An Extensive Discussion of What Happened In the Garden of Eden and the Origin of Races

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

From: Name And Address Withheld

To: REBORN@ORACLESOFGOD.ORG (Paul Stringini)

Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 3:56 AM

I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON WHY GODS ADDRESS TO EVE ABOUT WHAT SHE DID MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD MULTIPLY HER SORROW, AND HER CONCEPTION. DOES THIS IMPLY SHE HAD CONCEIVED? AND THAT HE WOULD MULTIPLY HER CONCEPTION TO INCLUDE ANOTHER CHILD? I REALIZE THE KNOWLEDGE AQUIRED BY THIS FRUIT IS WHAT CAUSED THEM TO KNOW THEY WERE NAKED, AND WHY THEY COVERED THEMSELVES, BUT WHAT FRUIT FROM SOME PLAIN OLD FRUIT TREE DOES THIS PHENOM.

ALSO COMMENT ON THE NEPHILUM. WHO WERE THEY? DID THEY TAKE WIVES OF THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN AND PRODUCE CHILDREN? ARE THESE WHO IS SPOKEN OF IN JUDE AS LEAVING THEIR FIRST HABITATION?

IF GOD DESTROYED THE EARTH BY FLOOD TO DESTROY ALL THE WICKED IT MUST NOT HAVE WORKED? LOOK AROUND! AND CERTAINLY THE ANIMALS WERE NOT WICKED AND VIOLENT TO WARRENT DESTUCTION. WERE THE ANIMALS TAKEN ON THE ARK REFERED TO AS HAVING THE BREATH OF LIFE? THE FLOOD WASN'T THAT LONG AGO AND THERE ARE 1000'S OF SPECIES, I DON'T THINK ONE LARGE BOAT COULD HAVE FIT THEM ALL, AND AND A FEW THOUSAND YEARS IS NOT LONG ENOUGH TO EVOLVE THEM ALL.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE FLOOD OF REVELATIONS.

HOW DO YOU REASON ADAM AND EVE BEING TWO OF THE SAME FLESH, EVE BEING TAKEN OUT OF ADAM, COULD HAVE OFFSPRING OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF RACES?

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF RECENT SCIENCE DECLARING THAT DNA RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT EVERY PERSON WITH BLUE EYES ARE LINKED TO ONE COMMON ANCESTOR? MINE ARE BROWN. I'M ONLY PART WHITE.

WHY DO YOU THINK THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS ARE ALL THE WHITE NATIONS, AND ALL THE REST OF THE RACES HAVE ANOTHER PRIMARY RELIGION.

WHO ARE THOSE WHO SAY THEY ARE JEWS BUT ARE NOT, BUT ARE THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN AS WITTNESSED BY THE 2 CANDLESTICKS?

WHO CAN CLAIM TO WORSHIP OUR GOD AND NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS. HE WHO HAS NOT THE SON, NEITHER HAS THE FATHER. THEY WORSHIP ANOTHER GOD ACTUALLY, A FALSE GOD.

WHEN THE BIBLE VERSE YOU QUOTE SAYS THAT THE CHILD OF GOD SINS NOT BECAUSE HIS SEED REMAINS IN HIM, ISN'T IT TALKING ABOUT JESUS? HE'S THE ONLY ONE I KNOW WHO WAS SINLESS. BECAUSE GODS SEED WAS IN HIM.

WHEN DO YOU THINK GOD CREATES THE SOUL THAT GOES INTO A WOMB? IS HE CREATING THEM AS WE GO ALONG?

I APPRECIATE YOUR STUDIES, I'M STILL SEARCHING FOR TRUTH MYSELF. I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE THINK WE UNDERSTAND. I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT MURRAYS TEACHINGS, BUT ADMIRE THAT HE DON'T SELL PRAYERS, OR HEALINGS, OR BLESSINGS, OR HIS OWN BOOKS, LIKE MOST PREACHERS. SO IF HE WERE TEACHING LIES, WHATS HIS MOTIVE?

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

Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 11:46 PM

Subject: Re: BIBLE

Wow, I'm sorry, I apologize, I overlooked your email, but you ask very good questions and I will answer them, better late than never.

"I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON WHY GODS ADDRESS TO EVE ABOUT WHAT SHE DID MENTIONED THAT HE WOULD MULTIPLY HER SORROW, AND HER CONCEPTION. DOES THIS IMPLY SHE HAD CONCEIVED? "

I don't think so. I feel that the way the question is framed artificially leads to the answer that it was implied; (that she had conceived). Even though I do not think that it is implied, I will yield that Eve may have (already) conceived when the pronouncement had been made, but she may have been pregnant already (before she ate the fruit), God told them to be fruitful and multiply when he created them, we do not know how much time had passed, but I don't see how one can say with certainty that she was pregnant or had or had not yet conceived.

AND THAT HE WOULD MULTIPLY HER CONCEPTION TO INCLUDE ANOTHER CHILD?

Multiply usually refers to large numbers of descendants, not usually one plus one equals two. Eve would have many many children.

I REALIZE THE KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED BY THIS FRUIT IS WHAT CAUSED THEM TO KNOW THEY WERE NAKED, AND WHY THEY COVERED THEMSELVES, BUT WHAT FRUIT FROM SOME PLAIN OLD FRUIT TREE DOES THIS PHENOM.

It was not a "plain old fruit tree." It was a unique tree.

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

It was a special tree. That is what God's word indicates. It was a tree whose fruit granted the eater knowledge of Good and Evil. That is far from plain. The bible is full of things which are unusual or miraculous, sometimes I wonder at this line of reasoning, it's as though anything that is not materialist or naturalistic cannot be believed.

Conversely, one could ask how that having sex with Satan would grant them knowledge of Good and Evil. How does plain old sexual intercourse cause such a phenomenon? Plus, without the knowledge of Good and Evil it would not have been a sin to have sex with Satan, because God never commanded Adam and Eve about having sex with Satan, he told them not to eat of a particular fruit (as compared to the other fruits available), so without possessing the knowledge of Good and Evil they would not have known that sex with Satan was wrong.

To basically say, "What you think you are reading in the Bible, the plain old words, is wrong, they did not eat fruit, they had sex." I just can't follow that kind of a rule.

ALSO COMMENT ON THE NEPHILUM. WHO WERE THEY? DID THEY TAKE WIVES OF THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN AND PRODUCE CHILDREN? ARE THESE WHO IS SPOKEN OF IN JUDE AS LEAVING THEIR FIRST HABITATION?

Nephilim in Hebrew means "fallen ones," I do think they are those that Jude spoke of. I don't disagree with your line of questioning. Why would I? The bible plainly states that they took them wives of the daughters of Adam and produced children. In fact, this stands in stark contrast with Genesis 3 which says no such thing. So we see that the Bible is fully capable of expressing itself plainly in matters of procreation. There are so many things in the bible that are stated plainly and people refuse to believe. I marvel how mysterious meanings are derived from plain sayings. For Example The bible says that whosoever commiteth sin is of the devil. But because people sin and they want to think of themselves as being of God they deny the plain facts. (more on that coming up

IF GOD DESTROYED THE EARTH BY FLOOD TO DESTROY ALL THE WICKED IT MUST NOT HAVE WORKED? LOOK AROUND!

Well, it has been a while, and it says "Noah found grace, in the sight of God." But it is not my opinion that God's purpose was to destroy the wicked. The bible itself says that is why he did it.

Gen6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 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.

Obviously the presence of the offspring of the Nephilim was a factor in the level of wickedness, but there were more Nephilim after the flood ("also after that") and God did not use a flood to wipe them out he used men.

AND CERTAINLY THE ANIMALS WERE NOT WICKED AND VIOLENT TO WARRENT DESTUCTION.

God wanted to destroy them anyway, he said so, "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." When wickedness abounds, the innocent suffer. Lots of babies were killed in the flood too, and lots of pregnant women died.

WERE THE ANIMALS TAKEN ON THE ARK REFERED TO AS HAVING THE BREATH OF LIFE?

Yes. Are you suggesting that non Adamic races are animals? Otherwise I fail to see the point.

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.

Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

The term "all flesh" includes animals.

THE FLOOD WASN'T THAT LONG AGO AND THERE ARE 1000'S OF SPECIES, I DON'T THINK ONE LARGE BOAT COULD HAVE FIT THEM ALL,

Have you considered that Noah probably took many baby animals? It is alot easier to feed baby lions milk than adults flesh and they take up a lot less space. I don't think that you have considered how big the ark really may have been. Plus this opinion is based more on your own sense of estimation than on hard facts. I used to wonder about that, but the word is pretty clear, all the "buts" and "it's impossible" are just the reaction of man's wisdom to God's word.

Remember the five loaves and the two fishes. From such a small space, a basket, Jesus drew out enough fish and bread to feed 5000 men (not counting the women and kids). God personally shut the door of the Ark, there were no pulleys or ropes involved, no, "heave-ho." The hand of God did it. I do not believe for one second that Noah and the Ark made it through such a cataclysm without miraculous aid. What I do believe is what the word says, and it is pretty cut and dry. Everything that is contrary to it is of the wisdom of men and not of the Spirit.

AND AND A FEW THOUSAND YEARS IS NOT LONG ENOUGH TO EVOLVE THEM ALL.

Evolve from what? It only takes a single generation to produce a variant. The first blue budgie was simply born, he did not evolve over millennia, he was simply born. Genetic variants which produce new races and breeds can appear in a single generation, especially when the DNA is very rich.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE FLOOD OF REVELATIONS.

If you mean the flood that the dragon casts out of his mouth? I'll tell you that I don't think much of it at all, because it is not really a threat, God has already declared that the earth shall swallow it up, and it will not harm the woman. Sounds like a failure to me.

HOW DO YOU REASON ADAM AND EVE BEING TWO OF THE SAME FLESH, EVE BEING TAKEN OUT OF ADAM, COULD HAVE OFFSPRING OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF RACES?

Well, quite simply this, the DNA was probably much richer. The differentiation of races is the result of separation and the loss of genetic information. If I had a black father and a blond haired blue eyed white mother and my wife had a black father and a blond haired blue eyed white mother, and we both came out looking very mixed but the same; medium skin tone with curly hair; we could still have blonde haired blue eyed lily-white children that would not look black at all and we could also have pure black-as-night children that did not look white at all, it all depends on how the genetics play out.

The first family was not lily white nor were they black African, nor yet Asian, or anything else we know, they were a race that no longer exists. But they could have had children that had all kinds of looks, black, white whatever, it is not until blond haired blue eyed offspring decide to separate themselves from the rest and become isolated that races begin to develop.

Whatever arguments one wants to make one has to decide if they want to give more weight to the questions and disputings of men or to the word of God, because the word of God plainly states this:

Acts 17:25 ... seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one 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;

Dr. Murray likes to point out that the word blood (which I have purposely left out) is not in the manuscripts. That is true, but the word ONE is in all the manuscripts. And the logical question is, "one what?" One Man, that is Adam. All humans, all nations come of one. If anyone says otherwise then their argument is not with me but with the scriptures. The doubts and disputings of men are always at odds with the scriptures.

The races as we know them are not "pure" nor ever can be. What they are, is diluted versions of the original rich DNA, and races represent the loss of rich genetic diversity within the individuals.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF RECENT SCIENCE DECLARING THAT DNA RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT EVERY PERSON WITH BLUE EYES ARE LINKED TO ONE COMMON ANCESTOR? MINE ARE BROWN. I'M ONLY PART WHITE.

I'm suspicious, very suspicious of those kinds of claims, science which attempts to turn back the clock is based on a whole heap of assumptions which may or may not be true. Though this is probaly true, I'm just suspicious of these "turn back the DNA clock" methods. From the rich genetics of early man there was born one with blue eyes, but blue eyes are recessive (at least they are now) so the first blue eyed man would have been the last blue eyed man for at least one generation. Only his grandchildren could have had blue eyes again.

MINE ARE BROWN. I'M ONLY PART WHITE.

Mine are brown too, but I'm "all white," (If such a thing is even possible!) my skin, and the skin of all my children tans nicely in the sun, but all my Italian forbearers had blue eyes, I got brown eyes from my "pure" Scotch/English/Irish grandmother; my mother had blue; my father green; the only ancestor I have with brown eyes is that grandmother, (all my other grandparents had blue eyes) and she was white as you could ask. I don't see what that has to do with it, I have to admit, blue eyes are pretty cool, but it is not just white people that have them, there are blue eyed peoples in Asia and there were blue eyed tribes of Native Americans. One could conceivably have black skin and blue eyes, but I assume it would be a very rare confluence of genetic factors. My wife and I both have brown eyes but both our mothers had blue eyes, out of my 6 children only one had blue eyes, but five had blonde hair, but neither my wife nor I have blonde hair.

WHY DO YOU THINK THE CHRISTIAN NATIONS ARE ALL THE WHITE NATIONS, AND ALL THE REST OF THE RACES HAVE ANOTHER PRIMARY RELIGION.

I disagree with the entire premise of that question, It is not true. Jamaica is a Christian Nation and they are black. South Sudan is a Christian nation, again black. Ethiopia has been a Christian nation longer than any white nation in the west, and again, they are very black. Armenians are Christian (the first Christian Nation of all)and they are "white," but not European, but if you want to call them "white" you might as well call the Indians of India "white" and the Arabs and Persians, and the rest in Southwest Asia "white," because, in spite of their dark skin, they are all technically considered "Caucasoid," as are many Muslim peoples in that area. The Albanians are "white," but not Christian. Plus, the former Christian nations of Europe are no longer Christian, or a whole lot less than many African nations, or Korea, maybe their heritage is Christian, but their churches in Europe are empty, and their people are, most of them, Secularists, Agnostics, or Atheists.

WHO ARE THOSE WHO SAY THEY ARE JEWS BUT ARE NOT, BUT ARE THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN AS WITTNESSED BY THE 2 CANDLESTICKS?

Who are they? They are they who say they are Jews but are not. (ha, ha...) Ok, Jesus said "I know" he did not say that we rhave a strong need to know, and since we are not even in the time of Revelation, I fail to see what labeling people as being such can accomplish; except, perhaps, error and sin. Maybe those who claim and are not are Dr. Arnold Murray and company (imagine if that ended up being the truth, YIKES!), they claim to be Israel, which really is the same thing as a Jew in the later parts of the Bible. And their Jewish Heritage is very questionable. To say that every person we commonly call a Jew is a Kenite (which is basically Dr. Murray's Position, I have tapes proving it, which I am glad to share) is total madness.

Consider this thought about the Jews/"Kenites." Satan is supposed to be one of the most beautiful beings in the universe. If the Jews are Satan's children, one might expect them to inherit some of this beauty; then why are they not more beautiful than the rest of humanity? The stereotype of a Jew includes a hooked nose which is not generally revered as being particularly elegant or beautiful. I think that there are beautiful people in all races, and even with hooked noses (but they might argue with me). But the Jews/Kenites certainly do not stand out as a "notably" beautiful people. I would think that if they were descended from one of the most beautiful of all, and, as Dr. Murray has declared, they are the most racially pure of all nations (I have that on tape and it will eventually appear on my website) then you would think that they would be the most lovely people ever to grace the earth, but they are not. They are just normal, like the rest of us.

WHO CAN CLAIM TO WORSHIP OUR GOD AND NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS. HE WHO HAS NOT THE SON, NEITHER HAS THE FATHER. THEY WORSHIP ANOTHER GOD ACTUALLY, A FALSE GOD.

I do not disagree, the Jews who do not have my Jesus, do not have my God.

WHEN THE BIBLE VERSE YOU QUOTE SAYS THAT THE CHILD OF GOD SINS NOT BECAUSE HIS SEED REMAINS IN HIM, ISN'T IT TALKING ABOUT JESUS?

I don't think so, lets look.

1John3:2 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.

The subject is us,

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.

If we are truly in him, sin will stop. That is the work he does, Jesus takes away our sins Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

We see that it is not talking about Christ not sinning, because the subject here is "whosoever abideth in him"

7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

People who claim to be righteous and still do sin are liars, that is the way it is,

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.

Whosoever refers to the same people as in verse six, if only Christ was meant then I would have to say, "Him that was born of God" or something like that. Gal4:19 19 "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you," Christ has to be formed in us, then we can truly fulfill this verse. You probably know that the word "Christian" means "Little Christ" and I tell you, that is meant literally, we are supposed to be literally like him, we have to walk in pureness in this world.

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.

I never feel lead to add much to that, it seems just to be plain English to me.

HE'S THE ONLY ONE I KNOW WHO WAS SINLESS. BECAUSE GODS SEED WAS IN HIM.

Of course, but that passage is talking about the manifestation of the "children" of God not just a single "child."

This is a favorite subject of mine, It is impossible for us to have lived our whole lives without sin, but, God help me, I will never drink again, smoke pot, etc. it is certainly not impossible to become free from sin. It is the whole point of being a Christian. How else can we be "Little Christ's?"

Titus 2:11 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;

That is what the grace of God that brings salvation teaches me. Let everything that seems to say contrary be interpreted in that light. These verses are cut and dry, you will find the others more circumstantial. I have come to hate the way these verses are often perverted and abused.

Ps 119: 101 I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
102 I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

(I did a song for that Psalm, did you ever check out the music part of my site? That is my main thing.)

WHEN DO YOU THINK GOD CREATES THE SOUL THAT GOES INTO A WOMB? IS HE CREATING THEM AS WE GO ALONG?

As an alternative he could draw them down out of a storage tank or something.

The only thing I have to go on is the word of God. This is what the word says about the beginnings of souls:

Gen2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God did not breath a soul into man. It is by the introduction of a spirit into a flesh body that man becomes a soul. That is my view of the soul. When Man dies, the spirit returns to God, but the soul waits for resurrection. That is about as simply as I can put it based on the facts of scripture.

I APPRECIATE YOUR STUDIES, I'M STILL SEARCHING FOR TRUTH MYSELF. I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE THINK WE UNDERSTAND.

I appreciate that, and I believe that is a very wise attitude to have. I certainly don't feel like I know everything, I have made some decisions, but not until after many years consideration. With some things, It was like, one day, I just looked at what I believed, and considered the way I had to interpret the scriptures that go contrary. When I have very direct statements that are very cut and dry on one hand; I have to consider whether I am letting verses that are more circumstantial, or perhaps not as clear, on the other hand, cloud my judgment, mainly because the unclear passages may promote a doctrine I like better. (This is the way I was about "Where are the dead/Resurrection/Souls" I used to God Murray's way, I can't any more.)

I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT MURRAYS TEACHINGS, BUT ADMIRE THAT HE DON'T SELL PRAYERS, OR HEALINGS, OR BLESSINGS, OR HIS OWN BOOKS, LIKE MOST PREACHERS. SO IF HE WERE TEACHING LIES, WHATS HIS MOTIVE?

Well, he does sell his teachings on cassette, at a very reasonable price. If I start guessing at people's motivations I could get into trouble. But Dr. Murray is easy. He does benefit from the ministry. But I do not think that is what motivates him. He loves his doctrines, he believes them, and out of his desire to spread, "the truth" he works to that end. That is what motivates him, that fact that he perceives what he believes to be the truth, to be the truth. Here is an interesting thing:

1 Cor 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

I find that fascinating, If I knew that what I was doing was not of the truth of God, I would not do it, neither would Dr. Murray, if he knew he was deceiving people, he would stop tomorrow, no, today. But God has ordained that there must be false prophets, maybe I am one, but I'd never know it, because If I did know it then I would never fulfill my destiny as a false prophet.

I think I just oversimplified this concept and maybe missed it a little; this is better: One may believe that what they are teaching is false and still teach it, (like many hypocrite Televangelists and such), but if they knew the truth, i.e. the hidden wisdom of God, the mystery, then they most definitely would not do the things that they do.

Perhaps God has put an excellent spirit in you to seek and find the truth, in that case you will surely find it. If you have any other questions or would like further clarification, I will be at your service.

Sincerely,

Paul

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

Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:40 AM

Subject: Re: BIBLE

Paul,

XXXXXXX is my wife. I am XX. I thank you for taking the time to write me. It's the first time a Murray basher has done that. You were very thorough, and I appreciate the effort you made to explain not only your positions on doctrine, but also why, with documentation.

I think sometimes the truth is bi-fold, yet not contradicting. We get so upset when we talk about certain things, sexuality for one, especially sex with the devil. It's so easy for us to believe the "tree of life" is, or symbolizes, Jesus, and have heard many teach that concept, but to equate Satan to the tree of Knowledge of "good and evil" is thought to be an absurd idea. And it is also easy for us to believe that the serpent was indeed a literal reptile that Satan possessed to speak through, because that is what we were taught from our youth. I do believe there is a difference between the trees for food, and the trees which were in the midst of the garden. I don't necessarily have to believe sexual inter-coarse was the event. After all Mary was impregnated without sexual inter-coarse. Satan is not a human being, he is un-natural, and much more powerful than human flesh men. It is however written that Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness after they both partook of the fruit, whatever the fruit was or may have symbolized. Weather the seed of the serpent was literal or not may be questioned, but the fact that the scriptures took great care to document the seed of the woman through 70 generations to the virgin birth of Jesus, is written. After the birth of Christ, it wasn't important enough anymore to keep record of, and that was the end of the documentation of any seed line in the scriptures. May I suggest keeping an open mind for better understanding. Murray's teaching certainly isn't specifically perfect, but in a broader sense may very well be right on. You mentioned that Adam and Eve's DNA was super rich in order to produce the many races upon all the earth. You must also suppose that the fruit they ate was also rich with something as well, for it was able to "open their eyes" to knowledge of "good and evil". Maybe there was a drug effect in this fruit, in any case it is written that when it made their eye's open they were ashamed of their nakedness, and they were naked before and not ashamed. I don't think it takes much intelligence to know what happened here. God said "who told you that you were naked"? Is a tree or fruit someone that would be referred to as "who"?

Third day God made herb yeilding seed, and fruit yeilding trees who's seed is in itself.

On the fifth day God brought forth out of the waters every moving water creature that had life, as well as the fowl of the air. Fifth Day!

Sixth Day God made every beast of the earth out of the dust of the ground. Every cattle and creeping thing, and also man, male and female created he them. You say these were Adam and Eve. I don't think so. God said to them to replenish the earth, and have dominion over the fish, fowl, and beasts. He gave them every herb and every tree in the which was fruit of a tree yeilding seed, it shall be food for them. They were not in the garden, not part of the garden. God said he looked at all his work he done on the 6th day and everything was good. This is not the picture painted in chapter 2 where some things were not good.

Seventh day God rested. Sabbath Day! He did no work, no creation.

Now when God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, God said it's not good for Adam to be alone, so then God created from the ground, cattle, beasts of the feild and fowl of the air. I thought those fowl were created on the 5th day and from out of the water, and the beasts of the earth were created before man? You say it's talking about those already created on the 5th day and before this Adam was made on the 6th day and was talking about bringing them to Adam now, but that simply doesn't work for the train of thought here. Adam was alone and needed company, so Gods makes him some company and he did name them all. But there was still no partner of his kind for him. If this is a recount of the 6 days of creation, and the recount of the creation of man in more detail, then why is there no recount of the Sabbath? If this is not the eighth day creation of Adam and Eve, then why was the covenant of circumsision on males only made with Abraham also on the eighth day? What would be the significance of the eighth day? Why is the millenial Kingdom refered to as the Sabbath Day of 1000 years, and after this would again be symbolized the Eighth day, a new eternal covenant?

What God was really planting and growing in the garden was the people (or family) who the tree of life, His son, would come into the world thru. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, but also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was Satan. They were given no commandment not to partake of the tree of life, but only not to partake of the fruit of Satan, and what they did was believed in the word of Satan, and believed not the word of the Lord. When Adam believed Satans word, this is how Satan, the man of sin, entered into the world, thru Adam, and also how his seed come into Eve was thru Adam. Not necessarrily by sexual inter-coarse like that the nephilum. Satan sought to destroy the way of the tree of life to bare fruit, but God placed a flaming two edged sword of truth to guard and to protect the way of his son to come into the world, and he did come. It's no mystery that even today a man could consume of some bad stuff, and when his wife gets pregnant the child could have some issues. The precise mechanisms are not known, but the testimony is no less true, that the man of sin will be revealed on the earth, and his seed killed all the prophets, and Christ himself also. But the way of the tree of life was kept, and we can partake of him and live forever. Take Ye and eat, for this is my body. Take Ye and drink for this is my blood.

You quoted Acts 17:26

Subject of this is Idol and image worship. This is the complete sentence without the verse numbers.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
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;
That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

For we are also "his" offspring. Who is "his", is it Adam? Of coarse not, we are offspring of the father, who gives life, and breath, and all things to everyone, through his son. This is the "one" by whom all nations of men live, and move , and have their being. For we are the offspring of the Lord.

God is supernatural. In charge of even the laws of nature, creator of them. I hardly believe he needs to work outside himself in un-natural means. Everthing he does is natural, and there is nothing else really. We just simply are not aware of everything, other deminsions, invisable things in the air like waves transporting sound and images, and forces unknown. Mysterious to us, but certainly natural to God.

Your answers on multiplying the conception was very elementary, and the special trees theory was lame.

In the end God will judge all who lived, all the souls, and they all are seperated into two groups. Only two! Those who have the mark of Satan, and those with the seal of God. People are looking for the mark to come someday, and try to consider what it may be, but it's been here the whole time since the garden, and it is here today, and you don't even know what it is, and thats why they already have it. Satans mark can be in the mind or in the hand, Gods seal is only in the mind.

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

From: Paul Stringini

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 3:16 PM

Subject: Re: BIBLE

Hi XX,

I think sometimes the truth is bi-fold, yet not contradicting.

Sure, times like these:

Pr26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Should you answer a fool or not? it all depends...

There are lots of "contradictions" in the bible like that. Even so, it only goes so far...

We get so upset when we talk about certain things, sexuality for one, especially sex with the devil. It's so easy for us to believe the "tree of life" is, or symbolizes, Jesus, and have heard many teach that concept, but to equate Satan to the tree of Knowledge of "good and evil" is thought to be an absurd idea.

I don't know about that... it doesn't upset me. I used to teach it (that the devil impregnated Eve). Also I don't think it is an absurd idea, just an unsubstantiable one.

I do not believe the tree of life is literally Jesus. In the book of Revelation, Jesus offers to give us to eat of the tree of life (Re2:7), yes, it sounds similar to the way he talks about giving us his flesh to eat. So Maybe the tree symbolizes Christ or is spiritually congruent to him, but it does not have to "be" him. Shared similarities do not mean that things are equal, that is just common sense, and true. The tree's leaves and fruit are described, the tree was planted and said to grow, It is completely reasonable to believe that the trees in the midst of the garden were literally tree, there is every reason to believe that this is what God wants us to believe.. The literal tree foreshadowed the true "tree" "The green tree" which Jesus spoke of, but these similarities do not mean that the tree is Identical to Christ, that is like saying that the Passover Lamb in the Old testament is literally Jesus

Just as Jesus said "I am the living bread which came down from heaven" yet he was not literally the manna that they ate, any more than the bread and wine of communion are literally Jesus Flesh and blood (unless you are catholic). Even though Jesus is directly equated with these things, they are not literally him.

Was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Satan or symbolize Satan? (I'm going to abbreviate it: The TKG&E) Or was it something else? There is Ezekiel 31...but then we know Satan was the Serpent, we know that for sure, if Satan was the tree also, then why not just have the "tree" talk to Eve? The fact that the Serpent is a separate entity in the story leads me away from what you are saying..

I guess I would say that the tree of life pertains to Christ and the TKG&E pertains to Satan (at least in some way), I do not think that the scripture gives us sufficient authority to definitively say that Jesus or Satan "were" those trees.

Gen2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The lack of any verbs in the clause regarding the tree of life and the TKG&E means that the verbs must be supplied from the preceding clauses. This verse says that the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil grew from the ground and were good for food. Eve also saw it was so: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" (Gen 3:6) Why should I think anything different?

Is that all symbolical? And I can't rely on the words written in Gen 2:9? Am I to not believe what I am reading?? Was there a real tree or not? I have to believe there really was an actual tree, the language in scripture leads me to believe that.

And it is also easy for us to believe that the serpent was indeed a literal reptile that Satan possessed to speak through, because that is what we were taught from our youth.

I was not taught that from my youth. All I know is what the scriptures have taught me: we know that Satan is called "that old serpent" (Rev 12) Satan is also called "a ravening lion" (1Pe5:8) but no one ever imagines that he transforms into a lion, likewise, Jesus is called the "lion of Judah" and "the lamb," yet no one concludes that he is some sort of shape-shifter. The main reason that would make someone think that the Serpent was also a serpent, is because of the verse that introduces the serpent, which leads us to believe that the serpent is a beast.

Gen3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

Man is not included among the "beasts of the field" the fact that the serpent is mentioned in this way leads many people to assume that the serpent is a beast, and that is logical in context, if the serpent is not a beast, then this verse is a little misleading. (to say the least! as is all of Gen 3 if Dr. Murray's doctrine was correct)

The other verse is the "punishment verse" which says "on your belly thou shalt Go." I guess if God meant something other than a beast, then he is definitely giving people a different impression by what is written in the word. I do not consider it a very critical issue, I don't care one way or the other, animal, mineral, spiritual, or vegetable, Satan was present.

I do believe there is a difference between the trees for food, and the trees which were in the midst of the garden.

Ok, there was a difference, no doubt, but the trees in the midst of the Garden are also described as being good for food, so that was not the difference.

Gen3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The bible says they saw and ate food.

The tree of life is also for eating, as Jesus said in Rev2:7 (and Gen 2:9 says so) So if the trees in the midst of the garden were for food, like the rest of the trees in the garden, what is the difference you are talking about? I'm assuming this because you only said "trees for food," which I have to assume means that you believe that the trees in the midst were not for food, but the scripture says they were for food. I agree the trees were different, but not because of the reason you seem to be giving.

I don't necessarily have to believe sexual inter-coarse was the event. After all Mary was impregnated without sexual inter-coarse.

I have considered that. Like inter-vitro fertilization (we could replicate a virgin birth today, if we could find a virgin)

Even so, doesn't that idea that it wasn't "sex" undermine Dr. Murray's idea that the term "beguiled" (2Cor11) really means "wholly seduced," and that this somehow provides New Testament support for the idea that what happened in the garden was coitus?

Also, are you really going to say that the conception of Cain is basically a mirror event to the conception of Jesus? So we imagine this glowing angel standing over Eve, as one did over Mary and the child is conceived "immaculately" by the power of... a "spirit." I suppose that is possible. But it requires a lot of imagination since the Bible describes the event like this:

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Somehow, it seems like a very far fetch to compare that day with Mary's night with Gabriel.

Satan is not a human being, he is un-natural, and much more powerful than human flesh men.

You know these things: Satan's base of power is no more powerful than men. He was created by God and is thus as much a part of nature as you or I. Without God, Satan is nothing. Satan gets all his power from God. Without God's permission and empowerment, Satan cannot lift a finger.

John19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above....

Even so, just because Satan might have been "powerful enough" to cause an immaculate conception, you have to have sound reasons to claim that he actually did it, I can't think of one.

It is however written that Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness after they both partook of the fruit,

It is not written that they were ashamed of their nakedness. (You are thinking of Chapter 2 where it says they were naked and "not ashamed," but it is not written that they were ashamed after they ate the fruit, you are assuming that logically from their behavior, but it is not right to invoke "it is however written" because it isn't. I'm not saying they were not ashamed, just be accurate, I'll try too)

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

It is written that they they suddenly had knowledge of their nakedness, not that they were ashamed for having done anything while naked.

This is very simple: Every child, when they come to a certain age, becomes self-conscious of their nakedness, not because of sex, nor of any wrong that they have done, it just happens. When man ate of the fruit of the TKG&E his whole perception of the world changed, he simply KNEW he was naked, so he covered himself.

Dr. Murray uses a lot of the power of suggestion to get people to see things in the word that are just not there.

If they had sex with Satan, or talked with him, or had an "immaculate conception" with him, yet had not eaten the fruit, then they would not have been aware of their nakedness, nor sinned, because that is not what God told them not to do. There is no sin without transgressing the commandments.

Since these people did not even realize that they were naked, I find it extremely difficult to believe that they would have the savvy to understand that the commandment "not to eat of a particular tree" would have actually meant "stay away from the serpent, don't talk to that dude."

Gen3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:

That was the commandment, that was the sin. Period.

whatever the fruit was or may have symbolized.

I have never found any reason to believe that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil was merely symbolic. The fruit is not a symbol, in particular, but a catalyst of change, its primary effect being that eating it caused man's eyes to be opened. Determining symbol from reality can be touchy business, and even real things may also be symbols, but the fruit should not be thought of as merely symbolic of something else (like Satan's literal sperm or literal child).

The action of "eating" or "eating fruit" could be, or is sometimes, symbolic. The most powerful symbolic use I can imagine is "eatiing Jesus flesh and blood" which also gives life. Eating this fruit (the fruit from the TKG&E) brings death, but also knowledge. When the effects are listed as "death and granting knowledge" it is hard to imagine that this is symbolic of conceiving, conception is not a listed effect of eating the fruit.

The leaps of logic which are required to get to Dr. Murray's conclusion cause me to believe that this doctrine is not sound.

Tit 2:1But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

To believe Dr. Murray's story I have to toss out too much of what the scriptures says, and toss in too much of what the scripture does not say. I can't follow doctrines like that.

Weather the seed of the serpent was literal or not may be questioned,

I do question it, but you have to understand, the burden of proof lies with the serpent seeders, the doctrine is never directly taught in scripture, everything to do with it is anecdotal. There is no place where some apostle says, "And ye know, how that the serpent, having begotten his seed by Eve..." All the proofs brought out, are never direct, always anecdotal, and rely way too much on symbolization and spiritualization of literal things and taking symbolic or spiritual things literally.

the fact that the scriptures took great care to document the seed of the woman through 70 generations to the virgin birth of Jesus, is written. After the birth of Christ, it wasn't important enough anymore to keep record of, and that was the end of the documentation of any seed line in the scriptures

I don't understand the relevance of the line of Christ to this subject. I guess I can imagine it, but if you wish to discuss it further you will have to make your point a little more clearly.

May I suggest keeping an open mind for better understanding.

I used to teach the serpent seed doctrine, so the idea of returning to it is pretty much out, still, I always try to look at things with an open mind, I'm not afraid to look at anything from any angle, I just want to know the truth, just like everyone else. My mind does not stay open forever, my mind used to be open to the idea that there may not be any God. It took a long time, but my mind has closed to that idea. My mind used to be open to the teachings of Dr. Murray, and I accepted them and taught them for a period of time, but now my mind is closed, (to certain aspects).

Murray's teaching certainly isn't specifically perfect, but in a broader sense may very well be right on.

That is very common, I have yet to run into a single student of Dr. Murray who completely agrees with his teaching. If the man is not 100% accurate then why follow his methods? Everyone has their own nuanced position on the Kenites, no one wants to admit that all Jews are Kenites (as Dr. Murray teaches) so they come up with a watered-down version of Dr. Murray's doctrine. What you are doing is compensating for inherent weaknesses in the doctrine. The flaws go right to the foundation, there is no reason to believe hold or teach this doctrine, much less a watered down version. In a broader sense it is pretty much fable.

You mentioned that Adam and Eve's DNA was super rich in order to produce the many races upon all the earth.

Super-rich is a bit of an over-statment. It would have been richer. The mechanics of DNA are well known. The mechanics of how races are developed in animals is also well documented. In the wild, all budgie parakeets are yellow and green; in captivity they isolated and bred out different colored birds. The mechanism that allows this is well known and is as I described. The rise of races in a population is the result of the loss of genetic information within the individual racial groups. That is how it works.

You must also suppose that the fruit they ate was also rich with something as well, for it was able to "open their eyes" to knowledge of "good and evil".

I know a whole lot more about human genetics than I do about that fruit. It opened things, so the fruit was like a key, maybe the fruit didn't do anything, maybe God did something after they ate it, maybe he put special spiritual powers into it. I can't say for sure. Do I have to? The word says they ate fruit. If I can believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and a Donkey could talk, then I can believe that fruit can have spiritual powers. No problem.

You seem to have a problem believing the simple facts here. Do you really think that this sort of skepticism is wise? Shouldn't you rather be skeptical of some old man who tells you to believe things things which are contrary to the word?

Did Satan "talk them into" having knowledge of Good and evil? Is that even possible? Is it something someone can just say to someone, like "You are naked," And BAM! Suddenly their eyes are opened? I don't think so, A POWER opened their eyes, the very nature of man was changed.

Maybe there was a drug effect in this fruit,

I don't believe that, it does not seem likely;.. But if there was a drug-like effect, then we are still under the influence of it! Interesting. The fruit changed the nature of man. I do not have to have a materialistic explanation for it. Sometimes, when students of Dr. Murray talk about this subject, I can't help but notice that they take on the mentality of atheists. "What fruit could grant knowledge? That is ridiculous!" That sounds like a nonbeliever to me.

in any case it is written that when it made their eye's open they were ashamed of their nakedness, and they were naked before and not ashamed.

Well, like I said, maybe they were ashamed, but it is not written that they were. And, even so, like I said, people do not have to sin to be ashamed of their nakedness, it is part of our nature now

I don't think it takes much intelligence to know what happened here. God said "who told you that you were naked"? Is a tree or fruit someone that would be referred to as "who"?

God also said, "Where art thou?" Did God not know where Adam was? Of course he knew. It is a rhetorical question. No one told Adam he was naked. Adam just knew.

Gen3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

The question is rhetorical "who told you that you were naked" God says this rhetorically, as if wishing to believe that something else could explain Adam's behavior, as if wishing to believe that Adam had not done what God already knew he had done, and even though God certainly knew, he still asked, "Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?" God knew what Adam had done, God is interrogating Adam, for Adam's sake, he is not displaying embarrassing ignorance, he is interrogating with rhetorical questions.

This is not a stretch, any person who is a competent reader should automatically understand what these questions mean. It is only because of false teachers that you have difficulty following the rhetorical nature of these questions.

Third day God made herb yeilding seed, and fruit yeilding trees who's seed is in itself.

I don't know why you underlined that. ?

On the fifth day God brought forth out of the waters every moving water creature that had life, as well as the fowl of the air. Fifth Day!

Sixth Day God made every beast of the earth out of the dust of the ground. Every cattle and creeping thing, and also man, male and female created he them.

Ok.

You say these were Adam and Eve. I don't think so.

They couldn't be anyone else, I'll show you when you get to the so-called "eighth" day... the proof is all there...

God said to them to replenish the earth, and have dominion over the fish, fowl, and beasts.

I wrote this on my webpage and you can document it for yourself, the word "replenish" does not mean to "fill again" or re-fill" Just check it out in your Strong's, the word in Hebrew does not mean "RE" it is not there. This is one of those areas where Dr. Murray conveniently leaves out certain facts from the Hebrew. It just means "to fill" in Hebrew. In old English "replenish" did not mean to "re-fill" look it up in an unabridged dictionary, under the archaic meaning, (the King James was written with many obsolete and archaic English words), not a single modern translation I know of has "replenish," because it is not in the Hebrew.

He gave them every herb and every tree in the which was fruit of a tree yeilding seed, it shall be food for them. They were not in the garden, not part of the garden.

You may argue that they are not in the garden because the first chapter of Genesis does not mention the garden, but that is not legitimate or reasonable to assume, it is an argument from silence. If you were to apply that logic consistently as you read the scriptures you would be lead very far astray.

And He did also give them every tree in the garden, he just had not listed the exception in the narrative yet.

Plus you have overlooked this verse

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

This verse is the logical beginning of Chapter 2 and gives us the context in which the following verses are to be taken. Chapter 2 is just a magnifying glass on man created on the sixth day.

God said he looked at all his work he done on the 6th day and everything was good. This is not the picture painted in chapter 2 where some things were not good.

I don't see that, sometimes things that God does seem not so good, like hiding wisdom from the wise and prudent, but it is still good in his sight.

Mt11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

Ask yourself, was it good in the sight of God to create the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Or was he doing evil, in creating evil? Actually, he was creating evil. It was good, in the sight of God, for God to create Evil. All his works are perfect and good, in his sight

Ge 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Man does not always agree with what God sees as good.

This is one of those "bi-fold" issues. God creates evil, and it is good that he does that.

Pr 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Seventh day God rested. Sabbath Day! H+e did no work, no creation.

They were created before man. Chapter 2, unlike chapter one, is not a strict chronology. But it does fall into a particular period of time.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

"when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Must refer to the first seven days so everything talked about in chapter 2 has to fall into that time period. The earth and the heavens were finished by the seventh day so the events which fall under this heading have to take place in that period.

Ge 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.

God not only rested the seventh day, he was DONE. Finito.

Note: there was not a man. And I really don't want to hear that there was no "Adamic Man." Every race on the face of the earth tills the ground, please, not just white people. It is pretty amazing, Dr. Murray actually uses one of the strongest denials of his fable as a part of the fable, very clever, but totally wrong.

The fact that the bible says that there was no man yet created is further proof that we are looking back on the creation of the first chapter with a special view on the history of man.

This is the quintessential "Gnat and Camel" aspect of Murray's teaching, Ignoring the big obvious clues like "there was not a man" and "mother of all living" and "God ended his work" and "CONTEXT" Dr. Murray has you focusing on tiny subtle things in the text which do not prove anything except open doors that go down hallways that lead to fables.

You say it's talking about those already created on the 5th day and before this Adam was made on the 6th day and was talking about bringing them to Adam now, but that simply doesn't work for the train of thought here.

Oh yes, it does work. I certainly does work, context, context, context. You don't have to be brainwashed to come to the conclusion that we must be talking about events which fall into the sixth day. It works a whole lot better than saying that even though it says there was "not a man" that there really were lots of men. THAT doesn't work. You are straining a Gnat again.

It can be very simply figured out, as Dr. Murray would say, even a child could understand. But if I told my kids that a "not a man" created really meant "lots of men created," I don't think that they would understand...That would be like swallowing a camel.

Adam was alone and needed company, so Gods makes him some company and he did name them all. But there was still no partner of his kind for him. If this is a recount of the 6 days of creation, and the recount of the creation of man in more detail, then why is there no recount of the Sabbath?

You don't recount the Sabbath because nothing happened on the Sabbath and nothing happened after the Sabbath (as far as creation) because God ended his work that day.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

That says it all. The earth and the heavens were not made on any fictitious eighth day, were they? Well, if not, then neither did anything else described in this context happen on any fictitious eighth day.

If this is not the eighth day creation of Adam and Eve, then why was the covenant of circumsision on males only made with Abraham also on the eighth day?

Is it written somewhere that the day of man's creation is supposed to have some sort of numerical connection to the day of man's creation? That is what they call a "red herring." It has no relevance, the two things are not connected. And regardless of when babies are circumcised, in this context, we are still in this time period:

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

And God had not created man yet, just as the scriptures say. Throwing irrellevant data into the discussion does nothing to improve the situation.

What would be the significance of the eighth day?

So if Adam was not created on the eighth day, then the eighth day has no significance? That is a very thin argument. Does it have to go back to creation to be significant? Look up references to "the eighth day" there are plenty of possibilities, but, honestly, It seems like a completely trivial thing.

ALSO, In Genesis Chapter 2 there is no mention of "the eighth day" there are plenty of places in the bible to search for significance for the eighth day but Genesis 2 is not one of them. There is no eighth day there. It is never mentioned

Why is the millenial Kingdom refered to as the Sabbath Day of 1000 years, and after this would again be symbolized the Eighth day, a new eternal covenant?

I don't see how that would effect the creation of man on the sixth day, the number of man. Placing the creation of man on an eighth day unduly exalts this "special race" and is just an excuse for more racist thought by Murray.

I hope you realize, these are pretty far fetched arguments. Is the Millennium referred to as, "the Sabbath Day of 1000 years"? You are referring several scriptures and interpreting them and that is fine, but interesting correlations are not the basis on which one establishes further truth.

What God was really planting and growing in the garden was the people (or family) who the tree of life, His son, would come into the world thru.

He didn't plant and grow trees there? You overlook the fact that God kicked that family out of the garden. If he planted it there, he soon ripped it up, the family had to grow elsewhere.

The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, but also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was Satan.

So you say. If Satan was the tree, why didn't the tree talk to them? Why was there a Serpent? Why did God give commandment about a tree?

They were given no commandment not to partake of the tree of life, but only not to partake of the fruit of Satan,

I'm sorry, I see that as a perversion of what the word says, "but only not to partake of the fruit of Satan" That is not what God said. I hope you can see how Dr. Murray has taught you to corrupt the word.

and what they did was believed in the word of Satan, and believed not the word of the Lord.

They were given no commandment regarding belief. Only that they should not eat of the tree. You are reading faith back into the story. They did believe Satan but that was not their sin. They could have believed Satan, and no harm would have come to them, so long as they had not eaten the fruit.

Ro7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

1Tim2:14the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Gen 3:6...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Adam could only sin by violating the commandment of God. If God said, "Do not eat the fruit of the tree." It was no sin to talk to the serpent.

When Adam believed Satans word, this is how Satan, the man of sin, entered into the world, thru Adam, and also how his seed come into Eve was thru Adam.

No, absolutely, NO. That is not how Satan entered the world, Satan was already in the world. (Do I have to PROVE that to you? You yourself say he was the tree, and God planted the tree.) SIN and DEATH entered the world, Satan was already in the world, but the disobedience of man made man subject to sin and death, actual sin and death, not just letting in the guy who has been given dominion with them.

Speaking of Adam: Rom5:12 ... by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

17 ... by one man's offence death reigned by one;
18 ... by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
19 ... by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,

Offense, disobedience, these come from the commandments, without the commandment there is NO OFFENSE. How can Dr. Murray, looking back 6000 years see something that was missed by everyone else, Adam, Moses, the Prophets, Christ, the Apostles, that the commandment of God in the garden had nothing to do with fruit, pardon me, but that takes a lot of audacity on the part of Dr. Murray.

Not necessarrily by sexual inter-coarse like that the nephilum.

Ok, we covered that.

Satan sought to destroy the way of the tree of life to bare fruit, but God placed a flaming two edged sword of truth to guard and to protect the way of his son to come into the world, and he did come.

XX, as I read this, I have to ask you, Isn't God's word enough for you?

Satan sought to destroy the way of the tree of life to bare fruit,

I don't know what Satan was "seeking," do you have a reference for that?? I can tell you this, God set Satan in the garden, God intended for man to sin, God intended for man to die. He used Satan to achieve this. God wanted to prevent man from reaching the tree of life. God is in control of these events.

but God placed a flaming two edged sword of truth to guard and to protect the way of his son to come into the world, and he did come.

The purpose of the sword was to keep man away from the tree of life. The stuff you are saying is not supported biblically. Dr. Murray has hijacked your reading of the scriptures.

Gen3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The Sword and Cherubims were put in place to keep the way of the tree of life in order to prevent man from attaining eternal life, not to preserve the way for Jesus to come into the world. This is what happens when you start reading into the text these far-out misinterpretations: "... if Jesus is the tree of life.....then they were guarding his way... but what way of Jesus?.... the way for him to come into the world.... through a pure white race..." I don't think so, the only thing pure about that story is that it is pure fable.

It's no mystery that even today a man could consume of some bad stuff, and when his wife gets pregnant the child could have some issues.

Regardless, you are already out on a limb, why in the world should I believe this fable in the first place to even get this far? And this fable is not even very cunningly devised. There has to be some documentation not just suggestions and insinuations. You've gone from explaining Kain's murderous impulses by Satanic parentage to now suggesting that the fruit may have caused the seed of Adam to be corrupted. The fruit did cause the seed of Adam to be corrupt, it caused Adam himself to be corrupt, and all his seed, remember this, there is but a hair's breadth of difference between the righteous and the wicked, consider David and Saul, one righteous the other wicked, but by all accounts David was a murderer. The seed of Satan is not a genetic defect or genetic trait, we are all pregnant with it, it is sin.

The precise mechanisms are not known,

The mechanism is known, it is SIN, SIN is the seed of the Devil, it was sin that Satan impregnated all mankind with, those whom it rules over are his children, those who follow after righteousness are the Children of God. He really did ... us.

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. (John Just missed a prefect chance to declare that it was because Cain was the orgasmic output of Satan)

but the testimony is no less true, that the man of sin will be revealed on the earth, and his seed killed all the prophets, and Christ himself also.

Fine, but not literal seed, you keep backing away from the idea of that Satan had an orgasm inside of Eve (to be blunt) First suggesting another virgin conception, then suggesting some corruption of Adam's testicles. Why not drop all that stuff. 1John 3 TOTALLY EXPLAINS the whole serpent seed doctrine making it very clear what defines a child of the devil.

But the way of the tree of life was kept, and we can partake of him and live forever. Take Ye and eat, for this is my body. Take Ye and drink for this is my blood.

Ok. But remember the sword kept man AWAY. It wasn't preserving it for man or Christ. Was it in danger? Was Satan going to cut it down? I don't follow why you say it like this.

You quoted Acts 17:26

Subject of this is Idol and image worship. This is the complete sentence without the verse numbers.

The subject of a larger discourse cannot override the plain meaning of each of the sentences. After studying with Dr. Murray I realized that he does not teach anything about the "subject and the object" not anything proper, and I don't think he even understands this concept. Even so, one basic premise is that the , you have to pay attention to digressions and asides, the only time the subject-object dictates what everything means is in the context of a single sentence. Sometimes within a larger subject independent facts either contradictory or complimentary may be employed, these are independent of the subject and may be independently true, even out of context.

For we are also "his" offspring. Who is "his", is it Adam? Of coarse not, we are offspring of the father, who gives life, and breath, and all things to everyone, through his son.

That is a straw-man, I never said that. Plus that is not the sentence in question.

This is the "one" by whom all nations of men live, and move , and have their being. For we are the offspring of the Lord.

You are mixing the verses and losing the subject-object relationship here.

"And hath made of one all nations of men "

The implied subject of this sentence is God, God what? God hath made. That is the subject and verb, the prepositional phrase is "of one" refers to something that the creator is acting upon, MAKING, that is men, that is the object. God did not make men of himself, (even if we are his offspring) God made men of the earth, that is the medium on which he acted. (Could it be "One breath"? No, God did not make man of breath, God made man from the dust of the earth), I suppose you could say "one dirt" but lest you forget:

Gen 20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. (and he was the one man by which even she was made)

I have multiple witnesses, so even though it does not have to be "one man" Still, the bible clearly says that there was only one mother. God hath made all the nations of the earth of one.

Really, the most logical "one" would have to be "nation" as in, "hath made of one nation all nations." A man is the smallest possible division within a nation, so it makes a lot of sense to say "one man" But it CANNOT be "God hath made all nations of one God." That is just not right. God did not make us out of God, but from the dirt, of one man:

16 ... by one man sin entered into the world,

17 ... by one man's offence death reigned by one;
18 ... by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;
19 ... by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,

One man. It is the most elegant interpretation and makes the most sense, it would be awkward to say "of one soil"

Well, that comes down to semantics, and how you want to define "natural" I mean, in the sense most people think of the word, God is the most un-natural thing you could imagine. The dead raised? Generally considered Unnatural. Etc If God was natural then he would be bound by nature to obey the laws thereof, he is God of nature, but nature is not God.

The word supernatural means "beyond natural" or outside of nature, over, above it, not "more natural." In English the term supernatural is defined by things which do not normally appear as natural. Moreover, it is ridiculous that Dr. Murray even brings this up because the word isn't in the bible. Most of the word pertaining to "natural" is not for emulation, and not for God. eg 1co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

We just simply are not aware of everything, other deminsions, invisable things in the air like waves transporting sound and images, and forces unknown. Mysterious to us, but certainly natural to God.

I understand what you mean, but think, most people think of nature as laboratory replicable "science" make sure you clearly define what you mean by "natural." Dr. Murray defines "supernatural" in a way that is contrary to its usual meaning and usage in English.

Your answers on multiplying the conception was very elementary,

It isn't a difficult question, do you need a complicated answer? This doctrine is that which wishes to exalt itself above the knowledge God has given by his word, this is the doctrine that needs to prove itself. Reading into the text things that simply are not there, that is how Dr. Murray teaches.

If I don't have a big long involved explanation, I'm sorry, but it is such a far-fetched idea in the first place, it is only worthy of comment because some have been deceived by it.

My answer was the truth.

and the special trees theory was lame

No, my answer was the simple truth, if it was not titillating enough for itching ears I suppose it is lame. I'm giving you sound doctrine, and if you don't care for it, I can do nothing for you. Trees placed in the center of the Garden of Eden, with commandment given not to eat one, and the trees are said to have special powers to grant knowledge and life, I say,"Those are special trees" and you say "That is a lame answer," you don't like to cut a guy any slack, do you? so what? They were not special trees? They were just "Ordinary" trees? They were Satan and Jesus? I can't say that is a "lame" answer, it doesn't even have legs, that is a quadruple amputee answer.

Taking that which is carnal/literal as spiritual/symbolic and that which is spiritual/symbolic as carnal/literal will lead you to false doctrine.

children of the devil = spiritual/symbolic

she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat = carnal/literal

But Dr. Murray teaches the opposite. Just look at the way in which God communicated these ideas to us. He really wanted us to take the seed of satan as a carnal reality and the straight-forward narrative given in Genesis to be spiritual-symbolical code?

The question "WHAT FRUIT FROM SOME PLAIN OLD FRUIT TREE DOES THIS PHENOM." is insolent and I know who planted that question in her mind, not-so-good old Dr. Murray. He would rather have you believe in fables out of his mouth rather than going with the simplicity of what is written in God's word. His beliefs have instructed many in the ways of corrupting and adding to the word, taking things out of context, and misreading of the text, which you ought to give diligent heed to, because this leaven is corrupting your whole walk.

In the end God will judge all who lived, all the souls, and they all are seperated into two groups. Only two! Those who have the mark of Satan, and those with the seal of God.

Sorry, No. You are mixing up different scriptures and assuming things based on already shaky interpretations.

People are looking for the mark to come someday, and try to consider what it may be, but it's been here the whole time since the garden, and it is here today,

No it isn't, the mark may be a sure ticket to hell, but you don't have to have any mark to go to hell. Just sin.

and you don't even know what it is,

No, I deny it. I know what the mark "is," according to Dr. Murray, but now I DENY IT, I deny his interpretations, he is not a man of God, a little leaven leavens the whole lump and he is plump and ready for the oven.

and thats why they already have it. Satans mark can be in the mind or in the hand, Gods seal is only in the mind.

How is that going to save me from my sins? because if I cannot cease from sin I am going to burn in hell. How is that going to make me like Christ? because if I am not like Christ I will not be his brother and I will not sit with him in his throne.

Why do you emphasize that the seal of God is not in your hand anyway? Does that mean that you can do whatever you like?

Dr. Murray gives preeminence to doctrine which will never lead you to righteousness or godliness. His teachings are utterly without profit.

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

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 5:15 PM

Paul,

Thanks. I really appreciate your time and efforts, and diligent study. It sounds as though you have it all figured out. You seem to make things work for your theology, keeping it simple when it works, going complex when it's needed, taking the symbolic route when you must, and literal when you choose.

Jesus said "he who has ears to hear, let him hear", and "he who has eyes to see, let him see". This tells me that obviously some do and some don't, and from the context of the entire word I get the hint that those who do are few. I pray always that I do, it's what I want more than anything. It is the most interesting subject I know of, and I think about it in someway almost every minute of my life. You are not trying to convince Murray here, I'm my own thinker. The reason I hold some of the ideas that I have is because I get the same thing from the beginning to the end, the same Idea over and over. The same wittness through and through, and the same testimony of Jesus Christ all in all. God said He changes not, and your teaching requires changes. Differences from the beginning and the end, from the old and the new. Your teaching argues with the scientific evidence, and does not work for me unless I throw out my common sense. You argue that the seed of the serpent is merely those children of the woman who are unsaved, so they are symbolically the seed , or should we say children, of the devil. And those who are "saved" are the seed of the woman sybolically, and are the children of God. If we are talking about seeds of the woman in both cases, then maybe God should have said that he would put enmity between the seeds of the woman, between her good seed and her bad seed. If that were true there would have no need for Christ to be conceived of the Holy spirit, or was that sybolic also? You have a picture of an Angel hovering over Mary in your mind in order for God to have Mary conceive Jesus. Such a small thinker you are.

It makes no sense that the trees, and the fruit, are simply literal, yet the seed of the serpent is symbolic, and not a literal seed. You have the pretty little picture in your mind, and it is easy to paint, and you say you see it, and because it's such a simple little picture you can even see it with your eyes closed. That my friend is not a vision. It's not the kind of sight that Christ demonstrated when he seen his life played out in the written word down to every little detail. You and I see a different picture, and we worship two different Christs. Your Christ teaches you one thing, and mine teaches me another. You have one mark, and I another. I will see you in the millenium my friend, don't sweat it.

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

From: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 2:31 AM

Subject: Re: Bible

XX, I realize from your reply that you probably intended these remarks to be the end of our discussion, and that would be please me well; but I would have to post a rebuttal on my website for the sake of all those whom I am turning away from the doctrines of the Shepherd's Chapel and I did not want to make it seem to you as if I had just answered you "behind your back," so to speak, so I'm sending you this even though I would be glad to just put it on my website and be done with it.

That said, this is the response:

Thanks. I really appreciate your time and efforts, and diligent study. It sounds as though you have it all figured out. You seem to make things work for your theology,

I do not "make things work" for my theology, that is actually the opposite of the way I go about things. When I studied with Dr. Murray and other students of the chapel I realized that to follow his doctrine we had to assume a certain reckless attitude towards the word. We had to "make it work." When diligent study revealed something was inaccurate, I was covering things up, passages like "And the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished" had to be forced to mean the opposite, that all the dead lived again in the thousand years, because our vision of the millennium contradicted the scriptures. Passages that said "8 souls" were on the Ark had to have the notation "Adamic Souls" rudely applied, in order to make it all fit, eventually, I got sick of lying to myself.

When I got fed up with this hypocrisy, (of pretending to care about the precious word of God, yet treating it like a coloring book) I decided that I would have no theology at all, or at least try to strip it down and so I was determined to believe nothing except that which the word says is so and slowly redeveloped my theology from the ground up, it was not easy removing all the prejudices that Dr. Murray and others taught me, but over time I let go of everything, and my doctrine became completely dictated by what the word is. I did not receive my doctrine from a bunch of religionists (or racists, as Murray received his from the identity movement) it grew out of my own studies, if it coincides with anyone else's theology, it is "coincidental." Whenever I have had to deal with a difficult passage make my doctrine subject to it first, I have worked at this for over thirteen years, I'm not going to go into all the details of how I judge things, I don't think you really care to learn.

Of course, on the subject at hand, at least in regard to what you believe, my mind is made up, your view is wrong. I have not really had much of an opposing view, I haven't given that much time until now, except in realizing that Murray's view is a perversion of God's word. And that is what is on trial, whether I am right or wrong, the real question here is: Am I right about Murray's doctrine? And I am.

I did not select a doctrine, or select a teacher and then try to understand the word in light of the doctrine or teacher, that is what you did. Your doctrine it the doctrine that exalts itself above the knowledge of God and tries to stuff the word into a container which it does not fit. Your ideas come from Dr. Murray, you talk like Dr. Murray, you are thoroughly his disciple. Throughout this letter you try to attack me, but you are, oddly, only describing yourself.

keeping it simple when it works, going complex when it's needed, taking the symbolic route wh en you must, and literal when you choose.

What you have described is essentially what everyone does, it is in making the right decision that we find the truth. Everyone has to decide what they will take literally, or symbolically, or what passage will be subject to what other passage that seems to contradict, obviously, care must be taken, I have taken that care. You do the above as well, I assume you realize that.

I agree, that is one reason I no longer believe that Dr. Murray, with his hundreds of thousands of glassy-eyed disciples, has any truth in him.

I pray always that I do, it's what I want more than anything. It is the most interesting subject I know of, and I think about it in someway almost every minute of my life. You are not trying to convince Murray here, I'm my own thinker.

The fact that you have to tell me that you are your own thinker is further testament that you are not your own as much as you would like to be. If you were truly your own thinker, then that fact would be self-evident. As one who has become his own thinker I can clearly see how the way you think is bent by the effects of Dr. Murray's instruction.

The reason you and I value things like individualism, and being "our own thinkers" is because of our American Heritage, but the scriptures do give greater glory to single-mindedness.

1Co1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Phil2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

I'm happy to say that among my brethren we are of the same mind, one mind. The cool thing is that I came to my understanding independently of them, so when I joined them I did not need that any man should instruct me. I understood things just like they understood things and we have a unique combination of doctrines, not found in any large group or denomination.

The characteristic of being of "the same mind" is not found among the followers of Dr. Murray, if they are even able to get along, it is because they are willing to subjugate their deeply held differences to what they consider to be a greater "good" which would be "getting along" That is not Christian unity.

If Dr. Murray was of the truth, and you were of the truth, then you would think the same way as each other, and you would not be ashamed of it.

I find it telling that so many of Dr. Murrays followers go to great pains to let the world know that they do not agree with him 100%, if he were of the truth should you not rather be declaring boldly how you agree with him 100%. Beware of leaven, a little false doctrine corrupts the whole ministry, in the sight of God. (because man is willing to live with 99% true).

The reason I hold some of the ideas that I have is because I get the same thing from the beginning to the end, the same Idea over and over. The same wittness through and through, and the same testimony of Jesus Christ all in all.

That is not consistent with your doctrine. Sounds nice, but it isn't so. For instance Dr. Murray suggests that tares can be saved, but Jesus taught that tares are to be burned. "Common sense" tells me that if it was planted a tare, it bears fruit as a tare, a tare does not evolve into wheat (certainly not in a single lifetime). Yet the gospel is for all nations, if the seed of the serpent was a nation then that nation would be excluded, because men do not gather grapes of thorns, and the tares are for burning. Your doctrine is not consistent, not with scripture.

My doctrine is consistent, you really are jumping to conclusions with me, you don't even really know what my doctrine is, I'm just trying to answer your questions about your doctrine and the reasons I think it is wrong, yes, pieces of mine get dragged in, but I do not have to make a whole new doctrine to replace Murrays bad one, all I have to do is show that his is sufficiently wrong, if his doctrine is wrong, why do I have to provide you with an immediate alternative? I have thrown enough doubt on Murray's doctrine, making this about me is fine, but really, it's not about me. When I first realized Murray was wrong, I didn't immediately jump in bed with something else, I just waited until God revealed it to me. I'm not here to become your master, but the man who is, is a false teacher.

God said He changes not, and your teaching requires changes. Differences from the beginning and the end, from the old and the new.

I do not agree (about my doctrine), but I don't even know exactly what you mean, it must be fun to sit back and just take shots at me without actually saying what aspect of my teachings you mean or backing your statements up with examples and scripture. But you cannot understand the scriptures without allowing for things to change.

God does not change, but God does change things. And God can change direction without changing himself. God is not a statue that cannot move.

You are being so broad here that it is really impossible for me to know precisely what you are talking about. When you say "Old and New" I think of the old and new covenants, and God sure did change things between the old and the new covenants.

Heb 8:7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Your teaching argues with the scientific evidence, and does not work for me unless I throw out my common sense.

Nonsense. What scientific evidence? Let me guess....

Could it be the scientific evidence that says all humans are descended from a single female ancestor? No, that can't be it. If you are talking about human genetics then you are simply ignorant of genetic science. I don't know what else to tell you.

Oddly, I am aware of no scientific evidence that says that God cannot create a fruit that grants knowledge... or that God cannot grant knowledge to someone for having eaten a particular fruit. So there is no science being violated there.

"Common sense" is Murray-speak, I'm not sure what he means, but common or uncommon, your statement doesn't make any sense. If the fruit was miraculous, (which certainly seems likely) you have some sort of "common sense" problem with that. Like Murray you put a lot of importance on a totally unbiblical value, so called "common sense." Common sense is what guides the common people and the common people are sheep without a shepherd, what wisdom is in that sensibility?

You ought to throw out your "common sense" because it is more like "common misconception." Science and common sense have had a long history of conflict, it used to be common sense that the earth is flat, it used to be common sense that if God wanted man to fly he would have given us wings, it used to be common sense to do all kinds of dangerous and ridiculous things. I'm no fan of science or of common sense, but I'll take science over common sense any day. Your common senses can mislead you.

John7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Isa 11:3 ...and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

You judge it by your senses, and I'll judge it by the Holy Ghost.

You argue that the seed of the serpent is merely those children of the woman who are unsaved, so they are symbolically the seed , or should we say children, of the devil.

No, that is not what I argue. That is close to what the Apostle John taught, but you are getting it wrong, this is what he said

1 john 3:8 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.

The way you can tell a child of God from a child of Satan is that the children of the devil commit sin. This is not symbolic, it is real, it is spiritual, spiritual is real. How did you get the seed of God in you? Did God lie with you, carnally?

You are trying to say that the children of the devil are the carnal seed of Satan, aside from being a total mystery, this is contrary to the doctrine of Christ which opened the gospel to all nations of men, yet in the parable of the tares he declares the tares are going to be burned.

This is how Cain was defined as the child of Satan.

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

If Cain was Satan's child, carnally, then there would be no possibility of acceptance, because God does not accept tares. But because the tares and wheat grow together until harvest, Cain had the choice set before him, to show what he was.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
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;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:

Jesus himself defines tares as those who "do iniquity" and he also calls them the children of the wicked one. Dr. Murray falsely claims that a tare may be saved, which is manifestly not true. That is majorly against "common sense" and righteous judgment too.

And those who are "saved" are the seed of the woman symbolically, and are the children of God.

Not merely symbolically (symbols can be very real, I see I chose the wrong words for you), just read what John wrote. The children of God are "his seed," (God's), I say, not carnally, but spiritually. How are we the seed of God?

1John 3 says it all the Apostle John is the foremost expert on the serpent seed, and what he wrote is all the authority I need. You are scrupulously avoiding 1 John 3, If you don't agree with it, why don't you just take a scissors and cut it out of your bible, that, or give me your interpretation. But if you do that, you know I'm going to have a field day with you, so maybe you should play it safe and give up.

I'll stand with the Apostle John, and you stand with Dr. Murray, and we'll see who stands on the solid ground.

If we are talking about seeds of the woman in both cases, then maybe God should have said that he would put enmity between the seeds of the woman, between her good seed and her bad seed.

Again, you give more weight to your interpretation of a somewhat cryptic saying than you do to what the Apostle John said very simply. John said what he said, why don't you use some of that common sense of yours and figure out that the straight-talking word of an apostle is far more weighty than your interpretation of a somewhat cryptic passage?

I know you think that Cain is pretty much an alien, unrelated to Adam or Eve, but still, in that prophecy, the woman's seed is Christ, and Satan's seed is sinful man. That is the way John the apostle describes it and that is the way I interpret it in Genesis, is makes plenty of sense to me, of course, I have had my mind washed from the filth of Dr. Murray's corrupt doctrines, that stuff gets in the way, so I understand why this is so hard for you.

The parable of the tares indicates that while they are growing they can be hard to tell apart, that is because the righteous start out as sinners, like Satan's children, but that is not how they end up, the difference is seen when the harvest comes.

If that were true there would have no need for Christ to be conceived of the Holy spirit, or was that sybolic also?

I can't imagine what thought process lead you to that statement. I can usually figure these things out, but you have baffled me, I can't follow your logic at all.

or was that sybolic also?

It was spiritual, Spirit becoming carnal, that is how God created the worlds, spirit became matter. But Cain was not conceived of the Holy Ghost, nor yet of Satan, not carnally. We are born of God, and begotten of God by the Holy Ghost but not carnally, only spiritually, until the resurrection when even our bodies will be reborn of Him.

You have a picture of an Angel hovering over Mary in your mind in order for God to have Mary conceive Jesus.

That makes me laugh, that is not what I meant at all, you are grasping at straws to find something wrong with me.

I compared your vision of Cains conception to Luke 1:28-35 Especially v35

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. "

But no "angel" hovered over Mary. I was not really saying anything about the conception of Jesus, except that you were making Cain's pretty much the same thing, I was joking because the idea that Satan impregnated Eve is a Joke..

Such a small thinker you are.

You did it again. That's you. You are not the only one who does this, but really, when you said that "You have a picture of an Angel hovering over Mary in your mind in order for God to have Mary conceive Jesus" you were displaying your own inability to keep up with me. You didn't get the joke.

Even so, when dealing with the scriptures, I am a narrow-minded person, I don't think that when I interpret the scriptures it is time for "big thinking" and wild speculation. I have standards, and I'm not inclined to think or believe much beyond that which is explicitly written, when you start thinking "big" you get into trouble, like Dr. Murray.

2Cor 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Dr. Murray is pretty much the opposite of that.

It makes no sense that the trees, and the fruit, are simply literal, yet the seed of the serpent is symbolic, and not a literal seed.

Oh, yes it does. Or Is the opposite true? The trees, and the eating, and the looking at "fruit," all mentioned in the book of Genesis, never happened, never existed, but Satan's penetration of Eve's womb, which is never mentioned literally happened (penetration by any means). And who makes no sense?? To believe what you believe you have already cast aside all notions of any decent "common sense" To read Genesis and come up with Dr. Murray's FABLES, is the most ridiculous way I could imagine reading Genesis.

Lets see what that would mean this is according to your interpretation, red letters = not literal.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

According to you, There really was not any fruit, you really could not touch or eat it. All this talk of "eating" and "touching" is just smoke and mirrors. Is that common sense?

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

According to you, What really happened is that Satan put his carnal seed into Eve. All this talk of "pleasant to the eyes" and "eating" is just smoke and mirrors. There was not tree, just Satan. Is that common sense?

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

According to you, God actually meant that they should never talk with Satan of believe anything he says, again, there was not any real tree or any real fruit that a man could actually eat. Is that common sense?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

According to you, again, there was not any real tree or any real fruit that a man or woman could actually eat. Is that common sense?

And I'm the one who makes no sense???

You have the pretty little picture in your mind, and it is easy to paint, and you say you see it, and because it's such a simple little picture you can even see it with your eyes closed. That my friend is not a vision.

You are only holding a mirror to yourself, you are the one with a false pleasant picture in mind, I'm just reading the words God has given. You are the one with the big imagination painting pictures, the false visions of men, ungodly men, like Arnold Murray. IMAGINATIONS

An angelic rebellion in which the "elect" stood against Satan = pretty little picture of falsehood

A millennium in which the rest of the dead DO live again before the 1000 years are finished = pretty little picture of falsehood

A parable of the tares in which some tares magically evolve into wheat = pretty little picture of falsehood

Eve is not the mother of all living = pretty little picture of falsehood

That, my enemy, is Murray-speak.

It's not the kind of sight that Christ demonstrated when he seen his life played out in the written word down to every little detail.

And the relevance of that statement is...?

You and I see a different picture, and we worship two different Christs. Your Christ teaches you one thing, and mine teaches me another.

I'm glad that someone can see that, it is refreshing for once to meet someone who doesn't give me this "we are all brothers" nonsense, we are not brothers we worship different Gods. And the God you believe in is something made with men's hands, Dr. Murray's hands.

You have one mark, and I another.

The true Disciples of Dr. Murray are all characterized by an intense need to let others know that they are better than them, people write me about his phenomenon, this sort of talk is typical of the sort of self-glorification that Dr. Murray's disciples thrive on. So grave, so sure, but you are the one who has kept the scriptures out of your discussion, you have, not the mark of the beast, but you wear Dr. Murray's mark.

I took you through Genesis 3, you never answered any of my points, be sure of it, when people come to my site and read your arguments, they will clearly see the shallow and self-gratifying way in which you have answered my well reasoned and scriptural arguments

I will see you in the millenium my friend, don't sweat it.

Maybe you will, but you will not see your "unsaved" dead relatives there. Because, "The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished." The millennium that you believe in does not exist. Nor ever will.

You are a fine student of Dr. Murray but a very poor one of the Word of God.

I thank you for providing the readers of my website with another example of how Dr. Murray's disciples cannot stand up to the scriptures but have to resort to personal attacks and distortion.

Does it please your Christ that you have just helped me convince more people that Dr. Murray is a false teacher? I would think that your Christ would be disappointed that in the end you could not answer my scriptural arguments and made such a bad last effort.

People write me all the time, like this lady did.

"When you said that you have a large amount of tapes and teachings of Arnold Murray, my attention was instantly had. I haven't yet, but was intending on taping shows, getting as much as I could of this man's teachings. This very morning I asked my 13-year-old daughter if she would like to begin reading along with the Shepherd’s Chapel, and me her response was YES. Luckily, for her I decided to check out the Internet first to get a bit more information.

Then to my surprise and I will admit a little sadness, I found your website regarding Arnold Murray. I have to take a minute to Thank God for leading me in this direction and be very grateful that although I was getting very intrigued with Mr. Murray's teachings I have not jumped in with both feet yet."

Thank you for your contribution to the work of my God. I'm sure you will help me show people, like the person above, that Dr. Murray's teachings are not of God.

Color Scheme: Emailer's Current text -

Emailer Quoting My Text -

Emailers New Text within My Text

Emailer's Old Text Within My Text

Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:42 AM

Subject: Re: Bible

Paul,

XX, I realize from your reply that you probably intended these remarks to be the end of our discussion, and that would be please me well but I would have to post a rebuttal on my website for the sake of all those whom I am turning away from the doctrines of the shepherd's chapel and I did not want to make it seem to you as if I had just answered you "behind your back," so to speak, so I'm sending you this even though I would be glad to just put it on my website and be done with it.

Like I just said, you done this entire thing without me knowing what you were up to.

That said, this is the response:

Thanks. I really appreciate your time and efforts, and diligent study. It sounds as though you have it all figured out. You seem to make things work for your theology,

I do not "make things work" for my theology, that is actually the opposite of the way I go about things. When I studied with Dr. Murray and other students of the chapel I realized that to follow his doctrine we had to assume a certain reckless attitude towards the word. We had to "make it work." When diligent study revealed something was inaccurate, I was covering things up, passages like "And the rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished" had to be forced to mean the opposite, that all the dead lived again in the thousand years, because our vision of the millennium contradicted the scriptures. Passages that said "8 souls" were on the Ark had to have the notation "Adamic Souls" rudely applied, in order to make it all fit, eventually, I got sick of lying to myself.

You simply never understood to begin with. Who are the dead?

Rev 20:5

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurection.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sands of the sea.

Its clear to me that when Christ returns to establish his kingdom during which Satan is kept in prison, unlike now, for this thousand years, man no longer exists in the flesh. The scriptures that document this:

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

2 Peter 3:

⁷But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

⁸But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

⁹The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

Zach 14:¹²And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

There are many more scriptures as well.

Doesn't sound to me like flesh man will live through this event, and the reason why we will all be changed from flesh to spirit. Therefore who Does Satan come back to test after the thousand years if the only ones there are those whom the second death has no power over? If the rest of the dead live not until the thousand years be finished means they are not there in the mellinial kingdom, then where are they? And why would it be neccessary to wait until after the thousand years to judge them? Couldn't they just be judged when Christ returns, and go right into the eternity? Those raised from the dead unto everlasting life, are those who reign with Christ. And if we reign with him, who do we reign over? Those who who have kept the sabbath, and obeyed, will be raised an incorruptable body, and will have put on inmortality, and will be priests to Christ, because they believed in him, and as promised will not perish, not ever. The second death has no power over those who have put on immortality, but the dead are those who had not honored the sabbath, nor obeyed, nor did they believe in the son of the living God. The dead are the ones outside the gates of the great city, who cannot enter in through one of the gates. The dead have not been judged and put into the lake of fire that consumes the soul to destruction forever yet.

Passages that said "8 souls" were on the Ark had to have the notation "Adamic Souls" rudely applied, in order to make it all fit, eventually, I got sick of lying to myself.

I didn't know they weren't Adamic souls. Were they not the only 8 remaining children of Adam and Eve? Why did you think you had need to lie to yourself?

When I got fed up with this hypocrisy, (of pretending to care about the precious word of God, yet treating it like a coloring book) I decided that I would have no theology at all, or at least try to strip it down and so I was determined to believe nothing except that which the word says is so and slowly redeveloped my theology from the ground up, it was not easy removing all the prejudices that Dr. Murray and others taught me, but over time I let go of everything, and my doctrine became completely dictated by what the word is.

Without understanding, the word is, just a bunch of words. Its the understanding that makes it more than a book, more than writtings, more than words. Its the understanding that make it a communication from the Father to the children.

I did not receive my doctrine from a bunch of religionists (or racists, as Murray received his from the identity movement) it grew out of my own studies, if it coincides with anyone else's theology, it is "coincidental." Whenever I have had to deal with a difficult passage make my doctrine subject to it first, I have worked at this for over thirteen years, I'm not going to go into all the details of how I judge things, I don't think you really care to learn.

I would

Of course, on the subject at hand, at least in regard to what you believe, my mind is made up, your view is wrong. I have not really had much of an opposing view, I haven't given that much time until now, except in realizing that Murray's view is a perversion of God's word. And that is what is on trial, whether I am right or wrong, the real question here is: Am I right about Murray's doctrine? And I am.

I did not select a doctrine, or select a teacher and then try to understand the word in light of the doctrine or teacher, that is what you did.

No. Christ is my teacher. The Holy Spirit was given for this reason, to teach, guide, and comfort us. Christ knew how loney it was in the truth.

Your doctrine it the doctrine that exalts itself above the knowledge of God and tries to stuff the word into a container which it does not fit. Your ideas come from Dr. Murray, you talk like Dr. Murray, you are thoroughly his disciple.   Throughout this letter you try to attack me, but you are, oddly, only describing yourself.

Thats silly, there is nothing above the knowlege of God. I'm not attacking you. I don't feel you are attacking me, only disputing my ideology on what the scriptures mean. Thats all I'm doing. Of coarse if we judge we only judge ourselves, it is our own perspective we see from.

keeping it simple when it works, going complex when it's needed, taking the symbolic route wh    en you must, and literal when you choose.

What you have described is essentially what everyone does, it is in making the right decision that we find the truth. Everyone has to decide what they will take literally, or symbolically, or what passage will be subject to what other passage that seems to contradict, obviously, care must be taken, I have taken that care. You do the above as well, I assume you realize that.

I see no contradictions in the scripture, but only contradictions in mans understanding.

Jesus said "he who has ears to hear, let him hear", and "he who has eyes to see, let him see". This tells me that obviously some do and some don't, and from the context of the entire word I get the hint that those who do are few.

I agree, that is one reason I no longer believe that Dr. Murray, with his hundreds of thousands of glassy-eyed disciples, has any truth in him.

Why do you say glassy eyed? There is only one teacher, that is Christ. He holds the sword of truth. All others do the best they can. I listened to Murray over 15 years ago for only a short time. I would see him once in a great while on early morning TV, and recently on internet on seldom occassions, so it surprises me that you credit me with so much Murray doctrinal paralels. This is a testament of its own.

I pray always that I do, it's what I want more than anything. It is the most interesting subject I know of, and I think about it in someway almost every minute of my life. You are not trying to convince Murray here, I'm my own thinker.

The fact that you have to tell me that you are your own thinker is further testament that you are not your own as much as you would like to be. If you were truly your own thinker, then that fact would be self-evident. As one who has become his own thinker I can clearly see how the way you think is bent by the effects of Dr. Murray's instruction.

The reason you and I value things like individualism, and being "our own thinkers" is because of our American Heritage, but the scriptures do give greater glory to single-mindedness.

Single-mindedness in Christ I agree, but in any other way is foolish.

1Co1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Phil2:1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

I'm happy to say that among my brethren we are of the same mind, one mind. The cool thing is that I came to my understanding independently of them, so when I joined them I did not need that any man should instruct me. I understood things just like they understood things and we have a unique combination of doctrines, not found in any large group or denomination.

The characteristic of being of "the same mind" is not found among the followers of Dr. Murray, if they are even able to get along, it is because they are willing to subjugate their deeply held differences to what they consider to be a greater "good" which would be "getting along" That is not Christian unity.

I have seen less unity in the Sunday worshipers who call themselves Christians, than in any other group period.

If Dr. Murray was of the truth, and you were of the truth, then you would think the same way as each other, and you would not be ashamed of it.

Whos ashamed? Evidently we do think the same according to what you have been saying to me, but to tell you the truth I think Murrays much more generalizing than I am.

I find it telling that so many of Dr. Murrays followers go to great pains to let the world know that they do not agree with him 100%, if he were of the truth should you not rather be declaring boldly how you agree with him 100%. Beware of leaven, a little false doctrine corrupts the whole ministry, in the sight of God. (because man is willing to live with 99% true).

I think its more like people are saying they don't understand everything Murray teaches in an in depth way, enough to argue the points that is. And they are saying they trust only in Christ 100%, for no other man than him was without sin.

The reason I hold some of the ideas that I have is because I get the same thing from the beginning to the end, the same Idea over and over. The same wittness through and through, and the same testimony of Jesus Christ all in all.

That is not consistent with your doctrine. Sounds nice, but it isn't so. For instance Dr. Murray suggests that tares can be saved, but Jesus taught that tares are to be burned. "Common sense" tells me that if it was planted a tare, it bears fruit as a tare, a tare does not evolve into wheat (certainly not in a single lifetime). Yet the gospel is for all nations, if the seed of the serpent was a nation then that nation would be excluded, because men do not gather grapes of thorns, and the tares are for burning. Your doctrine is not consistent, not with scripture.

If it were not scriptural I would not hold it. We only disagree on what scrpiture means. I think from the beginning to the end is as consistant as it can be.

My doctrine is consistent, you really are jumping to conclusions with me, you don't even really know what my doctrine is, I'm just trying to answer your questions about your doctrine and the reasons I think it is wrong, yes, pieces of mine get dragged in, but I do not have to make a whole new doctrine to replace Murrays bad one, all I have to do is show that his is sufficiently wrong, if his doctrine is wrong, why do I have to provide you with an immediate alternative? I have thrown enough doubt on Murray's doctrine, making this about me is fine, but really, it's not about me. When I first realized Murray was wrong, I didn't immediately jump in bed with something else, I just waited until God revealed it to me. I'm not here to become your master, but the man who is, is a false teacher.

My master is Christ, I know nothing but what he has taught me. I study the Bible, and I except every word of it as it was written in the original text.

God said He changes not, and your teaching requires changes. Differences from the beginning and the end, from the old and the new.

I do not agree (about my doctrine), but I don't even know exactly what you mean, it must be fun to sit back and just take shots at me without actually saying what aspect of my teachings you mean or backing your statements up with examples and scripture. But you cannot understand the scriptures without allowing for things to change.

For one you say that Adam and Eve had superich DNA, and was able to produce all the diverse peoples and races of the earth. It's not like this now. You say in the beginning that some trees had powers to give knowledge, and fruit of another tree could make one live forever if you eat of it. Obviously no one has found that tree, except that tree is Christ, and that fruit is the truth. Wow am I weird.

For another, in your beginning concept, a serpent could talk with humans. It certainly don't happen today, never has except God caused an animal to speak.

God does not change, but God does change things.   And God can change direction without changing himself. God is not a statue that cannot move.

You are being so broad here that it is really impossible for me to know precisely what you are talking about. When you say "Old and New" I think of the old and new covenants, and God sure did change things between the old and the new covenants.

Heb 8:7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The only difference between the old and the new covenants is the old was flesh, the new spirit. After the word became flesh (old testament) it was made a quickening spirit (new testament).

Your teaching argues with the scientific evidence, and does not work for me unless I throw out my common sense.

Nonsense. What scientific evidence?   Let me guess....

Could it be the scientific evidence that says all humans are descended from a single female ancestor? No, that can't be it. If you are talking about human genetics then you are simply ignorant of genetic science. I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm definately not a genetic scientist, but I do have eyes. I do see evidence of genetic differences in the Kenyian and the Scandanavian. And I would question if a Scandanavian family with a long line of Blonde hair and blue eyes will every suddenly procreate a child of some other race. We can document this fact in our own observations of the past 2000 years, and we can document from written text that the other races were present closer to Adam than that.

Oddly, I am aware of no scientific evidence that says that God cannot create a fruit that grants knowledge... or that God cannot grant knowledge to someone for having eaten a particular fruit. So there is no science being violated there.

God can create anything he wants, and he did an awsome job of creating stuff that we still can't quite figure out, but he wrapped that all up on the sixth day when he ended his work.

"Common sense" is Murray-speak, I'm not sure what he means, but common or uncommon, your statement doesn't make any sense. If the fruit was miraculous, (which certainly seems likely) you have some sort of "common sense" problem with that. Like Murray you put a lot of importance on a totally unbiblical value, so called "common sense." Common sense is what guides the common people and the common people are sheep without a shepherd, what wisdom is in that sensibility?

You ought to throw out your "common sense" because it is more like "common misconception." Science and common sense have had a long history of conflict, it used to be common sense that the earth is flat, it used to be common sense that if God wanted man to fly he would have given us wings, it used to be common sense to do all kinds of dangerous and ridiculous things. I'm no fan of science or of common sense, but I'll take science over common sense any day.  Your common senses can mislead you.

Shall we say common science then? Acorn falls! Fire hot!

John7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Isa 11:3 ...and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

You judge it by your senses, and I'll judge it by the Holy Ghost.

You argue that the seed of the serpent is merely those children of the woman who are unsaved, so they are symbolically the seed , or should we say children, of the devil.

No, that is not what I argue.   That is close to what the Apostle John taught, but you are getting it wrong, this is what he said

1 john 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (From the beginning of what?)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. (I only know one who was born of God, who didn't commit a sin, who couldn't sin because Gods seed remains in him, and he is the Son of God, and savior of the world)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. (Jesus said that not one is righteous but only the father. But the believers in, the word, truth, yes Jesus is accounted for righteousness and therefore become his bretheren and children of God)

The way you can tell a child of God from a child of Satan is that the children of the devil commit sin. (Do you commit sin?)This is not symbolic, it is real, it is spiritual, spiritual is real. How did you get the seed of God in you? ( By believing in his son Jesus)Did God lie with you, carnally?

You are trying to say that the children of the devil are the carnal seed of Satan, aside from being a total mystery, this is contrary to the doctrine of Christ which opened the gospel to all nations of men, yet in the parable of the tares he declares the tares are going to be burned. (You have not yet learned the difference between flesh and spirit. All flesh will be destroyed. Its not the flesh that makes them tares, and why Cain was told if he does right he would be accepted.)

This is how Cain was defined as the child of Satan.

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

If Cain was Satan's child, carnally, then there would be no possibility of acceptance, because God does not accept tares. But because the tares and wheat grow together until harvest, Cain had the choice set before him, to show what he was.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
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;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: ( These are souls who are cast into the lake of fire, not flesh men. After the souls are judged after the mellinium.)

Jesus himself defines tares as those who "do iniquity" and he also calls them the children of the wicked one. Dr. Murray falsely claims that a tare may be saved, which is manifestly not true. That is majorly against "common sense" and righteous judgment too. (Because you don't understand what a tare actually is)

And those who are "saved" are the seed of the woman symbolically, and are the children of God.

Not merely symbolically (symbols can be very real, I see I chose the wrong words for you), just read what John wrote. The children of God are "his seed," (God's), I say, not carnally, but spiritually. How are we the seed of God?

1John 3 says it all the Apostle John is the foremost expert on the serpent seed, and what he wrote is all the authority I need. You are scrupulously avoiding 1 John 3, If you don't agree with it, why don't you just take a scissors and cut it out of your bible, that, or give me your interpretation. But if you do that, you know I'm going to have a field day with you, so maybe you should play it safe and give up.(I have no problem teaching you what it means)

I'll stand with the Apostle John, and you stand with Dr. Murray, and we'll see who stands on the solid ground.

If we are talking about seeds of the woman in both cases, then maybe God should have said that he would put enmity between the seeds of the woman, between her good seed and her bad seed.

Again, you give more weight to your interpretation of a somewhat cryptic saying than you do to what the Apostle John said very simply. John said what he said, why don't you use some of that common sense of yours and figure out that the straight-talking word of an apostle is far more weighty than your interpretation of a somewhat cryptic passage?

I know you think that Cain is pretty much an alien, unrelated to Adam or Eve, but still, in that prophecy, the woman's seed is Christ, and Satan's seed is sinful man. That is the way John the apostle describes it and that is the way I interpret it in Genesis, is makes plenty of sense to me, of course, I have had my mind washed from the filth of Dr. Murray's corrupt doctrines, that stuff gets in the way, so I understand why this is so hard for you.

The parable of the tares indicates that while they are growing they can be hard to tell apart, that is because the righteous start out as sinners, like Satan's children, but that is not how they end up, the difference is seen when the harvest comes. (Exactly, when the flesh is done away with and the souls stand for judgment)

If that were true there would have no need for Christ to be conceived of the Holy spirit, or was that sybolic also?

I can't imagine what thought process lead you to that statement. I can usually figure these things out, but you have baffled me, I can't follow your logic at all.(Just maybe when you get this very important meaning, it will all fall into place. I can understand why that baffles you, but I'm not going to explain it to you. You just have to get that on your own. That is if you care to.)

or was that sybolic also?

It was spiritual, Spirit becoming carnal, that is how God created the worlds, spirit became matter. But Cain was not conceived of the Holy Ghost, nor yet of Satan, not carnally. We are born of God, and begotten of God by the Holy Ghost but not carnally, only spiritually, until the resurrection when even our bodies will be reborn of Him.(Thats good, I like this, but why can you get it so good here, and be so far off miss it elsewhere?

You have a picture of an Angel hovering over Mary in your mind in order for God to have Mary conceive Jesus.

That makes me laugh, that is not what I meant at all, you are grasping at straws to find something wrong with me.

I compared your vision of Cains conception to Luke 1:28-35 Especially v35

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. "

But no "angel" hovered over Mary. I was not really saying anything about the conception of Jesus, except that you were making Cain's pretty much the same thing, I was joking because the idea that Satan impregnated Eve is a Joke..

Such a small thinker you are.

You did it again. That's you. You are not the only one who does this, but really, when you said that "You have a picture of an Angel hovering over Mary in your mind in order for God to have Mary conceive Jesus" you were displaying your own inability to keep up with me. You didn't get the joke. (Its your words that represent yourself, its up to your to make your communication connect, not me.

Even so, when dealing with the scriptures, I am a narrow-minded person, I don't think that when I interpret the scriptures it is time for "big thinking" and wild speculation. I have standards, and I'm not inclined to think or believe much beyond that which is explicitly written, when you start thinking "big" you get into trouble, like Dr. Murray. (No, but the word should all be of unity from beginning to end)

2Cor 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; 6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Dr. Murray is pretty much the opposite of that.

It makes no sense that the trees, and the fruit, are simply literal, yet the seed of the serpent is symbolic, and not a literal seed.

Oh, yes it does.  Or Is the opposite true? The trees, and the eating, and the looking at "fruit," all mentioned in the book of Genesis, never happened, never existed, but Satan's penetration of Eve's womb, which is never mentioned literally happened (penetration by any means). And who makes no sense?? To believe what you believe you have already cast aside all notions of any decent "common sense" To read Genesis and come up with Dr. Murray's FABLES, is the most ridiculous way I could imagine reading Genesis. (You don't see it mentioned, but I clearly see and hear it mentioned, in fact thats about all is talked about, after all the first recorded words to Eve about this whole event was about her conception.) Then the fact that later it is precisely and clearly recorded that other spiritual beings came and done the same thing, documents that it is not impossable.

Lets see what that would mean this is according to your interpretation, red letters = not literal.

1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

According to you, There really was not any fruit, you really could not touch or eat it. All this talk of "eating" and "touching" is just smoke and mirrors. Is that common sense?

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

According to you, What really happened is that Satan put his carnal seed into eve. All this talk of "pleasant to the eyes" and "eating" is just smoke and mirrors. There was not tree, just Satan. Is that common sense?

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

According to you, God actually meant that they should never talk with Satan of believe anything he says, again, there was not any real tree or any real fruit that a man could actually eat. Is that common sense?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

According to you, again, there was not any real tree or any real fruit that a man or woman could actually eat. Is that common sense?

And I'm the one who makes no sense??? ( Paul, we all know what the words say as written, even a 3rd grader can read. Its like getting so close to a painting that all you see is the daubs of colors. You have to back up far enough to understand that those daubs of color translates into a beautiful picture)

You have the pretty little picture in your mind, and it is easy to paint, and you say you see it, and because it's such a simple little picture you can even see it with your eyes closed. That my friend is not a vision.

You are only holding a mirror to yourself, you are the one with a false pleasant picture in mind, I'm just reading the words God has given. You are the one with the big imagination painting pictures, the false visions of men, ungodly men, like Arnold Murray. IMAGINATIONS

An angelic rebellion in which the "elect" stood against Satan = pretty little picture of falsehood

A millennium in which the rest of the dead DO live again before the 1000 years are finished = pretty little picture of falsehood

A parable of the tares in which some tares magically evolve into wheat = pretty little picture of falsehood

Eve is not the mother of all living = pretty little picture of falsehood

That, my enemy, is Murray-speak.

It's not the kind of sight that Christ demonstrated when he seen his life played out in the written word down to every little detail.

And the relevance of that statement is...?

You and I see a different picture, and we worship two different Christs. Your Christ teaches you one thing, and mine teaches me another.

I'm glad that someone can see that, it is refreshing for once to meet someone who doesn't give me this "we are all brothers" nonsense, we are not brothers we worship different Gods. And the God you believe in is something made with men's hands, Dr. Murray's hands.(No, my God is the father of Adam, Noah, Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob the father of Israel, and the seed that came through them Jesus the Christ.)

You have one mark, and I another.

The true Disciples of Dr. Murray are all characterized by an intense need to let others know that they are better than them, people write me about his phenomenon, this sort of talk is typical of the sort of self-glorification that Dr. Murray's disciples thrive on. So grave, so sure, but you are the one who has kept the scriptures out of your discussion, you have, not the mark of the beast, but you wear Dr. Murray's mark.

I took you through Genesis 3, you never answered any of my points, be sure of it, when people come to my site and read your arguments, they will clearly see the shallow and self-gratifying way in which you have answered my well reasoned and scriptural arguments

I will see you in the millenium my friend, don't sweat it.

Maybe you will, but you will not see your "unsaved" dead relatives there. Because, "The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished." The millennium that you believe in does not exist. Nor ever will.

You are a fine student of Dr. Murray but a very poor one of the Word of God.

I thank you for providing the readers of my website with another example of how Dr. Murray's disciples cannot stand up to the scriptures but have to resort to personal attacks and distortion.

Does it please your Christ that you have just helped me convince more people that Dr. Murray is a false teacher? I would think that your Christ would be disappointed that in the end you could not answer my scriptural arguments and made such a bad last effort. (Paul, there are those who teach the deception of the false christ, who convince others to try the fruit they say is good for food, and they do eat it, they come in the name of Jesus and deceive many to believe in this false christ who also calls himself Jesus. They chant in jibberish to their christ, and wait for him to come almost to earth to gather them into the sky and take them away. They worship on the first day of the week to their false God and honor not the Sabbath of the true God, which is one of the 10 simple commandments. They call themselves saved, and born again, and they are indeed, except for condemnation, and into deception. You can thank me for helping you do this work, but on the other hand, I thank you for the opportunity to stand for the true Christ, and the only God, I am that I am, and testify to the truth unto His glory, which he has given me by the Holy Spirit.)

People write me all the time, like this lady did.

"When you said that you have a large amount of tapes and teachings of Arnold Murray, my attention was instantly had. I haven't yet, but was intending on taping shows, getting as much as I could of this man's teachings. This very morning I asked my 13-year-old daughter if she would like to begin reading along with the Shepherdʼs Chapel, and me her response was YES. Luckily, for her I decided to check out the Internet first to get a bit more information.

Then to my surprise and I will admit a little sadness, I found your website regarding Arnold Murray. I have to take a minute to Thank God for leading me in this direction and be very grateful that although I was getting very intrigued with Mr. Murray's teachings I have not jumped in with both feet yet."

Thank you for your contribution to the work of my God. I'm sure you will help me show people, like the person above, that Dr. Murray's teachings are not of God.

(I pray for you, and I mean it sincerely)

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

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 3:37 PM

Subject: Re: Bible

Ed, I'm pleased to hear from you again. (sorry this took so long but I have been going through major vehicle and applicance failures since before Christmas, plus wrestling season)

I was not aware that our communications were being shared on some web site for the public view. I have no problem with that, except I thought I was talking privately with a very well studied student of the word, and found no need to present you with many scriptures, knowing full well you have read for yourself and have your understanding.

I assumed you were aware because on my webpage I call for email responses, but then, you were not the original writer, I will note that you were not aware of the public nature of these discussions (up to this point) and felt no need to present many scriptures. If you wish to go back over your email and add scripture citations I'd be happy to add them into your responses. Your name and email is kept confidential so your defeat will not be personally identifiable. (I'm smiling, You should check out my website and see the kind of abuse I endure)

I have read the scriptures, and continue to, but I certainly do not know close to everything and even though I studied with Dr. Murray extensively that does not mean that I recall every bit of "documentation" for every subject at any given moment, even so, you made a reasonable assumption.

I cannot make that assumption about you, not just because I do not know you, but because you are a follower of Dr. Murray's doctrines, as I have said to others, if you are a person of any intelligence, then Dr. Murray's teachings themselves should be enough to convince you that he is a false teacher, if you are studying the word, as it is written.

Like I just said, you done this entire thing without me knowing what you were up to.

I have not posted it yet, I won't post it to my site until the discussion is finished. You had better bring your best stuff, if you are of the Lord then surely he will give you a mouth and wisdom to get the best of me and defend the truth.

I do not think it really requires lots of references since we were mostly just talking about Gen 1-3 and for me it is a simple question of whether we believe what is written in Gen or do we need to make some speculations about hidden meanings and deceptions. Such as, Eve is not the mother of all living? Is there really a scripture reference for that other than, "and Cain knew his wife" and "male and female made he them."?

You simply never understood to begin with. Who are the dead?

Rev 20:5

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The rest of the dead "LIVED NOT AGAIN" the word "again" is very important, because it tells us that they were once alive, so in whatever way they were once alive, they will not be alive like that again until after the thousand years are fulfilled. We know that all mankind is dead in their trespasses and sins, so they are already spiritually dead. The way in which they were once alive is physically alive and walking around. So they will not be physically alive and walking around AGAIN until after the thousand years. It would be one thing if the scripture had said "the rest of the dead did not obtain life" or something like that but it does not, is specifically says "again." how come the word "AGAIN" means so much to you in Genesis 4 but means nothing to you in Revelation 20.

Consider this, in the way you look at things, there is no REAL difference between life and death, the dead are alive, just not symbolically alive, they are literally alive and symbolically dead. There seems to be no point in being dead if it is not really dead. I think your view of death fits in very neatly with the eternal torture chamber doctrine (which we both hate) But in the eternal torture chamber the second death is just like the first, a merely symbolic death.

I believe a consistent view of death, God gave us the death of the flesh so that we could understand what death is. The first death and the second death have the same effect on those who die, they do not hear feel think or see. They go down to darkness and are no more. The only difference is that God has promised to raise all from the first death.

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

Rev 20:8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sands of the sea.

I assume that you include these verses to show that there has to be people around to accomplish this. These are the descendants of those who survive the end of this age. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but these are not the inheritors of the kingdom, these are the subjects of the kingdom.

Its clear to me that when Christ returns to establish his kingdom during which Satan is kept in prison, unlike now, for this thousand years, man no longer exists in the flesh. The scriptures that document this:

I do not see how that is clear at all, I have never hear of more than 1/3 of men being slain at any given time.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Cor 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

You have taken these scriptures out of context. The saying, "Man no longer exists in the flesh. (in this thousand years)" is not documented by 1Cor 15:51,52. Mankind is not the subject of 1 Cor 15, the first resurrection is only for believers, the dead in 52 refers to the dead in Christ only, that is the context of 1 Cor 15 (as I am about to demonstrate) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven and neither can these:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and neither do the "spiritually dead" The inheritance of the kingdom of God is exclusive to those who are Christ's.

The idea that sinful and unbelieving persons are to be included in this resurrection group (1Cor 15)is unscriptural and nonsense. 1 Corinthians 15 is really a very bad place to be if you are trying to defend Dr. Murray's doctrine. I will show you why.

Paul is speaking to the brethren in the doctrine of Christ with a view to focusing on the resurrection, I just include this first part to to set the stage.

I Corinthians 15
"1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

Now we get to the issue of the resurrection of others than Christ.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

This verse is critical, you have things out of their order, at Christ's coming the only ones raised are those that are his, if anyone else were raised at that time then that would be out of order.

All that are in Christ will be made alive. But even those who are not in him will live again, but only in their proper order, and the scriptures make that order very plain, "after the thousand years." In fact we can go to the section of scripture when the thousand years end and we can find a bunch of dead people being raised from the dead.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Plus of course the exclusionary statement "The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished."

Here is another little bit of context you missed

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Is that what unbelieving sinners get?? The victory? Glory? Incorruption? Wrong.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Our labor is not in vain because those that are Christ's will be raised to live everlasting.

I don't know what you think 2 peter 3 is proving.

2 Peter 3:

⁷But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

⁸But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

⁹The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up

Longsuffering towards who? To US-WARD, to us his sheep. "My sheep hear my voice," To his elect. As in the parable of the tares the Lord waits till the end lest any wheat be plucked up and mistaken for a tare.

Whether or not that means it would be impossible for any people to survive that event is not at all clear, we do not know if all the elements everywhere going to melt. It does say "works" and not people.

Isa2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.
11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
19 And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth. 20 In that day a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats;
21 To go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

It does not sound like they are all dying.

Zach 14:¹²And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

The people who have fought against Jerusalem would not be all mankind. How many do you think that will could be? 1 billion? 2 billion? 4 billion? Can that many people even do that one thing at the same time? Not everyone is going to be killed in the tribulation. At least there are no scriptures that say that.

Also, that does not exactly sound like a resurrection or a transformation to an incorruptible body. (Dr. Murray does not believe in resurrection anyway, he believes in the conscious transition from one plane of existence to another. Which is not Christian doctrine).

There are many more scriptures as well.

If this is any indication of the strength of the scriptures you had in mind, you were probably wise in not mentioning them and having everything supporting this falsehood completely discredited. There are some pretty stark scriptures about the end which may make the tribulation seem unsurvivable to you, but the word never says any such thing. Also you do not have anything that is going to help you prove that the wicked and the just are raised in incorruptible bodies together at the last trump.

Doesn't sound to me like flesh man will live through this event,

I can see why you would feel that way, there are some very violent scriptures and one response is to say, "how could anyone survive?" But that is not what the scriptures say, so it is not safe to make that assumption. You make that assumption because it has been suggested to you that such is the case, Dr. Murray and other manipulators use suggestion to make it seem like their ideas are the only plausible explanation, but if one looks at it with an unimpeded mind, then one sees that there are other possibilities.

Isa4:3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: 4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

Whatever time this is applied to (either History or the prophetic future) We see that when God judges a place and brings the "burning" that a universal holocaust is not required.

Of course, if they do die then they run into this problem,

THE REST OF THE DEAD LIVED NOT AGAIN

in whatever way they were alive before, they will not possess that life again (until...) The only way in which they were alive was in the areas of moving and thinking and talking and etc. the conventional idea of what it means to be alive. They were alive like that but will not be alive like that again.

This scripture alone is so potent that it renders Dr. Murrays ideas void. This is a very very very sharp scripture.

THE REST OF THE DEAD LIVED NOT AGAIN

It would be one thing if the scripture had said "the rest of the dead did not obtain life" or something like that, but it does not.

and the reason why we will all be changed from flesh to spirit.

That, on the other hand, is just another religion.

Therefore who Does Satan come back to test after the thousand years if the only ones there are those whom the second death has no power over?

I think I answered that, there are those who will survive. Those who did not receive the mark of the beast yet were not Christ's. These are their descendants.

If the rest of the dead live not until the thousand years be finished means they are not there in the mellinial kingdom, then where are they?

In their graves, they are dead, they are in the grave, and in the sea, the first death is just like the second death except that no one ever returns from the second death.

Ps 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish

Acts2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

And why would it be neccessary to wait until after the thousand years to judge them?

It is not necessary. It is just the way in which God has determined that it should be. It is just the way the scriptures say it will be.

Couldn't they just be judged when Christ returns, and go right into the eternity?

Not if God wants to fulfill the scriptures. God could have just skipped creating anything if he wanted to be efficient. God could do a lot of things a lot differently if he wanted to. God is not doing anything because he is being forced to, as if there were a set of rules or order higher than him. But he does it according to his will and he reveals it in his word. There will be a kingdom on earth and "the child will put his hand in the cockatrice den", "they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain." The scriptures must needs be fulfilled.

(Those who receive the mark of the beast and survive are judged right away)

Those raised from the dead unto everlasting life, are those who reign with Christ. And if we reign with him, who do we reign over?

The survivors who were not Christ's, yet did not received the mark of the beast, and their offspring.

Those who who have kept the sabbath, and obeyed, will be raised an incorruptable body, and will have put on inmortality, and will be priests to Christ, because they believed in him, and as promised will not perish, not ever.

Ok, what about the rest of the law, you have made yourself a debtor to do it all.

The second death has no power over those who have put on immortality, but the dead are those who had not honored the sabbath, nor obeyed, nor did they believe in the son of the living God.

One man honors one day above another another honors every day alike.

The dead are the ones outside the gates of the great city, who cannot enter in through one of the gates.

If they are dead, then why do they yet live again according to the way they lived when they were alive in this age? Contrary to the scripture which declares that they would not live again?

It would be one thing if the scripture had said "the rest of the dead did not obtain life" or something like that but it does not. I feel like a need a pull string on my back.

The dead have not been judged and put into the lake of fire that consumes the soul to destruction forever yet.

Maybe you get my drift better now.

I didn't know they weren't Adamic souls. Were they not the only 8 remaining children of Adam and Eve?

All souls are Adamic, it is a ridiculous distinction, moreover Cain Came of Eve and Eve came of Adam, so he was Adamic as well.

Why did you think you had need to lie to yourself?

Because I wanted to stay loyal to my teacher and I wanted to teach the doctrines he taught, but as I continued in them I realized it was a lie. I was studying and teaching the Bible and I just could not repeat Dr. Murray's denials of the scriptures anymore, don't you realize that many of his doictrines are contradictions and repudiations of what the scriptures DIRECTLY and PLAINLY say??? i.e. - Eve is not the mother of all living, the rest of the dead will live again before the thousand years are finished, the people whom Jesus Christ and the Apostles called Israel are not Israel; the list goes on.. His teachings have more in common with perversions like the Da Vinci code than with the Bible.

Paul said: I was determined to believe nothing except that which the word says is so and slowly redeveloped my theology from the ground up, it was not easy removing all the prejudices that Dr. Murray and others taught me, but over time I let go of everything, and my doctrine became completely dictated by what the word is.

Without understanding, the word is, just a bunch of words. Its the understanding that makes it more than a book, more than writtings, more than words. Its the understanding that make it a communication from the Father to the children.

Understanding is what I received when I let go of the teachings of Dr. Murray, what Dr. Murray offers is imaginations, not understanding.

"The rest of the dead lived not again till the thousand years were finished."

That is not hard to understand, until a false teacher comes along.

"Hath God said, "The dead shall not live again?" - Fear not, they shall live again, albeit, not spiritually."

Ed, the words are good enough as they are, it is when the perversions of men like Dr. Murray get involved that it becomes a message from SATAN.

It is not my job to make the word make sense to me and my way of thinking (as Dr. Murray does) But rather I must search the word of God and see what makes sense to him.

I'm not going to go into all the details of how I judge things, I don't think you really care to learn. I would

Then maybe you will persuade me.

Christ is my teacher. The Holy Spirit was given for this reason, to teach, guide, and comfort us.

Everyone thinks that, but if Christ was both our teachers then our doctrine would be the same. You probably have not read how I got the Holy Ghost, But God forced tongues on me. I don't believe in any other way to get the Holy Spirit, it is the only one given in scripture.

Christ knew how loney it was in the truth.

Tell me about it. Dr. Murray sure has alot of friends though. But He is more looney than lonely.