Can God die

[Michael Joseph]

Yes perhaps another thread would be appropriate. I was thinking more along the lines of energies coming into the planets and how it effects our DNA and consciousness. But perhaps another time or should I say thread. I thought is relative in regards to the conversation in regards to rapture. frederick burrell

Perhaps you can express another thread and we can engage that discussion there?

[Treefarmer]

Michael Joseph, the Bible uniformly spells Adam as Adam, and not "Eth-ha-aw-dawm" or other such names, because the Masoretic text uniformly spells Adam as אָדָם
When you see other constructions, such as וְהָאָדָם in Genesis 4:1, it is because of Hebrew grammatical construction, meaning "And Adam".
The first word of Genesis 3:17 for example is וּלְאָדָם which is correctly translated "And unto Adam".

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.

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.

Trees are indeed likened to people and people to trees in the Bible.
Several parables include trees that talk like people. But these are just parables and they do not teach that trees are people, or that angels are trees.
The blind man in Mark 8 said "I see men as trees, walking". Notice the word is "as" and not "are".

As far as the Kenites go, if you study carefully, you will find that they are mostly comprised of inhabitants of Canaan who trace their ancestry to Abraham and Judah.
The designation Kenite is equivalent to the contemporary European/American surname Smith in English, and Schmidt and its derivations in German.
I'll post a study on this soon in the blog space.

The Kenites are all of the offspring of Noah and family, who were the only survivors of the world wide flood.
God tells us in Genesis 6:17: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die."
In Genesis 9:11 God says: "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."
See also Genesis 9:15.
Here the word all means all, save the ones in the ark which were saved by a miracle from God.
Luke 17:27 also affirms this.

When interpreting scriptures, keep in mind what Peter says in 2 Peter 1:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

And Isaiah tells us in chapter 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."

Let's heed this admonition:
"I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
2 Timothy 4:1-5

Bright blessings

[motla68]

We do not have to become it, just understand the vibrations of history that keep repeating itself through the symbolisms/instruments upon this earth all around us.

Currents --> Currency / Ark of Noah --> Treasury . Do you really believe at the time of the flood in that ark anyone was concerned about money?
all them animals and that ark was just an equitable interest to be protected. Would a man sacrifice his time to protect his neighbors by a calling from a spirit?

[Axe]

However should you decide to produce a Study of your own that can actually support your claims, I for one shall be glad to entertain it.

Wow.

You can say all you want. You can even try to diminish what I bring forth because I post a link.

I can only take that to mean that all of your assertions are completely your own and have come from
no other reading or authors.

I'm not interested in making anyone believe that I am a mental titan, I only want to get the information
to the end user expediently. And as for "entertaining" you, that is not my concern. My concern is correcting
false doctrine that has the potential to lead many astray.

For all those "words" you post, you fail to overcome what to me seems a potent rebuttal to your whole assertion.

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!. A "scholar" it seems to me would know that.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

You ignore the context and go off on your expedition into confusion. There is no need. As you pointed out before,
the truth is there for all to see if they will but ask. No "scholarship" required.

There is another throughout history that does the same thing. I believe his first words in the Bible were:
"Has God indeed said..."

What was he doing? Taking what was clear cut, and twisting it. Promising more. Taking what was simple
and making it complex, confusing and casting doubt.

Your command of certain subjects is fantastic, however, bringing convoluted interpretations of God's Holy Word
from sources other than God's Holy Word is I believe a grave mistake.

I find you quoting gnostics alongside the Bible repugnant. You may as well offer the latest revelation you received from
Mad Magazine as well. That alone casts a stain on whatever assertion you bring forth, making you one of the, what I believe
Lenin called "useful idiots". Regardless of your "scholar" status or educational pedigree.

The there is the fact the Adam also "ate" of the fruit. So now following your interpretation, the first man was also
a homosexual.

Bloodline is important, as it is stated, "the Seed of David" many times.

If your assertion is correct then we should live in Eth-ha-aw-dawm [the first Adam] for we are his offspring. How absurdly ridiculous. We are to live move and have our being in Yehoshuah - the Second Eth-ha-aw-dawm [Adam].

Ridiculous indeed. We are all sons of Adam, which is why we are all under the curse of Adam. We are also called sons of Abraham, as well as sons of God. One refers to physical bloodline, the other to the spiritual. Even "scholars" agree on this.

I do not consider, or call myself a "scholar", I am a student, a sinner saved by grace and the blood of Jesus. Nothing more.

Clearly a student/scholar of Scripture does not REACH - a Scholar presents many, many examples in Yehovah's Word - I just picked a Sampling of Many verses that support the assertion. I could have picked many, many more.

Uuhhh, sure, but it's easy to take an isolated verse and twist it to mean whatever you want it to.
Happens all the time, pastors and frauds alike. That's why "context" is king when it comes to interpretation.

Context requires what is said immediately before and immediately after said verse to be considered first and
with the most weight. Any Bible college student learns that the first day.

Another important rule is to always search your reasoning for putting ANY assertion forward. Is it for your glory,
or for His. You can pray for "enlightenment" all you want, if you intentions are self aggrandizement they will go
unheard.

I want to believe that you are a genuine follower of Jesus, but some of things you say hit my "tuning fork" wrong.
To borrow a David Merrill term there.

You blatantly and broadly attack "pastors" and "churches" in sometimes a savage way. Casting sweeping dispersions
on the whole lot. Honestly, I don't disagree on some points as I know they are out there, but I also know that there
are some that are not.

Regardless, even many of those that have the message wrong, mean well. But your diatribes leave no room for them.
Someone that has been given a gift such as the one you seem to have also has a responsibility (I feel) to help.

I don't believe the Lord grants ANYONE knowledge, wisdom or understanding for their edification alone. Rather than
throwing stones at those that may lack understanding but may mean well, would it not be more "Jesus-like" to
have sympathy?

My observations may be incorrect and if I have cast you in an incorrect light I apologize. Rather than banter
back and forth, I will list them plainly. This is not to personally attack you, rather it is, and should only be taken
in the context of this thread alone.

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

You quote works that are direct contradiction with the Word of God.

Your assertions are not easy to understand or even follow, and don't stand up to analysis from the immediate context from which they come from.

If you are one who is swayed by Titles such as Pastor or Doctor and you put your trust in man's titles in stead of doing the work yourself in the Word, then you like all of the other good little fishies, may be found wanting like the five virgins Matthew 25.

It seems to me again that you more swayed than me. I don't consider the titles at all. They are but men,
like you and I. Some seeking truth, like you and I. You seem to disregard automatically based on the title.

I believe these men have just as much access to the truth as you or I. Some pursue it diligently.

I will say that someone that has devoted their life's work to the edification of the saints in Jesus name
has his heart in the right place, and far be it from me to think that I am "better" or "more enlightened"
or have "more access to insight or wisdom" than he, because of his title.

The "cut and paste from the internet" that you place yourself above in tone, comes from a man. Someone
that has studied and come to his own conclusions, as have you. I placed it there not because of the
organization he represents, but because of the truth he has found.

You also imply that means I'm incapable of forming my own thesis. Again, not very Christian. It happens that
I lack the time which you seem to have an abundance of. If you say you have never plagiarized someone else
in your posts, I'll accept that for value. You are a better man than me, but then that's not a very high standard :-)

When interpreting scriptures, keep in mind what Peter says in 2 Peter 1:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."

And Isaiah tells us in chapter 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."

Let's heed this admonition:
"I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."
2 Timothy 4:1-5

Thanks for that TreeFarmer. Poignant indeed.

[Axe]

I do know there are good men of God, working as "men of God".

I don't think that churches should be 503c. That places them under the wrong master. Forbidden.

I don't think that pastors should give "messages" in their churches. This opens the door to taking any verse out of context, and making it mean whatever they want. Which is usually not what God meant in his word. Pastors should read The Word. They should teach about translation, interpretation and context.

I think that the gate is narrower than anyone realizes.

I don't agree that "going to church" saves anybody, but... I do believe that a true believer understands that going to church is not necessarily for them. I think that people who are mature in their faith have an obligation to to church for the edification of others.

I grew tired of going to church. My church was a chapter by chapter, verse by verse church. After I had been a believer for while, been on fire, got super involved, volunteered, read the whole Bible, attended Bible college ( 1 semester, didn't graduate), I grew weary knowing what was going to be covered at church every Wed. and Sun.

I started to get annoyed with more and more people at church. Only seeing everyone's faults. I got a negative attitude and stopped going.

I felt better, but something wouldn't stop bothering me. I keep feeling guilty, though I knew there was no where in the Bible that commanded me to go.

Then one day I was thinking about it, going over it (to myself) how I knew the Word, I knew the message, and I just didn't need to go. Then, I believe The Lord told me clearly,
"You don't need to go for you. you need to go for others that need what you know." (paraphrase)

That's when it hit me. Believers get so selfish. We want to go and "get fed" all the time. Never understanding that there comes a point when your feeding has to stop being the priority and feeding others should become the focus.

I didn't need to go to church for me. I needed to go to church for the people there that maybe needed my insight on their own journey. Also, because no matter how "scholarly" you think you are, you still need accountability from your peers to keep you on track. We are ALL susceptible without accountability.

Will people be damned for going to a 503c church? I doubt it. In the end, the truth is... Christ crucified. That's what's required. So rather than sit on a high horse, I decided that I am no better or worse than anyone else.

And if I'm sooo smart and knew sooo much, then I should be doing more.

That's my 2 cents.

[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