Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Thomas Allen

In “The Iran War: A Background of Decades and Centuries,” Beyond Today, May–June, 2026, pages 18–21, Scott Ashley discusses Iran’s hostility toward Israel and the United States. My comments are enclosed in parentheses.

Ashley blames the current Iranian war on Hamas’s invading and killing some 1200 Israeli civilians. (He fails to mention that Israel and the United States created Hamas. Furthermore, he neglects to reveal that the Israeli armed forces killed many of the 1200 people.)

According to Ashley and many others, this war with Iran began in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah, the taking of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the capture of 52 U.S. embassy employees, who were held for 444 days. He identifies several other Iranian attacks against the United States since then. Thus, Iran has been at war with the United States for almost 50 years. (However, he ignores the United States being at war with the Iranian people since the early 1950s when they started meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. The United States sided with the despotic Shah against the despotic prime minister. Apparently, the regime of the Shahs became so unbearable that most Iranians rejoiced at the arrival of Khomeini in 1979.)

Ashley discusses Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As he notes, the ostensible reason for the war with Iran is to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. (Protecting and advancing Israel’s Greater Israel agenda is the real reason. That the United States destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a sneak attack in 2025 — that is what President Trump told the world — seems to be forgotten. Did Trump lie in 2025 or is he lying now?)

Ashley implies that the United States initiated this latest attack on Iran. He asks, “Why did Israel join in joint attacks with the U.S. military?” (In reality, the United States joined Israel. Israel was going to attack regardless of the U.S. participation. In an attempt to reduce American casualties, the United States joined Israel in the attack. They knew that Iran would strike American bases in retaliation for an Israeli assault.)

Quoting two passages from the Quran, Ashley shows that anyone who practices any religion other than Islam is an idolater — hence, the Muslim antipathy toward non-Muslims, i.e., Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. Iran’s religious leaders have adopted and applied this animosity toward non-Muslims. (Yet, Jews have synagogues and Christians have churches in Iran. Moreover, Christians seem to have just as much religious freedom in Iran as they have in Israel — if not more.)

According to Ashley, the reason for Muslim abhorrence of Israel is that Muslims cannot accept the notion of territory once controlled by Muslims coming under the control of Christians or Jews. (If true, why do Muslims not display the same degree of hostility toward Spain, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania, which Muslims once ruled? Could it be that the primary cause is Israel’s malevolent treatment of Palestinians? Since 1948, it has driven most Palestinians from their homes and stolen their land. Now, it seeks to genocide the Palestinians.)

Finally, Ashley discusses the “end times” theology of Iran’s religious leaders. (It closely resembles the end times theology of Christian Zionists.) The Islamic messiah, Mahdi, will arise at a period of end-time tribulation (the Great Tribulation of Christian Zionists) and establish Islam as the dominant religion of the world (similar to Jesus returning to establish his religion as the global religion).

According to Ashley, Iran’s leadership wants nuclear weapons with which to attack Israel to precipitate a nuclear war to hasten the appearance of Mahdi. (Likewise, many Christian Zionists want to start a nuclear war with Iran to hasten the return of Jesus.)

(Whether the current war with Iran leads to a global nuclear war and the appearance of Mahdi or Jesus remains to be seen. May God bring humility, sanity, and wisdom to the world’s leaders so that they will act like adults instead of narcissistic, psychopathic, spoiled brats.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Eating Pork

Eating Pork

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment to a comment on “TikToker Fired After Exposing How Plastic Is Getting In Pig Feed” by Anthony T (https://welovetrump.com/2022/09/08/tiktoker-fired-after-exposing-how-plastic-is-getting-in-pig-feed/#comment-5976483530). I argued that, according to the Scriptures, we were no longer obliged not to eat pork. My comment caused some discussion, with most commenters siding with the prohibition against eating pork. I call them Old Testament Christians because they seem to place more weight on the Old Testament than on the New Testament. Yet, none claimed that we are compelled to keep all the Old Testament laws; apparently, we are only required to keep the dietary laws. One claims that I did not know the difference between laws, statutes, and ordinances. Yet, when I asked him to explain the difference,  he refused.

Of all the conservative websites where I have posted comments, with rare exceptions, the commenters at this site have the least intelligence and knowledge. Most of them can only parrot back the Republican, neoconservative, and establishment conservative propaganda that they have managed to absorb. When they lack any good counterargument, they often resort to name-calling.

This discussion is presented in the appendix. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. I have added an afterthought to one comment.

Appendix

B: There are many reasons God forbids eating swine, add this to the list.

M to B: Pigs will eat anything, including humans. We need to run China out of this               country. Never buy Smithfield. Democrats would make good pig feed. Or, maybe                 we’ll find out there are some things pigs just won’t eat.

Me to M:  Most pigs eat a more nutritional diet than nearly every human in this                    country.

M to Me: Regardless, they will eat anything and Smithfield is owned by                                China. I eat bacon, just not any brand.

W to M: No worries. If I get hungry enough to eat Swine I’m already doomed.                      I’m not a Jew but when it comes to pigs, I’m Kosher.

Besides, God tells us that it is naughty to sup on Pigs!

M to W: But you can’t have a BLT without bacon. If we feed the democrats                          to the pigs i’m [sic] done with bacon.

Me to B: In Mark, Jesus declared all food, which would included [sic] pork, clean.

B to Me: No he didn’t

Me to B: Mark 7:19 — because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and                  goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Pork is a meat; therefore, Jesus declared it clean. Your argument is with Jesus,                     not with me.

Cs to Me:  Yeah, no food can deflie [sic] you. Spiritually. Thats [sic] what Jesus                    was talking about. If you read the whole chapter, thats [sic] the topic. Read the                      next verse for clarification. Mark 7:20 

But God the Father did give us dietary guidelines on what to eat and not to eat, as                  it pertains to the body. Why would he repeat himself and say ‘Eat honey’ if later                    on he’s just gonna say, “Just kidding. Eat whatever you want.”

Its [sic] wisdom not legalism.

It wasnt [sic] about phyiscal [sic] health but spiritual. If the rabbis touched pigs,                    they were ceremonially unclean and couldn’t attend their services, etc.

Jesus was saying thats [sic] nonsense.

Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you;re [sic] likely to get                 worms Youre [sic] decision.

If you just go by Mark 7:19, it sounds like there’s no such thing as junk food.

Hope that makes sense.

Me to Cs: In Galatians 3:23–25, Paul writes that Christians are no longer                              under the law. “23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the                              law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 So that                            the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be                                      justified by faith. 25 But now that faith is come, we are no  longer under a                              tutor.”

Animal sacrifices were a major part of the law. Do you still follow the law                            by sacrificing animals, or did God repeal that law for Christians? If He                                  repeals one law, why can He not repeal another law?

“Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you're likely to                             get worms.” Obviously, you know little about modern-day pig farms. What                            you say may be true for pasture raised pigs. However, nearly all pork sold                              today comes from pigs whose hoofs never touch the ground from the time                              that they are born to the time that they are slaughtered. These pigs live in an                          environment more sterile than almost every human household. Moreover,                              chickens eat crap, and there is no scriptural prohibition against eating                                    chickens. (An old farming book that I have gives the following advice for                              maximizing a pasture. First, run cattle across it. Then, run pigs across it to                              eat what passes through the cattle. Finally, run chickens across it to eat what                          passes through the pigs.)

B to Me: Matt 5:18 (Jesus’ words) says he will not change the law. Lev. 11                            (entire chapter but focus on v 46-47). The clean and unclean foods are LAWS,                      Jesus didn’t change the law. You are misunderstanding an interpretation.

Me to B: Then, according to you, Jesus lied. Both statements cannot be true.                          If he did not change the law, why are we not doing animal sacrifices as the                           Old Testament commanded? [Afterthought: Jesus did not change the law; he                         fulfilled the law by completing its purpose and meaning. He was saying that                         nothing would pass from the law until he fulfilled it.]

B to Me: You don’t know the difference between laws, statutes and                                        ordinances. Jesus never changed the law.

Me to B: Please explain the difference between the three and                                                  provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: II Tim. 2:15

Me to B: 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a                                                                        workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly                                                                      dividing the word of truth.

Uh! Your response avoids answering my question.                                                                    Please explain the difference between the three and                                                                 provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: Study yourself, i’m [sic] not going to                                                                        spoon feed you

Me to B: My studies show that I am right and                                                                           you are wrong. Moreover, most of the                                                                                       theologians and clergy that have consulted                                                                               agree with me and not with you. Also, I                                                                                    must conclude that you do not know the                                                                                    difference between laws, statutes, and                                                                                        ordinances and that you cannot provide a list                                                                            of them.

B to Me: Keep tooting your horn and                                                                                        puffing your chest out and eating that                                                                                        swine.

O to B: go outside both those books there were multiple                                                          references and (ellen g white is not a second god or                                                                 prophet... just a shrewd Mormon clone and a diet nazi                                                             [sic]) 1 Timothy 4:1-5 “Now the Spirit speaketh                                                                     expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from                                                           the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines                                                             of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their                                                                   conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry,                                                           and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath                                                        created to be received with thanksgiving of them which                                                        believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is                                                          good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with                                                              thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and                                                         prayer.” KJV

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

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.

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Founding Principles of the Governance of the United States

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are some of the founding principles of the United States. They are the relationship of church and state and the destructiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Separation of Church and State

In “Religious Liberty and the Genius of the American Founding,” Imprimis (December 2024 | Volume 53, Number 12), Glenn Ellmers argues that America’s founders solved the problem of establishing the sacredness of the law while avoiding religious conflict and persecution. They combined human reason and divine revelation to establish religious liberty. (First, today, the country lacks reason. Second, whose religion is used to establish the sacredness of the law? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all claim to be descended from Abraham’s religion. Yet, they are incompatible with each other. Further, Hinduism, which is growing rapidly in the United States, is even more incompatible.)

The Founding Fathers recognized that people “are born into both a physical and moral world that” they did not create. American politics was built on this foundation. (Unfortunately, many American political, religious, academic, business, and other leaders have been diligently working to destroy this foundation.)

Next, Ellmers discusses the problems that the Founding Fathers solved. “First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality.”  With reasoning, people can understand the difference between virtue and vice. Thus, “the law can enforce moral precepts that are acknowledged by both political and ecclesiastical authorities.” (What about vices that some religious authorities recognize as vice, but political authorities do not? Gambling is an example that some religious authorities condemn, but many political authorities do not. Through State-sponsored lotteries, some States use gambling as a source of revenue. This action prevents them from considering gambling as immoral, although some religious authorities do.)

“Second, this common ground of morality makes it possible to delineate in a clear way the political and religious realms.” Thus, “the separation of church and state becomes possible.” The Declaration of Independence’s “teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws ‘sacred’ without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc.” 

“Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other.” Consequently, a religious test for office was prohibited. (Although no government today requires a religious test for office, some States in the early years of the United States did.)

(What happens if the law is used to protect immorality instead of prohibiting it? Abortion and sexual immorality, such as homosexual acts and miscegenation, are examples. Abortion and abortionists are protected in many States. Likewise, homosexual marriages and miscegenation are protected in all States. Yet, traditional Christianity condemns them as sins that should be legally prohibited. When the political realm [reason] conflicts with the religious realm [revelation], the political realm prevails, at least in this world, because it wields the rifles.

In spite of the separation of church and state, today, the political realm has chosen the religion of secular humanism as the state religion. When it conflicts with the other religions, the political realm [the government] nearly always sides with secular humanism.)

The Fourteenth Amendment

The  Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional because it is incongruent with fundamental principles of the Constitution that it amended. Not only was it ratified unlawfully and illegally, but it also violates at least three basic principles underlying the Constitution. 

(1) The Fourteenth Amendment usurped the sovereignty of the people of each State and gave it to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent nations that were members of a federation. The federal government was their agent that attended to foreign affairs and a few domestic issues. It had no sovereignty. Accordingly, the Constitution of 1788 was a contract between independent sovereign republics, which created an agent, the federal government, to carry out specific and limited activities. The Fourteenth Amendment voided that contract and usurped all the sovereignty and powers of the States, the parties to the contract, and placed them in the federal government. Now, the States have only those powers that the federal government condescends to grant them. Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment changed the United States from a federation of sovereign republican States to an empire.

(2) It changed the fundamental principle of citizenship. Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals were considered citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, individuals became citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States.

(3) (This one will really anger most people, especially conservatives and libertarians.) The Constitution was written by Whites, for Whites, and only for Whites. The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution from being monoracial to being multiracial by making Negroes citizens. Consequently, it changed the United States from a White country for Whites only to a multiracial country (and all today's problems with nonwhite immigration). 

Consequently, because the Fourteenth Amendment is incompatible with the underlying principles of the Constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional, courts should ignore it until it is repealed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated empire.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political 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.

The Wise and the Foolish

The Wise and the Foolish

Thomas Allen

In Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus gives a parable of ten virgins. Five virgins were wise, and five were foolish. (See the appendix for the text of this parable.)

The five wise virgins were prudent and future-oriented. If the bridegroom tarried, they had hoarded a reserve of oil to keep their lamps burning. As the story goes, they had to use their saved oil because the bridegroom arrived late.

The five foolish virgins were imprudent and present-oriented. Consequently, they had failed to save any oil for their lamps and, therefore, could not keep their lamps lit. As a result, they missed the bridegroom. (If a compassionate government following liberation theology existed then, it would have forced the wise virgins to give part, if not all, their oil to the foolish virgins.)

Clergymen understand this parable spiritually. Jesus is the bridegroom, whose arrival is unknown. The “oil” represents spiritual readiness and faithfulness. Like the wise virgins, Christians should always be prepared for the coming of Christ, whenever that is. Thus, they should be diligent in their faith, continuously seek to grow closer to God, and strive to live according to His will.

Nevertheless, this parable also has a practical, earthly explanation. Once, farmers would hoard part of their harvest to feed themselves until the next harvest. Foolish farmers failed to hoard enough and went hungry; thus, they depended on the charity of their neighbors to feed them. (According to an old saying, Southern farmers sold what they could not eat, and Northern farmers ate what they could not sell.) Likewise, wise people stockpile food and other supplies to carry themselves through natural and manmade disasters and lean times. Foolish people do not; they rush to stores just before the disaster strikes, only to find empty shelves. Sometimes, they have no warning and have to do without.

In the twenty-first century, this parable has been turned on its head. Now, the prudent are the foolish, and the imprudent are the wise. When a natural or manmade disaster strikes, the imprudent will steal the savings (food, water, money, or whatever) from the prudent, either directly or, more likely, through the government.

For example, according to a highly reliable source, following Hurricane Helene, the government stole food in the disaster area that the prudent had saved and gave it to the imprudent. (Some prudent people had their supplies washed away, but many who received the stolen goods were imprudent people. In any event, the government did not steal from the imprudent because they had nothing to steal.)

Thus, the prudent were foolish to sacrifice some of their resources to establish supplies of food and other necessities. Instead of using their resources to establish emergency supplies, the imprudent used them for present merriment, knowing that if disaster struck, the government would take care of them. Consequently, the imprudent acted wisely, albeit dishonestly.

When the prudent are penalized for saving, and the imprudent are rewarded for not saving, people eventually stop hoarding for future emergencies and disasters. When most people become present-oriented and do not hoard, their lack of savings causes enormous stress on charities, which, because of imprudence, receive significantly less support, and on governments.

(This reminds me of the story of the little red hen. Wanting to bake a cake, the hen asked the other farm animals to assist her. All refused. However, after she had baked the cake, all came to her and demanded their share. Never again did the hen bake a cake, and the other animals wondered why.)

Appendix

The following is Matthew 25: 1–13 from the World English Bible.

25 “Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 Those who were foolish, when they took their lamps, took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. 5 Now while the bridegroom delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Behold! The bridegroom is coming! Come out to meet him!’ 7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘What if there isn’t enough for us and you? You go rather to those who sell, and buy for yourselves.’ 10 While they went away to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Most certainly I tell you, I don’t know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Copyright © 2026 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.

Unicorns and Satyrs

Unicorns and Satyrs

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles. 

The King James Only

The King James Only

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

When Did Samuel Last See Saul?

Thomas Allen

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

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

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

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

When did Samuel last see Saul?

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

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.