| Author |
Message |
    
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 812
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:32 pm: | 
|
FRANK....
you hae UNWARRENTEDLY accused us of racism..
I would like you to apologize for your statements.
We have clearly said and our posts clearly show, that we are not racist.
I deny your truth: that the Anglo Saxons (which I am one) are superior to all other humans.
Good to deny that but it is not OURS and we also deny it!
Truth is: No ethnic group or race is superior over another.
Yep! your right there and we agree.
I deny that: Only Anglo Saxons are from Adam and that only they are allowed into heaven.
Yep! We deny this too!
We believe as you do here Frank!
Truth is: All humanity are descended from Adam and Eve and that all have the same opportunity of salvation.
All DO indeed have the same chance for Salvation Frank...you too, but all races cannot be decended from Adam and Eve, and are not.
2 Pure Bread Chineese folk can't have a White or Black baby.
Take this a step farther Frank! The TWO of one race...at the beginning (as you state)when God first created them....would be PURE and they could not get another skin colour from this
Pretty damn objective post if I don't say so myself.
Actually no Frank! You are not objective...you still deny the Words of Christ who taught who the Kenites were and are...."you are of your Father the DEVIL!"
....they killed Christ Frank...don't you wanna know about it!
By the way when are you going to debate littleome on cultbusters? She's still waiting. Wuzza matter? 'Ya chicken?
this subject has already been discusssed..the challenge will be bias at cultbusters.....where it would not be here....
Why not debate here.
Scared...? Chicken....?
As for the criptural proof of the Serpent Seed....
read the bible Frank...
or if you want us to do your homework for ya....
just checkout the SS threads and read for yourself...that way you can see all the rediculous counter claims to the SS doctine, which is biblical of course.
Your friends are blown out of the water here FRANK!
I thought you loved Christ FRANK? You IS NOT ACTIN' LIKE IT BUD!
Show that you are approved FRANK! |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1885
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:49 pm: |
|
I love Christ! And I love you! And I love all of God's creation! Including who you call Kenites. I think Kenites are superior to you. How do you like them apples. Which Bible should I read? I only own King James Version. You read a different version. Bullingerism Bible, isn't it? So you can't go over a simple part of a chapter with me. Didn't see anything in Genesis 1 like you said was there. Here's Chapter 2.
Genesis 2 (King James Version)
Genesis 2
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Genesis 3 (King James Version)
Genesis 3
1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
Nope nothing there either. You must mean the Buddhist or Hindu Bible. Approved????? What kind of cult talk is that????? |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 174
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Franklin said:
Quote:
Nope nothing there either. You must mean the Buddhist or Hindu Bible. Approved????? What kind of cult talk is that?????
End Quote
This is what Ezekiel is referring to when he said "approved":
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Franklin, all you did was copy and paste scripture. How is that showing any understanding of what you are reading? Or how would that help anyone understand the scriptures?
If I may, your attitude is not very mature. How can you help anyone with that kind of attitude? If you were truly trying to help someone, how would that kind of behavoir make anyone want to listen to you? I'm asking this in all sincerety. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 815
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Hi FRANK
FRANK...you said...
I love Christ!
Me too!
And I love you!
Me too! I love You also brother!
And I love all of God's creation!
Me too! Whatya know!
Including who you call Kenites.
Me too! amazing ain't it but I don't love what they do!
I think Kenites are superior to you.
Aww...we were doing so well up till the FRANK
You see, WE, that study with the Shepherd's Chaple, believe that ALL races and peoples are 100% equal!
I thought you believed this also...guess not...but those Kenites are real and doing bad things throughout history....and I may love all mankind but not all mankinds actions.
How do you like them apples.
I love apples....but they are not mentioned in the Garden of Eden....Is that what you believe FRANK...APPLES?
Which Bible should I read?
As many different bibles as you feel lead to read.
I only own King James Version.
Too bad for you...especially with the computer age...well it's easy enough to google and find different translations of God's Word...some have agenda's while other's may not!....
....but the KJV is, in my opinion, the finest example of the english bible there is.
You read a different version.
Actually I read many versioins but hold to the KJV
Bullingerism Bible, isn't it?
That is my favorite and it is an AUTHORIZED 1611 KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE.
This bible is a KJV with companion commontary to the script. Unlike many other commontaries, this one leaves the reader with the final choice(no agenda but truth) becausse the evidence is presented from many different codecies and translations. A comparative study of the scripts will give the student the obvious answer...if the search is an honest one.
So you can't go over a simple part of a chapter with me.
Wrong there FRANK...
Not only do most of us study with the KJV, most of us here are well equipped to whooop your fairytail....but I think that a verse by verse study may benifit you more and open your eyes to the truth of the Word of God, than just to get rightly whoopped! We all got whooped when we found truth FRANK...otherwise the whole world would still be following the worlds largest denomination FRANK...
Didn't see anything in Genesis 1 like you said was there.
You weren't looking then FRANK...
God created mankind in chapter 1...male and female created He them!
after the 6th day FRANK, after mankind is created.....God rests from His work...and it was all good! Originally all of God's work was good! all of the races are included there FRANK...so we do not condone racism in any fashion.
God rests on the 7th day right FRANK
And then forms ADAM alone in the Garden.
This ADAM is different than the mankind in Gen 1
There is a hebrew article before the word adam which denotes that it is an individual. God is speaking of a specific man and not retelling the Gen 1 account.....this all happens AFTER the 7th day of rest.....as your 2 last posts so well document! |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 816
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Here's Chapter 2.
Nice...God's Word's are always awsome....so much truth when rightly divided and understood overall!
Nope nothing there either.
Again FRANK, you are wrong and not seeing what is there
You must mean the Buddhist or Hindu Bible.
Didn't know they had one FRANK
What's it say? Do they hold the the truth FRANK or do the teach a fairytail about flying away...or unintelligable languages.....or the Christ already fulfilled the messianic prophecy's? Inlighten us oh FRANK
Approved????? What kind of cult talk is that?????
Terluvire already went over that FRANK (thanks Terluvire)
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
and for you to say that statement proves that at this moment you are not!
Love ya brother
in Christ's Name |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 817
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:43 pm: |
|
so let's start at the beginning or ...."in the beginning" |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 1:15 am: |
|
So you consider yourself "approved"?
Only God denotes whether one is "approved" or not.
You can't put that appellation on yourself nor can any other man. Whether you have rightly divided the word, only God knows for certain. You can say in absolute certainty that you fully comprehend all of God's truth written in the the entire Bible?
If you say yes then you are certainly a liar.
If you honestly say no then you are admitting you are not "approved" unto God.
So let's stop throwing the self aggrandizing appellations around. Let God decide who is "approved" or not.
In the beginning.... ok?... go on..... enlighten us! Show us that part where Eve has sex with the serpent. I must have missed that part somehow.... |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 823
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:29 am: |
|
well FRANK
this discussion is turning nasty so...
if we can have a christian discussion then ok.
whatya say?
do I know every thing?
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo way
but I study....enough to know that verse. And that that verse is considered important enough to be followed.
I said "Show that you are approved FRANK!"
and you responded.....
"Approved????? What kind of cult talk is that?????"
now, FRANK, you were shown by Terluvire the answer to your statement concerning 'approved'
study FRANK...
Gen1:1 'in the beginning' is understood to represent the time before the people and animals were put there. Do we agree?
God creates the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 -and the earth was void and without form....
this is the first step FRANK
undertand that there is a great period of time inbetween these 2 verses.....how long, who knows?
Gen 2 - look up the word 'was' and 'void' in the strongs concordance.
'was' should have been translated 'became'......
'void' should have been translated- an undistinguishable ruin......
a ruin......
musta been something there before for IT to be ruined........
understanding the time before the flesh age is important because it has a bearing on all of our lives....what happened then and what will happen in the future and why we were made flesh.
I will wait for your response, hoping that you will look up the verses in your KJV and then take it a step further and learn the original languages meaning of the verses mentioned FRANK....the KJV is real good but not perfect!
before we can accurately relate the SS doctrine, perhaps it would be better to understand the divisions of time that God uses...the ages of time...for there are three broad catagories...
before mankind was made flesh
the flesh age
the spiritual age
we are in the middle one now!
the above definitions for the words: was-became and void-ruin...are meant to start that journey of understanding about the 3 ages, which will give you a better understanding of the SS doctrine.......
FRANK...if someone said to you show me where in the bible it says TRINITY.....
does that mean that HE does not exist that way...?
in the same reguards...much like the fact that God is also Jesus and the Holy Spirit, called by us the TRINITY....the story of the 3 ages and the SS doctrine is there to be figured out together, if you want....
it's there...old and new testament's
and we all ought to know about it! |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1893
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:11 am: |
|
In Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" there is the Middle Earth, the times of the Elves, the Dwarfs, the Orcs, the Hobbits and the Time of Man. Are you sure you don't have the two books merged or confused? |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
Show us that part where Eve has sex with the serpent. I must have missed that part somehow.... |
danispeachy
Intermediate Member
Username: danispeachy
Post Number: 265
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 206.182.134.103
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Everytime I come to FactNet its the same old arguement different user. How I wish people could move on, so many aspects to Gods word and these threads have nothing but the same old 4 subjects.
Serpent Seed - Rapture - Creation of mankind - Racism. How I wish people would scroll up, read and then move on.
*YAWN* |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Show us that part where Eve has sex with the serpent. I must have missed that part somehow.... |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1761
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:38 pm: |
|
that is what i want to know too. where does it say "eve had sex with the serpent" |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 827
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
did you start with the definitions of the words in verse 2 of Gen 1, FRANK, or are you not going to do the homework....ask your friends at cultbusters for help and come back with an honest answer
then we will discuss the SS doctrine.
arron....i politely asked you if you knew when the last trump is.......not about rapture but about the last trump!
do you? |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1762
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 7:40 pm: |
|
and i have asked you dozens of times where is the verse that says "eve had sex with the serpent" |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:28 pm: |
|
rev 10:7,14
all this happens after the church is gone i rev 4:1
and i dont have to look up no deffinitions for the word sex.. i know what it is? do you? |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1914
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:44 pm: |
|
I don't buy your definitions. That is twisting God's word. That is satan's work. Perverting the scripture. Words are Words. Definitions are definitions. Murray is a liar!!!!!!!!!!!
'was' should have been translated 'became'......
'void' should have been translated- an undistinguishable ruin......
BullCrap!
void
4 entries found for void.
To select an entry, click on it.
void[1,adjective]void[2,noun]void[3,verb]null and void
Main Entry: 1void
Pronunciation: 'void
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English voide, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin vocitus, alteration of Latin vocivus, vacivus empty, from vacare to be empty
1 a : not occupied : VACANT <a > b : not inhabited : DESERTED
2 : containing nothing <void>
3 : IDLE, LEISURE
4 a : being without : DEVOID <a > b : having no members or examples; specifically of a suit : having no cards represented in a particular hand
5 : VAIN, USELESS
6 a : of no legal force or effect : NULL <a > b : VOIDABLE
synonym see EMPTY
- void·ness noun
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Nothing in there about a place that had been inhabited before! Void is not "a ruin". Pretty subtle brainwashing techniques. Shame on you! |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 180
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:52 pm: |
|
Fanklin, You need to go into the Hebrew which the english Old Testament was translated from.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary won't do it for you. |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1917
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Nope. I don't trust my or your attempts to translate with our own motives and agendas. King James appointed scholars who were inspired by God to do a proper translation. And they were all full blooded, racially pure, Anglo Saxons! Without motive and agenda. Any translation you do is out to prove am and sc dogma. If you can't prove it with kjv then it ain't true! |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 288
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.171.214
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Franklin,
If the KJV did not have an agenda, please explain the mistranslation on 'Easter' in Acts 12:4 when the translators got the translation correct to 'Passover' the other 34 times in the New Testament??
Also, explain why they placed a letter in the original 1611 Edition stating that they may have made mistakes?? Doesn't sound like inspired by God to me.
Still waiting for your explanation as to how Eve got herself pregnant in Gen. 3:15-16 when she didn't have sex with Adam until Gen. 4:1. Someone else had to do it -- that only leaves Satan in Gen. 3:6. Of course, you think it is natural for two people who were not ashamed of their nakedness in Gen. 2:25 to decide to sew aprons to cover their private parts in Gen. 3:7 all because they ate an 'apple'.
If you think your explanation is reasonable, I have New York City to sell you for a real good price. Want to buy it? |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:24 pm: |
|
No, I'm not buying anything from you. So you'd prefer me to take your translation over KJVs? No way. Inspired by God does not mean perfect. Only Jesus was perfect. Would you agree that Arnold Murray is not perfect?
I will research what you are talking about and get back with you tomorrow. The way you try to tear apart the Bible makes you sound like an atheist. Are you? |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 182
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Franklin, I don't care which bible you use. All we are saying is that if you really want to know what God is saying, it is best to go into the ORIGINAL language which is in the manuscripts! |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 290
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.168.253
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:24 am: |
|
arron,
I am just a god-fearing [revering]Christian -- trying to help others learn the truth of God's Word while I learn more myself. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 838
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 69.192.223.192
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:30 am: |
|
you were right about the 'clone' thing watchman
they are 2 peas in a pod.....
i don't like peas |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.157.112
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:00 am: |
|
GC and I disagree on a lot of things. So you can knock off the clone thing. But one area we do agree upon is that am and sc and ss are perverters of God's word. An infection in the body of Christ. A false doctrine that needs to be rooted out. And that you sc'ers have infiltrated the internet to cover am's arse. You are very organized in your attacks and doing am's bidding. You are like robots. Drones. You are the clones! Spend less time dancing and show us proof in KJV! |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 293
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.233.115.60
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:35 pm: |
|
franklin,
The truth has been shown to you folks many times. In fact, it has been shown to you in far greater detail than Pastor Murray has ever taught. So, your drone claim is way out of line.
The problem that you have is that your theory is unscriptural and the Serpent Seed Doctrine holds true to the scriptures. You don't like being proven wrong.
So, like gochild, you just deny and spit out hate-filled lies. Try evaluating the scriptures and maybe you won't be considered godchild-lite. |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 184
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:04 pm: |
|
I agree Watchman!!
And Franklin, wouldnt you rather learn by what the original language said? Wouldn't that be truer than the translated, transliterated word? Don't you think the original words carry more weight? |
preachers_daughter
Junior Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 46
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:18 pm: |
|
I'm fairly new here, and been I've reading over this thread for a few days. There is something I don't quite get. In Genesis 1 verse 26, we read where God created man. Verse 27 says He created both male and female. Verse 28 says God told them to be fruitful and multiply, and gives them dominion over all the creatures of the earth. Verse 29 says that God gives man every herb bearing seed, and every fruit bearing tree as food. Verse 30 says God also gives these as food for all the animals. This all happened on the sixth day. God then rests on the seventh day.
In Genesis 2 it describes the creation af Adam. Are you saying that Adam was created "after" this race? That the two are not the same?
Just wanted to make sure I was reading what you are saying correctly. |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 185
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Hello Preachers_daughter!!
Yes, for the most part you are reading correctly.
Genesis Chapter 1, God created the animals and then mankind...ALL the races, on the sixth day and said it was very good!
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis Chapter 2, God formed Adam and then formed the animals. Adam's job was to till the ground and from Adam would come Christ.
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis Chapter 1- animals then man was created
Genesis Chapter 2- Adam was formed then animals. (Also in Chapter 2, if you notice, no sea creatures were created as they were in Chapter 1.)
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are speaking of two different events. |
preachers_daughter
Junior Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 47
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Okay.
There's something that you just said that is confusing me.
Genesis Chapter 1- animals then man was created.
Genesis Chapter 2- Adam was formed then animals.
So, God created animals twice? |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1776
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:16 pm: |
|
preachers daughter.... confusion is of the devil and that is what turlu and watchman and ezekiel are doing confusing people. they are every one of them so confused they cant find their way outof a wet paper bag. |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 186
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Hello Preachers_daughter
Yes
Chapter 1 -We see God creating the animals first and then He created man.
In Chapter 2 We see God FORMING Adam, then God FORMS the animals:
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The word "earth in the Hebrew is:
erets
eh-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.
In Genesis Chapter 2, the word "earth" isn't used:
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
"Field" in the Hebrew:
sadeh saday
saw-deh', saw-dah'ee
From an unused root meaning to spread out; a field (as flat): - country, field, ground, land, soil, X wild.
Beasts in Gen 1 were beasts of the earth. Beasts in Gen. 2 were beasts of the field. So they are different beasts, they are not the same ones created in Gen 1. Plus the Beasts in Gen. 2 were formed, not created like the ones in Gen. 1.
Maybe others can help you more with this. But I believe since Adam was to till the ground, a farmer, that these were domestic, farm-like animals, (not wild animals) that God had formed and brought forth for Adam to name.
I want to say that many will try to tell you that Genesis 1 is a recap of Genesis 2, that just isn't so. The 2 chapters do not line up with the same account of the creation of animals and man.
Gen.1 has animals being created before man; Gen. 2 has Adam formed before the animals. So there is no way it is a recap of Gen.1
Also, in Gen.1, man is created; in Gen. 2 Adam is formed
I pray this helps. God Bless! |
preachers_daughter
Junior Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 48
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:42 pm: |
|
Let me see if I've got you correctly.
Gen. 1 "earth" means country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way, wilderness, world.
Gen. 2 "field" means country, field, ground, land, soil, wild.
And, they are not the same. Is that right? |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 188
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
Good day Preachers_daughter!!
No, they don't appear to be the same. In Gen.1 God created the beasts of the "earth"- "erets". In Gen. 2 God formed the beasts of the "field"- "sadeh saday " In the Hebrew Lexicon, the word " field", one of the defintions is "cultivated land" which is not used with the word "earth"- erets.
God uses 2 distinctly different words, earth and field. He wants us to see that there was difference. He is not speaking of the same creation in Gen.1
Adam's job was to till the ground, so these animals would not be wild animals but animals used to culivate the land...farm animals.
Genesis 1 cannot be a recap of Genesis two. The accounts of the creation are differnt with the account of Genesis 2. In Genesis one, God created animals first and then man. Genesis 2, God formed the man first and then animals.
Peace |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1954
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.154.96
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
Hogwash! |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 295
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.233.118.192
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
The word 'man' in Gen. 1:26 is the same word 'man' in Lev. 24:21 as one can read them in the manuscripts. Clearly, the word translated to 'man' in both instances means 'mankind'.
The formation of the man named Adam in Gen. 2 is different from that which took place in Gen. 1. |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1964
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.154.96
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Says you! |
preachers_daughter
Junior Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 49
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 4:44 pm: |
|
terluvire
Here are some things Iooked up in the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.
(Earth) Erets: x common, COUNTRY, FIELD, GROUND, LAND, x,nations, way, + WILDERNESS, world.
(field) sadeh or saday: COUNTRY, FIELD, LAND, soil, GROUND, x WILD.
Both of these words have the same meanings.
I then looked up wilderness, because "erets" says wilderness and "sadeh/saday" says wild.
(wilderness) midbar: a pasture, open field, whither cattle are driven, desert...
Also means tsiyiy: wild beast of the desert, that dwell in the wilderness
By this, it seems to me as if these animals are ALL animals.
Since Man is "created" and Adam is "formed, I looked these up also.
(created) bara: choose, create, cutdown, dispatch, do, MAKE.
(formed) yatsar: x earthen FASHION, form, frame, MAKE.
I then took the liberty of looking up "make", since Gen 1:26 says "let us make man...", and that is also where we read that man was "created."
(make) asah: FASHION
It seems as if created and formed mean the same thing.
Watchman_2
The hebrew word for man in Gen 1:26,1:27, 2:5, 2:7, 2:8, 2:15, 2:16, 2:18, 2:22, 2:25, 3:12, 3:22, 3:24 is ADAM.
I just don't see what you see, and I don't get where you see it. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1779
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:21 pm: |
|
amen preachers daughter.. you just stay with
what you have been taught by your father about GODS WORD that is entirely nonsense about what they say about tow dffernt adams , the serpent sed and all that mess.they cant show a single scripture where it says eve was pregnant with child before adam nor can they show where it says that GOD mad a nother adam of another bunch of animals. one even told me that began meant ot profane... that is stupid. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 298
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.130
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:35 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
If you have an interlinear in your library, you will see the difference. The spelling of the word is exactly as I noted.
The Hebrew word translated to 'man' in Gen. 2:7 is a different spelling and is "'eth Ha'adham", which means the singular man to be named Adam.
The English language is no different. We use the word 'man' to mean a singular - generic man, a specific singular man, or mankind. |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.154.96
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:39 pm: |
|
arron, pd, you've got to try to understand the neo nazi, aryan nation, white supremacist, kkk, racist mentality to know where they are coming from. It's all a sickness! |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 193
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Franklin, how can we be racist if we are stating that God created ALL the races and He said it was very good?
No race is superior to another.
Thanks Watchman, good post!
Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
In the Hebrew, the word "man" in Gen.2:7 is "eth-ha-adham", which refers to the particular person "Adam", (not a generic form for man).
'Adam, without the article, denotes man or mankind in general. With the article, it denotes the man, Adam, though rendered "man" in Gen. 1:27; 2:7
Franklin please explain how Gen.2 can be a recap of Genesis 1 when the order of creation doesn't match up? |
preachers_daughter
Junior Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 50
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:33 am: |
|
Here are different forms of the Hebrew word 'adaam.
'adam: any man, men, mankind
haa-'adam: with the article, is "the man"
'eth haa-'adam: with the article and partical, is "this particular adam."
Gen 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image..."
The Hebrew form for man here, is 'adam, or ed).
So, yes, here it is talking about mankind. It's like God saying "Let's make people!"
Now, we see where He does it.
Gen 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
The man in this verse is 'eth haa-'adam, or ed)h-t), meaning "this particular adam."
Now to Genesis 2.
Gen. 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
The first man in this verse is 'eth haa-'adam, or ed)h-t, meaning "this particular adam." Does this look familiar? Yeap!
The second man , in this verse, is haa-'adam, or ed)h, meaning "the man"
In genesis 1:26, He decides to make "mankind"
In Genesis 1:27, He makes a specific, or "particular", man.
In Genesis 2:7, it tells us how He made the specific man and that this man became a living soul.
I looked at an interlinear and at the original Hebrew writing (actual Hebrew).
So, yes Genesis 1 & 2 are speaking of the same thing. Genesis 1 is telling us "that He did it." Genesis 2 is telling us " how He did it." |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 1998
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.154.96
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
"Franklin, how can we be racist"
Have you or danipeachy, watchman, ezekiel and whoever else is stooges for am here ever been affiliated with the kkk, Aryan Nation, skinheads, white supremacy or any other racist organization? Have you ever posted racist comments on factnet before under another user name? |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 2011
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.154.96
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Got really quiet here after that last question. It's like I'm in a "void". Anybody out there? |
danispeachy
Intermediate Member
Username: danispeachy
Post Number: 269
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 65.30.148.114
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 7:28 pm: |
|
why would I post racist comments? I'm not a racist!!! That is the stupidest lie you can fling!You can't bend us to turn our backs on Gods word so you fling untrue accusations at us in an attempt to attack our character. I've given the challenge so many times yet no one has ever provided proof as to Arnold Murray or Shepherds Chapel being involved in racist organizations. I'm 100% sure you won't find me making any comments or as a part of an organizations. You go ahead and look though, break your back looking for that which does not exist! Why would I listen to anything you horrible people have to say? All you do is lie and falsely accuse and call names. You are not of God! If you were you wouldn't act the way you do! You blatantly act evil and expect me to listen to anything you have to say regarding the word of God??? HA! Jesus is my shepherd and I only follow his voice. He has been very clear in his teaching and warning of people (like you guys).
Matt 5:11
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (KJV) |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 301
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.233.116.89
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 7:31 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Very good! I can see that you have studied. Yes, the word 'man' in Gen. 1:27 is similar to Gen. 2:7 except for the particle. Both verses have the article.
Bullinger, in the Companion Bible [Appendix 14], states that both verses are rendered "the man, Adam". Bullinger further notes that the particle, 'eth, makes the rendering very emphatic such as 'the very man, Adam'.
Hence, Bullinger concluded that Gen. 1:27 is interpreted as the very man, Adam purposed to be formed in Gen. 2:7. It is this distinction that sets the two verses apart according to Bullinger.
PM, I think, teaches this slightly different. PM relies on Gen. 2:5 to distinguish the creation account of Gen. 1 because, in Gen. 1:26, there was no man created to till the field. Since God rested on the 7th day, then God's creation of a man to till the earth could not have taken place in the 7 day creation of this earth age.
Bullinger's account supports this teaching as well. |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 2015
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.53.154.96
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 7:59 pm: |
|
So I take that as a no.
"You are not of God!"
And you are neither. Only CHRIST was "of God"! |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 197
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
Good Evening Franklin!!
Quote:
Have you or danipeachy, watchman, ezekiel and whoever else is stooges for am here ever been affiliated with the kkk, Aryan Nation, skinheads, white supremacy or any other racist organization? Have you ever posted racist comments on factnet before under another user name?
End Quote
The answer is no. We have all stated this many times. None of our post have ever stated a racist comment. It's the same old, same old from you guys...*sigh*
Franklin, you know nothing about any of us. You have no idea what race any of us are or what other race(s) are in our families....ect... With me, there are at least 3 different races in our family...there goes your racist theory.
God is against falsewitnesses. Here is a parting verse for you Franklin, think about it:
Pro 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight. |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 198
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:13 am: |
|
Good Evening Preachers_daughter!!
Whether you agree with us or not, I am glad to see you researching the original language for yourself. That's all any of us can do:
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
God bless |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 199
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:20 am: |
|
Franklin, I don't know if you missed this question or not, so I'm posting it again:
Franklin please explain how Gen.2 can be a recap of Genesis 1 when the order of creation doesn't match up?
Thanks in advance |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.55.176.250
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 7:06 am: |
|
It is a recap. For an answer right now, God moves in mysterious ways. It is not for us to know everything or speculate about God and our origins. If the Bible does not tell us directly, in bold face print, then we will have to wait for the answers when we get to heaven. Until then stop monkeying around with scripture. It is what it is. You speak English. Unless you speak and understand Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin fluently yourself then you do not really understand for yourself the meanings of these different words. Use the KJV and no other. You are like the atheists who have to know or have someone tell them everything now. They are wrong and you are wrong. Instead of letting am or bullinger interpret and spoon feed scripture to you, how about letting the only one qualified do that for you, the Holy Spirit! |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 51
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
watchman
If you go and look at Gen. 1:27 & Gen 2:7, written in Hebrew, and not a Romanized form, you will see that "man" in Gen 1:27 & the first mention of "man" in Gen 2:7, BOTH, have the article and the partical. They are the exact same word. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3034
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.51.172
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
I researched the www.JewishEncyclopedia.com and found this concerning 'The book of Adam':
The Talmud says nothing about the existence of a Book of Adam, and Zunz's widely accepted assertion to the contrary ("G. V." 2d ed., p. 136) is erroneous, as appears upon an inspection of the passage in 'Ab. Zarah, 5a, and Gen. R. xxiv. 2. There can be no doubt, however, that there existed at an early date, perhaps even before the destruction of the Second Temple, a collection of legends of Adam and Eve which have been partially preserved, not in their original language, but somewhat changed. It is possible to prove that the apocryphas, Apocalypsis Mosis— as Tischendorf, following a copyist's erroneous inscription, called the book—and Vita Adæ et Evæ, and to a certain degree even their Slavonic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic offshoots, are of identical Jewish origin. According to these apocryphal works and to the Eastern and Western forms of the Apocalypsis, the Jewish portion of the Book of Adam must have read somewhat as follows (the parallels in apocryphal and rabbinical literature are placed in parentheses):
Adam, the handiwork of the Lord (Ab. R. N. i., end), lived with Eve in the Garden of Eden, which was situated in the East (Book of Enoch, xxxii.; B. B. 84a). Their food, which they also distributed to the lower animals, consisted of the fruit of the trees in the garden, the only nourishment then allowed to living beings. For their protection two angels were set apart, known as or the partakers of the majesty, called in Latin virtutes, from virtus, corresponding to kabod. But one day when the guarding angels had ascended to heaven to sing their hymn () to the Lord, Satan thought the time opportune to carry out his evil designs against Adam. Satan hated Adam, for he regarded him as the cause of his fall. After God had created man, He ordered all the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, but Satan rebelled against God's command, despite the direct bidding of Michael "to worship the image of YHW", and answered proudly: "If God be angry against me, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (compare Isa. xiv. 13). Whereupon God "cast him out from heaven with all his host of rebellious angels" (Slavonic Book of Enoch). And Satan the Adversary selected the serpent for his tool, as it was not only the most subtle of all animals, but also very similar to man, for it had been endowed with hands and legs like him. And Satan spoke to the serpent: "Be my instrument, and through thy mouth will I utter a word which shall enable thee to seduce man". After some pleading the serpent succeeded in persuading Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge—a fig-tree (Gen. R. xv. 7)—which the serpent had shaken for her. But the serpent had infused lust into the fruit, and when Eve had eaten of it the sexual desire awoke in her (Slavonic Book of Baruch, and at the same moment she became aware that she had been undone and "had lost the garment of righteousness in which she had been clothed". Adam, too, after he had eaten of the forbidden fruit, experienced a sense of loss and cried out: "What hast thou done? Thou hast removed me from the glory of the Lord".
There can be no question that this is where they get their beliefs. It's not in the KJV or any other translations except those used by these rascists, who aren't apparently even aware that these teachings "ARE RASCIST". |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 302
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.105
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:02 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Thank you for correcting me. I see the particle in both Hebrew words in my Green's Interlinear. |
terluvire
Intermediate Member
Username: terluvire
Post Number: 200
Registered: 3-2006
Posted From: 24.229.6.62
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Godchild,
What the heck is the "book of Adam"? |
danispeachy
Intermediate Member
Username: danispeachy
Post Number: 270
Registered: 7-2005
Posted From: 206.182.134.103
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
ROFL Vivian!!!!
1st off, What's the book of Adam? LOL I've never even heard of it.
2nd off, What part of what YOU just posted is racist?
….keep in mind the definition of racism is:
An attitude, action or institutional structure, which subordinates a person or group because of their color. Racism involves having the power to carry out systematic discriminatory practices.
After you tell me the portion of what YOU posted is racist, I want you to explain why the Jewish Encyclopedia, where you got such information is writing racist things. Then I want you to write them a letter explaining how disturbed you are by their racism. After that, I want you to go back and tell us where Either Terri, Abi, Angie, Zeke, or myself ever said anything racist. Also show us where we ever discussed the Book of Adam.
Then after you have done that, go and find proof, that is to say evidence that will hold up in a court of law, showing us where Pastor Murray and SCN are affiliated with a racist organization.
Silly women! You won’t be able to complete any of those tasks, because you can’t prove your big fat lies.
You are so full of hate and lies, you really must be one of Satan’s right hand workers. You do so well in spreading his lies and mischief for him.
Actually all it does is reinforce my beliefs. If I have to battle with Satan in such a way (through you) I know I must be on to the truth why else would he try so hard yet fail so miserably to penetrate my spiritual armor.
:D |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 52
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Hello Watchman_2,
I have another question. Since we now know that the "man" in Gen 1:27 & the "man" in the first part of Gen 2:7 are the SAME word, with the SAME meaning, how can this be talking about TWO different events? It seems very clear that BOTH of these verses are talking about the same thing. A specific man, or " this particular man."
Franklin
I agree with alot of what you say, but the way you come across, on some of these threads, sometimes, just angers people and pushes them away. Try a kinder approach. I am not saying to change what you are saying, just how you are saying it. Also, if you are going to tell someone that they are interpreting bible scripture wrongly, don't just scream and yell about it, show them. If the only thing you use is a KJV (which is my bible of choice) and nothing else to study with, you are missing out on so much. Just because we speak English doesn't mean we need to be ignorant when it comes to the Word of God. Anytime you translate something from one language to another, no matter what language it is, some things may change slightly. Why? Because there are not always words to use that mean the exact same thing, so they use a word with the closest possible meaning. |
franklin
Senior Member
Username: franklin
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 71.55.176.250
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Thank you for your suggestions pd. Like watchman and just about everyone else I alternate. Between impatient and nice. People bring out anger in me, and I bring out anger in them. At least that's how it appears as black letters on a white background. But I, sitting in front of the computer screen am not really angry. The words might seem to be. But I don't feel any angry emotion. More impatience when I have to make the same point over and over to a stubborn adversary. And that is the word for some of these people.
There are two groups on factnet that are adversarial to me. Some, not all, atheists. All of the sc posters. Everyone else and I can agree to disagree. I don't cater to "your sin is worse than my sin" attitude either. And out and out cult leader/stooge/apologists/enslavers deserve no quarter. I don't know how long you have been posting on factnet but I have seen it all.
So as to your suggestion "Try a kinder approach" I will try. Won't hurt. But if you really think you are going to show watchman or the rest of the sc crowd the error of their ways by mincing words and translations with them, good luck. Sometimes the mental conditioning of some of the posters before they come to factnet is so thorough that there is no way to get through to them angry or nice.
As to translations, with KJV, we already have a basic understanding of the word. The Holy Spirit is working in us to comprehend that word. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate translator. RIGHT? So going back to latin to Greek to Hebrew I believe is only confusing us from what the Holy Spirit is trying to do. We are trying to "reason" in our own minds God's truth. Truth is a spiritual experience. Not necessarily a mental one.
Most times it is our minds that block our understanding of God's truth. It is not the Human language of God's truth that is paramount. It is God's language, the language of the spirit, I'm not necessarily writing about tongues, but what takes place inside of us when the Holy Spirit teaches and comforts us. Whatever that language is, is all that matters.
If we try to stay pure in heart and humble we will learn God's truth without translating and retranslating and retranslating. Understand what I am trying to convey here? Thanks for the advise. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 303
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.170.154
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 8:33 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
I hope that you had a blessed day.
The most important aspect of this discourse is your previous verification that Gen. 1:26 speaks of the creation of mankind, thereby proving to many detractors that Adam and Eve were not the first, that all the races were created on the sixth day, and that all of the races "were very good".
Your verification further goes to dispel many other false teachings that the detractors follow such as the creation of races at the tower of Babel or that the black race came from Noah's curse of Canaan. Also, dispels the false teaching that Noah's family were the only people that survived the flood.
Hopefully, your third-party verification of the truth of this SC teaching will quiet the liars that post against SC. Maybe, we can see if they are Christians who can apologize for their wrongs.
With respect to your post today, I will respond in a separate post. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 304
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.168.158
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 7:14 am: |
|
preachers_daughter,
First, I want to correct an earlier post. Though the word 'man' in Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:7 are spelled exactly the same, there are variations in the jots above a couple of the letters. In Gen. 1:27, there is an apostrophe-like symbol above the last letter [reading right to left]. In Gen. 2:7, this apostrophe-like symbol is not there, but there is a dot above the second to last letter. I am condident that, to a Hebrew scholar, this makes a difference in interpretation. I certainly am not that person to tell the world what that difference means.
As you are aware, SC teaches that Adam was formed thereafter the seventh day, or is an eighth day divine act of God. SC also advocates the Companion Bible, by Bullinger, as a study Bible.
From your April 23 post, I can see that you have concluded (1) that the creation of mankind took place at the same time as the formation of Adam or (2) Adam was the first and all mankind followed. To support your position, you raise the issue that the 'man' in Gen. 1:27 is the same as the 'man' in Gen. 2:7, thereby eliminating the eighth day formation of Adam as scripturally viable. [If I have not stated your position properly, please correct me.]
Bullinger noticed the difference in the spelling of 'man' in both verses. Hence, Bullinger rendered the 'eth to be the particle in Gen. 2:7, which means "this same man Adam". He renders the 'eth in Gen. 1:27 to be demonstrative only to "indicate that the man Adam created in Gen. 2:7 was the man here purposed".
Accordingly, there appears to be a dilemma for us SC people [those damned cultists as others like to state]. The clear connotation to the very man 'Adam' in Gen. 1:27 links 'Adam' to God's work on the sixth day and tends to support those that claim that Adam was the first and all others came thereafter.
On the other hand, the account of Gen. 2 is substantively different to that of Gen. 1, as SC people have pointed out, thereby making the formation of Adam to be a divine work after the seventh day.
The question is whether the scriptures can be squared to support either position.
My own analysis follows:
(Sorry, please check in later -- I have to get to work now. However, I do have the answer.) |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 53
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Hello Watchman-2,
I just want to say thank-you for speaking with me. Into the past week, I have been deeper in the word and find myself learning more each day. I have enjoyed this "kind" debate, and I have grown from it.
You are correct about my belief. I do believe that Adam was the first man created and that all others followed. However, I don't always share the same "views" about you "SC people" as those stated by others. I am new here, and I don't "know" all of you well enough to make assumptions like that. I do, however, disagree with Murray. I used to watch his television program several years ago, but stopped when I noticed that he was teaching things that went against scripture. I can see , though, where people "may" get the racist idea. Once again, I do not "know" you, so I make no assumptions.
I'm going to go study. Once again, thank-you.
Hello Franklin,
|
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 54
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
I want to make one thing clear, that I said in my previous post. I believe that Adam was the first man created, and all others "descended" from him. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 306
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.144
| | Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 7:30 am: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Your conclusions that Adam was the first and Gen. 2 is a repeat of Gen. 1 cannot be verified by the scriptures. Gen. 4:14-15 indicates that there were others in existence that might kill Cain. Gen. 4:17 states that Cain had a wife. If Adam was the first, Eve the second, and Cain and Abel thereafter, then there would be no one else in existence to kill Cain or for Cain to marry. Adam and Eve did not have other offspring until after Seth as stated in Gen. 5:3-4.
In addition, the accounts of Gen. 2 and Gen. 1 are different, as have been pointed out by others in posts above. The last part of Gen. 2:5, which states "there was not a man to till the ground", independently renders your theory false.
If Adam was the first, yes -- there would be no man to till the earth. However, there would also be no man to have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, the cattle, all of the earth, and the creepeth thing.
The mere statement that there was no man to till the earth in Gen. 2:5 is a direct inference that other man already existed. Otherwise, God would have stated there was no man, without any qualifier, in Gen. 2:5.
With respect to science, your belief also falls short. There is no evidence that pure-blooded people have offspring of other races. Since more than one race exist today, we have scientific proof that there was a creation by God of more than one man. If mankind was not created on the sixth day, then where else in the scriptures is it stated that the races were created?? My research indicates that there is no other scripture to support the creation of the races except for Gen. 1:26.
Accordingly, your belief that Adam was the first can never be squared and verified in the scriptures or by science. Indeed, we must declare such theology false. This holds true irrespective of the interpretation of ‘man’ in Gen. 1:27 and any linkage of Gen. 1:27 to Gen. 2:7.
My research on Bullinger’s rendering follows: |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 309
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.175.165
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 7:24 am: |
|
Preachers_daughter,
I thank you for your patience while I continue my writing on this subject.
If you have access to Bullinger’s Companion Bible, you will see that Bullinger places the date of the man Adam at 4004 B.C. (See Appendix 50). If you look at the notes in the left margin of the scriptures in Gen. 1, you will see the year 4004 B.C. Hence, one can only conclude the Bullinger rendered Adam’s creation on the sixth day. Surely, the similarity of the spelling of ‘man’ in Gen. 1:27 and 2:7, along with Bullinger’s interpretation of the particle and article attached therewith, led Bullinger to this conclusion.
Like part of your analysis, Bullinger also concluded that Gen. 2 was the fulfillment of the creation contemplated in Gen. 1:26-27. If you read Bullinger’s notations in the right hand column for Gen. 1:26, he comments on the words “Let us” to state ‘The Divine purpose is here stated. The Divine act not described till 2:7, 21-24’.
Clearly, Bullinger makes the linkage between Gen. 1 and 2. Like your belief, Bullinger’s rendering also fails based upon the same context.
So, for the SC detractors who think that PM just follows the Companion Bible, here is proof positive that he does not. SC eighth day creation teaching goes against Bullinger’s analysis.
With respect to the eighth day formation of Adam as taught by SC, the contextual problems raised in Gen. 2:5, 4:14-15, 4:17, and 5:3-4, as well as science, are resolved by the creation of mankind on the sixth day. However, the literary problem remains between Gen. 1:27 and 2:7, if the Hebrew word translated to ‘man’ is indeed ‘the very same man Adam’. The extent that PM claims that Gen. 2:7 is referring to Adam is in conflict with the same verbiage in Gen. 1:27 and defeats the purpose of his teaching.
Since the contextual problems with your and Bullinger’s belief cannot ever be resolved, it is my opinion that the error is in the interpretation of man with the article and particle. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 55
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Watchman_2,
There are several things I would like to discuss concerning your last two posts, but I have very little time so, I will have to do it later. There is, however, one thing I would like to say now.
You stated that the formation of the man named Adam in Gen 2 is different from that which took place in Gen 1.
I showed you that it was the same.
You also stated that the word 'man' in Gen 1:27 is similar to Gen 2:7 except for the partical.
I showed you that it was the same.
You also asked me to look at an interlinear and I would "see the difference."
I looked, and there was none.
On this thread, to prove the teachings of Murray, I have heard "look at an interlinear", "go into the original language", "the Bullinger..."
When I did these things that were suggested {once again in defense of Murray and his teachings}, NONE of them supported your THEORY on the creation of Adam. Now, the excuse is that in your opinion the error is in the interpretation of man with the article and the partical. 
Maybe, just maybe, the error is in Murray's beliefs and teachings. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 311
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.171.85
| | Posted on Saturday, April 29, 2006 - 4:29 pm: |
|
I conclude that the Hebrew 'eth Ha-adham' simply means 'this very man'. It is reflective of the context in the accompanying scripture.
Hence, in Gen. 2:7, the 'man' is that which was formed by God, placed in the Garden of Eden, and was later called Adam.
In Gen. 1:27, the 'man'[plural] is that which God created. Verse 27 begins with the word "So", which directly links it to verse 26. In verse 26, there is no argument that the word man means mankind. God created mankind to do the things listed in Gen. 1:26. Verse 27 states that God created these very men and women.
Accordingly, by interpreting 'eth Ha-adham as 'this very man' and not making the translation person specific, we are able to show that the wording in Gen. 1:27 and 2:7 are both appropriate.
The scriptures are resolved. Indeed, mankind was created on the sixth day and the man named Adam was formed thereafter the seventh day. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 314
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.233.112.102
| | Posted on Sunday, April 30, 2006 - 5:24 am: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Yes, as much as I love Bullinger's work the Companion Bible, he, like any man, can be wrong.
As I have demonstrated, Bullinger's interpretation of 'eth Ha-adham' as Adam-specific is incorrect in my opinion. Also, to the extent that SC teaches the 'eth Ha-adham' to be Adam-specific in Gen. 2:7 is wrong as well.
Your analysis and pointing out the almost exactness of Gen. 1:27 and 2:7 helped tremendously and I thank you for it.
Nonetheless, if one is indeed in search of the truth, one can only conclude that the teaching that Adam was the first and all others came after is false -- a tradition of man that cannot be squared in the scriptures.
My question for you is whether you are here in pursuit of the truth or here to defend the tradition of man that you bought into at your church? |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 59
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Watchman_2,
I must disagree with you on your interpretation of the word 'eth haa-adam. You can't change the meaning of a word, just because you don't agree with it or because it does not prove your theory. Things just don't work that way. Now, it seems that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, even Bullinger.
To answer your question, I am not here in pursuit of the truth. I know the truth. I learned along time ago to never follow man, and to never take anyones word as the gospel according to....
I have learned to study the word and to find the truth, myself.
That being said, yes I do attend church, yes I do listen to many preachers, yes I do use study guides, yes I do look to others for guidance. But, what I do not do is base my beliefs on the teaching of any one person, and I do not base it on tradition. I trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 316
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.175.191
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
The scriptures speak for themselves -- your beliefs are false. There is no way that the scriptures support a theory that Adam was the first and all others came thereafter. It has been demonstrated to you why your theory is false. So, how can you still say that you know the truth?? What do you base your conclusion upon?? How did all of the races get here if Adam was the first?? Who was Cain afraid of?? Where did the woman come from that Cain married??
If you know the truth, please enlighten the rest of us with the answers, supported by scriptures, for these questions. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 61
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Watchman,
Since you are the one that is 'correct', and 'I am not', why don't you show me, with scripture. And, why don't you look for yourself and not go by what the SC or Watchman Bible Study Group teaches. Sometimes when we think and look for ourselves, we see things in a whole new light.
I could sit here and quote different groups, teachers, and ministers all day long. But, if I did that, I wouldn't be thinking for myself, or listening to the Holy Spirit, would I? |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 317
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.172.87
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 7:06 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
I have no idea who is, or what the teachings are of, the Watchman Bible Study Group.
I have already proven why your theory is false; yet, you claim that your theory is truth. I simply asked for your scriptural proof so that I can check it out on my own. I am not interested in what others state -- I am only interested in your analysis.
Certainly, you must have verified your beliefs in the scriptures. If I am wrong, I certainly want to know the truth. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 62
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Watchman_2,
But, if shown the truth, are you willing to see and believe it? You proved nothing, except that you are not willing. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 318
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.172.48
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 9:33 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
I have already been taught your belief system regarding this issue long ago. It never made sense and no one could explain it or provide scriptures to prove it.
However, I am a very objective analyst and can review your proof without bias.
Of course, I must say that you appear to be in denial regarding the evidence that I provided you that shows where your theory cannot be squared in the scriptures.
You have not answered many of the questions posed to you. I have not heard your counter-argument yet. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 63
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 8:10 am: |
|
watchman_2,
Once again, you have proved nothing exept that, if it doesn't line up with your beliefs, you will go so far as to try and change the meaning of words to support your theory. I have shown you the meaning of the word Adam, in different verse, yet you still can't see. It doesn't look as if I am the one in denial.
I do not believe the way I was taught, at least not on everything. That includes how the different races came into the world. I learned along time ago to study and learn, for myself.
As far as the woman Cain married, there is only one verse in the bible that mentions her, and all it says is that he knew her. It does not say where she came from. So, for those of us that believe Adam was the first man, and all men came from him , it had to have been his sister.
When it states who begat whom, in the bible, almost all the time it mentions the sons, not the daughters. So we don't know exactly how many children were born of Adam and Eve. We do know, however, that they had both sons and daughters, and we do know in what order the sons were born.
Who was Cain afraid of? That is simple. He knew he had committed a terrible sin. He had killed his brother. He was afraid of anyone and everyone, both in the present and the future. He was a marked man.
How did all the races get here if Adam was the first? Why not? Why can't God, who created the universe and all that is in it, from nothing, create all the races from Adam and Eve? Because science says it is impossible? Is science greater than God? Is He such a weak and powerless God that He is incapable of doing such a thing? If so, why do we even bother serving Him? Why not worship science and all who believe it is impossible to have happened. My bible tells me that NOTHING is impossible with God. If he wants a white woman and a black man to have a teal grean baby, He can do it {that would be something to see}!
All I am saying is to look outside the box. Don't make Him so weak that he can't do something so simple. He is God isn't He? |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 319
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.168.210
| | Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 7:29 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Once again, unless you can resolve the scriptures with respect to Cain's fear, Cain's wife, and where all the races of people came from scripturally, you cannot prove your theory that Adam was the first and all others came thereafter. This is a simple Biblical truth.
We are to use the scriptures for reproof of any theology. See II Tim. 3:16.
Your explanation falls way short of any kind of scriptural proof. Under the scriptural basis for your belief, we know that (1) no sisters of Cain were born yet [daughters not born to Adam and Eve until Gen. 5:3-4 after Seth]; (2) there was no other people in existence yet for Cain to fear [only Adam, Eve, and Cain]; and, (3)you are asking me to look outside of the box [in violation of the rules of scriptural interpretation].
Therefore, you really have no scriptural basis for your theology. Yet, you claim it to be truth. This is very difficult to comprehend when the proof for the creation of mankind on the sixth day is laid out in plain view for all to see.
It really seems like you are in denial to the simple truth of God's word. Many people love playing church ahead of stating the truth. When it comes down to rejecting the false theology of one's church and losing that fellowship or denying the truth, many choose the denial route. You appear to fall into that category. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
preachers daughter... it is no need to even talk to watcman he is a beleiver in the serpent seed lie and the doctrine lie of another race of adams or man that was made. one even told me GOD made snother set of people on the eight day. that is a lie. keep on believing preachers daughter in what you ahev believed and know from GODS WORD. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 320
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.206
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 7:01 am: |
|
preachers_daughter,
You must consider the source when arron writes. He does not study the scriptures. In fact, he believes in that false rapture theology. He is not credible. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 7:44 am: |
|
PRAISE THE LORD preachersdaughter... i sure do believe in the rapture that is what the bible teaches. i sure do NOT believe in the lieing doctrines of that nut case that goes around spouting off about another race and serpent snake seeds. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 64
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 1:04 pm: |
|
arron,
Thank you for the encouraging words. As I was having my devotions, last night, I ask the Lord to send someone to encourage me, and He did. I am so thankful that He heres and answers prayer. I have been on this journey for many years and I know whom I serve. He is not a God of limitations. Thank you, once again. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 1:26 pm: |
|
thanks preachers daughter. keep praying for me there are not many on the net that encourages people. most discourage or are just plain mean. some are nice such as turtle and some others even old bluewater who is not saved is a well pal of mmine i am praying much for him you do so too if you will that he may be saved. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 65
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 1:41 pm: |
|
watchman_2,
You cannot answer your own questions, with scripture, because there are none to support what you believe. You cannot use Gen. 1:26,27 or Gen 2:7 because, we have already established the proof that you were wrong. The Bullinger, Interlinear, And original Hebrew all support the meanings, of Adam, that I showed you. Yet now, these things that you recommended are wrong, because they do not support your belief.
As far as Cain and his sisters, the bible does not say if they were born before or after Seth. It says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born and, after Seth was born he lived for an additional eight hundred years: and he had sons and daughters. Doesn't say before, doesn't say after. Just says that he had them.
How is looking outside the box, a violation of scripture???? Too often people try to put God in a box and try to put limitations on what He is able to do, but not me. As I said before NOTHING is impossible with God.
One thing I do not do is play church. I also DO NOT FOLLOW MAN AND HIS FALSE TEACHINGS, which, after getting to know a little about you, seems to be the category that you fall in.
I do hope that you begin to read the Word with your eyes open. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 66
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
arron,
I will definitely remember you and bluewater in my prayers, along with many others here. I read the atheism thread, quite frequently, and I think his picture was awesome. I have always dreamed of doing that.
PS
SEE YOU IN THE RAPTURE!!!!! |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 321
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.233.115.25
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
If you believe in the rapture and that Adam was the first, you certainly do follow the traditions of man and their false teachings. Neither theory can be squared with the scriptures.
Your only proof for your beliefs are that one should 'think out of the box'. The Bible, II Tim. 2:15, teaches us to STUDY to show ourselves approved -- not think out of the box.
I have also shown you where thinking out of the box is in violation of proper scriptural interpretation, II Tim. 3:16. If a theory cannot be proven by the scriptures, it is false.
You have not proved anything regarding Gen. 1:26,27 and Gen. 2:7. I already showed you why. There are other sources that state that 'eth Ha-adham' means 'this very man', which makes it the object of the action contemplated. In Gen. 1:27, the action contemplated is the creation of mankind, as stated in Gen. 1:26. In Gen. 2:7, the action contemplated is the singular man to till the ground, which was placed in the Garden of Eden.
If Cain married his sister, why would he be afraid of the girls in his family, Gen. 4:14??
Too much supposition and adding/deleting from the Bible [Rev. 22:18-19]to make your theory credible -- I'll stick with the Bible and the scriptures provided therein. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 901
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 6:17 pm: |
|
PD....We believe in the Gathering but only at tthe 7th trump.
So, you believe in a Gathering before the 7th trump?
Is that correct? Could you state where Jesus says that He will come back just before the tribulation of the anti-Christ, or can you state as we can that Jesus sasid.....the Son of Perdition (anti-Christ) nust, irepeat MUST come first and claim to be God in Jerusalem.
Wheich one...cause it cannot be both.
Rapture, false tongues, not believng in Kenites or believing that the sin in the Garden was Eating a fruit and not sexuality....these are all traditions of man and not biblical. These folks are really lost for truth (as we all were at one time) but they seem so convicted...
I would want to know the truth even if I was wrong, wouldn't you?
Especially with Eternity on the Line...but believe man over the Word if you want and fly away, run away, when God needs His chosen most...right here on earth...to stand against the firey darts of Satan. ON EARTH...WHERE JESUS REATURNS, WHERE PARADISE IS TO BE
WHERE ATHE HARVEST IS
WHEN THE HARVEST OF TAHE TARAES AND WHEAT HAPPEN IT IS NOT MONTHS OR YEARS APART.
Figure it out.
Satan's flood of lies and some are taken first...that's real bad...to be taken and not wait for your Husband...as a chased virgin.
Learn the scriptures...not tradition FRIENDS
Peace
c |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 68
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 7:32 am: |
|
watcman_2,
When I say think outside the box, I'm saying 'don't limit God on what he can do'.
I believe that every christian should study the Bible and that it is the inspired Word of God. I also believe that everything we need to know is in the Word, and that we are not to add to it nor take away from it. It is what it is, and that is all that we need. Throwing out these scriptures has not proven that your belief is correct. These are things I believe all must do. I also believe that man can take the scriptures and twist them, making them into a false teaching, as AM and the SC has done. That is why I do not follow man. I follow Christ.
What part of all that were in the PRESENT AND THE FUTURE did you not get? Possibly he was also afaid of what his life would be like, without God. Did you think of that?
Here are two verses I would like to read, and then I must go.
Here, Paul is speaking to the church at Corinth.
1 Cor. 2:13
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Cor. 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Sometimes, in our study of the Bible, there are things that seem impossible and cannot be 100% explained. {ex. Cain's wife}. But, one day, we will know. We will have all the answers to all the questions. We will know God as He knows Us. Then we will understand it all. But, until then, I will keep studying and learning all that I can, so when someone teaches a false doctrine I will know that it is not true and I will not fall for it. Also, I will NOT follow man. You should try it.
(Message edited by preachers_daughter on May 06, 2006) |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 322
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.8
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 9:26 am: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Nonetheless, to make your theories credible, one has to add/delete from the scriptures. I am not looking for plagues or being taken out of the book of life [Rev. 22:18-19]. Hence, you may choose to add/delete from the Word of God so that you can enjoy your church's Adam first and rapture theologies; however, I will stay far away from those false teachings.
The scriptures are clear that Adam was not the first. Even easier to prove false is the 'rapture' theory. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
watchman if any one is adding to the word it is you. with your false doctrines. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 323
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.132
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 7:32 pm: |
|
arron,
You should talk. Your rapture theory has no Biblical support -- and it is just not SCers telling you so.
So far, you do the ostrich every time and stick your head in the sand to make sure that you don't read/hear any truth.
I support all of my positions with scripture. You support all of yours with conjecture. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 9:24 pm: |
|
YOU support yoour with teachings of false prophets and lies from other sources than the word of GOD. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 324
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.175.191
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 5:18 am: |
|
arron,
I didn't know that the books of Genesis, Timothy, and Revelation were outside of the Bible.
I know that you all have your 'rapture' Bible to read -- however, I did not know that your 'rapture' bibles excluded those books. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3039
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.52.62
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 7:49 am: |
|
As far as I can see Bullinger never claimed to be a prophet. He was considered a Biblical scholar. The Pharisees were also Biblical scholars. It is the appendixes to the KJV that scers follow. These are all words (interpretations) added by bullinger. As for am, he also uses the apocrypha in his teachings, and other books that are not scripture. When scer's say am only reads word for word, verse by verse, the the Holy Bible, that is simply not true, because all these other interpretations are also used. We cannot use the Holy Bible to fit doctrines written by men. The Holy Bible itself tells us not to add to or take away from the Bible. You cannot have it both ways.
Scers have recommended the seasons.org for learning more about them. The seasons, as they are quick to state, is not affiliated with shepherds chapel, and there are other men teaching the sc doctrines there. It is by this that they are not able to be pinned down. Let them have their interpreters. It is their choice. We know where they get such doctrines and beliefs, and it is not from the Holy Bible. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 325
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.170.48
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 8:32 am: |
|
godchild,
You forgot Christ, Apostle Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as many other books in the Old and New Testaments. It is not PM's fault that the rest of you have difficulty reading for clarity. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3044
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.52.62
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Oh, I am not blaming am for anything. He only has the power that you give him. scers are simply unable to use the Holy Bible to confirm their false doctrines, but must add the works of men written after the Old and New Testaments and combining them with pagan teachings. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 69
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
watchman_2
If you will recall, I asked several questions, concerning what you and others believe, and gave you the opportunity to explain. I also waited until you were finished explaining, before I made any comments. That is how a person has a polite conversation. Whether they agree or not, they should be polite.
When I told arron that I would see him in the rapture, both you and ezekiel were very quick at putting your two cents in, without giving me time to state my belief on the subject. I would appreciate the common courtesy that I have shown you, even though we do not agree on many things. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 907
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
You know....for almost 2 weeks the two of you...watchman and preachers daughter... have been involved in a conversation.
I read along and allowed the peaceful exchange between you 2 to continue unabridged... without putting my 2 cents in...
And then arron shows up and speaks his mind without, I assume, doing the background reading on the previous posts...interupting the conversation and DEATRACTING from the whole point of the converstation. Arron does this very frequently and shows no creadibility...
I feel it is needed to point out to Arron that he has not wanted to STUDY the word but only agree with what someone tells him....his local preacher(i assume again) and what ever other dogmatic faulty belief system he's been conned into...
Arron has been shown many times that the gathering happens at the 7th trump but refuses to believe it.
Arron has been shown many times that Christ WILL NOT RETURN until first the anti-Christ mankes his appearance and claims to be God in Jerusalem.
The Gospel of Christ includes this very important piece of information that Arron seems to want to ignore and I do not see how that is possible unless God has blinded him to the truth to protect his very soul....I say wake up if it is possible and see that there is no gathering before the 7th Trump.
I still love arron as he does claim Christ as Lord and Messiah...it makes us Brothers, and that is worth alot....but there is no rapture!
Arron has been shown many times that the events in 1Cor15 are AT THE 7TH TRUMP and not before but refuses to STUDY and learn for himself. That is Arrons decision. Sinse you claim that you will see Arron in the rapture, and arron will be in the false flood of Lies that Satan provides for Gullable so called Christians, then you too will be fooled into a pre 7th Trump gathering...and that is a shame.
My origianl question to you was just that ....
a question...correct me if I have assumed wrong.
Do you believe in a gathering before the 7th trump, commonly called the rapture?
Peace
c |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 71
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
ezekiel_37
By your post, and watchmans', It seemed to me that you made an assumption, as to what I believe, without me stating one way or the other. I apologize if I miss read you, but that is how I see it. Am I correct? |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 908
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Yes I did and I apologize,
from your words to aron I assumed and I shouldn't have I guess, but i still did only ASK...and then wrote what I preceived...won't happen again. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 72
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 3:17 pm: |
|
ezekiel_37,
Thank you for being honest.
Without getting into huge discussion, I will tell you my beliefs.
The word rapture means 'the state of being carried away, bliss, delight, transport, joy.'
In 1 Thess. 4:16,17 it says that "those which are alive and remain shall be caught up..."
The Greek word for caught up is har-pad'-zo which means 'to carry off by force, to snatch out or away.'
Caught up, har-pad'-zo, rapture, all mean the same thing. People just put a different timeline on it.
I was taught that Christ would come and take His children home before the tribulation. That He would take us out of here and that we would not have to go through any of it.
After studying the Word, for myself, I cannot agree with that. I believe we will be here until the very end. Then, we will be 'rapured' out of this place, "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." The end. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 909
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Thank you Preacher's Daughter
Honesty is awsome, especially with scripture.
I believbe that it is extremely important to realize that we all are going to be here through the tribulation but some just won't agree. I was taught rapture aswell at one point in my life and thought that it was sound and biblical but I never really studied the subject until more recently...
When I did it became apparant that we are all to be here.
Peace
c |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 327
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.173.229
| | Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
preachers_daughter,
Fortunately, I have never been burdened with belonging to a church that had, as one of its base tenets, the rapture theology. So, when I first heard of it, I thought that such teaching was really something good and wondered why I never heard of it before.
So, I tried to learn all about it. I watched all the rapture teachers I could [never gave them any money] watch on TV and took down notes. I then would study on my own to verify what they were saying.
The funny thing was that each and every time I checked out the scriptures, these preacher's interpretations never panned out with the written word. Even at that time [no study tools], I could see that this theology was flawed.
I was thankful that I wasn't duped into financially supporting these false teachers in any way.
However, though each rapture preacher has their own take on supporting scriptures [which were inconclusive], they all had one core scriptural reference, I Thes 4:16-17. So, I focused in on these two verses.
Well, at that time [no study tools], verse 17 was a mystery. However, verse 16 was conclusive on its own to prove the rapture theory false. See, verse 16 contains the words "trump of God".
Well, we know from the book of Revelation that Christ returns on God's last or seventh trump. Christ does not return on any earlier trump.
So, by using the scriptures for reproof [II Tim. 3:16], I was able to establish the time frame for the I Thes. 4:16-17 as the last trump. Hence, those that teach a 'pretrib' of 'midtrib' rapture are, indeed, false preachers. Those churches that claim Christ is returning to take the church before the tribulation are false churches.
Since I now have study tools, I am certain that rapture theology is false. It can be no other way. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1840
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 7:43 pm: |
|
watchman.. i am a firm believer in the rapture. it will happen when JESUS comes to get HIS CHURCH. then the tribulation period will begin. then the man of sin will be revealed. you and another one on this thread and on snake seed threads never show book chapter and verse. just chapters or a isolated verse and give some dumbos opinion. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 7:45 pm: |
|
and oh yes i am well aware that the word rapture is not in the bible. caught up is and that is what rapture means we will be caught up to meet HTE LORD in the air and so shall we ever be with THE LORD. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 329
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.175.248
| | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
arron,
There is nothing in the scriptures to support your theory. The great apostasy in the endtimes is the CHURCH. So, why and when, and on what trump, does Christ return.
You still haven't figured out SS Doctrine yet after all of the explanation -- it is not snake mating with woman. It is Satan! Now, with another demonstration of your ignorance, how do you expect anyone to think that you are credible. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 10:00 pm: |
|
the snake WAS satan. you say she had sex with satan but there is not one verse...from GODS WORD that supports this insaneess. you have told theries and garbage that you have collected from others but you have yet to show the book the chapter the verse that supports this ina=sane garbage as you say it it.you twist GODS WORD nd try to make it say someting that is not supported by the bible |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 332
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.232.207.88
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 5:30 am: |
|
It has already been proven over and over again. I cannot help it that you do not do your research. Go to the Doctrines/Belief - Doctrines/Proofs - Serpent Seed thread.
It has also been explained on this thread as well. It is a done deal and you are wrong. Anytime you choose to pull your head out of the sand, the truth is there. You just have to read it. |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1847
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 7:20 am: |
|
NO'''''' you know fully well why you dont, cant show book, chapter and verse to support your theroies about snake seed, and the different fase saying you and another one come out with. dont tell me its been proven for it hasnt |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 921
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
arron....you would have to believe that the sin in the garden was not eating a piece of fruit from a tree but to 'touch' the tree.
The result is sex and pregnancy. Can't get pregnant from eating an apple or other piece of fruit.
This is what Christ said about them Arron.
Here is some of John 8 for you to read and learn...
Jesus is speaking to the pharisees
38 I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father."
Christ has a Father, as we do (God) and 'they' have a father (Satan)
39 They answered him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.
They said they were from the seedline of ABRAHAM
Christ said they were not
Do you agree arron?
40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn't do this.
The pharisees didn't do the same things that Abraham did...they wanted to kill Christ, and they had murder in their hearts...as there father Cain did in the Garden.
41 You do the works of your father." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father, God."
Even the Pharisees understood that there is a protected line from God to Christ....
Those pharisees also understood that there was sex in the garden, and that their were TWO lineages that came from the Garden. One "fornicated" by the Serpent (who is Satan)
42 Therefore Jesus said to them, "If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out and have come from God. For I haven't come of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why don't you understand my speech? Because you can't hear my word.
Can you hear that Arron? God is seperating the Pharisees from the Jews.
44 You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn't stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father.
...your father......the devil
murderer from the beginning (Cain is the murderer in the beginning)
45 But because I tell the truth, you don't believe me.
Do you believe yet arron, Cain is the first Murderer in the Word and Cain is from the Devil...
All of this should now make sense to you arron.
|
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 922
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Just incase you missed it...
John 8:44 You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn't stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father.
hope that helps arron |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 74
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Yes he was a murderer from the begining, but it wasn't Cain who was the first. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 924
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
I do not understand to what you are refering? |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 75
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
You said that that Cain is the murderer, in the beginning. If you REALLY look, he was not the first. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 926
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
enlighten me please |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 76
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Okay, this is how one COULD look at it.
God created Adam and Eve, put them in the garden, gave them everything they needed. He also told them, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent says to Eve, " hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Eve says Yea, "all but the one in the midst of the garden. If we eat of it or touch it we will die." The serpent says, "you wont die, you'll just be like God, knowing good from evil." What does Eve do? She eats, then Adam eats, then their eyes are open and death enters the human world.
So, in a way, one COULD say that satan was responsible for for the first death.
Sure, they had free will, but he was still there and he was the one talking her into it.
Just a thought |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3065
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.63.103
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 5:39 pm: |
|
zeke, Why don't you read what you write. Jesus was speaking of satan, being a murderer from the beginning. It was his temptation of Eve that brought death. Not only that, but the people had said their only Father was God. Obviously, they had biological parents, but in responding He threw their words back at them saying, in effect, "No, God is not your Father. Satan is." If we don't love God, we love satan. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 77
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Godchild,
We must be on the same page. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 930
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Hello PD.
I understand that you mean the Devil/Satan is responsible for tricking eve and thus God limits adam and eve to morality! Is this what you meant?
Godchild.
you may see it that way if you wish but I and others do not.
Satan (as PD stated)and Cain were BOTH murderers form the beginning, but Cain was the first recorded human murderer...
Abraham is mentioned as the human father figure, that's LINEAGE, and thus the discussion revolves around lineage and fornication (with who?).
Abraham being the human to whom God made Promises too and continued Promises through! The Hebrew father figure...
Cain is the Kenite father figure and thus they are identified by Jesus as Satan's sons and of the line(age) of the first murderer, which is Cain.
godchild, you are adding your interpretation to the text, as you claim that I and all others do.
If one does not accept the Father, then Satan is their spiritual father...I have no problems with that.
But Satan did indeed have physical children here and they are being Identified by Christ. They are the pharisees (not all of them) and are also described as the tares.
the one that 'sowed' them (tares) was the devil. |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Ezekiel,
I mean that satan was the first murderer. He was responsible for bringing death into the world, both physical and spiritual. Cain was not the first murderer, as you stated earlier. I agree with godchild.
Also, Gen. 4:1 says " And Adam KNEW Eve his wife; and she CONCEIVED....'
Where, in the Holy Word Of God, does it say that 'satan KNEW Eve and she CONCEIVED...'
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You all have tried over, and over, and over, to prove this twisted theology and you have not. Why?because it is false. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 935
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 9:44 pm: |
|
well...now we know where you stand right!
Satan was guilty of seducing eve. You choose to believe that the seduction was of the mind and involved eating a piece of fruit.
I choose to believe the scriptures which state that Eve was 100% beguiled by the serpent-who IS Satan. Physically as well as mentally and emotionally...100% beguiled.
Eve makes HER statement that she received a man from the Lord. That is EVE'S STATEMENT after she has been DECEIVED by the Devil. She 'gets' this child, or is impregnated, first by Satan.
Notice that ADAM does not 'know' his wife until Gen4 and that is second to the BEGUILMENT by Satan.
God always gives us an example. There are very physical examples for all of the IDEALS that God wishes us to understand.
God gave the example of Passover and then fulfilled it with Christ becoming the Passover Lamb, which again is for us a symbol and LIFESTYLE. We do not physically drink His blood or eat His body but the symbol of the wine and wafer takes the place of those SYMBOLIC meanings.
The bible is full of example and real physical events that begin the symbol of what is later to be followed by good God believing people.
Cain and Abel were twins from different physical fathers. One being Satan and the other Adam.
Angels can be physical. The Word states this.
The seedline that will eventually lead to Jesus Christ is being infiltrated by the fallen angels in Gen6 and this is the first attempt written of to try to destroy the seedline that will lead to Messiah, right off the hop in the Garden of Eden.
That is the reality of the situation.
How can anyone who has read the Word doubt that Satan has children and that Christ identifies them as the Tares and the Pharisees?
The proof has been given in scripture soooooo many times that it is almost uncountable.
Read the other threads and catch up.
I wonder why you have a Bullinger Companion Bible. You seem to be nothing more than a detractor.
let's recap
don't touch the tree of knowlege
she touched the tree of knowlege
she partook of the fruit of that tree
she was mistaken about the commandment of God
she was still deceived and states that God gave her this child, because she did not know the gravity of the situation and did not know of pregnancy or sex before she was beguiled
she THEN knows her husband
Pregnancy and labour pains are the result of the 'sin'
Adam and Eve know they are NAKED
Adam and Eve cover their GENITALS and not their mouths
Adam and Eve cover theirselves with FIG LEAVES
hmmmmmm. musta been an apple.lol |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 335
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.233.113.51
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 7:32 am: |
|
arron,
Yes -- it has already been proven. You had every opportunity to prove your theology and you couldn't. Why?? Because your theology cannot be supported by the scriptures.
Gen. 5 is very clear that Cain is not a generation of Adam. So, the burden of proof is on you to prove your theory that Cain is the offspring of Adam despite the fact that the scriptures are clear that Cain is not. Good luck!
Don't waste your time on Gen. 4:1. If you do your homework, you will see that it has proven that such scriptural reference is not dispositive since Cain and Abel were birthed during the same gestation of Eve. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3068
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.197
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:14 am: |
|
You guys are so funny. I wish you could hear yourselves.
zeke: Notice that ADAM does not 'know' his wife until Gen4 and that is second to the BEGUILMENT by Satan.
Then you say Cain and Abel were twins.
watchman says: Cain and Abel were birthed during the same gestation of Eve.
zeke: Angels can be physical. The Word states this.
No, the Word states angels can appear as men. Not that they become physical.
zeke insists that we name the fruit eaten as an apple, and yet he is the one constantly saying it, not Christians: hmmmmmm. musta been an apple.lol
Now look what zeke said just moments earlier:
let's recap
don't touch the tree of knowlege
she touched the tree of knowlege
she partook of the fruit of that tree
--------------------------------
It is your theory that has not been proven by scripture. Only by adding words from bullinger's appendixes can you come up with this garbage. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3069
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.197
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:16 am: |
|
preachers_daughter, Nice to meet you. You must have posted your response seconds before I did mine. Kudos!! |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3070
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.197
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:30 am: |
|
Should we explain to these boys that during the 'gestation' period for women, there are only two or three days a month they can get pregnant?
In order for their theory to be correct, Eve had to have sex with the serpent, (or the tree), Adam also had sex with the serpent, (or the tree), they covered their nakedness, God came walking through the garden and talked to them, God conveniently had animal skins lying there in preparation to cover them, God threw them out of the garden and placed cheribum and a flaming sword there to guard it, Adam "KNEW" his wife Eve, all in a matter of about three days. Amazing!
Now let's go back to Eve's conversation with the serpent in Gen. 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden........." Was Eve lying to the serpent, was Eve just a lying, cheating whore that God created for man?
Unless she was lying to the serpent, what she was saying according to the scers, is that God told Adam and Eve they could have sex with all the trees in the garden except one!!! |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3071
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.197
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:44 am: |
|
Now let's fast forward to the flood. Satan was able to fool not only Noah but God, to sneak some of his 'serpent seed' onto the ark. Scer's insist on this by choosing the Kenites as Cain's posterity, though the Bible tells us very clearly that they were all destroyed in the flood. Why do they choose the Kenites. Because the name is similar to Cain, when they can see very well that even Strong's says Cain was the name of a place, having nothing to do with the man Cain. Even though the Bible says very clearly that the Kenites were not hated by God or the Israelites, in fact were related to Moses, and live with the Israelites, they have got to be the sons of satan. Even though the geneologies are to show the descendants to Jesus Christ, (which was prophesied in the Old Testament), the scers insist that satan's children are in there. What they are saying, in effect, is that Jesus Christ had the blood of satan; a fallen angel. What evil lurks in the minds of men! |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3072
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.197
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
If you can't accept that angels are spirit, you must not believe God is Spirit! |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3073
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.53.197
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 8:53 am: |
|
Does it ever sink into your brains that from the three sons of Noah (one man)came all the races? |
arron
Senior Member
Username: arron
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 68.119.205.23
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
zeke the sin was not the touching of the fruit but the eating of it. now read the bible. watchman ... you have proved nothing and cant ... by THE WORD OF GOD . |
preachers_daughter
Member
Username: preachers_daughter
Post Number: 81
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 70.35.77.62
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 11:14 am: |
|
godchild,
Loved your statement," Unless she was lying to the serpent, what she was saying according to the scers, is that God told Adam and Eve that the could have sex with all the trees in the garden except one!!!"
That, my friend, was awesome!! |
cs1
Intermediate Member
Username: cs1
Post Number: 134
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 138.163.0.38
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
the devil knocked up EVE, LOL the devil made me do it, LOL you guys are wacked I will take the Unknown tongues that is very clear in the word of God over twisted unfounded allegoried word of God that is deceptive, missleading and improperly interrepted. god child this serpent seed stuff is .... foolishness LOL |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 942
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 7:07 pm: |
|
well, like they say in the real estate buisness...
there are renters and there are owners.
have fun renting.
Godchild cs1 preachers daughter
you do realize that it is Satan/Lucifer/the Devil ... in the Garden right? Want scriture?
You do realize that it was the Devil who tricked Eve and not a snake/serpent right?
You do know what the symbology for trees in the garden represent right? One is Christ and one is Satan, right? and that the serpent is also symbolic of Lucifer/Satan/the Devil?
no half breed snake children like your warped mind thinks of.
no half breed tree people like you seem to think.
no apples mentioned in the Garden of Eden.
because we know that angels can produce offspring with humans....that bothers you.
accept the truth in this matter.
And for your information....I have NEVER READ the BOOK OF ENOCH. So you take that for what it is. Infact it is sooooo easy to prove many things in the Word that you think are false.
Rapture/gathering before the 7th trump.
to arron and cs1 and others-false tongues, which by the way GODCHILD is against and usually outspoken about, except when ones as youself views our theology as opposing/threatening.
So...the sin as I stated above has the following attributes and reprocussions...
ADAM AND EVE WERE...
ASHAMED,
KNOWING THAT THEY WERE NAKED,
COVERING THEIR GENITALIA,
HIDING THEMSELVES FROM GOD IN A FIG GROVE, PREGNANCY,
LABOUR PAINS,
BIRTH TO TWINS,
TWO SEPERATE LINEAGES LISTED
So....the 'fruit' is symbolic for SEX.
'touch' is a euphemism meaning to have sexuality with a woman, as the VERY NEXT USAGE OF THE WORD 'TOUCH' SUGGESTS. |
cs1
Intermediate Member
Username: cs1
Post Number: 135
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 138.163.0.41
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 8:41 am: |
|
they where also in a Garden and maybe they the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve was figs being they sowed them together to cover them. you do know it is a real tree? you do know it was a real garden?
and yes the serpent is the devil but it is about what God said not to do and are we going to listen the devil or to God we became slaves as the bible says to sin Because of Who ?? Adam and by Jesus we are made righteous. your allegorizing the word of God again taking it out of Context. |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3076
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.51.89
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
zeke, Go to the Strong's dictionary and you will see there is not one definition of the word 'touch' that relates to having sex.
You may not read the book of enoch, but rest assured, the companion bible appendixes are full of it, including text from other books listed in the apocrypha. The teachers at the season.org and other websites referred from it speak openly of using these books. You are trying to convince Christians these texts are from the Holy Bible, but they are not. Throw out those other books, and you will see a totally different interpretation. JW's and mormons have tried to do the same thing, adding to or taking away from the Word of God (to fit their false beliefs). |
godchild
Senior Member
Username: godchild
Post Number: 3077
Registered: 1-2005
Posted From: 64.28.51.89
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 9:44 am: |
|
As for my beliefs about 'speaking in tongues' in todays pentecostal churches, I have openly stated on those threads that I don't believe the 'speaking in tongues' in those churches are the Holy Spirit working through men/women. The point here is they do not teach another gospel, but are misled and misinterpret the Bible, and not some other book, as you do. You seem to have some question in your mind as to why I am not discussing that here. The am/sc teachings have nothing to do with my views about the pentecostal church, that's why. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 955
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Again
ADAM AND EVE WERE...
ASHAMED,
KNOWING THAT THEY WERE NAKED,
COVERING THEIR GENITALIA, NOT THEIR MOUTHS
HIDING THEMSELVES FROM GOD IN A FIG GROVE,(CHRIST SPEAKS OF THE FIG TREE PARABLE)
PREGNANCY,
LABOUR PAINS,
BIRTH TO TWINS,
TWO SEPERATE LINEAGES LISTED
So....the 'fruit' is symbolic for SEX.
'touch' is a euphemism meaning to have sexuality with a woman, as the VERY NEXT USAGE OF THE WORD 'TOUCH' SUGGESTS.
godchild, use your Strong's and look up the word 'touch'....look at the second usage of this word 'touch' and see that it IMPLIES SEXUALITY aswell. |
ezekiel_37
Advanced Member
Username: ezekiel_37
Post Number: 956
Registered: 8-2005
Posted From: 24.43.16.51
| | Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch5060 it, lest ye die.
H5060
naga;
naw-gah'
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman);
by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.
Gen 20:6 And God said unto him in a dream,Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning, against me: therefore, suffered I thee not to touch5060 her.
H5060
naga
naw-gah'
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman);
by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.
Same word used in the same context implying SEX, not just physical contact.......
godchild, your accusation is incorrect about the word touch not having to do with sex. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 340
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.171.185
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:10 am: |
|
cs1,
If the devil didn't knock up Eve, who else did it since she is already pregnant in Gen. 3:15? Adam didn't have sex with her until Gen. 4:1.
You sure are quick with your LOLs. Each time, you are mistaken. |
watchman_2
Intermediate Member
Username: watchman_2
Post Number: 341
Registered: 1-2006
Posted From: 4.231.171.185
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:25 am: |
|
For godchild, arron, preachers_daughter, and cs1 to be correct, one would have to believe in talking snakes, a fruit that is evil but unknown so that we eat it still today, that two unashamed naked people would naturally cover their private parts after sinning by eating a fruit, that a snake and Eve had an orchard growing contest [Gen. 3:15], that the fruit from the snake's and Eve's orchards can bruise heads and heels, and so many more fairy tales.
We have living proof of how the traditions of man make void the Word of God when we see these people's arguments. |
cs1
Intermediate Member
Username: cs1
Post Number: 151
Registered: 10-2005
Posted From: 138.163.0.37
| | Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
The bibles say that Pal and Adam obeyed God and Was fruitful and multiplied; I'm not correct the Word of God is. You can make the word of God say what you want it to say. The verbal Plenary Inspiration (full and complete word of God from Gen to REV. your Allegorizing of the word of God is Wrong and misleading. Scripture interprets scripture. We need to ask the q? What was the author meaning, that would have been Moses in the first five books. Who was He saying it to? And how do we apply it to us today. You are spiritualizing the word of God taking it out of the literal context and that is what Luther and many others fight against with our Catholic brothers. The Scriptures have one meaning and many applications. Anytime Jesus used similes, metaphors they where one sentence and gave the meaning Parables were told with more that one point but given with in that Chapter or textual meaning at the end. NOT so with Allegory they are longer and open to many interpretations |
| < | |
