God HATES Religion

It's true! God hates religion. I know of a guy who believes he can prove it.

Don't worry, it's not as bad as you might initially think. That's some sensational and eye-catching tag-line there, isn't it though? I learned from an advertising master.

Now, odd as this may seem, I am going to link you out to a COG splinter group's website to listen to a 5-part audio series entitled "Why God Hates Religion" by Fred Coulter.  If this doesn't open your eyes to the fact that Herbert Armstrong was in error, I certianly don't know what will.  Even though I do not agree with every last minute detail of what Mr. Coulter says, I found this sermon series to be more than worthwhile.

This was watershed stuff for me. I hope it is watershed stuff for you too.

The Two Babylons

Friends and fellows still in a Church of God, I would like to ask you to think through something with me. This is something that has troubled me for many years. I don't mean to trouble you, but to maybe show you something you may or may not have otherwise been aware of before now.

Have you heard of or read the book "The Two Babylons"? If you've heard of it, you know that it formed the base of Herbert Armstrong's interpretation of prophecy. If there is a foundation, in my opinion, that foundation is British-Israelism. The first layer built upon that foundation, as I see it, is The Two Babylons. 

If you are unfamiliar with the book (I don't see how that could be possible, but in the off chance) that is where the idea of the Catholic Church being 'Babylon the Great' came from. Other terms you may be familiar with came from there, such as "Babylonian Mystery Religion" and "Daughter Churches". See, the idea, in summation, is that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church at all, but is an ancient Babylonian pagan religion, started by Nimrod himself, filled with mystery rites and such which eventually incorporated some Christian ideas, and was the 'mother' of the Protestant churches. God supposedly calls it "the Great Harlot", and is supremely angry with the Pope and all of his followers direct and indirect. The Pope is the Little Horn of Daniel and is destined to become the False Prophet of Revelation. Hence the main reason why the COGs are so very much opposed to the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches.

Enough overview... you get the idea. Those are very much core teachings in the xCOGs. I am personally only aware of one minister in all of the various splinters who does not base his prophetic interpretations on it.

Long story short(er), I wanted to ask if you personally believe this book to be inspired? If so, do you know why you believe so? 

Until a few years ago I believed the teachings to be inspired - but, then again, I hadn't read the book until a few years ago. When I read the book I noticed some strange things. 

Primarily, I noticed it made the entirety of prophecy about the Catholic Church (the negative stuff, anyway). How can the only "bad guy" in all of prophecy be the Catholic Church? It didn't add up. Here we are supposed to have a Beast power and a False Prophet, but the Pope is the 11th and most powerful horn of the Beast and the False Prophet at the same time? 

How can the Beast, owing its power to the Pope, hate the Catholic Church and burn it with fire (REV. 17: 16), yet the Beast and the Pope are both together at the end and thrown into the Lake of Fire together (REV. 19: 20)? How can Revelation 18: 23 be about the Catholic Church when it has no 'merchants'? Why does REV. 18: 11-19 say the merchants and shipmen weep over the Catholic Church; are the Catholics the only ones who buy the goods listed in verses 12 & 13?

These are just some of the questions I have asked. But more importantly, do you know who wrote "The Two Babylons"? His name was Alexander Hyslop. He first published a pamphlet in 1853, which he greatly expanded upon in 1858. Did you know that he was a Presbyterian minister? Now, I ask you to think about that with me for a minute here. If the Catholic Church is "the Great Harlot" and "Mother of Harlots", then all Protestant Churches are harlots, right? Doesn't that mean the Presbyterian church is a 'harlot' as well? Why is a Presbyterian minister, self-proclaimed minister of harlotry, writing an inspired work? Do you, as a practicing member of the Church of God, believe any work by Protestants to be inspired? Then how do you explain this? Please think that through in your mind for a bit.

I would have you know more about Alexander Hyslop. If he wrote his pamphlet in 1853, then he certainly did his research in the 1840's. Did you know that the city of Babylon lay buried in sand until 1899 when archaeologist Robert Koldewey began unearthing it? That was a half-century later! Did you know that according to the best information we have available today, Nimrod and Semiramis (his supposed mother and wife) didn't even live in the same century? Where, then did Hyslop get his information? Most of what he needed to make such in-depth analysis and far-reaching conclusions about ancient history was completely unavailable to him. How did he get anything he concluded then? By human reasoning within his own mind. Basically, he took numerology and ancient mythology and arrived at his own conclusions. 

One Mr. Ralph Woodrow, once a firm believer in and promoter of Hyslop, was challenged to prove what he held to. The result was a book entitled "The Babylon Connection". In it he shows how Hyslop was more than just mistaken - in some places he was fraudulently incorrect. That means he purposefully falsified information. Mr. Woodrow went back and read the books Hyslop supposedly based his theories on and concluded they most certainly do not support Hyslop. I suggest you read "The Babylon Connection".

For more information, see the Wikipedia article on The Two Babylons.

Will you, dearly loved by God, spend some serious meditation time on this? Will you consider that the truth cannot come from fraud? No fountain can give pure water and filth. And then will you humbly and soberly consider the nature of Mr. Herbert Armstrong who promoted Hyslop's

The Ten Horns

I would like to ask some tough questions about our understanding of the Holy Roman Empire as it was taught to us by HWA. I do not have all the answers, but I do have some questions. If I’m going to study who Babylon the Great is, and certainly I found the teaching to be in need of some revision, I might as well ask about this too.

Could it be the description of Rome as the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (the seventh head of Rev. 13) was incorrect? Could it be that we were taught to WATCH intensely in one direction, but that direction isn’t the right one? Could it be that history doesn’t agree with HWA's traditional interpretation of the prophetic beasts – and therefore we need to study our Bibles again on a subject we thought we already knew?

I would like to quote from a booklet entitled “Who Is the BEAST?” by Herbert W. Armstrong (1960 edition). I will quote HWA, then respond with my own opinions.

 “The text says one of his HEADS was wounded to death.”

Yes, ONE of his heads was wounded, NOT the entire beast! If only the head was wounded, then why did the Western Roman Empire fall in its entirety? Think of that in terms of Greece. We know Greece had four divisions. If Greece is the third beast, and historically two of its four heads (Cassander and Lysimachus) were absorbed by a third (Seleucus) and the fourth (Ptolemy) was in constant battle with the third, then why didn’t the entire Greek beast die when TWO of its heads were lopped off and the other two fought bitterly? But we are to believe that the one head of the fourth beast is wounded, and that equals the downfall of Rome – the ENTIRE fourth Beast from Daniel’s perspective? Remember, we’re just talking about ONE head here. And why did the Eastern Empire remain in tact? Can half of a head die? Can half a beast die?

“The BEAST INCLUDED THE SEVEN HEADS and the TEN HORNS.”

Notice this as well, ALL ten horns are part of the Roman beast. We’re about to see this exact statement turned around in the next paragraph. 

 

“John sees the beast living in the days of its seventh head, the Roman Empire. And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.” 

OK, note closely what is said here… AFTER the wound is healed, the ten horns begin to reign. This will also be turned around in the next paragraph.

“The Roman empire in Northern Africa was overrun by the Vandals, who sacked Rome in 455.”

BUT the Vandals were neither Roman, NOR part of the Roman Empire. They weren’t the first to invade. They only captured the North African portion of Rome, not all of the Western Empire. And the capital of the Western Empire at that time was Revenna, not Rome. So capturing Rome didn’t mean too much. It would be like capturing Philadelphia and declaring the capital of America has fallen. The Vandals also quickly withdrew, keeping only the island of Sicily.

“Then in 476 Odoacer set up his government at Rome, called the HERULI”

This is incorrect. Odoacer set up his government at Ravenna, NOT Rome.

“But it did not heal the deadly wound, for this was a government IN Rome. It was not a ROMAN government, but one of foreign barbarians.” 

I hope you caught that. Although they ruled in Italy (Rome was more than just Italy) the Heruli were also neither Roman NOR part of the Roman Empire. By his own criteria they are not a horn! "ALL ten horns are part of the Roman beast"

“Then there was the kingdom of the Ostrogoths, 493-554, another outside foreign people who ruled in the territory. But they were driven out of Italy and disappeared.”

Here we have a third Barbarian kingdom (Barbarians were not Roman; probably Assyrian according to HWA) ruling in Italy only but were neither Roman nor of the Roman Empire.

“These three kingdoms, sweeping into the Roman territory, filled the period known in history as the ‘transition age.’ (See Myers' Ancient History, page 571.) That is, a TRANSITION between the wound and the healing.”

**Mr. Armstrong confirms this information in his own hand. The Vandals, Heruli, and Ostrogoths were not Rome! Also, they ruled before the wound was healed! Remember? "...the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one." And since this is the case, according to Mr. Armstrong’s qualifier they cannot count as horns of Rome!!**

What’s more is Mr. Armstrong completely ignores the fact that the city of Rome was not the Roman capital at that time, Ravenna was. The capital was moved by Emperor Honorius in 402. And he completely ignores the first sacking of Rome and the following invasion by the Visigoths (meaning Western Goths - not to be confused with the Vandals) in 408-410. The Goths went on to remove Britain, Spain, and France from Roman control by 423. This is years before the Vandal invasion in 455! In fact, it was the Visigoths that drove the Vandals out of Europe and into North Africa in the first place. Why then aren’t the Visigoths counted as a horn? They did an awful lot more than the Vandals did. The answer - because they don’t fit the theory! This information does not fit the theory proposed by Alexander Hislop, so it is overlooked.

“Now Daniel saw a ‘little horn’ coming up AMONG these ten, before whom these first three were "plucked up by the roots."

Two things here are incredibly important. First, the little horn comes up among the other 10 (not the other three). The Pope preceded these people by a couple hundred years officially (and by Armstrong's own theology, the Pope was an ancient Babylonian thing). He didn’t come up among the groups here mentioned. Secondly THE VANDALS, HERULI, AND OSTROGOTHS COULD NOT BE THE FIRST THREE HORNS!!! They aren’t horns to be plucked up!!! They don’t count!!!

“That leaves 7 horns to come.”

NO!! It leaves 11 horns to come!! The little horn has not been identified, nor have his 10 companions.

“And of the little horn, Daniel 7 says ‘his look was more stout than his fellows.’ The papacy dominated completely all the horns to follow.”

No, it didn’t! Neither Justinian – maker of Popes, nor Napoleon who crowned himself, nor Hitler’s Third Reich (or, if you would like, Mussolini’s Italy according to HWA because I have shown you where HWA said the Beast was not Hitler's) were dominated by Rome. Besides this fact, did anyone consider it WASN’T the papacy who plucked up the Vandals, the Herulii, or the Ostrogoths? But actually the Vandals plucked themselves up (assisted by the Visigoths), the Herulii were plucked up by the Ostrogoths, and the Ostrogoths were plucked up by Emperor Justinian – NOT THE POPE!!! The pope wasn’t too terribly involved!!! From what I see, prophetically the little horn is not the Pope, he is IMHO the end-time King of the North, and the final Beast king - I could be wrong.

 

“The Deadly Wound HEALED"

"It was the fourth kingdom (symbolized by the fourth horn),”

But this is contrary to everything he said previous to this point!! According to what was said at the start, we can’t start counting off horns until AFTER the wound is healed! So at best this is the first horn!

“succeeding the fall of the Empire in 476, which really HEALED the deadly wound, and restored the EMPIRE.”

This brings us back to the wounding of the head. Is the East the fourth beast/seventh head, or is the West? How can only half of a head die? How can only half of a beast die? Why aren’t there TWO heads for the Roman beast? There are two kings, two capitols, and two separate kingdoms! They were linked through a common history before 395AD, but completely separate from one another after 395AD. And this remained so, even after this “healing”! Or is only the West the beast? HWA says 'yes'. These are questions I don’t have the answer to.

“In A.D. 554, Justinian, Emperor of the East, from Constantinople, set up his government through an Imperial Legate at Ravenna, Italy, and brought about what is known in history as the "Imperial Restoration" of the Empire.”

It may have been the imperial restoration, but think about this detail – if the Western Roman Empire is the beast in question here, not the East, then it is now not healed but conquered completely by the Eastern Roman Empire. Justinian ruled from Constantinople, not Rome. Legate or no it was a vassal. The western beast isn’t healed, the western beast is DEAD! How did the beast move from Greece to Rome in the first place? Rome absorbed Greece. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the beast is now in the East? And according to one of his earliest statements, THIS is where the ten horns should BEGIN to reign one by one, “And when that HEAD of the beast had its deadly wound, HIS -- the beast's -- deadly wound was healed. The horns now reign, one by one.” So why do we look to the Holy Roman Empire as a continuation of the beast, and not to the Byzantine Empire?

That the Holy Roman Empire is the ten toes seems very unlikely. It doesn’t fit the pattern of the Bible. The empires, some very small and rather insignificant to the world, were completely insignificant to the area of Judea. The Bible focuses on that area mainly. Focusing on the Hapsburg dynasty isn’t typical. Similar to that would be focusing on the Mongol invasion of Europe. It doesn’t add up.

Also, there were more than just seven “restorations” of the Holy Roman Empire. It was always a difficult point to make that the seven remaining horns were the Holy Roman Empire. What complicated this even further is that we have seen there aren’t merely seven horns left, there are ten, and one little horn, totaling eleven. Many things have to be overlooked in order to fit this in, and that just isn’t right. 

If you really want to complicate matters further, read Daniel 2. In the statue dream, all ten toes exist at the same time and they are all smashed by the returning Christ. Jesus didn’t return at the end of each restoration of the Holy Roman Empire. Now read Revelation 13: 11-14, and Revelation 17: 9-13, & 16-17: this clearly states the final beast (which seriously appears to be the little horn and the King of the North both) and the ten horns all exist contemporaneously. This matches Daniel 7: 24 which states the little horn will come up in the presence of the other ten. Speaking of Daniel 7, verses 11-12 states the fourth beast was destroyed, but the other three remained for a season and a time. Put those together and we cannot have a little horn coming up separate from and thousands of years before the other ten.

I believe that HWA’s interpretation of the beasts was flawed by a very charismatic interpretation of the Bible found in Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons. I believe that Mr. Armstrong was sincere in wanting to understand. The fact of the matter is that it simply wasn’t (and isn't) time for God to reveal the meanings of the prophecies. Never the less, Mr. Armstrong’s description simply does not fit the account of the fourth beast of Dan. 7, or the beast of Rev. 13. The area of the Western Roman Empire may yet be the area of the fourth beast of Dan. 7 and the seventh head of Rev. 13. But maybe it isn’t! Has anyone checked to see if other nations or empires fit better? THEN WE HAVE NOT WATCHED! We have not PROVED! We have speculated and theorized, observed and opined, overlooked and rearranged, debated and accepted – but like a politician, we are long on words and short on real action. How can this please God?

I don’t have all the answers, I don’t even have a viable alternative save the nature of the Beast closely resembles the plans of the Muslim nations. But there’s no denying the traditional description is flawed. And I believe it to be fatally flawed because we tried to fit history to the theory put forth in the book The Two Babylons when we should have been fitting our beliefs to the Bible.

Clean/Unclean For Noah?

I certainly wonder how I came to believe what I did while I was a practicing Armstrongist.  One of the biggest parts of my life was following the meats laws.  One of the last things I studied before the scales fell from my eyes was meats laws.  I could not prove it without referring to my own (HWA inspired) thinking.  One popular argument was, "Meats laws were kept by Noah; therefore we must keep them."  Directly springing from this is the claim "Pig was never meant for human digestion."  Is this true?  Please look through this with me.

In the beginning, God created all things very good.

(GEN. 1: 31) “31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”

Many people claim certain animals were an abomination to God from the start, but that isn’t Biblically so.  God proclaimed all things ‘very good’. This claim is to bolster the case that clean and unclean meats for food were known from the beginning.

Originally, both man and animal were only given plants as a food source by God.

(GEN. 1: 29-30) 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God gave Adam and Eve every tree that grew in the Garden of Eden to eat from, except one.

(GEN. 2: 15-17) 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Because Adam and Eve did not obey, the ground’s productivity was cursed.

(GEN. 3: 17-19) 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

The error persists that God gave Adam animals for food.  This is absolutely not determined from a reading of the Bible text.  Three times God tells Adam that he may eat plants.  He allows Adam to eat animals zero times. This persists until the day Noah came out of the Ark.

Why would Abel have flocks if not for food?  We don’t know.  Perhaps God allowed them to be milked and shorn and used as beasts of burden, but not eaten.  It doesn’t say; except that the words of the Bible do not show that any animal was given to man for food at this time.  Abel used the animals for sacrifice – that is shown.  Abel sacrificed only animals, and only his best, and with faith.  Cain sacrificed plants, but not his best, and without faith.

(GEN. 4: 3-5) 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Here, the word "flock" is Strong's 6629, which almost always refers to sheep/goats (as opposed to pigs or cows, etc).  Notice that Cain’s sacrifice was otherwise acceptable to God.  It was the lack of faith in his attitude that really caused the issue.  

(HEB. 11: 4) “4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”.  It was a lack of faith that caused Cain to disregard the sacrifice.

Many people claim that Cain was not accepted because he did not sacrifice sheep.  God doesn’t indicate that anywhere.  Grain and wine were often offered as burnt sacrifices, for example in the Grain Offering, Peace Offering, Sin Offering, and the New Moon Offering.  But this wasn’t a burnt sacrifice like we see being given by the Levitical Priesthood.  This was  most likely a freewill offering.  All freewill offerings included flour and oil.  Perhaps when we read that Cain brought the “fruit of the land”, we think “he brought fruit.”  That is not necessarily so.  He merely brought what the land produced.  That could have been wheat and oil and grapes.  We simply don’t know.  Point being, to say “Cain didn’t bring sheep, so God was angry” is not Biblically sound.

God taught Adam and his family the ways God desired to be worshiped for that time, including what is right from wrong for that time, and those same ways were moved forward thousands of years later.  This is completely in line with all Jewish understanding of the Torah.  Even the Jews, who have studied and preserved the Torah for 4,000 years, say Noah had no meats law given to him.

The xCOGs often quote Romans 3: 2 when they wish to bolster a belief they hold.  However, I doubt they will hold that verse up in this instance.  I do not claim the Jews are always right by any means.  But in this case, there is no evidence to doubt them with.

Why would Abel sacrifice the exact animal Moses was told to sacrifice over two thousand years later?  We cannot know for sure.  The logical answer is not that the laws of Moses existed at that time.  Paul tells us the law was given 430 years after Abraham (GAL. 3: 17), and God tells us the sacrifice laws were added after that (JER. 7: 22).  The logical answer is because God knows what symbol He prefers to use for Jesus Christ’s sacrifice.

The story of Noah displays the knowledge of clean and unclean animals prior to the flood.

(GEN. 7: 1-3) 1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean [ceremonially pure; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean [not clean; Strong's 2889] animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

CLEAN [Strong’s 2889, Heb. Tahor, from 2891]: pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial, or moral sense):- clean, fair, pure (-ness).

[Strong’s 2891, Heb. Taher]: to be bright, i.e. (by implication) to be pure (physically sound, clear, unadulterated; in Leviticus uncontaminated; morally innocent or holy): be (to make, make one’s self, pronounce) clean, cleanse (self), purge, purify (-ier, self).

Everyone knows Noah took the animals two-by-two, but what’s usually omitted is that he took 7 pairs of “clean” animals but only 2 pairs of “unclean” ones.  These animals on the Ark may have been filthy with mud and what not, but that isn’t what God was referring to here by “clean”. Obviously it was a condition of un-holiness, or rather ceremonial un-cleanliness, in which they existed.  There was indeed the knowledge both of ceremonially clean and unclean animals before Sinai, but they were for sacrifice (although the purpose of the sacrifice is not specified).  The Bible simply does not give animals for food yet.

These animals are not to be understood as unclean for consumption; no animal is given to man at this point in history for food, clean or otherwise.  What Noah ate – his food law – just as it was for Adam, was plants.  This indicates that the ceremonial impurity of animals for sacrifice existed before the Law was given to Israel, but after Adam sinned. 

(GEN. 6: 21) “21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”

Now pay close attention to the very first thing that Noah does when he steps off the Ark:

(GEN. 8: 20-21) 20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

These animals were not clean for food, they were clean for sacrifice!  And they pleased God’s heart.

Still yet, up to this point, God had only given plants to eat.  This was the law for both man and animal.  When the flood receded, Noah left the Ark and sacrificed clean animals to God.  Only then did God give animals to man for food.

(GEN. 9: 1-4) 1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing7431 [from 7430 a reptile or any other rapidly moving animal: - that creepeth, creeping (moving) thing.]  that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

God gives “everything that lives and moves” as food to mankind, except that nothing with its blood still in it may be eaten.  Many argue, “Everything… except the unclean animals.”  There are no such exceptions here.  “Moving thing” comes from a root word that specifically includes reptiles – all of which are forbidden in Mosaic law.  The clean animals were clean for sacrifice; clean for food does not factor in here.  He clearly says “everything”.  The original Hebrew word for “everything” really means “whole”, meaning the total sum, and is often translated “all” and “every”.  Anyone who says otherwise is not letting the Bible interpret the Bible.  God makes certain in the next verses that a misinterpretation cannot be made here, that perhaps someone might think this includes the right to cannibalism.  Man, therefore, is the only exception.

The xCOGs would never fail to argue, “God didn’t mean everything when He said ‘everything’.  Obviously He didn’t intend Noah to eat Black Widow spiders.  God gave all the green herbs, but did He mean poison ivy?”  Perhaps not.  Do we know those terrible things even existed back then?  In all honesty, that’s not an apples to apples comparison.  Comparing pigs which do not so much as have a poison gland to something poisonous which undoubtedly will kill you if you ingest it is not a fair comparison.  But this is all human reasoning, not relying on the Bible.  If we want to be semantic about it, the Bible says “as the green herbs”.  Were there clean and unclean green herbs?  No.  So when Armstrongism argues we shouldn't eat poison ivy, don't forget that poison ivy is not unclean!

Before the flood, no animals were given to man as food.  Now, ALL animals are given to man as food.  No exceptions are mentioned by God but man himself.  This was done by necessity, as there were few plants to eat.  It should be pointed out, however, that a few pairs of the clean animals would have been eaten first, since there were enough pairs to spare, until the rapidly-mating unclean animals could multiply.  Don’t forget that predatory animals would also need those clean pairs (they can’t eat the unclean ones or if they did you wouldn’t ever know they existed).  And 7 pairs, minus one pair used in sacrifice, minus one more pair that must survive, leaves 4 pairs of animals to last them and all the predatory animals.  That’s not a lot.  Eating unclean meats would have been a necessity.  This does not affect the ceremonial status of “unclean” animals for the purposes of sacrifice, however.

A Brief Encouragement

Unfortunately, the purpose of this blog makes the general discussion rather negative.  I want very much to be positive right now, and hopefully share Christ with you a bit and give you some real hope (not like the false hope that requires me convincing you of doom and gloom first).

I believe that Jesus Christ was indeed with the Father in the very beginning, and that through Him all things were created.  There is a good debate over at As Bereans Did about this if you disagree with me.  Jesus Christ and our Father planned and designed us.  It was their goal to have a family and to share all that they have - all things that are and ever will be - with you.  We know that all good things are from the Father of Light; so all He has to share with you is going to be good and goodness.

Now, this being that we know as Jesus Christ, being the Creator, knew ahead of time there was a possibility we would sin.  It didn't have to be, but it was likely. I would tend to believe it is better in the long run that we did, and got it all out of the way now.  Having bound Himself by His own name to charge all mankind who sin with the death penalty, He also knew there would be no hope for us, and no reason to bother creating us.  For love's sake, and for hope's sake, since He loved you so incredibly much, He asked permission to take that penalty upon Himself.  He volunteered to stand in for us and take every bit of that penalty upon Himself.  This was exactly what the Father needed; now there was hope; and He agreed.  Not because we loved Him, but because He so loved us. 

And when the time came, Jesus Christ, being a God and eternal, set asside all of that.  As if He folded His glory up like a shirt and put it asside.  Here is a being who possesses all things - He created all things that were created - and now He just hands it all over without so much as a plug nickel of payment.  For what? For you.

He came to this earth as a man, He hurt and He sweat and He stunk and He hungered as a man. He cried and He felt loss and He earned His living and He had no roof over His head at times, like a man.  He burned in the fire of time as we do.  His own siblings had no faith in Him.  His best friends did not understand Him.  One of them He knew would betray Him to death - a most horrible death.  And He submitted to it all.  For what?  For you.  

Oh, He could have come as a pampered brat and died more peacefully than He did.  But hundreds of years before, He inspired the prophets to tell of the very terrible things that would happen to Him.  Like a lamb before the slaughter, He accepted it all in silence; never complaining.  Why?  Because of His overwhelming love for you.

And then came the time when He would have to submit to the punishment He volunteered to. It wasn't so easy a thing. He felt the carnal pull of self-preservation. His mortal body loved life. Though He knew exactly what awaited, and saw death from a perspective we cannot currently understand, He feared. He prayed for another way, and He sweat great drops of blood! But He would not remit. There was no other way. At the time of Abraham He swore by Himself because He could swear by none Higher that He would do this.

And then - for the very first time in all eternity - there was only the Father. He was alone. That great being, that eternal Creator and mastermind of life... was no longer. And He did that for you.

But here is hope. Not that the world is going to burn with you on it. Not that banks will crash and the Beast will rage and the rocks will not hide. No. But that exactly as prophecied in Jonah, God the Father resurrected the dead to eternal life. Now, think about this for a bit... the Father resurrected a God being!  Now that is something! How much more, then, could He resurrect you? Because He loves you. Because He would die for you. Nothing that is or was or will be can stop Him. And you are a part of that if you only accept it. No man need come between you and God.  Just allow Christ to take part in your life; to guide you and teach you and sometimes correct you. He has done it all, and He will do it all. Why? Because He loves you.

That's all.  Just love.  It all boils down to love.

The Plain Error

I just wanted to go over a few things with you.  Many people call Herbert Armstrong (the initial "W." didn't stand for anything) the "End-time Elijah".  He was the prophet and Apostle of the Worldwide Church of God, and thus all of the xCOGs.  Even though he himself denied being a prophet, he sure proclaimed more than his fair share of prophetic interpretations and made a few prophecies of his own.  But were they accurate?

Many people go to the booklet "1975 In Prophecy" to show he was a false prophet.  But there are many excuses a person can make involving that.  There is a good chance that wasn't his material; he never said those things were certain; etc, etc.  So I decided to see for myself what other things he had said in the past.  I went to Herbert-W-Armstrong.org and read their collection of mimeographed Plain Truth magazines.  Is there any other evidence of his accuracy, or lack thereof?

Before I start, please read this verse:(DEU. 18: 22)"when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."  That's some pretty hefty stuff there!  Now, read verse 20 of the same chapter: (DEU. 18: 20) "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die."  Oh.   ....

That means this is very serious stuff here.  I'm not talking "I think tomorrow it will rain.", or "Christ is coming soon.", or even "This is the end-time."  All of those things are some form of telling the future or the other.  But God isn't interested in all that.  What God is referring to is the person who speaks in His name, claiming to be someone sent by God, perhaps claiming a title of some form, perhaps being a fulfillment of prophecy himself, and this person has a message for you to follow.   Unfortunately, Herbert Armstrong fit all of those things.

It is incumbent upon us, as faithful followers of God, to prove all things (ACT. 17: 11; I THS. 5: 21), and to test the spirits (I JOHN 4: 1).  If God says that a false prophet is a big deal to Him, it should be a big deal to us. God says, a false prohet must not be feared (respected).

So, what then?  If I show you, from Mr. Armstrong's own pen, or even from Garner Ted's as well, will you do what God has set before you to do?  Will you accept that Herbert Armstrong wasn't a man who made one mistake in 1975, but has a pattern from the beginning of claiming to know the interpretation of prophecy, yet was in fact being utterly wrong?

Please do not misunderstand me.  My goal is not character assassination.  I have no quarrel with Herbert Armstrong personally.  The reason I post this here is to help those people who are trapped in an xCOG and would like to know if leaving is a possible option.  This information helped me greatly.  I post it here as a help to people whom Christ loves deeply, not as some seedy act of vengeance.  These are the things that helped open my eyes and settle the decades of fear that had built up inside me.  I offer it to you in the hopes it will help you.

The following is a summary of what I read in the Plain Truth magazine for the years leading up to and including World War II.  I have added a couple things afterwards to show how the prophecies just kept coming.  Please read them and form your own opinion.

Note: anything preceded by an asterisk *, or surrounded in braces [], is my own comment.

Plain Truth, Feb 1934. 

Page 2 – predicts WWII leads immediately to the Day of the Lord; says “The end is here.”   

Page 3 – the Great Tribulation was already 3 or 4 years started.

Plain Truth, June-July 1934. 

Page 3 – a detailed chart described the Tribulation starting in 1928 and continuing until Jesus’ return in 1936.

Page 4 – “So this is the Tribulation.  We have been in the Tribulation since 1929 in the United States, and 1928 in Europe.”

Page 5 – 1936 is when the time of the Gentiles ends, and is the fulfillment of the prophecies of LEV. 26; plus many more details

Page 6 – Mussolini is the leader of the Beast power, reviving the Roman Empire

Page 7 – relates the “Elijah to come” with the Two Witnesses [IMHO, when he later takes that mantle of Elijah to himself, that also elevates him to one of the Two Witnesses]

Plain Truth, Aug 1934.

*This entire edition basically takes the material of Alexander Hyslop, from his book “The Two Babylons” and rehashes it.  Giving no credit to Hyslop, of course.

Page 1 – the generation alive at 1934 would be the ones to experience the Beast; “the plagues will soon be poured out”; these things will happen “within a matter of months”

Page 3 – the tenth revival of the Roman Empire was being formed by Mussolini

Page 6 – Mussolini has 5 of the 10 nations united already

Plain Truth, March 1935.

Page 1 – “It [prophetic fulfillment] will occur, and fill thousands of columns of magazine and newspaper space, in all probability within the next three or four months.”

*This was in response to a “major prophetic fulfillment” of 1934: the Dust-bowl.  Draught, however, was not what he said would come next.

Page 2 – “The time of God’s wrath --- the last plagues --- is at hand.”; in 1935 the insect prophecies of Joel 1 would be fulfilled; “We face the probability of a food shortage such as has never been known in American history!”; “The present order is Doomed!  Its final destruction…  is now but a matter of months off!”

Page 3 – Mentions Hitler’s secret weapons: the Stratosphere Rocket, the Z-Ray, the All-Piercing Bullet, the Rotative Gun, and The Strange machine gun; “The last plagues… are all here now!”; “The next war will end at Armageddon!  And it may start any hour!”

Page 7 – “…The resurrection must come before the present trouble ends!”

Plain Truth, July 1935.

Page 1 – “Just what is now taking place?  It is the collapse of every institution of man.”

Page 2 – still says Mussolini is raising up the Beast

Page 3 – “Every sign in the world today fulfils the prophecies which tell us we have come to the very last days…”; “…This present civilization is about to be overthrown and completely wiped out!”; “The Gentile nations are at the end of their allotted time.”;
The time is at hand.”

Page 4 – goes on more about Mussolini’s Beast; “Mussolini is starting a war that shall end at Armageddon!  It is the start of the final world war!  It is now starting!  Do you realize it?  It is starting, now!  This war starting now will only end at the second coming of Christ!”

Page 5 – “The Bible foretells every step Mussolini will take in the war now starting against Ethiopia, until he plunges the whole world into war!!  This is undoubtedly the beginning of the expected last world war, that culminates at Armageddon!”; claims 6 of 10 nations are under Mussolini’s power

Page 9 – the king of the south is Etheopia

*Please note at this point, civilization is supposed to come to a screeching halt in 1936!  I can find no record of the Plain Truth for the year 1936.

Plain Truth, Feb. 1938.

Page 2 – “The ‘beast’ then, stands for this Roman government, or for Mussolini individually, as its head.”; “The title ‘Il Duce’ is derived from the Saxon word ‘duce’, meaning ‘demon’.

*At this point, Mussolini is still the Beast leader.

Plain Truth, March 1938.

Page 1 - The Beast is now Hitler and Nazi Germany

*Without skipping a beat, not one mention nor retraction, Hitler is now the Beast leader.

Page 2 – But here the leaders are shown to give their power to Mussolini, this includes Germany and France

Page 6 – A “likely combination” of European nations that could have made up the Beast is listed.  It includes: Germany, France, Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Rumania, and Yugoslavia, Italy is the 11^th nation and head.

Plain Truth, Jan. 1939.

Page 1 – 1936 was the end of “the times of the Gentiles”.

Page 2 – [after the time of the Gentiles] “And now what?  What is next to occur?  World war?  No --- not quite yet.”

*WHAT???  I thought the world war was NOW!, and that was in 1935!

Page 3 -  “Mussolini soon-appearing re-born Roman Empire  is the “Beast” power, and Mussolini undoubtedly is the “Beast”!!; Mussolini will fight Britain

Page 4 – Mussolini will fight Christ, and take Egypt

Page 5 – Mussolini will fight Russia at Armageddon

Plain Truth, Nov. 1939.

Page 1 – “We have been telling our readers consistently that the last prophesied world war --- the war which ends at Armageddon --- will be started by Mussolini (or his successor) and not by Hitler.”; “We have been telling you that the war of 1914-1918 never ended!”

*This wasn’t in the print!

*I give HWA credit here.  This magazine contains some of the only admissions of error I can think of from him.  “This may not, after all, be the “Armageddon War” at all.”

Page 2 – Stalin will meet the Allied powers at Armageddon.

Page 9 – Still claiming Mussolini is the leader of the Beast

Plain Truth, Jan. 1945.

Claiming Franklin D. Roosevelt might be our last President. 

*Sound familiar?  It should if you've read Ron Weinland's false prophecies.

Predicts the doom of the United States and Britain, and the failure of the United Nations

Plain Truth, March-April 1946.

Predicts a showdown in Palestine would spell the demise of either the U.S.S.R. or Britain

Plain Truth, April 1956.

Page 3 “Disease Epidemics Threaten USA in 2 Years”

I can only guess what that must have felt like to watch all of those things HWA said were sure all come to naught.  I know that Gerald Waterhouse said that if Herbert Armstrong died before the end of the age, the Bible is false.  Those are trmendously dangerous things to be teaching.

The reason I find all of this so important that I seem to harp on the idea is that, in his zeal to follow God, there is a possibility that HWA has led people away from God.  Dangerously away!  I find it is impossible for me to sit idly by and say nothing if I could say something at all and help even one person break free from that yoke of Old Covenant legalism and enjoy the invaluable gift of the New Covenant!

Prophecy for Fear and Control

I've spent some time reading Gerald Flurry's ... I mean, the Philadelphia Church of God's ... website, theTrumpet.com. I have to tell you, I see a very disturbing pattern there. Please let me explain.

Take this list of the current headlines as of 9/9/08: "UK Car Sales Crash", "Danger Lurks In America's Backyard", "Banks: Dominoes Ready To Fall", "Russia Attacks".
What do you see about these? They are all negative! Now, I'll readily admit, I chose these because they are negative, and there are several headlines there which are not negative. But I'm trying to prove a point. My point? Gerald Flurry is HWA-redux.

Why so negative? How often have I read "letter to the editor" sections in xCOG magazines where people ask that question. As always, the official respondent tries to smooth it all over by trying to show how it is the duty of the magazine to review the world in all of its aspects, and they try to emphasize how hope is on its way. So, in other words, that's not negativity, that's hope!

That's not hope, that's double-speak; 1984 style.

I am trying to get at a larger point here. But first, I want you to review this website. It is a review of the Plain Truth magazine, from 1934-1970. Please start with the earliest ones. Just review the headlines. You know what I notice? "WAR!", "Dictator", "BEAST", and prophecy - LOTS of prophecy. Now, review the next section. "Prophecy", "Doom", "Danger", "Fate", "Conquer", "Hitler", "War", "Trouble". Again, the same thing: prophecy and negativity.

If you want a fine adventure into the world of false prophecy, read the December 1948 edition entitled "NOW it Can Be Told!". In it, HWA describes how the seeds for World War III were being sown in San Francisco in 1948. The next section of magazines is even more interesting than that. HWA dedicates two magazines to the idea that Hitler was alive and plotting a come-back.
All of these prophecies, negative or not, had no disclaimer. There was no "it is my opinion". No "we could be wrong, but..." They were "prophecies for TODAY!" They were "revealed for the first time in 18 centuries." Yet they were wrong with a frequency unmatched by most politicians. Read them for yourself. No, really! Read those old magazines for yourself. The only way you can possibly have open eyes is to read these things and see for yourself the unbroken flood of false prophecy. Then perhaps you will see that Ronald Weinland, Gerald Flurry, Dave Pack, Rod Merideth, et al, are clones of Herbert Armstrong.

They have learned the formula. Part of it anyway. They just aren't as good of ad-men as HWA was. I'll tell them what they are missing. MORE BOMBAST!! They need FIRE! They need to make some COLOSSAL claims of WONDROUS and SECRET things using colorful phrases like "earth shattering" and "mind boggling"!!!

But what about the prophecy and the negativity is so appealing? Why so often? Why so many very wrong claims? Because - it's an ad; an advertisement! And this formula works. No different than "Your shirts will be NUCLEAR white; so white people will need sunglasses!", or "This herb tincture will cure baldness, regulate your bowels, and lengthen your life!", or "Our news team is the MOST biting, MOST dedicated, MOST up-to-date!", or even "Our beer will get you LOTS of women!"
Why do people advertise? Why, to make money, of course. What was another thing that appears in Herbert Armstrong's works almost as often as prophecy and fear? Requests for cash. And that, my fellows, is the reason for the insistence on tithes, offerings, donations, gifts, etc.

But how does a person keep all that money? Control. Control is what keeps the false prophecies from being challenged. Control keeps the money safely rolling in. Fear and control. A whole web of fear, based on prophecy, created the ripe-conditions and left minds ready for control. Add all the rules you want, make all the demands you care to, the people are under control. No one ever asked "Why is Herbert Armstrong living like a king while I can't afford meat?" Well, no one did without getting disfellowshipped. ...Fear!

Fear of loss. Fear of death. Fear of disfellowshipment. Fear of not qualifying for salvation. Fear of losing salvation. Fear of being condemned to the lake of fire. I am willing to step out on a limb here and say, if you are/were part of Armstrongism, you have wondered "will I be in the second resurrection?" That is fear; fear and doubt. All of this leads to more and more control. All of it is based on a heap of false prophecies.
It makes you afraid, and now you want to avoid that fearful end, so you ask, "What do I do? What do I do???" They were hoping for this very reaction. This is where they step in and say (imagine your best gentlemanly sales voice), "Why, I have the solution! It's quite simple. You just pay me a little bit of money, slip on this yoke to work up some safety, and stick around why don't ya?"
Sounds great to a person in fear! I'll buy a dozen if I can only live! And there you are, paying upwards of 30%+ of your income, a slave to their heavy yoke of bondage, and too afraid to even investigate any alternative.

But what if someone breaks the control and chalenges the leadership? A ready-made excuse is there: only the leadership is inspired by God to understand; everyone else is influenced by Satan. Well, we had better get back in line!

Not convinced? Let me quote to you one typical opening sentence, like many others I have seen and no doubt you have too, from the February-March 1955 Plain Truth magazine: "You ought to be gravely concerned -yes, FRIGHTENED about the conditinos in the world today." That was from an article by Garner Ted Armstrong entitled "WORLD WAR IS HERE - NOW!" And that was in 1955. Now, friends and fellows, why should we have been frightened? Let me ask you this - did Christ ever preach this way? Did He go to Galilee and proclaim "BE FRIGHTENED!"? Do the Apostles preach such things? No. It's all an ad; a cheap play on emotions. Pay attention next time you'r watching your favorite televangelist. Notice how the requests for money always come after some emotional piece. Fear or tear, it doesn't matter; it's all about stirring up your emotions to get you to give more. They always get people riled up, then say something like "I want you to get your checkbook out right now!" Of course they do! Right now, while your emotions are running high and you're likely to give more.

Prophecy was a gift from God. If taken as intended, it is a beautiful and hope-filled thing. It was never intended to be a tool for fear and profit and control. It is a blessing and should bring glory to God. It is part of God's love for us and we know God's love casts out fear. Prophecy should cast out fear! If there is any fear at all in prophecy, it is to get you to straighten out your life, not to bring in the cash. The end result of that is again the casting out of fear. Why do these men insist on twisting it like they do? How do they continually get away with it? I had to conclude that anyone who comes to me hawking prophecy is suspect. Take this lesson from the Didache, chapter 11, verse 6 "And let the apostle when departing take nothing but bread until he arrive at his resting-place; but if he ask for money, he is a false prophet."