Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] 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.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues 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.

A Response to Bibleinfo’s Justification of Miscegenation

 A Response to Bibleinfo’s Justification of Miscegenation

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: Bible verses cited in the article are in the appendix except Genesis chapter 34 and Deuteronomy 23:2, which is given in the text. Also, only part of the verses in Numbers 12:1-5 is given in the appendix.]

Bibleinfo (https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-does-bible-say-about-interracial-marriages, accessed August 10, 2023) asserts that the Bible does not forbid interracial marriages. However, it does demand that Christians should not marry non-Christians. To support its assertions, it cites 2 Corinthians 6:14 (Christians are not to marry non-Christians) and Numbers 12:1–15 (Moses’ Ethiopian wife).

According to Bibleinfo, a Christian should only marry a Christian; the person’s race is irrelevant. To marry outside one’s religion is to be unequally yoked. However, to marry outside one’s race is not unequally yoked. Bibleinfo errs.

2 Corinthians 6:14 is a recommendation and not a commandment. Moreover, it discusses religion but does not discuss race.

Further, Paul gives different advice in 1 Corinthians 7:12-13. Paul recommends that Christians who are married to non-Christians should remain married unless the non-Christian wants a divorce. (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Two Old Testament stories refute Bibleinfo’s claim. They are Dinah’s marriage and Joseph’s marriage.

Chapter 34 of Genesis tells the story of Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob’s sons, slaying a city of Hivites over the issue of interracial marriage. The prince of the Hivites wanted to marry their sister, Dinah. So, the Hivites of this city offered to intermarry with the Hebrews. Before they could intermarry, Simeon and Levi told the Hivites that they needed to convert to the Hebrew religion. The Hivites converted and were circumcised. Thus, the two people would not be unequally yoked religiously. Now both of them were of the same religion, the Hebrew religion, and, therefore, equally yoked religiously. However, they differ racially and, therefore, were unequally yoked racially. The Hebrews were Aryans; the Hivites were Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids (or possibly Melanochroi). Simeon and Levi slew the Hivites not because of religious differences, for they were of the same religion. They slew them because of racial differences. Slaying the Hivites prevented miscegenation and racial amalgamation. Thus, being racially yoked, i.e., of the same race, is more important than being religiously yoked, i.e., of the same religion.

In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married the Egyptian Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, a priest of On. At this time, Egyptians were of the same race as the Israelites.  She bore Moses two children: Manasseh and Ephraim. Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly a 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 show 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. Thus, being racially yoked is more important than being religiously yoked.

(“Egyptian” 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. [See False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages by Thomas Coley Allen.])

As the stories of Dinah and Joseph’s marriages show, being equally yoked racially (of the same race) is more important than being equally yoked religiously (of the same religion).

Concerning Moses’ wife, Bibleinfo makes the same error that most people make. Because most translations claim that the wife whom Miriam and Aaron spoke against was an Ethiopian, they assume that she was a Black woman from the region south of Egypt. (The people south of Egypt to northeast Kenya were and are Melanochroi; they are not Negroes, Blacks.)

In Exodus 2:21, Moses marries Zipporah, the daughter of Reul, a Midianite.  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. [For proof that Cush refers to the Arabian Peninsula, see “Cush and Ethiopia” by Thomas Allen.]) Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite and also 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 was, so miscegenation did not occur.

Like many people, Bibleinfo claims that Miriam was stricken with leprosy (Numbers 12:10) because she and Aaron condemned Moses for marrying a woman of a different race. This was not so. God would not punish them for rebuking Moses for sinning. Aaron and Miriam questioned Moses' authority. They questioned his office as God's spokesman and prophet (Numbers 12:2, 6-8). Questioning God’s appointment of Moses as His spokesman and coveting that position is what caused Miriam’s affliction.

Moreover, Bibleinfo asserts that Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute, was an ancestor of Jesus. Again Bibleinfo errs; she was not an ancestor of Jesus. (For proof, see “Rahab” by Thomas Allen.)

Like all proponents of miscegenation, Bibleinfo ignores Deuteronomy 23:2. If they do consider it, they mistranslate mamzêr. Deuteronomy 23:2 (“No half-bred [mongrel] 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” – NJB.) summaries God’s attitude toward miscegenation and interracial mating. (For a discussion on Deuteronomy 23:2, see “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2" by Thomas Allen.) To prevent interracial breeding, God ordained racial segregation and separation.

As shown above, Bibleinfo is misleading people and is justifying the sin of miscegenation, interracial marriage. For more on the Bible’s condemnation of interracial marriages, see these books and articles by Thomas Allen: Integration Is Genocide, False Biblical Teachings on the Origin of the Races and Interracial Marriages, “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” and “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”

Appendix

The verses cited below are from the World English Bible.

Genesis 41:45: Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-Paneah. He gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On as a wife. Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

Genesis 46:20: To Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him.

Exodus 2:21: Moses was content to dwell with the man. He gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter.

Numbers 12:1: Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite [Ethiopian] woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite [Ethiopian] woman.

Numbers 12:2: They said, “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only with Moses? Hasn’t he spoken also with us?” And Yahweh heard it.

Numbers 12: 6-8: He said, “Now hear my words. If there is a prophet among you, I, Yahweh, will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. 7 My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him, I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh’s form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?”

Numbers 12:10 The cloud departed from over the Tent; and behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. Aaron looked at Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

1 Samuel 27:10: Achish said, “Against whom have you made a raid today?” David said, “Against the South of Judah, against the South of the Jerahmeelites, and against the South of the Kenites.”

1 Chronicles 2:55: The families of scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.

1 Corinthians 7:12-13: 12 But to the rest I—not the Lord—say, if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, let him not leave her. 13 The woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he is content to live with her, let her not leave her husband.

1 Corinthians 7:15: Yet if the unbeliever departs, let there be separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace.

2 Corinthians 6:14:  Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Real King

 The Real King

Thomas Allen

Most conservatives claim that Martin Luther King, Jr., is an archconservative. Many believe that he is the greatest conservative ever. Some have even deified him.

These conservatives present King as a nonviolent man of peace who abhorred violence. Let us see what King’s speeches and writings reveal in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World (James Washington, ed., Harper Collins Publishers, 1986, 1982) — specifically “I Have a Dream (1963), “ “Letter from a Birmingham Jail (1963),” and “The Time for Freedom Has Come” (1961).

In his “I Have a Dream” speech, King says, “There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day justice emerges.” (p. 103.) Thus, King, the man of nonviolence, promises turmoil and riots until the Negro gets what he wants, which is everything that the White man has.

Continuing, King asks, “‘When will you be satisfied?’ We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality.” (p. 104.) As long as the police use physical force against Negroes regardless of their guilt or resistance, the Negro will not be satisfied. The Negro must be allowed to riot without any penalty, and for the most part, they have been granted this privilege. Moreover, they are often rewarded for their rioting and looting.

Undertaking an action, such as trespassing, that could lead to a violent reaction is not a nonviolent act, even if it is called peaceful protest or civil disobedience. This is especially true if the purpose of the “nonviolent” act is to create tension leading to a violent response as King’s protests often did.

King has a reputation for being a nonviolent, peace-loving person. However, as revealed in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” he did not shy away from situations that he knew would result in violence. He threatened and even created turmoil to force community leaders to negotiate with him (p. 87), i.e., to surrender unconditionally to his demands.

In this letter, King writes that just laws are to be obeyed and unjust laws are to be ignored because it is not a law (p. 89). He writes, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. . . . [A]n unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” (p. 89.) In King’s mind, laws forcing integration are just and should be obeyed, but laws forcing segregation are unjust and should be disobeyed. King errs. Since God separated the races (Acts 17:26: “. . . having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation”) and ordained that they should not intermingle and intermarry, then racial segregation laws are just and racial integration laws are unjust. (God is the Great Segregationist. He brought about the greatest segregations ever recorded: the Towel of Babel and the Noachian Flood.)

Continuing, King writes, “. . . segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.” (p. 89) Contrary to what King asserts, segregation laws are just and moral because they preserve the soul and personality of the races, but integration laws are unjust and immoral because they destroy the soul and personality of the races. Integration even leads to the genocide of the races.

Further, in this letter, King claims that segregation laws apply to Negroes but not to Whites (p. 89). Under a segregated school system, Negroes were assigned to Negro schools and Whites were assigned to White schools. Thus, the school segregation laws applied equally to both races. This was also true of most other segregated venues. (Negroes now demand the right to segregate themselves from Whites while wanting to prevent Whites from segregating from Negroes.)

Moreover, King considered White moderates a greater threat to racial integration than rabid segregationists. These moderates, like today’s liberals, were paternalistic toward Negroes (p. 91).

Also, King condemned passive Negroes for their complacency and the middle-class Negroes who prospered from segregation. They should eagerly and aggressively seek equality with Whites. Moreover, he condemned embittered Negroes who advocated violence and black nationalists. They should seek integration instead of separation (p. 91.)

Furthermore, in this letter, King writes, “If his [the Negro’s] repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence.” Thus, King warns that if Whites do not surrender unconditionally to the Negro’s demands, violence will follow. Not only have Whites surrendered unconditionally, but many Whites also beg to be genocided. Yet, the Negro is still not satisfied.

Continuing, King writes, “Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love?” Based on the actions of King and his followers, they were extremists for hate. They expressed a great deal of hate toward Southerners and segregationists. Their actions caused people who otherwise love Negroes to hate them — or at least hated what they were doing. Worse, they caused Whites to hate Whites to the point that today many Whites want to genocide Whites.

King condemned the Birmingham police for their nonviolent handling of the demonstrators. Since the police were protecting segregation with nonviolent means, they were acting morally to preserve an immoral end — segregation — according to King. Near the end of his letter, King writes that “it is wrong . . . to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”(p. 99.) (As noted above, King is wrong. Biblically, segregation is a moral end and integration is an immoral end.) King seems to have desired a violent reaction to the demonstration — so much for him being a man of peace.

In his article “The Time for Freedom Has Come,” King writes, “Paradoxically, although they [Negro students] have embraced Thoreau’s and Gandhi’s civil disobedience on a scale dwarfing any past experience in American history, they do respect law. They feel a moral responsibility to obey just laws. But they recognize that there are also unjust laws.” (pp. 79-80.) If Biblical laws and principles are just, as King affirms, then segregation is just while integration is unjust. From Genesis to Revelations, the Bible preaches racial segregation and at times ethnic segregation while condemning integration. (See “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?,” “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation,” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?” by Thomas Allen.)

Correctly, King writes that “an unjust law is one that is out of harmony with the moral law of the universe.” (p. 80.) However, he is wrong to consider segregational laws unjust. On the contrary, segregational laws are just while integrational laws are unjust. Segregational laws comport with the Scriptures; integrational laws do not.

Continuing, King writes that “an unjust law is one in which the minority is compelled to observe a code that is not binding on the majority.” (p. 80). Based on this remark, segregational laws were not unjust. Most were binding on Whites as well as Negroes. As noted above, segregated schools are a prime example of laws binding on both races. Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are another example.

Next, King writes, “An unjust law is one in which people are required to obey a code that they had no part in making because they were denied the right to vote.” (p. 80.) If true, the ten commandments and the other laws that Moses wrote in the Old Testament are unjust because no one had any part in making them. Throughout most of history, all laws have been unjust because people who were required to obey them had no part in making them. Even today, the same is true for minors because they have no part in making laws that apply to them.

In this article, King writes, “They [students] are seeking to save the soul of America.” (p. 81.) Unless the soul of America is large-scale enslavement of Negroes to the government via the welfare state, protection for all sorts of perversions (homosexualism, transgenderism, etc.), wokeism, and flooding the country with legal and illegal nonwhite immigrants, they failed. Nevertheless, if these evils, which seem to be what King wanted, are the soul of America, they succeeded. Moreover, if saving the soul of America required turning the United States into a communist country, which King wanted to do, they succeeded. (Communists backed King because he was instrumental in turning the United States into a communist country, and he was highly successful. The United States have implemented about 80 percent of the planks in the Communist Manifesto — see “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.) 

Further, King writes that “if our national government would exercise its full powers to enforce federal laws and court decisions and do so on a scale commensurate with the problems and with an unmistakable decisiveness,” the country could rid itself of the Jim Crow system. (p. 81). Thus, he shows his disdain for the Constitution and federalism when he writes that we could quickly and easily get rid of the Jim Crow system by using the brute force of the federal government, which was done.

Although King filled his speeches and writings with the word “nonviolence,” he left a trail of blood, destruction, and violence everywhere he went. So much for this man of peace.

King’s rhetoric cultivated Black hatred of Whites and turned Negrophilic Whites against realistic Whites. King is responsible for much of what is happening in America today that conservatives find abhorrent. Political correctness and wokeism are natural-outgrowth of King’s movement. However, King’s movement did lead to many special privileges for Negroes — privileges that Whites have never enjoyed.

Moreover, King implies that Negroes have no responsibility for their problems. The cause of all their problems is the White man — especially, Whites who believe that the White race is worth preserving and that next to physical separation, segregation is the best way to preserve the White race. Moreover, segregation also preserves the Negro while integration leads to his genocide.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Location of Eden

Location of Eden

Thomas Allen

8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis, Chapter 2)

Where is Eden located? Several locations have been suggested. They include Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Mongolia, Kashmir, Australia, Mesopotamia, and the North Pole.

Havilah is noted for its gold and gemstones. Because it is noted for its high-quality gold, Havilah is often associated with India or Arabia. If it is in India, the Pishon is the Indus. If Havilah is Arabia, then the Pishon is the sea around the Arabian peninsula.

Many locate Cush in either Ethiopia or Central Asia. Thus, the Gihon is either the Nile (the Ethiopian location) or the Oxus, the Amu Darya (the Central Asian location).

According to the information given in Genesis 2:10-14, one river came out of Eden and divided into four. Because the Euphrates is mentioned as one of these rivers, most people assume that Eden was in Mesopotamia. Under this theory, the Tigris is the Hiddekel. There is much dispute about the two rivers corresponding to Pishon and Gihon. 

Upper Mesopotamia is perhaps the most popular location of Eden. According to proponents of this location, the Euphrates is the Euphrates of Mesopotamia and the Hiddekel is the Tigris. The identity of the Pishon and Gihon are uncertain. Some identify these two rivers with canals between the Euphrates and Tigris. Also, the Karun and Karkheh rivers have been identified as the other two rivers. Others identify them with various small rivers. 

Another popular location for Eden is the Armenian highlands at the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris. According to this theory, the Pishon is either the Phasis (Rioni) of Georgia or the Kura, a large tributary of the Araxes (Aras). The Gihon is identified as the Araxes. (For problems with this location, see Davis.)

Calvin and others have suggested that Eden was in the area where the Euphrates and Tigris empty into the Persian Gulf. Here, the two rivers come together and then divide into several mouths. Thus, the Pallakopas canal becomes the Pishon, and the Gihon corresponds with the Kahana or Guhana canal near Babylon. A problem with this theory is that the rivers come together instead of dividing.

Closely related to Calvin’s proposed location is that Eden is located at the head of the Persian Gulf. According to this theory, the four rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris, Kerkha, and Karun. A problem with this theory is that the rivers flow toward Eden instead of away from it.

At least, the two theories that place Eden near the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris place Eden east of the writer of Genesis. However, they fail to satisfy the description of Havilah.

According to the Scriptures, the Adamic race originated in Eden. Most people erroneously place Eden in the Middle East. The location of Eden as described in Genesis 2:8, 10-14 places it in Central Asia. 

“And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put man [Adam] whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8) The garden in Eden was eastward or “in the east” (Moffatt’s translation) or “to the far east” (Ferrar Fenton’s translation). If Moses were the author of Genesis as the fundamentalists claim, then he, being a highly educated man, would have been knowledgeable of the Mesopotamian region. Would not he have said that Eden was in the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia if that is where it was? In Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 14:1, and 24:10, he calls this region Shinar or Mesopotamia. Moses identified Eden as being in the east because it was east of the area which he knew.

If various people who lived long after Moses wrote Genesis as many modernists and liberal theologians claim, then these authors certainly would have been familiar with the Mesopotamian region and would have referred to it by name rather than by a vague description of where Eden was located.

Also, Sargon's Chronicle identifies Eden as east of Mesopotamia. Thus, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia knew that they did not live where Eden was. Saint Ephraem’s Hymns to the True Paradise and Cosmas Indicopleusters’s Christian Topography placed Eden at the western edge of the world’s highest mountains. Hence, it was in the region of the Himalayan and adjacent mountains—although they may have thought of these mountains as near the North Pole. They certainly did not place it in Mesopotamia.

The geography of Mesopotamia does not fit the description of Eden given in Genesis. Only two major rivers are in Mesopotamia: the Euphrates and Tigris. They merge rather than divide. Eden must be found elsewhere.

“Euphrates” in Hebrew is perath and means “a river of the east” (Strongs O.T. #6578). For centuries the “Pishon” has been identified with the Indus or Ganges Rivers in India. In the ancient records, Havilah was equivalent to India. Because the Gihon was said to “compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia,” some Biblical scholars identify the Gihon with the Nile. The word “cush” originates in northern India. Here the Hindu Cush mountains still bear that name. The Hiddekel is often identified as the Tigris. If the Tigris were also called the Hiddekel, it, like the Euphrates, was named for the original river in Eden. Probably this is why Genesis 2:14 refers to it as the river that flows “toward the east of Assyria.” This modifier would prevent confusing it with the river of the same name that flows within Assyria. Except for the Indus River, the rivers commonly thought of as flowing out of Eden do not fit the Biblical description of these rivers.

One place does resemble the description of Eden given in the Bible. That place is the Pamir Plateau in Central Asia between the Hindu Cush on the south and the Tien Shan mountains on the north. Four great rivers flow from this plateau. These are the Indus, Jaxartes (Syr Darya), Oxus (Amu Darya, also called  Gihon), and Tarim. Corresponding to the Pishon is the Kumar (or Chitral) branch of the Indus. The Jaxartes is the original Euphrates. The Tarim (that is its northern branch, the Kashgar river) flows to the east and is probably the Hiddekel. Most likely, the country of Havilah corresponds to the country of Darada toward Chachmises, which is noted for its riches. Thus, the Pishon is the Kumar-Indus; the Gihon is the Oxus;  the Hiddekel is the Kashgar-Tarim; the Euphrates is the Jaraxrtes.

The Pamir Plateau is different from what it was ten thousand years ago. A catastrophe has altered it. Then the plateau was lower and the climate much milder. Today the Pamir Plateau is uninhabited. It covers an area of about 180 by 180 miles and rises 15,000 feet above sea level. Too inhospitable to be inhabited, it is a blank and mysterious place. It is now the “roof of the world.”

The Pamir Plateau matches the geographical description of Eden given in Genesis. It is the land in the east, and it has four great rivers flowing out of it.

However, if the people who claim that the Noachian Flood was global and nearly all, if not all, of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock formations resulted from the Flood, then trying to locate a place from before the Flood with today’s geography is futile. Today’s geography would have no resemblance to pre-Flood geography. Consequently, the above discussion about the location of Eden is meaningless. 

References

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

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. 

Haberman, Frederick. Tracing Our White Ancestors (White Roots). Second edition.  Phoenix, Arizona: America's Promise Lord's Covenant Church, 1962, reprinted 1979.

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

Weisman, Charles A. The Origin of Race and Civilization as Studied and Verified from Science, History, and the Holy Scriptures. Third edition. Burnsville, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1990.

Copyright © 2022 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.

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.

The Difference Between Government and State

The Difference Between Government and State

Thomas Allen

In Fugitive Essays: Selected Writings of Frank Chodorov (Charles H. Hamilton, editor; Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1980). Chodorov gives an excellent, concise explanation of the difference between government and state. (Here, state means a political entity and not a territorial entity as commonly used in the United States.) Referenced page numbers to quotations from this book are enclosed in parentheses.
Chodorov defines government as:

a specialized service arising out of community life. It owes its existence to the individual’s interest in himself. Its specific job is to maintain the peace necessary to productive enterprise. Its related job is that of providing such services as may enable each of the specialists in the community to carry on more efficiently. And that’s all (p. 95).

Among the services that government provides are police, courts, and other services that prevent trespass against or endangerment of a person and his property. Government may also provide some services that are beneficial to all members of a community such as a uniform system of weights and measures, road maintenance, and sanitation. Much beyond these, it becomes a state.
He adds:

The distinctive characteristic of government is that in performing its functions it may have recourse to the use of coercive authority. Its particular attribute is power, vested in it by the producing specialists for the specific purpose of maintaining a condition necessary to their production (p. 95).

(Producing specialists are farmers, workers, businessmen, and others who are involved in producing real wealth.)
  Unfortunately, these protective measures can be used against producing specialists. Protectors can use their power to plunder the producing specialists. (For this reason, the producing specialists should always outgun the protectors.) When the protectors use their power to plunder instead of protect, as happens in a welfare state, which is built on plunder, the government “ceases to be a service and becomes a state” (p. 96).
“[T]he the moral basis of political authority is the right of life and the related right of property. But when that political authority is so exercised as to deny these basic rights, it divests itself of all ethical validity; and that is so even if those who so exercise the political authority surround themselves with law, custom, and a desire to do good. . . . [W]hen the exercise of political authority deprives the individual of his rights it ceases to be a service and becomes a disservice” (p. 96).
Chodorov defines the state as “those in whom the political authority is vested and who use it for other than protective purposes — [justifying] its action by invoking a ‘higher law’ (p. 96).” Thus, it replaces the rights of the individual with the rights of the community, nation, humanity, etc. The justification of the state rests on the chimera of a group of people acting together having rights that supersede the rights of the individual.
When the people in power use government to “engage in projects which jeopardize the life or property of the individual, or utilize that power so that either they or a favored group benefits at the expense of the producing public, that government is transformed into state” (p. 295).
Chodorov writes:

The state by virtue of the power of government which it acquires, perpetuates the purpose of conquest; by legal methods it regularizes the exploitation of the producer, in favor of the nonproducer, and by an elaborate system of education it obfuscates the immoral relationship and even covers the exploiters with an aura of respectability (p. 97).

Continuing, he explains:

The state is a person or a number of persons who exercise force, or the threat of it, to cause others to do what they otherwise would not do, or to refrain from satisfying a desire. That is, the state is political power, and political power is force exerted by persons on persons. The superhuman character given it is intended to induce subservience” (pp. 388-384).

Thus, the state is a group of morally responsible people combining together to plunder the wealth of producing specialists and to create and grant special privileges to themselves and their allies.
He notes that government is a social instrument and the state is an unsocial perversion of government. Government is healthy, and the state is pathological. Consequently, the state is the enemy of the individual.
He concludes:

The distinction between government and state, then, is in the use to which political coercion is put. When it is used negatively, for the protection of life and property, with which must be included the adjudicating of disputes among citizens, it is a service; when it is used positively, in the interests of one group of citizens, including politicians, against the interests of other groups, it is a disservice. In the one case it makes for harmony, in the other it is the cause of discord (p. 98).

  Thus, government is used to protect life and property. When government is used to plunder property and to grant special privileges, it becomes a state.
Although the Bible supports civil governments, it does not support the state. When a government degenerates into a state, it ceases having biblical support because the state is a form of idolatry.

An Illustration
Ancient Israel illustrates the difference between a government and a state. During the era of the judges (1441–1065?), Israel had a government, but it did not have a state. Judges, who were usually men of wisdom and integrity, ran their government. Judges ruled by natural selection and common consent. Custom and tradition restricted the judges to applying the laws that Moses had delivered from God and that had become traditional customs (common law). Violations of these laws carried their own penalties. Thus, the judges normally considered only crimes that were mala in se; that is, acts that are inherently immoral, such as, murder, thief, perjury, and adultery (miscegenation) — for God had declared such acts immoral. However, the judges did not execute their rulings; the people executed them usually by public opinion. (Judges also led the Israelites in war against invaders.)

In ancient Israel, the state arises with the kings. Samuel warned the Israelite against establishing a state (having a king). He warned:

11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them unto him, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; 12 and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands, and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and Jehovah will not answer you in that day (1 Samuel 8:11–18). (If only the tax level today was just 10 percent.)  

However, the Israelites rejected his advice, and Samuel gave them a king.
What Samuel had prophesied happened. With the rise of the state, enforcement of mala prohibitum became more important than mala in se. Mala prohibitum acts are acts that are illegal because the government declares them illegal. Examples of mala prohibita are failure to file the proper paperwork, failure to pay taxes, failure to obtain the government’s permission (licenses, permits, etc.) before undertaking certain actions, failure to follow regulations, and traffic laws.
Unlike malum in se, which is an act that is wrong in and of itself, malum prohibita is an act that is wrong only because the government prohibits it. (If a country today had a government without a state, which none do, most likely, some mala prohibita, such traffic laws, would exist.)

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Milton on the Son of God – Part 2

Milton on the Son of God – Part 2

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note:  Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are references to Milton on the Son of God and the Holy Spirit from His Treatise on Christian Doctrine by John Milton. The author’s comments are enclosed in brackets.]

    Not only does the Trinity Doctrine lack scriptural support, it also is lacking in reason. The “alternative therefore must be adopted, namely, that if God be one God, and that one God be the Father, and if notwithstanding the Son be also called God, the Son must have received the name and nature of Deity from God the Father, in conformity with his decree and will, after the manner stated before” (p. 25).
    Milton notes that Trinitarians insist “that wherever the name of God is attributed to the Father alone, it should be understood . . . to signify the three persons, or the whole essence of the Trinity, not the single person of the Father” (p. 27). He continues:

This is on many accounts a ridiculous distinction and invented solely for the purpose of supporting their peculiar opinion; although in reality, instead of supporting it, it will be found to be dependent on it, and therefore if the opinion itself be invalidated, for which purpose a simple denial is sufficient, the futile distinction falls to the ground at the same time. For the fact is, not merely that the distinction is a futile one, but that it is no distinction at all; it is a mere verbal quibble, founded on the use of synonymous words, and cunningly dressed up in terms borrowed from the Greek to dazzle the eyes of novices (p. 27).

He adds that “since essence and hypostasis mean the same thing, . . . [then] there can be no real difference of meaning between the adverbs essentially and substantially (hypostatice), which are derived from them” (p.27). Consequently, if  “the name of God be attributed to the Father alone essentially, it must also be attributed to the Father alone substantially” (p. 27). “If . . . the Son, who has his own proper hypostasis, have not also his own proper essence, but the essence of the Father, he becomes on their hypothesis either no ens [a real thing, entity] at all, or the same ens with the Father; which strikes at the very foundation of the Christian religion” (p. 28).
    According to the Trinity doctrine, “wherever the Son attributes Deity to the Father alone, and as to one greater than himself, he must be understood to speak in his human character, or as mediator” (p. 29). [This is a fantastic doctrine that prevents Jesus from being able to deny that he is God. Every statement that he makes or action that he takes that shows that he is not Deity can be rejected because it is merely Jesus speaking or acting in his human character and not in his divine character.] Milton concedes this concept to the Trinitarian “[w]herever the context and the fact itself require this interpretation” (p. 29). However, “it can never be inferred from hence that he is one God with the Father” (p. 29).
    Continuing, Milton remarks that “simultaneous mention is made of the Father and the Son, that name [God] is uniformly ascribed to the Father alone” (p. 29) with a few exceptions. Then he cites several verses to support his claim (pp. 29-30).
    Milton writes, “The Son likewise teaches that the attributes of divinity belong to the Father alone, to the exclusion even of himself” (p. 31). For example, in Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, Jesus declares that only the Father is omniscient and that he (Jesus) lacks the divine trait of omniscience. [Trinitarians claim that Jesus’ human character is not omniscient, but his divine character is.]
    According to Milton, “after the hypostatical union of two natures in one person [the union of the divine nature and human nature in Jesus such that, according to the Trinitarian Doctrine, Jesus is simultaneously 100 percent man and 100 percent Deity with no confusion of substance], it follows that whatever Christ says of himself, he says not as the possessor of either nature separately, but with reference to the whole of his character, and in his entire person, except where he himself makes a distinction” (p. 32). He adds, “Those who divide this hypostatical union at their own  discretion, strip the discourses and answers of Christ of all their sincerity; they represent everything as ambiguous and uncertain, as true and false at the same time; it is not Christ that speaks, but some unknown substitute, sometimes one, and sometimes another” (pp. 32-33).
    Moreover, Jesus’ will is independent of the Father, for in Matthew 26:39, Jesus says “not as I will, but as thou [the Father] wilt.” Milton comments, “Now it is manifest that those who have not the same will, cannot have the same essence” (p. 33). Then he cites several verses to show that the Father and Son do not have “in a numerical sense, the same intelligence or will” (p. 33): Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32, and John 6:38.
    After referencing several prayers of Jesus to God the Father, Milton asks, “If these prayers be uttered only in his human capacity, which is the common explanation, why does he petition these things from the Father alone instead of from himself, if he were God? Or rather, supposing him to be at once man and the supreme God, why does he ask at all for what was in his own power (p. 34)?”
    According to Jesus, “there is none good but one, that is God” (Matthew 19:17). To this statement, Milton remarks “that he did not choose to be considered essentially the same with that one God; for otherwise this would only have been disclaiming the credit of goodness in one character, for the purpose of assuming it in another” (p. 34).
    Milton notes that “Christ assigns every attribute of the Deity to the Father alone. The apostles uniformly speak in a similar manner” (p. 35). He cites several verses as examples. Furthermore, many verses declare that the Father alone raised the Son from the dead (pp. 35-37).
    Next, Milton notes that “the Son uniformly pays worship and reverence to the Father alone, so he teaches us to follow the same practice” (p. 37). Thus, divine honors are owed to the Father. In support, he cites several verses (pp. 37-41).
    Trinitarians argue “that the Son is sometimes called God, and even Jehovah; and that all the attributes of the Deity are assigned to him likewise in many passages both of the Old and New Testament” (p. 41). Milton replies “that where the Father and the Son are mentioned together, the name, attributes, and works of the Deity, as well as divine honours, are always assigned to the one and only God the Father” (p. 41). Then he proceeds to demonstrate “that whenever the same properties are assigned to the Son, it is in such a manner as to make it easily intelligible that they ought all primarily and properly to be attributed to the Father alone” (p. 41).
    He notes that the name or title of “God” is occasionally given to angels and men. Angels are called gods in Psalm 97:7, 9 and Judges 6:22, 13:21, 22. The title “God” is attributed to angels when they appear as Jehovah’s representatives (God spoke through them). Examples are Genesis 21:17, 18 and 22:11, 12, 15, 16. In Exodus 22:28, judges are called gods “because they occupy the place of God to a certain degree in the administration of judgment” (p. 46). Moreover, the children of Israel are called gods in Psalm 82:6. Also, the house of David is called God in Zechariah 12:8, and Moses is called God in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1.
    One error that some Trinitarians make is to construe “Elohim,” the Hebrew word for God, incorrectly. Although Elohim is plural in number, it is singular in meaning. These Trinitarians assert that Elohim “is intended to intimate a plurality of persons in unity of essence” (p. 43). [Although this interpretation of Elohim was once a popular argument used by Trinitarians to support the Trinity Doctrine, few use it today. Most Trinitarians now admit that nothing in the Old Testament supports the doctrine of a triune God. However, it does consistently and emphatically support the doctrine of a unipersonal God.] Milton remarks that “if there be any significance at all in this peculiarity, the word must imply as many gods as it does persons” (p. 43).
    Continuing, Milton notes that the Son “was entitled to the name of God both in the capacity of a messenger and of a judge” (p. 46). In John 10:34-36, Jesus used this argument “when the Jews accused him of blasphemy because he made himself God” (p. 46).
    By identifying the Word as the Son, Trinitarians use John 1:1 to support their doctrine of the eternal Son. Milton responds that the verse does not say “from everlasting, but ‘in the beginning.’ ‘The Word’ — therefore the Word was audible” (p. 47). Since God cannot be seen or heard (John 5:37), the “Word therefore is not of the same essence with God” (p. 47). That the Word was with God does not necessarily mean that “he [or it as some unitarians would say] is one in essence with him with whom he was” (p. 47).
    Milton argues that John should be allowed to interpret what he means by the Word in John 1:1. In Revelations 19:13, John writes that “‘his name is called the Word of God’ — that is, of the one God: he himself is a distinct person. If therefore he be a distinct person, he is distinct from God, who is unity. How then is he himself also God? By the same right as he enjoys the title of the Word, or of the only begotten Son, namely, by the will of the one God” (pp 47-48).
    Continuing to John 1:2, Milton comments that the second verse “enforces what the apostle wished we should principally observe, not that he was in the beginning God, but in the beginning with God; that he might show him to be God only by proximity and love, not in essence” (p. 48). Unlike the Trinitarian explanation of John 1:1-2, this explanation is consistent with the remainder of John’s gospel.
    A favorite passage that Trinitarians use to prove the Trinity Doctrine is John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” In response, Milton writes, “He [Thomas] must have an immoderate share of credulity who attempts to elicit a new confession of faith, unknown to the rest of the disciples, from this abrupt exclamation of the apostle, who invokes in his surprise not only Christ his own Lord, but the God of his ancestors, namely, God the Father” (p. 48). Yet, shortly before meeting Thomas, Jesus had declared, “I ascend unto my God and your God’ [John 20:17]. Now the God of God cannot be essentially one with him whose God he is. On whose word therefore can we ground our faith with most security; on that of Christ, whose doctrine is clear, or of Thomas, a new disciple, first incredulous, then suddenly breaking out into an abrupt exclamation in an ecstasy of wonder, if indeed he really called Christ his God? . . . [Nor] is it credible that he should have so quickly understood the hypostatic union of that person whose resurrection he had just before disbelieved” (pp. 48-49).
    Some Trinitarians claim that the lack of Jesus correcting Thomas in his remarks proves the Deity of Jesus, i.e., Jesus is God Himself, the second person of the triune God. Contrariwise, Milton argues that the lack of correction proves that Jesus is not a person of a triune God (pp. 49-50).
    Also, Matthew 1:23 (“they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us”) “does not prove that he [Jesus] whom they were so to call should necessarily be God but only a messenger from God” (p. 50).
    About Acts 16: 31, 34 (“believe on the Lord Jesus Christ . . . and he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house”), Milton remarks that “it does not follow from hence that Christ is God, since the apostles have never distinctly pointed out Christ as the ultimate object of faith; but these are merely the words of the historian, expressing briefly what the apostles doubtless inculcated in a more detailed manner — faith in God the Father through Christ” (p. 51).
    About Romans 9:5 (“who is over all, God blessed for ever”), he notes that some early church fathers omit “God” when quoting this passage. Moreover, the way translators punctuate this passage can give it different meanings. Milton concludes that “supposing that the words are spoken of the Son; they have nothing to do with his essence, but only intimate that divine honour is communicated to the Son by the Father, and particularly that he is called God” (p. 52). Continuing, he writes:

 But, it is said, the same words which were spoken of the Father, Rom. i. 25, “the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen,” are here repeated of the Son; therefore the Son is equal to the Father. If there be any force in this reasoning, it will rather prove that the Son is greater than the Father; for according to the ninth chapter, he is “over all,” which, however, they remind us, ought to be understood in the same sense as John iii. 31, 32, “he that cometh from above, is above all; he that Cometh from heaven is above all” (p. 52).

However, Milton adds that Christ “came not of himself, but was sent from the Father, and was obedient to him” (pp. 52-53). Moreover, Christ “never could have become a mediator, nor could he have been sent from God, or have been obedient to him, unless he had been inferior to God and the Father as to his nature. Therefore also after he shall have laid aside his functions as mediator, whatever may be his greatness, or whatever it may previously have been, he must be subject to God and the Father” (p. 53).
    As for 1 Timothy 3:16 (“God was manifest in the flesh”), many early manuscripts omit “God” [as do many translations since the King James]. However, Milton concedes that “when the context is duly examined, that the whole passage must be understood of God the Father in conjunction with the Son. For it is not Christ who is “the great mystery of godliness,” but God the Father in Christ” (p. 54). To support his conclusion, he cites Colossians 2:2 and 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19. Continuing, he writes, “‘was manifest in the flesh’ — namely, in the Son, his own image; in any other way he is invisible: nor did Christ come to manifest himself, but his Father, John xiv. 8, 9” (p. 54). (For more justifications of Milton’s conclusion, see pages 54-55).
    Next, Milton comments on Titus 2:13 (“the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”) in some detail and about various translations. He concludes that:

what is proposed to us as an object of belief, especially in a matter involving a primary article of faith, ought not to be an inference forced and extorted from passages relating to an entirely different subject, in which the readings are sometimes various, and the sense doubtful — nor hunted out by careful research from among articles and particles — nor elicited by dint of ingenuity, like the answers of an oracle, from sentences of dark or equivocal meaning — but should be susceptible of abundant proof from the clearest sources (p. 56).

[This advice Trinitarians ignore because the clearest passages support Unitarianism.]
    Then, Milton comments on 1 John 5:20 (“We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, (even) in his Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God, and eternal life”). Trinitarians use the second part of this verse to support their doctrine of a triune God. However, when the verse as a whole is considered, it does not support the Trinity Doctrine.
    Milton also comments on Hebrews 1:8 (p. 50), Acts 20:58 (p. 51), 1 John 3:16 (pp. 56-57), Jude 4 (pp. 59-58), Psalm 68:17-19, and Ephesians 4:5-8 (pp. 60-61).

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 1, Part 3

More religious articles.