Can God die

[Michael Joseph]

aw-dawm = mankind
eth-ha-aw-dawm relates to only two - the First Adam [horrible translation] and the Last [Yehoshuah].

Kenites are Sons of Cain - Yisra'el was told do not mix with others - "Do not commit adultery".

Treefarmer wrote: "There is only one Adam, the first man, who had children with his wife Eve (Chavvah), who was flesh of his flesh and who "was the mother of all living" (Gen. 3:20). All means all."

Apparently you have not read carefully the work I presented on What happened in the Garden. I completely disagree with this assertion and so does Scripture.

Regarding the Kenites, I have studied them for some time now - Nehemiah jumping on the backs of the men of Yisra'el - DO NOT TAKE WIVES OF THOSE PEOPLE. For the race you mention along with many others freely intermingled with the Nephilim - an attempt to wipe out the blood-line to Yehoshua - A pure bloodline. Satan's 2nd attack on the bloodline - in attempt to make it impossible for the Christ Child to enter this Age.

A pure blood-line; A pure blood-line; From One Man - Emphatically The Man.

Chavvah is the mother of All living because - she is the means where Yehoshuah will be born from the waters of a woman.

Gen 2 - Gen 6 - speak emphatically to only ONE man - that is if you can read the manuscripts. And if you will take the time to read the study that I provided you, you will see that the Man placed in the garden carries both the article and the particle. He is not ordinary mankind [aw-dawm]; created at Gen 1:27. Funny how chinese recorded history goes so much further back in time than yisra'el nation.

Ever read the front page of the 1611 KJV. If not, you should one day. The writers humbly presented that they did their best; yet they knew there were many errors and they cautioned the reader to do their own work - Yet who will search the depths of the Scriptures?

Regarding 2nd Peter 1 - That is why you had best have a good pre 65' stongs concordance and a Green's Interlinear so that you can see for your own eyes what the Hebrew and the Greek and the Aramaic writings - say.

There were many other people on that Ark beside Noah, his wife, his sons and his sons wifes. And to say that the Kenites are from Noah; well just return to the previous sentence. The Kenites are the Sons of Cain.

Furthermore, if Noah's flood was a so called worldwide flood - which it was not [ I believe] - how in the world would a dove find an olive branch? The Raven had all the food he needed - symbolic of end times - transformation of bodies - flesh lying on ground.

The purpose of Noah's flood, I believe, was to rid the world of the Nephilim [Angelic] hybrids - ever wonder why Yehovah would say to Yisra'el go in and kill every single one of them! Samuel even taking Sauls sword and chopping the foreign king to pieces in front of Saul because Saul was too much of a wus to do God's business.


Treefarmer wrote: Also, nowhere does the Bible say that angels or cherubim (such as Satan) have the ability to procreate sexually, even though angels sometimes appear in the form of men. Jesus makes this clear in Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25.

Apparently you have never read Gen 6. Or Kebra Negast.

Sons of God - Angels
Daughters of Eth-ha-aw-dawm - I know you read "man", right? Yet, in manuscripts - eth-ha-aw-dawm (go look for yourself and prove me wrong)

and they took wives of all they choose. And the women bare children to them and these became mighty men men of renown. I guess Jude was high on mushrooms when he said Angels left their former estate. Peter too as he talked about them as well. Yehoshuah too as he spoke to salvation requirement coming into this Age thru the "waters of a woman". These Angels Nephilim or Raphiim rode "their whirlwinds" - UFO's if you like - I know now I have really left the plantation, right? I can prove every bit of this in Scripture.

Said Angels are reserved in darkness and cannot receive Salvation - these look upon Satan - and say "You have become as one of us" - weak.

I have provided a study for those who would take the time to read it. Let the reader choose for himself/herself.

Alef/Tav = Eth - The first two characters of the Man in the Garden - emphatically is Eth - Even a poor man's Stong's Concordance today will bear that out.....

H853
את
'êth

Apparently contracted from H226 in the demonstrative sense of entity; properly self (but generally used to point out more definitely the object of a verb or preposition, even or namely): - (As such unrepresented in English.)

[Michael Joseph]

you have made many claims, yet no evidence? We disagree. I suspect that until we agree we shall disagree.

I have made no implications upon you Axe. Interesting....

Your heart does not seem to be in the right place.

Thank you for pointing that out for me....

I have yet to cast a stone upon you - thank you for damning me to Hell....

If it makes you feel any better, I promise not to crusade against you - live and let live.....

Shalom.


Let the Reader choose for himself....thank you Axe for engaging the conversation....

[Axe]

Hi MJ,

Why a pre 65' stongs concordance and a Green's Interlinear?

I mean why those specifically?

If later versions don't show what you assert, why would they change?

Thanks.

[Axe]

Okay, not damning anyone to hell. Very dramatic indeed.

Yet you do cast stones, not at me but at others, which is what I was addressing.

And if I am a Pastor? Or a WASP? Now have cast stones on me?

People in glass houses you know...

[Axe]

No Evidence? Seriously?

Why are the "trees" in the garden not all the same? Same word. Tree of life, tree of knowledge of good and evil,
and all the other "trees" in the garden. There is no need to go to Isa, or Ezk when there is plenty of "context" within
the same chapter, even the same verse!.

None other than the apparent big gaping hole in your assertion. You can't have it both ways. Either they were all really "trees" or they were all "beings" of some kind.

The burden of proof is not mine. You are the one suggesting that "trees" aren't really "trees". Seems to me the burden is on you ;-)

[David Merrill]

This is a really interesting discussion if MJ will show a little about anatomy too! I have had this talk with him before.

I see men as trees...

[Axe]

Hi David,

Sure okay, but this is about the context of Gen 2:9.

For the same Hebrew word, two completely different meanings in the same sentence?

To my knowledge that doesn't occur anywhere else in the Bible. Sure there are times
much later when trees are likened to man or men, which MJ cited.

My response was there is no need to go that far away from the verse to divine the intent
of the word. It is used 2 other times in the same verse! So either ALL the instances of
that word in that verse are really trees, or they are all something else.

Not to mention the supporting verb "ate" both of which go against what MJ is trying to assert.

Too many things have to be true to believe MJ's thesis.

Occam's razor.

Anything beyond the immediate context of the verse and chapter is smoke and mirrors until
the immediate context is addressed.

The Bible interprets itself that way. There is no need for all this confusion.
It means what it means.

I believe they were trees, and Adam was not a homosexual.

Reasonable readers can decide.

It's not my intent to beat anybody up, and I don't think anything fruitful will come out
of me discussing this further unless what I mentioned above is addressed.

It looks like MJ was right, we disagree.

I have very much enjoyed this discussion and thank MJ very much for starting the thread and being a gentleman in the discussion.

(If you do start a thread on rapture theology, I'll be sure to stop there as well, if I'm still welcome :-))

God Bless

[Michael Joseph]

Hi MJ,

Why a pre 65' stongs concordance and a Green's Interlinear?

I mean why those specifically?

If later versions don't show what you assert, why would they change?

Thanks.

The pre 65 Strong's is much more complete - why the Later versions became less complete is a mystery to me. Green's Interlinear is the cheapest complete version of the Original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts that I have ever been able to find. Not to say that their translations are complete but the Original Texts are very complete. I think a Green's will run a student around $70.00. Very good recourse.

Along with Smiths Bible Dictionary and many other excellent tools; yet, in my opinion, the foregoing tools are superior. As all of the latter day translations stem from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts; one in search of the truth, might consider having those and taking the time to look and see.

I have found them to be quite helpful and revealing. A king cannot be king in yisra'el unless he handwrites the Books of Moses. Once one does this he may see what others cannot see due to modern day translations and the traditions of modern preachers.

shalom,
mj

[Michael Joseph]

Hi David,

Sure okay, but this is about the context of Gen 2:9.

For the same Hebrew word, two completely different meanings in the same sentence?

To my knowledge that doesn't occur anywhere else in the Bible. Sure there are times
much later when trees are likened to man or men, which MJ cited.

My response was there is no need to go that far away from the verse to divine the intent
of the word. It is used 2 other times in the same verse! So either ALL the instances of
that word in that verse are really trees, or they are all something else.

Not to mention the supporting verb "ate" both of which go against what MJ is trying to assert.

Too many things have to be true to believe MJ's thesis.

Occam's razor.

Anything beyond the immediate context of the verse and chapter is smoke and mirrors until
the immediate context is addressed.

The Bible interprets itself that way. There is no need for all this confusion.
It means what it means.

I believe they were trees, and Adam was not a homosexual.

Reasonable readers can decide.

It's not my intent to beat anybody up, and I don't think anything fruitful will come out
of me discussing this further unless what I mentioned above is addressed.

It looks like MJ was right, we disagree.

I have very much enjoyed this discussion and thank MJ very much for starting the thread and being a gentleman in the discussion.

(If you do start a thread on rapture theology, I'll be sure to stop there as well, if I'm still welcome :-))

God Bless

you have passion for the Word as do I. I am not your judge nor you mine; yet we are brothers as we all belong to the One Creator.

Your beliefs are your and that's great.

[Frederick Burrell]

MJ

So who or what do you believe the Nephilim to be. fb