The Trinity and Egyptian Belief by James Bonwick 1878

The Trinity and Egyptian Belief by James Bonwick F.R.G.S. 1878

See also The Pagan Origin of the Trinity - 60 Books on CDrom

For a list of all of my digital books (PDF and Amazon) click here

THOUGH it is usual to speak of the Semitic tribes as monotheistic, yet it is an undoubted fact that more or less all over the world the deities are in triads. This rule applies to eastern and western hemispheres, to north and south. Further, it is observed that, in some mystical way, the triad of three persons is one. The first is as the second or third, the second as first or third, the third as first or second; in fact, they are each other, one and the same individual being. The definition of Athanasius, who lived in Egypt, applies to the trinities of all heathen religions.

Egypt is no exception; only, strange enough, as Lenormant observes, "no two cities worshipped the same triad." The one remarkable feature in nearly all these triads is that they are father, mother, and son; that is, male and female principles of nature, with their product. Mariette Bey has several remarks upon this curious subject:—

"According to places, the attributes by which the Divine Personage is surrounded are modified; but in each temple the triad would appear as a symbol destined to affirm the eternity of being. In all triads, the principal god gives birth to himself. Considered as a Father, he remains the great god adored in temples. Considered as a Son, he becomes, by a sort of doubling, the third person of the triad. But the Father and the Son are not less the one god, while being double. The first is the eternal god; the second is but the living symbol destined to affirm the eternity of the other. The father engenders himself in the womb of the mother, and thus becomes at once his own father and his own son. Thereby are expressed the uncreatedness and the eternity of the being who has had no beginning, and who shall have no end."

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

The Tract Society's work on Egypt, remarking the clearly defined Trinity idea of the ancient Egyptians, and yet the silence or obscurity of the Hebrew Scriptures upon it, has the following explanation: "It does not appear probable that men, to whom the doctrine of tri-unity of God was unknown, could have framed such a system as this; their purpose appears to have been to hide that truth, so that it should not be lost, but yet to conceal it from the many."
The conceptions of this Trinity must have varied through the thousands of years of Egyptian belief, as they have among Christians themselves. At first, as far as may be seen, there was less mysticism than grew round the idea afterwards. Even "in ancient Osirianism," as Stuart-Glennie writes, "the Godhead is conceived as a Trinity; yet are the three gods declared to be only one god." In Smith's "History of the East," it is stated, "In all these triads, the Son is another impersonation of the attributes of the Father."

It must not be imagined that the mass of the people understood the mystery of the tri-unity of the Godhead, any more than the ruder class of Christian populations do now. A traveller tells the story of some Spaniard laughing at an uncouth idol found in the ruins of Central America, when a Mexican civilly but apologetically exclaimed, "It is true we have three very good Spanish gods, but we might have been allowed to keep a few of those of our ancestors."

Among the Egyptian triads, the following may be mentioned; Osiris, Isis and Horus, in one form or other, universal in the land; Amoun, mother Maut, and son Chons, of Thebes; Noum, Sate, and Anucis, or Anouke, of Ethiopia ; Month-ra, Reto, and Harphre" of Hermonthis; Seb, Netphe or Nout, and Osiris, of Lower Egypt; Osiris, Isis and Anhur of Thinnis; Ptah, Pasht and Month, of Memphis; Neph, Neboo, and Hake of Esne; Seb, Netpe and Mandooli, of Dabad; Savak, Athor, and Khonso, of Ambos; Horket, Hathor, and Horsenedto, of Edfou. Among others may be included, Ptah, Sekhet and Neferatom; Aroeris, Tsontnofre, and Pnebto; Sokaris, Nephthys and Thoth, etc. The Tract Society's book judiciously mentions that the triad of Amoun-Ra, Maut and Chons has many intermediate triads till it reaches the incarnate triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus. But that work admits the fact that three are blended into one.

Mr. Samuel Sharpe, a prominent Egyptologist, observed an admirable representation of this tri-unity, more expressive than the shamrock of St. Patrick. He thus describes the picture of this Osirian deity; "The horns upon his head are those of the goddess Athor, and the ball and feathers are the ornaments of the god Ra; thus he is at once Osiris, Athor, and Ra." With reason, then, did he add: "The doctrine of Trinity in Unity already formed part of their religion;" alluding to the high antiquity of this representation.

But there are male trinities, and female ones. The existence of the latter excited the wonder of the compiler of the Tract Society's book, and he thus records his thoughts: "A remarkable point which we notice, without presuming at all to trespass beyond the exact letter of that which is written. The female impersonation of Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs, i. 9, is a remarkable circumstance in this connection."

The Greek writers, full of the old philosophy and Platonic Trinity, perhaps saw more than the Egyptians intended, or they mystified the notion. Damascius talks of Eicton, Emeph or Cneph, and Ptha, and that, "according to the Egyptians there is one principle of all things praised under the name of the Unknown Darkness, and this thrice repeated." Jamblichus notifies "Ammon the generator, Ptha the perfector, and Osiris the producer of good." One quotes an inscription: "One Bait, one Athor, and one Akori; Hail, Father of the world! Hail, triformous God!" Proclus says, "The demiurgical number does not begin from a trinity, but from a monad." Plutarch recognizes their Trinity as a right-angled triangle; of which Osiris is the perpendicular, Isis is the base or receptacle, and Horus is the hypothenuse. But they are all imbued with the Trinity idea of Plato,—Agathos, Logos, and Psyche; the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.

Jamblichus, who quotes from the Egyptian Hermetic Books, has the following definition of the Egyptian Trinity:—

"Hermes places the god Emeph, as the prince and ruler over all the celestial gods, whom he affirmeth to be a Mind understanding himself, and converting his cogitations or intellections into himself. Before which Emeph he placeth one indivisible, whom he calleth Eicton, in which is the first intelligible, and which is worshipped only by silence. After which two, Eicton and Emeph, the demiurgic mind and president of truth, as with wisdom it proceedeth to generations, and bringeth forth the hidden powers of the occult reasons with light, is called in the Egyptian language Ammon; as it artificially affects all things with truth, Phtha; as it is productive of good, Osiris; besides other names that it hath according to its other powers and energies."

The Rev. Dr. Cudworth, whose translation is given above, adds this comment:—

"How well these three divine hypostases of the Egyptians agree with the Pythagoric or Platonic Trinity of,— first, Unity and Goodness itself, secondly, Mind, and thirdly, Soul,—I need not here declare. Only we shall call to mind what hath been already intimated, that Reason or Wisdom, which was the Demiurgus of the world, and is properly the second of the fore-mentioned hypostases, was called, also, among the Egyptians by another name, Cneph; from whom was said to have been produced or begotten the god Phtha, the third hypostasis of the Egyptian Trinity; so that Cneph and Emeph are all one. Wherefore, we have here plainly an Egyptian Trinity of divine hypostases subordinate, Eicton, Emeph or Cneph, and Phtha."

Other interpretations have been named. Phallic advocates, as Payne Knight, have contended that the male symbol of generation in divine creation was three in one, as the cross, etc., and that the female symbol was always regarded as the Triangle, the accepted symbol of the Trinity. "The number three" says he, "was employed with mystic solemnity, and in the emblematical hands above alluded to, which seem to have been borne on the top of a staff or sceptre in the Isiac processions, the thumb and two forefingers are held up to signify the three primary and general personifications." This form of priestly blessing, thumb and two fingers, is still acknowledged as a sign of the Trinity.

The popular Trinity of Egypt,—Osiris, Isis, and Horus, —must have made a profound impression, when we find Babylonian Jews endorsing it in the Talmud, and early Christian sects adopting it. Not content with generally speaking of the Holy Spirit as feminine, some, as the Melchites at the Council of Nice, put the Virgin Mary in the place of Isis, and established the Trinity, as of old, Father, Mother, and Son. It is a popular Protestant error to suppose that the thought of this exaltation of Mary was a modern one.

The Phoenicians, or old Canaanites, had one grand Trinity: "Baal Hammon, male; Tanith-Pen-Baal, female; and Iolaus or Eloim. Dunbar I. Heath goes so far as to say of the ancient time, "Every Semitic town of weight sufficient to erect its own temple appears to have had its own name for its Trinity." Another Trinity was of Baal, Ashtaroth, and Asherah. The Gnostic triad was Bythos, Ennoia and Pneuma.

The Assyrians had several triads. In the most ancient, that of the Accadian, one member is called Salman, the Saviour. The leading triad was Ana or Anu; Bil, Bel or Belus; and Hea or Hoa. There was another of Sin or Hurki; Shamas, San, or Sansi; and Iva. The great female triad consisted of Anat or Anaites; Bilit, Beltis, or Mylitta, and Daokina. Another was of The Great Lady; Gula or Anuit; and Shala or Tala.

In Babylon the prominent triad was of Anu Sin, Shamaz, and Iva. Shamas was the sun, as Sin was the moon; the Chaldeans put the moon before the sun.

For a list of all of my digital books click here

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99  cents

The Definite Article in Greek, John 1:1, and the Word was a God by James Stark 1861

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

See a local listing for this book here

The Greek Definite Article, John 1:1, and the Word was a God by James Stark M.D., F.R.S.E. 1861

See also Unitarianism & Universalism - 100 Books on DVDrom and Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ on DVDrom

To understand the transliteration go to http://ibiblio.org/bgreek/bgtransliteration.html

During the Winter 1860–61, I was prostrated on a bed of sickness, and for several weeks sleep nearly forsook me. Many thoughts coursed through my mind during the tedious watches of the night, and more frequently than others the subject of this Treatise. Turning the arguments in my mind in every possible way, I often fervently prayed that some revelation might be vouchsafed to me, which would distinctly leave the impression on my mind that it came from God, and be of such a nature as to shew me whether I had arrived at a right or wrong interpretation of the Scriptures. At that time I was not even thinking of the Greek text, which, to speak the truth, I had rarely consulted for years. One night, after much intense thought on the subject, as by a flash of lightning there was depicted on the tablet of my mind's eye, the words, “If you are right in your conclusions you will find that the original Greek text of the first verse of John's Gospel reads not as translated in the English version, but, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with The God, and a God was the Word.’ You will also find that the passage in Romans ix. 5 will read not as in the English translation, but, “Whose are the Fathers, and of whom came Christ after the flesh. May the Supreme God be blessed for ever. Amen.’” I cannot conceive how these words or these passages occurred to me, for though I certainly might have imagined the first, I never could have conceived it possible that our English translators would so far allow their Trinitarian prejudices to sway them as to make the second passage read so different from the translation—I must call it—revealed to me. No one can conceive what a night of longing I had for the coming of the morning, which would enable me to procure a Greek Testament and enable me to decide whether I was right, or whether, by directing me to these passages, God in his mercy intended to shew me that I was wrong. Daylight came at last, and when my son brought me my Greek Testament, and I then found that the translation revealed to me was indeed the correct one, and not that in the English Bible, need I say how my heart overflowed with gratitude to The God who had thus answered my prayer, and had at the same time directed me to a source which, till then, I had quite neglected. It was only since that night that I compared every passage quoted in this Treatise with the original Greek, and added the definite article where our English Translators had omitted it.

Greek scholars more familiar with the writings of the Ancient Poets than with the peculiarities of the New Testament Greek, which they much neglect, are apt to imagine that I lay too great stress on the presence or absence of the definite article. But it is not so; and it would be very easy to prove that the writers of the New Testament break every classical Greek rule in their use of the definite article, in order that their writings may have a clearness and definiteness of language which they could not have were they to follow the examples of the classical authors. For instance, the classical Greek writer rarely or never repeats the definite article where there is a predicate of the same gender and case before it, so that in their writings the absence of the definite article does not imply that the noun has not a definite signification. In many instances, also, the classical Greek author omits the definite article altogether, though he still intends the noun to be used in its definite sense. The Holy Spirit, however, in selecting the Greek as the language through which the Christian Revelation should be communicated to man, appears to me to have acted otherwise, and wisely judged that it was better to give definite ideas, whether the use or the omission to use the definite article was consonant with the classical Greek rule or not. Why, even at the present day, excepting perhaps the English, there is not a language with which I am acquainted that can convey ideas in that definite form which metaphysical reasonings require to prevent us mistaking their meaning. It was the same in the days of our Saviour. The Greek was the only extant language capable of giving distinct definition to its expressions—not, however, by following the classical rules, but by taking advantage, as has been done in the Holy Scriptures, of the capabilities of the language. Contrast it with the Latin, for instance, the language of the Romans, the conquerors of the world. A language more incapable of distinct definition than the Latin does not exist. When a Roman said, “Deus creavit mundum,” he might mean any of three different ideas:—First, “God created the world;” Second, “A God created the world; ” Third, “The God created the world;” and his language was incapable of telling which of all these ideas he meant to convey to me. The classical Greek, in like manner, frequently omitted the article in similar sentences, but in the Holy Scriptures no such omissions seem to have been made. The Holy Spirit seems to have directed the Evangelists and Apostles to make a free use of the capabilities of the Greek, so as to express in language which could not be misunderstood, what the Holy Spirit meant to teach. Hence, we find these writers violating every classical rule in the use of the definite article; all these violations leading to much clearer conceptions of the ideas they meant to convey, and preventing obscurities which must have arisen had they followed the classical Greek rule. Thus we have again and again the repetition of the article where no classical author would have used it, as O CRISTOS O UIOS--O SWTHR O UIOS--O QEOS O PATER--TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS KAI TO PNEUMA THS PLANHS--TO PNEUMA ESTI TO MARTUROUN--BAPTIZONTES AUTOUS EIS TO ONOMA TOU PATROS KAI TOU UIOU KAI TOU AGIOU PNEUMATOS-—and hundreds of similar instances might be given. There are, it is true, undoubted instances where the classical Greek rule is followed, as, O QEOS KAI PATER, but in every such instance it will be found that the sentence bears that the two nouns undoubtedly refer to one and the same person, so that there was no call for a repetition of the article. In every case, however, where the nouns refer to things, or to persons who might be different, the article is either distinctly repeated if it is intended that the noun should have a distinct definite signification, or it is purposely omitted where the noun is intended to be used in its indefinite SenSe.

For a list of all of my digital books click here

A marked instance of this last is to be found in the Gospel by John iv. 25:--PNEUMA O QEOS. Here it is clear as daylight that John means to use the noun PNEUMA in its indefinite sense, and it is rightly translated in our English Bible “a Spirit,” though our translators have omitted the essential definite article before the word God, for the Greek says, “The God is a spirit.” More definite language could not be used. Exactly in the same manner, John says in his first chapter, QEOS HN O LOGOS, which must be translated, “a God was the Word,” or, “divine was the Word,” seeing the word QEOS/theos has no definite article before it; and the whole context clearly shews that the word QEOS was here used in its indefinite sense, by the circumstance that both before and after telling us that “the Word was a God” (or that “the word was divine”). John most carefully and pointedly informs us that “the Word was with The God.” This very circumstance clearly proves that John never meant to say that the word was the God, or he would not both immediately before and immediately following that statement, have pointedly said that “the Word was WITH The God.” Besides, as John is one of the writers who violates all the classical Greek rules in the use of the article, it cannot for a moment be doubted that had he intended to teach us that “the Word was the God” he would have said so, in which case he would have been saved twice repeating the fact that “the Word was with The God;” for, of course, if the Word was The God, it would have been words of supererrogation to add that he was also with The God. The very fact, however, that John carefully omits the article before QEOS proves to every reasoning mind that he meant to convey to us, what, indeed, the whole Scriptures prove, that Jesus was a divine Being present WITH The God, but was not “The God” himself.

Just see how all the conclusions of this Treatise are supported by that very passage on which unthinking theologians frequently rest as the foundation of the Trinitarian Doctrine,—“Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Now, bring to bear on this passage all possible grammatical criticism, and the sole conclusion which can be arrived at is, that Three Distinct Persons are named, while not the slightest hint is given that these three are one. Had either Jesus Christ himself, or the Evangelist Matthew, intended us to receive as doctrine that these Three distinct Divine Beings were one God, sure am I they would have used words which would have conveyed that meaning to us. An additional word or two would have done it; nay, dropping out the articles would have almost implied it; and yet neither was done. For instance, Jesus might have said, “Baptizing them in the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” which would have taught the Trinity in unity by implication. Or he might have said, “Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God,” which would have been a direct teaching of the Trinity in Unity Doctrine. But Jesus did neither of these; and as the Holy Spirit does nothing carelessly, as man would do it, there must be a reason for the three names being mentioned in such a distinct manner, repeating the definite article before each, in opposition to every Greek classical rule; and a comparison of the passage with the whole of the rest of the Scriptures proves clearly that the reason of the repetition of the definite article before each of the names was, to render it apparent to every one that these were the names of Three distinct Divine Beings interested in the work of man's redemption, but that they neither constituted One God, nor were parts or persons of One God. Hear, then, the conclusion of the whole matter—the only conclusion at which the Scriptures allow us to arrive, the only Doctrine which they teach on this subject. There is “One only true God”—“God The Father,” who is above all, who is Father of all, who is God of all; not only The Father and The God of angels and of men, but The Father and “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ” himself. This Supreme God, in the work of man's redemption, employs the agency of two Divine Beings—Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; and when the purposes for which they were specially set apart shall have been accomplished, and Jesus shall have resigned into the hands of the Supreme God that power and dominion which had been entrusted to him, and shall have laid down his Office as Mediator, he will resume his place as a subject, that “The God may be all in all.”

See also The New World Translation Bible Companion DVDrom

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

metatron3@gmail.com

What was the Shape of the Cross? by John Denham Parsons 1896

Buy my Kindle Book, The Strange History of Easter and the Christian Cross on Amazon for only $1.99 

See also Is the Cross a Pagan Symbol? 70 PDF Books on DVDROM 

For a list of all of my digital books on disk click here 

In the thousand and one works supplied for our information upon matters connected with the history of our race, we are told that Alexander the Great, Titus, and various Greek, Roman, and Oriental rulers of ancient days, "crucified" this or that person; or that they "crucified" so many at once, or during their reign. And the instrument of execution is called a "cross."

The natural result is that we imagine that all the people said to have been "crucified" were executed by being nailed or otherwise affixed to a cross-shaped instrument set in the ground, like that to be seen in our fanciful illustrations of the execution of Jesus. This was, however, by no means necessarily the case.

For instance, the death spoken of, death by the stauros, included transfixion by a pointed stauros or stake, as well as affixion to an unpointed stauros or stake; and the latter punishment was not always that referred to.

It is also probable that in most of the many cases where we have no clue as to which kind of stauros was used, the cause of the condemned one's death was transfixion by a pointed stauros.

Moreover, even if we could prove that this very common mode of capital punishment was in no case that referred to by the historians who lived in bygone ages, and that death was in each instance caused by affixion to, instead of transfixion by, a stauros, we should still have to prove that each stauros had a cross-bar before we could correctly describe the death caused by it as death by crucifixion.

It is also, upon the face of it, somewhat unlikely that the ancients would in every instance in which they despatched a man by affixing him to a post set in the ground, have gone out of their way to provide the artistic but quite unnecessary cross-bar of our imaginations.

As it is, in any case, well known that the Romans very often despatched those condemned to death by affixing them to a stake or post which had no cross-bar, the question arises as to what proof we have that a cross-bar was used in the case of Jesus.

Nor is the question an unimportant one. For, as we shall see in the chapters to come, there was a pre-Christian cross, which was, like ours, a symbol of Life. And it must be obvious to all that if the cross was a symbol of Life before our era, it is possible that it was originally fixed upon as a symbol of the Christ because it was a symbol of Life; the assumption that it became a symbol of Life because it was a symbol of the Christ, being in that case neither more nor less than a very natural instance of putting the cart before the horse.

Now the Greek word which in Latin versions of the New Testament is translated as crux, and in English versions is rendered as cross, i.e., the word stauros, seems to have, at the beginning of our era, no more meant a cross than the English word stick means a crutch.

It is true that a stick may be in the shape of a crutch, and that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed may have been in the shape of a cross. But just as the former is not necessarily a crutch, so the latter was not necessarily a cross.

What the ancients used to signify when they used the word stauros, can easily be seen by referring to either the Iliad or the Odyssey.

It will there be found to clearly signify an ordinary pole or stake without any cross-bar. And it is as thus signifying a single piece of wood that the word in question is used throughout the old Greek classics.

The stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1) a small pointed pole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the latter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2) a similar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the condemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3) a much longer and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the victim, with his hands tied behind him, was lodged in such a way that the point should enter his breast and the weight of the body cause every movement to hasten the end; and (4) a stout unpointed pole or stake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by a rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the position might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was bound, or, as in the case of Jesus, nailed.

That this last named kind of stauros, which was admittedly that to which Jesus was affixed, had in every case a cross-bar attached, is untrue; that it had in most cases, is unlikely; that it had in the case of Jesus, is unproven.

Even as late as the Middle Ages, the word stauros seems to have primarily signified a straight piece of wood without a cross-bar. For the famous Greek lexicographer, Suidas, expressly states, "Stauroi; ortha xula perpégota," and both Eustathius and Hesychius affirm that it meant a straight stake or pole.

The side light thrown upon the question by Lucian is also worth noting. This writer, referring to Jesus, alludes to "That sophist of theirs who was fastened to a skolops;" which word signified a single piece of wood, and not two pieces joined together.

Only a passing notice need be given to the fact that in some of the Epistles of the New Testament, which seem to have been written before the Gospels, though, like the other Epistles, misleadingly placed after the Gospels, Jesus is said to have been hanged upon a tree. For in the first place the Greek word translated "hanged" did not necessarily refer to hanging by the neck, and simply meant suspended in some way or other. And in the second place the word translated "tree," though that always used in referring to what is translated as the "Tree of Life," signified not only "tree" but also "wood."

It should be noted, however, that these five references of the Bible to the execution of Jesus as having been carried out by his suspension upon either a tree or a piece of timber set in the ground, in no wise convey the impression that two pieces of wood nailed together in the form of a cross is what is referred to.

Moreover, there is not, even in the Greek text of the Gospels, a single intimation in the Bible to the effect that the instrument actually used in the case of Jesus was cross-shaped.

Had there been any such intimation in the twenty-seven Greek works referring to Jesus, which our Church selected out of a very large number and called the "New Testament," the Greek letter chi, which was cross-shaped, would in the ordinary course have been referred to; and some such term as Katà chiasmon, "like a chi," made use of.

It should also be borne in mind that though the Christians of the first three centuries certainly made use of a transient sign of the cross in the non-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism and at other times, it is, as will be shown in the next two chapters, admitted that they did not use or venerate it as a representation of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died.

Moreover, if in reply to the foregoing it should be argued that as it is well known that cross-shaped figures of wood, and other lasting representations of the sign or figure of the cross, were not venerated by Christians until after the fateful day when Constantine set out at the head of the soldiers of Gaul in his famous march against Rome; and that the Christian crosses of the remainder of the fourth century were representations of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died; a dozen other objections present themselves if we are honest enough to face the fact that we have to show that they were so from the first. For the Gauls, and therefore the soldiers of Gaul, venerated as symbols of the Sun-God and Giver of Life and Victory the cross of four equal arms,, or X , and the solar wheel,or ; while the so-called cross which Constantine and his troops are said to have seen above the midday sun was admittedly the monogram of Christ, Monogram of Christ orwhich was admittedly an adaptation of the solar wheel, as will be shown further on; and it was as tokens of the conquest of Rome by his Gaulish troops, that Constantine, as their leader, erected one of these symbols in the centre of the Eternal City, and afterwards placed upon his coins the crosses

 the cross of four equal arms X , and several variations of that other cross of four equal arms, the right-angled . Anyway, the first kind of cross venerated by Christians was not a representation of an instrument of execution; and the fact that we hold sacred many different kinds of crosses, although even if we could prove that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar but one kind could be a representation of that instrument of execution, has to be accounted for.

Our only plausible explanation of the fact that we hold sacred almost any species of cross is that, as we do not know what kind of cross Jesus died upon, opinions have always differed as to which was the real cross.

This difference of opinion among Christians as to the shape of the instrument upon which Jesus was executed, has certainly existed for many centuries. But as an explanation of the many different kinds of crosses accepted by us as symbols of the Christ, it only lands us in a greater difficulty. For if we did not know what kind of cross Jesus died upon when we accepted the cross as our symbol, the chances obviously are that we accepted the cross as our symbol for some other reason than that we assert.

As a matter of fact our position regarding the whole matter is illogical and unsatisfactory, and we ought to alter it by honestly facing the facts that we cannot satisfactorily prove that our symbol was adopted as a representation of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, and that we do not even know for certain that the instrument in question was cross-shaped.

It need only be added that there is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.

Taking the whole of the foregoing facts into consideration, it will be seen that it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as "cross" when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting "cross" in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.

But—the reader may object—how about the Greek word which in our Bibles is translated as "crucify" or "crucified?" Does not that mean "fix to a cross" or "fixed to a cross?" And what is this but the strongest possible corroboration of our assertion as Christians that Jesus was executed upon a cross-shaped instrument?

The answer is that no less than four different Greek words are translated in our Bibles as meaning "crucify" or "crucified," and that not one of the four meant "crucify" or "crucified."

The four words in question are the words prospegnumi, anastauroo, sustauroo, and stauroo.

The word prospegnumi, though translated in our Bibles as "crucify" or "crucified," meant to "fix" to or upon, and meant that only. It had no special reference to the affixing of condemned persons either to a stake, pale, or post, or to a tree, or to a cross; and had no more reference to a cross than the English word "fix" has.

The word anastauroo was never used by the old Greek writers as meaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber.

The word sustauroo does not occur in pre-Christian writings, and only five times in the Bible against the forty-four times of the word next to be dealt with. Being obviously derived in part from the word stauros, which primarily signified a stake or pale which was a single piece of wood and had no cross-bar, sustauroo evidently meant affixion to such a stake or pale. Anyhow there is nothing whatever either in the derivation of the word, or in the context in either of the five instances in which it occurs, to show that what is referred to is affixion to something that was cross-shaped.

The word stauroo occurs, as has been said, forty-four times; and of the four words in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of this word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most significant to find, as we do upon due investigation, that wherever it occurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to impalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference, not to crosses, but to single pieces of wood.

It therefore seems tolerably clear (1) that the sacred writings forming the New Testament, to the statements of which—as translated for us—we bow down in reverence, do not tell us that Jesus was affixed to a cross-shaped instrument of execution; (2) that the balance of evidence is against the truth of our statements to the effect that the instrument in question was cross-shaped, and our sacred symbol originally a representation of the same; and (3) that we Christians have in bygone days acted, and, alas! still act, anything but ingenuously in regard to the symbol of the cross.

This is not all, however. For if the unfortunate fact that we have in our zeal almost manufactured evidence in favour of the theory that our cross or crosses had its or their origin in the shape of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed proves anything at all, it proves the need for a work which, like the present one, sets in array the evidence available regarding both the pre-Christian cross and the adoption in later times of a similar symbol as that of the catholic faith.

Nor should it be forgotten that the triumph of Christianity was due to the fact that it was a "catholic" faith, and not, like the other faiths followed by the subjects of Rome, and like what Jesus seems to have intended the results of His mission to have been inasmuch as He solemnly declared that he was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and to them alone, the monopoly of a single nation or race.

For if Paul, taking his and other visions of Jesus as the long-needed proofs of a future life, had not disregarded the very plain intimations of Jesus to the effect that His mission was to the descendants of Jacob or Israel, and to them alone; if Paul had not withstood Christ's representative, Peter, to the face, and, with unsurpassed zeal, carried out his grand project of proclaiming a non-national and universal religion founded upon appearances of the spirit-form of Jesus, what we call Christianity would not have come into existence.

The fact that but for Paul there would have been no catholic faith with followers in every land ruled by Constantine when sole emperor, for that astute monarch to establish as the State Religion of his loosely knit empire, because, on account of its catholicity, that best fitted to hold power as the official faith of a government with world-wide dominions, is worthy of a lasting place in our memory.

Nor is the noteworthy fact last mentioned unconnected with the symbol of the cross. For, as will be shown, it is clear that it was because Constantine caused the figure of the cross to become a recognized symbol of his catholic empire, that it became recognized as a symbol of the catholic faith.

Not till after Constantine and his Gaulish warriors planted what Eusebius the Bishop of Cæsarea and other Christians of the century in question describe as a cross, within the walls of the Eternal City as the symbol of their victory, did Christians ever set on high a cross-shaped trophy of any description.

Moreover, but for the fact that, as it happened, the triumph of Constantine resulted in that of the Christian Church, we should probably have deemed the cross, if to our minds a representation of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, as anything but the symbol of Victory we now deem it.

This is evident from the fact that the so-called cross of Jesus admittedly fulfilled the purpose for which it was erected at the request of those who sought the death of Jesus. And even according to our Gospels the darkness of defeat o'ershadowed the scene at Calvary.

To put the matter plainly, the victory of Jesus was not a victory over the cross; for He did not come down from the cross. Nor was it a victory over His enemies; for what they sought was to get rid of a man whom they deemed an agitator, and their wish was gratified, inasmuch as, thanks to the cross, He troubled them no more.

In other words the victory which we ascribe to Jesus did not occur during the gloom which hung like a pall over his native land at the time of His execution, but upon the then approaching Sun-day of the Vernal Equinox, at the coming of the glory of the dawn.

For the victory in question, from whatever point of view we may look at it, was not the avoidance of defeat, but its retrieval. And its story is an illustration of the old-world promise, hoary with antiquity and founded upon the coming, ushered in every year by the Pass-over or cross-over of the equator by the sun at the Vernal Equinox, of the bounteous harvests of summer after the dearth of devastating winter; bidding us ever hope, not indeed for the avoidance of death and therefore of defeat, but for such victory as may happen to lay in survival or resurrection.

It is therefore clear that even if we could prove that the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed was cross-shaped, it would not necessarily follow that it was as the representation of the cause of His death which we now deem it, that the figure of the cross became our symbol of Life and Victory.

In any case honesty demands that we should no longer translate as "cross" a word which at the time our Gospels were written did not necessarily signify something cross-shaped. And it is equally incumbent upon us, from a moral point of view, that we should cease to render as "crucify" or "crucified" words which never bore any such meaning.

Another point to be remembered is that when Constantine, apparently conceiving ours, as the only non-national religion with ramifications throughout his world-wide dominions, to be the only one that could weld together the many nations which acknowledged his sway, established Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, the Church to which we belong would naturally have had to accept as its own the symbols which Constantine had caused to be those of the State in question. And it should be added that the cross of later days with one of its arms longer than the others, if not also the assumption that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar, may have been merely the outcome of a wish to associate with the story of Jesus these Gaulish symbols of victory which had become symbols of the Roman State, and therefore of its State Church.

And it was not till long after these crosses were accepted as Christian, and Constantine was dead and buried, that the cross with one of its arms longer than the other three (or two), which alone could be a representation of an instrument of execution, was made use of by Christians.

Buy my Kindle Book, The Strange History of Easter and the Christian Cross on Amazon for only $1.99 

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

Alan Goldberg on Mormonism and the Trinity

Buy my Kindle book _The Dark History of the Trinity Doctrine_ on Amazon with 30 chapters for only 99 cents

"Mormonisn teaches the deity of Christ and the Trinity, and freely admits its followers recognize many gods. Trinitarian Christianity denies that it is in any way polytheistic, but is it not the same basic qualitative form of theology." It is not a perversion of Trinitarian theology to draw a parallel to
Mormonism, Yet, it would be impossible to draw this parallel from Judaism or Unitarian Christianity,
neither of which ever recognized component parts of God, nor ever made God a man. It is clear that, except for differences in degree, the same basic principles for the foundation of Trinitarian Christianity and Mormonism. The qualitative similarity is that both teach multiple divine entities. The qualitative difference is that Mormonism admits it."

Every Tree is Known by Its Fruit
A Journal of Radical Reformation Vol. 6, No. 1
Fall 1996

The Murder of Michael Servetus by Frank Cressey 1903

The Burning of Servetus by Rev. Frank B. Cressey 1903

See also The Murder of Michael Servetus by John Calvin - 50 Books on CDrom

For a list of all of my books on disk click here

The time of the burning of Servetus, in Geneva, Oct. 27, 1553, was a time of thorough thought, of compelling conviction, of religious renovation. The renaissance, or revival, of the preceding century witnessed a return in architecture to the classic simplicity and boldness of great Grecian times; witnessed the revival of sculpture under Michael Angelo, witnessed the birth and power of Leonardo da Vinci, and the birth but not the power of Raphael, master painters for even the artists of to-day. Most of all, as to the interest which now clusters about Servetus, the fifteenth century witnessed what may be called the culmination of the work of John Wycliffe, in giving the Bible to the people in their own language and for their individual reading. True, Wycliffe died in 1384, but it was in 1428 that, by order of Clement VIII., his grave was desecrated, his bones burned and their ashes cast into the river Swift.

Buy my Kindle book _The Dark History of the Trinity Doctrine_ on Amazon for only 99 cents

The sixteenth century opened with one of the world’s largest religious reconstructions growing rapidly to the full. In 1517 Martin Luther nailed to the church door at Wittenberg his ninety-five theses—propositions which struck at the vitals of the Roman Catholic Church, and from which at the Diet of Worms, four years later, he would make no retreat; and yet, Luther was permitted to live, and to die a natural death in 1546. Not so with Michael Servetus; he was to die for his religious belief, to die at the stake, and to be sent to it practically at the command of a Protestant.

This Protestant was none other than John Calvin, the author, or compiler, of that system of belief called Calvinism, and which in some of its parts has so much to do with the denominational strength of Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists, and of which Methodists are the chief denominational antagonists. Calvin was born in France in 1509; he died in Switzerland in 1564. The fifty-five years of his life were years full of political and religious trouble for all Europe. Less than three months before Calvin's birth, Henry VIII ascended the throne of England. Henry VIII, the royal sensualist and wife murderer of history, the deceptive, whirligig religionist, now Catholic now Protestant as best subserved the passions of his soul. In Germany and Spain Charles V., as emperor of the one and king of the other, was moving mightily to satisfy a political ambition which seemed insatiable, and at the same time was trying to crush the work of Luther; but he met his match when, at the council of Suires in 1529, the Reformed princes made the protest which gave rise to the word Protestant. Especially, when speaking of Calvin, is it to be noted that the king of France was Francis I., “an unhesitating libertine,” a soldier who on historic “cloth of gold” sought alliance with Henry VIII of England only that he might satisfy his cravings for conquest, and who, when he had “no more need to maintain his Protestant alliances carried out a most cruel decree against the Vaudois, desolating the country and killing the inhabitants by thousands.”

Into times of blood and peril to Protestant principles like these John Calvin was born, born a Roman Catholic. In that faith he remained during childhood and youth, meantime enjoying the best of school opportunities, and showing himself possessed of great powers of mind. At one time he seemed destined for the priesthood. But when twenty years of age he came into contact with a relative who was translating the Bible. This helped on the Protestant thoughts which already possessed him, and a year later he began to preach the new faith, and passed into the ranks of Protestantism. This at Bourges, whence, after another year or two, he went to Paris, which, strangely enough, had become a center of the "new learning," as it was called.

Join my Facebook Group

Paris was the home of the king, Francis I, in whose intensely Catholic heart it was to destroy every one of Protestant faith, and who, in 1535, established the Chambre Ardente (“fiery room”) for their arrest and burning. But his hand was for a time withheld by his sister, Margaret, the titular Queen of Navarre. This Margaret was of far greater ability than her brother, and was withal a wit and linguist of rare abilty, thus giving her influence in the court of the King, which influence she used in favor of Calvin and his fellow Reformers. Catholic writers have questioned the sincerity of Margaret’s seeming Protestantism, charging that she protected the Reformers more out of woman’s sympathy with the suffering than out of loyalty to personal convictions. None the less, it remains true that in 1533 she wrote a book containing Protestant doctrines, which book was condemned by the Sorbonne, or principal school of theology in the then University of Paris, and that Francis was told that if he wished to destroy the heretics he must begin with his sister. The Protestants of France may possibly yet deem it their privilege to erect in Paris a monument with this inscription: “To Margaret of Navarre, Protector of Protestants, 1533.”

But the time speedily came when even the mantle of Margaret was not sufficient as a protection of Protestants in France, and Calvin was compelled to flee from Paris for his life. Indeed, it is said that the danger was so imminent that, somewhat like Paul when escaping from the Jews at Damascus, Calvin was let down from his window by means of sheets tied together. He took refuge in Basle, Switzerland. There, in 1536, when only twenty-seven years of age, he gave to the world his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” which remain to this day as the great theological bulwark of Protestantism, even as the writings of Thomas Aquinas are the great theological bulwark of Catholicism.

Calvin remained in Switzerland during the most of the remaining twenty-eight years of his life-Geneva his home—a bitter, crushing, dictatorial man, religionist and theologian, and yet a Christian of fervent piety. Confessedly, he, near the border of France, was a man for the religious times, even as was Luther in the midst of Germany. But for Calvin's penetration of mind, intensity of conviction and bold determination as to the things of God, the Reformation of the sixteenth century would have been materially hindered in its final attainments. All honor, then, to John Calvin for his work both as a theologian and a reformer. No name stands higher; after three and a half centuries his work still abides. And yet, on the name and the work of John Calvin rests one of the foulest blots of all history—the burning of Servetus.

And who was Servetus? The answer is: A gentleman and a scholar, born in Spain in 1509, the very year in which Calvin was born in France. Servetus, like Calvin, was a man of rare mind; also, like Calvin, a man who though born and brought up a Roman Catholic, in early manhood became a Protestant. Again, like Calvin, he was obliged to flee from Catholic France to Protestant Switzerland, finding refuge in Basle four or five years before Calvin. At Basle, Servetus, like Calvin, published a book on the Trinity-but it did not please the Protestants any more than the Catholics; therefore, for the book he was banished from Basle.

Banished from Switzerland, Servetus changed his name, returned to France, became a distinguished physician, lived for several years in the palace of his former pupil the Catholic archbishop of Vienne, where he wrote a book on the Restoration of Christianity. "this book, as in his book on the Trinity, there were views objectionable to Catholics, objectionable to Protestants. The Catholics brought him to trial (April, 1553), during which Servetus escaped from Vienne. None the less, the trial went on, and Servetus was sentenced to pay a heavy fine and to be burned to death by a slow fire. Also, the edition of his book was destroyed, only three copies being saved.

In his flight Servetus went to Geneva, for years the home and refuge of Calvin, for whom he had something of a fellow martyr’s regard, and from whom he had reason to expect something of brotherly protection, though previously Calvin had treated him in most unbrotherly manner, and had even threatened his life. But this going from Vienne to Geneva was like escaping from the paw of the bear only to rush into the mouth of the lion. Calvin, in deceitful, self-hidden manner, had him arrested and brought to trial on charges of heresy before the municipal court, which sent him to the stake.

The burning of Servetus was a strange and outrageous affair from more than one point of view. The stiff fight waged by Calvin and other Reformers had helped to secure, in 1531, to every canton, or state, in Switzerland the right to favor or oppose the Reformation, to be Protestant or Catholic. Geneva chose to favor the Reformation, and, in 1536, seventeen years before the burning of Servetus, became a Protestant republic. Therefore, Calvin fled there and was safe; therefore, Servetus fled there, expecting safety. But, singularly enough, there still remained in force at as elsewhere in Switzerland, certain laws against heretics promulgated by the emperor, Frederick II, three centuries before, under which laws the execution of Servetus was made possible. And so we have the amazing, self-contradictory circumstance of a Protestant court condemning a man to death under Catholic law.

A yet stranger and more outrageous feature of this affair was the part which Calvin played in securing its bloody consummation. In 1546, in a spirit of brother confidence and desire to be set right, Servetus sent to Calvin the manuscript of his book on the Restoration of Christianity, asking his corrections and suggestions; this in acceptance of Calvin’s previous promise to help him in his religious investigations. But Calvin most unjustly kept the manuscript, and used it as the basis of accusations against Servetus, in letters written to others of the Reformed clergy. Nor was this all. When Servetus, seven years later, was brought to trial, first at Vienne and second at Geneva, Calvin helped the Catholics of France, as also the Catholics of Switzerland, by furnishing the accusations and so-called proofs of his heresy. Indeed, at Geneva he went further—he appeared before the court as Servetus’ public prosecutor.

Calvin succeeded in his undertaking, and Servetus was led forth to die the most cruel of all deaths; though in fact Calvin sought to have him decapitated rather than burned. On a hill outside the city, as though God would have all the world see the crime, a stake was firmly set. To it the well-born, highly-educated, eloquent-voiced, Bible-loving, truth-seeking, Christ-adoring Servetus was bound. And as if to mock, insult and degrade him even in death, Calvin had fastened to the burning man’s girdle the manuscript which he had practically stolen in that he never returned it. Thus Servetus the Protestant was burned by Calvin the Protestant, and this simply because the Protestantism of Servetus was not in satisfactory harmony with the Protestantism of Calvin.

In 1431 Catholicism in France burned Joan of Arc as an alleged sorceress, and in 1553 Protestantism in Switzerland burned Michael Servetus as an alleged heretic. To-day Catholicism practically confesses its wrong by canonization of Joan, while Protestantism confesses its wrong by a monument of expiation as to Servetus. The proposed inscription on this monument is as follows: “To Michael Servetus, burned for his convictions at Champel, October 27, 1553, victim of the religious intolerance of his time. The Protestants and friends of Calvin have erected this expiatory monument to repudiate all coercion in matters of faith, and to proclaim their invincible attachment to the gospel and to liberty, October 27, 1903." How remarkable the fact of such a monument. In all the world, past or present, nothing like it can be found. Also, how historically accurate is its inscription. Servetus was “burned for his convictions;” he was a “victim of the religious intolerance of his time.” Some, indeed, there are who would make it appear that Servetus was burned for political rather than religious reasons, and so in a measure excuse Calvin, but the combined facts of history are against them. The burning of Servetus was the crime of Calvin. Protestantism must still bear the blame for the awful Genevan tragedy.

Visit A Tribute to my Beloved Dog Teddy

George Edward Ellis on the Trinity Doctrine

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

Subject: George Edward Ellis on the Trinity

"The doctrinal statement of the Trinity leads off the Orthodox creeds: no vague, inferential implication of the contents of the doctrine is thought to be satisfactory. Doubt about it is dangerous; a rejection of it is fatal. The doctrine is obtruded upon us in its stiffest literal terms, though, strange to say, many of its champions affirm that they dislike its  terms,and wish that they could express it more adequately. Here certainly is no backwardness, no hesitation, on the part of those who, believing the doctrine, think it ought to be reiterated and emphasized. Now, how comes it that Christ and his Apostles furnish us not one single announcement of  it? If anything can be inferred with certainty as to the belief of the Jews concerning the mode of the Divine existence, it is that they knew  nothing of the Orthodox dogma of the Trinity. Surely then we might expect that their first Christian teachers would have been at least as careful to declare it to them as a new revelation of truth, the basis of all Christian doctrine,
as modern Christian teachers are to demand a faith in it from their pupils. It will not do to say that the Apostles left other essential Christian doctrines without any direct, explicit statement of them. It is not true. They had a commission from their Master, and they  discharged it. Whatever they have not taught plainly, must be pronounced to be. No part of their teaching, however positively their successors may have taught it. Peter, who preached to the Jews the first Christian discourse after the Church had risen from the grave of its Founder, told them that "Jesus of Nazareth," "whom they had put to death," was "a man approved of God by works which God did by him," and that God had raised him up. Words could not be more explicit. Yet not from them, and from no other words spoken by the Apostles to the Jews, as recorded, could they have gathered a plain statement of the Trinity. As to the Gentiles, we find traces, among a school of philosophic dreamers, of a sort of Trinitarian conception, far unlike that, however, which Christian divines now receive, though the dogma came into the Church by that channel. No direct announcement of the doctrine was made by the Apostles when they preached to Gentiles, who certainly were ignorant of it, and might claim to be distinctly informed about the first fundamental doctrine of the Gospel."

Ellis, George Edward (b.1814-d.1894). A Half-Century
of the Unitarian Controversy, With Particular Reference to its Origin, its Course, and its Prominent Subjects Among the Congregationalists of  Massachusetts.
(Boston: Crosby, Nichols, and Company; Cambridge: Metcalf and Company, Printers
to the University, 1857), Appendix VIII, "The Doctrine of the Trinity,"
pp. 464, 465. BX9841 .E5 / 33-022268.

See also Unitarianism & Universalism - 100 Books on DVDrom and Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ on DVDrom

How We Got the American Standard Version Bible 1907

How We Got the American Standard Bible, article in The Christian Nation (Rev. J.S. Stewart) 1907

See also 100 Rare American Bible Versions & Translations on DVDrom and 145 Rare Divine Name Bibles on DVDrom

THE Bible is composed of sixty-six (66) different books written by about forty (40) men selected and inspired by God.

These inspired men first wrote the Old Testament scriptures in Hebrew and the New Testament scriptures in Greek, and our English Bible of to-day consists of a series of translations and revisions from the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Latin and Anglo-Saxon languages, beginning at the tenth century.

It is estimated that there are in existence at the present time nearly 4,000 manuscripts in whole or in part of the Bible. All of the older and more complete sacred manuscripts have become available for study only within recent years; among these a single leaf containing a portion of Matthew's Gospel was unearthed in 1895. This is believed to be a full century older than the most ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence.

It was not until 1384 that the first complete Bible was translated into English by John Wycliffe. A hundred years later this was followed by a translation and revision made by William Tyndale, which was the first printed Bible, all previous editions having been in manuscript only. Tyndale's Bible was followed by the Great Bible; this was followed by Matthew's Bible, which was almost wholly copied from Tyndale's. Still another Bible largely based on Tyndale's was issued called Taverner's Bible. Other translations and revisions following in the next few centuries were the Great Bible of Cranmer, The Geneva Bible which is sometimes called the Breeches Bible, and others.

This brings us down to the time of the translation and revision of the Bible which is called the King James Version, which was completed in 1611, after seven years devout study by the most prominent scholars of that time. The King James revision was the first translation into what may properly be called the English Language.

It is now nearly 300 years since the King James Bible was revised and translated into its present form, since which time the most authentic and accurate manuscripts of the Bible have been discovered, the Alexandrian in 1628, Sinaitic manuscripts in 1859, which contains the New Testament entire and the greater part of the Old Testament. These and a mass of other and later discoveries, including many ancient manuscripts and inscriptions, together with the fact that Philologists have acquired a much more accurate understanding of the ancient languages gave rise to
comparisons which completely changed the meaning of a large number of passages in the King James Bible; besides this, the gradual transformation and change of the English language in the course of 300 years made a re-translation all the more imperative, as in the lapse of time the significance of many words have been completely altered, while others have become obsolete and obscure.

Since the translation and revision of the King James Bible upwards of forty English Dictionaries have been issued. For the reasons above stated, it was deemed necessary that a new translation and revision of the Bible be made. This was begun in England in 1870, and in the United States in 1872. The American Committee was divided into two companies, one for the Old Testament and another for the New Testament. These committees were composed of the foremost scholars of America, representing all the great religious denominations as well as the universities and colleges of the United States, and their work was finished in 1901, thus covering a period of nearly thirty years of consecutive labor and study in the preparation of the American Standard Bible.

The American Standard Bible is a new translation of the Bible in the light of twentieth century scholarship and knowledge, using the marvelous and priceless manuscripts and other material which have been discovered in the last 300 years.

It represents fifteen years of study, consideration and preparation by a company of the most eminent Biblical scholars of all the Evangelical denominations of Great Britain and America, and fifteen years of additional devout study and prayerful consideration by the American Committee who continued their organization after the English company disbanded. The American Standard Bible therefore is the product of thirty years continuous, careful study by the eminent American scholars representing the great Universities, Theological Seminaries and Evangelical denominations of America.

It was a labor of love, reverently undertaken by these scholarly ministers and teachers, for the good of humanity and the glory of God. Their time and the results of their long experience were freely given without pay or compensation.

The American Standard Bible was prepared because in the older versions there are admitted inaccuracies in translation, obscurities due to words and phrases which are no longer in common use and many errors in the ancient text followed by the old translators. All these inharmonies have been found to cause serious misunderstandings and to hide from the devout seeker the real, true and
clear meaning of the passage. Words have changed their significance in the course of years and many words in the older versions give a wrong impression to the reader of today. All the great nations have had new translations of their Bible during comparatively recent years and in no language has this been so necessary as in the English, because the changes in it have been so numerous
and the growth so great.

The revisers who prepared the King James Bible completed their work in about seven years. The American Committee was nearly thirty years in preparing the American Standard Version of the Bible—thus giving nearly five times the length of time to their work. It is the work of the best American scholarship, focussed upon every word and phrase. It has the advantage of all the accumulated wisdom and scholarship of the world since the publication of the King James Version in 1611. In addition to all these added resources, are the authentic and valuable manuscripts
which have been discovered since that time. Bible study has made marvelous progress and the revelations of modern archaeology throw a new light of interpretation, enabling scholars of the present day to reach the real meaning of the sacred writers with an accuracy never before possible in the history of the world.

The American Standard Bible is the most accurate in translation, the most thorough in method, simplest in expression, and gives a clearer conception of the thought, than any other translation yet produced.

The American Standard Bible is in paragraph form, which is the form of the original manuscripts, and preserves the sequence, strength and spirit of the real Bible, as no other translation has ever done.

Its accuracy, clearness and simplicity make it eminently the people's Bible. Every stumbling-block to the perfect understanding of the Word has been removed, so far as lay within the power of the wisest Christian scholarship. The translation into dignified but living English of the present day removes the difficulty from many of the passages that have been puzzling and misleading to thousands. It does not require a scholar to interpret this Bible, though it required many scholars to produce it.

The unqualified approval of the leading ministers of all denominations, presidents of colleges, theological seminaries, of Bible training schools, the leading critical journals, the great religious papers of the world, professors, and scholars, attest that for them, as well as for the general public, the American Standard Bible is the most perfect English Bible in existence. This approval has been won by the American Standard Bible in less than a brief five years. Hundreds of colleges and seminaries throughout the country use it in their regular chapel services and as a text book in Bible study. In fact, there is not an important college that has not indorsed it by word or use. Thousands of clergymen of all denominations give this edition the first place in their studies, in the pulpit, and in the pew, and in countless homes of the nation it is taking its place as the Bible of the household.

THEREFORE

Every American lover of the grand old Book of Books should recommend and buy the American Standard Bible because it is the best version of the World's Best Book. They should recommend and buy it because it represents the best thought and study of the best equipped Bible scholars of the age. They should buy it because it represents the concrete scholarship of the past two thousand years. They should buy it because a larger number of competent scholars were engaged on the American Standard Bible than on any former translation. They should have it because these translators spent a much longer time than was ever given to any translation in any language. They should study it because these translators had the use of the latest and best manuscripts, unknown to former revisers. They should buy it because the unanimous verdict of the best scholarship and of the common people of the world, after five years of examination and use, is, that this is the best translation ever made into any language.

In the selection of general literature, the thoughtful reader exercises great care as to authorship, authenticity, beauty of style and other literary qualities. Should we not exercise even greater discrimination and care in a matter of such vital importance as the selection of our Bible?

FINALLY

All living language is progressive and this applies to the language of the Bible, as well as to all literature. Upwards of forty English Dictionaries have appeared since King James Bible saw the light in 1611, each marking a step farther ahead in the transformation of the English language. A Bible is demanded which reproduces as closely as possible the very thought and sense of the ancient writers, clothed in modern form, intelligible to all, and free from the errors of previous translators. These requirements are fulfilled in the American Standard Bible, which corrects some 2,000 inaccuracies, obsolete phrases and misinterpretations that are found in the English Revised Version.

For a list of all of my disks and ebooks (PDF and Amazon) click here

The I AM at Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58

The I AM at Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58

Bible translators like to emphasize the I AM of Exodus 3:14 and the I AM of John 8:58 in the hopes that because Jesus and YHWH said the same two wordsn then they can be identified together. Can you imagine the derision I would have to experience if I tried to connect 2 words that Jesus said with 2 words the archangel Michael seems to have said, and use that flimsy evidence to buttress a doctrine!?

K.L. McKay (John's Gospel," Expository Times (1996): 302-303)  said something similar:

"It has become fashionable among some preachers and writers to relate Jesus's use of the words 'I am' in the Gospel according to John, in all, or most, of their contexts, to God's declaration to MOSES in Exodus 3:14, and to expound the passages concerned as if the words themselves have some kind of magic in them. Some who have no more than a smattering of Greek attribute the 'magic' to the Greek words ego eimi."

Many like to point out that the NWT translates EGW EIMI as "I am" everywhere, EXCEPT at John 8:58. This is not 100% true, and it does not factor in many Bibles that translate John 8:58 similarly to the New World Translation that do the same thing.

Let us look at other occurences with 'hyh (EHYEH)...and simply look at the image above where you have 2 occurences of the same word 2 verses apart, but it is translated as I AM at verse 14 because the translators' theology demanded it.

I have looked at all the occurences of `hyh I could find, and the results are overwhelming. Unless otherwise stated, the Bible used is the Revised Standard Version:

Exo 3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee ASV

Exo 3:14 see image above

Exo 4:12  Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak."

Exo 4:15  And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.

Deu 31:23  And the LORD commissioned Joshua the son of Nun and said, "Be strong and of good courage; for you shall bring the children of Israel into the land which I swore to give them: I will be with you."

Jos 1:5  No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.

Jos 3:7  And the LORD said to Joshua, "This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.

Jdg 6:16  And the LORD said to him, "But I will be with you, and you shall smite the Mid'ianites as one man."

Jdg 11:9  Jephthah said to the elders of Gilead, "If you bring me home again to fight with the Ammonites, and the LORD gives them over to me, I will be your head."

1Sa 18:18  And David said to Saul, "Who am I, and who are my kinsfolk, my father's family in Israel, that _I should be_ son-in-law to the king?"

1Sa 23:17  And he said to him, "Fear not; for the hand of Saul my father shall not find you; you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you; Saul my father also knows this."

2Sa 7:14  I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men;

2Sa 15:34  But if you return to the city, and say to Ab'salom, 'I will be your servant, O king

2Sa 16:18  And Hushai said to Ab'salom, "No; for whom the LORD and this people and all the men of Israel have chosen, his I will be

2Sa 16:19  And a second time, Whom should I serve? Should I not serve before the face of his son. As I served before the face of your father, so shall I be before your face. LITV

Isa 3:7  in that day he will speak out, saying: "I will not be a healer; in my house there is neither bread nor mantle; you shall not make me leader of the people."

Isa 47:7  You said, "I shall be mistress for ever," so that you did not lay these things to heart or remember their end.

Jer 11:4  which I commanded your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Listen to my voice, and do all that I command you. So shall you be my people, and I will be your God,

Jer 24:7  I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.

Jer 30:22  And you shall be my people, and I will be your God."

Jer 31:1  "At that time, says the LORD, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people."

Jer 32:38  And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Eze 11:20  that they may walk in my statutes and keep my ordinances and obey them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Eze 14:11  that the house of Israel may go no more astray from me, nor defile themselves any more with all their transgressions, but that they may be my people and I may be their God, says the Lord GOD."

Eze 34:24  And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the LORD, have spoken.

Eze 36:28  You shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Eze 37:23  They shall not defile themselves any more with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; but I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.

Hos 1:9  Then He said, Call his name Not My People, for you are not My people, and I will not be for you. LITV [RSV has "I am"]

Hos 14:6  his shoots shall spread out; his beauty shall be like the olive, and his fragrance like Lebanon.

Zec 2:5[9]  And I will be to her a wall of fire all around, and I will be for glory in her midst, declares Jehovah. LITV

Zec 8:8  and I will bring them to dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness."

Psa 50:21  You have done these things, and I have kept silence; you thought that surely I would be like you LITV

Job 3:16 Or as a hidden untimely birth I had not been, As infants that never saw light.  ASV

Job 10:19 I should have been as though I had not been ASV

*Job 12:4 I am as one that is a laughing-stock to his neighbor ASV
[Compare NIV "I have become a laughingstock to my friends"]

*Job 17:6 He has made me a byword of the peoples, and I am one before whom men spit.
[Compare NKJV  "I have become one in whose face men spit."
KJV "and aforetime I was as a tabret."
DARBY "and I am become one to be spit on in the face."]

Song 1:7  for why should I be like one who wanders beside the flocks of your companions?

Rth 2:13  though I am not one of your maidservants
[Compare KJV, ASV "though I be not like unto one of thine handmaidens."
NET "though I could never be equal to one of your servants."

1Ch 17:13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son

1Ch 28:6  I will be his father

This Kindle book, The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents