The Day-Age Theory

 The Day-Age Theory

Thomas Allen

The following is an excerpt from Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1998).

The Day-Age Theory

According to the Day-Age Theory, the six days of creation should not be or cannot be regarded as ordinary 24-hour days.[1] They should be considered as periods of indeterminate length. As these days have an indeterminate length, they can be equated with the vast amount of time required for the geological history of the Earth.

In the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew word yôwm or yôm is translated “day” in the King James Version and most other translations. Fenton translates  yôwm as “age.” The word means day both in the literal sense of from sunrise to sunset or from one sunset to the next or in the figurative sense of a space of time of unspecified duration, era, or age. For example, Genesis 2:4 reads, “These are the generation of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Here, “day” refers to the entire period described by the six days of creation in chapter one. Even in Genesis One, the word “day” is used in several different senses. In Genesis 1:5 “day” is used as a term for light. It seems to mean a period of 24 hours in Genesis 1:8 and 13. In Genesis 1:14 and 16, it seems to mean a period of 12 hours. As makers of day and night, the Sun and Moon did not exist until the fourth day. Therefore, the first three days cannot be treated as ordinary days.[2] 

The seventh day is described as God's day of rest. This day has not yet ended and therefore extends a long time. If the seventh day extends a long time, then the preceding six days may also legitimately be considered as long periods of indeterminate length.[3] It, therefore, cannot be dogmatically asserted that the six days of Genesis One must be treated as ordinary days. Based on the discoveries of science, the logical and reasonable interpretation of yôwm in chapter one would be “era” instead of a literal 24-hour day. Such an interpretation does not infringe upon God's sovereignty or creative powers. Neither does it prove evolution. What seems to finite man as an extremely long time is less than a moment in God's present, which is infinite.[4]

Further evidence that the days in Genesis One are not 24-hour days, but are days or eras of indeterminate length, is the description of events that occurred on the third and sixth day. Much more than 24 hours is needed for the water to run off from the emerging dry lands on day three. This is especially true if subsequent growth of vegetation also occurred on the same day. For all the events that occurred in the sixth day to occur within 24 hours is impossible. Adam could not have named the multitudes of species of animals that would have existed on that day, even if God created them during the first second of the day.

Time is relative. When one looks at the Andromeda galaxy, he sees what happened more than two million years ago. That is, his present is Andromeda’s past two million years ago. As Psalm 90:4 puts it, “For a thousand years in thy [God's] sight are but as yesterday when it is past.” That a thousand years in man’s eyes is but a day in God’s shows that God’s idea of time differs from man’s. That God has a different idea of time is supported by 2 Peter 3:8, which reads, “But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Time is relative to the observer. The days in Genesis One are best thought of as days of God and not as 24-hour days.[5]

Another problem with a literal 24-hour interpretation is how the Hebrews measured the length of a day. To the Hebrews, days were measured from sunset to sunset. Thus, a day was seldom 24 hours long. They varied in length. Between the winter solstice and the summer solstice, each day was the same length or slightly longer than the preceding day. Between the summer solstice and the winter solstice, each day was the same length or slightly shorter than the preceding day. The length of day would also vary with latitude. Between the summer solstice and the winter solstice, the farther north or higher the latitude, the longer the day in the northern hemisphere. Several days may pass at the equator while only one day passes above the Arctic Circle, where the sun does not set for days.

The creation week of Genesis One is best interpreted as a figurative week with long overlapping days. However, such an interpretation does not mean that the days and the week are allegorical, mythological, or symbolical. What is being described in Genesis One is a historical week, a real week. The events described for the various days are actual events that occurred in space and time. The day-structure is figurative only in the sense that these days are not identical to ordinary 24-hour days. Rather, they are indeterminate stretches of real, historical time. 

Genesis One presents a concise summary of the major events that occurred during the creation week. The general sequence of creation is given, but overlapping of these events is not ruled out. The creation week is described in terms of very broad, large-scale phenomena. It is not described in terms of precise, scientific, technical phenomena (as much as modern man may have wished it to have been so described). Not everything that happened is described. Genesis One is an economy of expression. It is a generalized description of major events.

Creation is just as Divine and miraculous under the long periods allowed under the Day-Age Theory[6] as it would be if God created the world suddenly and completely. The power necessary to originate and support a ceaseless and prolonged process of developing the world is at least as great as the power necessary to bring it into being in a week.

Endnotes

1. Before the Reformation, the days of Genesis One were not generally interpreted as 24-hour days. Only in the last 400 years have they been interpreted as a literal week of seven consecutive 24-hour days.

2. Augustine contended that the first three days of creation were not ordinary 24-hour days because they were not marked by the rising and setting of the Sun. The Sun is not specifically mentioned until the fourth day of creation. He said that it was difficult, if not impossible, to conceive the type (or length) of days in these verses. (He also held that the events described in the first two verses of Genesis were not part of the six days of creation.)

3.  Proof that the seventh day did not end with Genesis 2:3 is that, unlike the other six, the Bible does not state that “there was evening and there was morning—the seventh day.” The absence of this phrase is one clear indication that the seventh day was never terminated. Hebrews Four provides further support to the continuing existence of God’s Sabbath.

4. Perhaps God created the Universe 15 billion years ago, which is an extremely long time, just to show man how insignificant time is when compared to the eternal God.

5. In Joel 3:18, Acts 2:20, and John 16:23, “that day” seems to mean the whole Christian era.

6. A more in-depth discussion of the Day-Age Theory is found in Christianity & the Age of the Earth by Davis Young.

Copyright © 1998 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Religious Thoughts

Some ReligiousThoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the wisdom of John, “person” as used in the Trinity Doctrine, “kind” meaning “species,” and the Catholic Church as a cult.

More Wisdom of John

I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do not recall, and who died in 2012. He was a lay clergyman. He made two observations about people who claimed that God told them to do something. First, if any of these individuals ever heard God speak to them, they would likely be overwhelmed and drop dead from the shock and awe. Second, if God really was telling these people to do the things that they claimed He told them to do, then God must be suffering from schizophrenia (informal, figurative usage). He tells one person to do X and another person to do anti-X. That is, He tells one person to do one thing and another person to do the opposite. More than one clergyman has said, “One should be skeptical of people who claim that God told them to do something.” Many clergymen note that God ceased giving revelations in the first century AD; therefore, anyone who claims that God revealed something to him should be viewed with suspicion. (For more on the wisdom of John, see “Some Random Thoughts on Religion” by Thomas Allen.)

Person

Trinitarians use the word “person” in a technical sense instead of its common, everyday sense. To them, the Godhead is three “persons” yet one “person.” That is, they used “person” to mean one entity (or God) and three entities. To say that the three persons are manifestations of one person is Modalism. To say that the three persons are independent is tritheism.

Common sense and logic dictate that three persons (such as Peter, Paul, and Mary) are three distinct individuals or entities; they are not one person or entity. However, adherents of the Trinity Doctrine call common sense and logic heretics because three persons are one person.

When a Trinitarian explains the Trinity Doctrine, he must tread carefully between Scylla and Charybdis to keep from crashing on the rock of Modalism and being swept away by the whirlpool of tritheism.

Kind

Some “creationists” claim that the term “kind” in the Bible  corresponds to what modern taxonomists refer to as “family.” It does not mean species. 

These creationists advocate the “created-kind” theory. That is, for example, God created a cat kind from which all members of the cat family, Felidae, evolved. They deny the immutability of a species, i.e., “according to its kind” or “after its kind” — like begets like.

However, the Bible uses the term “kind” to refer to what modern taxonomists define  as “species.” According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, number 4327, “kind” means “species.”

Is the Catholic Church a Cult?

In “Revival of Early Christian Heresies: A Comparative Study of Early Christian Heresies and Mormonism,” Christian Jeo N. Talaguit gives two attributes of a cult: (1) "[a] cult . . . harbors an authoritative leader or governing body that can demand obedience from its followers due to its claims as divinely ordained” and (2) “[a cult advocates] the continuous revelation from God and mankind.”

The Pope is the authoritative leader who can demand obedience from his followers. Also, through the Pope and ecumenical councils, God continues to reveal doctrines that are not taught in the New Testament. Thus, God revealed the doctrines of the infallibility of the Pope, Mariology, and purgatory, among others. Since Protestants reject these Catholic doctrines, they are obviously heretics.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Geneses the Beginning

Geneses the Beginning

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the days of creation, Unger writes:

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

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

Endnote

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

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Loofs on the Christology Views of the New Testament

Loofs on the Christology Views 

of the New Testament

Thomas Allen

In What Is the Truth about Jesus Christ? Problems of Christology Discussed in Six Haskell Lectures at Oberlin, Ohio (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), pages 177-184, Friedrich Loofs presents and discusses five points that show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. Dr. Loofs is a professor of church history at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany. His discussion of the Christological views of the New Testament follows.

[1] It is a view of vital importance to orthodox Christology that the historical Jesus is the preexistent Son of God. Do we find anything about this in the New Testament? Certainly many New Testament passages assert the pre-existence of Christ; that is, they assert or assume that Jesus did not begin to exist when his earthly life began. “O Father,” Jesus says in the high priestly prayer in the Gospel of John, “glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” (John 17:5.) But where in the New Testament is this prehistoric, yea, this antemundane, Christ called the “Son of God”? Where are we told that he is as such begotten of the Father before the world? In the prologue of the Gospel of John, the pre-existent Christ is not called the “Son” but the “word,” and we are told that “this was in the beginning.” (John 1:1, 2.) Only one passage in the Pauline epistles might be suspected of referring to an antemundane birth of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul calls Christ “the first-born of every creature.” But here the Greek equivalent for first-born only means that he was before every creature and above all creatures. Then the only remaining support of the later doctrine is Jesus’ title “Son of God,” which, as we all know, occurs very often in the New Testament. But in the New Testament it is applied to the historical Jesus, either with reference to his birth out of the Spirit of God, (Luke 1:35.) or because the Spirit came down upon Jesus at his baptism, (Mark 4:11.) or without reference to a date of its entrance because the Spirit of God lived in him, (Rom. 1:3.) or because Jesus was the Messiah, (Matt. 16:16.) or because he stood in a unique position of love toward God. (Matt. 11:27.) The term, “the only begotten Son,” too, only signifies what was mentioned last. For the Greek equivalent for “only begotten” does not mean anything else than unique or peerless. And it was not modern exegesis that first interpreted the term “Son of God” thus. In the first half of the fourth century Marcellus of Ancyra emphatically pointed out that in the New Testament Jesus is called the Son of God only after the incarnation, and not in his pre-existence. And the older apostolic fathers, the so-called first epistle of Clement, dating from about 95 A. D., and the Ignatian letters interpret the term “Son of God” in this manner only.

[2] It is easier to show, secondly, that the idea of the triune God, as dogmatized later, is foreign to the New Testament. We surely find the belief in the New Testament that God was in Christ, and that the Holy Spirit that lives in the single Christians and in the whole community is the spirit of God. That God the Father reveals himself also in the Son and in the Spirit, that is a conviction which is in accordance with the New Testament. But there cannot be the least doubt, nor can we alter the fact, that when  the New Testament speaks of “God,” it is thinking only of the one God whom Jesus called his Father and the Father of the faithful, too. This is shown without the shadow of a doubt by the apostolic greeting: “Grace be unto you and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2; II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1.) And the case is not different throughout the New Testament. In the Gospel of John, in the high-priestly prayer of Jesus, we even read: “This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3.) Also the well-known prayerful wish of the apostle Paul: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all”(II Cor. 13:13.) points in the same direction. For the apostle does not speak here about three persons in the one God, but about the love of the one God, and in addition thereto, or better: in connection with it, of the grace of Jesus Christ and the communion of the Holy Ghost.

[3] It is easier still to show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views in a third respect. According to the  orthodox Christology, the personal subject, the supreme I, of the historical Jesus is the second person of the holy Trinity. Does the fact that Jesus prayed harmonize with this? Does the circumstance that he said to Mary Magdalene: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God,” (John 20:17.) harmonize with it? We have seen, indeed, that the self-consciousness of Jesus surpassed the measure of a human self-consciousness. But can we deny that in the whole New Testament a human self-consciousness is the frame in which the inner life of Jesus first comes to our notice? His humility, his obedience, his trust in God cannot be interpreted differently. We shall discuss in the last lecture how this view can be reconciled with the fact that the frame of a human self-consciousness proves to be too strait to make the personality of Jesus intelligible. Here it will suffice to have shown that the orthodox Christology which considers a divine person as the personal subject in Christ does not correspond with the New Testament views. 

[4] The fourth point I wish to mention is, that the experiences of Jesus, like his self-consciousness, are at variance with orthodox Christology. Orthodoxy of all ages was worried by the fact that we are told of Jesus, with regard to his youth, that “he increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men.” (Luke 2:52.) Could this be harmonized with the assumption that the real subject of the historical Jesus was the eternal Son of God? Orthodoxy of ancient times considered these two statements as being harmonized by the assertion that the eternal Son of God grew, suffered, and died only according to his human nature. But who will deny that our very self itself is growing during our life? And certainly it sounds very forced to say that the Son of God, who by his own nature could never suffer, suffered nevertheless in his human flesh and in his human soul! Surely such forced constructions are quite foreign to the New Testament.

[5] Fifthly and lastly, I shall have to point out that in the New Testament Jesus, even after his exaltation, appears in such an organic connection with the human race as hardly to agree with orthodox Christology. Especially those very writers of the New Testament who most obviously do not assume that the life of Jesus was a purely human one viz., Paul and John make this very clear. For Paul the risen Lord “is the first-born from the dead,” (Col. 1:18.) “the first-born among many brethren.” (Rom. 8:29.) The faithful, in Paul’s opinion, are predestinated by God “to be conformed to the image of his Son as heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Rom. 8:29 and 8:17.) Very similarly we read in the high-priestly prayer in the Gospel of John: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16.)  and: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; (John 17:24.) “that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, . . . that they may be one even as we are one; (John 17:21.) and “Thou hast loved them as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:23.) In Revelation we find the same thoughts. Here the exalted Christ says: “He that overcometh I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame and sat down with my Father in his throne.” (Rev.  3:21) . . .  

These five points show that orthodox Christology does not agree with the New Testament views. And those who are impartial enough to see this are thereby convinced that the old orthodox Christology cannot give us the correct interpretation of the historical person of Jesus.

More religious articles.

Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Woke Religion

The Woke Religion

Thomas Allen

In “The woke religion: Worshiping postmodernism, Luciferianism and chaos,” Brandon Smith describes the woke religion. This religion is the religion of wokesters and most of the global elite.

According to Smith, the woke religion is a fusion of three evils: postmodernism, futurism, and Luciferianism. “Postmodernism is the war on objective truth, especially as it applies to human beings. Futurism is the war on the past, cultural heritage and the conservation of traditional values and structures. Luciferianism is the war on God, the denial of natural law and the refusal to accept that there are limits to human understanding and control.” Thus, the woke religion is highly destructive. It seeks to destroy God, traditions, and truths. Typically, adherents of the woke religion are psychopathic, sadistic, narcissistic, reprobate miscreants.

Although it is not an organized religion or church, the woke religion is hierarchical. At the top are the elites, who know the real objectives of the woke religion and work to achieve them. They are akin to cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church or general officers in the military. These elites are true illuminists (See the “Illuminists Series” at https://tcallenco.weebly.com/history.html). 

Next are the elites’ agents and lieutenants, who are the intermediaries between the elite and the useful idiots. They are the equivalent of archbishops and bishops or field officers and company officers. Seldom do the elites give them direct instructions. These intermediaries have a good idea of the elites’ ultimate goals, but most do not know the full extent or details of those goals. They receive most of their instructions indirectly or by osmosis. Mostly, they are so in harmony with the mission of the elites that they need no instructions. This tier provides most of the provocateurs. Primarily, in hopes of gaining wealth and power, they have devoted themselves to the elites. However, if the elites achieve their goals, the elites will liquidate most of them because they know too much and are too much of a threat.

At the bottom of the pyramid are the useful idiots. They are akin to priests and masses or noncommissioned officers and privates. They believe the elites’ propaganda, and most do not have a clue about the elites’ ultimate objectives. Many just enjoy the destruction. Moreover, most do not know that the elites are using them. At this level are the true wokesters and most participants of Antifa. If the elites win, many in this tier will perish because they are no longer useful. Except as tools to achieve their goals, the elites have no use for anyone in this tier.

Unfortunately for humanity, the satanic elites of the woke religion have many useful idiots who are not adherents of the woke religion but who willingly work to achieve the malevolent ends of the woke religion, which is the utter destruction of God’s creation. Some of these useful idiots agree with some of the destructive doctrines of the woke religion. Others ally themselves in hopes of gaining wealth and power. Still, others join because they enjoy destroying, or they merely hate. These useful idiots include politicians and others who have an insatiable lust for power and wealth and many welfare recipients and other members of the parasite classes. Progressives, neoconservatives, technocrats, socialists, communists, fascists, globalists, feminists, egalitarians, Puritan Yankees, Dixiephobes, and relativists are often found among these useful idiots. These useful idiots revealed themselves during the George Floyd riots and demonstrations. Like the useful idiots who follow the woke religion, most of these useful idiots do not know that they are only tools that the illuminist elites are using to achieve their nefarious goals.

Appendix. Wokester

The Urban Dictionary defines “wokester” as (1) “an easily offended 20-something idiot who believes the word ‘woke’ legitimizes their self-centered view of the world. These individuals often lack skills in civil discourse, or an educated background in any subject they rant in,” (2) “a person that lacks basic common sense and decision making skills. This person typically has a below average IQ. . . .” and (3) “a self-righteous person who prefers form over substance. Often a moron and always a pussy.” 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The King James Only

The King James Only

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Nullification and Interposition – Part 2

Nullification and Interposition – Part 2

Thomas Allen

The federal government is obliged to cease enforcing a nullified act in a State that has nullified it. If the federal government attempts to enforce a nullified law, such action would be like humans trying to oust their Creator, God — the created agent trying to overthrow the creator sovereign “we the people” of the nullifying State. Although the former is impossible, Lincoln accomplished the latter.

There are only three constitutional ways to overturn the nullification of a federal act. One way is to persuade the nullifying States that it is wrong, which results in the State rescinding its nullification. Second, the federal government repeals or rescinds the nullified act. The third is that the Constitution is amended to clarify that the federal government has the power that has been nullified or that the nullified power is a reserved power that the federal government should exercise.

Although Congress can call forth the militia “to execute the laws and suppress insurrection,” this power does not apply to nullification because the law does not exist in the nullifying State. Since the act of nullification has declared the law null and void, it does not exist in the nullifying State.

One argument against nullification is that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the constitutionality of all federal and State acts. If the US Supreme Court is the final arbitrator, it means two things. First, the creature (the federal government) is superior to the creator (the States). Such usurpation is like man (the creature) usurping the power and authority of the creator (God). Misery and despotism are the results. Second, of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court is the superior branch. However, the Constitution makes Congress the superior branch and the federal courts the weakest. Before it emasculated itself, Congress could restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to the few items named in Article III and could deny it jurisdiction over most acts of the States. Further, Congress can strip the Supreme Court of its appellate authority. Moreover, since Congress created all inferior courts, it can abolish them. Also, Congress can and has restricted the jurisdiction of inferior courts, which includes the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal and State acts. Further, the President can follow Lincoln’s precedent and ignore the rulings of any federal court, including the Supreme Court.

Another argument that opponents of nullification use is the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Thus, they assert that all federal laws are the supreme law and prevail over the States, and a State cannot judge the constitutionality of a federal law. Deciding the constitutionality of a federal law is the job of federal courts.

Conversely, most founding fathers who were involved with the development and ratification of the Constitution of 1787 (most notably, Madison and Jefferson) assert that only federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution are supreme. That is, only those federal laws necessary to execute specifically delegated powers are constitutional. Any federal law that goes beyond the specifically delegated power is unconstitutional; it is not a law and, therefore, is void and of no force or effect. A State’s nullification makes a finding that a particular federal law is not made pursuant to the Constitution and is, therefore, not a law.

Who ultimately decides if a federal law is constitutional? It cannot be the Supreme Court because that would make the federal government, the creature or agent, the judge of its limits. The only logical arbitrator of the constitutionality of a federal law is “we the people,” that is, “we the people” of each State acting independently either through their legislature or a special convention. Since “we the people” of each State independently ratified the Constitution of 1787 and, consequently, formed the union created under that Constitution and its government, they should be the ultimate and final judge of the constitutionality of all federal acts.

Therefore, federal laws are supreme only if they are constitutional. An unconstitutional federal law or other federal act is null and void. Being the principals of the contract, the US Constitution, that created the federal government and delegated to it certain powers, each State, acting individually, is the final judge about whether a federal action is constitutional.

Another major argument against nullification is that the majority has the right to govern, i.e., the will of the majority must prevail — the majority of the whole or an absolute majority. As a practical matter, the will of the whole community is the will of the stronger interest. (Most people who hold this view demur when the majority turns against their favorite project.) 

There are two ways to estimate the majority. The first is a majority of the whole community in the aggregate. The second is a majority of political interests (different classes, communities, etc.) formed into one general confederated community. In the second case, the majority is a majority of the various classes or communities, with the assent of each taken separately. The concurrence of all constitutes the majority — concurrent majority. People who object to nullification because it thwarts the majority are referring to the first type of majority.

Since the Constitution came into being through a concurrent majority, an absolute majority conflicts with the Constitution. (The concurring accent of all the States formed and ratified the Constitution and not a majority of the whole in the aggregate.)

People who object to nullification assert, in effect, that the federal government has the sole right to decide the extent of its own powers and, by that, place the reserved powers of the States at its whim and mercy — thus, destroying the equilibrium of the system.

Nullification is an important but rarely used means to keep the federal government within its constitutional bounds. Without nullification, the federal government, the agent of the States that created it, will assume powers never delegated to it and expand delegated powers beyond what was intended. History proves this point. Since nullification essentially died in 1865, the federal government has exploded far beyond its constitutional bounds, and the States have shrunk to near insignificance. 

Do the States have the right to interpose and nullify federal laws? Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave to the union, the answer is “yes.” According to the Founding Fathers’ Constitution, the States are independent sovereign republics, i.e., independent sovereign nations. Just as nations that enter into a treaty or compact can each independently judge adherence to that treaty or compact, so can the States independently judge adherence to the Constitution. Moreover, the States not only have the right, but they also have the duty to decide independently if the Constitution (a treaty and compact between the States) is being violated.

Under the constitution that Lincoln gave to the union, the answer is “no.” According to Lincoln’s constitution, the States are merely administrative provinces. They can only do what the federal government allows them to do. The rights of the States are mere concessions that can be revoked any time. “Might makes right” is the underlying principle of the Lincoln constitution. (For the difference between the Constitutions of the Founding Fathers and Lincoln, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen) 

Even under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, the people who controlled the federal government avariciously lusted after power and, therefore, preferred “might” to “right” and objected to a State nullifying even the most unconstitutional acts of the federal government.

Ending grants to State and local governments would be one of the best things to occur in this country. It would give the States the courage to nullify unconstitutional federal acts and to interpose to prevent their enforcement. If the cowardly States cared about protecting themselves and their citizens, they would nullify thousands of federal acts.

Afterthought. A great irony of today is that the woke politicians and other wokesters supporting nullifying federal acts of deporting illegal aliens are using, most likely unknowingly, the political philosophies of Jefferson and Calhoun. What makes their support of nullification so ironic is that they have declared Jefferson and especially Calhoun persona non grata, who should be erased from history.

For more on nullification, see the following works of John C. Calhoun:

The Disquisition on Government,

Fort Hill Address,

Important Correspondence on the Subject of State Introposition [sic], Between His Excellency Gov. Hamilton and Hon. John C. Calhoun, and 

“Against the Force Bill”

Also, see these articles:

The Kentucky Resolves of 1798

The Kentucky Resolves of 1799

Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800

Also, see these articles by Thomas Allen:

 “Calhoun and Concurrent Majority,”

“States’ Rights,”

“States’ Right and Society,”

“Jefferson and States’ Rights,”

“Calhoun and States’ Rights,” and

“More Thoughts Related to the US Constitution.”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Part 1.

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

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

Salvation

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

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

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

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

– repent,

– be obedient until he dies,

– attend church regularly,

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

– believe the Trinity Doctrine,

– be chosen by God for salvation,

– be a descendant of Israel,

– whatever, or

– any combination of the above.

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

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

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

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

Israel Identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Commentary on Hebrews 1:8

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

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

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

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Endnotes

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Commentary on Philippians 2:6

Thomas Allen

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. (King James Version)

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, (Revised Standard Version)

For Trinitarians, the phrase “in the form of God” proves the preexistent equality of the Father and Jesus. It refers to Jesus’ nature before his birth. This verse along with the adjacent verses (Philippians 2: 3–11) proves inconvertibly that Jesus disrobed himself of his divinity and dressed himself in the form of a human. That is, Jesus visibly represented the essence of God the Father. Also, Trinitarians use these verses to support the Incarnation.

In his nature, Jesus is God; therefore, being fully God, Jesus did not need to grasp for equality. Thus, although he was “in the form of God,” i.e., of the same substance or essence, and, therefore, had the right to be equal to God, Jesus sought to conceal this fact by not appearing to be equal to God. Moreover, since Jesus was not inferior to God the Father, Jesus could claim the right to be treated as His equal, yet he chose to humble himself and become a man. Although Jesus was equal to God, he decided not to assert his equality — “thought it not robbery” or “a thing to be grasped.”

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary translates Philippians 2:6 as follows: “Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of Cod, he did not consider his status of divine equality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos [plunder, robbery] passively).” Other biased Trinitarian translations are given in the appendix.

Unitarians contend that Philippians 2:6 does not prove the preexistent equality of Jesus and the Father. This verse is part of a passage where Paul compares the attitude and achievements of Adam to those of Jesus. Adam succumbed to his pride and sought, in a sense, to be equal to God. Contrariwise, although Jesus was the perfect expression of God’s character, he humbled himself and, unlike Adam, considered equality with God as something not to be sought or grasped. Instead, Jesus waited for God to exalt him.

This verse is part of a passage where Paul is teaching the virtue of humility by following Jesus’ example of humility. Paul is urging the Philippians to act with humility toward each other. Instead of teaching the Trinity Doctrine, this passage urges believers to be humble.

Unitarians and Trinitarians disagree about the idea that “form” conveys. While Trinitarians contend that it conveys the notion of “essential nature or essence,” i.e. the essence of God, Unitarians contend that it refers to outward appearance because the word translated as “form” was commonly used in the sense of outward appearance during and before the time that Paul wrote. Whereas Trinitarians claim that it refers to an internal quality, Unitarians claim that it refers to an external quality. Jesus was “in the form of God” in the sense that he perfectly expressed the character of the Father. It does not suggest that Jesus was of the same substance or essence as God and, therefore, possesses God’s nature.

Further, Trinitarians assert that the phrase “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” proves that in the Godhead, Jesus is equal to the Father. Namely, because Jesus was preexistent God, he could claim equality of the Godhead. On the other hand, Unitarians claim that phrase means the opposite of the Trinitarian claim. Instead of claiming Jesus’ equality with God, it means that Jesus rejected pursuing equality with God. Jesus refusing to seek equality with God is consistent with Paul urging believers to copy Jesus’ humility.

Moreover, the phrase does not mean that Jesus maintained equality with God as Trinitarians contend. It means that he did not try to become equal with God. Furthermore, if Jesus were God, to say that he “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” is absurd; being God, he already had equality with God.

If the Trinitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11 is correct, then it refutes the origin of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Unitarians maintain that Matthew and Luke are correct and the Trinitarians are wrong. Moreover, Unitarians reject the notion that Paul is teaching the Trinity Doctrine in this and the following verses because he clearly rejects the Trinity Doctrine elsewhere. Paul taught that only the Father was God and that Jesus was a man (emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Ephesians 4:5-6: 5 “One Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”

1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (In his exalted state, Jesus is still a man.)

Appendix

Some modern translations show an obvious Trinitarian bias in their translation of the phrase “being in the form of God”:

Christian Standard Bible: “who, existing in the form of God,”

Contemporary English Version: “Christ was truly God.”

Easy English Bible: “Christ had the same nature as God.”

Evangelical Heritage Version: “Though he was by nature God,”

Good News Translation: “He always had the nature of God,”

Living Bible: “who, though he was God,”

New International Reader's Version: “In his very nature he was God.”

New International Version: “Who, being in very nature God,”

New Life Version: “Though he was God,”

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.