Bible Scholar N.T. Wright on This Day in History

This day in history: Nicholas Thomas Wright FRSE was born on this day in 1948. N. T. Wright (or Tom Wright) is an English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian and Anglican bishop. He was the bishop of Durham from 2003 to 2010. He then became research professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland until 2019, when he became a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall at the University of Oxford.

If you're a Bible collector like myself, then you know N.T. Wright for his criticism of the New International Version Bible. He wrote:

"In this context, I must register one strong protest against one particular translation. When the New International Version was published in 1980, I was one of those who hailed it with delight. I believed its own claim about itself, that it was determined to translate exactly what was there, and inject no extra paraphrasing or interpretative glosses. This contrasted so strongly with the then popular New English Bible, and promised such an advance over the then rather dated Revised Standard Version, that I recommended it to students and members of the congregation I was then serving. Disillusionment set in over the next two years, as I lectured verse by verse through several of Paul's letters, not least Galatians and Romans. Again and again, with the Greek text in front of me and the NIV beside it, I discovered that the translators had another principle, considerably higher than the stated one: to make sure that Paul should say what the broadly Protestant and evangelical tradition said he said. I do not know what version of scripture they use at Dr Piper's church. But I do know that if a church only, or mainly, relies on the NIV it will, quite simply, never understand what Paul was talking about." Wright, N. T. (2009). Justification : God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-0-8308-3863-9.

This criticism is echoed by many others.

James Barr, in Modern English Bible Versions as a Problem for the Church_ Quarterly  Review/Fall 1994 writes:

"But this was not the end of the story. If on the one hand the conservative acceptance of the RSV as usable betokened a certain willingness to work along with the main currents of Christendom, there still existed the impulse to evangelical separatism, the unwillingness to do anything or accept anything that was not totally and purely "evangelical." The most important manifestation of this latter tendency is the so-called NIV, or New International Version, (New Testament, 1973; whole Bible, 1978).

The preface to this version begins with one of the most whopping falsehoods ever to be written into a Bible version by a group of 'Bible believers' such as the promoters of the version were, for it says that the people who worked on the version came from many denominations and this 'helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias.' The contrary is the case; the NIV was a sectarian project from the beginning. It was, as it itself says, planned by committees of the Christian Reformed Church and the National  Association of Evangelicals. The name International, as is well known to anyone experienced in the literature, is a code word meaning 'acceptable for conservatives and fundamentalists.' The reason for the existence of the NIV is not, and never was, that it was in any way better, or had better principles of translation, or better scholarship behind it, or that it had solved the problem of style as between archaic 'biblical' style and conversational "modern" style. Its reason for existence was purely and simply that it was produced by and for evangelicals and for them only."

One website, Poor and Misleading Translation in the New International Version (NIV) documents each error. It starts off by saying: "The...NIV translators, in many of the passages that challenged their doctrines and belief in inerrancy,...change(d) the Bible itself — altering the offending words and phrases to say what they think it ought to have said. In most cases of mistranslated NIV passages, there is a clear 'problem' with the original text related either to doctrine or to biblical inerrancy."

See also: The Questionable Accuracy of the NIV Bible

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

100 Rare New Testament Translations and Versions to Download

Meatless Fridays on This Day in History

 

This day in history: Roman Catholics in the United States would no longer be required to abstain from meat on Fridays, as a national conference of Roman Catholic cardinals, archbishops and bishops voted in Washington to revoke a requirement of abstinence that had been in effect for 11 centuries, on this day in 1966. As part of the recognition of Friday as a day of penance, Pope Nicholas I had decreed in the 9th century that adherents to Roman Catholic faith would be required to abstain from the eating of meat, although the consumption of fish on Fridays was permitted. Friday, December 2, 1966, would mark the first day that 45,000,000 American Roman Catholics could consume beef, chicken, pork, or other meats without violating Church doctrine. Philip Hannan, Archbishop of New Orleans, and Clarence George Issenmann, the Bishop of Cleveland, jointly made the announcement at a press conference.

George Carlin once joked: "It's not even a sin anymore to eat meat on Friday, but I'll bet there are still guys in hell doing time on a meat rap."

However, according to the National Catholic Register, "Contrary to common misconception, abstinence from meat on Fridays throughout the year has never been abolished from Roman law. It was not abolished by Vatican II. It was not abolished by Pope Paul VI or Pope St. John Paul II. It was not abolished by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It remains the universal law of the Latin Church — even if not everyone has to obey it." Source

This Kindle book is available on Amazon for only 99 cents 

110 PDF Books to Download on Catholic Theology and Doctrine

Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen White on This Day in History

 

This day in history: Mary Baker Eddy was born on this day in 1821. Ellen G. White died on this day in 1915.

Mary Baker Eddy was an American religious leader and author who founded The Church of Christ, Scientist, (Christian Science) in New England in 1879. 

Ellen Gould White was an American author and co-founder of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. 

"There are many resemblances between Ellen G. White and Mary Baker Eddy. Both were semi-invalids as children; both found motherhood difficult and temporarily abandoned their own infants; both found extraordinary reserves of energy for speaking and for religious organization." Source

What is amazing to me is how many women spearheaded religious movements at the time. Mother Ann Lee founded the Shaker movement. The Fox Sisters started Spiritualism. Helena P. Blavatsky founded Theosophy. Aimee Semple McPherson was an important figure in the early Pentecostal movement. Ursula Gestefeld and Emma Curtis Hopkins initiated New Thought. Myrtle Fillmore founded the Unity School of Christianity along with her husband Charles, and Alice Bailey started the Arcane School. Eliza Farnham of Staten Island, founder of the Truth of Woman movement. There was also Alma B. White (Pillar of Fire Church) and Mother Leafy Anderson (Black Spiritualism).

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

300 Books to Download on Christian Cults & Sects

Scholar Writes Paper Arguing for the "a god" Rendering at John 1:1c

 

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Alexander Smarius has written a paper entitled Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18 in which he argues for the "a god" translation of John 1:1c.

Here is an excerpt" 

"While many scholars have discussed the intricacies of the traditional translation of 1:1, far less attention has been given to an altogether different interpretation for which the Greek itself also allows. This alternative view, in which 'the Word was a god' – a distinct but completely cooperative deity close to God – has had advocates mainly outside the field of academic scholarship. Although some technical studies admit to the linguistic possibility, it is generally considered impossible within the NT context.

In this paper I argue that there is good reason to explore the linguistic plausibility of the Word as a god close to God. A new analysis of both John 1:1 and 1:18 will show that this alternative interpretation deserves more serious attention than has hitherto been acknowledged."

Read the rest at https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml

See also: Over 200 PDF Books on the Christology & Deity of Christ to Download

Kenneth Taylor and the "Living Bible" on This Day in History

 

This Day in History: Kenneth N. Taylor died on this day in 2005. Kenneth Nathaniel Taylor was an American publisher and author, better known as the creator of The Living Bible and the founder of Tyndale House, a Christian publishing company, and Living Bibles International. The Living Bible sold more than 40 million copies and was translated into more than 100 languages.

The main problem with all this is that the Living Bible is not a real Bible, it is a paraphrase. 

"The word 'paraphrase' is used quite commonly in English for restating something in other words. In Bible translation, a paraphrase has the same primary goal as a dynamic equivalence translation -- that is, to make the meaning as plain and understandable as possible for the reader. The idea of making a Bible paraphrase is based upon the notion that the Bible's own phrasing is too difficult for the average reader. In a paraphrase, the translator is able to remove difficult rhetoric, harmonize passages with one

another, and draw out implications for the reader. It is a perfect opportunity to make the Bible consistent with the translator's own theology.

For these reasons, a paraphrase should never be mistaken for a Bible. It should not be packaged as a Bible, sold as a Bible, or used in place of a Bible. It should pass under the name of its author, as a commentary or interpretation of the Bible. When, instead, it is handled as if it is a Bible translation, and the author's name is left off of the title page as if he or she had no role in determining the contents of the book, a terrible deception is happening." Truth in Translation by Jason Beduhn

Taylor acknowledged this in his preface: "There are dangers in paraphrases as well as values. For whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the Greek, there is a possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say. This is because a paraphrase is guided not only by the translator’s skill in simplifying but also by the clarity of his understanding of what the author meant and by his theology. For when the Greek is not clear, then the theology of the translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic, unless perchance the translation is allowed to stand without any clear meaning at all. The theological lodestar in this book has been a rigid evangelical position."

Michael Marlowe criticized this work, saying that it was "the dumbing-down of the Biblical text to a grade-school level" done "in keeping with the linguistic and educational trends of the time." He adds that "very few scholars have given any encouragement to its [The Living Bible] use, and most have either ignored it or have strictly warned against it." Moreover, he claims that the text of The Living Bible contains "venturesome interpretations that no scholar is likely to approve" and that "[i]n several places Taylor brazenly wrests the scripture so as to conform it to Arminian teachings about salvation."

The Living Bible has made some interesting choices in wording. An early edition had "You son of a bitch" at 1 Samuel 20:30.

Also:

"I am just some drunken bum" 1 Samuel 1:16

"You illegitimate bastard" John 9:34

"Come to bed with me my, darling." 2 Samuel 13:11

"The Reluctant Dragon" Isaiah 30:7

"Israeli" at Exodus 9:4;12:34;14:20;19:1 etc. 

"Hell is licking its chops in anticipation" Isaiah 5:14

The original text of the Living Bible is the great American Standard Version of 1901. The ASV correctly had JEHOVAH 7000 times instead of the horrible practice of replacing the name with LORD or GOD. The Living Bible only keeps Jehovah 313 times. 

One case of clear theological bias can be seen at John 1:1. "Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God." This is not even remotely correct, and introduces a contradiction with Christ being WITH God and being "himself God." You can tell a translator's bias by how they treat this one passage.

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here

Atheist Sam Harris on This Day in History

 

American philosopher, neuroscientist, author, and podcast host Sam Harris was born on this day in 1967. Harris came to prominence for his criticism of religion and is known as one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism, along with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett.

Harris was always an interesting thinker to me, but he lost a lot of respect with me when he developed Trump Derangement Syndrome, and then became a Covidiot. (Sam Harris CAN’T ADMIT He Was Dead Wrong About COVID)

Harris "is completely, thoroughly, through-and-through ruined by the hatred of Donald Trump, and so biased that his reasoning cannot be relied upon for anything. It doesn’t matter that he’s a neuroscientist, New York Times best-selling author, a genuine philosopher, and credentialed public intellectual. He’s useless. He’s a fraud. Trustworthy people simply don’t hold such opinions—not only hold them, but eagerly broadcast them. It’s a signature significance orgy!" Source

In his book The End of Faith, Harris wrote: “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”. Harris was criticized by Christian apologist Victor Reppert and others for his promotion of the idea that killing people for thought crimes is morally acceptable.

In 2022, Sam Harris said, "Hunter Biden could have had the corpses of children in his basement - I would not have cared." In response, Theodore Beale wrote: "Atheists have no moral anchor. There’s literally nothing there. Their much-vaunted, self-constructed value systems revolve around nothing more than whatever happens to trigger their emotions at any given moment. They are simple creatures of pure appetite and rhetoric. Remember, Sam Harris is supposed to be among the finest, smartest, most highly-refined philosophers that the atheist community has on offer."

The comedian and social commentator Jimmy Dore, who indicates that Sam Harris is an immoral, narcissist, says that he helped cause Harris to angrily quit Twitter in a fit of rage. Since Harris' anti free speech comments and his immoral, political tribalism, a lot of people have lost respect for Harris and called him out on his ill-behavior. Harris blocked them on Twitter before quitting the platform.

Dore also indicated that Harris recently lost a number of debates and now refuses to debate various people.

Over 310 PDF Books to Download for Atheists & Agnostics

Benjamin Hoadly and the Bangorian Controversy on This Day in History

 

Benjamin Hoadly

This Day in History: The Bangorian Controversy started on this day in 1717. The Bangorian Controversy was a theological argument within the Church of England in the early 18th century, with strong political overtones. The origins of the controversy lay in the 1716 posthumous publication of George Hickes's Constitution of the Catholic Church, and the Nature and Consequences of Schism. In it, Hickes, as Bishop of Thetford, on behalf of the minority non-juror faction that had broken away from the Church of England after the Glorious Revolution, excommunicated all but the non-juror churchmen. Benjamin Hoadly, the Bishop of Bangor, wrote a reply, Preservative against the Principles and Practices of Non-Jurors; his own Erastian position was sincerely proposed as the only test of truth.

The controversy itself began very visibly and vocally when Hoadly delivered a sermon on 31 March 1717 to George I of Great Britain on The Nature of the Kingdom of Christ. His text was John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world" and from that, Hoadly deduced, supposedly at the request of the king himself, that there is no Biblical justification for any church government of any sort. He identified the church with the Kingdom of Heaven. It was therefore not of this world, and Christ had not delegated His authority to any representatives.

"Hoadly, in a sermon preached on March 31 1717, put forward the view that the church was not justified in having any form of government as it was concerned with matters not of this world. Sincerity of belief rather than any church structure was what mattered." Source

The reading of this one Scripture at John 18:36 became an act of civil disobedience and questioned the authority, not only of the Church, but the divine right of kings.

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

Lost Christianities: Download 170 Books on Early Christian Sects

Richard Dawkins on This Day in History

This day in history: Richard Dawkins was born on this day in 1941. Dawkins is a British author, biologist, evolutionist, leftist, agnostic and militant atheist. That last part may be confusing. In 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of militant atheism and claimed that he will not feel anything after death, however, in later years, when interviewed, he claimed that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9. Dawkins declared that he was an agnostic in 2006 and 2012. (In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins said that "permanent in agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice.") 

In a debate with Giles Fraser (former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral) Dawkins said that most Christians weren't Christian because they couldn't tell you the first book of the New Testament. Giles asked Dawkins if he could recite the full title of Darwin's Origin of the Species, and Dawkins boasted that he could. When challenged, Dawkins dithered and said: "Oh God." (The full title of Charles Darwin's book is On the The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title as it is racist.)

On February 14, 2012, an editorial in The Daily Telegraph claimed regarding the radio debate: "Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering."

Theodore Beale wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:

“As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them.

It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible!"

See also Does God Exist? - 300 Books to Download

Buy: The Mysterious Book of Genesis - Lilith, Enoch & Other Strange Studies: An Anthology on Amazon and The Companion Guide to Death, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only $1.99

King James on This Day in History

 See also The King James Version Bible Companion: 100 Books to Download, and

Rare Olde English Bibles to Download (Tyndale, Matthews, Coverdale, AV1611) and
Over 60 Different Editions of the King James Bible to Download

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

James VI of Scotland is proclaimed King James I of England and Ireland, upon the death of Elizabeth I on this day in 1603. James was dubbed the wisest fool in Christendom.

Even though James became the impetus in what came to called the King James Bible, he did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

James had a superficial education, and barely knew what his courtiers were talking about when they referred to classical literature etc,, and he was politically less than savvy, and made some very silly decisions out of sentiment and personal prejudice. He was inclined to praise his own knowledge too, beyond the level which was justified, since although he was educated as regards the Scottish aristocracy, there were a lot of genuine scholars among the English upper class he met after becoming king of England in 1603, who outclassed him effortlessly. As an older man, also, he had the distressing habit of picking up and promoting pretty boys, (like Robert Carr the stone mason’s apprentice, and Buckingham, his ‘Steenie’ (St Stephen), not quietly, but in the sight of his Queen and court, hanging round their necks and stroking them, calling himself their Daddy, and being generally tactless about it.

"He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject.

The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations.

The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it 'hunting.' Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One 'witch,' Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he 'fouled his breeches in fear.'" Source

*For verification of King James homosexuality, I got my info from Global Insights. You can also find more info at Otto Scott's "James I: The Fool As King" (Ross House: 1976), pp. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382; King James-VI of Scotland/I of England by Antonia Fraser (Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1975)pp. 36, 37, 38; King James VI and I by David Harris Willson, pp.36, 99; James I by his Contemporaries by Robert Ashton, p114; and A History of England by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Vol. 4, p.112. Check also A LITERARY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Geddes MacGregor who has devoted a whole chapter entitled "QUEEN" JAMES.

In the Beginning, by Alister McGrath, pp. 170-71

The Mammoth Book of Private Lives by Jon E. Lewis, pp. 62,65,66

James White also makes mention of it in his book, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY.

See also King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young and King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Moore Bergeron, both available on amazon.com

For those people who feel that the above is a result of the attack on King James by the 17th century tobacco industry are ignorant of the fact that his behavior and personal life were quite well known to his contemporaries. "He disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his favorite men." ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA-pp. 674,675

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

Polycarp on this Day in History

This Day in History: February 23 is recognized as a feast day in honor of Polycarp of Smyrna. 

Polycarp was a Christian bishop/overseer of Smyrna. According to the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he died a martyr, bound and burned at the stake, then stabbed when the fire failed to consume his body. Polycarp is regarded as a saint and Church Father in the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian say that Polycarp had been a disciple of John the Apostle, one of Jesus' disciples. In On Illustrious Men, Jerome writes that Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle and that John had ordained him as a bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers, along with Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.

The webpage at https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes has a few quotes where they are trying to show that the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity Doctrine. They start off with Polycarp:

"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

I noticed the same quotes with the same ellipsis (...) in Russell Sharrock's book, The Triunity of God (page 111); and in Matthew A. Paulson's book Breaking the Mormon Code, under the heading "Early Christian Quotations Suggesting the Trinity" and attributing the quote to Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians.

So what is missing in the ellipsis (...)? The words that are missing are "the Father of your beloved Son, Jesus Christ." So, the "Lord God almighty" is, according this quotation, the Father. The title "Lord God almighty" was not attributed to the Son or the Holy Spirit.

Also, this quote is not from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, but rather the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and this piece of work has been recognized as a literary forgery. See https://tinyurl.com/Polycarp-Forgery

Alvan Lamson, when examining the Epistle Of Polycarp came to the conclusion "that this old martyr had no conception of Jesus Christ as equal with God, or as one with him except in will and purpose. Here are no metaphysics, no confusion or obscurity, no hair-splitting distinctions. The Father is separated from the Son by a broad and distinct line, one as supreme, the other as subordinate; one as giving, the other as receiving; the Father granting to the Son a "throne at his right hand."

https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/07/christology-and-epistle-of-polycarp.html

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Emperor Constantius II on This Day in History

This Day in History: The anti-paganism policy of Constantius II forbade the worship of pagan idols in the Roman Empire on this day in 356. He also sought to advance Arianism/Semi-Arianism (the rejection of the Trinity doctrine) within Christianity. These policies may be contrasted with the religious policies of his father, Constantine the Great, whose Catholic orthodoxy was espoused in the Nicene Creed and who largely tolerated paganism in the Roman Empire.

Laws at this time prescribed the death penalty for those who performed or attended pagan sacrifices, and for the worshipping of idols. Pagan temples were shut down, and the Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate meeting house. There were also frequent episodes of ordinary Christians destroying, pillaging and desecrating many ancient pagan temples, tombs and monuments. Paganism was still popular among the population at the time. The emperor's policies were passively resisted by many governors and magistrates.

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Jefferson, Priestley, and the Trinity

 

This Day in History: English chemist, natural philosopher and Unitarian Joseph Priestley died on this day in 1804. In 1782 Priestley would publish An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, a work that upset many Christians in his day. 

Not Thomas Jefferson however.

Thomas Jefferson wrote of the profound effect that Corruptions had on him: "I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them... as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered." Although a few readers such as Jefferson approved of the work, it was generally harshly reviewed because of its extreme theological positions, particularly its rejection of the Trinity.

One section on the Trinity is produced below:

"Divines are content to build so strange and inexplicable a doctrine as that of the Trinity upon mere inferences from casual expressions, and cannot pretend to one clear, express, and unequivocal lesson on the subject

I wish you would reflect a little on the subject, and then inform us what there is in the doctrine of the Trinity, in itself considered, that can recommend it as a part of a system of religious truth. For there is neither any fact in nature, nor any one purpose of morals, which are the object and end of all religion, that requires it

If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, it is, no doubt, in the highest degree important and interesting. Since, therefore, the evangelists give no certain and distinct account of it, and say nothing of its importance, it may be safely inferred that it was unknown to them

Why was not the doctrine of the Trinity taught as explicitly, and in as definite a manner, in the New Testament at least, as the doctrine of the divine Unity is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, if it be a truth? And why is the doctrine of the Unity always delivered in so unguarded a manner, and without any exception made in favour of the Trinity, to prevent any mistake with respect to it, as is always now done in our orthodox catechisms, creeds, and discourses on the subject?

The doctrine of Transubstantiation implies a physical impossibility, whereas that of the Trinity, as unfolded in the Athanasian Creed, implies a mathematical one; and to this only we usually give the name of contradiction ......

Now I ask, Wherein does the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity differ from a contradiction? It asserts, in effect, that nothing is wanting to either the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, to constitute each of them truly and properly God; each being equal in eternity and all divine perfections; and yet that these three are not three Gods, but only one God. They are, therefore, both one and many in the same respect, viz., in each being perfect God. This is certainly as much a contradiction as to say that Peter, James, and John, having each of them everything that is requisite to constitute a complete man, are yet, all together, not three men, but only one man. For the ideas annexed to the words God or man cannot make any difference in the nature of the two propositions .....

Why, then, should you be so desirous of retaining such a doctrine as this of the Trinity, which you must acknowledge has an uncouth appearance, has always confounded the best reason of mankind, and drives us to the undesirable doctrine of inexplicable mysteries? Try, then, whether you cannot hit upon some method or other of reconciling a few particular texts, not only with common sense, but also with the general and the obvious tenor of the Scriptures themselves. In the meantime, this doctrine of the Trinity wears so disagreeable an aspect, that I think every reasonable man must say, with the excellent Archbishop Tillotson, with respect to the Athanasian Creed, "I wish we were well rid of it." This is not setting up reason against the Scriptures, but reconciling reason with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures with themselves .....

I therefore think it of the greatest consequence to Christianity, that this doctrine of the Trinity, which I consider as one of its most radical corruptions, should be renounced in the most open and unequivocal manner by all those whose minds are so far enlightened as to be convinced that it is a corruption and an innovation in the Christian doctrine, the reverse of what it was in its primitive purity; and that they should exert themselves to enlighten the minds of others."

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Buy: And the Word was a god: A New Book on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1  and The Dark History of the Trinity, is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and both are only 99 cents

Myles Coverdale on This Day in History

 

This Kindle book is now available on Amazon by clicking here...and it is only 99 cents

This Day in History: English ecclesiastical reformer and Bible translator Myles Coverdale died on this day in 1569. In 1535, Coverdale produced the first complete printed translation of the Bible into English.

Coverdale was also involved in translating The Matthew's Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539) and The Geneva Bible (1557).

On inspecting my copy of Coverdale's Bible at Exodus 3, I notice that Coverdale does not translate ‘ehyeh asher ehyeh’ in verse 14 as "I am that I am." He instead translates this as "I wyl be what I wyll be', and in doing so breaks the connection to John 8:58 where Jesus says "I am." (Many use the connection between these two Scriptures as proof that Jesus is Jehovah). Coverdale may have drawn on William Tyndale's translation of Exodus 3:14 where he writes, "I wilbe what I wilbe."

While your mainstream standard Bible may say "I am that I am" many of them will feature the other reading in the margins or footnotes [American Standard Version - "I WILL BE"; NIV Study Bible - "I WILL BE"; Revised Standard Version - "I WILL BE"; New Revised Standard Version - "I WILL BE"; New English Bible - "I WILL BE"; Revised English Bible - "I WILL BE"; Living Bible - "I WILL BE"; Good News Bible - "I WILL BE."].

Many alternative Bibles do not translate Exodus 3:14 as I AM, but rather "I will be," such as The James Moffatt Translation and Smith & Goodspeed's An American Translation. The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation By Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler says that Exodus 3:14 is "probably best translated as 'I Will Be What I Will Be'" and Robert Alter in his Hebrew Bible concludes as well that "I Will Be Who I Will Be" is the most plausible construction. Frederic Huidekoper in his "Genesis, Chapters I.-XI.: In Parallel Columns" also believes "I Will Be What I Will Be" "is the only translation." https://tinyurl.com/se9cupw . Even Walter Martin in his The Kingdom of the Occult at footnote 25 in the Eastern Mysticism and the New Age section that "the original words literally signify 'I will be what I will be.'"

"There is high probability that ehyeh is mistranslated as “I am” (as was pointed out by M. Buber in the New Bible Dictionary)." Source

See also: I Am, or, I Will Be at Exodus 3:14?

This Kindle book, And the Word was a god: Conversations on the Most Disputed Text in the New Testament - John 1:1 is available on Amazon by clicking here

Visit a local listing for this book here