Is Pastor Murray and the Shepherd's Chapel Right About the Two Seeds? (the Serpent's and the Woman's)

----- Original Message -----

From: Name and Address Withheld

To: reborn@oraclesofgod.org (Paul Stringini)

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 2:00 PM

you seem to miss the point about about the seeds as a matter of fact i dont even no where to start
if you truly believe cain was from adam you indeed have alot to learn. God has told you he put enmity between the two seeds the serpent seed and eves seed if cain is the seed of adam then we only have one seed but we no know this is not true because he cleary state between your seed and the woman seed two different seeds and you see the enmity has cain murdered abel. And i have yet to meet a person who can explain why cain is not in adams geneology without this doctrine

----- Original Message -----

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:25 AM

Subject: Re: Serpent's Seed

Thanks for the note.

The reason that Cain is not in the Genealogy of Adam is because that Cain is not related to the offspring who are the focus of the genealogy of Adam, which is tracing the descent of Noah, which will lead us eventually to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and, of course, ultimately and primarily to the descent of Jesus Christ. As Dr. Murray used to say, this is: "The story of one man's family."

Gen 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

One may also ask why these other sons and daughters are not named in the "genealogy of Adam," and the reason is quite simple: they are not named because they are unrelated to the focus of the genealogy as I mentioned just above regarding Cain.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:

It is the exact same wording, why would anyone believe anything other than what the word is PLAINLY saying? The wording is exactly the same!

It is wrong to argue that Cain is not the son of Adam simply because Cain is not in Adam's/Seth's/Noah's Genealogy. That is an argument from silence and furthermore there really isn't any silence. Because the word plainly states their relationship:

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain,

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:

The question you ought to be asking is this "Why isn't Cain included in Satan's Genealogy?" Such as: "And Satan knew Eve, Adam's wife, and she conceived and bare Cain."?

The genealogy of Adam is focusing on Noah, and is leading the way to Christ. This argument from silence is totally empty and worthless. You cannot rely on faulty interpretations such as this. They are WEAK. And extremely so.

Now you have met "the guy," I explained it, and it makes a whole lot more sense than what the Shepherd's Chapel teaches.

1John5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1John3:9 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.

If you sin, you are of the Devil and are his SEED.

Jesus said this to the so-called "Kenites" - (those normally called Jews, the people Pastor Arnold Murray teaches are the descendants of Cain and the offspring of Satan).

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

On the one hand Jesus acknowledges that they are the "seed" of Abraham, yet he says that they are not Abraham's Children.

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

THE POINT of the Seeds doctrine goes beyond racial identity, in fact the whole New Testament repudiates the serpent seed doctrine, because of the parable of the tares.

The gospel preaches salvation to all nations, but the parable of the tares teaches that there is an entire class of people who cannot be saved, they are the children of the wicked one, if they were a literal nation by blood then some of them would be saved, but the fact is that TARES do NOT "evolve" or otherwise magically change into WHEAT.

And ALL TARES are going to be burned, if you don't get that then you do not understand the parable of the tares. They grow together, but they do NOT change species. That which is planted a tare, grows up a tare, and bears a tare's fruit. We may not be able to sort out the difference early on (the wheat may look a little like a tare. But good seed bare good fruit. Period.

John3:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The whole New Testament is about moving away from race and racial identity being the defining factor when answering the question: "Who is a child of God?"

----- Original Message -----

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:29 PM

Subject: One more thing

One more point, the enmity is between the Serpent's seed and the woman's seed. Cain is the woman's seed, unless you are going to dispute the line "and she conceived and bare Cain."

For your view to be true The enmity would have to be between Adam's seed and the Serpent; but the Serpent seed and the woman''s seed would come together in Cain (if your view was to be taken seriously) so there really wouldn't be two seeds if Satan and Eve "knew" each other to produce Cain.

It does not fit and should be discarded.

----- Original Message -----

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 1:04 PM

----- Original Message -----

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:55 AM

Subject: Re: Brian

Hi, thanks for writing back.

"There is a reason Adam and eve felt the need to cover themselfs and one of the first points brung up is there nakedness."

NO, the first point is knowledge. The Forbidden fruit had a particular effect: It granted knowledge. "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons."

They sewed leaves to cover their bodies because "they knew they were naked" Not because they had put something dirty in their mouths, but because the knowledge they now possessed made them ashamed of their nakedness. It is about exposure, not about copulation. Period. There is not a HINT about copulation in the whole garden story.

"It would make no sense to eat forbidden fruit and try to hide it by covering your body what you would do is wipe your mouth or sometrhing to that extent."

Would you? No, wrong, the scriptures say otherwise. The scriptures plainly say that when they ate the fruit, and realized that they were naked; that they then sewed leaves to cover up the nakedness which they were now aware of. Dr. Murray and others have suggested what you suggest; and I suggest that these powers of suggestion do not make truth. What the Bible says makes lots of sense because the BIBLE says so, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." It says so right in the BIBLE.

"It would make no sense"

Why not? It is absolutely STRAIGHTFORWARD. Arnold Murray has perverted (twisted) the word of God in your mind so that it takes on a different meaning which totally voids that which is written.

They made aprons because of knowledge. Look carefully, you are saying that the scriptures, as written, don't make sense, and then you are reading into them a totally different meaning than what is said plainly. When you do this, you have become the instructor of the word and the word has stopped instructing you.

"They knew they were naked," does NOT mean: "they "knew" the serpent and the serpent "knew" them; and Eve conceived and bare Cain. "

"so we know that Eve continued in birth which means what (twins)"

No, we do not "know" that. Again you have fallen prey to Dr. Murray's suggestions, You do not need a concordance to know that "again" means "to add or augment" or even to continue to do a thing; it means that in English too. But all that means is that they "could have been twins" NOT that they "must have been twins." BIG DIFFERENCE. That is where Dr. Murray is on shaky ground; he has taken a possibility and called it a certainty.

The thing is that, in the Bible, when twins are born, it is usually mentioned, especially when it is of such MONUMENTAL importance, and especially in Genesis.

Gen 25:24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

Gen38:27 And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.

If Eve had twins, and we are supposed to know that, then the Bible would say so, that would be monumental.

"we also know they were twins because they gave there offerings at the same time (GEN 4:3) "

No, no, NO, Wrong again. Where in the bible does it ever say that Adults give offerings according to when they were born???? Try NEVER. In the Bible, hundreds of thousands of people would make offerings at the same time. Because there were "APPOINTED TIMES" for making offerings, like feast days, and like the time of the harvest. So once again Dr. Murray has passed off pure speculation as if it were some sort of proof. Someone ought o ask him to "Document it!" oops, he can't. Cain gave his offering at harvest time, no doubt (where did he get that produce?), about the same time young fatlings would be ready for slaughter.

"Let me see if i can make this simple Larry Billy Susie Larry is intamite with susie then later Billy is intamite with susie then Susie has twins and you asume that both children carry the dna of Billy forgetting that Larry was intimate with Susie first "

No need to condescend to me, I taught this stuff years ago. Nothing you have said is new, surprising, or convincing. Just because such a thing is possible, means nothing, there has to be actual scripture to back it up. "Check it out in God's Word"

There is nothing in scripture that suggests Larry was ever intimate with Susie. That is a big problem with your analogy.

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;

We both know that the word "blood" is not there in the Greek. Fine. But that leaves us with one..., one what? "Hath made of one all nations of men" One what? One seed? One Man? One Something. Not two, not three, but one, Eve came forth out of Adam, One. If you take it to be the woman then it is no longer of one because there is Satan and Adam, so it must refer to Adam.

"Yes the kenites are the descendents of Abraham they had mixed with the true children of God from the beginning what you must realize is that the devil knew Christ would be born and destroy him so what he did was try to polute the bloodline christ would be born through first starting with eve herself and then later sending the nephilum to also polute, this is why Noah and his family were left they were the only family from Adam that had not mixed. "

Problem is that the Kenites perished in the flood, the Kenites of later history were children of a different man named Cain. And if it comes down to race the question that inevitably comes up is; if the Kenites are wicked because they are the children of Satan, then what is our excuse?

Gen 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.

All the theories of how the Kenites survive the flood have one fatal flaw. They totally frustrate the purpose of God in bringing the flood on the Earth. If the purpose what to destroy all the wicked and the fallen ones, why would God either A). Allow these "non-Adamic" souls on the Ark; or B). Allow them to survive by not totally killing everything on the earth. God said he wanted to destroy them, why would he then provide for their survival? That is a MAJOR flaw in the whole Kenite doctrine and on that basis alone it may be rejected.

"this is only half truth the sons and daughters are not mentioned but Cain has is own bloodline and none of the names can be crossed refrenced with the ones of Adam it is important to understand the 2 seeds "

Cain's line is a dead end at the flood. The purpose of the flood was to wipe out all the wicked men. Are you going to suggest that God's flood FAILED in its primary objective? So the names can't be cross-referenced, so what? So now we have to go and change what the plain meaning of scripture is? No thanks.

"Do you still not understand The devil sewed his seed in Eve when she brought forth children a tare came up CAIN and many more tare the kenites (sons of cain) do you still not understand ? "

I used to understand, but I kept "checking it out for myself," and I realized what a sham it is. Wrong, the Devil sowed his seed when he said "Hath God said," the seed of Satan is manifest in the fruit of unrighteousness, not in some imaginary race of men. You know the children of the devil by their works, not by their chromosomes!

If damnation was a matter of race (and according to your interpretation of the parable of the tares it would have to be) then your salvation would depend on who your parents were. If the tares are the literal offspring of Satan then according to the parable of the tares, all the tares are going to burn in hell. They are planted tares they grow up tares and are reaped as tares. It never says "Don't pluck up the tares, they may yet evolve into wheat."

I know that you understand this passage:

Eze18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. 5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, 9 ... he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD. 10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood,... 13...he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, 17 ...he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. 18 As for his father, ...lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. 19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

According to this passage wickedness is not the product of heredity. But according to the parable of the Tares, ALL the children of the wicked one will be burned. If being literally related to Satan is what makes you one of his children then Eze18 would be wrong, because what makes you wicked would be who your parents are. It doesn't work.

And don't give me Dr. Murray's line that "if they repent they can become wheat" THAT is a total perversion of the parable. Talk about missing the point of the Parable!

2Pe2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

They were MADE to be taken and destroyed.

1Pe2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Those who rejected Christ were APPOINTED to do such a thing. Why?

Prov16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

The devil may have planted the tares, but he could not do such a thing apart from the Father granting him such authority. The sower of the Good seed is the Son of Man.

Tares are not a race, they are in every race. Jacob and Esau were also twins, and, without dispute, they both came of the loins of Isaac, but the one was accepted the other was rejected, and Esau's "pedigree" was indisputable. He is called "That fornicator." And no fornicator will inherit the kingdom of God.

The Good seed are the elect, the bad seed are the wicked. I do not deny that Cain was "of that wicked one" Because "his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."

Consider these, which are out of order, (but not out of context) I'm making a point:

1John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God,... 8 He that committeth sin is 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.

Sharpen up, there is your key to the seeds doctrine.

"(remember Christ said if you dont understand these parables you wont understand any)"

Hmmm, did he? Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? Actually Jesus was referring to the parable of the sower, not the tares, and not both. Jesus never says that in Matt 13. That is an old Murray "suggestion" I forgot about that one. It is not true. Even so, Dr. Murray does not understand the parable of the Tares, and, on inspection, his doctrine makes it void.

"I can take this back to the hebrew but I dont know how familiar you are with it."

Dr. Murray likes to say things like that to make himself appear more knowledgeable, but it doesn't work for you on me. Take it back then, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out, I went through all that. Where you are failing as a student of God's word is that you have not understood what the word says in your own language (such as Genesis 4:1) or any language. Talking about the word in a language that you do not understand is without profit. You don't understand Hebrew, if I spoke to you in Hebrew, you would not know what I said, the amount of Hebrew Arnold Murray teaches is comparable to the amount of Spanish I learned on Sesame Street. Don't puff out your chest because you have Strong's dictionary at your disposal. And Please don't take any of my words too personally, It is not you, it was me too, and it is every Shepherd's Chapel student who has the same attitude, imitating Dr. Murray, it comes off as pompous and puffed up. Just say what you have to say about the Hebrew, you don't have to check first to see if I "can handle it," If you have read my page you should know I am not some novice.

"It truly take eyes to see and ears to hear but in all im sure this conversation will make us both review our studys. "

I agree and I'm very glad and thankful you have written me. I had eyes to see it, once, I could teach the serpent's seed doctrine as good as anyone, probably better than most, and no one talked me out of it, I just kept studying the word and meditating on it day and night. And eventually I realized that the doctrine of serpent seed that Dr. Murray teaches creates all kinds of problems and voids the parable of the tares and also that the things Murray was saying about it were mostly out of his own imagination, and that I had fallen prey to the power of suggestion in the way I was interpreting the pertinent passages.

"ps when you read John 38 keep a eye on the lower case (father) devil and the upper case (Father) God"

Let me take this back to the Greek, Greek has no capitals. Not that I disagree, with what they did, but so what? I don't deny that the seed of the Devil are out there, they are everywhere, and in fact they are MOST PEOPLE. Most people are the children of the Devil and will be cast into the furnace of fire. Broad is the way that leads to destruction. There are two seeds, AND ONLY TWO SEEDS. You are either a child of God or a child of the devil, it is not a racial thing. If you analyze Dr. Murray's teaching you will find that he has three seeds, the elect, the Kenites, and freewill souls. And it is absolute corruption\, there are ONLY two seeds.

The biggest problem with this doctrine is the way it totally distracts people from what they should be focusing on. Instead of pursuing righteousness and holiness, Shepherd's Chapel students focus on spreading off-the-wall doctrines like the Serpent's Seed, Kenites, and the, "the Elect are those who Stood Against Satan in the Angelic Rebellion," doctrine (and I don't have to guess why you won't be arguing that one with me any time soon!).

These things are not the core of Christian doctrine, they are not the foundation of Christian teaching, but for a SC student they are among the most important doctrines. That is why the free tape is "The Mark of the Beast" and if you ever listened to the tape "Seed Planting" (at least the one I have) you will know that it is all about the Kenites too. Is that the Gospel??? "Repent! And Know Who the Kenites Are!"

Arnold Murray will never teach you how to truly become like Christ, he will only lay stumbling blocks before your face and teach you the opposite of what the Gospel teaches.

Titus2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Dr. Murray will not lead you away from sinful behavior, he will only comfort you in you sins, "We all fall short!"

He will be like a great weight of stones dragging you down, discouraging you from pursuing that which is within your grasp in Christ:

2Peter1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You will never get there by the Serpent seed doctrine, because "knowing who the Kenites are." and having "eyes to see" (which are not really open yet, Brian) will profit you nothing if you do not lay hold on the salvation of God which comes by the faith of Jesus Christ, NAMELY the remission (freedom) of sins.

John 8:34 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Free Indeed, and Arnold Murray's doctrine will only make you free "in Theory."

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

----- Original Message -----

From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:53 AM

----- Original Message -----

To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:13 PM

Hi, wow, thanks for writing back so fast.

"You seem to bring up Arnold alot I dont study with him much, "

Only because it seems like the points you make come straight out of his book and the title of this part of my web page is "The Shepherd's Chapel and Arnold Murray" I can definitely sympathize as to why you are not sudying with him much anymore, his horn only plays a few notes. It wears thin.

"regardless of what Arnold teaches I believe this because this is the true word of God.

I don't doubt that you believe that.

"Its funny you use to believe the serpent seed doctrine and I use to believe your theorys."

My theories? I'm just reading my Bible, but MY theories are mine, and, in that, you have spoken truly. The doctrine I speak was not revealed to me by men. We never would have come up with the Serpent Seed doctrine without help. And the worst part is that it does NOTHING for us.

"But I enjoy reading your replys it helps me build my case even more there are many flaws in what you said "

The world is waiting, I'd really like to see those "Major flaws." Maybe it would be safer if you kept them secret.

but I will show you one major one.You seem to exspect God to tell you everything, if he did this the bible would be a million pages long.

THAT is a "major flaw" ? It would not take a million pages to mention that Cain and Able were twins, somewhere. It would not take a million pages to say that Eve and Satan had sex. At the same time you are going to try to prove that it IS in the Bible, somewhere. What I expect is that any doctrine that is true will not "make void" something very clear. And that is the problem with this stuff.

You cannot justify TRADITIONS OF MEN like "Serpent's Seed" (and that is exactly what it is) by claiming that "There was no room for it in the Bible." There wasn't any room in the Bible for the assumption of Mary into heaven either. Shall we believe it?

1Cor2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

I have the Spirit of God and the spirit reaveals many, many, things. But none of them contradict that which is established, they build upon it.

"One thing I noticed is that God really treats us like little children. "

But Forever? You think he has revealed something very grown-up to you. And He does do that. 1Co13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Col2:2 That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; 3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge

"In school a teacher usally writes about ten rules for young students to follow now of course those ten are not all rules to be followed but if those ten are followed they will cover mostly all unless you write to many rules and all is lost something like the ten commandments."

And you know, parents don't telll their kids everything, like about sex, they wait to give them the big low-down on the nitty-gritty. But sometimes, some old pervert comes along first and preaches some perverted doctrine to them, and they become perverted themselves. That is what Dr. Murray does with the word.

"now to your major flaw

Genesis 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites
Numbers 24:21 And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwellingplace, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock.
Judges 4:11 Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of Hobab the father in law of Moses, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh.
1 Samuel 27:10 And Achish said, Whither have ye made a road to day? And David said, Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites.
1 Samuel 30:29 And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites

1 Chronicles 2:55 And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Now are you sure you want to hold to your theory that the kenites were destryoed by the flood as you can see they surely made it threw."

It can be put very simply, there was a man named John whose whole family was destroyed, later, some other guy, totally unrelated to the first John had the same name "John" and his whole family came to be known as "the Johnsons." That is all you have discovered in the references to the Kenites.

It is much more logical to go with that interpretation than to say, "Ah-ha! They must have survived the flood!" Because you have to run recklessly over some very clear scriptures.

Gen6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
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.
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

From under heaven means the flood had to be world-wide. I used to really, really, want to believe that a local flood could be found in Gen 6, (because of Geology) but eventually I had to accept the truth, that the flood described in Genesis 6 could be nothing less than Global - from under heaven - (I don't know where you stand on that)

On the other hand, If we try to take the loophole approach and say that "take two of every sort" meant to also take two sons of the devil (and two nephilim? That is kinda funny, I never thought of that, "Japeth, did you feed the Giants?!?") Then we have God frustrating his own purposes. He said he wanted to destroy all the wicked and preserve the righteous, but if he sent the wicked "two by two" on the Ark then he would be totally undermining and defeating that purpose.

So just because there are Johnsons on this side of the flood is no reason to jump to the conclusion that that wicked old John or any of his children survived. It makes more sense and it fits into the scriptures much more easily. You have to make all kinds of special assumptions to get Cain's kids on this side of the flood.

I know someone with the surname "Cain." If you understand how European surnames came into being, you should know that at some point someone picked that name and it is not an ancient connection to Adam's son (sorry). Does the fact that his last name is the same as Cain's prove that the sons of Cain survived the flood? No. Does the fact that his ancestors possessed that name predispose them to evil deeds. No more than you or I.

"Also im sure that you know that old serpent is the dragon which is the devil "

"but I dont think you understand that the tree of knowledge of good and evil is also satan but again you must have eyes to see and hears to ear. "

I did believe that, but there are problems with that. From Ezekiel 31 we see Pharaoh is being compared to a Cedar in Lebanon , (and cedars do not produce fruit!) and then the same tree is said to have been in Eden, I love this passage, I wrote a song from it. This is my true gift: http://oraclesofgod.org/songs/128k/In_the_Day_of_the_East_Wind/Ezekiel_Chapter_31.mp3 .

But it does not even suggest that this tree (Satan?) WAS the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil (which was a fruit bearing tree) if anything, it proves that the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was NOT Satan because if we take this tree (In Ezekiel) to be Satan then Satan could not also be the fruit bearing tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (after all Satan was already the serpent!)

Also, if the tree of life was Christ, (I know Dr. Murray teaches this, maybe you don't hold it) well, God said they could eat of that tree, would that mean that they had an open invitation to have sex with Christ?

"If you read isaiah 14:12 at the same time you read ezekial 31 you will find the bible is talking about the same person. "

I don't disagree. I also wrote the song for Isaiah Chapter 14

"God often uses tree to describe men,

No, that is not exactly right, he compares men to trees or uses trees in symbology to represent men. I don't know anywhere in scripture other than the passage you cite (the blind man) when men are described as being tree-like...

Even if that was right-on does that mean that a tree is NEVER just a tree? I think that the tree in the garden was an actual tree, just because tree can someitmes be personified and anthropomorphosied but does the fact that the trees "envied" mean that they had to be "people"

"or have you forgotten when Christ healed the blind man before it was complete he saw men as trees walking "

I think, "Dr. Murray," sorry, but that is the first thing I think of when I hear that suggestion, Well, that was NOT God who said he saw men "as trees walking" It was some blind guy. Why? Was he being philosophical, prophetic, mystical? Or was it just that he had two eye problems (I think he may have had astigmatism in addition to blindness). All he was saying was telling Jesus that he saw but he did not see clearly. I have very bad vision too, and I know what he meant, men look like small trees, the only way to tell the difference is that the men are the walking "trees" It just means his vision was bad.

"but im going to check your page out. "

Very cool, do that, my page is mostly about making the scriptures into songs word for word from the bible. http://oraclesofgod.org that is my greatest gift, you will agree.

"Im also wondering are you a believer in the rapture "

No. I wrote about that on the same page our discussion will appear.

http://oraclesofgod.org/further_discussion_shepherds_chapel.htm it is near the bottom "The man I love is a follower of SC part 4: The Rapture" You'll probably love it.

"also my friend if you are trying to be like Christ then you must consider yourself a novice in comparison."

Sure, but that is just the sort of discouraging thing Dr. Murray would say (sorry).

1Jn26 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he

Do you abide in him? Well then, you ought to walk just like he did.

Luke 6:40 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master

A complete disciple of Christ will be as Christ. That is my goal. If I set my sights lower, then I will never even get close. Why are you so discouraged? This is our inheritance.

2Peter1:3According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

You have been called to glory and virtue, does the knowledge you have gained by studying with Dr. Murray (sorry) have any "divine power" to bring you to the "glory" and "virtue" which you have been called to?

2Peter1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Do you have any hope at all that you will ever escape the corruption that is in the world through lust??? That is what Jesus Christ came to do, to free you from that. Your doctrine profits you nothing.

2Peter2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

There is another key to the seeds doctrine "cursed children" cursed like Cain, and do you know how the Angels can tell the wheat from the Tares? Easy, the "cursed children" can't stop sinning, they never stop sinning. That is why Jesus calls them Workers of Iniquity.

Mt13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

People say, "It is impossible to totally cease from sin." What? was the Apostle Peter on drugs? Is he just lying? Because if no one can stop sinning then how come he comes down so hard on people who "cannot cease from sin" that would include him, wouldn't it?

You made a point before about little children, this is something very simple, a child could understand it, become a child, and understand this:

1John2:28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.

29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

"1Jn3:12Not 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

I think you forgot this verse what does this word OF mean to you? "

1John3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil;

I'm not sure what it means, you tell me, what does "of" mean in verse 8? Probably the same thing, so does Satan get around or what? (and I did mention that verse, though I did not quote it directly)

1Cor1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

What does "of" mean again? Many things, but, obviously, it does not automatically denote a genetic relationship.

1John3:10 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.

"BUT I CAN SEE YOU HAVE STUIDED AND I WILL SURELY LOOK INTO EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID"

And I can see you are not a rube either, I look forward to hearing form you again.