Question about Serpent Seed and Kenites

[balaam]

Are these two doctrines in the Companion Bible anywhere? (in the Appendices, etc.) Or are they exclusively connected with PM at SC?

[arron]

i dont know about that but they are the insane garbage of some on this thread.

[watchman_2]

balaam,

The answer to your question regarding the Companion Bible is 'no'. Of course, the doctrines are in the text. However, Bullinger did not catch on to it in his comments or appendices.

[godchild]

balaam, You can read the appendixes here for yourself. You will see that Bullinger used the apocrypha and even considered Greek mythology to be factual and not fiction:

http://www.levendwater.org/companion/index_companion.html

[godchild]

am/sc is not the only preacher who teaches these false doctrines. Pastor trentwoodard, pastor mark downey, armstrong, roger christopherson, and many others use it.

[balaam]

Thanks for the responses so far...

I just got a Companion Bible yesterday, so I have alot of studying and learning ahead!!

My first thought when I saw S/S was "hogwash!" -- but I'm not so sure that's fair. It is an interesting doctrine and (for me) is alot easier to consider than the Gap Theory!

And the apocrypha is something I wish to avoid-- if I can't find it in the KJV, then I think you have to be careful about your outside sources.

[godchild]

Bullinger was educated at King's College, London. He was a recognized scholar in the field of biblical languages. The Archbishop of Canterbury granted him an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in 1881 in recognition of his biblical scholarship.

Some of his best known works are:

The Companion Bible
The Foundations of Dispensational Truth
The Church Epistles
Number in Scripture
Word Studies on the Holy Spirit
The Witness of the Stars
The Book of Job
Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Great Cloud of Witnesses
The Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testaments
How To Enjoy the Bible
Commentary On Revelation
De Twee Naturen in het Kind van God
The Two Natures in the Child of God
The Christian's Greatest Need
Dr. Bullinger died on June 6, 1913, in London, England. The best known is "The Companion Bible". Bullinger began to work on the Companion Bible in 1908. When he died in 1913, he was ready with the Old Testament and the Gospels. Others have finished "The Companion Bible" after his dead..

(Message edited by godchild on May 09, 2006)

[ezekiel_37]

Yes Bullinger was an accomplished author of many, many good works.

You will undoubtedly enjoy the appendix's and the plethera of info gathered for Believers.

The above poster's quote of the books by Bullinger seems to state that he was against the Word of God, but rather the opposite is prooven from his historical and the biblical works. Bullinger unmasks many otherwise 'challenging' subjects.

It is not the easiest study bible to follow but is quite rewarding when given the proper time.
The above poster should try reading it instead of bashing the works of a man that she has only second hand information on...but that is her M.O.

Peace
c

This above poster is deadly afraid of the truths in Bullingers works and tries her hardest to disproove them without success.

[balaam]

This Companion Bible is quickly becoming my favorite-- and I have 3 KJV's already! It is a unique resource of commentary and additional info. -- well worth the investment!!

The Companion Bible is a bit intimidating the very first time you examine it-- I got a hardback copy last summer; couldn't stand the format; wrote a blistering review on Amazon (which has been deleted); now I need to go back and write an intelligent review for a change!

There are a few of Bullinger's books I would like to get-- as long as he backs up his statements with many verses, I'm willing to read.

I've quickly noticed who is anti S/S and anti-PM and the defenders of such, and continue to watch with interest. The way I see it-- Murray, Bullinger, Serpent Seed, etc. CAN'T be as LOONEY as Dake and his harebrained commentary!!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

How a man (Finis Dake) can study 100,000 hours and come with up with such an extraordinary amount of rubbish is beyond me. Plus, Dake has an army of followers who seem to consider his commentary as law and untouchable. Amazing.

[godchild]

balaam, I realized yesterday you are dishonest, by pretending with your first post not to know about the companion bible. What did you hope to accomplish by doing this?

[godchild]

And this comment by watchman is a little ridiculous: However, Bullinger did not catch on to it in his comments or appendices.

It is a well known fact that bullinger was a 'british israelist'. Are you so naive to think that he wasn't aware of what his words would convey?

[ezekiel_37]

SHE IS AFRAID

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hi Watchman, Ezekiel, and Balaam,

I haven't been around much lately. Spring cleaning and all...Yuck. LOL

I see much hasn't changed with a few posters. It's like a soap opera, you can be gone for awhile, but when you return...you pick up where you left off....lol

Balaam, the Companion bible is awesome.</font>

[ezekiel_37]

Stephano is at it again.....lol

Jack isn't really dead, and he's still in love with Jennifer

why do the kids look years older this month?

lol

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">LOL You are too funny Ezekiel....lol

Nope, kids don't look any older, probably won't for a long long time...lol</font>

[balaam]

Balaam, the Companion bible is awesome.

Amen to that, terluvire!! It's amazing how much info. there is in this Bible!

As far as all the "drama", I'm gonna try to sidestep that for now.

[arron]

the companion bible teaches the serpent seed false doctrine .. the man who wrote it is false and all who follow these teaching are false. they listen to no one and when you ask for scripture they will ask you for scripture and they will never answer your question just like one of their leaders murray and his son does. if they are pinned down they will ask anothe r stupid question and argue about it untill pinned down again.

[ezekiel_37]

not so, it is your little group of ditractors that does exaclty that arron, and you know it.
Go ahead, change the subject.

[arron]

you change the subject.. i still believe in SPEAKING IN THE TONGUES OF THE HOLY GHOST, which you say (blaspheminly ) are a bunch of devil things. halelujah praise THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS SON OF THE FATHER GIVER OF THE HOLY GHOST.
THESE THREE ARE ONE

[watchman_2]

You believe in the false 'rapture' theory as well. What's next with you arron -- the Easter Bunny.

[arron]

no do you believe in the easter bunny, in santa claus, in the turkey at thanksgiving, in the eating of green and blackeye peas on new year? praise GOD FOR THE RAPTURE.

[claire_messenger]

Not to change the subject but if Satan got there first and Satan sowed the seed first does that mean that Eve was in a covenant with Satan?

Ouch!

[claire_messenger]

I think she was just deceived myself.

[watchman_2]

claire_messenger,

Hope that you did not hurt yourself with your ouch.

Don't know what specifically you mean by the term 'covenant'.

Eve willingly gave it up to Satan because she was attracted to him.

[arron]

oh my oh my eve attracted to satan after GOD had given her a man...no no no/

[ezekiel_37]

yah, arron, that has never happened sinse either has it....lol...infidelity, adultry, messing around. you're too funny.

[claire_messenger]

Just having fun. Life is better when it is lighter; however, I can be very serious sometimes. Too serious at times really. Thank you for your concern though. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

I was hoping to get your attention. Covenant is not used but a picture of such or becoming in agreement or one is provided. Perhaps I am stretching it but generally this is the basis of our view of marriage covenant today.

From my understanding of your theory, Eve was cleaving to Satan a bit and became one with Satan? I mean you are indicating that Eve had sex with Satan, right? One flesh if you ask me.

I don't know that she was attracted as much as she was convinced or worn down by Satan. She saw the fruit appeared good. He reasoned with her and she did not listen to what God had put in her heart. Assuming that this had happened. My bible says that God told ADAM what he should not do. I'm assuming that he either passed this on to Eve or told Eve later and it is not recorded. Correct me if I am wrong.

But they both sinned. One willingly knowing he was doing wrong and one who was convinced that they were doing something ok even thought they had been told otherwise. Eve's perspective was changed.

I am just thinking all around the issue - looking at it from various points of views.

Well it is interesting that Adam just stood there and let her do it. I'm not saying that Eve did not sin but it is kinda obvious who was wearing the pants in the family. OK, that was a bad example but you get my drift.

[claire_messenger]

Aaron and Ezekiel,

Maybe it was cause the man was just standing around doing nothing?

Not that I have anything against men because I don't.

[ezekiel_37]

Hi there Clair_messenger, you wrote;

<font color="119911">Just having fun. Life is better when it is lighter; however, I can be very serious sometimes. Too serious at times really. Thank you for your concern though.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

I was hoping to get your attention.

</font>you did

<font color="119911">Covenant is not used but a picture of such or becoming in agreement or one is provided. Perhaps I am stretching it but generally this is the basis of our view of marriage covenant today. When a man sleeps with a woman (throws his skirt over her), then that is marriage in the Bible. Tradition set in and a wedding feast became part of the union. In the early stories of the bible, this is how a marriage was started. Consumation. God Himself throws His skirt over Jebis(sp)making it Jerusalem, His betrothed. Later God divorses Israel, and brings the marriage to the believers of Christ.

</font>ok

<font color="119911">From my understanding of your theory, Eve was cleaving to Satan a bit and became one with Satan? I mean you are indicating that Eve had sex with Satan, right? One flesh if you ask me.

</font>One flesh, not two because Satan was not flesh, but a fallen angel, who was physical like the other angels who walked the earth in our Biblical stories.. but I understand what you mean I think.

<font color="119911">I don't know that she was attracted as much as she was convinced or worn down by Satan. She saw the fruit appeared good.

</font>We see things a little different. We have absolutely no doubt that what you say happened, but also that this is a very real physical example for us to take from it both the spiritual and the physical teachings and understandings.

<font color="119911">He reasoned with her and she did not listen to what God had put in her heart. Assuming that this had happened. My bible says that God told ADAM what he should not do. I'm assuming that he either passed this on to Eve or told Eve later and it is not recorded. Correct me if I am wrong.

</font>you seem accurate to me

<font color="119911">But they both sinned. One willingly knowing he was doing wrong and one who was convinced that they were doing something ok even thought they had been told otherwise. Eve's perspective was changed.

</font>Agreed


cont

[ezekiel_37]

<font color="119911">I am just thinking all around the issue - looking at it from various points of views.

Well it is interesting that Adam just stood there and let her do it. I'm not saying that Eve did not sin but it is kinda obvious who was wearing the pants in the family. OK, that was a bad example but you get my drift.

</font>lol, yeah true, but they didn't have pants, they had aprons...lol...but later, men would not wear pants, but skirts until more recently.
Funny how subjects are linked.

<font color="119911">Aaron and Ezekiel,

Maybe it was cause the man was just standing around doing nothing?

Not that I have anything against men because I don't.

</font>I believe that they both did not know anything about sex yet, and being fully mature had feelings and desires. Thus when Satan temps Eve, Adam knows nothing of sexuality yet and does not see the implication until after. The deception is there for sure and there are many, many reasons why we believe that it was physical and not just spiritual.

Adam sins for he is given the command by God not to partake of that tree(which is Satan, right arron)and I think that it is important to realize that Eve adds something to God's command. We are not to do that. She adds the,'neither shall we touch it' part.

'touch' in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

<font color="0000ff">H5060
naga
naw-gah
A primitive root; properly to touch, that is, lay the hand upon (for any purpose; euphemistically, to lie with a woman); by implication to reach (figuratively to arrive, acquire); violently, to strike (punish, defeat, destroy, etc.): - beat, (X be able to) bring (down), cast, come (nigh), draw near (nigh), get up, happen, join, near, plague, reach (up), smite, strike, touch.

</font>As we explore this word, we can look up the next usage of the word 'touch' in the bible.

The same word is used in Hebrew and does not simply mean touch, but sexuality. This story can be found in Gen 20:6

Gen 20 3-6

<font color="ff0000">3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.

4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, LORD, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.


</font>The implication is wholly sexual, as was Eve's sin...she was wholly deceived. In all ways, including sex.

Peace in Christ
c}

[watchman_2]

claire_messenger,

It is difficult to speculate how much or little Adam and Eve knew at the time. It is true that our concept of marriage comes from those scriptures.

I do speculate that, since Eve was formed from Adam, that Adam may have considered the arrangement more in terms of a covenant than Eve. This is born out by I Tim. 2:14, which states that Adam was not deceived by Satan. So, I conclude that he only did it with Satan to please his woman. God confirms this with his admonishment of Adam in Gen. 3:17. Man, today, does some really dumb stuff to please their woman. Nothing has changed.

Gen. 2:24 states nothing of the woman cleaving to the man. In fact, God does not make the woman desire her husband until Gen. 3:16. So, perhaps Eve did not have the similar feeling of covenant as Adam did.

We do not know how much time transpired between Eve's formation and Satan's seduction. There appears to have been enough time for her to learn of the one commandment God gave Adam, and add to it a bit.

Some claim that Eve's addition [Gen. 3:3] to God's commandment was the original sin. I do not agree because God had not given any prior commandment regarding false witness.

I don't necessarily agree that Adam stood around and let or watched Eve initially have sex with Satan. My reading of Gen. 3:6 suggests otherwise. I believe she did it on her own with Satan. Then she and Adam did it with Satan. [... and {Eve} did eat, and gave ALSO unto her husband WITH her; and he did eat.]

[hillbilly]

Hello Zeke,

You said, "One flesh, not two because Satan was not flesh, but a fallen angel, who was physical like the other angels who walked the earth in our Biblical stories.. but I understand what you mean I think."

I think this is were the whole serpent seed thing falls apart in my mind. Satan was either flesh or he wasn't. Having flesh is being physical so I don't see how the above makes sense. (No offense meant - I just don't see it.) To me flesh begats flesh. How can you have a physical seed if you don't have a physical father unless you are God creating man?

If Satan or other fallen angels where just using physical bodies then were did these bodies come from? Where they apparitions? Or did they enter into other physical bodies or are you indicating that fallen angels have the ability to create a physical body?

[ezekiel_37]

Hello hillbilly,

When the great 'mystery' of 1Cor15 happens, this flesh existence ends all together as all are changed to their spiritual bodies. Good bad and the ugly. It is clear (at least for me) that during the millenium and the Eternity, people will be living on the earth in a physical way.

They (we) will not be flesh as flesh cannot inherit the kingdom, but they(we) will indeed be physical. It is apparent that we in paradise shall not just be wisps of air but rather physical, building homes, living on the land, tending vineyards, living.

In much the same way, the fallen angels, who are spiritual, but also physical, are the same as good angels in their appearance, and we learn about angels from Lots interaction with them. They were accosted sexually by the towns people, who must have 'seen' them as physical, and also they ate with Lot. They ate food.

Also, manna is what , angel food. So God gave the Israelites food to eat that angels eat themselves. This also proves that we are not that different.

So, they are not flesh, but physical spirits in bodies, the same body we have to look forward to at the 7th trump.

So, there are many reasons why I believe this way and these are but a few.

Hope that helps.


Peace in Christ
c

[hillbilly]

c,

I cannot see how one flesh can produce offspring from the seed of another flesh. Seems to me that it would NOT take root so to speak.

Thanks for trying but unfortunately that did not clear it up for me.

Hillbilly

[ezekiel_37]

Hi hillbilly,

they are not two flesh.

only one is flesh, the other is physical but not flesh. In a spiritual body but physical, as we are all promised to be.

But they can mate, and did, as I understand it.


Angels do not marry in heaven but they do mate with flesh women here on earth. Their prodginy are the giants mentioned in the Word of God and is the main reason why God Flooded the world in Noah's time. To destroy those giants.

Peace in Christ
c

[hillbilly]

OK don't get it but maybe it is because I am wearing my Aborigine suit today. You know, forest, trees.

[watchman_2]

hillbilly,

If I might interject a bit more succinctly than Ezekiel -- angels are all male in the sense that they have the same plumbing as flesh man. Angels can inpregnate woman as stated in Gen. 6 [sons of God being angels]. Though Satan is not flesh, he is capable of and did make Eve pregnant. If one believes that the reference to 'seed' in Gen. 3:15 refers to the offspring of Eve to Christ, then, likewise, the reference to 'seed' with respect to the serpent can only mean the offspring of Satan to be against the seed line of Eve to Christ. Satan, of course, is the serpent as identified in Rev. 12:9.

[hillbilly]

Satan or man - Either way sin is passed down through the line of any physical father.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Good day Hillbilly,

I'd like to jump in also, though Ezekiel and Watchman did a fine job.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Angelic bodies are not flesh but they still have substance, they are just made of different stuff than our flesh bodies.

We see in Scripture that angels are able to eat our food:</font>

Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Gen 18:4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
Gen 18:5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
Gen 18:6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.
Gen 18:7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

<font color="0000ff">We are also able to eat their food:</font>
Exo 16:14 And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground.
Exo 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.

Psa 78:24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.
Psa 78:25 Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.

Joh 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

<font color="0000ff">And as Ezekiel posted, the men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the angels.

They are very physical, they are just not made of flesh.

And like Watchman said, they do have the male plumbing.

God said "let us make man in our image, after our likeness:". "Image" in the Hebrew is:</font>
<font color="119911">tselem
tseh-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.</font>

<font color="0000ff">"Likeness" in the Hebrew is:</font>
<font color="119911">demuth
dem-ooth
From H1819; resemblance; concretely model, shape; adverbially like: - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.</font>

[ezekiel_37]

I got your point .

We teach the Word here, whether it is accepted or not. Do the sons pay for the sins of the father? Are you sure? The ones who don't love the Lord do!


Peace in Christ
c

[hillbilly]

Chris,

I was not trying to be rude but from where I'm sitting that's the way I see it. I have NOTHING against anyone here. Do sons pay for the sins of the father? No. But that doesn't mean that the sin nature isn't passed down through the father. At least that's what I have been taught. Do sons have to deal with the sin nature of their father? Yes, we all do. Only one had a physical father who was perfect.

I see this as a divisive area of doctrine anyway. I don't see any benefits that believing in a physical serpent seed brings to the body of Christ.

God Bless

[watchman_2]

hillbilly,

Sorry that you don't see the benefits of the Truth of God's Word. Perhaps, Rev. 2 and 3 will give you cause. Only 2 out of the 7 types of churches meet with Christ's favor. Those 2 churches have one thing in common -- they taught of the synagogue of Satan.

If you do not believe the SS Doctrine, then you do not know that the synagogue of Satan are the Kenites [offspring of Cain, who is sired by Satan]. Hence, you are in one of the 5 churches judged disfavorably by Christ.

The SS Doctrine also unlocks many scriptures. You will undertand the mystery described in Matt. 13 and the parable of the tares of the field. You will also be able to know who had Christ crucified.

I, for one, always enjoy the truth of God's word. God would not provide it unless there was a benefit for man to know it.

If you take the time to review these threads, you will see from the arguments presented that those who are against the SS Doctrine cannot square the scriptures. They get cornered logically with no hope of escape. Why? Because their theology is false.w

[franklin]

Nope, your heresy is false. You have proven nothing with scripture. There is no way you can prove your racist false doctrines with God's word. You might be a racist watchman, but God is not. You have not proven anything but that you are a nonbeliever, a blasphemer, a heretic, deceptive, evasive and duplicitous.

Are you Trent Woodard?

[watchman_2]

franklin,

If heresy is false, then what was presented must be true. [just having fun with your wording]

The SS Doctrine has been proven over and over again. There are numerous subthreads under SC that have proven it. Also, it has been proven under the Doctrines/Beliefs - Doctrines/Proofs - Serpent Seed thread.

If you say the Bible states that Eve ate an apple or some unknown fruit in Gen. 3:6; that it is a reasonable reaction for two people, unashamed of their nakedness, to sew aprons to cover their private parts instead of a mask to cover their mouths after eating an apple or some unknown fruit [Gen. 3:7]; that Gen. 3:15 is an orchard growing contest between a snake and Eve to grow really big fruit with huge seeds that can be used to bruise heads and heels; and that Cain is really Adam's offspring though Cain had offspring, but was not a Generation of Adam; then I am a nonbeliever, etc.

Thank God that the Bible is not about your beliefs!

However, it is always a pleasure to see your commentary.

[franklin]

The serpent seed heresy has never been proven nowhere, no how, no way. It can not be proven because it is false. It is blasphemy. All you are writing is conjecture and is no way, shape or form proof. Just you putting that hillbilly Arnold's mega spin on what is God's word. There is no one here on factnet except you and your wolfpack of am stooges that claim that your heresy has been proven. Thank God that the Bible is not about your racist poison!

[franklin]

Are you Trent Woodard?

[angie0401]

franklin,
Why don't you go answer my question in:
Religious Cults and Sects » Doctrine / Belief / Proofs / Religious Practices » DOCTRINE / PROOFS / SCRIPTURE DISCUSSION » TONGUES

I would love to hear what you have to say..

A

[smyrna]

Hey Franklin, why do you come to this thread and spew that drivel about no proof? You bolted out of Serpent Seed Flaws thread where you will find all kinds of things to study that would sway many to consider the Serpent Seed teaching.

I'd really be interested in learning more about what you believe, since you are so quick to dismiss everything.

Answer this:

Was satan really a snake?

What kind of fruit was that stuff Adam and Eve ate, and where can you document what fruit it was?

Did Noah bring Polar bears and penguins on the ark, and if not, why not?

Was there giants on earth in the ancient past,and where did they come from?

Was there one that had six fingers and toes?

Did Elijah fly to heaven in a burning chariot by a flying burning horses?

What is the mark of the beast this week? A tatoo, bar code, computer imbedded chip, or an evil space alien's secret device?

I can't wait to hear your answers.

[arron]

just go to compainioon bible/doctrine of heaven , hell, serpent seed, rapture. you will find lies there

[smyrna]

After carefully considering the options, I've decided that Franklin is not worth my time either. He's just one of these folks who come here not to discuss what the Chapel teaches, but to constantly criticize and accuse, to engage in name calling and contempt.
Just like Arron, he won't answer any questions, won't engage in the discussion, but only offers mocking and snide comments that really offer nothing.
But I know why they do such things. They don't have any real abilities that would enable them to function civilly in these discussions. So they must resort to attacking the messengers. For if they did have the abilities to participate rather than just protest, they'd use them.
The messengers these folks attack could be Chapel students, Pastor Murray himself, or the study tools used, like the Campanion Bible and Strong's Concordance.
Some even take it farther than that, and attack Dr. Strong himself, or E.W. Bullinger, who had a hand in the preparation of the Companion Bible.

But I say why stop there? Why don't you also attack the Ecumenical Council of Trent, or the KJV 1611 translators, or St. Jerome, or Alexander the Great? Because all of them had an influence in presenting the Bible that we have today.

All these clowns do is attack, attack, attack. They don't offer anything of substance, so I refuse to acknowledge any of their posts from now on.There are others who don't agree with what is taught at Shepherd's Chapel that at least conduct themselves in a civil manner, and offer their own well thought out and prepared comments which shows they are not the same kind of people that Franklin and Arron are.

[arron]

the one who posts has already stated that she/he/it will not refer to me by name is still doing it. she/he/it will however say they did not say that then when it is proved they did they will say they did not mean it that way.

[franklin]

Hey arron! I've got an easy question for you brother!

[arron]

what?

[ezekiel_37]

what does pre 7th trump rapture and false tongues getya

answer -

apostacy.

[arron]

hey franklin you said you had a easy question for me . i asked YOU what but havent gotten an answer. some one else asked a foolish and unlearned question though which i will avoid. i dont answer questions some ask.

[arron]

oh and befor something is said about they did not call my name when the question was asked... i assumed it was me they were asking, because it came after i asked you, franklin , what.

(Message edited by arron on June 17, 2006)

[godchild]

Kenites from the Holy Bible

Gen 15:19 say the Kenites were already in the land in the time of Abraham. We also know the Kenites were not Canaanites because this scripture lists Canaanites were in the land also. So Kenites cannot be Canaanites.

Ex 34:11 lists 6 enemies of the Lord - Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites. The Lord said He would drive them out. No mention of Kenites?

Num 10:29 Raguel is Moses father-in-law; Ex 3:1 shows Raguel- known as Jethro- a priest of Midian. Judges 1:16 says Moses father-in-law was a kenite.

Ex 15:12 Jethro took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came and also the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses father-in-law before God. Who initiated this? It was Jethro and then he invited Aaron and the elders.

Jer 35:6 Jonadab the son of Rechab will drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons forever. Who is Rechab? 2 Sam 4:2 Rechab is a son of Rimmon a Beer-o-thite of the children of Benjamin. 2 Sam 4:3 the Beerothites were sojourners until this day.

2 Sam 4:6 Rehab and Baanah smote Ishbisheth

Neh 3:14 the dung gate was repaired by Malchiah the son of Rechab

1 Sam 15:6 Saul said to the kenites, go depart get you down from among the Amalekites lest he would destroy them. Reason they were spared because they showed kindness to the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt. The kenites departed from among the Amalekites and were spared.

Wine in The Word. When was it used? In Num 6 a person could take a Nazarite vow, voluntarily or God directs it from birth. Examples:
a) Luke 1:15 for he shall be great in the sight of the Lord and shall neither drink wine or strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. This was John the Baptist.
b) Judges 13:4 now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink, and eat not any unclean thing ver 5 for thou shalt conceive and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. This was Samson.
c) Luke 22:18 for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. This was Jesus.

Remember when Jesus in John 20:17 said Touch me not; for I have not yet ascribed to my Father: and then in John 20:26 it says afterwards Thomas COULD touch Him. Could Jesus have taken a vow before His death and this is the reason? Why couldn't Mary Magdalene touch Him? In Num 6:6 it says one who takes a Nazarite vow cannot come at a dead body.
An example of the word dead is found in Math 8:22 when Jesus says to let the dead bury the dead. Dead is 4100 in Hebrew, which stands for -to die- either literally or figuratively.

Here are the facts- Midian and kenites are the same. They were sons of Benjamin Jer 35:6.They drink no wine. In Jer 35 it talks about them obeying the commandment of their father. What is one of the Commandments? Honor thy father and mother. This was an example of discipline. God said that the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before Him forever. The kenites were in the land before Abraham came in. What were they worshipping? In Ex 15:12 it was Jethro-a kenite- who started the sacrifices to the Lord and then invited Aaron.

[smyrna]

Another one of those "so what" posts by Godchild/Vivian Hetherton Hadden.

I wonder what Joe L. thinks of all the time she spends on the web,trying to sow her hatred?

[arron]

keep up the good work godchild they cant answer the questions you ask so they resort to other things such as changing the subject if some one who has no more knowledge than i do can silence them surly anyone with more ed. can

[arron]

godchile who is joe l. smyrna keeps talking about?

[smyrna]

Arron, I think Joe L suggested the Fund Drive. He's some guy that lives in her house. She says she doesn't know him. Must be a big place.

[arron]

godchild i was asking you who joe l was as synnra always talks about him. could it be smyrna his self??????

[smyrna]

Hey, Arron, if you really want to know, just take the name Vivian Hadden, put it the Google search engine, and you should come up with a list of people who live in Rogue River, Oregon. And on that list, you will see Vivian Hadden &amp; Joseph Steinwehr.

Of course, Godchild lies and says she never heard of him. She also said she was going to use her married name from now on, which I assumed would mean Vivian Steinwehr. But she hasn't.

Now she already let us know from posts on Factnet that she doesn't mind people knowing she lives in Rogue River.

I think what got her going last night was that she didn't have a clue her husband's name and her maiden or middle name can easily be found on the web.

She got so mad, she even claimed my wife and children had left me, and she doesn't even know my real name!

I've never really talked about my family, but for the record, I have a step daughter, two stepsons,(they don't live with us grown up and on their own) none of my own, by choice, I may add.

In fact, she apparently thinks my name really is Peter Cephas, since that's my alias on Yahoo. She's so Biblically illiterate, she doesn't know that Cephas was just the Aramaic rendition of Peter which comes from the Greek. Both mean rock.

But hey, that's not our fault!

[watchman_2]

godchild wrote,

<font color="ff0000">Here are the facts- Midian and kenites are the same. They were sons of Benjamin Jer 35:6.</font>

Where does this woman get her information??

<font color="0000ff">Jer 35:6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:
</font>
This scripture has nothing to do with the offspring of Benjamin.

Get a clue godchild -- the Rechabites were Kenites. Kenites are the offspring of Cain. Nothing to do with Benjamin.

Who are the Midianites?

<font color="0000ff">Gen 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

Gen 25:2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
</font>
Midian was the son of Abraham through his second wife, Keturah. Benjamin was the son of Jacob, Abraham's great grandson.

So, much for godchild's "facts". She is a buffoon for a student of the Bible.

[smyrna]

Watchman,

Just an aside, but I think Godchild wants us to refer to her as Godchild/Vivian Hadden at the very least.

She has a new teacher: "illogical_al" at CB.