NeoNazis own words proving PM is not a racist

[llm]

luthertax, the figs did come back from captivity.
in Ezra and Neh. Salvation was to Judah first.
The Ukraine, Russia, Armenia... became Christians first.

The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

save. 4:6 11:11 Isa 2:11-17 23:9 Jer 9:23,24 Mt 11:25,26 Lu 1:51-53 Lu 10:21 Joh 7:47-49 Ro 3:27 1Co 1:26-31 2Co 4:7-12 Jas 2:5 Jas 4:6

[arron]

doberman53.. i think when (if I did ) i refered to your name as being the name of a dog i was wondering why you chose such a name .
alos in your post 428 you said for me to read or study about the gulf. i have and i found it to be just what the bible says PARADISE ON ONE SIDE and the place of departed people who dont know GOD that is all changed now since JESUS went to paradise and took them with him . hell has enlarged herself and is below. it has flames such as the rich man and lazuras situation is described in the bible you said lazarus wanted one drop of water... no it was the rich man who wanted water but he did not get it . he said i am being tormeted in these flames ... FLAMES ... NOT IMAGANARY but real flames he was talking about. you said one side of the gulf was for the saved and the other side for those who hoped to be saved... that is nonsense... hell is eternal the rich man hoped to be saved but he isnt and will never be he is in hell right now and will remain so. the smoke of their torment is not a picture of eternal death i do not worry about it if you dont believe in it, well yes because you are not believing GODS WORD , but i do worry when some one says the bible says something and it doesnt. may GOD bless you

[smyrna]

"doberman53.. i think when (if I did ) i refered to your name as being the name of a dog i was wondering why you chose such a name."

Hey Arron, how was your first day of Stage Director school?

[arron]

smyrna... i didnt know that stage director had a school??? what is its name ? i dont go to coleges any way havent enough funds to go.
and i was wondering why doberman used a name of a dog of course it could be his real name so it it is i apologise for i dont make fun of ones name. may GOD bless you

[llm]

I think he calls himself dobman not dobermanhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/blush.gif

[llm]

luthertax, in jer 24 the good figs are the tribe of judah that went into babylon captivity, and the bad figs are the part of the tribe of judah that refused to go to babylon. both good and bad figs are tribe of judah. the obedient ones and the disobedient.

[arron]

dobman... i thought you said doberman i do apologise for that may GOD bless you

[arron]

llm... you are right. i thought all the time it was doberman. i told you i cant spell and now it looks like i cant read eother. i am so sorry i apologised to dobman and now to you too i apologise thank you for pointint that out to me. may GOD bless you

[smyrna]

"smyrna... i didnt know that stage director had a school???"

Oh, well let me tell youabout it:

It's called: Satanic Seminary and Clown College

Here are some of the required courses:

Slander: A Primer for Bearing False Witness

Practical Rumor Mongering: How to Manufacture Rumors, and Ways to Spread Them

Extreme Ignorance: Ignore Challenges To Your Accusations, For Maximum Deception

Using Shills: How To Exploit the Ignorance Of Your
Allies, For Increased Effect

Feigning Memory Loss: Pretending To Forget Facts To Try And Wear Out Your Opponent

Deny Deny Deny!: Denying Personal Accountability For Your Actions, Including Refusing To Admit You Are Ever Wrong, Will Give You An Air Of Invincibility.

(Caution: The above course will only allow you to deceive you most gullible allies)

Yes Arron, if you take and pass those courses, you too can be as great a deceiver as Stage Director.

And, you can guarantee you will be regarded as a bigger clown than you thought was possible.

[lutheratx]

"luthertax, the figs did come back from captivity.
in Ezra and Neh. Salvation was to Judah first.
The Ukraine, Russia, Armenia... became Christians first." llm

First before I address the above said post, I will say you are right about the bad fig. I didn't realise it said Zedekiah, and then told of the remnant that was left of the two tribes taken. I have read over that.

However this does not change anything about who is in Israel today. God says in Jeremiah 24 that I will build them up, and then he says and they will be my people. So he has to build them up, and give them a heart to know him before they will become his people. The Christians are already his people, brother Judah is not serving him right now.

That is why Jesus said

Matt 4:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

How would I know what marks the coming of Antichrist, and then Jesus Christ. Ah that tender branch would be growing, but yet it has not yet bloomed into a people with a heart to know God.

You mentioned that the Jews received the word first, and we both know how that went. The early Church was very small in comparison to the amount of Jews, and Benjamin. Not only that it was composed of Israel, and Judah. Many rejected the Messiah and hung on to there tradition that Messiah would come and smite the earth. Why because they had learned traditions from the actual bible, more were converted from Israel, because lets face it they had no outside influences of the bible, because they worshipped twigs and rocks. So when they where given the word of God there was nothing to steer them away from it, they were at the time thought to be Gentiles. The Pharisees where over the Jews, they where not Romans, they where supposedly the Rabbi. That is why Jesus said you will call no man Rabbi.

Matt23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 23:2 Saying, <font color="ff0000">The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:</font>
Matt 23:7 <font color="ff0000">And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.</font> 23:8 <font color="ff0000">But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.</font>

So they had a teaching that directly opposed Christ. Israel studied rocks, rocks do not say it is written.

It is said in Isaiah that Jesus was coming, but the Jew had not separated the fact that the day of vengeance, and the acceptable year of the Lord were separate, amongst other things. Remember Jesus did not follow there tradition of washing before meals, not eating on the sabbath, and did not follow there sabbath at all. He offended the staunchest of believing Jews, and these knew the word quite well, and had no interest in sharing it with the gentiles (Israel). Remember Peter says when meeting with Cornelius, I know you have heard that a Jew and a Gentile should not communicate with each other, but God has told me that no man was unclean.

[lutheratx]

Isaiah 61:1 "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me; because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek [humble]; He hath send Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;"
Isaiah 61:2 "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, <u>and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that morn;</u>"

Look how Jesus says pretty much the same thing as the above except, "and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that morn", when he went into the temple.

Luke 4:18 " "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent Me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,"
Luke 4:19 "To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

This has been common knowledge to me, most of my life, that the Jew thought Jesus was to come and smite the earth on the first advent. I later learned that he directly opposed many of there traditions that were said to be biblical. Remember Paul was of those that believed Christ was not messiah.

So back to Ezekiel 37

Ezekiel 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

It says here we are divided until what....

37:23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

Well once that bloom of the fig tree becomes the fruit God said it would be, would be cleansed, and of a heart that will know God, and that does not happen until the King of kings sits in Jerusalem.

Thank you for the bible lesson, you where right, it does clearly mentions Zedekiah, the king that was placed over the small nation by Nebuchadnezzar.

[llm]

"I know you have heard that a Jew and a Gentile should not communicate with each other, but God has told me that no man was unclean."

if you look at the clean and the unclean list of animals in the old testament you will see that it is not just talking about the 10 lost tribes in peters vision, but everyone. all inclusive, things that creep, things that crawl; that means black, yellow, red, brown, white...the mystery of the body of Christ to make anyone into a new creature. whosoeverwill. not just remarrying the 10 tribes...

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hey Smyrna, how much would it cost Arron to go to Stage's school?</font>

[llm]

And doesn't Arnold Murray teach that the "bad figs" are the kenites when the bible says they are Judah?

[dobman53]

Dear Arron: You are right about one thing in our talk of a firery hell.

You'll have to forgive me when I quoated from the Bible.

I made a sinful error that could have destroyed the entire human race.

Lazerus WAS! the poor man! AS the Rich man was in need of said drop.

Sorry Arron!

Now that all mandkind is once again safe. I still would like to know about you Arron, could you toss your child in with the frying bacon.

That is only to say that if we were to imagine such a thing. Not that I would ever suggest either of your 2 chidren should be considered unholy!

So I'm still wondering Arron, God as we both know, is a God of love. Could you dear Arron, toss one of your chidren to hell, and then listen to them scream for ever more.

How could anyone do such a thing Arron. Do you think that just maybe a few preachers could be mistaken.

Are some ministers trying to trick their flocks. Many minister says, You better be here each week. (or you just might, burn for ever!).

Here again Arron I'm not talking about any of your ministers past or present! OK!

back to what I was saying.

Now once the minister hit's that (TREASURED) spot in his sermonds, Why in 2 shakes of a monkeys tail the offering plates are past once again.

Arron thoughs that have done the most terrible of sins. I could as to say flip their swich no problem. Arron could you thinking they shall now fry forever flip said switch?


Arron neither you nor I could ever toss them to the eternal flames. You as I could flip the switch, and be done with them. But never a forever type flameing torture.

Arron God is one day going to have to flip several switches. Gods has done his very best to delay that day. For God oh so loves us.

Beings God has given so many a soul every opportunity from having to flip their switch. How about you stop calling my GOD! a fire blistering forever soul frying type of God.

If you think so little of God. I think it's best you just keep thoughs thoughts to yourself.

I can't imagine how many souls have been turned off about chistianity with such talk of how our God loves to fry. You should be ashamed of yourself arron.

You know that jibber jabbin tongue you love so much, you know! your gifts! I'm beginning to think that you quite honestly do have gifts, and I do now believe that to be honestly so.

Only problem is I honestly believe your gods gifts are not from my God. I do have a good description of your god for you arron. (just for you)

He's sporting fine red silk underbritche's capped with horns, swinging the mother of all pitch-forks. while eating dogs leg and feet

He's seated right below us upon his throne, thats right snap-dab in the middle of a firery smoking to hot to handle frying pan.

then you appear Arron right in presence of your firery hot gods throne you start crying praise the lord. (PRASALLAH THEAH LOWLALDAHD)

You understand that sorta talk I have heard, don't ya!!

As I look down upon that mess, I tug at my Gods feet. Saying Dear God! could we hold off a little while longer before any swithches are throne.

With the ultimate highest regards Doberman! The best daug gone dog you ever had.

DOB!

[arron]

dobman53...no dobman i could never cast my three ( i have three tow girls and a boy ) not even one of them into a fire. but neither coud i save someone who i knew was going to ba against me and was going to deny me GOD IS the only ONE WHO can do that and it isnt GOD that sends people to hell they have made their choice and they in essence send them selves there. i am sorry that my GOD JEHOVAH, THE FATHERE AND GOD THE SON JESUS AND GOD THE HOLY GHOST are not your GOD. i am sorry that you do not feel that i have the gifts OF GOD and that you thought so little of me that you had to act like you were speaking in tongues for that is close to blasphemy. and no i dont understand what you said in your "tongue". i dont jibber jabber as you said so i dont know about that.
i am so glad that i am not GOD for i could never forgive like HE DOES. my GOD CANT BE DESCRIBED. THERE IS NO LIKENESS OF HIM EVER BEEN MADE NOR WILL EVER BE BUT ONE DAY WE WHO ARE SAVED SHALL LOOK UPON HIM PRAISE THE LORD AND THAT i understand if you are talking about JESUS then i know what you are talking about. and since you dont want me talking to you anymore i guess this is goodby. ill try to remember not to converse anymore with you but if i happen to forget please remind me and i will ask GOD to forgive me and you too. may GOD bless you

[arron]

there is one on here who doesnt want me posting to them but i will say this to all the others i thought his name was something when it wasnt and i apologised for it and they can never be the dest daug, i ever had for ive only had one and that was when i was little and he died and i havent ever wanted another, and beside im alergic to dogs now

[aviyah]

"Hey Smyrna, how much would it cost Aaron to go to Stage's school?" (Terluvire, 01/11/08)

His mortal soul.

[dobman53]

Arron: please do not say I do not want you to talk to me. I know I tease to much, and I will try to be better.

I have a question? how could someone believe someone when they speak evil of God. I thought you believed like I do, and I thought you said our God was a God of love. just like I say our God is a God of love.

Some where one of us must have made a mistake. we both said that we could never through a person on flames that tortured someone.

At least thats what I thought you said. I just don't think it is very nice to say God would torure someone forever.

I don't care what anybody says I don't think God would be so mean.

I do like you very much Arron, and I am sorry I tease so much, but I have a bad habit of teasing to much. Will you forgive me Arron please.

Arron do you think God is mean. Do you think God would torture someone.

Yours Truley, Dobman53

P.S. Dobs are real big telescopes. I have one. They are really called Dobsonians. Thats why I call myself dobman. it is because of the telescopes. I would love for you to be able to look through it. It is real fun. DOB!

[dobman53]

WHO says my sentance structure is bad!

It's clearfully prefectfully perfect.

[smyrna]

Good one Aviyah!

Of course, she may give Arron a discount,for being such a good "drive by poster" riddling the threads with his "fiery darts", if you get my drift.
cf. Eph. 6:16

[aviyah]

Oh come on Aaron!

Admittedly we all make spelling errors from time to time and spelling comes easier for some than others.

But do you honestly expect us to believe that someone who struggles with "it" and "the" could nail "doberman" by accident?

[smyrna]

Arron is a liar. He called Dobman 'doberman' even after we mentioned he was doing it.


Dobman, where can I see an online source for those telescopes?

[llm]

Bad figs...Kenites? NO! John 8...Kenites? NOT! Yer teaching is a lie. Your theory of the serpents seed and antichrist is based on a lie, and the twisting of scripture.

__I've messed with folks names before too, like swyrna, watchboy, murrat, it's fun!!! How about "Dogman", maybe that is what he was thinking???

[watchman_2]

llm wrote:
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Bad figs...Kenites? NO! John 8...Kenites? NOT! Yer teaching is a lie. Your theory of the serpents seed and antichrist is based on a lie, and the twisting of scripture.
<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
I am sure that the objective viewer would really take to heart such brilliant exegesis from a man whom believes the earth does not move and all of the stars, planets, moons, our sun, asteroids, commets, other galaxies, etc. revolve around the earth.

LOL!

[arron]

smyrna, avayah... i apologised to the one who said that i was still talking about. i do not call him that anymore and i did think that was his name and that is why i said what i said. i sad was sorry thats all i can do.
smyrna you said i was a liar for i called the one by the same name after you all had told me his name was something else. like i said it was because thats who i thought he was
aviyah...you said or rather implied that it was no accident but it was . i apologised to him bu there is no need to apologise to you or any one else. may GOD bless you.

[rachelengland]

Arron(I do not post under this name anymore-but didn't want to confuse you), I believe you-so relax on this subject ..someetimes we just see someone's name and it registers something else in our brain. I am an okay speller arron and yet there is a guy on here who goes by the name, I think it is easeltine I always call him eastline until someone pointed it out to me that it was in correct. I also struggled with some others names as well .. no biggie-besides dobermans are great dogs it would of been worse if you had said dumbman or dorkman.. Hang in their kiddo-they are just pulling your strings-don't sweat the small stuff. R

[llm]

Watchman, you know you have been scripturally defeated on the point of kenites, bad figs and John 8, as I've shown in above posts, but you just can't admit it. Such denial! Now show me one scripture that indicates the earth is moving and the sun is fixed, and I will also consider defeat, my friend.

[arron]

thanks rachel england. it is good to see you again may GOD bless you

[smyrna]

'no biggie-besides dobermans are great dogs it would of been worse if you had said dumbman or dorkman'.

Dobman, if you can't see that Rachel slipped those names in there to offend you, you need to study the detractor's posts a little more.

Okay Rachel, so since you want to spin off that Arron called Dobman by a dog breed name you like, how's this:

How about we call you:

Rachel.EnglishFoxhound?

After all, it's a great dog. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

By the way, you wouldn't happen to have a sister named "wisdom", do you?

Finally, I thought you were banned? Oh, and just out of curiosity, why the name change?

[lutheratx]

"if you look at the clean and the unclean list of animals in the old testament you will see that it is not just talking about the 10 lost tribes in peters vision, but everyone." llm

Right scholar, I get it. However what did the Jews consider the Greeks? They were in the habit of not communicating with Gentiles and we all know that Israel went by the name of there host nations and Judah and Benjamin I assure weren't going through there family to see if they could possibly be Israel. So my post is right when I say that there was not any one directly over Israel offering there version of the law, like there was for Judah, and Judah would not even communicate with Israel.

"And doesn't Arnold Murray teach that the "bad figs" are the kenites when the bible says they are Judah?"

I don't know, but who is the bad figs of this generation? If you don't see the type there in that chapter, when it says,

24:10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed

Your out to lunch. this should tell a bible studying Christian, not a man who studies false history, that this is in fact a type which points you directly to the coming of Christ. The Kenites are the bad fig in Israel in the closing of this dispensation.

Also I have got to address John 4 for you.

Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

John 8:37<font color="ff0000"> I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.</font>

this could mean just as easily, that I know that you believe in God. You have faith that there is a God.

8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, <font color="ff0000">If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham</font>.

See now he even says there not Abraham's seed through there actions. Jesus is teaching these guys that they can change, you are Abraham's seed because you have more belief than most that there is a God. However you do not please him.

8:40 <font color="ff0000">But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.</font> 8:41 <font color="ff0000">Ye do the deeds of your father.</font>

Wow I didn't know that Abraham wanted to kill the angel of the Lord. Oh he didn't so who else do we know that killed his brother and one could even say he was killing the seed line Christ would come through?

8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Your father was Cain not Essau. Hey how many people did Essau kill?

John 8:56 <font color="ff0000">Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.</font>

Abraham was a man of faith he did not want to be a God fighter. The kenites believe, but they want God to serve them. So in one hand they were Abraham's seed and in the other they where not, because they still carried the actions of that first killer. They wanted to kill Jesus.

[lutheratx]

cont.

So in the same exact chapter that you are continually putting up Jesus says, "<font color="ff0000">If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham</font>."

Now I know you could say because of absence of faith in Jesus, that this is the reason he said this, however it is clear to me it is because of the works.

So although by faith, there acknowledgement of God, they are the seed of Abraham, but by there actions of being so proud, and thoughts of murder, they are of there Father Cain and Satan.

So in conclusion you could say because of lack of Faith Jesus said <font color="ff0000">if ye were Abraham's children</font>, but I could say something different.

It remind me when Balak wanted Balaam to curse Israel by the hands of YHVH. Balak gave many burnt offerings, and tried to change God's mind, and go against God's will and have his own done.

Quit prancing around here with your victory speech, I have yet to be silenced.

[rachelengland]

Well smyrna rachelenglandboxer or rachelenglandgerman shepherd (since my dad was a fullblooded german) might be better..and I wasn't banned-it was a mishap on my computer skills..

Dobman, I do not know who you are and my intention was not to call you names as Smyrna has stated-I was just stating if arron wanted to be mean calling a man doberman isn't the way to do it.

Arron-take care and stay HEALTHY!!!

[lutheratx]

"Arron(I do not post under this name anymore-but didn't want to confuse you)," Rachel

"Oh, and just out of curiosity, why the name change?" Smyrna

She didn't answer your question and I was hoping she would, however we may not know the reason, but spotting this one would be easy. She has even said in the past that she catches a lot of hell for being a deist and I believe that. Well with that being said they are easy to recognise, she places mans wisdom above the word of God. So she will put up quotes of men and no word of God. She can't hide that deism, I can sniff it out quick, so I just hope she doesn't think that if she uses that other identity here we wont know who she is. There have only been 3 deist here, it will be simple.

For the record I don't want war with deist, they want it with me.

[llm]

luthertax, Seed is seed, physical. In John 8 Jesus is clearly making a distinction between "seed" and "childern" which can be based on someones DEEDS. They were the Devil's CHILDREN because they had murder in their hearts.

"The Kenites are the bad fig in Israel in the closing of this dispensation."

You can't establish by scripture that the bad figs are kenites, so this is just wishful thinking on your part. I've already shown you how Jer 24 is talking about disobedient Judah, and John 8 is referring to Abraham's seed.

[dobman53]

Dear Friends: I find no offence to myself in any spins. When one resorts to such things often it's a ruse to avoid what my original post was to Arron concerned. That being the topic of a fire burning God.

As we have seen with Arron, when the cards have dealt him an honest hand about certain thoughts. That being God is not a god of torture. Why Arron then folds his hand. Arron is in love with his doctrine, and makes no difference should it portray God out to be a god of torture or not. His minister says it's so, all the teachings he has ever heard say it's so. Well you get the point.

Arron is not to different from all the decenters I've wittnested. They all seem to accuse all Scer's of following but one train of a pastors thought. Yet we as a group do point out on occasion, that we are not simple minded robots.

I ask of all the decenters? who now appears as this simple minded robot.

I have company over this weekend I shall be back with a most interesting post. It will be for all! both sides of the issues.

DOB!

[smyrna]

"You can't establish by scripture that the bad figs are kenites, so this is just wishful thinking on your part. I've already shown you how Jer 24 is talking about disobedient Judah, and John 8 is referring to Abraham's seed."

I don't think that every "bad fig" is a Kenite. One does not have to be a Kenite to be influenced by them.

The Jewish Encyclopedia claims that Cain's descendants are Kenites, and that this tribe assimilated into the Israelite culture.

But that does not automatically mean they were all "infected" by Kenite blood, which at least form the Christian veiw point would not even matter, after Christ was born, those who rejected him, ny their reasoning, became separated from the family of God.

I'm sure the detractors will take that statement out of context. So I'll reinforce the context for future reference: That comment should be applied only in a historic conetxt, speaking of the early Church. Howver, this is not an ant-semtic stament, it is waht Christianity has historiaclly beleived.

But in these days of political correctness, even if you state a hard fact, that the Jews rejected Jesus. There are some detractors that will use just that one statement to "prove" whoever say that is antisemitic. That is how ridiculous they are.

Jews can't be Kenites, plain and simple. LLM goes by the false premise that they are, and that the Bible says so. It's not true. Only the descendants of Abraham can claim to be of Judah and the other tribes.

Ezra 2:59 identifies a certain people called the Nethinims and their men infiltrated the staff of scribes for the Rabbis, and they were asked how they could prove their genealogy, to show that they "were of Israel." They apparently could not do this,and it was around that time, that the Rabbis got wise to them, and began to develope the proto-Massorah.

The Nethinims were Kenites, by their fruits we know them.

Since no one can trace their lineage back thousands of years, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine that they are blood descendants of Cain.

What is important to know, is that there are truly good and bad figs in Jerusalem today, and that Christ, who will return one day, will be with us and God the Father will utimately judge all souls.

[smyrna]

Please be reminded...

The last time that there was a "dustup" like this, it involved Franklin and Rachel on Factnet. The problem that time was that Getagrip was accusing Rachel of being Jimito, she denied it to the point of committing suicide, and Franklin furiously defended her.

Six months later, Franklin is banned from Factnet, in part for using the Jimito username...

Gee where did he get the password and what the heck happened to the fact that Rachel wasn't Jimito?

They have both been caught lying before.

[arron]

i dont know about you but all i find in the bible about the kenites are good, some of couse were bad as i am sure is among all people but from my study they were good to isreal

[lutheratx]

llm you are full of it I showed you the type that is there in Jeremiah 24, the type means the bad fig will be driven out of the land again. Why is that so hard to understand, do you think that everyone in Israel that claims to be the Jew is perfect. Israel is the fig tree, there will be bad fig driven out again.

Don't act like I don't have a leg to stand on.

And next point
as soon as Jesus says, "If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham."

There is question, the person you are trying to prove is the father umbilical chord to umbilical chord of these men is called the father of many nations. Don't act like this couldn't mean that Jesus was just agreeing with them because Jesus considered there nation to be of those nations.

Luke 1:55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

So the promises are for all nations. All nations where the seeds of Abraham when it came to the promises, but just like Israel there are conditions to the promise. Israel is considered gentile when it does things against God.

Also what do you think the word father means in verse 44?

You can not prance around here like you have proven something with your use of one chapter.

I will show you why your explanation can not possibly be the truth with the bible.

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations [are] in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and [the one] people shall be stronger than [the other] people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Two Peoples coming from that womb and they would be separate, meaning that every one that came from Israel would be separate from the Edomites. You have them living together for almost 2000 years, well duh that goes directly against the word of God. Also the elder would serve the younger. Russia through out time has been less than the nations of Israel. Hey news flash Israel doesn't serve us. So every thing else in the bible shows that Edom will remain in Seir until God cuts off those that attacked Israel while it was in calamity. Read Ezekiel 35 because this is Edom, it cannot be Israel because God is angered because of the attack of Israel. Isaiah 34 says the Great slaughter will be in the land of Idumea.

So you trying to place Edom in the holy land goes against the prophecy of the Bible. You saying that Essau was mixed with Judah in John 8 44 goes directly against what God has said in Genesis 25vs23, so you are saying God did not know what he was talking about.

"You know you have been scripturally defeated on the point of kenites."

Yeah right.

Those where the sons of Cain standing before Jesus in John, it is plain as day if you understand that Edom is still separate from Israel, on the whole, just like God said they would be. Edom would serve Israel meaning they would be in a land that has no resources, no blessing, they would be completely reliant on Jacob, and Russia has been.

So you have proved nothing, matter of fact what you have said go against everything else in the bible. What does Watchman always say about reproof. You throw one chapter to prove your point and think you have defeated us.

[lutheratx]

Aaron in all fairness you don't slip in with someone unaware by being an enemy.

[stage_director]

But doesn't the bible state that one can tell tares by their fruit?

[arron]

to the one who asked me not to post to them and im not this is for all .. no i do not fold my hands i believe in the correctness of the bibles as the written WORD OF GOD and i follow it as best i can may GOD bless you

[lutheratx]

You must know what is of the fruit of God.

Eze 5:6 And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that [are] round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.

this is not knowing the difference. So yes you can tell the difference, however the book of Ezekiel makes it a very individual relationship between the father and you. So with that said it was up to Judah and Israel to follow judgments and statutes. If they were not following God's word they would not know the difference. That is what made the difference in the remnant and those that would follow the nethinim priest, the knowing of God's word.

[dobman53]

Arron: I'm trying to be as kind to you as I can. Thats the Christian way with our God of love. I still was wondering about our talk about God and the Penticostals firery hell GOD.

I've tried to state as nicely as I know how that God is not a God of torture. Yet you will not tell me about your Penticostal God who just like the Devil only wishes to burn people alive forever.

If you don't want to answer such a question. I'll just have to believe you love your Penticostal God. A Penticostal god who loves to fry people alive, just like the Devil does.

Do all the Penticostals believe their God is a God of torture just like the Devil who likes to torture. If thats what all the Penticostals believe they are not Chistians.

They are speaking the tongue of the Devil. I am Christian, and I don't understand a word they speak. Maybe if they ever turn to Christ they will stop speaking like the devil.

The Devil lies, and the Penticostals tell lies saying that God is a God who tortures people, and likes to do it just like their Penticostal Devil god does. (May God Bless You Arron) I think you need a good blessing from the Christian God, not the Penticostals God of the Devil. AMEN.

If you would like to be a Christian some day. You will love the teachings of Pastor Murray. He teaches about real Chistianity where we don't talk to the Devil. No never, not even on Sundays. I mean we never talk to the Devil. We don't tell lies about God and say he wants to fry people like the Penticostal god does, or any such foolish nonsence.

We practice what the Bible teaches, book by book, chapter by chapter,verse by verse. Just how God wants you to Arron.

DOB!

[llm]

"Jews can't be Kenites, plain and simple. LLM goes by the false premise that they are, and that the Bible says so. It's not true."

Smyrna, I never said that the tribe of Judah can be Kenites. I have said that "Jews are Edomites".(Maybe mixed with Cain.) Ie John Hycrnus converts, Kharzars, etc...

luthertax, Jer 24 and John 8 do not support your theory of the ones being addressed being kenites. Plain and simple. So your false theory has been defeated. I don't expect you to aknowledge it.

[lutheratx]

Bull, I just showed how you have been miss led. By showing that couldn't possibly be Edom but you ignore it. You are the one who has a false theory.

I tell you what, give me a little reproof then llm, because I gave many verses why this couldn't be Edom.

Your typical style of making it sound like we don't have any evidence to support our self exposes you. You did the same thing with Plow Deep and for the record he was a very strong poster.

I wouldn't doubt that you have every critic on your side like when you first arrived, and you believe almost every Jew in Israel is Edom, and we all know Edom catches God's furry.

[llm]

"if you understand that Edom is still separate from Israel,"

israel (edomites} and Judah (Russia) are seperate. And the brotherhood is still broken between East and West_Judah and Israel.

[lutheratx]

Now your ignoring the fact that in Ezekiel 35 and in Isaiah 34, and probably even more places I have yet to read, places Essau in mount Seir for the coming of Christ.

Also didn't you say Benjamin was mixed with the Edomites, Benjamin is of Israel's loins.

What no victory speech this time.

[dobman53]

IIm: In a quest such as yours, with it being in concerns about the Kenites. Just where are you trying to lead yourself. Is it only an attempt to, how shall I say hold yourself up high. Do you think this endless argueing about this, and that, will some how make you look noble.

Hey! if you know a thing or two great!! I myself have sat back, and watched it all unfold. In your rush to present yourself as noble, you have enadvertantly backed yourself into the corner.

The funny thing to me is, what is it that you're hopeing to explain. what does your message have to exspond upon. Are we not all aware of the Kenites. Isn't it so that we are not to harm them. Give us the punch it seems your so eager to give. As the little old lady in the burger commercial said. Where's The Beef!!!

Where and just what are you trying to explain!

DOB!

[llm]

Judges 20:13, Benjamin was joined with them, and protected them. I didn't say MIXED in progeny. Read Judges 19 to the end of book to get the story. Do you understand who this woman represents in bible poetry who is defiled and cut up amoung the 12 tribes?

Admit it. The bible is NOT referring to Kenites in John 8 and Jer 24.

[smyrna]

http://www.angelfire.com/ill/hebrewisrael/printpages/jewstrad.html

http://www.hebrewisraelites.org/Links.htm


The above will lead you to various opinions and beliefs of the history of Israel/Jewish people.

[llm]

Dobman, you should see if you can get a job at the Door http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/

[lutheratx]

Judges 19:11 "And when they were by Jebus, the was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, come I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it."

Jerusalem was still called Jebus, all you are showing is the waring amongst Israel. Please narrow the verse down to that verse that says something about Edom. It sure wasn't 13.

Now let me show you scripture where we are way past that day.

Ezr 10:9 ¶ Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It [was] the ninth month, on the twentieth [day] of the month; and all the people sat in the street of the house of God, trembling because of [this] matter, and for the great rain.

This is the return from Babylon way later than the book of Judges. There weren't even Kings yet in Judges, we are way past the kings here.

I knew you couldn't provide anything because you prance around single verses, and quote historians. Hey for the record I have had to think about your post, so at least you have me researching. So I could see how you would believe this stuff, however it just doesn't check out with any of the bible, none, well at least not yet. Keep trying to convince people many might believe, I am going to be harder to convince, because the bible documentation I have provided since we began this Judah is Russia, and Edom and Benjamin live together in Israel ordeal. Sounds kooky.

[lutheratx]

Dobman the guy has not shown any biblical proof of anything he has said up to this point. So if I was you I would check that site he provides just to show that it goes directly against God's word, but not for usefull info., until he does some serious bible documentation.

Show me in the bible.

[dobman53]

Dear IIm: From my understandings you need to read from Exodus. There God tells Moses about all these jebusites ect. ect. He lists off about 6 or so different kingdoms. God said to Moses not to worry about them for he God shall do the battle.

Now of course the spies came back, and were all fearfull speaking of giants and the sort.

Well as we all know, the saga still continues to this day.

My suggestion to you IIm is, try not to be so fearfull. Let God take care of this one.

DOB!

[llm]

In Ezra Judah and Benjanim were there. They also had a problem with mixed pedigree. That is not what I'm takling about. John Hycrynus didn't bring the Edomites in mass until the Macabeean period. By the time Jesus got there they had taken over. In this modern day the Edomites came through the Khazars...

[lutheratx]

biblical documentation!!!!!

Look man I don't have a problem with history saying that others where adopted into Judah, I was reading the link smyrna provided. I found myself able to agree with the writer a little, he however was trying to say that none of Judah is present in the Jews, and this is just not true. However with him saying Noah's offspring is a good deal of the Ashkenazi I can believe that. Ashkenaz is of Noah's blood line, and I can agree with him that 20% of Israel is Edom's offspring and they are treated very poorly and completely rely on the majority. This is all biblical, I can believe that Noah's offspring are/ were present in Russia, because in Ezekiel 38 Noah's offspring are in the land of the Chief Prince (Rosh). I can believe that these two (Noah's offspring, and the Edomites) are completely familiar with each other and may even be allies, but what you say as soon as I check my bible tools, which helps me to refine the search of chapters, there is no way Edom is inhabiting the Holy land in a large scale, and getting any respect.

So what I say doesn't go against actual history, I am just not as quick as you to say the Jew is not Israel. We are separate from Judah too, I have showed documentation of that, well what would separate us, it would be interpretation of the law of Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. The Old Testament.

[llm]

you can prance and strut around in circles all you want but it still doesn't change the fact that in John 8, Jesus was not addressing Kenites or Judah, since they had never been in bondage to any man, and Jesus knew they were Abraham's seed.

[dobman53]

IIm: I did a little search, and I found something for you in. John 8:37 the first part reads.

(I know that ye are Abrahams seed)

(YE) and (ARE) are no where to be found in the original text.

IIm: Real love for your friends is the best thing by far, Should one seek knowledge with their friends, knowledge they shall find. If one were to seek knowledge to offend, real knowledge will never be a found.

DOB!

[oneway]

"IIm: I did a little search, and I found something for you in. John 8:37 the first part reads.

(I know that ye are Abrahams seed)

(YE) and (ARE) are no where to be found in the original text."



Ok, dob, what exactly does the original text say?
Also, what is the url for this original text? I would like to read it.

[llm]

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

My my DOB, you guys just can't let it go. If you accepted the truth and context of this chapter, then your whole false teaching would crumble...

[llm]

My Greek NT reads "I know that Abraham's seed ye are;"

[dobman53]

These words were placed their by the original enterpators of King James. Do you think I just made that up oneway. You say you want me to do further searches for you.

I say you go search the scrirtures. If I were to do so, and presented the most beutiful account. You would not except it, so again I say you go search.

IIm: Things some times are hard to follow if one searches all alone. Skiping all around in a search to dishonor your brother is a folly, especially when the answer was just a glance away.

John 8:39 If ye were Abraham's children, ye would would do the works of Abraham.

IIm you shall not prevail against the truth.

Oneway my friend why is it in your hate of poor old PM an allmost 80year old man, you chuck all sence to the wind.

You join in with those who's opinion you don't value, and know to be false. Yet there seldom if ever is a time where you don't forget all good notions and then do attack.

Oneway: when that young girl reported about PM's 9mm.

You launched an asault that did ring an old bell. just as your first attack of me where you said that you hoped I never would have children to ruin the poor little minds of the ennocent.

Your attack of that poor girl was just as brutal. perhaps even worse beings she was a girl after all.

I love ya just the same.

Your old pal DOB!

DOB!

[llm]

John 8:39 If ye were Abraham's children, ye would would do the works of Abraham.

"ye are" is in the original manuscripts Dobman. You better look again. Also by the above verse, Jesus is saying just because you are Abrahams literal sperma(seed), doesn't nessessarly make you "children" which is determined by your deeds or works. They were not children of God because they had murder in their hearts. Read the whole chapter in context. Jesus is not saying "you are the literal offspring of satan" like AM/SC would like you to believe.

[dobman53]

IIm: why do you not realise I've nothing in me that wishes harm to you. Do you think that I look at myself with such a high minded pride. Do you think I look for admiration, or any such thing.

Hey Look! I'm almost sorry I pointed out to you that the words Ye &amp; Are are not there. You then come back at me with another Bible using the same words of Ye &amp; Are. There are similar words but their are absolutely none for are. Ye can be thought of as you, but alas this ye was used in a flow for our english tongue.

TRY TO GRASP THIS! The original texts were in Greek and Hebrew. These languages do not have in them any old English words.

Try to imagine these translations as such. We are all some what familiar with Spanish. Have you ever noticed how they discribe things in a reverse type order. Some of their words their is no exact word in english. sometimes they may even use an english word in stead of one their own words.

This being the case as with vertually all languages. We may find that should we go about interprating a foreign language we may even use are own grammer from our speach to make a foreign
language more agreable to our ears. We might even go so fare as to implant our own words that were never in the text to begin with. Once again if for no other reason than to make it more agreable to our own ears.

DOB!

[dobman53]

WE DO bump heads!! PM:: does not say all thoughs present at that event were Kenites. The kenites themselves are not so easily determined. Though its said they are certainly amongst the high priest, though again not ever single one of them either. Jesus said not to harm these Tares. For in plucking them out, you could do harm to the roots of the good wheat amongst them.

IIm don't be so quick to condem. We are not the originators of this serpant seed. It has been around for all the ages. You have heard before that sex was the original sin. I well know of all to many who will not let go of what they think is true. Even as I write these words I can Imagine Your not happy, but thats alright. Hey in some aspects were alike I pick on Penticostals, though I later return and say I'm sorry. Saying my intent was to only open eye's

IIm: your not about to say your sorry!

DOB! (I'm off line for now take care all)

[lutheratx]

How many times do I have to say the person you are calling the father of these men is called the father of many nations. The promises God gave to him where for his seeds, they were for the nations of the world. We are the seed of Abraham. Why, because we can take part in those promises.

and the nail in the coffin

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Gal 3:29 And if ye Christ's, then are ye Abraham's [b]seed, and heirs according to the promise.

now all one has to do is look at my post above which there are several, that shows your version of John 8 is not covered any where else in the bible. You have failed to show in more than that place that this is Edom, and I have shown in many places why it could not be. I have also showed why Jesus could call these people Abraham's seed with out them actually coming from his sperma. Jesus could also consider all nations the seed of Abraham, because the promise that was made to his seed emcompassed the world.

[arron]

am does not believe in a bodiely ressurection. he says it is all spiritual. in other words everything in the bible is spiritual. he said on a praogram tha cehebims did not have wings. according to the bible they do. he also said that the wings of the chariot that GOD came down where it says that the creatures had wings was not talking about real wings but were talking about wheels being able to fly. he is utter nonsense. he has his own specail brand of "preaching" that is all that he knows . he is right and every one else is wrong. now i dont care what he says about it he is wrong. he doesnt believe in the resurection but yet he talks about the ressurection. he saqy our bodies go back to the dust and they stay there JESUS AROSE FROM THE DEAD AND CAME FORTH IN A LFESHLY BODY. IT HAD BEEN CHANGED AND NO LONGER HAD BLOOD IN IT AS THE BLOOD WAS PAYMENT FOR our sins. they touched HIM they saw and one knew HE was real and alive HE ate and drank with them after HIS ressurection. now none of the scers will admit this but they know he is wrong wrong wrong

[smyrna]

Oh yeah, Arron, it's utter nonsense not to believe
that angels are just men with wings.

Okay Arron, then what is a wheel within a wheel?
Show me a "wheel" where "living creatures" are inside?

Show me one where those creatures all look like liona,s and oxes, etc.

YOU are nonsensical!

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%201&amp;version=9;

And after you read THAT, Arron, then go and read about Elijah ascending into heaven.

And then tell us, Arron, that horses and chariots can fly especially while they are on fire,
and that was NOT a "vision" because Elisha saw the event.

You major problem Arron, and your major malfunction, is that you fail to realize the ancient people had asbolutley no words in their language to describe flight and other phenomena and has to rely on their limited language and experience.

You, Arron, are being irrational and you can belief what you wish, but to say that Murray is not making sense is IGNORANT of the FACT that if you actually did any research of your own, you'd find there are a whole lot of BIBLE BELIEVING, CHRIST LOVING people that agree that it was probably some sort of vehicle, or some phenomena.

So you take your silly little post, and stow it away under:"foolish things I shouldn't say, because I have no idea what I am talking about"

Entire books have been written about Ezekiel's "vision" models have even been built to show what such a vehicle could have looked like, yet Arron calls it nonsense,but has no problem believing in a talking snake, a boat that can hold MILLIONS of animals, flying horses,and other mythical Sunday School level fairy tales.

And THAT, Arron, is ridiculous.

Hey, see you in a few more days or weeks because you drive by, shoot a stupid post like that out
on here, and then disappear, so Stage Director can clean up after your mess and defend your silly posts.

[llm]

If you follow the OT types to their NT fulfillment, you'll see how Cain Abel and Seth were fulfilled in Herod (Edomite), John, and Christ. You can follow the body of satan in types like Cain, Pharoah, Ham, Esau, Ahab, etc

Even the NT types are Parables for the corporate bodies of the end times. As the corporate body of Christ is represented in Jesus, so Lucifer is represented in the Edomites, as pointed to in Herod.

[oneway]

dobman53, when I wrote post #55 I wasn't being sarcastic. I was honestly wanting to see the evidence. I'm sorry you took my post the wrong way. And no, I'm not saying you made it up.

[oneway]

"TRY TO GRASP THIS! The original texts were in Greek and Hebrew. These languages do not have in them any old"


dobman53, If you want to go that route, then I see your point. Ye and are are not in the original text because the orig text wasn't in English. In that case, no English words were in the orig text.
So we're right back to where you started from, and that is nowhere. You have proved absolutely zilch.

Since you're a student of AM, and this automatically makes you a Greek scholar because of Strong's, then why not give us that verse in Greek, then properly translate it into English for us. Obviously, according to you, those other translators failed to properly render this verse in English? John 8:37

[lutheratx]

"My my DOB, you guys just can't let it go. If you accepted the truth and context of this chapter, then your whole false teaching would crumble..." llm

I would just let it go but this guy is a prick.

"luthertax, Seed is seed, physical." llm

Gal 3:29 And if ye Christ's, then are ye [b]Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

See I geuss you can be Abraham's seed without him having to take your Mom out to dinner first.

See this guy runs around here trying to make a case that because Jesus called these men in John 8 the seed of Abraham, there is no way it could mean any thing other than he is there father umbilical chord to umbilical chord. Jesus is the one who gave Abram his name Abraham, because he told Abraham he would make him the father of many nations. We can see by John 8 he actually made him the father of all nations, so what does that mean? It means all are heirs to the promise of eternal life if they overcome through the blood of the lamb. That promise was open for these men standing before Christ, but Christ went on to say, "<font color="ff0000">If ye were Abraham’s children</font>" and no matter what version he reads it means the same thing. Let us also not forget Christ saying.

<font color="ff0000">Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. <u>He was a murderer from the beginning</u>,</font>

Cain was the murder from the beginning. There is noway this applies to Essau. I have showed the fact that this can not be, and if he actually paid attention it would absolutely make his belief crumble. Dob our belief is nowhere near being in Jeporady.

So my friend, Dob, you were in fact right.

On to Oneway my friend Dob, he is not some one you should value his imput, except on extremely rare cases. He wants to cling on to his traditions.

Ezekeil 20:18 But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols:

This is what has happened to Oneway, he walks in the statutes of our fathers, not our Father. Now I don't intend to come off that you shouldn't debate him, you do what you feel, let the Spirit guide you.

However he will side with any arguement he thinks is getting the upperhand, well it took me a little longer to close the deal. Even though I have studied it enough, I didn't know how to explain it biblically.

You know how llm explains things and won't document it, well I like to handle myself different.

I told him all along that seed when applied to Abraham didn't always mean what he was saying it did. He would not listen and got real boastful. You see the scripture I have provided Dob, it says any that are Christ's are Abraham's seed.

[llm]

luthertax, read galations in context. It is talking about the grace and mystery of Christ. Anyone who accepts Christ is considered Abraham's seed. It is part of being part of the body of Christ. In John 8 the context is literal progeny (seed) being differianted with children (condition of the heart and faith).
You folks twist scriptures to suit your own purposes.

[llm]

So stick to the point. Admit that in John 8 Jesus is NOT talking about the literal progeny of Satan, and Jer 24 refers to the Bad Figs as the progeny of Judah that refused Babylon captivity.
Then you will be free of your false teaching.

[lutheratx]

llm you are the one who twist scripture.

show me where in the bible that Edom is placed in the holy land, one place.

Oh and sorry,

<font color="ff0000">Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. <u>He was a murderer from the beginning,</u></font>

There is no one else Jesus is talking about here except the son's of Cain.

but I haven't had to twist any scripture. Abraham is the father of many nations, we have seen that people can be called Abraham's seed that have no physical connection. You are the one who is using one verse in the bible and basing every thing you got on it.

I will show you another place where Christ is confronted by these kenites.

Matt 23:35 <font color="ff0000">That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, <u>from the blood of righteous Abel</u> unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.</font>

Now there is no connection to Abraham here other than Jerusalem, and try to tie Edom with that, llm who is Jesus talking about here? (and I did ask llm, so for the other critics I say "not you")

Matt 23:33 <font color="ff0000">Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?</font>


So I will tell you again show me in the bible where Edom was by name, or evidence, placed in close relation to Israel. For instance....

1 Chron 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Matthew 23 repeats "you scribes" over and over.

You see I can place the kenites with Israel, however I know you cannot place Edom with Israel. If you cannot do that llm I will never ever ever have to even look like I am wrong in any of the SC student's eyes. However I notice you did not admit you were wrong about saying every time seed is used for ones offspring it has to be literal, admit that it is not always the case with Abraham.

If you admit that maybe you would have to find another singular verse to cling on to to try to make your dislike of the nation of Israel justified.

[llm]

Cain was a murderer, and so were all the types of Satan through the bible from Cain, to Pharoah, to Ahab, to Herod. All "children" of the Devil.

When John was asked if he was Elijah he said no. When Jesus was asked if John was Elijah he said yes. So not all is not what it seems. John was not literally Elijah, he was the NT fulfillment of the OT type. Let's look at some of the same types...Abel(Cain, Seth), Aaron(Moses,Pharoah), Elijah (Elisha, Ahab), the corporate body of the 2 witnesses (antichrist). What do they all have in common? All their time on earth was cut short by the children of Satan...you figure it out.

[lutheratx]

Oh I missed the bad fig thing OK. I will admit that it is referring to those of Judah that did not go into the captivity.

I will still say it is a type for the end times and there are bad fig today.

Jeremiah 24:9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them. 24:10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.

You act as though the sword, the famine, the pestilence in the end times will not consume off the land the bad fig in the end times. That would make everyone in Israel covered under the blood of Christ right now, and that just is not the case. So I don't know if you realise how biblically illiterate you sound, but let me clear something up for you, God makes Israel his home, Ezekiel 40 proves that. So most people, I am excluding you from that because I am not so sure about you, knows that the sword, the famine, and the pestilence is present in the end times. So with that being said don't you think God will remove the bad people from his presence?

I will close with you saying I have gotten off subject. Well let me say if you can not see I have addressed the two issues with the scriptures I have provided, then you are in fact very very very very blind. If this is your best angle with us, I would say go back to the drawing board.

[lutheratx]

I have always said if some one only relies on types, and parables with out any other evidence that person should not be listened to. You see Christ used parables with the general public, but he gave those on a close walk direct teachings, guess what those direct teachings are not hid in the bible. You just have to pay attention. You have not shown me any scripture to support you and now you rely on the thing that does not get my attention, without additional evidence. Some one saying this is a type could be twisting scripture. Like the rapture, one pretty vague chapter in the bible, and a lot of types and parables to explain it after that.

Your type doesn't explain

Matt 13:38 <font color="ff0000">The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;</font> 13:39 <font color="ff0000">The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.</font>

[llm]

luthertax, if Jesus says he knows something, I'll take his word for it and go with that. He said he knew they were Abraham's seed (Sperma)jn 8:37. He did not say "I know ye are Satan's literal offspring". So twist away in the wind, my friend.

[arron]

cain was the son of adam and eve not satan

[llm]

Here we get back to the "children" again, as opposed to the literal offspring. There are many evil people in the world who are children of the devil regardless of progeny. The good seed are the children of the kingdom...regardless of progeny, as you pointed out so well in Galations. (Unless your one of those who think Jesus had sex with Mary and fathered literal offspring???)

[lutheratx]

the world is Abraham's seed, God said I will make you the Father of many nations. That makes those nations what, HIS SEED. I will take Jesus word for it too. How is that twisting scripture. You use one verse in the bible and make it into something that goes against the rest of the bible.

God makes Essau and Jacob's nations seperate, you put them together!

God says he will punish Idumea at Mt Seir, you put Idumea in the holy land!

I have shown you that you do not have to come from Abraham to be considered his seed (Sperma). That is the same exact word in Galations 3:29 and this is not refering to only Jacob, and Essau.

All one has to do is see my post they speak for themselves. Why because I use the bible for my explanations. LLM uses some history books who go directly against the word of God. Please any one who is taking his side, go to the websites he offers, and look does the scripture that is used make since with what the author is trying to prove, also look at his post and look how he say's this historian says this or that, over and over, and will only give God one sentence over the matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lutheratx]

I read your post Aaron. Thanks for trying to steer me in the way you think is right. I will do what I do until I overcome, you will do what you do until you overcome, more than likely.

Have a good day.

[llm]

luthertax, God did make Abraham's seed the father of many nations. Here they are... http://www.bibletribes.org/

[llm]

Aaron, regardless if you believe that Cain is Adams son or the Devils son like the SC believes, is not the real point. Most of these Cain Abel Seth types in the bible have an implication of some sort of sexual impropriety, like Herod and his brothers wife, Ham and his mother. You should be more concerned what God is trying to say in the big picture, and the nature of the spiritual sin that tore apart the family in heaven when 1/3rd of the angels followed Lucifer. This sin is also described in the bible in other ways other than sexual like the story of Saul (Lucifer) when he rebelled and fell to the earth, tearing 10 tribes off of Samuels robe...

[lutheratx]

"I would just let it go but this guy is a prick." lutheratx

I am sorry I said this llm.

[dobman53]

Dear Oneway: I Hope that I can bring something to light about translations in the Bible.

You know where Jesus said he wasn't about to change one jot from Moses law.

I'm going to use this as an aide to give a fuller understanding about translations from the original texts.

These dots and dashes over the old Hebrew words and such were used to emphasize a person place or thing as well as the direction of thought. Also with being something in plural as with an S.

Depending how they were placed gave directions about many things, such as with these (YE's) and (ARE's).

Another thing Oneway that might be of interest to you is that vertually every word transated from the old text to English has more than a half dozen different translated words back to just one single word of English.

Again here Oneway I am not making this up, nor am I exagerating either.

With that being the case, for the life of me I can't believe how someone knowing this to be so would carry on about the Strongs as they do.

If one were so interested in the Bible as we all seem to be, it just doesn't make since for one not to at least give it some thought.

Now sure enough, PM uses the Strongs as well as the Companion Bible. But these two Books work hand in hand in Biblical truths.

Bullinger who compiled the Companion Bible was of the rapture persuasion, so it's not as to say PM went out of his way to proclaim just one point of view.

as always DOB!

[llm]

Don't mention it luthertax. Dobman, he just wants to hear you translate John 8:37 as you think it should be. So do I.

[lutheratx]

Well we would like a second witness that places Edom in Israel. If Dob doesn't give you what you want oh well, however I know you will not give me a second witness that place Edom in Israel, why, because it is not there.

I guess we will just have to put up with you not acknowledging that, and that you will not show us in the bible where you can come to this conclusion.

Oh right John 8 where Jesus calls these men the seed of a man called the father of many nations. Man wow how can I not get that? You also said a lie saying that this has to mean physical son when seed is used, and I told you it did not. Know that I have shown you you were wrong, how bout lets see you write I was wrong about seed having to mean that when addressing Abraham.

[lutheratx]

Who will we lose now that this website has changed formats? Who knows huh. With the gospel armour though it could be only me that is left and yet I am not alone.

[oneway]

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. <u>He was a murderer from the beginning

Cain was the murder from the beginning. There is noway this applies to Essau. I have showed the fact that this can not be, and if he actually paid attention it would absolutely make his belief crumble. Dob our belief is nowhere near being in Jeporady.




So if Cain was the murderer from the beginning, then this would make Cain the devil. I guess you are no longer claiming Cain to be the son of the devil, but Cain was the devil.
That's exactly what you're saying.

[lutheratx]

Oneway I could explain this with no problem, but you don't want that. You want to harass me and criticize me. So I don't want to have anything to do with you today. It is really so completely simple, and yet I explain it and zoom right over your head. Wow to imagine that some one, that is supposedly well versed in the bible, would not know why he mentions both these names is hard to believe. I think that maybe you don't know that much about father's word. Well you keep waiting for your lil, baby, flesh Antichrist, OK.


Yeah you know what is going on, said in a sarcastic manner.

[oneway]

Oneway I could explain this with no problem, but you don't want that. You want to harass me and criticize me. So I don't want to have anything to do with you today. It is really so completely simple, and yet I explain it and zoom right over your head. Wow to imagine that some one, that is supposedly well versed in the bible, would not know why he mentions both these names is hard to believe. I think that maybe you don't know that much about father's word. Well you keep waiting for your lil, baby, flesh Antichrist, OK.


Yeah you know what is going on, said in a sarcastic manner.




lutheratx, obviously you can't explain it, otherwise you would. The murderer from the beginning was the devil, not Cain. When man fell in the garden(sorry, but no sex act was involved), man died spiritually and eventually physically. Why? Because of satan's lies. Satan knew man would die. He committed pre-meditated murder on all of mankind.

You also need to keep in mind, God did not curse the serpent until after he caused the fall of man. And also, unless you have proof, the serpent appeared to be unaware that God would send Christ to ultimately destroy him. The serpent knew this after the fact, but not before he committed the act of murder on mankind.

Where do you think Cain got the idea of committing murder? From the first murderer that's where, satan himself.

[lutheratx]

lutheratx, obviously you can't explain it, otherwise you would.

I can see how it seems that Jesus is refering to Satan as the first murderer, however he is referencing the people. You see in the bible God will use a name for a people, like edom for his offspring. See Satan's offspring was that first murderer. God will even use the singular word of he, to explain the nation.

Your logic has not only Satan as the first murderer, but also Adam and Eve. They were all held guilty on the charge, and that is why they all recieved punishment. A murder victim does not chose to be murdered, this is why your unlearned speculation will not work here.

As for your last part of your post, Satan was aware that his actions was to destroy the plan of God. Satan had to know how much God had given these two, in reference to the way the rest of the world was created. You don't think the entire world was the Garden of Eden do you? The garden was planted in the east. This would be so much easier to explain if you, like the rest of the world who is not caught up in a young world doctrine, would acknowledge there was an Earth age prior to the one we live in now were Dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

[oneway]

Your logic has not only Satan as the first murderer, but also Adam and Eve. They were all held guilty on the charge, and that is why they all recieved punishment. A murder victim does not chose to be murdered, this is why your unlearned speculation will not work here.


lutheratx, satan committed murder. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and because of that, all of mankind had to pay the price, and because of all of that, Christ had to pay the price to redeem us back to the Father and to destroy the works of the devil.


1 John 3:8 *He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.


It states that the devil sinneth from the beginning. So when was the beginning? When satan was created? A prev earth age?
When God created man(Adam and Eve)?
I vote for the latter. This is the beginning being spoken of here.
The beginning couldn't possibly be when satan was created, because we know satan was created perfect. The beginning couldn't possibly be a prev earth age, because 1 John 3:8 tells us why Christ was manifested.







This would be so much easier to explain if you, like the rest of the world who is not caught up in a young world doctrine, would acknowledge there was an Earth age prior to the one we live in now were Dinosaurs roamed the Earth



If satan had known prior to the fall of man, that, Christ would manifest later to destroy him, do you really think satan would have caused the fall of man, and ultimately his own destruction? But now that God has cursed satan, satan has absolutely nothing to lose.

[lutheratx]

Adam and Eve have just as much guilt in the event in the Garden as Satan. They are the ones who actually took part in the fruit. Satan did not murder Adam or Eve, he was an instrument in there fall, but so were they.

Satan is a murderer because he killed Christ, that is what is important. The bible is still an eye for an eye when dealing with murder. So the judgement on Satan stands because he killed God now God can turn around and put satan to death in a merciful manner, because it can't be said God is not fair.

So when Christ says satan is a murderer he holds him responsible for all of the murders of the prophets of God. He holds him responsible for the murder of Abel. You know what nails this down is a second witness from the bible, you see you have to speculate and I do not.

Matt 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

This is Christ showing what he means when he says these men are from a murderer. You will notice that he does not mention Adam and Eve as the first murder, he does in fact mention Abel.

Your speculations make void the word of God. Quit guessing and read the letter he has written you. You go on guessing......



It states that the devil sinneth from the beginning. So when was the beginning? When satan was created? A prev earth age?
When God created man(Adam and Eve)?
I vote for the latter.

Well you see you are guessing and the word of God absolutely explains the sin of Satan,

28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities,

You see this explains that he put himself in the place of God, he was lifted up by his beauty, and what, he defiled his sanctuaries. This means he placed himself in a place to be worshipped as God. Now where in the beginning of MAN does he say to Adam or Eve worship me, he does'nt.

Revelations shows his desire to be worshipped so does 2nd Thess 2, there is nothing new under the sun, he wanted this before.

If you read revelations 12 you get the idea of exactly what happened.
12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Satan is the reason we are on the earth in this manner. You see here it says the government of satan is the reason that the third was cast down. This has nothing to do with the end times because Michael is the one who throws satan and his angels to earth at the end of the chapter.

Now you want to disregard the word Katabole as a miss translation, even thought the verb katabolo is translated in the manner I say katabole should be in 2Corinthians 4:9 and Revelation 12:10.

[dobman53]

Dear Friends: I am a little lost as for now. Not to sure of what I'm doing, if at all right? I'm just going to post this message, and see if it all works as hoped!

DOB!

[dobman53]

Dear Friends: I am a little lost as for now. Not to sure of what I'm doing, if at all right? I'm just going to post this message, and see if it all works as hoped!

DOB!
Oneway: do you really have such a hard time with this first world age?

Or is it that you just want to arue any and every thing when it comes to PM?

I know how one can become so attached to their previous teachings. Though is that love to cloud ones mind to what the Bible actually has to teach!

That first world age does answer a lot of questions, you have to admit!

So your argueing will fall only on deaf ears!

Is it you or us who is at a loss to bring things to light.

DOB!

[oneway]

Oneway: do you really have such a hard time with this first world age?

Or is it that you just want to arue any and every thing when it comes to PM?


DOB!



dobman53, the first age is not biblical, meaning it can't be proven biblically.

I love my mother very much. And if she believed in this prev earth age, I would have a problem with that. So it's not really anything that I have personally against PM. I just disagree with his teaching since it can't be proven by the Bible.

You talk about falling on deaf ears. What about when I suggest that verses need to be considered in context? Doesn't that fall on deaf ears?

Using a ch such as Jer 4, and say it's talking about a prev earth age...well that's taking that ch out of context to the extreme.




That first world age does answer a lot of questions, you have to admit!


DOB!




dobman53, no, I don't have to admit that. A prev earth age doesn't answer questions, it presents problems that shouldn't be there. It's just nothing but speculation. Nothing wrong with speculation, as long as one doesn't pass it off as fact.

[lutheratx]

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

God's word calls the heavens of old and the earth. So here is God's word calling the world old when a day with the lord is one thousand years and at the point of this writing the earth, according to the willingly ignorant Oneway, is less than a week old in God's time line. However if what we say (the SC) is true, I don't remember what the last scientific dating of the world was, but lets say 600,000,000 years. OK 600,000,000 years is a heaven and a world that is of old. I just don't understand how you can be ignorant of this now days. I have seen oneway even say there is no way to put a time between verse 1 and 2 in Genesis 1.

So lets see if Oneway can twist this to where only the heavens where of old, OK God was all alone for that time, wow the creator of the Universe just decided for hundreds of millions of years to be alone, and there where no dinosaurs alive then.

Now Oneway says it is not biblical, man what a special case this guy is. You see these types consider the King James, and newer, the only books that are considered the word of God. The manuscripts make this very clear, and no I don't read the manuscripts, but neither Murray, or his students are the only people that have made the connection. I have heard others talk about tohu va bohu, and over and over have I told the guy about the fact katabole does not mean foundation.

Where the heck does the guy think the word Katabole comes from, the Encyclopedia Britannica? Not biblical, what a liar.

I chose you from the foundation,

The soul returneth to the Father who gave it.

Ezekiel 28 talking about Satan's sin that had nothing to do with Adam and Eve.

It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee

There is more, I just cant think of it right know, but I can document everyone of those easily.

So Oneway it is very biblical it just isn't part of the traditions of men. Out of Luther and Oneway who has beliefs that more closely mirror the beliefs of men in the end times?

Ezekiel 20:24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols.

Oh and I don't have to speculate God's word says he knew us before, that is not speculation. Again what did he tell Jeremiah.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee

then how about

Romans9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

see not speculation FACT. You are the one who has to speculate meanings behind this, I know exactly what it means it cant get any clearer than Romans 9 here, before they were even born God knew he hated Esau.

Oneway if you want to explain this as God being outside of time, well when God says I chose you from the foundation, that means he is looking into the future of all his creation, because he would have to look at all to make this pick. So with that being said there is no reason for this earth age at all. Why because the Judgement has already been made according to you. God would already know who would receive the word and who wouldn't.

What really is going on is some have already error ed before coming to this world, like Esau. It is OK though because like Nebuchadnezzar we see that they can change through God using us to show these lost ones a way from arrogance, that leads over and over again to failure, and lead them to success which is Jesus Christ. When they do come back, God will kill the fatted calf, and throw a great party, spiritually speaking, for this lost son, if possible even making us jealous with how well he treats his son that he did not want to lose, even by giving him the same pay as he gives us that have been with him longer.

Sorry you version just doesn't make sense. You are the one who guesses, because I have lots of evidence that supports the facts.

[oneway]

lutheratx,


2 Peter 3:3 *Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 *And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 *For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 *Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 *But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



It's funny that verse 4 talks about the beginning of the creation, meaning this present earth age, yet you insist on taking that out of context by stating verses 5 and 6 are speaking of a prev earth age.

2 Peter 2:5 tells us in plain language what the world of old was. And it's funny, it seems that Noah was in that world of old, and that there was a great flood. Perhaps that's where all this water was coming from spoken in 2 Peter 3:6, don't ya think? Of course you don't. You're an scer. You have a handle on the only truth.


Of course then you you have to tie that to Jer 4:23-25, in which is clearly speaking of this earth age, more than likely the day of the Lord, which has not happened yet.


Verse 25 states there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. Why? Read the remaining chapter verses following. That will explain why.

This couldn't possibly be related to Gen 1:2, because man had not been created yet, nor any birds. So why make mention of it here if this verse is linked to Gen 1:2?

There is no way that Jer 4 can be linked to 2 Peter 3: period.

[lutheratx]

You do have a good angle I will admit that, however I will start with explaining that this Chapter without a doubt is talking about the world that was and the world that will be.

2nd Peter 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

We all realise there is a big change that will take place then, so there was a big change that took place in the katabole also, and this does reference that overthrow.

The world of old in Peter 2:5, is different from Peter 3, did you not look your word up in your Strong's.

Any time the greek word archaios Strong's #744 is used, it is used in reference to this world age. This other word "old" is Greek word is ekpalai Strong's number # 1597 and is used twice, and look at what the searching of this word uncovers.

it is used as "of a long time" in 2nd Peter 2:3

2nd Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now (of a long time) lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

How about

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now (old) lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Well there it is, God chose the election from the foundation ( the katabole, the overthrow of satan) and there are also those who have a judgement of old. Now like I said before there is away to have that judgement removed, and that is through the salvation of God's saviour.

As for there not being birds in the last world age, you truly have got to research these things before you start typing.

"The Quaternary Period that began less than 2 million years ago marked the origin of the close human ancestors as well as the modern forms of the animals we see today."

Ignore the human ancestor part, scientist are just as unlearned as any one else in some aspects. However there were birds millions of years before there was Adam.

Then you say there were no men. When Genesis clearly says lets make man in our image, meaning there were others with God. Well what are they called?

Genesis19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

One two skip a few.

19:12 AND THE MEN said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

[lutheratx]

3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 BUT THE HEAVENS and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Oneway please tell me how the flood of Noah's time affected heaven in a way that it would be different from the Heaven which is now. This chapter speaks of a heaven which is of old, and a Heaven which is now. This perishing was so much more grand than that of Noah's flood, because it even affected heaven, this chapter brings that to light.

Now what do you got?

This is my second post since your last one, just so you know I have addressed your post.

[oneway]

lutheratx, I'm taking a closer look at these verses, being objective.
Even if one comes to the conclusion that 2 Peter 3:5 points back to Gen 1:2, it still can't be linked to Jer 4, so there is no way to support a prev earth age even if verse 5 can be linked to Gen 1:2.

Perhaps the proper interp for 2 Peter 3:5-6 might be something such as this.


5 *For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water(Gen 1:2):
6 *Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished(Noah's flood)


The reasons I might come to those conclusions is this. After taking a closer look at this ch, I believe it's possible to link verse 4 to verse 5. Verse 4 is talking about the beginning of creation.

But I don't feel that verse 6 can be linked to verse 5. I believe it is linked to verse 7.


Verse 7 tells us But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.



Notice how it says in verse 7 'which are now' as opposed to in verse 5 'that then was'.
The day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men during Noah's time came via water(flood). In verse 7 it will come via fire, thus linking verse 6 to Noah's flood.

[lutheratx]

2Pet3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of,

Creation here is only linked to the fathers that fell asleep. You see Paul is saying even the forefathers and most men since the creation of man are willingly ignorant of the first Earth age. They have not considered there was an existance before there present state, and they were part of that existance.

I will allow my post number 8 to stand as the reason why this could not be Noah's flood.

On to Jeremiah 4

Now up to verse 24 in Jeremiah 4 we see God is addressing his people, and those willingly ignorant. Then he explains what they are willingly ignorant of.

Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was NO MAN, and ALL THE BIRDS of the heavens were fled. 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, THE FRUITFUL PLACE was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

Isa 45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth [in] righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
This is Man.

Isa 55:12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap [their] hands.

This is the birds, this is the fruitful place

All are covered on the return of Jesus.

Now Oneway your beliefs make the bible contradict itself, the bible does not contradict itself, it is man's understanding that has made that possible. If you are reading something that you believe contradicts something else, you have got something wrong. Lets explain one last thing that may have got you tied up in these verses, OK these verses say the cities where broken down, and there couldn't be cities in the first earth age. Oh really, do you think that the great pryamid of Giza stood alone in the first earth age? Also LETS EXPLAIN THE CITIES MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THIS CHPT. Two tribes are mentioned at the beginning of this Chpt it is Judah and Jerusalem, it is Judah and Benjamin, I believe maybe all the cities in israel around the desolation will be destroyed. The other mention of Cities is the Earth, and all of its inhabitants. i.e. verse 23 I beheld the earth. You see this chapter all the way up to 23 is talking about Israel, then when God describes the katabole he says the earth.

The verses I pulled out of Jeremiah 4 (23-26) are the only ones that deal with the first destruction. It immediately switches gears at verse 27. Now God is saying I will do it again, not destroy man and the birds, but he will destroy that which is not pleasing to him. He is talking to those who do not please him here. The whole reason for this world age, separate the wheat from the tares.

Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

The whole LAND shall be desolate. This is because of the coming of antichrist, you know that. The abomination that maketh desolate

4:28 For this shall the earth mourn,

This is refering to the ones who mourn at the return of Jesus which is written in Matthew 24: 30, this verse 28 still places man on earth, I have proof, I do not have to speculate, that this is a difference account of what happens between the verses 23-26. You see my teaching of this chapter (or if want to call it Murray's all though I don't remember what he says about this chpt) does not contradict the rest of the remaining verses, and does not contradict the remainder of the bible.

So in conclusion, the explanation of this is that there was another Earth age. Now I am sure Murray appreciates the fact you guys give him credit for this discovery in the bible, how ever, it is not Murray you have to discredit, it is in fact Bullinger a man who's life work was translating the bible from the Massorah. So don't act like SC is alone in this. Let me emphasize that last part, we are not the ones who originated this teaching. One more time we are not the ones who originated this teaching.

[oneway]

lutheratx, here's question or two for you while I ponder some more on what you just wrote.
Wasn't Jeremiah a prophet? Doesn't Jer 4:23-31 sound like prophecy? What do prophets mostly do?
Don't they prophesy about future events? If Jeremiah is prophesying about a past event, then that doesn't
make him much of a prophet, does it?

That's sort of like knowing last weeks winning lotto numbers today instead of last week. Knowing what they were last week today, well that just won't do you much good last week.

[lutheratx]

Doesn't Jer 4:23-31 sound like prophecy?

You are not going to catch me slipping, you seem like you are trying to be deceptive. 23 - 26 talks about the katabole. Starting at 27 the chapter switches gears back into the future events. I have explained this in my very last post.

If Jeremiah is prophesying about a past event, then that doesn't
make him much of a prophet, does it?

Jeremiah also speaks about coming out of Egypt. Does that mean that the Israelites will be escaping Pharaoh again through the red sea, and living off mana in the wilderness. Isaiah is also Prophet and talks about the flood during Noah's time, he also mention Sodom and Gomorrah, so does that mean there will be another flood and Noah will come back to life. So I guess not only Jeremiah, but also Isaiah isn't much of a prophet either because he talks about historical events. You will also have to include Ezekiel in with those you don't consider much of a prophet because God tells him to tell Jerusalem about her abominations and it starts with Jerusalem's nativity, and goes to there present day, and then he starts to tell prophesy after 36 verses of God explaining past and present abominations. You Oneway are right the prophets got there name from God giving them prophecy, but you are clueless if you think they didn't teach the word of God, or that God for that matter doesn't teach the word of God. Of course they talk about what God has done, because after all he is worthy of our Praise. I will include that the only Prophets I used for examples were of the Major Prophets.

[oneway]

The verses I pulled out of Jeremiah 4 (23-26) are the only ones that deal with the first destruction. It immediately switches gears at verse 27. Now God is saying I will do it again, not destroy man and the birds, but he will destroy that which is not pleasing to him. He is talking to those who do not please him here. The whole reason for this world age, separate the wheat from the tares.

Jeremiah 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

The whole LAND shall be desolate. This is because of the coming of antichrist, you know that. The abomination that maketh desolate

4:28 For this shall the earth mourn,





Ok let's say verses 23-26 point back to Gen 1:2 the gap.
In Gen 1:2 there seems to be an abundant amount of water present. So where is this abundant amount of water spoken about in Gen 1:2 spoken of in Jer 4:23-26? It seems sort of odd if those verses link to Gen 1:2, then those verses in Jer should also be making reference to water. And since Gen 1:2 doesn't mention one iota about birds and man, then why does Jeremiah 4:23-26, if these are linked to one another?

Then you admiitingly admit at verse 27 that it changes gears.
The rest of your interpretation beginning at verse 27, I really see no problem with it. The problem I see is, you are taking Jer 4 23-26 out of context. Verse 27 and those that follow, these are in perfect line with verses 23-26.

Example:

23 *I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.


Now look at verse 27 and 28.


27 *For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
28 *For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.


Obviously 'erets in verse 23 is the same 'erets in verse 27.
So IOW, this particular judgement is not focused upon the entire earth, but upon a certain land.

Obviously once again, verse 23 can be explained easily by 27-28 because they are linked to one another.

And getting back to prophets for a moment. Among other things, the main idea of why God used prophets were to warn others of God's impending judgements.
Your argument to that is, God used past prophesy in Jer 4:23-26 to make a point about future prophesy. Maybe that makes sense to you, but in this case with Jer 4, it sounds unreasonable.

Reading all of Jer 4 in context, one can't help but recognize that Verses 23-26 are linked to verses 27 onward, and the entire ch for that matter. Jer 4 has nothing to do with a prev earth age or even Gen 1:2.

[lutheratx]

"Frozen mammoth carcasses found in Siberia have challenged our imagination for centuries. These carcasses sometimes come with skin, hair, and internal organs including the heart.1 Reports of these discoveries intrigue adults and children alike, for different reasons. One island in the New Siberian Islands, off the Arctic Ocean coast, is described as mostly mammoth bones. Over the years, a lucrative ivory trade developed as thousands of tons of ivory tusks have been unearthed and exported from Siberia. Scientists struggle to understand why these animals lived in Siberia and how they died. Children love stories of frozen carcasses with meat fresh enough to eat."

one two skip a few

"It looks like the animal sank in a bog, but generally Siberian bogs are not deep enough to bury an animal that size."

2nd Peter 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

So we see that we in this generation are reserved for fire.

Eze 22:19 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem.
Eze 22:20 [As] they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt [it]; so will I gather [you] in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave [you there], and melt you.

fire purifies the material and in the same way this fire is going to cleanse the Earth.
So know I want to comment on the parts from the website I referenced at the beginning. So the Mammoths froze first, then sunk, this is what happened. God did the things he mentioned in Jeremiah 4 then flooded the Earth like is mentioned in 2nd Peter. You see this Earth will perish by fire as written in 2nd Peter, but we all know that before that fire there is famine, earthquakes, and pestilence. However 2nd Peter just mentions fire, why? Because fire cleanses and is the final blow that makes the entire world age that was perish(water).

Water cleans also Oneway. Matter of fact it was used again to clean in the time of Noah.


Then you admiitingly admit at verse 27 that it changes gears.
The rest of your interpretation beginning at verse 27, I really see no problem with it. The problem I see is, you are taking Jer 4 23-26 out of context. Verse 27 and those that follow, these are in perfect line with verses 23-26.

I explained how I am not taking this out of context in the post number, in this thread, 357. I also cover how man and birds were around before the katabole in 354.
I agree that errets is the same word in 27, however I agree with the translators because I know what is meant by the whole land will be desolate. What does Christ say, flee Judah in the end times, why because of the desolation, he is localised. However if this is not good enough, and you view it as speculation, I will use the fact that this can not be the end times because nature rejoices when Christ returns, the birds do not flee. Man is still very present, because we see that in Revelations 20 man is still very present, they just have changed forms.

Of course the verses are linked together, God is saying I will do this again, to those that will not receive me.


Jer 4 has nothing to do with a prev earth age or even Gen 1:2.

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void;

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void;

Oneway you keep arguing that this in Jeremiah 4 does not speak about the katabole, when God's word over and over again references the age that was. You just chose to ignore them. If you weren't so absolute about the first earth age, you would not keep trying to make Jeremiah 4 23-26 talk about the great apostacy and the cleaning that takes place afterwards.

[dobman53]

Oneway: I'm at a loss with this new format, so bear with me. I'm not even sure if this post will appear in proper order or just what?

With it looking like just a few of the old gang are around maybe it's better I can't say for sure.

Oneway we have all been at odds for sometime, though you and I have for the most part remained civil.

I know all to well of the things you dislike concerning PM. Hey! I was against his teachings as well. But Oneway their not just his teachings or just some sort of made-up things.

Oneway there was a first world age.

Something else I feel I should add about this first world age is that this knowledge was only intended for thoughs who sought it. This statement from me is of my own personal thoughts. So don't take what I'm saying as Gospel, just something I'm more or less throwing out there.

Just the same I feel all knowledge in the Bible more or less is for thoughs who wish to understand. That's as long as if one were to have the desire to know such things.

Lets face it we, that meaning you as well as I, are not just your ordinary sort of Bible students. We do love God, and we wouldn't carry on like we do if we didn't.

Their are a lot of people that watch PM on T-V and really don't know a thing about the first world age. Oh sure they hear PM speak of it, but they still have no idea whats being truley said.

Again I say this information is for thoughs whom God wants to know about such things.

I'm probably starting to sound as if my sentance structure is failing as it often does. Just the same I thing you get the drift of what I'm trying to say.

Your Friend DOB!

[oneway]

Just the same I feel all knowledge in the Bible more or less is for thoughs who wish to understand. That's as long as if one were to have the desire to know such things.

Lets face it we, that meaning you as well as I, are not just your ordinary sort of Bible students. We do love God, and we wouldn't carry on like we do if we didn't.


Again I say this information is for thoughs whom God wants to know about such things.


Your Friend DOB!



dobman53, as much as I like you, one has to admit that your reasoning is pretty convenient, don't you think?
I mean, who can argue with a statement such as "Again I say this information is for thoughs whom God wants to know about such things."?

God reveals Truth to those, that from the heart seek His Truth.
There is no doubt that some are on a higher level understanding of the Truth than others. But I don't believe God reveals certain things, such as a prev earth age, to certain select people because He chooses to.

To be honest, I can ALMOST see where a prev earth age makes a little sense, but the Biblical path AM chooses to prove that theory, it makes no sense at all.


Btw, where is everyone else at? Is it just you, me and lutheratx now? Surely this new board is not keeping anyone away. I'm right at home with this new board myself. I belong to some other forums that pretty much use this same format.

[terluvire]

Hi All!! I hope the others make it over here.

Just stopped in to say hi and wish you all a very good day!:)

[aviyah]

Hi Terluvire. How are ya?

God Bless, AviYAH

[terluvire]

Hi Aviyah, I'm good:) Thank you for asking! You are such a dear! I hope you are doing well.

It doesn't seem that too many made it over here.

Hi Luther and dobman!! You two just keep going and going!! Keep up the good work.

Hi Oneway, I've always liked you, no matter if you agree with us or not. You seem to have a very good heart. :) I hope you are doing well.

[dodge]

http://a165.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/27/l_5815d8842436e2edd7fba591a3f110f4.jpg

[dobman53]

Oneway: I guess how I post, certain things can certainly get all amiss!

Just as where I stated about how things are not so easy for all to undestand.

Think about this for a moment.

The apostles often asked Jesus just to come straight out and tell them things, instead of using parables all the time.

Oneway God draws to him thoughs he wishes to have an understanding.

If he were not about doing it as how I've stated, He would have just spelled it all out.

The Bible then coud have just as well been a law book. of maybe a couple of chapters. There by leaving us but to follow the laws!

Oneway you have noticed I'm sure of how I often say to all of you how I love each and every one of you.

I don't do such things to try and one-up any. The reason why the Bible is not just a law book is for us to realise love is the most important thing there is.

Dear Friend Imagine if one had all the wealth in the world. Have we not all seen where some rich person having all the wealth imaginable kills himself. Often a letter is left saying of how empty their lives were, and how the money never brought them the happiness they had hoped for.

God does draw to himself thoughs whom he does love. Not to say the door is closed to any, but if the love is not there, never shall there be the understanding.

Again thats why the Bible is written as it is. A book of the failings of all mans attempts to succeed without the love for God in their hearts.

Now again I must add their are certain prophets, and the like's who loved God
, but in all truthfulness each and every one of them fell short in one fashion or another.

Oneway again I tell you there was that first world age. We all messed up, some just a little others a whole lot. Thankfully God loved us all. We were all to be born once more from above not knowing how bad or how little we might have messed up. A clean slate for all! DOB!!

DODGE: your slate was wiped clean as well. I well know of your torement, but you need to look with-in. Dodge your not going to like the view from the far side of the gulf. Dodge this admiration you hope to find shall see you lost. Dodge tell all that are close to you that you love them. and a healing will soon begin.

Dodge I can well imagine when I speak to you as such, you might probably think I'm being smug. Not so my friend, if I've ever learned anything Dodge it's to humble yourself amongst thoughs whom you love.

Dodge thoughs who love you only wish for the best of things for you.

My friend I hope my wishes come true. DOB!

[dobman53]

Oneway: I myself used to find discust with many of these modern day T-V ministries. In all truthfulness I still need to keep my thoughts pure and in good standings with God. Though I have learned to turn down the fire concerning my thoughts of their teachings. Something that I have found amongst vertually all of them is their one-ups manships. That being their casual talks with God they all presume to have. How they try to lead us all to believe that God talks to them 3 to 4 sometimes 5 times a day.

I always seem to have the hardest time with thoughs statements, but I guess I'll have to admit my short comings and love them just the same.

You know something we all need to try, and have remain in our hearts a love for each and every one of them. Would God stop loving them NO! should we stop loving them NO!

Oneway I'm now to ask of you just one thing, and thats to controll your thoughs concerning Pastor Murray.

Now I sure enough know I am asking a lot from you, but would God have you be any other way. Does God love PM yes! you know this is true.

Dear friend if anything should come from such a love it will only be of good things. I tell you if you don't have love for your brother in your heart, you don't have Gods love in your heart either.

Oneway I'm not the judge. I've probably sinned more than most, but my only hope is to maintain a love for each and all in my heart.

YOUR FRIEND DOBMAN53

[dobman53]

I need my daughter to come over and teach this old dog how post. I punched the wrong button and it took me 10 minutes to find my way back. I don't like this new age message board. my post untill my daughters visit will be limited. dobman53

[dodge]

Hi Doberman --

No “torment” going on in this man’s head, only happiness and contentment in the life that I have created for myself. I’m a very lucky man. I sometimes like to play with you Bible-headed Jesus-freaks, because there is a certain amount of entertainment involved; but generally speaking I find you and your ilk to be harmless superstitious simpletons who have chosen to believe in imaginary beings and mythic stories. I don’t think you’re smug, Doberman, just stupid. This is my opinion based on what I have read from your posts.

http://a36.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/4/l_d7f982123b12b0a9b81d8b0114c21443.jpg

[oneway]

dobman53, try entering the site thru this link Today's Posts
(http://new.factnet.org/vbforum/search.php?do=getdaily). Then just click on the latest SC thread. Then when you get here, use linear mode, then click on last page. It's all pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

[lutheratx]

It is the Christians, Jews, and Muslims with the stupid beliefs? OK you are a deist from what I can gather. Do you realise that two of these major religions you mock hold the books of Moses to be true, they hold the prophets to be true, and the Psalms all to be true. The third, hey wait, from my understanding they hold all that to be true also, but have determined that the version that is believed by the Christians, and the Jews is in error and I think they believe it may have even made its way into the torah, and so on. So for the last 2000 years it has been common knowledge that God had comunication with us. I have seen the movie Zeitgeist and know the level of lies you people are willing to spread to make the faith of Israel look like it was copied. There are thousands of religions believed by man, to think that there aren't going to be similarities, when the word of God says some gentiles just by nature where able to do what was right by God.

Now you have the deist. These people believe that there is a God, but yet he has no interaction with the creation he has made. Some may even believe even that we are virtually just bacteria forming on the giant hind quarters of the universe, I don't know. However please forgive me if I think this sounds absurd, because a creation as perfect as what we have here has taken a great deal of wisdom and time to have put together. You must admit that if you had made something as grand as this you would run around and gloat, because of how smart you think you are now and that gives that fact away. However God has been very patient, very gracious, very righteous, and worthy of our praise, because this God would have to be way more wise then us to even have been able to create life, this is something man has not been able to recreate. So he would have to see the stupidity that is abundant and running rampant in this world and could easily start taking out the stupid people, whoops be careful Dodge. However he has sent us a message and is patient, he is hoping that as many people as possible will recieve the message before he separates us from people like the way you are at this point. So to think a god made a creation like this, perfect, and then ignored it is stupid.

So in conclusion it is you who is stupid, because you believe in a God that has no interaction with us and expects us to be able to right the wrongs. To believe that we are capable of righting the wrongs that are going on this very day is in fact stupid, why because we try that all the time, and it has just been getting worse. So if I don't believe the way you do I am dumb, well OK why don't you go into detail on what you feel is the way man came into existance so I can see if there is stupidity involved in what you believe. Wait you, not necessarilly all deist, are sottish agnostic camel dung, and probably don't care about knowing what the creator of the universe would have you do, much less how you came into existance. Please forgive me, but to me you are in fact stupid, not Dob.

Luther!

[dodge]

http://a438.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/25/l_0488539dbc07f2a8c4ed7b1f22f6d76d.jpg

[dodge]

http://a201.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/45/l_b27b2762ae03612c646b81e4ef2b5d68.jpg

[lutheratx]

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/dummies.png

You amaze me Dodge, one week you believe there is a God, and the next there is no God. Well I hope any one who has read your post before today realises your tendency to flop.

So now there is no God, OK then your belief that there was a period that allowed evolution to take place, and then vanished, is stupid, or what ever atheist belief your buying into today is stupid. If we of the faith, that believe there is a creator, are stupid because we cant see a physical God, well what is a person that cant witness a million years, but thinks he can prove evolution through one rock?

The conversion seems to be simple for a dummy.

[lutheratx]

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/image_398855.jpg

[lutheratx]

I didn't know how to post the images, but did I have to ask you? No I just did a little research, but in a round about way you had a little to do with me learning how to use this site. Now I wonder if they will get sued by the artist.

[oneway]

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/image_398855.jpg

http://www.msnpro.com/animated/3d/emot15.gif

[dodge]

http://a504.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/115/l_e1ff667f3aa7e13b6c80d5bf695d31a7.jpg

[lutheratx]

Dude you are as dumb as a hammer if you cant see that you have to believe some pretty off the wall stuff to make evolution work. Why can't you geniuses see that? Just the name "theory of Evolution" promotes the fact it is based on speculation. So what you need is a sign from heaven.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/bc1.jpg

glad I could help. It is even your cherished caveman getting the sign, oh so that is your proof evolution exist, because it has been popularised in the funny pages.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/Hammering_in.gif

If you were a hammer this is what you would be doing, the theory just wont stay nailed down will it.

[dobman53]

Dear Dodge: You are intertaining aren't you?

I oh so love to be intertained with how high one can hold themselves.

Seems you have hit the highest goal!

Speaking of such fantasy's with head held oh so high.

That little warm pond from which all things came to be. In smug attitudes they have all so lovingly wraped their arms around Darwins bossom.

It's like the kings new wardrobe, only the most wise can see.

They all himed and howed of such beautiful raiment. The most upper class were all in envy of the Kings new clothes. Saying how fine the tailoring, and such beautiful cloth.

Then as the King paraded down the street showing all his fine cloths, a young lad screamed out look!! the King is naked!!!

Then of course the King turned red as a beet as the whole town laughed at such foolishness.

Dodge I think it's time you go take a dip in Darwins warm little pond. Relax and exclaim to all who will listen of the millions of forms of life that did spring forth from your bath water.

Dodge there shall be another young child who will then exclaim. LOOK EVERYBODY DODGE IS NAKED!!!

You'll then jump right up, run, and grab yourself a fig leaf to hide your nakedness.

Dodge whats going to happen when you see all the biblical prophecies unfold before your very eyes. Are you going to then say not to worry folks, and execute a perfect swan dive right back into your dirty bath water?

I think not dear Dodge! I think not.

So I'll now only presume you shall next have a new cartoon for us. Hmmmmm what should it be, you now do contemplate.

Lord only knows???

DOB!

[dodge]

http://a94.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/76/l_d1ca73b6d13c27ca1c54dc0c6767c0dd.png

[lutheratx]

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/panel_042805.jpg

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/monkey.gif

[dodge]

http://a531.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/81/l_366334b725693be95c350eca34496b92.jpg

[lutheratx]

The common problem with evolutionist is they call something that cannot ever be proven, fact. It is impossible to be proven. In order to prove evolution you would need your 33.5 billion years you referenced. Unless somehow you where able to speed up the process, so let me explain something to you Einstein reject, a theory is not proven science. That in the least should be comical. Here is what happened when Dawkins was asked if he could give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information on the genome?

(of course he had no answer and then had them stop recording and finally came up with something, lets look at that answer.)

"There is a popular missunderstanding of evolution which says that fish turned into reptiles and reptiles turned in to mammals and so some how we aught to be able to look around the world today and look at our ancestors to see the intermediate between fish and reptiles and reptiles and mammals. See fish on the way to becoming reptile, you can't because fish are modern animals they are just as modern as we are. They are descended from ancestors that we are descended from. Way back 300 million years ago there would have been an ancestor. Which was the ancestor of modern fish, which was the ancestor of modern humans, and that ancestor, if you could have been there, then you could have seen the first steps towards the fish taking the first steps and coming out on the land, and becoming something like an amphibian, but that was a long time ago you wouldn't expect to see that today, so quite a lot of missunderstanding of the evolution I suppose stems from the fact that people are looking at modern animals, and thinking Darwin says we are descended from them, well when we are not. We are not descend from modern fish, we are not descended from modern monkeys, we are not descended from modern apes they are modern animals just as we are. They are our cousins they are not our ancestors."

Now you say the evolutionary process took 33.5 billion years, OK here is Dawkins explaining that there was a time the evolution process was able to take place. Well that time period was at least 33 billion years. So out of 33 billion years all of a sudden the earth and enviroment takes this turn that makes evolution not possible. Let me explain something there are animals that are very near to our animals in the fossil records, and I don't mean a few, I mean birds, and regular looking mammals, meaning our kind of life would be substainable during this period, why the change? You see you have to believe something of this manner, other wise this guy would still be walking around.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/mike.jpg

So when we ask why can't we see our ancestors walking around, this is a valid question, becuase I will repeat for 33 billion years the evolution process took place and then just stopped at its present stage, it is way to perfect, you see all the animals became modern at the same time, come on. It is in fact you with the little brain.

I will leave a picture of Dodge's cousin

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/stupidMonkey.gif

[dobman53]

Dodge: I've posted this once before, but for your sake I shall post it once again.

Mathmatics have nothing what so ever to do with evolution, though none the less they can bring to light the odds on something which just might happen by chance.

Several years ago a team of mathematic minded professionals containing both creationist as well as evolutionist joined forces to plot the odds for life to happen by chance. When they set out on this venture they quickly realised that no single computer could do the numbers crunch concerning these vast numbers. Once they had enter faced the computers of several universities, they set out to do their numbers crunch.

They came to the conclussion that there were 2000 amino acids in the DNA structure of any given cell. With the 1000"s of contacts along this spiraled code the math works out to 10 to the 40,000th power. That a ten followed by 40,000 zero's for a cell to form by chance. Those are mighty long odds for something to happen by chance dear Dodge.

Beings this group had at their disposal this enter faced network of computers the team decided to formulate the number of atoms there were in the entire universe. They formulated the number at 10 to the 17,800 power. here again thats a ten with 17,800 zero's behind it.

You probably have now noticed that the numbers for the cell structure are just a little over twice those for the number of atoms in the universe.

To make things more simple Dodge lets just say the two numbers are equal. With that thought in mind Dodge I challenge you to simply pluck that one single atom from the universe. I'll even go farther Dodge and say pluck 100 atoms per day for every day the universe has been in existance. That number works out to 5,110,000,000,000. another way to compare that nuber would be to show it as 511 followed by 10 zero's.

Dodge 10 zero's is a vastly smaller number when compared to 40,000 zero's.

Dodge you may find folly in my faith towards God. But dear friend your faith in what you believe to be as so, far far surpasses my faith in what I believe. The numbers prove this out, and dear friend numbers don't rely on any one's faith. they are what they are!

So as you continue with your cartoons dear Dodge, let me add only this. One day my friend we shall both gaze out together, towards that which lies beyond that golden sun set, and on that day as we walk down that golden path we shall both stop for just a moment to once again laugh at the cartoons you did post.

Your pen pal DOB!

[stage director]

Hi, Dob ... Every knee in heaven and earth will "bow a knee" to Christ. What does that mean to you?

[stage director]

Hummmm .... I can see by all the pics and cartoons FN has finally provided the means for folks to heckle/one up each other to their full potential. I'm guessing that option of adding images will be rather short-lived ...
:rolleyes:

[lutheratx]

Lighten up.

What was said here was no more vulgar than what you would find in the funny pages. So the funny pages have to high a rating for you, huh?

From some one who is a cult member I will have to tell you that you need more freedom.


http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/lutheratx/stage1.gif

I was just poking a little fun, if Dodge was offended I apologise.

[dobman53]

SD: Hey it's good to hear from you.

Tony Benn is he someone you have faith in. I know not his name!

Certainly I should be the last to kill any. Be it for love of God or any.

Now I do know how you think of Pastor Murray. Would you have me believe you shall now kill him. Certainly not!

SD we have a different take on numerous things, But here's one thing to be sure. Neither you or I would ever be so inclined to see harm to any.

With that being said you have little room to make such a statement. Saying I might do harm to any who might not, lets say like PM.

I've stated on many occasions that I do not walk in lock step with anyone. Though at the same time I'll state I have learned many a thing from PM.

Enough said! just the same I do care for you and you know that to be so.

DOB!

[stage director]

lol Dob ... that's my signature. I wasn't addressing you personally except for this:

"Hi, Dob ... Every knee in heaven and earth will "bow a knee" to Christ. What does that mean to you?"

I'm asking because I don't know what you think these words entail. :)

[dobman53]

SD: Every knee to bow means just that. I myself will certainly be one of the first.

I don't know of what your take might be, but often I'm in wonderment if I've sprung some sort of trap?

Though just the same I wish to give praise to Jesus as much as any. After all he took the rath of Gods displeasure for all our sins. Jesus being the only begotten son of God is the only pure sacrafice worthy of this cause. He is God with us after all. When you've seen his face you have most certainly seen the face of God.

I would give my life for God even if it ment there would no longer be a Dobman. If we didn't have God we would eventually all wind up in a hell of an exsistance, to which I myself would have no want nor desire to be any part of. I would just asume be dead, and thats the honest truth.

If God though were to command me to wipe out a town every man woman and child I would do it. I might wonder why but I would not question, I would do as told and not look back.

Thinking of Jesus we must remember when God said who is worthy to brake the seals on the book of life there was a silence in heaven for a half hour. If we use Gods time of one day as a thousand years, that silence lasted for 40 years. Not a peep or whisper from any.

Yes my friends Jesus is certainly the most high!

DOB!

[stage director]

Naw, it's not a trap. I'm just wondering who's left for destruction if every knee acknowledges Christ.

[lutheratx]

This sets up the millennium, the ones who are destroyed are destroyed a thousand years after this advent. Do you read the bible?

[stage director]

So you don't believe kneeling to Christ is acceptance of him?

[lutheratx]

I do believe that, but I also know that some go into the lake of fire, which means towards the end old habits start to resurface.

2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy WITH THE BRIGHTNESS OF HIS COMING:

Lets not forget the battle of Armageddon that has just taken place, they have no option but to admit defeat. However Satan is released after that 1000 years to deceive again, and there will be some that have allowed that brightness they have seen dull. Is that possible, how many times did God have to remind his children about escaping Egypt? Also remember that the ones that don't make the first resurrection are not able to come into Jesus, however they are very aware of him through the teaching that takes place, but with that being said they still can change there mind on what they saw. God is fair, but he will not keep putting up with disobedience.

[stage director]

So the whole world accepts him ... Then do you believe the whole world is present for a millennium?

[lutheratx]

Read Revelations 20 the dead referenced here means spiritually dead, if you read this chapter you will see that I am right. So I do believe the world will be there why, because there is not judgement until the end of Revelations 20. These that don't make the first resurrection die, they are called the dead.

[dobman53]

SD: They will all be there as in a time. thoughs on the other side of the gulf shall as well have a time.

Lets say that some will forever curse no matter what. Those that do shall have but a short time.

Gods not going to allow them to interfere with his plan.

Then once the 1000 years has transpired the final judgement.

Perhaps as your friend Tony has stated, some will desire to kill for their doctrine. Though it may be a false doctrine they will never realease from their minds of a thinking that what they have presumed to be right should ever be concidered false.

They did fall in love with the devils idea's long before this world age, and they will certainly wish to die with their father Satan.

Our minds will be blown away in how they hold onto such false doctrines, and then turn right around and do that perfect suan dive right into the lake of fire. Thinking they will now once and fore all show us who is truley right or wrong.

Yes their are some truley liberal right minded fools who live amongst us, and in their eyes, and minds, they do hold onto and feel that they shall forever certainly know whats best.

DOB!

[stage director]

The story of the rich man vs Lazarus is a parable, not an actual explanation of how heaven or the millennium works. The separation being explained is spiritual. Flesh and physicality are things of this world an existance.

[aviyah]

I am tickled to death that Luther's pics are still here but Dodge's smut has been erased. Halleluyah!!!

[dobman53]

SD: do you now decide what is scriptual and what is just some parable. In the case of Lazarus I don't recall Jesus or anybody for that matter saying it was all about fleshy things.

I know how you strugle to hold on to your, how shall I say, grand parents ways, but maybe Grandma wasn't up to speed on all biblical knowledge.

Sure enough old Grandma loved the lord theres no denighing that.

Though she was probably acting out what she had been tought, not from what she had read.

Sure enough darling faith is something one might have to wind up having to die for.

Though I'm sure Grandma wouldn't want her little grand daughter to kill for her doctrine.

There is a world of difference, just ask your old buddy Tony he'll fill you in.

DOB!

[stage director]

SD: do you now decide what is scriptual and what is just some parable. In the case of Lazarus I don't recall Jesus or anybody for that matter saying it was all about fleshy things.


Uhh, but you do remember Jesus stating that he taught by parables, right?

[dobman53]

SD: The apostles often complained about him speaking in parables. They wished for him to just speak to them plainly.

Jesus used the parables to give a more underlying sence of compashion to their meanings

After the resurrection Jesus then did spell it all out for them.

SD: I was still wondering if you had reconcidered your take on the first world age, or the garden setting.

Or is your take still as ones grandma might understand.

We not to long ago discussed these two issues, and your take was what we all would have exspected. That is more or less the same as ones grand parents would have understood.

Do you still see things as such?

DOB!

SD

[oneway]

SD: The apostles often complained about him speaking in parables. They wished for him to just speak to them plainly.

Jesus used the parables to give a more underlying sence of compashion to their meanings

After the resurrection Jesus then did spell it all out for them.

SD: I was still wondering if you had reconcidered your take on the first world age, or the garden setting.

Or is your take still as ones grandma might understand.

We not to long ago discussed these two issues, and your take was what we all would have exspected. That is more or less the same as ones grand parents would have understood.

Do you still see things as such?

DOB!

SD




dobman53, these verses explain why Jesus spoke in parables.



Matthew 13:9 *Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 *And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 *He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 *For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 *Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 *And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Matthew 13:15 *For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 *But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
17 *For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

[stage director]

SD: I was still wondering if you had reconcidered your take on the first world age, or the garden setting.


Actually, Dob ... I did reconsider my take on a first earth age and what happened in the garden. I learned that certain conclusions can only be arrived at using speculation ... and reading more into the verses than is written.

[smyrna]

Here is a friendly repost, my original reply to Stage Director, from the old forum:

Sorry S_D, Godchild beat you to that one.

It was addressed several months ago, and maybe you'd like to place that quote back in its proper context.

It's another cheap trick to take a quote out of context.

I have the book right here. On page 18, it says;

"The simple answer is that Cain married a woman of the Turanian or Mongolian race...for Scripture tells us that the Sons of God married the daughters of men..."

The reason I bring that up, is that even the detractors know that the SC does not believe nor teach this, and the Sons of God i.e. the Nephilim
are what the verse in Genesis 6 refers to as Sons of God, as Appendix 25 of the Companion Bible affirms.

Therefore, as is the case with the singled out quote that Stage Director conveniently took out of context, the SC does not endorse, advocate or agree with every single detail in every single book it offers students.

Let's follow S_D's "logic" though, just for laughs. If she reads Mein Kampf for example, and a friend recommends reading it, does that make her and her friend automatically racists and nazis?

Here's another example since S_D has such a hard time with logic:

I read a great deal of Catholic books, that is, written for and by Catholics.

There are many quotes given by folks like Luther, Calvin and other non-catholics that the authors published and agree with.

Does that mean that the Catholics do not see any differences between Catholics and Protestants? Do they think everything that Luther or Calvin said is true?

So following these examples,we can see that S_D once again is playing a silly game, called guilt by association.

A few times during the SC Q & A others have written about some of the books and their contents. In similar situations, Pastor Murray replied that "Students are intelligent enough to know that we don't agree with everything in all the books we recommend, But we don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

Finally,

Stage Director is well aware of what avowed racists have said about the SC, right here on this very thread. So it is silly she is STILL trying to label the SC a racist Church.

All the while, of course, she has yet to provide evidence for so many allegations she just spouts off and ignores challenges to prove them.

Continue your freak show S_D. We dig it. Really if that is all you got, you got nothing. But we know that, don't we?

Can we get a reply SD?