that area. They were remnants of the human species of giants that lived on the Earth before the Flood. [The Nephilim are mentioned as living before the Flood in Genesis 6:4 and after the Flood in Numbers 13:33.][10] God must have known the females of these people were so repugnant in the eyes of the Israelites that they would not consider marrying them. This species of human seems to have become extinct by the time that the Israelites split into Israel and Judah.)
    However, Tilson ignores Deuteronomy 23:2: “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” (The New Jerusalem Bible). If God approves of interracial mating, why does He forbid the mix breed offspring of such relations from entering His assembly? On the contrary, God values racial purity so much that He does not want a racially mixed person to be part of His congregation or church.[11]
    That the Rachab of Matthew 1:5 is the same as the Rahab of Jericho is highly unlikely. In Matthew, Rachab is identified as David’s great-great-grandmother. David was born about 1049 B.C. Jericho fell about 1450 B.C. Thus, 400 years elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David. Therefore, the average age of David’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandmother would be 100 years when they bore David or his ancestor. Too much time elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David for Rachab of Jericho to be David’s great-great-grandmother. The conclusion is that the Rachab who married Salmon was an Israelite.
    As for Ruth, true, she was a Moabite. However, she was a Moabite by residence — not by race. Ruth lived in the country of Moab and was, therefore, a Moabite. However, she was not racially a Moabite. Moab had absorbed much of Reuben, so she may have been a Reubenite. Mexico can be used to illustrate this phenomenon. Both Aryans and Turanian Indians live in Mexico. Both are called Mexicans, but they differ racially. Ruth was racially the same as Boaz, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Except for Ezra 9 and 10, Tilson fails to discuss any of the many verses that support those who oppose miscegenation and interracial mating. These verses include: Genesis 6:1-7, Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 26:34-35, Genesis 28:1-2, 6-7, Genesis chap. 34, Exodus 11:7, Exodus 33:16, Exodus 34:10-16, Leviticus 19:19, Leviticus 20:26, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers chap. 23, 24, and 25, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-8, 1 King 8:53, 1 King 11:1-8, 1 King 16: 30, 31, 1 King 21:25, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:1-3, Nehemiah 10:28-31, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31, Psalm 106:28-35, Isaiah 2:1-9 (esp. v. 6), Jeremiah 2:19-25, 29, Ezekiel 16:15-39, Ezekiel 44:6-23, Hosea 5:3-7, Hosea 6:7-10, Hosea 10:1-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (esp. v. 8), Hebrews 12:12-17, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:9-16, Jude 3-11, Revelations 2:12-14, Revelations 2:18-23, Revelations 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, 21:24, 22:2.[12]
    Tilson does discuss Ezra 9 and 10, one of the strongest arguments in the Bible for racial segregation. He attacks that argument by making a host of assumptions that are not in the text. Thus, he is guilty of what he accuses the segregationists of doing, that is, making assumptions that are poorly supported by the text.
    Tilson discusses the importance of God as the Creator. He notes that there are two types of ways that people view God as Creator: “self-renouncing individuals standing on the threshold of despair, and self-centered individuals reminding the world and the Lord of their magnificent gifts and glorious achievements.”[13] Tilson probably considers himself the former, yet he gives God no credit for creating the races. Then he asks, “How can you possibly justify the attachment of so much importance to differences in the color of human skin?”[14] The answer is that God created them. This answer Tilson rejects. Since God created the races, people of all races need to work to prevent their demise. The surest action that will preserve them is racial separation, as that great civil rights leader Roy Innis declares.
    Tilson believes that people who want to separate from people of other races want God to give their race favorable treatment. There may be some truth to this. However, separate or different treatment does not necessarily mean better or worse treatment. What he claims about race is equally true of intelligence, talent, and ability. Ultimately, all these come from God. If one needs his appendix removed, his prejudice will lead him to discriminate against barbers in favor of a surgeon.
    Like most integrationists, Tilson equates the desire for racial separation and segregation with racial hatred. While some segregationists advocate racial separation or segregation because they hate Blacks, many do not. Where is hatred implied in the desire for segregation? Does one hate people with a level four or five contagious diseases because they do not want to be around them? Does someone hate people who speak a foreign language because he prefers not being around such people? Most people prefer segregating their children from pedophiles. Do they express this preference because they hate pedophiles? Catholic nunneries discriminate against men and refuse to integrate with men. Does this mean that nuns hate men? If he is consistent, Tilson would answer all these questions yes; they discriminate and segregate because of hate. Actually, these acts of discrimination and segregation are important to protect the health, morals, and welfare of the people involved. Likewise, racial segregation and separation are important in the protection of the lives of the races. Racial prejudice is not a sin; it is a love of one’s race. 
    Tilson asks, “Do you ground your plea for integration in the equality of men among men or in the equal dependence of all creatures on their Creator?”[15] According to Acts 17:26, God determined the boundaries of the habitats for the various races. As the Creator assigned each race its habitat, the integrationists must base their plea on the equality of men among men.
    Tilson believes that the Bible presents God as treating humans equally, i.e., God is an egalitarian. It does not, and God is no egalitarian. For example, according to Revelation 17:8, not everyone’s name is “written in the book of life.” Those “not found written in the book of life . . . [are] cast into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). Some people receive eternal life. Some people receive eternal death. What greater inequality is there than this?
    Moreover, Daniel 12:2 shows a three-tier treatment of man. First “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Not everyone will be awakened — an inequality of treatment and condition. Second, of those awakened, some awaken “to everlasting life” and “some to shame and everlasting contempt” — again inequality of treatment and condition. If all men were equal, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Other examples illustrating that God is not an egalitarian are found in Malachi 11:2, 3, Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:1-6, Matthew 15:26, 22:14, 25: 14-30, 25:31-34, 41, John 9:1-6, Romans 9:20-23, and 2 Peter 2:12.[16]
    In expressing his affinity for Negroes, Tilson argues for conditions, laws, and policies that result in the death of the Negro. He has a terminal case of Negrophilia-Albuphobia.[17] As much as he loves the Negro, he seems to hate the Aryan even more. The conditions, laws, and policies that he supports and advocates result in the death of both. Yet he would claim that what he promotes would not result in their death because neither really exists. He seems to believe or wants to believe that neither race exists in spite of writing a book condemning racial segregation, which cannot exist without races.
    Tilson presents integration as divinely ordained by God. If integration is good and holy as Tilson maintains, why would God let atheist Communists and their camp followers lead the charge for integration?[18] He does not say. Moreover, he seems oblivious to the involvement and importance of Communists in the integration and civil rights movement. The answer is that integration is not good and holy. In Old Testament times God often used pagan nations to punish Israel and Judah for straying from Him. Likewise, today God is using integration and related actions, such as open borders, to punish the Aryan people of the West for straying from Him.

Endnotes

1. Everett Tilson, Segregation and the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press), 1958.

2. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

3. Tilson, p. 20.

4. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 2001, pp. 18-19. V. S. Herrell, The Six Law of God Ού μοιχεύσεις, 3rd ed.  (Kodak: Herrell Brothers Publishing House), 1999.

5. Thomas Coley Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1997, pp. 10-13.

6. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1998, pp. 51ff.

7. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12.

8. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12. Allen, Adam to Abraham, p. 71.

9. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 73-77.

10. Allen, Adam to Abraham, pp. 185-189.

11. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, pp. 19-21.

12. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 13-17.

13. Tilson, pp. 100-101.

14. Tilson, p. 102.

15. Tilson, p. 103.

16. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 77-79.

17. Allen, Integration is Genocide, pp. 64-65.

18. Thomas Allen, “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement,” 2015.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.