And Adam called his wifebs name Eve because she was the mother of ALL living

[arron]

it is THE WORD OF GOD

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

I agree fully with what you said.

[bluewater2]

Since Eve is the mother of ALL living, does that mean animals as well?

[franklin]

No thilly wabbit! Speaking of Humans, all races, all ethnic groups, since the animals were already created and procreating on their own. Did your Mother give birth to any animals? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/crazy.gif

[yaakov2]

Watchman

Talk about pointless posts, one would think by insulting Franklin the way you just did, that you are trying to fan the flames.

On this issue, I happen to agree with Franklin. However, it has already been discussed on multiple other threads.

[arron]

zeke the bible saus othing in the verses you sau about any other race being created on that day no... all came from adam and eve

[bluewater2]

Franklin. I never accused your parents of abusing you as a child. You can get off of that one.

[watchman_2]

arron,

Of course, the Bible states other than what you contend. Read it again for clarity -- not for what some man taught you.

<font color="0000ff">Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
</font>
Clearly, the 'man' to be made is plural as clearly indentified be the word 'them'. Check the Hebrew out and you will discover that the word 'man', in the plural sense, is ALWAYS interpreted as 'mankind'.

No where is the name 'Adam' given in Gen. 1:26-27.

[ba2]

arron, but it doesn't say he created one man and one woman. You are adding that statement. But, yes, reasonable people will intrepret things differently. Did you read my entire post above? it isn't very long.

Do you not agree that a reasonable person might intrepret some scripture differently than you?

[franklin]

What we are discussing here is how Arnold Nurray interprets the Bible.

ba, do you think satan having sex with Eve and that the modern day Jews are the literal spawn of satan are reasonable interpretations of scripture?

[termin8d]

Truth is worth fighting for.

[ba2]

franklin
You asked me: <font color="0000ff">“do you think satan having sex with Eve and that the modern day Jews are the literal spawn of satan are reasonable interpretations of scripture?”</font> I think that is an absolute insane interpretation of scripture. And you very well know that I don’t believe that stuff. I certainly never said anything that would suggest it. However, that is the ploy of many cults, take the message and mix it in a way to give a false message. As I see it, many, maybe most Christian preachers, not just Arnold, do just that.

I am simply saying that it is very clear to me that Adam was not the first human created. Mankind was created millions, maybe billions of years before Adam. And my quoting of specific scripture supports my interpretation and belief. This helps me reconcile scripture with all the evidence around. Many, such as bear, will not really address my comments concerning the direct object (man) of the verb (created) with a lack of an adjective which would have made man a particular man. But no, it says God “created man” it doesn’t say “a man”.

I read scripture for the message contained and I don’t believe it was ever meant to be taken literally anyway. Story telling was the ancient method of preserving history and the stories were usually embellished upon to teach the basic concepts. I see the bible the same way. If Genesis is indeed God’s word, which I believe, and he meant these things literally, then he must be having a great laugh at all the contrary evidence he planted which makes us think otherwise. That God, what a jokester!

We must be able to adjust our beliefs as evidence develops, otherwise we are nothing more that robots without any ability to think.

[watchman_2]

ba2,

The problem that you will have with reconciling scripture is the factor of time. When you claim that the creation of man in Gen. 1:26-27 was millions of years ago, you will always run into scriptural conflict regarding the 'day'.

In addition, to time contradictions, you will also run afoul of scripture in explaining 2 Pet. 3. The way to resolve scripture and science is to understand scripture properly.

The first earth age accounts for all the artifacts and scientific discoveries that occurred before the creation of man in Gen. 1:26-27. If you look at all of the scientific claims of man's predecessors, you will see that the skull structure is dissimilar to that of modern man.

[watchman_2]

<font color="0000ff">Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she <u>was</u> the mother of all living.
.
.
.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew <u>Eve</u> his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. </font>

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.

In addition, it is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

One should also note that the scriptures do not say that Adam AGAIN knew his wife and she conceived and bare Abel [Gen. 4:2] as was done for Seth [Gen. 4:25].

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan?

[ba2]

watchman,
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to read scripture literally will always back themselves into a corner. You are stuck on an interpretation which is not significant. The age of the earth or the age of mankind is totally irrelevant to the study of scripture. If God thought these were so important, there would have been much more than a simple line or two. And clearly, the meaning of the word "day" can be many things, including an unspecified period of time. No sense spending time on this.

The bible is not a history book and it is not a science book. I do not run into scriptural conflict and I have no need to reconcile every little dot and line. I only need to reconcile the concepts, which I don't have any problem doing.

[bluewater2]

Well said, BA2.

[arron]

blue where you been i am still praying that you will get JESUS in your heart and come to know HIM
still praying for you and love you in THE LORD

[ezekiel_37]

franklin wrote;

<font color="ff0000">What we are discussing here is how Arnold Nurray interprets the Bible. </font>

Actually that is not what is being discussed here. There are dozens of threads that are about that subject...even if you misspelleld his name.

<font color="ff0000">ba, do you think satan having sex with Eve and that the modern day Jews are the literal spawn of satan are reasonable interpretations of scripture?</font>

Now, ba2 responded by saying that he did not believe 'that' is a reasonable interpretation of scripture. Well you will be glad to learn (again) that I agree with ba2.
I don't believe 'that' for a second. Either does the pastor that you are accusing.

Keep the facts strait.

Jews are of our brother Judah, Kenites are from Cain, not from Judah.

Why can't you see this franklin? (you don't have to answer)
Jews are not Kenites. Kenites are not Jews, and we have never said that they are.


in His service
c

[watchman_2]

ba2,

You wrote [Post No. 20 above]:
*****
I think that [<font color="0000ff">Serpent Seed Doctrine</font>] is an absolute insane interpretation of scripture.
*****

You wrote [Post No. 22 above]:
*****
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to read scripture literally will always back themselves into a corner.
*****

You wrote [Post No. 18 above]:
*****
Do you [arron] not agree that a reasonable person might intrepret some scripture differently than you?
*****

Based upon my Post No. 45 above and your own standards, don't you agree that a reasonable person might conclude that Cain was not sired by Adam?

[ba2]

watchman
Sure, but to my way of thinking it is quite a stretch. You have to begin by believing that some non-humans came down to earth and had sex with human women. This is too far fetched and really just fits into many other pagan beliefs, such as the early greeks described by Homer.

I agree that some women are well known for their sexual appeal, but this is a bit much for me to comprehend. I would think it is more likely that a non-human would find humans rather non appealing.

[bluewater2]

I guess the choice is whether or not to take the bible literally or not. If you do, it is possible to believe anything. To each his own. Whether one takes the bible literally or not, if they are good people, give and recieve love, improve the community, the fruit is what matters.

[franklin]

ba: "I am simply saying that it is very clear to me that Adam was not the first human created. Mankind was created millions, maybe billions of years before Adam.".

But that is not what the Bible says. I believe that Adam and Eve were the first and only humans created by God. That I believe literally. Just like I believe literally that Jesus is the one and only "Son of God" and that all who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

When you dismiss parts and add your own speculation the whole book becomes worthless. Can't pick and choose what YOU want to believe just to stay on top of the current trends of acceptable secular thinking.

Either it is the inspired word of God or it is nothing but just another book. The Bible has always been sacred to me and the words were written by men who were inspired by God.

What do you have to counter the inerrancy of the Bible?

The sophisticated wild arse guessing speculation of man?

Your crusade against the legalists is clouding your perception of God's truth.

Relax! It's ok to agree with them on some interpretations. In many ways they do interpret scripture correctly. But I agree in not all cases.

Whenever bluewater agrees with your interpretation of scripture you know you are offtrack. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

Another subject: Moses wrote Genesis many, many years after the Creation.

Adam "called" (paste tense) his wife Eve because she "was" (past tense) the mother of all living. Both verbs are past tense. Proper story telling grammar, that's all. No way to pervert that meaning. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif Unless you're brainwashed.

[angie0401]

franklin said:
Just like I believe literally that Jesus is the one and only "Son of God" and that all who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Really? Then you're now agreeing that all of us "heretic" SCers and "heretic" WOFers ARE Christians who shall not perish but have everlasting life.

I think you're making progress, franklin! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[franklin]

No, I know you are NOT Christians. As to whether God will accept you into HIS kingdon (will Christ KNOW you?) is between you and God. But I tell you this, until you learn to love all humanity as your equals, no special "chosen" "elect" Germanic/Gaelic/British/Aryan/Adamic master race with their "inner realm" in heaven then it is really hard for me to see how you love God or how Christ could know you.

You are NOT the chosen or the elect. You will NOT have any special place in heaven. There will not be any white, black or yellow skinned souls in heaven. Get that through your head and into your heart!

[franklin]

I just said that. Now go to your Baptist Preacher and tell them EXACTLY what you believe. About the multiple Adams and Eves. About satan having sex with Adam and Eve. The whole schlemeiel! There is your answer!

I spoke to many Christians this week about what you believe. White, black, oriental. And their immediate reaction was "Blasphemy!"

It is not just me who is telling you. It is 2.1 BILLION Christians in the world telling you. And all of the billions of Christians before them telling you the same thing!

Blasphemy!

Now what are you going to do? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif Pull a 9mm out at me?

Continue to cyberstalk me and the one I love?

"Cyberstalking, which is simply an extension of the physical form of stalking, is where the electronic mediums such as the Internet are used to pursue, harass or contact another in an unsolicited fashion. Most often, given the vast distances that the Internet spans, this behaviour will never manifest itself in the physical sense but this does not mean that the pursuit is any less distressing. There are a wide variety of means by which individuals may seek out and harass individuals even though they may not share the same geographic borders, and this may present a range of physical, emotional, and psychological consequences to the victim."

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminology/cyberstalking/

[franklin]

Twisting and perverting my words again. All you know what to do to defend your heresy. You lose scripturally every time. So you turn to vicious personal attacks. Intimidating and harrassing people by infering their real names, where they live, who they work for IS cyberstalking by definition. You know you are guilty of it yet you want to defend that too?

They are only two interpretations of Genesis 3:15. the literal believed by Jews and many Christians. And the figurative. Both are correct. The Serpent does now slither across the ground on it's belly does it not?

Now you are twisting the meaning of cyberstalking to include what I do? I do not collect personal information about SCers nor do I display anything personal about you here on a public forum. But you and your fellow henchmen do. That IS cyberstalking. And that is criminal.

But it is to no avail. We have continuously exposed arnie and his cult here and the world is better informed about what Shepherd's Chapel is. A racist antisemitic cult.

"my pastor and I talk at great lengths."

In other words you have not told him your blasphemous belief of the serpent having sex with Eve.

[saygoodnightgracie]

Hello Glenn:

You've called me many different names of many different people... which led me to review many of the "GetAGrip" exchanges.

You know, in fairness to people like Smyrna, Angie, in the past "the atheists", Dodge, GetAGrip, word faith types and everyone else you get into STRIFE with on Factnet... people ask you and your friends simple questions and instead just answering them - you lie, evade, point fingers, call people "cyberstalkers", etc.

Nobody is cyberstalking you or Jimito. I think people just would like to know why, when your "group" is asked, "is Rachel the poster called "Jimito"?" - why you don't just tell the truth? Instead, you fly into a rage, go through all sorts of gyrations, accusations, etc.

I saw where GetAGrip stated on his OWN that he was in fact, Franvagosity... he didn't LIE and try to hide it. He said who he was and in fact, I can't find the post (I think some were locked?) but I think he made it clear that he wasn't trying to hide from anyone and that it was pretty clear who "Fran" was.

Now here is a post from "Jimito", where if you run the IP through an IP identifier it clearly shows that "Jimito" is posting from Fran Vagotis' office. Now an honest person would do like GetAGrip and simply say, "you got me!"... but what you and your friends will do is begin to spin (LIE) and say things like, "oh well, she has wireless and he was out in the parking lot", or "I used his username becasue blah, blah, blah" or "my boss was gone, so he was working with me that day and that little stinker got a hold of the computer"...

Glenn, just because you like someone doesnt' make lying okay. You run around here pointing fingers at everyone and you own group of friends can't tell the simple truth about something as little as a fake identity on Factnet. And you lie to cover it up, because you want a little of what she was promising IHS, right? Then when people uncover the lies, everyone else is a "liar", everyone is a "cyberstalking", "I'm going to kill myself"...

It's not right Glenn, it's dishonest, it's unChristian, and even tho you'd never admit it - I know YOU KNOW BETTER, whether or the woman you love is involved or not.

Glenn you are either lying or being lied to... you either know and lie to cover up; or you are naive. Which one is it?

Bet you can't answer without red faces, accusations of cyberstalking, etc.

This is why no one here takes you serious, Christian and non-Christian alike.

http://www.freeprivacy.info/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/000000A/http/www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi=3ftpc=3d3&amp;post=3d209408#POST209408

[franklin]

First of all sgng/smyrna/gag cyberstaling creep, you do not know anything about me much less my name. What is the point of you inferring slyly what my first name could be?????????

Intimidation, harrasment. Your defense of your actions as gag is indefensible. You are trying to get viciously personal because you can not defend your heresy scripturally. I stay on scripture and you get mean and nasty and personal in response.

And you are being a Christian by trying to reveal personal information about other factnet posters here? By defending the indefensible? By trying to conceal YOUR identity by using at least a dozen differnet ip addresses. Many are businesses that are not aware that you are hacking into their systems and stealing their ip addresses to play your cyberstalking games here. You are a stalker and should be banned from factnet. So shut up!

[ba2]

watchman
There may be a few things we agree on, but scripturally, we are miles apart. I am happy to see that you can accept that someone has a different view. I don’t have any problem with you or anyone else’s views, no matter how bizarre they seem to me, as long as I don’t see people being hurt or they don’t try to force it on society. But the literal view of scripture is nonsensical. Maybe, just maybe the original texts were the inspired inerrant word of God, but those are long gone. It has been men making copies upon copies and translations over translations. Most likely, it has made a dramatic transformation over the thousands of years. Homer’s Odyssey is probably more closely related to its original form, but even though some of his writings are historical, I don’t take anything there literal either.

[ba2]

franklin
you said, <font color="0000ff">“When you dismiss parts and add your own speculation the whole book becomes worthless. Can't pick and choose what YOU want to believe just to stay on top of the current trends of acceptable secular thinking.”</font> But this is exactly what everyone does. If they read literally, they go to great lengths to make their own twisted ideology work. They claim there are no contradictions and use some silly argument to prove their point. I simply look at the scripture globally and get what I think are the key points.

Do you think building on scientific knowledge is just a way of keeping up with a current trend of acceptable secular thinking? The age of the earth or mankind has nothing to do with my salvation, so I will look to science to answer questions regarding the age of the earth or mankind.

Bluewater said it exactly right; the choice is whether or not to take the bible literally. If you do, it is possible to believe anything.

[rachelengland]

" I don’t have any problem with you or anyone else’s views, no matter how bizarre they seem to me, as long as I don’t see people being hurt or they don’t try to force it on society." BA2

Ba, I agree completely with that statement-people can believe as they wish as long as others aren't harmed by it's ideas...We could take a Bible and place it in the hands of 10 different factnet posters and each will come up with their own view-it is human nature..search and discovery...R

[saygoodnightgracie]

Lil' G

"...you are either lying or being lied to... you either know and lie to cover up; or you are naive. Which one is it?

Bet you can't answer without red faces, accusations of cyberstalking, etc."

Like I said "G" - you can't help it bro, I feel bad for you.

You are wired for STRIFE...

[bluewater2]

". . . . they don’t try to force it on society." Is Chrisitianity and Islam ok with that one? I sure am.

[ba2]

blue, most mainline Christians are just fine with it. They would suggest that "the word" is available to anyone who is interested, at least here in the states. Of course, many of the fundamentalists I talk with don't consider many of the mainline Christians as such. I don't know enough about Islam to make an educated comment.

[bluewater2]

I am not an atheist for gods sake, but for the sake of all mankind. I certainly do agree with you that "The Torah is as close to the source as one can get" which begs the question, why do you not agree with the Jew's that Jesus is not the Messiah?

[franklin]

Oh, so today you're not an atheist. Hmmm?! Going for one of those trendy warm and fuzzy pc titles like "secular humanist" this week? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

I do agree with the Jews that Jesus IS the Messiah. All 12 of them. Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, Matthew, James, Jude, Simon, Judas. And the thousands of Jews who followed them. I follow the Jews who I consider to be right. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He showed us all of the signs, fulfilled all of the prophesies and now dwells within my heart. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[rachelengland]

Remember that old Micheal W Smith tune


Nobody knew his secret ambition,
Nobody knew His claim to fame
He broke the old rules deep in tradition
He tore the Holy veils away
Questioning those in powerful positions
Running to those who called His name

But nobody knew His secret ambition was to give His life away..

[rachelengland]

Did He say why me? I thought He said.
"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Are you Jewish Bluewater?

[franklin]

And do you agree with the Jews that there is a GOD?

I'm just a defender of my faith. And you are an offender of my faith. My master told me to spread his gospel and I try to do that. Christ didn't tell me to stop spreading his words of good news for all humanity whenever I meet someone called bluewater on factnet. I see no fruit in your being an atheist. You only do it for your OWN sake. No one else's. You have a problem with rules I see. Now let's return to the topic which is NOT "why everyone should be an atheist just like bluewater."

[arron]

blue i am still praying for you

[ba2]

franklin,
The Jewish bible is as close to original as can get, probably true, but still not original. Regardless of what you have been told/taught, the original could not have been written in Hebrew. So even the Jewish bible is a translation of a very early form of writing. Look up the history of writing and figure out for yourself what it was probably translated from, probably a form of Egyptian picture writing. Even with that, I don’t believe the stories were meant to be taken literally, ever. They were stories told to teach a concept. God created life in a way and timeframe which early man could not comprehend, heck, we probably still couldn’t understand it. So why do you think he would try to explain it as it actually happened? It also makes perfect sense to me that there have been many embellishments and some outright lies. For example, some of the scripture is historic but as told by a man, Moses, so he may not have been totally truthful, but it was told in a manner which would be understood at the time.

Do you really believe all those stories literally? The six literal days, first man only 6,000 years ago, the great flood, the parting of the sea.? Current science pretty much refutes these ideas, but not the concepts. These are all stories explaining a history and events but not to be taken as literally accurate. Then you take a statement as literally true calling Eve the mother of all life??? I know it doesn’t really literally mean that! I might suggest that life is a metaphor for something else, maybe spiritual life.

You have an interesting list of Apostles. Which scripture did you get the names from, Matthew 10:2-4 Mark 3:16-19 Luke 6:14-16 or Acts 1:13 ? and which ones of the 12 are Thaddeus or Bartholomew?

Bluewater is not ALWAYS wrong. Neither are the other posters which I sometimes challenge.

[dream_truth]

watchman and other theology buffs....

why so much worry about what happened back then? Is it to insure you are right about where you go when you die? Is the past and the future so important that it is the only focus of the present?

And old saying I think applies here:

If you have one hand grasping the past
And the other hand grasping the future
You have nothing to embrace the present.

The true miracle of life is the beautiful world we have to live in today. Enjoy it. Take care of it so your babies can enjoy it too.

[watchman_2]

dream_truth,

Quote:
*****
why so much worry about what happened back then? Is it to insure you are right about where you go when you die? Is the past and the future so important that it is the only focus of the present?
*****

Using your logic, the Bible could be condensed down to John 3:16 -- everything else is superfluous.

According to some of these fundamentalist fools, this scripture reads -

<font color="0000ff">Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in <font color="000000">

1. God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days;

2. Adam and Eve were created by God on the 6th Day and all people come from these two;

3. Eve was not already pregnant when Adam first had sex with her;

4. The Jews are to be persecuted for having Christ crucified;

5. Jesus was a genetic defect;

6. One, in order to be saved, has to be baptized and baptized properly;

7. One, in order to be saved, must speak in gibberish 'tongues' to show everyone the presence of the Holy Spirit;

8. One, in order to be saved, must proclaim that they are 'born again'

9. The church will be 'raptured' away before the tribulation;;

etc</font>

should not perish, but have everlasting life.
</font>


I think that you get the point. Fundamentalist fools, like Franklin, run around this forum declaring those that don't agree with what he learned as a youth in Methodist church Sunday school as non-Christians thereby inferring that he is an authority on the Bible. He does this while demonstrating complete ignorance of scripture and every characteristic of non-christians.

So, you are asking the wrong person -- you need to ask the fundamentalists' fools that keep raising the issue and starting these threads. I just defend and proclaim the Truth.

BTW, there is much importance in understanding the truth regarding this topic. It lets us know that the spawn of Satan still exists with us today -- working behind the scenes to further Satan's plan.

[franklin]

Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:29:39 -0700 (PDT)

To: mrfactnet@gmail.com
CC: khut_en_aten@hotmail.com


ban this cyberstalker!


saygoodnightgracie
New member
Username: saygoodnightgracie

Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 72.232.189.218
Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 10:44 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lil' G

"...you are either lying or being lied to... you either know and lie to cover up; or you are naive. Which one is it?

Bet you can't answer without red faces, accusations of cyberstalking, etc."

Like I said "G" - you can't help it bro, I feel bad for you.

You are wired for STRIFE...

[ba2]

franklin:
you asked, <font color="0000ff">“do you interpret John 3:16 literally?” </font>Probably not the same way you do. Giving away something that you are going to get back is not like what it sounds.

Some things might seem clear as a bell, but as we learn from science, our clarity might change. The world is no longer flat and the stars are no longer hovering just above the earth. AND the first humans were not created 6,000 years ago. Adam and Eve, sure why not, but not mankind.

[franklin]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

It was the "scientists" at that time that said the world was flat and the stars hovered above the earth. Scientists a thousand years from now will look on the scientists today like they are looking at neanderthals. Science has already recognize the existence of other dimensions of reality. What the atheists reject as supernatural.

I never attended a church like you have. I am no way shape or form a fundamentalit. But if I read the Bible and it says that Christ is the Son of God then I believe that Christ is the Son of God. I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit within me 24/7, 365 days a year. Your faith seems to be no different than the "fundies" you have this vendetta against. You put your faith in "MAN" and not God.

Here's a question you did not answer:

Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God who came to and did die for for our sins?

Don't worry about what the atheists might think of you in how you answer that question.

"Giving away something that you are going to get back is not like what it sounds."

Could you explain what you mean by this? Thanks. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[franklin]

Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 15:38:26 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: ban say goodnight gracie
To: mrfactnet@gmail.com
CC: khut_en_aten@hotmail.com


ban this cyberstalker!



saygoodnightgracie
New member
Username: saygoodnightgracie

Post Number: 21
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 38.113.244.185
Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 6:25 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your silence on this question is DEAFENING...

Thank you for answering.

Have a great weekend liar!

[ezekiel_37]

blue, you responded to Rachel..

"But nobody knew His secret ambition was to give His life away.." Is that why on the cross he supposedly said, "Why me?"

to which she responded,

Did He say why me? I thought He said.
"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


to which you responded,

Nope. Do I need to be to read the Torah? Also, I was paraphrasing. What is the difference between saying "Why me?" while nailed to a stick and saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


It is important for a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ is God. It is important for Christians to understand that Christ was not weak nor had a weak moment. Crying why? why? suggests to some that Jesus was asking God a question...and that God forsook Him. Nothing is further from the truth.

Jesus always addresses God as Father, never God.

Jesus is actually teaching from the cross. He is pointing us to Psalm 22, in which is a proof for Him being the Messiah.

The Psalm 22 starts...

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"



in His service
c

[bluewater2]

Jesus was merely regurgatating scripture from the Jewish Bible. Many people did that at the time. There are many things in the xtian version of the Jewish Bible, which xtians call the old testament, that are twisted to fit their agenda. Again, my belief is that Jesus was merely reciting Jewish scripture and sincerely asking, "Why are you making me die on this cross?" There were thousands of other god believers who asked the same question as they were being nailed to the cross.

[franklin]

Thank you for regurgitating the old, tired, worn out, cliched atheist Christian bashing to this thread despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the topic "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of ALL living." But never mind, it's not the first time you've hijacked a thread and http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif I'm sure it won't be the last.

[bluewater2]

Oh come on, Franklin. Conversations always tend to evolve here on FN. That is the nature of it. Don't be so surprised. I am just responding to and being responded to. If the conversation is too lively for you here, I understand.

[arron]

blue still praying for you

[bluewater2]

Well, I went back to the start of the thread to find the first one who took it off track and low and behold, there is Franklin asking me if my mother ever gave birth to any animals. You are quite a guy, Franklin. I only lower myself to play marbles with you here on FN because you are so easy to beat.

So, back on topic, I guess since you "set up" this topic, sir.

Did adam name eve before or after she gave birth to all living things?

[arron]

blue i am still praying for you to get saved

[franklin]

I asked you because you asked the question

"Since Eve is the mother of ALL living, does that mean animals as well?"

We know the answer, you're mother gave birth to a human.

I was not taking the discussion off topic. You were.

You have never beaten me at anything. Lies do not defeat truth!

It was before she gave her first birth to Cain who Adam was the father of.

[arron]

adam was the fahter of cain yes

[arron]

adam was the fahter of cain yes

[bluewater2]

Then why doesn't the bible say that adam named her eve because she "was going to be the mother of all living", or "was going to be the mother of all human life forms.?" Why isn't god's inerrant book written more clearly and if he made man in his own image, why can't man do a better job of putting down god's word?

[arron]

still praying for you blue

[bluewater2]

Oh, arron. You are so cute. I like that you are taking the time thinking about me, but you really should direct your energies to other needs. You see, I reject the idea the Jesus was the only on of god and he died for my sins. I also reject the doctrine of sin in the first place, and most of all, I reject the idea that christianity is a better system of beliefs than agnosticism/atheism, and as religions go, it is only slightly better than islam. Not much, though. I only need to sit here, kick back and watch christians beat up on christians all day to see that. But, again, thanks arron, you sweet, sweet man.

[arron]

rachel mine would not work either. i am born of THE BLOODLINE OF CHRIST through faith that is the way adopted into THE FAMILY OF GOD i am so glad to be saved. the scers say that there are those who are kenite but i am not for i am saved i came from adam and eve not from cain`

[watchman_2]

<font color="0000ff">Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she <u>was</u> the mother of all living.
.
.
.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew <u>Eve</u> his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. </font>

So, anyone with the most basic of reading comprehension skills can see that the woman received her name of EVE because she was already pregnant.

In addition, it is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

One should also note that the scriptures do not say that Adam AGAIN knew his wife and she conceived and bare Abel [Gen. 4:2] as was done for Seth [Gen. 4:25].

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan?

[bluewater2]

Makes sense to me, watchman. Glad I don't think the bible is gods word or I would be very confused.

[arron]

blue still praying for you

[franklin]

Despite all of the power and glory your cult wants to give the father of lies, just like the satanists do, satan can not procreate. satan is an evil spirit. Not of flesh. A serpent can not procreate with a human woman. So your whole "hate the Jews" heresy is false. Just an evil perversion of God's word by those who listen to satan. satan wants you to hate Jews, blacks and orientals. satan wants you to feel superior and special because of your lilly whiteness. satan wants you to be racist, antisemitic. satan wants another Jewish holocaust. And you are helping satan to set it up. You fall for satan's lies by listening to that racist heretic arnie. You expect us to believe that you guys are not a heretical cult when you believe the same heresies as the satanists, moonies, kkk, neonazis, aryan nation and all of those other racist wacko non Christian groups out there. Not a chance.

[ba2]

franlin,
I thought I clearly answered your question. John 3:16, yes I believe, but like I said, probably not like you or most Christians would see it. I will paraphrase, “God so loved the world, and saw the things going on as being so important, that he sent the highest emissary he had on a mission to earth, he did not send an angel, he sent is son, this emphasized how important God felt the mission was. God could have simply sent a huge meteor crashing into the earth and ended life on earth but, no, he loved the world and everything in it. When the mission was complete, his son returned to a high place of honor in heaven. So, God didn’t give his son in the same manner that a human might do that today. Or the way that Abraham was going to sacrifice his son. God simply sent his son on a misson.

Of course, the gospels explain the mission, Jesus told the disciples to go out and teach what he taught them, basically the Sermon on the Mount, the law of love and the rule of refraining from judgment. Unfortunately, it seems most Christians don’t get that message at all. And I have not seen a literalist yet who promotes love.

[bluewater2]

Watchy, that is probably because I have no vested interest in any interpretation that the bible may conjure. It is not my book. If there were a god, (which I doubt, but that is just me talking), god could care less about the bible and what it means. He, she, it would be more interested in the kind of life you live, not what doctrine that you hold dear.

[saygoodnightgracie]

w2, bw2 and cm,

great posts, enjoyed reading them.

[cybermom]

sgng

Thanks - should I have written that in sarcastic italics? Did they prove my point or what??

BTW, love the name.

CM

[franklin]

Now to get back to the thread topic I started before the heretics, stalkers, the luke warm and atheists threadjacked it.

Christians have always believed that Adam and Eve were the only humans created by God on the 6th day. All other humans descended from Adam and Eve. The 3 sub races we have today developed after God separated humanity from the tower of Babel. Genesis is our proof of that. Only racists have tried to twist and pervert it otherwise. I do not see any proof in or outside of the Bible to conflict what has always been the believed doctrine of Christianity. Eve is the literal mother of all living.

[saygoodnightgracie]

Relax "G",
Just having some civil conversation for a second, you'll quickly put an end to thathttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[cybermom]

Nope, no free speech here. And again they prove my point.

See you later, gracie. I'll say good night now.

CM

[saygoodnightgracie]

Hey...
You just inspired a new group CM, "lukewarm"... now we'll have to see THAT over and over.

Have you seen these, they are hysterical. And so true!!http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

Glenn and company Factnet Definitions:
"Heretic: Anyone who disagrees with your detractor.

Racist: Anyone your detractor refers to as a racist is a racist.

Liar: Anyone who offers evidence that your detractor is clearly guilty of some offense.

False Prophet: Any Bible teacher that your detractor does not study under.

Heresy: Any teaching that your detractor claims is a false teaching.

Truth: Any claim your detractor makes that he or she says is true." Courtesy of Smyrna on another thread...

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gifhttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[franklin]

He who laughs last laughs best.

This is just a replay of the getagrip/franvagosity/smyrna/bruno/now saygoodnightgracie episode. And the result will be the same.

[saygoodnightgracie]

Glenn

Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/Factnet Casanova
I will always get "laugh last" girlfriend!!
Why? Because I wear underwear the right size and I'm a happy, happy guy.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

You wear underwear a size or two, too small. That's makes you all unhappy and go like thishttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/angry.gif.

Me?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/talker.gif
You?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/angry.gif

Get it?

PS Only a desperate, lonely guy with no one but username friends in his life would worry about being banned... that would be the end of your world. Not mine G. Besides what have I done to you besides disagree with you and prove that you and your friend have zero integrity and are liars? I don't think Factnet will ban someone for disagreeing with you two silly, childish, pointless, lying goofs...

[franklin]

No, what you are doing smyrna/saygoodnightgracie/getagrip/franvagosity/bruno is extortion and stalking. Violating factnet forum rules, collecting information on me to use against me if I do not not stop speaking against the heresy of Arnold Murray! That is the definition of cyberstalking and extortion. Just like you did as getagrip before you got banned under that user name. That is cultic Scientology/Shepherd Chapel tactics and has no place on any public forum especially factnet. You have no respect for the factnet administration or it's members evidenced by your doing it again. You can not defend your heresy with scripture, reason or logic so you always resort to low blows. If you were a happy person you would never be doing what you are doing. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[saygoodnightgracie]

So do you feel that anyone who attempts to collect personal info on a Factnet user should be banned? Just curious.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[saygoodnightgracie]

"Violating factnet forum rules, collecting information on me to use against me"...

This is the standard which has been set up. Doing this ("collecting information on 'someone to use against 'them") should fall under the category (as defined by Glenn) as "cyberstalking and extortion." These are cults tactics (as defined by Glenn) and "have NO place on any public forum, ESPECIALLY Factnet." Any person who engages in this activity this leave Factnet.

Can we all agree on the above rules and guidelines as set forth by Franklin? Please respond here.

Thank you!

[angie0401]

saygoodnightgracie
Member
Username: saygoodnightgracie

Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 71.56.9.143
Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 3:54 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Violating factnet forum rules, collecting information on me to use against me"...

This is the standard which has been set up. Doing this ("collecting information on 'someone to use against 'them") should fall under the category (as defined by Glenn) as "cyberstalking and extortion." These are cults tactics (as defined by Glenn) and "have NO place on any public forum, ESPECIALLY Factnet." Any person who engages in this activity this leave Factnet.

Can we all agree on the above rules and guidelines as set forth by Franklin? Please respond here.

Thank you!

Absolutely! I think those rules and guidelines are acceptable to me.

Does this include using one's position as a moderator of a forum to collect user's ip addresses in an attempt to track them and try to use against them at other forums? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif

And does it include searching the internet, looking for information on Factnet poster's and then posting it here in an attempt to intimidate them? What about going so far as to post the names of user's children?

[saygoodnightgracie]

"Violating factnet forum rules, collecting information on me to use against me"...

This is the standard which has been set up. Doing this ("collecting information on 'someone to use against 'them") should fall under the category (as defined by Glenn) as "cyberstalking and extortion." These are cults tactics (as defined by Glenn) and "have NO place on any public forum, ESPECIALLY Factnet." Any person who engages in this activity should leave Factnet.

Can we all agree on the above rules and guidelines as set forth by Franklin? Please respond here. Thus far, a couple of us are in agreement.

Thank you!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">SGNG said:
saygoodnightgracie
Member
Username: saygoodnightgracie

Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 71.56.9.143
Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 3:54 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Violating factnet forum rules, collecting information on me to use against me"...

This is the standard which has been set up. Doing this ("collecting information on 'someone to use against 'them") should fall under the category (as defined by Glenn) as "cyberstalking and extortion." These are cults tactics (as defined by Glenn) and "have NO place on any public forum, ESPECIALLY Factnet." Any person who engages in this activity this leave Factnet.

Can we all agree on the above rules and guidelines as set forth by Franklin? Please respond here.

Thank you!

Angie said:
Absolutely! I think those rules and guidelines are acceptable to me.

Does this include using one's position as a moderator of a forum to collect user's ip addresses in an attempt to track them and try to use against them at other forums?

And does it include searching the internet, looking for information on Factnet poster's and then posting it here in an attempt to intimidate them? What about going so far as to post the names of user's children?

I agree with Angie and SGNG. If one believes they are right, they should be able to stand on their own understanding, of their beliefs, without having to resort to such tactics.</font>

[watchman_2]

mhead66,

I believe most of the issues associated with your inquiry have been already addressed under the sister threads -

Who is Cain's Father

What day of creation was Adam created

Once you get a chance to review the documentation supporting my position in these other threads, I will be happy to answer your questions or address your new points.

Have a nice day.

[sharon]

mhead 66... I also feel as you do. That what God said is what happened. For one if one took that to be that there were other races born of a different Father why did God keep that a secret? And what would be the point? An evil race? Where have I heard that before....where will it all end.. oh yes I remember now in the death and suffering of millions of children.

Some do not understand when you point a finger at another as an evil race, then one is part of evil. And then they are the children of satan. But just because that person is evil does it make his whole race evil? Many cried out and said oh we do not think the Jews are evil, but when it came time to save them they turned their heads in fear and walked away. That is because those who called them an evil race had not been stopped at the starting gate, and allowed it to go on, because they did not understand the evil that was to follow.. they did not know the seeds they were planting would grow so quickly, and spread so fast. And by the time they knew the truth it was to late and the only thing they could do was watch from the sidelines as children were destroyed.
There has never been a time when one calls another part of an evil race.. all genocide starts with that kind of talk.. US and Them... all ends in death.
Jesus will not know anyone who says these children were born evil or those children were born evil. The children of satan are not those born of him but those who do his work, and sets a path for evil to follow.
This is the talk that satan loves, it is the opposite of what Jesus told us to do. He said love one another.. that does not mean call others children of the devil. Satan is a demon, and not of our race. He is the enemy. And his lies.
Those who handed out hate tracts before did not know where it would end, these here now have seen the results, and yet they still do not believe.
There are many good folks who come to this board, and much of the doctrine is good and honest. But just one thing can be such a stumbling block, and seem so right. I thought for sure when Mr. Murray whipped out that gun, that some of these here would say HEY what is he doing. I lost hope here when many defended his actions, which should have shown him to be the opposite of following Jesus.
I do not want to fight endlessly as it is wasted time, but I also fear for those here who do not know that some doctrine is evil and from satan himself.. and if that is so what would the results of that doctrine be... well we already have that example.

[rachelengland]

All men were created equal...

[mhead66]

Watchman_2 - I'll check out the threads, and that point of view, and get back to you...

God Bless!

[ezekiel_37]

<font color="ff0000">mhead 66... I also feel as you do. That what God said is what happened. </font>

Hey, me too!!!<font color="ff0000">

For one if one took that to be that there were other races born of a different Father why did God keep that a secret? </font>

God created all races before the 7th day of rest. And then God declares that ALL are good. That's white, black, red, yellow, ALL races.

Then God rests for a day.

Then the story of Adam begins.

God did not form (the man)Adam until after the 7th day. And from him, Eve.

Some of us here contend that Eve was beguiled fully (including sexually) by Satan (who is referred to as the Serpent) before Adam "knows" his wife. In fact, I contend that this is where Adam learned of Sex. After seeing the sex, Eve and Adam then do it themselves. The result is two babies, fathered by 2 different individuals. Adam and the Serpent.

Can angels have babies with humans???
Yep! See Gen6 (sons of God)
Are angels physical (albeit not flesh) Yep!!! see the destruction of Sodom.

God has kept many things hidden, and not all are meant to see and hear those things. But the election is ready for the unhidden truth, and they shall see and hear!!!<font color="ff0000">

And what would be the point? An evil race? Where have I heard that before....where will it all end.. oh yes I remember now in the death and suffering of millions of children.</font>

This is not Hitler, this is Satan, and Christ Himself said that there are children of the Devil. Christ identifies them with both Satan and Cain. The point is to understand who is who, and that our brother in Israel .. Judah .. is not to be blamed for our Lord's murder. It wasn't Jews who killed Him, but rather the seed of the Serpent, as prophecy-ed in Gen 3:15.

The Serpent (Satan) definitely has seed<font color="ff0000">

Some do not understand when you point a finger at another as an evil race, then one is part of evil. And then they are the children of satan.</font>

Christ gave very specific definitions for who is a child of Satan.
<font color="ff0000">
But just because that person is evil does it make his whole race evil? </font>

No, anyone individual can choose God, regardless of who their Father is. When they do this, they become grafted into His family.
<font color="ff0000">
Many cried out and said oh we do not think the Jews are evil, but when it came time to save them they turned their heads in fear and walked away. That is because those who called them an evil race had not been stopped at the starting gate, and allowed it to go on, because they did not understand the evil that was to follow. </font>

Hitler was wrong. A Jew is not a son of Satan. A kenite is, and unfortunately for the Jew, the kenite pretends to be Jewish. I also believe the kenites have mixed into Christiandom as well. Many ministers are not Christians, but only pretend.

<font color="ff0000">they did not know the seeds they were planting would grow so quickly, and spread so fast. And by the time they knew the truth it was to late and the only thing they could do was watch from the sidelines as children were destroyed.
There has never been a time when one calls another part of an evil race.. all genocide starts with that kind of talk.. US and Them... all ends in death.
Jesus will not know anyone who says these children were born evil or those children were born evil.

</font>The Word describes evil races and peoples and the fact that, if the sons do what their fathers did, they will also be considered evil... to many generations. If they do not then they shall not be cursed.

[ezekiel_37]

<font color="ff0000">The children of satan are not those born of him but those who do his work, and sets a path for evil to follow. </font>

I believe this to be true, however in God's Word, there are physical examples of spiritual truths. The beginning of the example is physical...Satan having real children through Eve, from Cain's lineage. This really shouldn't even be debated. The debate (if there is to be one) should be on whether there are still physical sons of Satan here, or if they are just spiritual sons. But they are his children, as Christ teaches multiple times.<font color="ff0000">

This is the talk that satan loves, it is the opposite of what Jesus told us to do. He said love one another.. that does not mean call others children of the devil.

</font>Jesus Himself called them CHILDREN of the DEVIL. Jesus had righteous anger, believe it or not. Jesus went out of the way to teach us of them again in Revelations 2 and 3.
<font color="ff0000">
Satan is a demon, and not of our race. He is the enemy. And his lies. </font>

I agree. But angels and Satan are physical, and capable of reproduction with human females.
<font color="ff0000">
Those who handed out hate tracts before did not know where it would end, these here now have seen the results, and yet they still do not believe. </font>

It is not about hate, but about being aware. The info is a boat...for the soon coming flood...of lies by Satan. There are many souls on the planet that will not overcome. They are to be destroyed. Christ didn't shy away from this fact. But He did prepare those who wish to accept it.<font color="ff0000">

There are many good folks who come to this board, and much of the doctrine is good and honest. But just one thing can be such a stumbling block, and seem so right.

I thought for sure when Mr. Murray whipped out that gun, that some of these here would say HEY what is he doing.

</font>This happened a while ago, and I have heard it many times. I believe in the right to protect yourself. I hope you do too! Peter had a sword, David had a sword, 'twas the times.

Today, we still have that right, to bear arms and protect ones self and land. Pastor Murray is a marine vet. He teaches as one. He has the right to have a gun, and all one has to do is read these threads and see the outward hate that is being projected towards Pastor Murray. Crazy people disrupting the service, and PM put a stop to it. In fact, his security did the stopping anyway.<font color="ff0000">

I lost hope here when many defended his actions, which should have shown him to be the opposite of following Jesus. </font>

That is your opinion, one that is not shared by those who believe in the right to bear arms. PM teaches truth, and that is what Jesus did.<font color="ff0000">

I do not want to fight endlessly as it is wasted time, but I also fear for those here who do not know that some doctrine is evil and from satan himself.. </font>

There are many of those doctrines. Apples in the garden, rapture, implanted chips for the Mark of the beast....many many. But since Christ taught the serpent seed, and told His election to watch and know who is who, (by their fruits-not physical appearance).<font color="ff0000">

and if that is so what would the results of that doctrine be... well we already have that example.</font>

I guess it depends on which side of the debate one stands on???
I see lies and deceit on the part of those who don't believe in the serpent's seed.
Hitler or any freak, obviously didn't read or understand their bible, because it is specifically tells us not to touch them (kenites), as God will deal with them on His time table. Wheat and Tares look alike, and we are taught when and who separates them.

in His service
c

[smyrna]

Franklin thinks SNGC is me?

Sorry, Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/FoxyLoxy/LittleChick you can make all the accusations you wish, but you can't prove it.

Of course, maybe it's an attempt to make you feel good, by grouping all the posts that show you are a liar and you have no clue into just one person under many different names.

It's ridiculous, but what else can anyone expect from a guy who thinks Genesis 3:15 is talking about snake eggs?

No, you have a whole fan club on FN Frankie.

By the way, you are such a coward, running to the admin whenever anyone posts something about you.

If we SC students did that every time you called us racists and heretics, his email quota would have been exceeded!

Frankie's first post said:

"Is this the word of God or did Moses lie?"

His hiome base, Cultbusters.com.au has a Thread Called: Let's talk About Satan

On that thread,one poster claimed satan did not exist, and that Moses did NOT write the Torah!. No one challenged him, including Frankie.

So the first question should be: Does Frankie even believe Moses wrote the Torah?

[smyrna]

Franklin thinks SGNG is me?

Sorry, Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/FoxyLoxy/LittleChick you can make all the accusations you wish, but you can't prove it.

Of course, maybe it's an attempt to make you feel good, by grouping all the posts that show you are a liar and you have no clue into just one person under many different names.

It's ridiculous, but what else can anyone expect from a guy who thinks Genesis 3:15 is talking about snake eggs?

No, you have a whole fan club on FN Frankie.

By the way, you are such a coward, running to the admin whenever anyone posts something about you.

If we SC students did that every time you called us racists and heretics, his email quota would have been exceeded!

Frankie's first post said:

"Is this the word of God or did Moses lie?"

His home base, Cultbusters.com.au has a Thread Called: Let's talk About Satan

On that thread,one poster claimed satan did not exist, and that Moses did NOT write the Torah!. No one challenged him, including Frankie.

So the first question should be: Does Frankie even believe Moses wrote the Torah?

[franklin]

Moses wrote the Torah. I've stated before that many times.

Now back to the topic.

Christian, Jewish and Moslem faiths all interpret Genesis that Adam and Eve were the only humans created by God on the sixth day (no 8th day creation) and that ALL humans, red, yellow, black, white, germanic/gaelic, non germanic/gaelic descended from them.

That is the topic.

[watchman_2]

sharon wrote:
*****
For one if one took that to be that there were other races born of a different Father why did God keep that a secret? And what would be the point? An evil race? Post No. 3 5/24/07
*****

Who has made the claim that there were more than one race sired by Satan? There is only one -- the Kenites.

Of course, there were all the races created on the 6th Day. There is no secret about this fact. An examination of Hebrew language for the English word rendering of 'man', as used in Gen. 1:26, will always show that, in the plural form, it is properly interpreted as 'mankind'.

However, the understanding of the existence of the offspring of Satan is not as easily determined. In fact, it has been somewhat of a secret over time. Christ, himself, declared so.

<font color="0000ff">Mat 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
</font>
Christ goes on to explain this secret -

<font color="0000ff">Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
</font>
Why the big mystery/secret? The same reason Christ spoke in parables.

<font color="0000ff">Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: </font>

Why is it important for some to know? God needs priests during the Lord's Day [1000 years].

<font color="0000ff">Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. </font>

The secrecy/mystery is a test to separate out the Christians that know the truth from those that do not. It will be used to determine qualifications for teaching during the 1000 year reign of Christ.

[grace2u]

Sorry, Glenn/Franklin/Gavin/FoxyLoxy/LittleChick you can make all the accusations you wish, but you can't prove it.

Franklin is not all of those people.

Sorry - had to crash this party. My family will not do anything with me tonight.

[called]

Amplified Bible

Acts 17:26 And He made from one [common origin, one source, one blood] all nations of men to settle on the face of the earth, having definitely determined [their] allotted periods of time and the fixed boundaries of their habitation (their settlements, lands, and abodes),

Short and sweet

[franklin]

Thanks called for adding that. There is much proof in the bible that we ALL, white, black and yellow, came from one and only original set of male and female. Adam and Eve.

[called]

your welcome franklin
I agree 100% with you because that is what is written word for word and their is no way of geting around it!

God bless

[franklin]

So what do you believe about the serpent seed doctrine? That satan had sex with Eve and Cain is the son of satan?

[called]

I believe that someone would really have to twist the scriptures to a great extent to come up with an unbiblical interpretation like that!!!

[arron]

so do i that is a unch of junk. the bible teaches all ccame from adam and eve not adam eve and satan

[watchman_2]

called,

Welcome to the party. I know that you are big on supporting the Word of God. So, I will give you a test.

<font color="0000ff">Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she <u>was</u> the mother of all living.
.
.
.
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew <u>Eve</u> his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. </font>

It is obvious that the woman already had her name EVE when Adam first had sex with her.

The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain.

Since Adam was not the father of Cain, who was if it was not Satan? See Gen. 3:14.

Are you going to deny the Word of God like Franklin and Arron?

[called]

Hi watchman how you doing it’s been awhile,

Ok Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife {HAD SEX WITH HER} and she conceived {AFTER ADAM HAD SEX WITH HER}, and bare Cain {9 MOUNTHS LATER} and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. Gen 4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. {THIS WAS ROUND TWO},

Notice what she said here {, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD} if that child {Cain} was conceived of Satan she could not have said that could she?

For she would have gotten a man {FROM SATAN} not the Lord!!!

“””””The conception spoken of in Gen. 4:1 was that of Abel. The existing pregnancy of Eve in Gen. 4:1 was that of Cain””””.

No Gen 4:1 clearly States that Adam had sex for the first time with Eve she conceived and birthed Cain not Abel, Abel was birthed out after round two {AFTER ADAM HAD SEX WITH HER AGAIN}={Gen 4:2} And Gen 3:14 has nothing whatsoever to do with Satan having sex with Eve but has everything to do deceiving Eve and causing the fall of mankind,. I see nothing more or nothing less.

Johnny

[watchman_2]

called,

Unless you are prepared to argue that Cain was the begotten son of God, then the phrase, "I have gotten a man from the LORD" in Gen. 4:1, is not dispositive of anything relative to paternity of Cain and Abel. Properly interpreted, it simply means "with the help of" the Lord.

Please take note of Gen. 4:25 in which the scripture declares that Adam "knew his wife again". Compare that to Gen. 4:1 and 4:2. The scriptures do not state that Adam knew his wife "again" and bare Abel. There were 3 boys born, but only 2 conceptions listed.

If you go to Gen. 3:14, 15, 16, &amp; 20, it is dispositive that Satan [serpent = Satan] impregnated the woman [that's how she received her name]. The Serpent's seed [only meaning 'posterity'] is compared to the Eve's posterity [leading to Christ] in verse 15.

God declared that He would MULTIPLY the woman's conception, which would mean she would remain baren unless she was already pregnant.

The verse 20 connection to the fact that she was already named is dispositive in God's word that she was pregnant when Adam had sex with her.

The race created by Satan's corruption of God's creation carries throughout the scriptures into the Book of Revelation [2:9, 3:9]

Have a good day!

[ezekiel_37]

Called, Watchman's statement starts with Gen 3:20, not with 4:1.

Maybe you should address that first

in His service
c

[franklin]

Watchman, Ezekiel: You are using Hitler's and David Duke's version of the bible. Not God's.

[watchman_2]

franklin,

Since when is the King James version the nazi Bible?

It is not my fault that you are an idiot.

[called]

I definitely have to agree with you on this one, the KJVB is by no means perfect but I believe its the closest we have without going back to the original Greek Manuscripts.

[called]

I definitely have to agree with you on this one, the KJVB is by no means perfect but I believe its the closest we have without going back to the original Greek Manuscripts.

[franklin]

watchman: I'm refraining from calling you names like you do me, but it is not the words on the pages of the KJV bible that are in error. The error is in how you and Arnold Murray twist them to mean something that Hitler, David Duke and other racists believe they mean.

[called]

Oh ok Franklin so you believe or agree that the KJVB is a good {NOT PERFECT} with out error translation right.

[franklin]

I believe that from what I clearly read in my KJV bible that Adam and Eve are the Father of Mother of ALL living, all races,all humans, before and after the great flood. That is the topic and that is my and all Christendom's interpretation of Genesis.

[called]

Well as you and everyone else knows I literally hate christendom with a passion but I do agree with you on this Franklin.

[called]

Christendom is nothing more than a man made counterfeit anti Christ religious system made up from none other than the false prophets themselves known as popes that divides the body of Christ and that has nothing whatsoever to do with the true biblical Christianity that was birthed out of the book of Acts over 2000 years ago, you are a slave to whom you serve, and The Pope is the head of Christendom, which is the overseer of the great whore and her daughters the protestant churches at large, the only hope is to come out from among them and be completely separate. Please read 1 Cor 1:1:10, 12:25 and truly see just the Apostle Paul is saying.

[arron]

not called how can you hate christians... christiandom and still say you believe the BIBLE

[yaakov2]

called

<font color="0000ff">I definitely have to agree with you on this one, the KJVB is by no means perfect but I believe its the closest we have without going back to the original Greek Manuscripts.</font>

Called, why don't you go back to the Greek Manuscripts?

[bluewater2]

I think, Yaakov, that would seriously undermine his business model.

[called]

Good question yaakov, for one I do not understand, read or write Greek and I live in the Philippines which makes it pretty hard to study Greek, but I would really love to learn. I try to find out the true meaning of some scriptures little by little but not as much as I would like.

[yaakov2]

called

<font color="0000ff">Good question yaakov, for one I do not understand, read or write Greek and I live in the Philippines which makes it pretty hard to study Greek, but I would really love to learn. I try to find out the true meaning of some scriptures little by little but not as much as I would like.</font>

Your statements aren’t making sense to me, called. You said that your existing bible isn’t very accurate. But instead of seeking the source, you will just try to eke out meanings from a text that you consider flawed??

Also, why would a Filipino have more difficulty with Greek than an English speaker? Both people would have to learn a foreign language.

[ba2]

<font color="0000ff">“Also, why would a Filipino have more difficulty with Greek than an English speaker? Both people would have to learn a foreign language.”</font> This is so true, but even a modern day Greek would basically have to learn a new language.

Ancient Greek (800–300 BC), Koine Greek (300 BC–AD 330), Medieval Greek (330–1450), Modern Greek (1450–present)

The NT is written primarily in what is usually called Koine Greek. Koine Greek is phonologically a transition period linking Ancient Greek with Medieval Greek. Like any language, it had countless idiomatic variations and much of the neuances and idioms are difficult, if not impossible to understand in todays language. Adding to the translation problem, Paul wrote in a “common” everyday style which contained many non-standard elements which were not the standard Greek of the “writing” class. Finally, there was no puncutatuion, no upper/lower case, hardly any word separation, so by playing around with the word separation and use of upper case, you can bend/change the context of the intent of the writing.

Modern Greek, though, is even significantly different from the Greek of the Septuagint translation and in some cases, biases evident in the 1600’s caused signifiacnt changes to the original meanings.

One simple yet very significant example:
(I originally put the Greek text here, but this site doesn't recognize the fount)The modern Greek word is (porneia)and in Koine Greek meant prostitution or ildoloitry. It did not mean fornication, as suggested in most bible translations. Because of the common usage of the word brought out by the church during the Middle Ages, it has evolved to include fornication as a possible meaning. The more correct thing to do whenever you see the word “fornication” in scripture, is to change it to mean prostitution or ildoloitry. What a difference we get with that intrepretation! And now this new intrepretation makes more sense within the context of Paul’s writings about the going on’s and concerns in Corinth.

There are no two languages that I know of that correspond to each other in grammar, rules of syntax, semantic structure, etc., especially not modern English and Koine (Biblical) Greek or Biblical Hebrew.

Just putting in my 2 cents.

[termin8d]

Called, you make comments about your hatred for Christendom, and the accuracy of the King James Version, saying that it's better than other translations when it comes to being close to the Greek. Following this you say that you do not even know Greek. How then, do you come to your conclusions? I'm very interested to know.