ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 Matters Effecting the Ecclesia
 science and the bible
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 31 Jan 2003 :  15:24:00  Show Profile
Greetings. Eve was beguiled, that is, to beguile is to mentally and or morally seduce. I think you quoted the nonsense printed in TIME magazine that all humans come from two negroids somewhere in Africa a few million years ago. I know you KNOW better than that, don't you? Abel never propagated himself, and Adam's bloodline starts with Seth. Why do Jews trace descent from the maternal side? All Israel and scripture uses the father's side. You and I see things differently. I have nothing to do with the RCC Jesuit education of the proles. Basically, caucacians are the so called "lost tribes of Israel". We have a great heritage and history and, in fact, Yahushua was, and is not sent...but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. If your physical body is considered caucacian, pray tell why??? we are called caucacian? It has something to do with passing through the Caucas mountains {Dariel pass} in the 700's b.c. gee....the same time frame the tribes of Israel were "nationally" divorced by YHWH and sent into Assyria. They migrated north and west into Europe. Science can prove this story much easier than "we all came from two negriods millions of years ago". Our race has only been here since 5407 b.c....according to scripture. Science can not find a caucacian skull older than 7-8000 years old.Whereas negroid skulls can be many many times older. Any good dictionary has an entry on "pre-adamites". So much to learn....so little time left.
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 31 Jan 2003 :  20:41:17  Show Profile
Isn't it interesting that you learn more about a man from his views on creation than from just about any other topic? Rather than being an open and shut discussion about diametrically opposed views (creation vs. evolution), you find that sincere believers have a complete range of opinions on the subject. Inevitably, what they believe about creation reveals what they believe about the Creator Himself.

The popular notion among most Christians today is that you must "accept (or believe in) Jesus" to be saved. Most churches teach little beyond this. The Pentacostals and Charismatics teach the "full" gospel, pointing out that we must also "receive", "be baptized with" or "be filled with" the Holy Spirit as well. Who is missing in this picture? Before a man can understand, accept or receive the Son and the Spirit, he must first come to terms with his Creator - the Father. Thus, a man's view of creation reveals whether he has even taken this first essential step in salvation.

Among those posting on this forum, all demonstrate a clear desire to acknowledge and have fellowship with their Creator, so what is the source of their disagreement? Discussions on creation seem more effective than anything else for revealing how a man determines what is truth. None here seek to discredit the scriptures, but some unknowingly diminish them by giving comparable weight to modern science. When science makes up ages of the earth lasting millions of years, the "majority rules" mindset intimidates many into believing it must be true. Then, not wanting to discredit scriptures, they look for ways to make the scriptures fit with modern science.

How instructive that "science" is mentioned only once in the scriptures, in Paul's final warning in his first letter to Timothy: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." Paul and the KJV translators must have known prophetically that "science" would be one of the great false gods of our time.

Another source of disagreement is rooted in whether a man reads something in the storyline as literal or figurative language. Many read the story in Genesis and take parts too literally. Thus they turn a story that is all about geneology, birthrights and other things racial into a story that is ONLY about race. Eve's sin becomes a literal sexual relationship with Satan, and the rest of the Bible is understood in terms of whether or not this man had sex with that woman who was of the "serpent's seed".

There ARE two families of people in scripture, but there is constant movement between them as those born physically into the "right" family, like Esau, end up in the wrong one, and those born in the "wrong" family, like Ruth, end up in the right one. Scripture cannot be understood without a right understanding of racial issues, yet taking race too literally (ie. Cain's or Esau's descendants can never be redeemed) leads to errors just as great as ignoring race as an issue altogether. Genesis is a story about two brothers, each with a different destiny. It is always spiritual matters that determine who is the good one and who is the bad one.

After his offering was rejected, Cain's true, unrepentant heart was revealed. He also thought he could offer whatever he wanted to God and have it accepted. When it was not, he thought he could argue with God and win! If you think this was all because he was half-devil physically, just read Genesis 3:11-13. If Eve's sin ("the serpent beguiled me and I did eat") was sex with Satan, then Adam's sin ("the woman ... gave me of the tree, and I did eat") was ALSO sex with Satan! The inconsistencies go on from there with this kind of "interpretation" of the scriptures. If you want to know if a theory is true, simply accept it as true while reading the supporting texts. If they read consistently, you have a true theory. If contradictions pop up again and again, the theory can be discarded.

The final source of disagreement comes from accepting the meanings read into certain verses by translators. A great example of this has come up in this thread. The start of Genesis 6 is quite puzzling right after reading the first five chapters. It simply doesn't fit or make sense as translated. Reading the rest of Genesis shows that great importance is placed on keeping the family line pure by not marrying into other tribes who worship false gods. The family line of the "sons of God" is carefully traced through the entire book, and when there are two brothers, one usually leaves the family of God to form yet another tribe of idol worshippers.

Genesis 6 is consistent with this storyline, except that these "giants" (or Nephilim) appear giving credence to the idea that some race of half angel, half man is now on earth. However, as soon as you find out that "nphl" means "fallen one", the whole thing makes sense. Genesis 6 is a general story that will be repeated by specific men who will "fall" through the rest of the book, and it will be repeated again and again by the "sons of God" all through the scriptures. Just read the life of Solomon for the ultimate example of this. If he could avoid this one thing, God would establish his kingdom forever. Instead, like Adam and Eve, the one sin he was told to avoid was the one thing he could not resist doing. Who among you is going to throw out three books of your Bible because they were written by a man who married into "serpent seed"?
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 31 Jan 2003 :  23:00:56  Show Profile
Whew! This discussion was going all over the boards here.

Caleb speaks common sense but the science comment causes umbrage. Don't get me wrong I'm no scientist but let's get real in our spirituality here folks. Either it all fits or there is a wrong premise somewhere. There are no contradictions. The source is the same yesterday, today and allways. Science and archaeology are different disciplines but nonetheless they are from the source. They contradict the bible only when the premise is faulty.

Study the Hebrew of the text but look at what Yeshua told the half-blood Jew, the Samaritan woman, at the well in John 4:22 and ask yourself this question? Are the Jews saved? Careful, my or anyone else's "truth" has no place in judgement 'cause there is only one judge.

Caleb, you see the nphal connection, did you see that Cain's lineage is also there and its effects? Do you see those effects later in the story of Abraham, the king of Sodom and Malchizedek?

Don't stop thinking and don't stop searching.
Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  06:54:34  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James

Greetings. Eve was beguiled, that is, to beguile is to mentally and or morally seduce. I think you quoted the nonsense printed in TIME magazine that all humans come from two negroids somewhere in Africa a few million years ago. I know you KNOW better than that, don't you? Abel never propagated himself, and Adam's bloodline starts with Seth. Why do Jews trace descent from the maternal side? All Israel and scripture uses the father's side. You and I see things differently. I have nothing to do with the RCC Jesuit education of the proles. Basically, caucacians are the so called "lost tribes of Israel". We have a great heritage and history and, in fact, Yahushua was, and is not sent...but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. If your physical body is considered caucacian, pray tell why??? we are called caucacian? It has something to do with passing through the Caucas mountains {Dariel pass} in the 700's b.c. gee....the same time frame the tribes of Israel were "nationally" divorced by YHWH and sent into Assyria. They migrated north and west into Europe. Science can prove this story much easier than "we all came from two negriods millions of years ago". Our race has only been here since 5407 b.c....according to scripture. Science can not find a caucacian skull older than 7-8000 years old.Whereas negroid skulls can be many many times older. Any good dictionary has an entry on "pre-adamites". So much to learn....so little time left.





PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS THAN:

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


How come you fail to ever quote the Bible? Do you lack faith in the Bible?

Also, Do you have any proof of the world being over 6000-10000 years old? If so please state them.

As for the "local" flood that was supposed to be experience by Noah and family... Why did G-d just not have them move? He had Abraham move?

Did you bother to check out the free seminars on line at www.drdino.com? (14 hours of teaching against evolution and offers $250,000 for anyone proving evolution.)


Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  07:44:41  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by True North

Either it all fits or there is a wrong premise somewhere. There are no contradictions. The source is the same yesterday, today and allways. Science and archaeology are different disciplines but nonetheless they are from the source. They contradict the bible only when the premise is faulty.


HERE IS WHERE WE AGREE! ANY CONTRADICTION MEANS YOU MUST SCRAP WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED! IF there was a devil race out side the Garden of Eden why did G-d say in

GENESIS 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


So on the day he created man there was an evil race? The devil was evil at this time? If so, WHY WOULD G-d state EVERYTHING was VERY good? This is the only place where Very was ever added. The Devil did not fall until after G-d rested. Sometime between Day 7 and before 130 Years (when Seth was Born) Could G-d have called the Devil good (since he was created) if he were evil?

Ezekiel 29:15-19
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.



quote:

Study the Hebrew of the text but look at what Yeshua told the half-blood Jew, the Samaritan woman, at the well in John 4:22 and ask yourself this question? Are the Jews saved? Careful, my or anyone else's "truth" has no place in judgement 'cause there is only one judge.


Yeshua (Jesus) stated that salvation came to the house of Israel. Paul pointed out that indeed the promise was to the Jews to whom had the scriptures (Hard to obey G-d when you don't know of him), but salvation has been passed on to all men through the rejection of Yeshua(Jesus) by the Jews (SEE ROMANS).

If only "Jews" could be saved, Why would Yeshua (Jesus) state in Matthew, "Go into all the world and spread the gospel with everyliving creature?"


Last point from a few postings ago.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Does this state G-d wiped his brow and state, "whew, what a rough week"? No! I know of a few managers who only use words to get things done. On their days "off" they don't stop talking. They just don't "work". Does this mean they were exhausted? No, it just means that they have completed that which they needed to do during the time they needed to do so... the work week.

Don't believe the LITERAL 6 day creation? Are you calling G-d a liar?

Exodus 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God[b].

Deuteronomy 9:10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone [b]written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake
with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  09:33:49  Show Profile
Shiloh, Acts 17:26 is NOT in any of the earliest "copies" of the new testament letters. It is an interpolation, which defies even common sense. But seek this out yourself, as We all must. 98% of the children of Israel were not in Palestine in 30 a.d. Wake up! All the Law and covenants are given to the children of Israel. Paul was of the tribe of Benyamin....of the house of Judah. He went to help find the lost sheep and share the message. If you do not know who you are...you will never know who I AM. Isaiah 53 states He died for the sins of MANY not all. Some are brute beasts, made for destruction! As was Esau and his descendents, the Edomites....who are still with us today. They still use the "tradition of the elders"...the talmud. They still have their minions who rather believe a lie, i.e. judeo-christianity. My scripture book says elohim {God in the 'authorised' version} created the first six days. YHWH took over in Genesis 2:4. YHWH oversaw the creation period. www.missiontoisrael.com may help you discern who Israel is today. History=His story. Not man's.
Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  16:35:30  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James

Shiloh, Acts 17:26 is NOT in any of the earliest "copies" of the new testament letters. It is an interpolation, which defies even common sense.



You say ACTS 17:26 not in any of the earliest copies? Were you there? What makes you state so. Are you talking the Alexanderian texts? Which if any BIBLE do you trust? You seem to make blanket statements with never one word of scripture to back your statements, or even evidence by which one could examine any the facts to see where you are coming from. Please explain. Are you relying on some other book (such as Book of Morman, Jehoviah Witness Bible?)as your source of reliablity.

I do know that the Talmud, which was written at 73 A.D. repeatedly was condemned by Yeshua (Jesus) for "making of no effect the commandments of G-d". I know the people who follow the Talmud are rejecting G-d by their acceptance of this Babylon "magick" texts and false teachings that came out of the years of captivity of the Hebrews.


Another interesting passages

Malachi 2:9-14 Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?
Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.



My bible states if you have strange gods you are cut off.
Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  16:39:22  Show Profile
Again, ANYONE of the "Science" men, what "evidence" of science do you have the world is older than 6000-10000 years?

Can we end this discussion with FACTS not emotions?
Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  17:32:24  Show Profile
quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James

Greetings. Eve was beguiled, that is, to beguile is to mentally and or morally seduce.



Do you think being told "You shall be as gods" is not being seduced?

quote:

I think you quoted the nonsense printed in TIME magazine that all humans come from two negroids somewhere in Africa a few million years ago.



No, I hardly find anything within the "news media" worth quoting (or for that matter reading) However within the last few years people searching DNA to find a strand that is passed on from the mothers side of all people. Everyone has this DNA, however apes do not. This seems to imply that we all have had the same mother.

quote:
I know you KNOW better than that, don't you? Abel never propagated himself, and Adam's bloodline starts with Seth.



It is hard to propagate when your blood is crying out from the ground (YOU ARE DEAD) Try it. Recent statistic show that 100 percent of people born today are conceived from living people. (SMILE)


quote:

You and I see things differently. I have nothing to do with the RCC Jesuit education of the proles. Basically, caucacians are the so called "lost tribes of Israel". We have a great heritage and history and, in fact, Yahushua was, and is not sent...but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



The lost sheep of Israel... These are people who are not "righteous" these are the outcasts. These are the people who realize that they are sinners in need of redemption (TO BE BOUGHT BACK).

JOHN 9:11-13 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


quote:

If your physical body is considered caucacian, pray tell why??? we are called caucacian? It has something to do with passing through the Caucas mountains {Dariel pass} in the 700's b.c.



Who named us "caucacians"? Man... why does man like to declair themselves "righteous" to G-d, when we have no concern for his laws or his statues?

quote:

gee....the same time frame the tribes of Israel were "nationally" divorced by YHWH and sent into Assyria. They migrated north and west into Europe. Science can prove this story much easier than "we all came from two negriods millions of years ago". Our race has only been here since 5407 b.c....according to scripture. Science can not find a caucacian skull older than 7-8000 years old.Whereas negroid skulls can be many many times older.


What science has been ever able to date any skull? To the best of my knowledge skulls do not have dates on them (or for that matter what "race" they are). Science dates skulls by which layer of "strata" (layers of soil) they are found in. However they date the "strata" (layers of soil) by the fossils found in them. These are based off of circular reasoning. One "scientist" stated, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately."

There is no way that Carbon Dating or Radio-metric dating and Carbon 14 work. They all have been proven to be not accurate many times over. This can be very easily proven.


quote:

Any good dictionary has an entry on "pre-adamites". So much to learn....so little time left.



Good? Is it a good dictionary? Really? Before Darwin's book "Origins of Species by means of natural selection or preservation of favored races" (Yes, that was the complete title.) such words as "Pre-adamite", "Pre-historic", and "dinosaur". These are words that have come into the dictionary only when people no longer searched for things in the Bible and sought ways to explain things to "make them fit" in to make the Bible comply with the new "science" (which is nothing by psydo-science based off lies and bad reasoning).


"Dinosaurs" are all over the Bible. We used to call them by their correct names "Dragons". But man never lived with Dinosaurs right? Please explain, Job 40 and 41...


JOB 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar : the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God : he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Sound to me like a dino... A BRACH?


Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

Another dino?


I trust the "scientists", just like the Indians should trust the government. Two eyes open, searching for lack of fraility in their ways... yet to find truth in them.

Edited by - Shiloh on 02 Feb 2003 17:36:06
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  19:43:53  Show Profile
Shiloh, sorry to have bothered you. You can go back to sleep now.
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2003 :  22:41:46  Show Profile
Let's see. So far we have one thread that is debating the following distinct, though related views:
1) The meanings of Hebrew words in the original
2) How old the earth is
3) Whether there are races outside of Adam's
4) How literally to take the Bible

On issue #1, True North, you have mentioned the words "Messiah/Christ" and "Baptise" but don't tell how a right translation will open eyes to better understand the scriptures. However, using your own admonition to look at the root, the word "Yom" is best understood as the light or "hot" part of a 24 hour period, since the root meaning is "to be hot". This is actually further strengthened when we find that "a day is as a thousand years", for no so-called "scientific" view of origins can possibly be squeezed into 6000 years (= six "days"). There are many places in scripture where a "yom" DOES refer to a thousand years, but there is not a single one where it applies to millions or billions of years. In the end, it is only man's theories that require these enormously long "days" so that he can explain his existence APART from God! This kind of "reconciling" the Bible with science has got the source of authority reversed. (So much for issue #2)

On issue #3, Robert-James, I have seriously considered this one, for I never let "political correctness" or other doctrines of men prevent me from examining an issue to see whether it be so. However, ultimate authority always rests with the scriptures, and I have observed them tortured to the breaking point in order to sustain this view. What I see instead is that Genesis painstakingly details the origins of EVERY tribe of men on earth, with chapter 10 containing 70 nations (="gentiles" in the Hebrew) from which all of our current races can be traced. This is substantiated both in and out of scripture.

In Ham's son Cush we have a good indication of the origin of the African race, since Cush is Ethiopia AND Cush means "black". You have pointed out the origin of the Caucasian race. The Middle Easterners are clearly Shemites ("Semites" today), which leaves only the Asians to account for, since all indications are that the "red man" (American Indians) are just an offshoot of the Asians. God has preserved for us a 5000 year old record confirming the first 11 chapters of Genesis in amaxing detail. It is the Chinese characters that they still use for writing to this day. Their written language dates to the beginning of their culture, which they proudly point out is 5000 years old. It contains complex characters made up of simpler "radicals" that in some cases, combine to show the story used to create the character for a word.

This is a study in itself, so I will not share enough here to "prove" that Chinese characters could ONLY have originated from a race intimately familiar with the first 11 chapters of Genesis. How else could their character for "righteousness" be composed of the radical for "lamb" (or sheep) over (covering) the character for "me"? Further, the character for "me" is composed of the two radicals for "hand" and "spear". So you have a perfect picture of animal sacrifice as the source of righteousness. Nothing else can explain why these simple nouns would be combined in this way to communicate the abstract idea of "righteousness".

Shiloh mentioned the Chinese for Ark. The character for "boat" comes the radicals "vessel", "eight" and "mouth" (as in mouths to feed). Further, the character for "flood" comes from the radicals "eight", "together" and "water". So here God has provided us the two witnesses we need to prove that the 1.2 billion Chinese are direct descendants from the eight people who stepped off the ark. Finally, did you know that the Chinese are the ONLY civilization besides Israel that were monotheistic in their origins? This too, is an incredible study, as all indications are that they worshipped the God of the Bible for 2000 years before falling into the pagan practices of ancestor worship, etc.

The passages about Cain building a city, and Yahshua calling the Pharisees the sons of the Devil do indeed lend credibility to the idea of their being pre-adamic, or "serpent seed" races. However, these are only sustained by retranslating much of scripture and ignoring even more of it. We could create another entire thread just illustrating out of scriptures the consistency of the view that all races are descended from Adam. Indeed, "His-story" cannot be rightly understood without this. Those who subscribe to the "serpent seed" idea believe that only those of "pure" Adamic blood can be redeemed. Calling Adam's race the "shepherds" that are to guide the other races diminishes the role that God actually gave ONLY to Abraham's descendants.

Issue #4, Doer, is really the crux of the whole matter. If the Bible is only a guide, then we will always disagree on which parts are to be taken literally and what we can dismiss. It may be incomplete in the sense that only the Holy Spirit can lead us into ALL truth. However, the Bible must be viewed as sufficient in itself, and foundational to any other truth. Nothing can be considered truth that conflicts with the scriptures. Similarly, when we are baffled by scriptures, we must search until we learn to rightly divide them in a way that leads to a consistent understanding. The scriptures cannot contradict themselves, so the real problem is in our own "blindness", which only the Holy Spirit can remove.

I have held this position for almost 20 years, yet the most significant truths have not been revealed to me until these last two years. Only now do I see how much more I have to learn. Yet what I have learned has given me an ever greater appreciation for the beauty of God's written word and how carefully He has woven together all we need for faith and practice in this life. And yes, He did this using mere men - men who understood Him better than you or I (unless He has asked you to write a book of the Bible lately). When we take the position that they had definite ideas in mind to communicate to us, then we stop reading the Bible as a series of sound-bites (verses), and read it as a flowing story with each point building upon the last one and leading to a definite conclusion.

As for this leading to a "letter of the law" approach to scripture, nothing could be further from the truth. This is, in fact, the only way to obtain to the "spirit" of God's word. How else could we find the "spirit" of the Old Testament commandments unless we take literally Yahshua's elaboration on them in the Sermon on the Mount? The problem was not that the Pharisee took the Old Testament literally. They had completely missed the point of what it was about! How amazing that even with the New Testament and Yahshua's own corrections, the church continues to do the same today.

More to follow soon . . .
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2003 :  10:05:06  Show Profile
Caleb; I will ask in honesty, in John's first letter, chapter 3 verse 12, "not as Cain who was of the WICKED one". Who was the wicked one? William Branham preached two seedlines and he was a righteousness preacher, if there ever was one. Some have heard the thunders of Revelations 10:4. An evil 'tree' can not bring forth good fruit. Yet a good 'tree' can become corrupted and not bring forth the fruit it should have. Yahushua stated the talmudic Jews of His day had the devil as their father. Spiritual and physical. What we have today is the children of Abraham {caucacians} leaving the spiritual kingdom of their Father, and living in the kingdom of Cain. These ones, need to be redeemed and brought back into the kingdom of YHWH.
Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2003 :  11:10:36  Show Profile
quote:
Caleb; I will ask in honesty, in John's first letter, chapter 3 verse 12, "not as Cain who was of the WICKED one". Who was the wicked one?
1 ¶ Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

JOHN 2:29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him .
JOHN 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins ; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil , and his brother’s righteous.
13 Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
17 But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
18 My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.


You do error, when you take things out of context. What is this text about? WE ARE ALL THE CHILDREN OF G-D WHEN WE HAVE RIGHTEOUSNESS IN US! When we love our brothers, we are of G-d. When we hate or brother we are not of G-d. He that committeth sin is of the devil, do you or have you never sinned? If you have sinned you were the devils. If you reject sin and learn to love your fellow man, you are born of G-d. If you despise or hate even one man, or even show lack of concern (for even so much as one man)... you are not of G-d, but of the devil.
If you hate a man for the color of his skin, you are decieved. For did not Yeshua (Jesus)call a Samaritan his neighbor? These were outcasts to the "Jews". In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (see Luke 10) the people who showed no interest in the fellow man were evil, the outcast who showed love was the neighbor.

Go to Top of Page

Shiloh
Senior Member

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2003 :  11:42:30  Show Profile
quote:
Ever consider that there were giants before the flood, and after the flood. Cretin apologists say giants were on the ark? How pitiful. Caesar issued a decree "that the whole world shall be taxed". Were indians native to America taxed? Of course not. Just as the flood covered NOT the whole world.



Giants before the flood? Well, there were many fossils found including many of 10 to 11 feet men,18 inch cockroaches, Huge sharks, huge rhino, huge beavers, ect. Did you know reptiles never stop growing? You would know these things if checked out www.DRDINO.Com to watch his online free seminars

As for the giants on the ark... I don't think they would have been on the ark. First of all, you would wish to have young if not babys (male and female) to help replentish the earth... not only are they smaller, but they live longer, tend to sleepless, eat less.

You point out:
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

Interesting discoveries lately on this. First of all, historians stated that Yeshua (Jesus) was not born during the reign of Cyrenius being governor of Syria during the reign of Caesar Augustus... until they found papers showing that Cyrenius was governor than not than governor again. History proved this out with research. As for the Taxation... they have records of at least 3 taxations that took place "world wide" by decree.
This does not mean that the whole world was taxed, but a the ROMANS in their belief of world domination believed that they could by sheer "demand" place a decree upon all the world to tax it. Much like the UN seem to feel they can today. There was a decree to tax the world. Everywhere the tax collector thought they could reach and collect taxes, they went.




Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2003 :  21:42:48  Show Profile
Shiloh, get off the soap box and politely answer who the wicked one is, OK? No offense intended, save your pendantic preaching for the lost.
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2003 :  23:44:48  Show Profile
Greetings to you in the name of Yahshua, Robert-James. You have shared yet another verse that fits very well with the view that Cain was a physical son of Satan and not Adam. As I said before, these verses make this view sound very plausible at first, and I seriously considered it. However, the context (shared with us by Shiloh) and the greater weight of scripture point the other way.

I have great respect for William Branham, and for those who follow his teachings today. They are not easily deceived by the world as they are well aware of Satan's schemes. However, brother Branham was deceived by one teaching of the talmudic Jews that has gained such widespread acceptance today that few know there are other opinions. This deception is called Dispensationalism, and whenever you hear anyone refer to the "dispensation of the gentiles" or the "rapture", you know that they have swallowed a talmudic lie cooked up some 150 years ago with the express purpose of putting the church to sleep. It was popularized by the Mason, C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Reference Bible first published in 1905.

Today almost every Christian thinks of "Law" as bad, since he has been told he is "under grace" (again, a single Bible verse taken out of context). They ignore the evil in the world since they are sure they will be "raptured" out of it before things get really bad. So when you look at the dead "Bible-believing" churches and wonder how so many people could be impervious to truth, you see what a brilliant job Mr. Scofield did. While William Branham preached many truths and certainly did not lull his own followers into spiritual sleep, he also helped propagate this deadly lie, so I do not take all he said as "gospel truth".

In looking at the idea of a "serpent seed" race, it becomes necessary to explain away too many other passages of scripture, as well as to "fill in" the story. One example is that William Branham, who did believe that everyone but Noah's family perished in the flood, found it necessary to have Noah have three sons by a "good" wife, and then remarry to a "serpent seed" woman and take her on the ark with him. Ham's sin then becomes sleeping with his step-mother and the "serpent seedline" can continue. Again, this all sounds plausible given the Hebrew penchant for euphemisms surrounding sex.

However, I see two big problems. The first is that nowhere does the story even hint of such marital contortions for Noah and his wife (wives?). This had to be made up out of whole cloth. No storyteller would leave out such a critical detail without at least a hint. If tracing Cain's seedline is that critical, how could such an oversight occur? The second problem is that Genesis contains many other examples of illicit sexual relations where little, if any euphemism is used at all. Just look at when the angels are in Sodom, Lot and his daughters, or Judah and Tamar for a few good examples. Do they leave any doubt in your mind about what happened? So why would the same writer leave Ham's transgression so vague if it were so crucial to the storyline?

Taking the story further illustrates the problem with trying to tie all evil men to Cain genetically. Canaan is cursed by Noah, so he is the post-flood replacement for Cain. However, his brother Cush is the father of Nimrod who builds Babylon and starts the bulk of the pagan religions for us. If Nimrod isn't serpent seed, who is? So now I suppose we have to have Canaan have a daughter who marries Cush so Nimrod can have the proper evil genetics. The point is that the story, even when interpreted to have Cain's seedline, is only able to explain one of the two "bad guys". It remains silent on the other, more significant one.

When we get to Esau, we see that there is not the remotest possibility of being the wrong seedline, since he is a twin brother to Jacob. So now it has to be his future marriage (to serpent seed) that causes God to reject him from birth. This is plausible, but the scripture explicitly makes provision for Esau's descendants in Deuteronomy 23:7-8. "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of YHWH in their third generation." So here we see clear provision for the redemption of the descendants of Esau and his "serpent seed" wives.

Finally, we can look at this from the opposite standpoint. The Jews placed great confidence in the fact that they were descendants of Abraham - they had the "right" seedline. Yahshua and Paul did not dispute this (except for one statement to the Pharisees). Instead, Yahshua said that God could use stones to raise up children for Abraham. Paul said that only those of faith, regardless of their geneology, were true descendants of Abraham. They both affirmed what is seen throughout the Old Testament - that strangers are allowed to enter into the assembly of YHWH and that the children of the promise can lose it if they despise their birthright.

What this comes down to is that both the Old and New Testaments affirm that whether we are children of God or children of Satan is determined spiritually, not physically. The physical is important, but it does not determine the ultimate destiny of anyone. No one can be born "unredeemable" as William Branham taught, and similarly, no one is guaranteed of redemption if they neglect their spiritual heritage. I now know that I was more open to spiritual reality because of my heritage as an Ephraimite AND a descendant of the house of David, and this is something I now treasure. However, anyone who will obey YHWH with all their heart can be grafted into this same tree. All of us are only sons of God through adoption. Yahshua is the ONLY begotten Son of God, and without him accepting us as brothers we would all share the same eternal destiny as Cain.

Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2003 :  00:48:19  Show Profile
Robert James, can you elaborate on the distinction you made between Elohim in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and YHWH in Genesis 2:4 and following? I think most would simply say the former is the Creator's title while the later is his name. You seem to be reading more than this into it.

Also, after my last post you may have the idea that I place little import on geneology in the book of Genesis. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the book only makes sense when you understand how important genetics are to the story. Judah is a perfect example of this. He is another son with the right genes who runs off and marries a "foreign" wife. This poor choice should have disqualified him from carrying on the blessing, just as it disqualified others like Esau before him. However, an entire chapter is devoted to what becomes of his three "serpent seed" sons and their wife, Tamar.

At first reading, the logical conclusion is that Judah is out of the picture. After all, he slept with a prostitute and even acknowledges that she is more righteous than he is. Seems as bad as anything you'll read in Genesis. However, the story never tells us where Tamar comes from. It remains neutral about her acceptability as a wife for one of the "sons of God". This seems unremarkable until we get to the end of Genesis where Jacob is blessing his sons. His three oldest are all disqualified from receiving the blessing. Surely Judah will be as well and it will pass onto Joseph who is the superhero/good-guy of the whole book.

There is a whole chapter devoted to why Simeon and Levi were disqualified, so it is a real shocker when we find out that the chapter about Tamar was actually about Judah's redemption. This woman held the family seedline in such esteem that she deceived Judah just to preserve it. Since we have no idea of her physical descent, we can only know for certain that she was of the "right" seedline spiritually. Without her intervention, the Messiah could never have been the "lion of the tribe of Judah". Read Matthew chapter one and note that only four women are mentioned in Yahshua's geneology and Tamar is one of them. The other three are also "foreign" or gentile women who proved to be of the right spiritual descent to marry into the family of God.

The Bible holds family lineage in high esteem, and so should we. However, it also confronts head on the assumption of the Jews that their lineage made them special apart from obedience to God. When we understand that we Caucasians are the "lost" ten tribes, why should we then fall into the same error as the Jews? We were scattered due to disobedience, and Paul is clear that God will spare neither the natural branches nor the grafted branches if they continue in disobedience.

The lost ten tribes of Israel is another subject that has come up in this thread, and it is so significant that I will start a new thread rather than make this one longer.
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2003 :  05:50:21  Show Profile
quote from Caleb...In the end, it is only man's theories that require these enormously long "days" so that he can explain his existence APART from God! This kind of "reconciling" the Bible with science has got the source of authority reversed... end quote

Caleb, I did not begin my search for truth to back up what other men told me, I began the search to reconcile the obvious contradictions my preconceived notions and doctrine present.

Where does the bible state how old the earth is? I'll save you some searching, it doesn't. The bible is not a history book, it is not a science book, it is a narrative.

As if the bible needs something from man to justify it! cheeze whiz! Maybe in our search the "reconciling" is to fulfill some emotional need to be correct or maybe we must prove the bible out to ourselves to fill ego.

Neither one of those motivations is my reason to explore science and the bible. When Christianity presented the ideas that didn't jive with common sense, I went looking for the reason why.

The doctrine of infallibility is the reason most men want to date the earth. When archaeology presents evidence that the earth is over 6000 years old, it contradicts the doctrine formed from reading the chronologies presented in the bible.

The Hebrew does not have the mindset of a Western reader. And it is in the Hebrew where the chronology of the genealogies, both in the Tanak and the Greek writings, coalesce. But that is a whole other ball game much like the Hebrew words mashiach and tabal or kabac or rachats.

Oh, by the way, I never use TWOT [Tyndale's (sp) Word Old Testament] because of words like Yom. Words that have an intrinsic meaning but are translated many different ways because of context and so appear to be an unused root word and are listed as such in the non Hebrew references like the TWOT and Strong's.
Go to Top of Page

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2003 :  18:28:03  Show Profile
Caleb, I am not a follower of Branham, and truth agrees with much of what you say. Point, Yahushua Himself called us...elohim as does psalm 82. This statement got Him killed, the fact being elohim are indeed offspring of the Most High YHWH. Paul spent his life, literally, trying to show that Yahushua is the FIRST BORN among MANY brethern. He is the firstfruit of the firstfruits. Yahushua gave up His life here so as to plant this seed in the earth {Adam man}, and We shall shortly see this seed comeforth and proclaim this....with YHWH as the witness. this is the message that messiah can indeed be formed in "us". He did mention that "greater things than this shall YOU do, because I go to the Father". Second sons if you will. Benyamin {the son of the right hand}. Now I will agree, mystically there is but one son. One Body. I draw your attention to Hosea 1:10. Yahushua stated He was the son of YHWH and so shall many others. Tough luck world, YHWH says it, and I believe it. I have no tags on my van I travel about in. A cop once asked me, "who said you could do this"? I said, My Father. At the station, the rumor was...."he thinks he is Jesus Christ". I am alive forever more, and Me, Robert, live and have My Being in Him. His Word will NOT return void. We are sons of the Living Creator, and must act like it. No marks of the world, PERIOD, for Benyamin. When David numbered Israel {sin} Benyamin did not get numbered. Many children have parents who are protecting them from the beast, loose the numbers and CAP name, and thy Light shall come. Isaiah 60.1. Sorry to the science fiction fans, but this is the science of the Spirit Life. Selah.
For you science fiction fans, elohim created dinasaurs, YHWH looked down at His children's creation, and "threw a comet onto the mess". Start over, children. Anyone use a concordance??? In the beginning, check out the multiple meanings of beginning....one of which is FIRSTFRUITS.
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 05 Feb 2003 :  18:50:24  Show Profile
True North, I can agree with your main point of searching out the true meanings in scripture by going back to the original language. Thus far I have used tools such as Strong's, but see the weaknesses in them as well. What source do you use to understand Hebrew words?

Now if you can stand back for a minute and look at your last post, it really appears to me that you are saying the exact opposite of what you are doing. My approach to scripture is completely in line with what you say, but then you seem to think I have it backwards. Here's what I see:

True, the Bible doesn't state how old the earth is. My question then is, why are you so sure it is older than the 6000 found in the narative?

"The Bible is not a history book." Now this statement is simply plain wrong. Archaeology vindicates the Bible with each new discovery. I have already shared a glimpse at how closely the Chinese characters match the first 11 chapters of Genesis. The Bible is in fact, the earliest recorded history we have. This aside from any doctrine of infallibility.

"Cheese whiz!" If you reread your initial post that started this whole thread, you seem to be doing exactly what you say is unnecessary: trying to justify the Bible by using the original Hebrew to show that it doesn't contradict modern science.

"Emotional need to be correct", and "doctrine of infallibility". Some may run around trying to "prove" this or that. My approach is to assume that the Bible is the most reliable source of truth I have available. When something contradicts it, I question the other thing, not the Bible. When the Bible appears to contradict itself, or makes no sense, then it is important to go back to the original language for more light on what is really being said. Thus, I find no compelling evidence anywhere (and I am a scientist), especially in the scriptures, to make me question a literal six day creation. "And the evening and the morning were the first day." Multiple meanings of the word "yom" aside, the entire sentence leads one to conclude it is speaking of a 24 hour period, even if it never used the word "day" at all. Now when you get to the Nephilim, this changes. It doesn't fit with the storyline, and every reader has an inherent sense that something is awry. Now it is time to examine the Hebrew more carefully.

"When Christianity presented the ideas that didn't jive with common sense, I went looking for the reason why." And well you should. The question here is how do you determine what common sense is? Does a literal six day creation defy common sense because your science teachers and the media lied to you for your entire childhood? Were you a scientist who had the benefit I did of going through a secular technical college with fellow believers all asking the same questions, you would find that not a single scientific discipline (especially archaeology) can prove an "old earth". They simply ASSUME an old earth and cook up their theories from there. They look at something, take a guess at how it could have happened, then calculate how long it would take if it happened that way. Since they have already dismissed the idea of an intelligent Creator, it should come as no surprise that they end up with ideas that would take millions or billions of years. The problem with this approach is that they simply WILL NOT consider any theory that takes less time. This is the kind of objectivity that passes for "common sense" these days.

So I see you accepting as gospel the "doctrines of men" in the form of "science" and then rushing out to defend the integrity (infallibility?) of scripture by retranslating Hebrew words to fit with these unproven "scientific" theories. As a serious, trained scientist, no one in 20 years has ever presented evidence to me that would call into question a literal six day creation. Instead, I see Christians falling all over themselves to retranslate, reinterpret or simply add what isn't there to scripture so that they don't have to appologize to their brainwashed friends, teachers, etc. for believing what the Bible states in language so simple and straighforward that even the translators got it right.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.17 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000