The Word MAN as Synecdoche for All People

The Word MAN as Synecdoche for All People

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4 American Standard Version
"Human beings live not on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." New Jerusalem Bible

It has become customary in some newer Bibles to replace the word MAN and replace it with a more inclusive alternative so that women are not slighted.

However, when I check older dictionaries I am confronted with the fact that the primary meaning of "Man" was always "Human Beings."

William Graham MacDonald, in his Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament, writes: "The Idiomatic Translation faithfully conserves the univocal perspective toward gender of the New Testament itself, the generic masculine, comprehending male and female—without dyeing any of those ancient texts pink or purple to impose contrived political correctness. On the basis of Genesis 1:26,27; 5:2, man is properly understood and represented in certain texts as a synecdoche for all human beings."

Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part. For instance, the Bible often uses the word "Flesh" to mean the entire man, or even all men: "And all flesh shall see the salvation of God." Luke 3:6 ASV. Compare the same Scripture in the Goodspeed Bible: "And all mankind is to see how God can save!" If I say that someone has "nice wheels" I am actually saying that they have a nice car.

So when I hear that a University is banning the word MAN I have to wonder how many of those same people use the word GUYS in a gender inclusive way. That's right...when I say to a group of people "Come on guys" I have never heard an objection that the word "guys" is male and therefore it excludes females.

"Your divine throne endures forever" RSV (Psalms 45:6)

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Psalms 45:6
"Thy throne, O God, [is] age-during, and for ever, A sceptre of uprightness [Is] the sceptre of Thy kingdom." Young's Literal Version
"Your divine throne endures forever" Revised Standard Version
"God is your throne to time indefinite, even forever" New World Translation

This Scripture has profound meaning for many as it ties to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8, which is used as a proof-text for Christ's divinity. But what are many saying about this verse at Psalms 45:6 (7)?:

"The word ‘elohim is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:2), and always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth. The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh with such authority, giving him commands." NET Bible

Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne [King Solomon], O God ["the Messianic king", Brown Driver &Briggs], is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

The NASB Zondervan Study Bible (see also NIV Study Bible) has this footnote:
"O God. Probably the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king (the LORD's anointed 2 Sam. 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Is 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8,9). (The pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes addressed as 'my god' by their vassal kings in Canaan, as evidenced by the Amarna letters...Such was the language used with respect to kings (see note 21:4). It here gains added significance in the light of God's
covenant with David (see 89:4, 29, 36; 132:12; 2 Sam 7:16). In Christ the Son of David, it is
fulfilled."

The New American Bible reads here in the footnote:
"The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."

The Interpreters Bible comments:
"In the ancient world kings were commonly accorded divine titles as viceregents of deity or as belonging to a superhuman class."

To The Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, pp.20-21, follows this line if thought:
"Psalm 45 was a poem addressed to a king, not to God. The king, whom God had blessed, was urged to gird on his sword in glory and ride victoriously (Ps.45:3-4). His enemies were destined to fall before his sharp arrows (Ps.45:5). In the Psalm the king was also addressed with reference to his throne and his scepter, but the words could be understood as addressed to God. Since the author of Hebrews wanted to use this royal Psalm, he had to deal with this difficulty in some way, just as commentators do today. He seems to have handled the problem by speaking in reference to the Son, just as he had spoken in reference to the angels (1:7) just before. Then, in reference to the Son he spoke of God's throne and the Son's kingdom. Next, in the following verse, he continued to deal with the Son in direct address as indicated by the Psalm quotation. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews sensed a difficulty here than he intentionally confused the Son with God. For the author, the Son was the first-born,the apostle of God,the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature (1:3,6), but he was not God himself."

The Oxford Bible Commentary, on p. 380 states:
"The text is in disorder in a number of places, hence the different renderings by modern Eng. versions, The meaning of v. 6 has been hotly debated. The most natural way of taking the Hebrew is as NRSV, with the king addressed as God. Because this would be unique in the OT (although the future king of Isa 9:6 is called 'mighty god'), alternative ways of interpreting the Hebrew have been sought. The NRSV marg. is one possibility, another is 'Your throne is everlasting like that of God'."

B.F. Westcott acknowledged (see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews"), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly King (probably Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice but to conclude that Solomon was also God Almighty.

The Catholic NAB footnote on Ps. 45:7 says that "the Hebrew king was called ELOHIM, 'God,' not in the polytheistic sense common among pagans, but as meaning 'godlike,' or taking the place of God."

From Raymond Brown :
"Vincent Taylor admits that in v. 8 the expression 'O God' is vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God. Yet we cannot presume that the author did not notice that his citation had this effect. We can say at least, that the author saw nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar situation in Heb. 1:10, where the application to the Son of Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of course, we have no way of knowing what the 'O God' of Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and on the analogy of the 'Mighty God' of Isaiah 9:6, 'God' may have been looked on simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah."--Taken from Jesus, God and Man (New York: Macmillian, 1967, pg 24 & 25.)

The New Jerusalem Bible translates Ps. 45:6 as "Your throne is from God" with this footnote: "Gk translates 'Your throne, God,' seeing the word Elohim a vocative addressing the king; in fact this title is applied to the Messiah, Is 9:5, to leaders and to judges, Ps 82:6; Ex 22:6, to Moses, Ex 4:16; 7:1, and to the house of David, Zc 12:8."

"...TEV translates Hebrews 1:8 as, 'Your throne, 0 God, will last for ever and ever!'' But NWT translates this same passage as, 'But with reference to the Son: God is your throne for ever and ever.'' TEV takes 'God' as a
vocative (the Greek case for addressing a person) and the Son is therefore called 'God.' NWT takes 'God' as a nominative (the Greek case for the subject of the clause), and the Son therefore is not referred to as 'God.' If we could establish without doubt whether "God" was nominative or vocative, we could also decide which of the translations is the correct one. However, neither in Hebrews I:8 nor in our quotation of Psalm 45:7 is there a verb that can help us-and the morphology of the Greek word theos ('God') does not help us here because the same form is used both for the nominative and for the vocative (with a few exceptions). Thus, in this passage the theology of the translator is the decisive factor in the translation.
[In Psalm 45 the words are directed toward a human king, and it can be argued that the one who did the anointing is 'God' (theos) and not the one being anointed. This speaks in favor of understanding the construction in Hebrews 1:8 as nominative rather than vocative. But from a strictly linguistic point of view, both alternatives are possible.]" ~The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses by Rolf Furuli


“'O god.' The Messiah was a 'god' in the same way that angels and people who are appointed by God to do his work, such as judges, are called 'god.' We see this in Psalm 82:6, which Jesus quoted in John 10:34." https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Psalms/chapter45/6

"Within the Jewish tradition, Psalm 45 has never been taken to call the king 'God.' The modern translation published by the Jewish Bible Society reads, 'Your divine throne is everlasting.' The Greek translation of the psalm made before the beginning of Christianity, which reads exactly as the author of Hebrews has quoted it, certainly followed this traditional Jewish understanding of the verse, and its translators thought that by using ho theos they were saying 'God is your throne,' not 'your throne, 0 God.'
It is always possible that the author of Hebrews understood it differently. There are other examples in Hebrews where Old Testament verses are reinterpreted. But these reinterpretations are always made apparent to the reader by slight changes in how the verses are quoted, as in Hebrews 2:6-8. In Hebrews 1:8, the author would have to make some change in phrasing to make the reinterpretation explicit. But no change is made. So even if the author understood ho theos there as direct address, he or she has not left us any explicit indication of that.
So we must conclude that the more probable translation is 'God is your throne . . .,' the translation found in the NW and in the footnotes of the NRSV and TEV. Three giants of modern New Testament scholarship -- Westcott, Moffatt, and Goodspeed -- came to the same conclusion independently. The fact is, if this verse were quoted in the New Testament in reference to anyone else, the translators would have not hesitated to translate it as "God is your throne . . ." It seems likely that it is only because most translations were made by people who already believe that Jesus is God that the less probable way of translating this verse has been preferred."
Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament by Jason David BeDuhn 

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

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

God Is Thy Throne (Hebrews 1:8)

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever." New International Version

However, other Bibles have:

"God is your throne forever." NWT 1950
"God is your throne forever and ever." Smith&Goodspeed's An American Translation
"God is thy throne" Revised Standard Version margin
"God is thy throne" Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews [Macmillan And Co., NY, 1903]
"God is your throne forever and ever." Byington's Bible in Living English
"God is your throne" New Revised Standard Version margin
"It is God who is your throne for ever and ever." God's New Covenant-A New Testament Transl., by Heinz W. Cassirer
"God is thy throne" New English Bible margin
"Your throne is God for an age of ages." Unvarnished NT
"Thy throne is God" 21st Century NT
"Thy throne is God" American Standard Version margin
"God is your Kingdom" Good News Bible margin
"Great Prince, your throne is for ever and ever" The Complete Bible in Modern English by Ferrar Fenton
"God is thy throne" Moffatt

As to the Nominative for the Vocative use "Your throne, O God," the New American Bible says in the footnote here,
"O God; the application of the name 'God' to the Son derives from the preexistence mentioned in vv. 2-3; the psalmist already used the it of the Hebrew king in the court style of the original. See the note on Ps 45, 7 [which says, "The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."]"

................

It ought not to be concealed, that the words, “Thy throne, O God! is for ever and ever,” may with equal propriety, both from the Greek and Hebrew, be also thus rendered, “God is thy throne,” &c.; that is, God is the support of thy throne,” &c. — Dr. SAMUEL CLARKE: Script. Doct. of the Trinity, part i. chap. ii. sect. 1, No. 542.

I had at first adopted the version, “God is thy throne,” and am still not certain that that version is incorrect. . . . . The above passages [l Cor. xi. 3. Ps. lxxiii. 26. Phil. ii. 19), ... and particularly that from the Psalms, countenance the version I have rejected. — EYRE, in loc.

After having presented to us this new king, the author proceeds to the duration of his reign: —“But of the Son it is said, “Thy throne, O God! shall be for ever and ever.” It is not thus in the original, which is, “God shall be thy throne for ever and ever.” No mode of language is more customary in Scripture than to call God our rock; and, as the address here is to a king, it figuratively employs the idea of throne, to express that he shall never be deposed; that he shall subsist eternally: —“For God himself shall be thy throne, – shall take pleasure in protecting thee: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness: thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity; wherefore, O God! thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Here also the version offends against the rule of the Greek language, and it is too arduous an enterprise to mean to violate at once both reason and grammar. Has one ever heard speak of God who has a God? — and the gospel, which is so wise and refined, would it teach us such language as this? But, when one ascends to the source, there one finds, – “The God who is thy God — that is, the God whom thou adorest, and who is thy Benefactor—hath shed upon thy head the sacred oil, and chosen thee preferably to the angels, who alone could dispute this advantage.” — ABAUZIT: Miscellanies, pp. 183, 184.

It is immaterial to the purpose of our present investigation to inquire whether the word God in this case is used in the nominative or the vocative case, so as to read, “God is thy throne;” or “Thy throne, O God!" The sense will be ultimately the same. Both will alike disprove the Trinity. It cannot be applied to the second person of a Trinity. The second person of a Trinity cannot have a God. The second person of the Trinity cannot be exalted on account of his moral merits, “because he had loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.” Neither can he be “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows.” Whoever it is who is called God, he still has a God over him, to whom he is indebted for his exaltation. This use of the word God, then, is so far from helping the Trinitarian cause, – being a clear case in which the term God is applied to Christ in an inferior sense, not involving Divinity, - that it takes from the force of those other passages where this word is thought to be applied to him. .... O God! of course, must here mean, O King! or he could not have fellows, or be called God by Jehovah. The thrones of other kings crumble; but, on account of the Messiah's peculiar merits, his throne is to be for ever. — BURNAP: Expository Lectures, pp. 105–107.

The words, “Thy throne, O God! is for ever and ever,” were originally addressed by a poetical courtier to Solomon, or some other Hebrew monarch, on his accession and marriage; nor can the slightest reason be assigned for supposing, that the ode in which the words occur had any reference more remote than the immediate occasion of its composition. The first half of the Psalm is addressed to the prince; the remainder to his bride, who is exhorted to give her undivided affection to the new relation which she has formed; to “forget her own people, and the house of her father;” and who is consoled with the hope, that “instead of her fathers she shall have her sons, whom she shall make princes through all the land.” Those who can satisfy themselves with the theological conceit, that this is a prophetic allegory, descriptive of the relation between Christ and his Church, appear to have placed themselves so far beyond the reach of all the rules of interpretation, that argument becomes fruitless: no possible media of refutation exist.— MARTINEAU: Lecture on the Proposition, “that Christ is God,” pp. 37, 38; being the fifth of a series of Lectures.

[See “Concessions,” under Ps. xlv. 1, 6, 7, Heb. i. 8, 9. Calvin says that the Psalm was composed respecting Solomon; and Professor Stuart explains the term God, as used of the Messiah, in the sense, not of the Supreme Being, but of a pre-eminent king.]

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

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

Jehovah has Triumphed (Poem)

Sound the Loud Timbrel
By Thomas Moore (1779–1852) 

Miriam's Song

SOUND the loud timbrel o’er Egypt’s dark sea!
Jehovah has triumphed,—his people are free.
Sing, for the pride of the tyrant is broken,—
  His chariots, his horsemen, all splendid and brave,
How vain was their boasting! The Lord hath but spoken,        
  And chariots and horsemen are sunk in the wave.
Sound the loud timbrel o’er Egypt’s dark sea!
Jehovah has triumphed,—his people are free.

Praise to the Conqueror, praise to the Lord!
His word was our arrow, his breath was our sword!        
Who shall return to tell Egypt the story
  Of those she sent forth in the hour of her pride?
For the Lord hath looked out from his pillar of glory,
  And all her brave thousands are dashed in the tide.
Sound the loud timbrel o’er Egypt’s dark sea!        
Jehovah has triumphed,—his people are free.

End of the World Predictions

I came across this article in the Historic Magazine and Notes and Queries (1895) on predictions for the End in 1881/1882 and I thought I'd share it here.

There have been a few books and pamphlets published on 1881/1882, as being the climax to certain periods:

Life and Prophecies of Mother Shipton. 24mo. pp. 96. "The world to an end shall come in eighteen hundred and eighty-one."

How the World came to End in 1881. Square 12mo. pp. London Anno Domini 1884. Anno Dominae 3.

1881-1882. By the Countess of Caithness. Reprinted from "Medium and Daybreak," Dec. 31, 1881, and Jan. 6, 1S82. London, pp. 30.

1881-1882. The Great Changes of the near Future. By H. W. Oswald. 8vo. pp. 28. San Francisco, Cal. 1881."Eastward the Star of Empire again must take its way."

Anglo Israelism and the Great Pyramid. Reasons for fixing the Age in 1882. A criticism by Rev. Bourchier Wrey Savile. London, 1880. 8vo. pp. 114.

Diluvium, or the End of the World. 1889-1892. By George S. Pidgeon. St. Louis, 1885. 12mo. pp. 174.

Astronomical Etiology, or Star Prophecies, concerning coming Disasters on the Earth from 1881 to 1885. By M. L. Knapp, M. D. Chicago, 1878. 12mo. pp. 64.

The Coming Catastrophe. By Prof. C. A. Grimmer. Cambridge, 1881. 12mo. pp. 96.

Dread Prophecies for 1881-1885. By J. S. Daggett. Albany, 1881. 12mo. pp. 62.

1881; or the End of the ^Eons. By Henry Bowman. St. Louis, 1884.

The Approaching End of the Age, viewed in the Light of History, Prophecy, and Science. By H. Grattan Guinness. New York, 1831. 8vo. pp. 706. Amen erchou, kurie lesou.

End of article

Of course, this is hardly the only time the End was predicted.

Early Church fathers Hilarianus and Hippolytus predicted the end in 500 A.D.(Paula Fredriksen-Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse)
Irish Bishop James Ussher's prediction was for 1996.
Puritans Issac Watts, Joseph Mede and the Mathers in America were date-setters.
The Father of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther taught Christ would return by 1564.
Does that mean that all Protestants or Lutherans are false prophets? No, of course not, but they are by the reasoning of a certain few.
German Reformer Philip Melanchton was a date-setter too, as was German theologian Johann Alsted.
Remember the booklet, "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will be in 1988" by Edgar Whisenant? Also "Christ Returns by 1988: 101 Reasons Why" by Colin Deal.
Or the Korean Christians(Pentecostals) for October 1992?

The most famous one was actually a Baptist....William Miller who predicted 1843.

Wait...there's more

In the 5th century, the Council of Ephesus decided the millenium had already begun.
Pope Gregory I,  590-604 C.E., predicted the imminent end of the world.
Spanish Monk Beatus predicts it for 800 A.D.
An ecumenical council for the Roman Catholic Church announces Christ's return by 1000.
Aelfric, the Abbott of Eynsham predicts it for the year 1000.
Abbo of Fleury, the French Abbott predicts it for predicts it for 994/996.
Richard of St. Vaast leads a pilgrimage for the predicted end in 1033.
1184 is the target date for the return of the Antichrist according to many...
and again in 1345-1385
Joachim of Fiore(1135-1202) used the New Testament and the Trinity to proclaim the coming of the anti-christ in 1260 A.D.
1260 is also touted by Brother Arnold (Dominican Monk)
Speaking of the Trinity, the Church Father who first coined the term, Tertullian was a Montanist(a deeply apocalyptical sect).
Jean de Roquetaillade announced it for 1366
Roman Catholic, Arnald of Villanova, predicted the appearance of the Antichrist in 1378
The Taborites predict it for 1420.
Priest Martinek Hauska announces doom for 1420.
Hans Hut announced the end for1528
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa announced it for 1533
Melchior Hoffman announced it for 1593
The Fifth Monarchists predicted between 1655-57
A Lutheran named Adam Nachenmoser announced it for 1635
Lutheran leader, Andreas Osiander announced it for 1672
Jan Matthys announced for 1534
Archbishop of York and Primate of England, Edwin Sandys (1519-1588) proclaimed the imminent end
John Wycliffe announced it for 1379
One of the first Baptist groups, The Anabaptists believed that the Millenium would occur in 1533
Reformer John Foxe believed the last days would start in 1600. He was shared in this view by Robert Pont
New England Minister Jonathan Edwards predicts 1866
The Puritans predict it for 1700
Emanuel Swedenborg predicts the end for 1757
Anglican rector Thomas Beverly predict 1697
Anglican rector John Mason for 1694
Pierre Jurie predicts the end for 1689
Sir Walter Raleigh, Hugh Broughton and Thomas Brightman thought it would not be until 1700
Christopher Columbus said the world was going to end in 1656
Deacon  William Aspinwall (General Court) predicts the end for 1673
Feb 28, 1763  Devout Methodist George Bell foresaw the end of the world on this date.
Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly announced it for 1789
The Shakers announced it for 1792
1790  The Second Coming, according to Irish orator Francis Dobbs.
1792  The end of the world according to the Shakers.
1794 The end of the world according to the Shakers.
Charles Wesley, brother of Methodist Church founder John Wesley, predicted Doomsday would be in 1794.
Lavater announced it for 1795
Some Christian believers in Russia thought that Peter the Great was the Anti-Christ in the 1660's.
Historic Jews in the 17th century believed that the Messiah would come in the year 1648.
John Napier announced it for 1688 or 1700
John Cummings of the Scottish National Church, predicted Jesus would return in 1865.
Isaac Newton announced it for about another 90 years in his day
Richard Brothers announced it for 1795
Methodist Church founder John Wesley foresaw the Millennium beginning in 1836, the same year that the Beast of Revelation was to rise from the sea.
Reverend M. Baxter (Church of England) predicts it for 1868
Scottish National Church official, the "Reverend" John Cumming (1807-1881) proclaimed "Redemption draweth Nigh" in 1867
In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI indicated that the time of the "plague of locusts (Revelation 9:3)" had arrived in his Encyclical "Mirari vos arbitramur."
Pat Robertson announced it for 2007(in a novel)
Born-Again, R. Henry Hall for 1998 (AD 1991-The Genesis of Holocaust)
Hart Armstrong posts the Tribulation for 1989
Chuck Smith, Pastor of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa proclaimed it for 1981
Tommy Hicks, a noted evangelist, received visions of the end in 1961
Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons, predicted the world's end in the 19th. Century.
Elizabeth Claire Prophet announced it for 1989
Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California predicted the Rapture in 1981.
Hon-Ming Chen predicted Christ's return on March 31, 1998.
Methodist Joanna Southcott(1750-1814 announced she was the Bride of the Lamb and began to seal the 144,000
Early in the 20th century, Dr. Isaac M. Haldeman, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in New York City, predicted that the Antichrist would appear before the Jews return to Palestine
Assemblies of God official, Thomas M. Chalmers, announced it for the early 1920's
Pentecostal leader, Lester Sumrall predicts 1985
Evangelical prophecy teacher has announced it for 1975, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 (see Sooth-Sayers of the Second Advent, Alnor)
September, 1981, Baptist itinerant preacher (a.k.a. an evangelist) in Springfield, Missouri makes the sure- fire claim that he had determined from Bible study that Christ absolutely HAD to come back between October, 1981 and September, 1982. (see THE SCOURGE OF THE "PROPHECY MONGERS" from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 1, Number 3, March, 1998
Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988.
Nationally syndicated TV show host (Prophecy in the News), J.R. Church predicted the rapture for 1988.
David Webber and Noah Hutchings of the Southwest Radio Church (SRC) announced it for "1981 or '88".
Henry Kreysler announces Armageddon for 1995
Author Reginald Dunlop announces the Rapture for 1991.
Mary Stewart Relfe announced the Great Tribulation for 1990.
Salem Kirban - Bible prognosticator, predicted "the Rapture" would take place in 1989.
Benny Hinn predicted the Rapture would occur in 1993.
Dr. Jack van Impe has speculated that the end will come between September 1999 and 2000.
Lester Sumrall for 2000.
Grant Jeffrey predicts it for October 9, 2000
Texe Marrs predicts it for 2000 (Storming toward Armageddon, 1992)
Philip B. Brown has stated that the millennial reign of Christ will begin April 6, 2008.
James McKeever ends his 6000 year theory by at least 2030 (End Times News Digest).
Dr. Harold Camping, president of Family Radio, expected the end of the world in 1994.

"Not a few ministries that began well have been turned aside by an obsessive bent toward prophecy. I will mention as one example Jack Van Impe. In the 1970s, Van Impe's ministry was singularly used by God in numerous crusades in various cities. At least two members of my immediate family were converted in his Wichita crusade. As a youth pastor in Indiana, I took our young people to his South Bend crusade, and several were saved as a result. As a seminary student of very restricted financial means, I was a weekly contributor to his ministry. But in those days, his focus was the Gospel, sin, and salvation by faith, with only a night or two in the week directed at prophetic themes. In a word--it was balanced.
But what has he become 20 years later? His television broadcasts (which I can scarcely endure for more than a few minutes) are virtually nothing but the newest sign of the times, and latest "fulfillment" of a contorted misinterpretation and mangling of some Biblical text, presented by a man who seems to be all hyped-up and scarcely more sincere than a used car salesman. It is to me a very sad sight. A progressively more restricted pre-occupation with prophecy is unmistakably the cause. It is spiritually low octane stuff."
THE SCOURGE OF THE "PROPHECY MONGERS" from "AS I SEE IT" Volume 1, Number 3, March, 1998

  "One faith united the scattered congregations: that Christ was the son of God, that he would return to establish his kingdom on earth, and that all who believed in him would at the Last Judgement be rewarded with eternal bliss. But Christians differed as to the date of the second advent. When Nero died and Titus demolished the Temple, and again when Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem, many Christians hailed these calamities as signs of the second coming. When chaos threatened the Empire at the close of the second century, Tertullian and others thought that the end of the world was at hand; a Syrian Bishop led his flock into the desert to meet Christ halfway, and a bishop in Pontus disorganized the life of his community by announcing that Christ would return within a year. As all signs failed, and Christ did not come, wiser Christians sought to soften the disappointment by reinterpreting the date of his return.
He would come in a thousand years, said an epistle ascribed to Barnabas; he would come, said the most cautious, when the "generation" or race of the Jews was quite extinct, or when the Gospel had been preached to all gentiles; or said the Gospel of John, he would send in his stead the Holy Spirit or Paraclete."
(Will Durant, The Story of Civilization, Volume III, 'Ceasar and Christ, Pg. 603, 604)

Even the earliest Christians prepared for the imminent end of the age in their own time:

"That the earliest Church regarded itself as the Congregation of the end of days, is attested both by Paul, and the synoptic tradition....Further testimony for eschatological consciousness is the fact that Jesus' disciples after the Easter experiences in Galilee soon betook themselves to Jerusalem as the focus of the coming Reign of God."
Theology of the New Testament-Complete in One Volume, by Rudolf Bultmann, p. 37

Was Seth Called JEHOVAH?

From the Historic Magazine and Notes and Queries (Feb 1895)

Jehovah—A Name. Edward G. King, in his monograph on "The Names of God," Part I, p. 34, says:

"It is undoubtedly true that his name (Jehovah) is found in the 18th line of king Mesh's inscription (on the Moabite stone), but a little consideration will lead us to suspect that it there stands for the name of a man and not for the name of God at all."

Is there an instance in the Bible where the name Jehovah was the name of a man? (Vol. XI, p. 300.) A. Mason.

We reply to this "Mason" by giving the different renderings of a text in Genesis (iv, 26). Suidas, under the heading "Seth," says:

"Seth was the son of Adam; of this it is said, the sons of God went in unto the daughters of Men; that is to say, the sons of Seth went in unto the daughters of Cain. For in that age Seth was called God, because he had discovered Hebrew letters, and the names of the stars; but especially on account of his great piety, so that he was the first to bear the name of God."

Theodoret refers to this same verse, and renders it as follows:

"And to Seth, to him also there was also born a son; and he called his name Enos; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord;"

Or, as the marginal reading has it:

"Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord." Aquila interprets it in a slightly changed form: "Then Seth began to be called by the name of the Lord." Theodoret says, "these words intimate his piety, which deserved that he should receive the sacred name; and he was called God by his acquaintances, and his children were called the sons of God, just as we term Christians after Christ."

Anastasius of Sinai, has the following in refernece to Seth: "When God created Adam after his image and likeness, He breathed into him grace, and illumination, and a ray of the Holy Spirit; but when he sinned this glory left him, and his face became clouded. Then he became the father of Cain and Abel. But afterwards it is said in Scripture, 'He begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth;' which is not said of Cain and Abel; and this means that Seth was not begotten in the likeness of fallen man and after the image of Adam in Paradise; and he called his name Seth, that is by interpretation, 'Resurrection,' because in him he saw the resurrection of his departed beauty, and wisdom, and glory, and radiance of the Holy Spirit. And all those then living, when they saw how the face of Seth shone with divine light, and heard him speak with divine wisdom said he is God; therefore, his sons were commonly called the sons of God."

The name Jesus was a common name of persons before and after the Christian era; and in new Testament times, several persons bore the name besides Jesus the Christ; see Acts vii, 43; Col. iv, n; Heb. iv, 8 ; Acts xiii, 6. Also, Christ is a well known proper name: One of the best translations of Homer's Iliad, with Prolegomena and critical notes, is by Dr. W. Christ, published at Munich, 1884.

The Trinity Doctrine a Stumbling Block, by James Stark 1861

Buy on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

After what has been said under the two former heads, little seems to be required under the present. The Holy Scriptures were never intended to be to us a revelation of the nature of Heaven, or of its various inhabitants. In fact, excepting in the Book of Revelations, Heaven and its inhabitants are only casually mentioned; so that it would be foolish in us to dogmatize on the subject, or pretend to be wise beyond what is written. For aught we know anything to the contrary, there may be many Divine Spirits in heaven, besides those alone distinctly revealed to us. Paul casually says, “there be Gods many;” in the Psalms it is written, “The Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods;” and again it is written, “worship him, all ye gods.” The Book of Revelations, too, says there are “Seven Spirits of God.” But with all such casual notices man has nothing to do. We have alone to do with that which God has been pleased clearly to reveal to us; and in so far as the Divine Spirits are concerned, Paul most unequivocally tells us that there are only Three in whom man is interested—“One God and Father of all, who is above all,” “one Lord Jesus Christ,” and “one Spirit.”

The Holy Ghost is variously termed in the Scriptures “The Spirit of God,” “The Holy Spirit,” “The Holy Spirit of God,” “The Holy Spirit of Promise,” “The Spirit of Truth,” “The Comforter;” and, as has already been shown in the case of Jesus Christ, is said to “proceed from The Father” alone. John xv. 26. “But when the Comforter is come whom I will send unto you from The Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from The Father, he shall testify of me.” Other passages exist which show that the Holy Ghost is sent by God. Thus, John xiv. 16, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth.” And, again, at verse 26, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom The Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.”

Theologians, however, have, as usual, made a great blunder by confounding the two distinct acts—the origination or Birth (if I might so call it) of the Holy Ghost, and that of sending him as a Messenger from God to man. Only one passage in the Holy Scriptures is known to me as mentioning the origin of the Holy Spirit—viz., that quoted above, where it is distinctly averred that “The Spirit of Truth proceedeth from the Father” alone. There is not one passage that I can find in the Inspired word of revelation which, like the false Creeds which men have imposed on their fellow-men, says that the Holy Ghost proceeded from The Father and the Son. On the other hand, the Holy Ghost, like the Son himself, originated from The God alone, and was, like the Son, sent as a divine messenger to mankind. The procession of the Holy Ghost, therefore, from God The Father, of necessity constituted him a divine Spirit, and not a created being; and it was a necessity that this other divine Messenger, or Comforter, should possess a divine and not a finite nature, else he could never be present everywhere at the same moment of time, to aid, enlighten, strengthen, confirm, comfort, inspire, quicken, sanctify, and intercede for the worshipper. This argument is to my mind quite conclusive as to the Nature of the Holy Ghost, and is in direct harmony with the distinct revelation of God on the subject. It is impossible that a created Being could perform the duties assigned to the Holy Spirit; for every created Being, though the highest and holiest, is by its nature a finite being, and, therefore, cannot be present in more places than one at the same moment of time. It is this argument which must convince every thinking mind of the irrationality of addressing our prayers to any finite being, such as the Virgin Mary. No created Being, though the highest and holiest, could be present with me in Edinburgh to hear my prayer, and be at the same moment aiding and comforting my friend in New York. Therefore it follows, as a necessity, that if we believe in the existence of the Holy Ghost as one of the Agents appointed by God in Man's salvation, we are forced also to believe that he is a divine and not a created Spirit,—that he possesses that attribute or quality of God which we style “Omnipresence,” and that the Scriptures teach man the truth, and give him the right idea, when they say, “We have access by One Spirit to The Father.”

As, however, was proved by the quotation of innumerable passages from the Holy Scriptures relative to Jesus Christ, so with regard to the Holy Ghost there does not exist a single passage which gives the slightest intimation that the title of God is to be applied to the Holy Ghost, or that he forms a third part or person of “The only True God;” nor yet is there the slightest hint that worship of any kind is to be offered to the Holy Spirit. Everything which the Scriptures mention relative to the Holy Ghost shows that he is subordinate to The God. We are never told to pray to the Spirit; but, on the other hand, we are distinctly told that we must “worship The Father in Spirit;” to be “praying with all prayer in the Spirit;” to “live in the Spirit;” to “walk in the Spirit;” to be “led by the Spirit;” to “worship God in the Spirit,” etc.; so that we are breaking the express commands of God every time we address prayers or worship to the Holy Ghost, which ought to be addressed to God .The Father alone. It is only when we strictly follow the directions of the Holy Scriptures that we can expect the promises of God to be verified in our case, that “the Spirit will help our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. . . . Because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God” Romans viii. 26–27.

The fact is, the Doctrine of the Trinity has done an immense deal of evil, in preventing us understanding the True word of God. It has perverted our judgments; it has prevented thousands of thinking minds from giving a cordial assent to the truths of Revelation, having proved to them a stumbling-block from its very irrationality, and has tended greatly to increase scepticism, inasmuch as, being one of the very first articles to which our belief is demanded, it has acted as a barrier to further inquiry, lest all the articles of Belief should be found to be equally irreconcilable with reason. Nay, I firmly believe that there is scarcely a minister of the gospel who has dared to examine the subject, but must have felt that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as taught in the creeds, confessions, and Articles of the Churches, was quite indefensible.

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