One of the distinctive beliefs of Iglesia ni Cristo is about the Philippines being the Far East. In this article we will examine whether this kind of belief will hold up by letting it under the microscope of reason. Let us apply sheer logic for if it is of God, we cannot, but find it reasonable.
Below are the quotation form Pasugo and God's Message asserting that Philippines is the "Far East":
The Church of Christ in the Philippines : The Church of Christ which emerged in the Philippines (a country in the Far East) in these last days was established by virtue of the fulfillment of the prophecies of God (Isa.43:5 Moffatt) and of Christ (Jn.10:16;Acts 20:28 Lamsa).
Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo by Eraño G Manalo
Far East in the prophecy where the other sheep of Christ are to be called has for its fulfillment the Philippines. The reestablishment ot this Church began with the inception of the ministry of Brother Felix Manalo whose preaching gave birth to the call of the members of the Church of Christ since 1914.
Pasugo, July August 1979 p. 9
What follows is the quotation from the God's Message Magazine as to why Philippines is the “Far East":
Where, for instance, would this messenger come from to preach the gospel? Apostle John wrote that the angel would ascend from the east or, in other translations of the Bible, from the rising of the sun (Revised Standard Version). This word may puzzle some people since the east is divided into three regions - near, middle and far east — not to mention the fact that there are many countries located there.
From the Smith's Bible Dictionary, we can glean that the Greek word for east used in Revelation 7:2 was translated into Hebrew as “mizrach” (p. 637). The use of “mizrach” as opposed to “kedem” (which also means east) is explained:
“East. The Hebrew term kedem properly means that which is before or in front of a person and was applied to the east... on the other hand mizrach is used of the far east.” (p.154) . The word east that is used in Revelation 7:2 refers to the Far East. One of the countries that lie in the Far East, almost at the geographical center to be exact, is the Philippines (Asia and the Philippines, p. 169). Thus, to say that the true messenger of God came from the Philippines would not go against any biblical doctrine. It is a statement that is, in fact, supported by both biblical and scholarly references.
God's Message Magazine, May 1999, pp. 6-8
The place: Far East. In Isaiah 43: 5-6, there is a mention about God's sons and daughters who would come "from the east" and "from afar":
"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west. I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' and to the south, 'Do not hold them back'. Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth." (New International Version)
In Hebrew, the equivalent of the word "east" in verse 5 of the afore¬mentioned passage is mizrach as distinguished from kedem. While both terms can be translated as "east," kedem "is used in a strictly geographical sense to describe a spot or country immediately before another in an easterly direction," whereas mizrach "is used of the far east" {Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 637, emphasis ours). Justifiably, some Bible translations render the term mizrach in Isaiah 43:5 as follows:
Moffatt Translation: "From the far east will I bring your offspring, and from the far west I will gather you." (emphasis ours)
Today's English Version: "Do not be afraid—I am with you! From the dis¬tant east and the farthest west I will bring your people home." (emphasis ours)
Therefore, the appointed place of origin of the next generation of God's sons and daughters is the Far East. It is there where Christ's other sheep who would make up the one flock in the future would emerge.
As to what kind of place in the far east the prophesied people of God would originate, another related prophecy states:
"Therefore in the east give glory to the Lord; exalt the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, in the islands of the sea." (Isa. 24:15, N1V, emphasis ours)
God's Message (July 2005 I Vol.57 I No.7 | ISSN 0116- 1636)
From the preceding quotations, here are the claims of Iglesia Ni Cristo:
I. That the Hebrew word "Mizrach" Isa. 43:5 refers to "Far East" and consequently refers to Philippines.
II. That the "East" in Rev. 7:2, when translated into Hebrew, is translated as Mizrach and again consequently refers to Philippines .
III. That the "prophecy" in Isa 24:15 which refers to “islands of the sea" also refers to the Philippines.
IV. That these references are supported by scholarly references e.g. Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 637 and Biblical references e.g. Moffat's Translation of the Bible and Today's English Version.
Let us now analyze their claims:
I. That the Hebrew word "Mizrach" Isa. 43:5 refers to "Far East" and consequently refers to Philippines.
Iglesia Ni Cristo used Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible vol. 1, p. 637 to interpret the definition of the Hebrew word Mizrach. Perhaps it would do us good if we could look to the same reference ourselves:
East
The Hebrew term, kedem, properly means that which is before or in front of a person, and was applied to the east, from the custom of turning in that direction, when describing the points of the compass, before, behind, the right and the left representing respectively east, west, south and north. Job_23:8-9.
The term as generally used refers to the lands lying immediately eastward of Palestine, namely, Arabia, Mesopotamia and Babylonia; on the other hand, mizrach, is used of the far east with a less definite signification. Isa_42:2; Isa_42:25; Isa_43:5; Isa_46:11.
Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible vol. 1, p. 637
Perhaps our friends INC miss this important portion: That the Hebrew word Mizrach is used of the far east with a less definite signification.
Of the two Pasugo that we quoted above, none of them ever quoted Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible in full. The author inclines to believe, that up to this moment, no Pasugo nor God's Message was able to give the full and relevant quotation of the definition of the word East as given in Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible . Whether, the INC deliberately omitted the significant qualifying portion of Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible definition of the word East is up for the reader to decide.
Now, the discrepancy is plain in sight. INC wants us to believe that the Hebrew word Mizrach is used for "Far East" in the Bible. They were unable to tell us why Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible qualifies it that is is used with a less definite signification.
One thing is certain, Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible is unable to tell us how far is far. Is it, as Iglesia ni Cristo wants us to believe, far as the Philippines?
We will look at the various uses of the Hebrew word Mizrach in the Scripture and validate the definition of the word East as given by Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible. This time, however, we will evaluate it focusing particularly on the "Far East" issue and in its full and proper context namely that mizrach, is used of the far east with a less definite signification.
Let us now turn our attention to the Scripture itself in the Old Testament from which we could make the following observations:
1. The word Mizrach is used 71 verses times in the Old Testament. Of these 71 verses, not even one warrants us to translate it as Far East. That is, even if we translate it as East (as opposed to Far East) it will be still a faithful translation. Hence, in various formal equivalence translation of the Bible, Mizrach is translated simply as East (e.g. KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, YLT NASB, NET). The Bible translation which translate mizrach as Far East are dynamic equivalence translations.
True, the word phrase "far east" (Moffat Translation) and "distant east" (Today's English Version) indeed occurs in some translation of the Bible. But these are translated using the dynamic equivalence principle which adds or subtract words or phrases depending on the understanding of translator .
Hence for example Moffat's translation included the word far where such word is not existing in the Hebrew original. There are also cases where Moffat felt the need to rearrange the order of verses and even entire chapters of the Scripture in his translation of the Bible. (The author is reminded of Rev 22:18, Deu_4:2)
Today's English version of the Bible translated Mizrach as "distant east" in Isa. 43:5. However, the other remaining 70 verses are not translated as "distant east". Nor does it have any sense of being a "far east" as Philippines in the Far East.
The difference between translation principles of the Bible namely, Formal equivalence and Dynamic equivalence is beyond the scope of this article. It is highly recommended that the reader should look into these translation principle to further clarify the point of these second observation.
2. It can also be observed that the Hebrew word Mizrach is to designate:
a. A dimension in the Temple courtyard
The east (Mizrach) end, toward the sunrise, was also fifty cubits wide. (Exo 38:13 NIV)
b. A gate in the Lord's Tent or Tabernacle
The gatekeepers were on the four sides: east (Mizrach), west, north and south. (1Ch 9:24 NIV)
c. Realm inside Israel
On the south the land belonged to Ephraim, on the north to Manasseh. The territory of Manasseh reached the sea and bordered Asher on the north and Issachar on the east (Mizrach). (Jos 17:10 NIV)
Then Moses set aside three cities east (Mizrach) of the Jordan, (Deu 4:41 NIV)
Having stated these observations we can now understand why Smith's Diction¬ary of the Bible as a Far East with a less definite signification.
May I also offer the opportunity to our reader to look for themselves in the Scripture the usage of the Hebrew word Mizrach. If someone would bother to go thru all OT references wherein the Hebrew word Mizrach is used and (perhaps obtain the percentage with which the word was used) in the sense of being 'far east' he is free to do so. What follow are ALL verses in the Old Testament where the word Mizrach occurs:
Exo_27:13; Exo_38:13; Num_2:3; Num_3:38; Num_21:11; Num_32:19; Num_34:15; Deu_3:17; Deu_3:27; Deu_4:41; Deu_4:47; Deu_4:49; Jos_1:15; Jos_4:19; Jos_11:3; Jos_11:8; Jos_12:1; Jos_12:3; Jos_13:5; Jos_13:8; Jos_13:27; Jos_13:32; Jos_16:1; Jos_16:5; Jos_16:6; Jos_17:10; Jos_18:7; Jos_19:12; Jos_19:13; Jos_19:27; Jos_19:34; Jos_20:8; Jdg_11:18; Jdg_20:43; Jdg_21:19; 1Ki_7:25; 2Ki_10:33; 1Ch_4:39; 1Ch_5:9; 1Ch_5:10; 1Ch_6:78; 1Ch_7:28; 1Ch_9:18; 1Ch_9:24; 1Ch_12:15; 1Ch_26:14; 1Ch_26:17; 2Ch_4:4; 2Ch_5:12; 2Ch_29:4; 2Ch_31:14; Neh_3:26; Neh_3:29; Neh_12:37; Psa_50:1; Psa_103:12; Psa_107:3; Psa_113:3; Isa_41:2; Isa_41:25; Isa_43:5; Isa_45:6; Isa_46:11; Isa_59:19; Jer_31:40; Dan_8:9; Dan_11:44; Amo_8:12; Zec_8:7; Zec_14:4; Mal_1:11;
But what about the claim of INC about the other Hebrew word "kedem" to wit:
While both terms can be translated as "east," kedem "is used in a strictly geographical sense to describe a spot or country immediately before another in an easterly direction," (Ibid)
Is this true? May I refer our readers to the following verses:
Deu 33:27 The eternal (kedem) God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.
2Ki 19:25 Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it, and of ancient (kedem) times that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps.
INC researchers got it flat wrong. The Hebrew word kedem is NOT used in a strictly geographical sense to describe a spot or country immediately before another in an easterly direction.
And for those who have time to bother to go though each verses:
Deu_33:15; Deu_33:27; 2Ki_19:25; Neh_12:46; Job_23:8; Job_29:2; Psa_44:1; Psa_55:19; Psa_68:33; Psa_74:2; Psa_74:12; Psa_77:5; Psa_77:11; Psa_78:2; Psa_119:152; Psa_139:5; Psa_143:5; Pro_8:22; Pro_8:23; Isa_9:12; Isa_19:11; Isa_23:7; Isa_37:26; Isa_45:21; Isa_46:10; Isa_51:9; Jer_30:20; Jer_46:26; Lam_1:7; Lam_2:17; Lam_5:21; Mic_5:2; Mic_7:20; Hab_1:12;
II. That the "East" in Rev. 7:2, when translated into Hebrew, is translated as Mizrach and again consequently refers to Philippines .
The greek phrase ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου (anatolos eliou) literally means "the sunrising" and consequently translated East (from whence the sun is rising). But why did the INC need to translate it to Hebrew if we can directly translate it to English? The answer is simple- there is no English translation of the Bible, (not even Lamsa and Moffatt) which translate ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου as "far east" or "distant east"........
Read more!
THE "ONE NEW MAN" IN EPH. 2:15- WHICH IS IT? CHRIST AND THE CHURCH OR JEWS AND GENTILES?
The Church of Christ : The Church of Christ is the Church that Jesus will save (Acts 20:28 Lamsa Translation) because He made this Church His body and heads it Himself -- BEFORE GOD, THE CHURCH AND CHRIST ARE ONE NEW MAN.
(Eph.2:15 NKJV); Col.1:18 NKJV).
Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)[1], written by Eraño G. Manalo.
Observations:
1. There is nothing in the two verses referred to (Eph.2:15 NKJV; Col.1:18 NKJV) that says that "before God, the Church and Christ are "one new man".
2. No Bible scholar, modern or of old, rendered the same conclusion. As a matter of fact, even scholars quoted by INC in its official publication Pasugo arrived at the opposite conclusion:
"In this life inaugurated by Christ, JEW and GENTILE (both parties) could find themselves at ONE. Thus Paul speaks of Christ as performing in himself a new act of creation. He became the prototype of a humanity (a new Man) in which the old divisions were fused. Our attention is here directed to only one of those divisions— the agelong cleavage of JEW and GENTILE."
MOFFATT NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY
Based on The New Translation by the
REV. PROFEsSOR JAMEs MOFFATT, D.D.
and under nis Editorship
"He made peace by the sacrifice of himself; and came to reconcile, JEWS AND GENTILE to each other. He made both one, by reconciling these TWO DIVISIONS OF MEN."
MATTHEW HENRY' COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE- Commentary on Eph 2:14-22
3. There is no one in Christian history held the same beleif as INCM. It unknown to the early Christian themselves.
But perhaps, Mr. EGM discovered for himself something unknown to these scholars by merely considering the verse in question, specifically in Eph.2:15.
Let as read again Eph.2:15 but this time let us include verse 16:
Eph 2:15-16 NKJV having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, (16) and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
According to EGM, the "new man" refers to Church and Christ, let us substitute this belief in Eph 2:16 NKJV.
(Eph 2:16 NKJV) And that He might reconcile them BOTH (Church and Christ ) to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Now, if BOTH refers to Christ and His Church, why did Christ need to reconcile Himself with God?
INCM strange doctrine indeed. Read more!
(Eph.2:15 NKJV); Col.1:18 NKJV).
Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)[1], written by Eraño G. Manalo.
Observations:
1. There is nothing in the two verses referred to (Eph.2:15 NKJV; Col.1:18 NKJV) that says that "before God, the Church and Christ are "one new man".
2. No Bible scholar, modern or of old, rendered the same conclusion. As a matter of fact, even scholars quoted by INC in its official publication Pasugo arrived at the opposite conclusion:
"In this life inaugurated by Christ, JEW and GENTILE (both parties) could find themselves at ONE. Thus Paul speaks of Christ as performing in himself a new act of creation. He became the prototype of a humanity (a new Man) in which the old divisions were fused. Our attention is here directed to only one of those divisions— the agelong cleavage of JEW and GENTILE."
MOFFATT NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY
Based on The New Translation by the
REV. PROFEsSOR JAMEs MOFFATT, D.D.
and under nis Editorship
"He made peace by the sacrifice of himself; and came to reconcile, JEWS AND GENTILE to each other. He made both one, by reconciling these TWO DIVISIONS OF MEN."
MATTHEW HENRY' COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE- Commentary on Eph 2:14-22
3. There is no one in Christian history held the same beleif as INCM. It unknown to the early Christian themselves.
But perhaps, Mr. EGM discovered for himself something unknown to these scholars by merely considering the verse in question, specifically in Eph.2:15.
Let as read again Eph.2:15 but this time let us include verse 16:
Eph 2:15-16 NKJV having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, (16) and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
According to EGM, the "new man" refers to Church and Christ, let us substitute this belief in Eph 2:16 NKJV.
(Eph 2:16 NKJV) And that He might reconcile them BOTH (Church and Christ ) to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Now, if BOTH refers to Christ and His Church, why did Christ need to reconcile Himself with God?
INCM strange doctrine indeed. Read more!
INC's "ENDS OF THE EARTH" DOCTRINE
On this article, we will see how the INC understand the phrase "ends of the earth". Their interpretation of the phrase "ends of the Earth" is also regarded as an evidence for the claims of FYM.
I. INC’s Official Stand- Ends of the “Earth” means “Time” (Panahon)
The phrase in question comes from Isaiah 43:6 NKJV
I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth.
And how did INC understand them? Below are quotes from Pasugo:
"Bakit kami naniniwalang hindi dako o isang lugal ang tinutukoy ng pariralang “Mga Wakas Ng lupa?” Sapagka’t ayon sa siyensya ang mundo ay hindi lapad (flat) kundi bilog. Kung ang mundo sana ay lapad ang mga gilid niyon ang mat atawg nating wakas. Papaano magkakaroon ng wakas na dako ang mundo samantalang ito’y bilog na gaya ng globo?
Translation: "Why do we not believe that the phrase "ends of the Earth" does not refer to a location or place? Because according to science the earth in not flat but spheroid. Should the Earth be flat, we can call its edges end. How can the Earth have ends if it's spheroid like a globe?"
Ang Pasugo, Setyembre 1953 p. 32
Ayon sa pagpapaliwanag ng Banal na Kasulatan ang 'mga wakas ‘ng lupa ay hindi “dako" o Iugal ang tinutuloy kundi “panahon’ ang kahulugan nito.
Translation: "According to the explanation of Holy Scripture, the "ends of the earth" is not a location or place but "time" is its meaning. "
Ang Pasugo, Abril 1952 p. 21
In Isaiah 43:5, quoted above, God has declared: “...bring my sons from far, and my daughter from the ends of the earth.” The phrase the ends of the earth” refers to the time of the end of the earth (Daniel 12:4) and not to the physical geographical limits of the earth, as the earth being spheroid and has no end or limit.
Ang Pasugo, February 1957 p. 38
It is therefore, INC's belief that the phrase "ends of the earth" refers to a "time"-the time of the end of the end of the earth (Pasugo February 1957 p. 3 instead of a place .
II. References that INC claims that support their beliefs
We will now look into references that INC thought support their claim. Quoted in Pasugo p. 5 February 1989 are the following:
1. Collins Webster Comtemporary English Dictionary (hereafter will be referred as CWCED)
2. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible (hereafter will be referred as MHCB)
Below is the quote from Collins Webster Comtemporary English Dictionary as cited in Pasugo February 1957 p. 38:
End… (4) the most distant place OR time that can be imagined: the ends of the earth.
One can immediately notice that the phrase “ends of the earth” is not defined. There was indeed a mention of the phrase "ends of the Earth" in one of the meaning of the word "End" (being the entry word). However , it did not define the phrase "ends of the earth" nor indicated that the phrase ends of the Earth refers to either time or place. Rather, what CWCED gave is a verbal illustration of how the word "end” could be use in context. That is, given the verbal illustration "ends of the Earth", this phrase can refer to the most "distant place" when used in this context- "ends of the earth" and in parallel, the phrase "end of time" can be use to refer to the most distant of time.
CWCED did not, as INC believes it, use the phase "ends of the Earth" to refer the "most distant place or time that can be imagined". Rather, as has been stated, the phrase was used to illustrate the use of the word "end".
Let us now turn our attention at MHCB. Below is the relevant quote:
(1.) Because all events are now directed by an all-seeing and almighty Providence, Job_28:24, Job_28:25. He that governs the world is, [1.] Omniscient; for he looks to the ends of the earth, both in place and time; distant ages, distant regions, are under his view.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Commentary on Job 20:28.
Again the assertion that the phrase “ends of the Earth", refers to time is absent. Nor can we deduced it logically form this quote. What we have here is an association- not an explanation of the phrase "ends of the Earth"- with time. Nowhere MHCB indicated that the said phrase means time. Rather it is an interpretation imposed by INC on MHCB.
After looking at the references which INC claims to support their belief, we can say with certainty that the "ends of the Earth" can mean “time” is merely an INC assertion and not based on a "dictionary or Bible scholars" as what Pasugo would have us belief (Pasugo February 1989 p. 5). This belief, yet again, is like their “Felix Y. Manalo is an Angel” or “Philippines is the Far East” doctrines- no basis on the ground of logic or scholarly references. Most of all, it is not a biblical belief, but rather an assertion, a mere claim that INC thinks can justifies their church.
III. The real Meaning of the phrase “Ends of the Earth”
What then is the meaning of the phrase “Ends of the Earth”? We now refer to various scholarly works as to what is the meaning of the said phrase.
Below is a quote from Jewish Encyclopedia:
Like most peoples of antiquity, the Hebrews conceived of the earth as a disk (Prov. viii. 27; Job xxvi. 10; Isa. xl. 22); and they spoke, therefore, of peoples like the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, and Medes as living at the ends of the earth.
Earth, The Jewish Encyclopedia.
(4.) That the conquests of this kingdom shall extend themselves to distant regions: The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth. David's victories and dominions reached far, but the uttermost parts of the earth are promised to the Messiah for his possession (Psa_2:, to be either reduced to his golden sceptre or ruined by his iron rod. God is Judge of all, and he will judge for his people against his and their enemies, Psa_110:5, Psa_110:6
Commentary on 1Sa 2:1-10 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
6. Clouds
Jeremiah and the Psalmist repeat the description, “He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasuries” (Jer_10:13). By the foreshortening that clouds undergo in the distance they inevitably appear to form chiefly on the horizon, “at the ends of the earth,” whence they move upward toward the zenith.
Astronomy, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Needless to say, we can deduced from these scholarly references refers to a place or a region. Far from what INC claims that the phrase "ends of the Earth can refer to time. As a matter of fact, we cannot find any scholarly work that can support what INC's claim- that the phrase "ends of the Earth can refer to time.
IV. INC ‘s Inconsistency of beliefs on the phrase “Ends of the Earth”
At some point in time, perhaps due to some realization, in Pasugo dated February 1998 page 5, the phrase "ends of the Earth" can now mean EITHER time or place.
The website ExamineIglesiaNi Cristo.com has documented this inconsistency. Whereas initially, INC denied that the phrase the end of the Earth refers to a place or location, now they admit, according to INC's understanding, that it can mean EITHER time or place.
One now may wonder what happened to their claim which state that to say that the "Ends of the Earth" can be interpreted as a location or place is due to "insufficient analysis" or “ignorance".- Pasugo, Setyembre 1953 p. 32
V. “Ends of the Earth” – A simple and honest consideration
An honest look on this phrase will not give an impression that it can refer to time. Why use a location, a place (earth) to indicate time? It has no biblical precedent, was not use anywhere in the Bible or secular references. But the truth is some are willing to twist biblical facts and historical reality to justify their claim albeit the consequences on logic and correct thinking. If the INC would still insist on this, let them produce objective evidence other than the say-so of their so called “minister. If they can- the author highly doubts it.
VI. Summary of what has been said
In the light of these facts, we can say the following on this particular doctrine of INC:
1. It is belief not supported by CWCED and MHCB as INC would have us believe.
2. INC's belief is contradicted by a number of scholarly works namely:
Matthew Henry Commentary, Jewish Encyclopedia and International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
3. The belief defies good logic and correct reasoning.
4. The belief is not in the Bible, rather it is only imposed on the Bible by the INC.
4. INC has shown inconsistency in this belief. CAN THIS BE OF GOD?
Let them oppose me otherwise if any of these is untrue. I only ask that it de done on the spirit of fraternal correction as any true Christian would do.
. Read more!
I. INC’s Official Stand- Ends of the “Earth” means “Time” (Panahon)
The phrase in question comes from Isaiah 43:6 NKJV
I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth.
And how did INC understand them? Below are quotes from Pasugo:
"Bakit kami naniniwalang hindi dako o isang lugal ang tinutukoy ng pariralang “Mga Wakas Ng lupa?” Sapagka’t ayon sa siyensya ang mundo ay hindi lapad (flat) kundi bilog. Kung ang mundo sana ay lapad ang mga gilid niyon ang mat atawg nating wakas. Papaano magkakaroon ng wakas na dako ang mundo samantalang ito’y bilog na gaya ng globo?
Translation: "Why do we not believe that the phrase "ends of the Earth" does not refer to a location or place? Because according to science the earth in not flat but spheroid. Should the Earth be flat, we can call its edges end. How can the Earth have ends if it's spheroid like a globe?"
Ang Pasugo, Setyembre 1953 p. 32
Ayon sa pagpapaliwanag ng Banal na Kasulatan ang 'mga wakas ‘ng lupa ay hindi “dako" o Iugal ang tinutuloy kundi “panahon’ ang kahulugan nito.
Translation: "According to the explanation of Holy Scripture, the "ends of the earth" is not a location or place but "time" is its meaning. "
Ang Pasugo, Abril 1952 p. 21
In Isaiah 43:5, quoted above, God has declared: “...bring my sons from far, and my daughter from the ends of the earth.” The phrase the ends of the earth” refers to the time of the end of the earth (Daniel 12:4) and not to the physical geographical limits of the earth, as the earth being spheroid and has no end or limit.
Ang Pasugo, February 1957 p. 38
It is therefore, INC's belief that the phrase "ends of the earth" refers to a "time"-the time of the end of the end of the earth (Pasugo February 1957 p. 3 instead of a place .
II. References that INC claims that support their beliefs
We will now look into references that INC thought support their claim. Quoted in Pasugo p. 5 February 1989 are the following:
1. Collins Webster Comtemporary English Dictionary (hereafter will be referred as CWCED)
2. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible (hereafter will be referred as MHCB)
Below is the quote from Collins Webster Comtemporary English Dictionary as cited in Pasugo February 1957 p. 38:
End… (4) the most distant place OR time that can be imagined: the ends of the earth.
One can immediately notice that the phrase “ends of the earth” is not defined. There was indeed a mention of the phrase "ends of the Earth" in one of the meaning of the word "End" (being the entry word). However , it did not define the phrase "ends of the earth" nor indicated that the phrase ends of the Earth refers to either time or place. Rather, what CWCED gave is a verbal illustration of how the word "end” could be use in context. That is, given the verbal illustration "ends of the Earth", this phrase can refer to the most "distant place" when used in this context- "ends of the earth" and in parallel, the phrase "end of time" can be use to refer to the most distant of time.
CWCED did not, as INC believes it, use the phase "ends of the Earth" to refer the "most distant place or time that can be imagined". Rather, as has been stated, the phrase was used to illustrate the use of the word "end".
Let us now turn our attention at MHCB. Below is the relevant quote:
(1.) Because all events are now directed by an all-seeing and almighty Providence, Job_28:24, Job_28:25. He that governs the world is, [1.] Omniscient; for he looks to the ends of the earth, both in place and time; distant ages, distant regions, are under his view.
Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, Commentary on Job 20:28.
Again the assertion that the phrase “ends of the Earth", refers to time is absent. Nor can we deduced it logically form this quote. What we have here is an association- not an explanation of the phrase "ends of the Earth"- with time. Nowhere MHCB indicated that the said phrase means time. Rather it is an interpretation imposed by INC on MHCB.
After looking at the references which INC claims to support their belief, we can say with certainty that the "ends of the Earth" can mean “time” is merely an INC assertion and not based on a "dictionary or Bible scholars" as what Pasugo would have us belief (Pasugo February 1989 p. 5). This belief, yet again, is like their “Felix Y. Manalo is an Angel” or “Philippines is the Far East” doctrines- no basis on the ground of logic or scholarly references. Most of all, it is not a biblical belief, but rather an assertion, a mere claim that INC thinks can justifies their church.
III. The real Meaning of the phrase “Ends of the Earth”
What then is the meaning of the phrase “Ends of the Earth”? We now refer to various scholarly works as to what is the meaning of the said phrase.
Below is a quote from Jewish Encyclopedia:
Like most peoples of antiquity, the Hebrews conceived of the earth as a disk (Prov. viii. 27; Job xxvi. 10; Isa. xl. 22); and they spoke, therefore, of peoples like the Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, and Medes as living at the ends of the earth.
Earth, The Jewish Encyclopedia.
(4.) That the conquests of this kingdom shall extend themselves to distant regions: The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth. David's victories and dominions reached far, but the uttermost parts of the earth are promised to the Messiah for his possession (Psa_2:, to be either reduced to his golden sceptre or ruined by his iron rod. God is Judge of all, and he will judge for his people against his and their enemies, Psa_110:5, Psa_110:6
Commentary on 1Sa 2:1-10 Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
6. Clouds
Jeremiah and the Psalmist repeat the description, “He causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasuries” (Jer_10:13). By the foreshortening that clouds undergo in the distance they inevitably appear to form chiefly on the horizon, “at the ends of the earth,” whence they move upward toward the zenith.
Astronomy, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Needless to say, we can deduced from these scholarly references refers to a place or a region. Far from what INC claims that the phrase "ends of the Earth can refer to time. As a matter of fact, we cannot find any scholarly work that can support what INC's claim- that the phrase "ends of the Earth can refer to time.
IV. INC ‘s Inconsistency of beliefs on the phrase “Ends of the Earth”
At some point in time, perhaps due to some realization, in Pasugo dated February 1998 page 5, the phrase "ends of the Earth" can now mean EITHER time or place.
The website ExamineIglesiaNi Cristo.com has documented this inconsistency. Whereas initially, INC denied that the phrase the end of the Earth refers to a place or location, now they admit, according to INC's understanding, that it can mean EITHER time or place.
One now may wonder what happened to their claim which state that to say that the "Ends of the Earth" can be interpreted as a location or place is due to "insufficient analysis" or “ignorance".- Pasugo, Setyembre 1953 p. 32
V. “Ends of the Earth” – A simple and honest consideration
An honest look on this phrase will not give an impression that it can refer to time. Why use a location, a place (earth) to indicate time? It has no biblical precedent, was not use anywhere in the Bible or secular references. But the truth is some are willing to twist biblical facts and historical reality to justify their claim albeit the consequences on logic and correct thinking. If the INC would still insist on this, let them produce objective evidence other than the say-so of their so called “minister. If they can- the author highly doubts it.
VI. Summary of what has been said
In the light of these facts, we can say the following on this particular doctrine of INC:
1. It is belief not supported by CWCED and MHCB as INC would have us believe.
2. INC's belief is contradicted by a number of scholarly works namely:
Matthew Henry Commentary, Jewish Encyclopedia and International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
3. The belief defies good logic and correct reasoning.
4. The belief is not in the Bible, rather it is only imposed on the Bible by the INC.
4. INC has shown inconsistency in this belief. CAN THIS BE OF GOD?
Let them oppose me otherwise if any of these is untrue. I only ask that it de done on the spirit of fraternal correction as any true Christian would do.
. Read more!
INC's ANGEL DOCTRINE - PART 1
Disclaimer: I'm willing to retract what I said here should it be proven to be wrong. I have INC friends and I respect them.
The word "angel" means one who is sent. Yet, many find it hard to accept that a human being can be an angel. They believe that "angel" refers only to spiritual beings such as the angel Gabriel. Such understanding of the word "angel", however, is not an accurate definition. Jesus Christ, by citing a prophecy that was fulfilled in John the Baptist, proved that a human being can be called" angel"
Gods Message, May 2000, pp.11, 28
Alinsunod sa pagtuturo ng Santong Sulat. Ang kahulugán ng salitáng anghel ay “sinugo” o utusan (Luc. 1:19)... Samakatuwid, ang salitang anghel ay hindi tumütukoy sa isáng tanging kalágayan sa pagkákalikha kundi nagsasaád ng pangalan ng tungkuling tinátagláy.
p.28 Pasugo Hulyo 1956
Angg apat na anghel na pumipigil sa hangin ay mga Pinuno ng bansa, na ito'y mga sugo rin o anghel ayon sa 1 Ped 2: 13-14
Pg. 33 Pasugo Hulyo 1964
Apostle Peter stated that even kings and governors or representatives of nations are sent by God (cf. I Pt. 2:13-14). They are also called angels in the category of messengers of nations according to Prophet Isaiah: "What will one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (Is. 14:32, NKJV)
God's Message, Nov. 1997, pp.12-13
Above were the claims of INCM. And again let us if such claims will stand to reasons. We have nothing against INCM and we will let correct reasoning examine their beliefs.
Let us now study their definition of the word "Angel". From the quotes above, it is clear that, according to INC, an "Angel" is sent , and is qualified as "not referring to the nature of the created being but to the assumed office. "
The Greek word use for the word "Angel" is "aggelos" (pronounced as ang'-el-os). It can be translated in English as either messenger or angel. In English language, the word messenger or angel is not interchangeable. In other words, while all angels can be messenger not all messenger can be an angel. The fact of this is so obvious in our ordinary daily lives that we cannot call our mail man as an angel without clarification. If we are to insist that all messengers are angels, we'll end up strange and suspect.
The definition of INC of the word Angel will not stand to modern language. The translation of AGGELOS in English is at least two, namely Messenger and Angel. These two words in English language do not have an identical meaning in English language. Of these two translation, the definition given by INC is more applicable to a Messenger rather than an angel. Hence the conclusion that there is a human angel is a misunderstanding of the translation of the Greek word Aggelos.
To illustrate, lets us take for example the Greek word γυνη pronounced as goo-nay'. This word is translated as either wife or woman in English language. As Aggelos, these translation of the same Greek word do not have identical definition in English language. While all wives are woman, not all woman are wives. The same can se said at the Greek words, ὥρα (hōra), translated as hour and time, ἀδελφός (adelphos) that can be understood as blood relatives or a simply a call of affection.
INC, by basing the definition of the word Angel on etymology of the Greek word aggelos committed an etymological fallacy. Wikipedia.com has the following to say about Etymological Fallacy:
"An etymological fallacy is a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning.[1] For example, the meaning of the word prevent may be thought to signify "to go before" based on its etymology: from the Latin prae + venire. This falsely deduced meaning is a fallacy due to the fact that it fails to take into account semantic changes over time.
Native and non-native speakers pick up the meaning from reflecting on contextual usage. In day-to-day usage, most speakers of a language will rely on the context of a word or phrase and deduce the meaning from it rather than an etymology which may, in any case, not be at all clear, particularly if it is based in a foreign or archaic language."
Let us now turn our attention to the logic used by INCM:
Angels are Sent.
But Felix Y. Manalo is sent.
Therefore Felix Y. Manalo is an Angel.
The "Big Four" is sent.
But an angel is sent.
Therefore, the Big Four are four angels.
Again, any good student of logic can immediately spot the error of this reasoning. While all angels are sent, not all that is being sent are called angels, that is, while all angels can be messengers, not all messengers can not be angels. In logic, this known as the fallacy of undistributed middle.
But it is precisely thru this kind of reasoning INCM proves their belief that their Felix Y. Manalo, the "Big four" and Martin Luther are called "angels." And sad to say, not few are convinced by such argument.
Why, according to INC, that the Big four are called Angels? "Because they are sent" INC answered and "They are also called angels in the category of messengers of nations according to Prophet Isaiah: "What will one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (Is. 14:32, NKJV)".
As in the case of the Greek word aggelos, the Hebrew word used in this verse is "Malak". Again, the Hebrew word Malak has at least two translation in English, a messenger or an angel. To conclude that they are angels simply because they are sent is illogical. Let me illustrate:
1. The Three Kings of the Bible will be Angels because King Herod sent them. They will be angels of King Herod (Mat 2:8)
2. Some of the devils will be angels because Our Lord Jesus send them to pigs. They will be Angel Devils of Jesus. (Mar 5:12 )
We need not to compound the examples given above. The logical implications are two obvious and too absurd to be accepted.
INC insist that the " Big Four" can be called angels be cause they are sent. St. Paul, Martin Luther can be called Angels because they are sent.
Biblically, all of the apostle are sent by our Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). Using INC logic, it can be expected that all or even one of them will be called angel. But the fact is none of them was called as such. We know Angel Gabriel -Aggelos Gabriel (Luk 1:16) and Michael the ArcAngel - Michael Archaggelos, but we know not of Angel Peter nor Angel John nor Angel Thomas.
Let us now focus our attention on the verses employed by INC namely I Pt. 2:13-14 and Is. 14:32, NKJV. Do these verses really support their claims? Interestingly, in I Pt. 2:13-14 in Greek original and in Is. 14:32, NKJV, in Septuagint version (LXX) the word Aggelos on which their interpretation of identifying the Big Four as angels is missing. That is, one cannot find in any Greek Version of Old and New Testament the word aggelos in the verses cited.
Notice also, that the claims that Felix Y. Manalo is a human angel or the Big Four, St. Paul and Martin Luther can be called angels are mere assertion of INC with no Biblical, logical or historical basis. It purely thru the use of fallacious logic coupled with a misunderstanding of the Greek word Aggelos (as shown above) that they arrive at this conclusion.
They have yet to find serious scholars that will support their conclusion but sad to say, after almost a hundred years of existence, none has come and it seems to me, no one would come. Read more!
The word "angel" means one who is sent. Yet, many find it hard to accept that a human being can be an angel. They believe that "angel" refers only to spiritual beings such as the angel Gabriel. Such understanding of the word "angel", however, is not an accurate definition. Jesus Christ, by citing a prophecy that was fulfilled in John the Baptist, proved that a human being can be called" angel"
Gods Message, May 2000, pp.11, 28
Alinsunod sa pagtuturo ng Santong Sulat. Ang kahulugán ng salitáng anghel ay “sinugo” o utusan (Luc. 1:19)... Samakatuwid, ang salitang anghel ay hindi tumütukoy sa isáng tanging kalágayan sa pagkákalikha kundi nagsasaád ng pangalan ng tungkuling tinátagláy.
p.28 Pasugo Hulyo 1956
Angg apat na anghel na pumipigil sa hangin ay mga Pinuno ng bansa, na ito'y mga sugo rin o anghel ayon sa 1 Ped 2: 13-14
Pg. 33 Pasugo Hulyo 1964
Apostle Peter stated that even kings and governors or representatives of nations are sent by God (cf. I Pt. 2:13-14). They are also called angels in the category of messengers of nations according to Prophet Isaiah: "What will one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (Is. 14:32, NKJV)
God's Message, Nov. 1997, pp.12-13
Above were the claims of INCM. And again let us if such claims will stand to reasons. We have nothing against INCM and we will let correct reasoning examine their beliefs.
Let us now study their definition of the word "Angel". From the quotes above, it is clear that, according to INC, an "Angel" is sent , and is qualified as "not referring to the nature of the created being but to the assumed office. "
The Greek word use for the word "Angel" is "aggelos" (pronounced as ang'-el-os). It can be translated in English as either messenger or angel. In English language, the word messenger or angel is not interchangeable. In other words, while all angels can be messenger not all messenger can be an angel. The fact of this is so obvious in our ordinary daily lives that we cannot call our mail man as an angel without clarification. If we are to insist that all messengers are angels, we'll end up strange and suspect.
The definition of INC of the word Angel will not stand to modern language. The translation of AGGELOS in English is at least two, namely Messenger and Angel. These two words in English language do not have an identical meaning in English language. Of these two translation, the definition given by INC is more applicable to a Messenger rather than an angel. Hence the conclusion that there is a human angel is a misunderstanding of the translation of the Greek word Aggelos.
To illustrate, lets us take for example the Greek word γυνη pronounced as goo-nay'. This word is translated as either wife or woman in English language. As Aggelos, these translation of the same Greek word do not have identical definition in English language. While all wives are woman, not all woman are wives. The same can se said at the Greek words, ὥρα (hōra), translated as hour and time, ἀδελφός (adelphos) that can be understood as blood relatives or a simply a call of affection.
INC, by basing the definition of the word Angel on etymology of the Greek word aggelos committed an etymological fallacy. Wikipedia.com has the following to say about Etymological Fallacy:
"An etymological fallacy is a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning.[1] For example, the meaning of the word prevent may be thought to signify "to go before" based on its etymology: from the Latin prae + venire. This falsely deduced meaning is a fallacy due to the fact that it fails to take into account semantic changes over time.
Native and non-native speakers pick up the meaning from reflecting on contextual usage. In day-to-day usage, most speakers of a language will rely on the context of a word or phrase and deduce the meaning from it rather than an etymology which may, in any case, not be at all clear, particularly if it is based in a foreign or archaic language."
Let us now turn our attention to the logic used by INCM:
Angels are Sent.
But Felix Y. Manalo is sent.
Therefore Felix Y. Manalo is an Angel.
The "Big Four" is sent.
But an angel is sent.
Therefore, the Big Four are four angels.
Again, any good student of logic can immediately spot the error of this reasoning. While all angels are sent, not all that is being sent are called angels, that is, while all angels can be messengers, not all messengers can not be angels. In logic, this known as the fallacy of undistributed middle.
But it is precisely thru this kind of reasoning INCM proves their belief that their Felix Y. Manalo, the "Big four" and Martin Luther are called "angels." And sad to say, not few are convinced by such argument.
Why, according to INC, that the Big four are called Angels? "Because they are sent" INC answered and "They are also called angels in the category of messengers of nations according to Prophet Isaiah: "What will one then answer the messengers of the nation?" (Is. 14:32, NKJV)".
As in the case of the Greek word aggelos, the Hebrew word used in this verse is "Malak". Again, the Hebrew word Malak has at least two translation in English, a messenger or an angel. To conclude that they are angels simply because they are sent is illogical. Let me illustrate:
1. The Three Kings of the Bible will be Angels because King Herod sent them. They will be angels of King Herod (Mat 2:8)
2. Some of the devils will be angels because Our Lord Jesus send them to pigs. They will be Angel Devils of Jesus. (Mar 5:12 )
We need not to compound the examples given above. The logical implications are two obvious and too absurd to be accepted.
INC insist that the " Big Four" can be called angels be cause they are sent. St. Paul, Martin Luther can be called Angels because they are sent.
Biblically, all of the apostle are sent by our Lord Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20). Using INC logic, it can be expected that all or even one of them will be called angel. But the fact is none of them was called as such. We know Angel Gabriel -Aggelos Gabriel (Luk 1:16) and Michael the ArcAngel - Michael Archaggelos, but we know not of Angel Peter nor Angel John nor Angel Thomas.
Let us now focus our attention on the verses employed by INC namely I Pt. 2:13-14 and Is. 14:32, NKJV. Do these verses really support their claims? Interestingly, in I Pt. 2:13-14 in Greek original and in Is. 14:32, NKJV, in Septuagint version (LXX) the word Aggelos on which their interpretation of identifying the Big Four as angels is missing. That is, one cannot find in any Greek Version of Old and New Testament the word aggelos in the verses cited.
Notice also, that the claims that Felix Y. Manalo is a human angel or the Big Four, St. Paul and Martin Luther can be called angels are mere assertion of INC with no Biblical, logical or historical basis. It purely thru the use of fallacious logic coupled with a misunderstanding of the Greek word Aggelos (as shown above) that they arrive at this conclusion.
They have yet to find serious scholars that will support their conclusion but sad to say, after almost a hundred years of existence, none has come and it seems to me, no one would come. Read more!
INC's ANGEL DOCTRINE PART 2- WHICH IS THE CORRECT TRANSLATION? ANGEL OR MESSENGER?
INC in an attempt to justify that their FYM is an Angel uses verse in the Bible to show that FYM can be called as such.
The most prominent verse I think is from Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible:
"For this is he whom it is written: BEHOLD: I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE THY FACE, WHO SHALL PREPARE THY WAY FOR THEE" (Mt. 11:7-10, Douay-Rheims Version, emphasis INC’s)
Gods Message, May 2000, pp.11, 28
The verse in question is a direct quote from the book of Malachi:
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me…
All agrees that the Greek word Aggelos can be translated in two ways namely
1. Angel- a spiritual being e.g. Gabriel or Michael
2. Messenger- which can be a function
(Side Note: Translations that translated Aggelos as ANGEL: DRB, Translations that translated Aggelos as MESSENGER: Lamsa, Moffat, NKJV, NIV, NAB, NASB, NET -basically modern translations)
This same Greek word, Aggelos is used in Mat 11:10:
ουτος γαρ εστιν περι ου γεγραπται ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου
Now we may ask, in Matt 11:10 which the correct translation between the two meaning of the Greek word Aggelos? Is it Messenger or Angel?
CONSULTING THE BIBLE ITSELF
We may read in the book of Hebrews:
Heb 1:13-14 KJVA But to which of the angels (AGGELOS) said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (14) Are they (AGGELOS) not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
The same Greek word is used here in Hebrew 1:13 when compared to Mat 11:10. Only this time- the Scripture is very clear-
ALL AGGELOS ARE MINISTERING SPIRITS.
Now of the two meaning we know for the Greek word Aggelos (ie Angel or Messenger), which is appropriate translation for this Greek word?
The other meaning of the Greek word which is Messenger is definitely not applicable here for we obviously know that there are messengers that are not spirit in nature. We say that English word Angel, MUST be used here for we know that as has been said, there are messengers that are not spirit in nature.
The implication of this verse may be stated as follows: The Greek word Aggelos when used as Angel in English language STRICTLY refers to created being which are spirit in nature. Again this is because of what we are told in Heb 1:13-14:
But to which of the angels (AGGELOS) said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (14) Are they (AGGELOS) not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
This is a rhetorical question expressing what is the nature of ALL angels- they are all spirit in nature.
To say therefore that there is an Angel that is human in nature is an utter contradiction for we know not any human being which is NOT spirit in nature or to call any man an angel in a biblical sense is inappropriate.
CONSULTING THE SCHOLARS THEMSELVES
Lamsa and Moffat Version of the Bible, INC’s choice of translation to prove their other doctrines also translated it as messenger.
ALL of the latest translation of the Bible which was translated from original languages translated Aggelos in Mat 11:10 as Messenger.
Also, the Jewish Translation of the Old Testament- JPS (1917) into English by Jewish Publication Society of America translated Malachi 3:1 (from which the book of Matthew) referred to as follows
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me…
Again, the word Messenger is used.
THE USE OF ANGEL IN MAT 11:10
The t English translations which is used by INC that translated Aggelos in Mat 11:10 as Angel is the Douai-Rheims translation of the Bible. This English translation of the Bible is translated from other translation also. The DRB is translated from Latin Vulgate. It is not translated from ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.
In all of INC’s attempt to prove that FYM can be called an “Angel” they uses the DRB translation. They are seemingly unaware that this Bible is a mere translation from another translation. Again, the translation used by INC to prove that that FYM can be called an Angel is a translation not from original languages.
It is typical for INC to use different Bible translation to prove their claim. They have they translation of choice to prove their doctrines. Below are some examples:
1. Angel Doctrine- DRB
2. Far East Doctrine- Moffatt
3. Name of the Church - Lamsa
And this author doubts- notwithstanding the fact of the facts we already shown- whether INC believes that DRB is an accurate translation of the Bible. Haven’t they said:
We should not be surprised at the number of churches today that are not of Christ. It is not Christ who established them but the enemy or the devil (Mt.13:24-30, 36-39 NKJV). These churches thatdo not belong to Christ are the Catholic Church and her offspring’s, the various Protestant denominations and sects. We should not be deceived. Only one Church belongs to Christ, the Church of Christ."
Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ), Erano G. Manalo,1989,p.28
And
“Kaya sa wakas ng lathalaing ito, dapat na nating itakwil and mga paring katoliko at mga pastor protestante, sapagka’t sila’y mga ministro ni Satanas! Dapat din nating itakwil ang Iglesia Katolika at ang iba’t ibang iglesia Protestante, sapagka’t sila’y hindi sa Diyos, kundi sila’y kay Satanas, o sa demonyo.”
Pasugo -August 1961
Which makes me wonder : Why are they using Bible translated by the allies of Satan himself? Why don’t they have their own translation to prove their claim? Read more!
The most prominent verse I think is from Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible:
"For this is he whom it is written: BEHOLD: I SEND MY ANGEL BEFORE THY FACE, WHO SHALL PREPARE THY WAY FOR THEE" (Mt. 11:7-10, Douay-Rheims Version, emphasis INC’s)
Gods Message, May 2000, pp.11, 28
The verse in question is a direct quote from the book of Malachi:
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me…
All agrees that the Greek word Aggelos can be translated in two ways namely
1. Angel- a spiritual being e.g. Gabriel or Michael
2. Messenger- which can be a function
(Side Note: Translations that translated Aggelos as ANGEL: DRB, Translations that translated Aggelos as MESSENGER: Lamsa, Moffat, NKJV, NIV, NAB, NASB, NET -basically modern translations)
This same Greek word, Aggelos is used in Mat 11:10:
ουτος γαρ εστιν περι ου γεγραπται ιδου εγω αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου εμπροσθεν σου
Now we may ask, in Matt 11:10 which the correct translation between the two meaning of the Greek word Aggelos? Is it Messenger or Angel?
CONSULTING THE BIBLE ITSELF
We may read in the book of Hebrews:
Heb 1:13-14 KJVA But to which of the angels (AGGELOS) said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (14) Are they (AGGELOS) not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
The same Greek word is used here in Hebrew 1:13 when compared to Mat 11:10. Only this time- the Scripture is very clear-
ALL AGGELOS ARE MINISTERING SPIRITS.
Now of the two meaning we know for the Greek word Aggelos (ie Angel or Messenger), which is appropriate translation for this Greek word?
The other meaning of the Greek word which is Messenger is definitely not applicable here for we obviously know that there are messengers that are not spirit in nature. We say that English word Angel, MUST be used here for we know that as has been said, there are messengers that are not spirit in nature.
The implication of this verse may be stated as follows: The Greek word Aggelos when used as Angel in English language STRICTLY refers to created being which are spirit in nature. Again this is because of what we are told in Heb 1:13-14:
But to which of the angels (AGGELOS) said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (14) Are they (AGGELOS) not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
This is a rhetorical question expressing what is the nature of ALL angels- they are all spirit in nature.
To say therefore that there is an Angel that is human in nature is an utter contradiction for we know not any human being which is NOT spirit in nature or to call any man an angel in a biblical sense is inappropriate.
CONSULTING THE SCHOLARS THEMSELVES
Lamsa and Moffat Version of the Bible, INC’s choice of translation to prove their other doctrines also translated it as messenger.
ALL of the latest translation of the Bible which was translated from original languages translated Aggelos in Mat 11:10 as Messenger.
Also, the Jewish Translation of the Old Testament- JPS (1917) into English by Jewish Publication Society of America translated Malachi 3:1 (from which the book of Matthew) referred to as follows
Mal 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me…
Again, the word Messenger is used.
THE USE OF ANGEL IN MAT 11:10
The t English translations which is used by INC that translated Aggelos in Mat 11:10 as Angel is the Douai-Rheims translation of the Bible. This English translation of the Bible is translated from other translation also. The DRB is translated from Latin Vulgate. It is not translated from ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.
In all of INC’s attempt to prove that FYM can be called an “Angel” they uses the DRB translation. They are seemingly unaware that this Bible is a mere translation from another translation. Again, the translation used by INC to prove that that FYM can be called an Angel is a translation not from original languages.
It is typical for INC to use different Bible translation to prove their claim. They have they translation of choice to prove their doctrines. Below are some examples:
1. Angel Doctrine- DRB
2. Far East Doctrine- Moffatt
3. Name of the Church - Lamsa
And this author doubts- notwithstanding the fact of the facts we already shown- whether INC believes that DRB is an accurate translation of the Bible. Haven’t they said:
We should not be surprised at the number of churches today that are not of Christ. It is not Christ who established them but the enemy or the devil (Mt.13:24-30, 36-39 NKJV). These churches thatdo not belong to Christ are the Catholic Church and her offspring’s, the various Protestant denominations and sects. We should not be deceived. Only one Church belongs to Christ, the Church of Christ."
Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ), Erano G. Manalo,1989,p.28
And
“Kaya sa wakas ng lathalaing ito, dapat na nating itakwil and mga paring katoliko at mga pastor protestante, sapagka’t sila’y mga ministro ni Satanas! Dapat din nating itakwil ang Iglesia Katolika at ang iba’t ibang iglesia Protestante, sapagka’t sila’y hindi sa Diyos, kundi sila’y kay Satanas, o sa demonyo.”
Pasugo -August 1961
Which makes me wonder : Why are they using Bible translated by the allies of Satan himself? Why don’t they have their own translation to prove their claim? Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)