Return to Oraclesofgod.org

Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page

Adam, the "other races," and the significance of "Eth Ha Adam"

Question/Comment:

----- Original Message -----
From: Name and Address Withheld
To: reborn@oraclesofgod.org (Paul Stringini)
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:33 PM
Subject: Adam and the other races

My brother has been studying with Arnold Murray for years and I am preparing papers on numerous subjects that we are discussing.  The one thing I do not have the proper resources to respond to is the Hebrew adjectives before Adam's name in Genesis, chapter 2, that are not used of man in Genesis, chapter 1.   I know Arnold Murray used Green's interlinear bible for these adjectives.  I believe they are "eth" and "hah".  I do not have an interlinear bible and have had trouble finding a resource to make sure I have the correct Hebrew words from the internet.  I have enjoyed your site and am happy for you "conversion" from Pastor Murray.  I am not concerned about a lot of his doctrines as much as I am his interpretation of "born again".  Could you also provide more info on this or lead me to the correct spot on your website.
 
I used to listen to him myself but felt led while listening to his tapes one night to throw them all away.  His doctrines for the most part do not support the gospel of peace and grace from our Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Thanks,
 
In Christ,
Pam

My First Response:edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stringini
To:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Adam and the other races

Hello, thank you for writing.
 
Well, "Eth" and  "Ha" are not adjectives, they are a particle and an article such as "a" and "the" (we do not really have particles in English, only approximations) and the presence of such parts of speech are neither sufficient nor make Arnold Murray's interpretation of Genesis necessary or even reasonable.  There are so many other verbs, nouns, clauses and whole sentences whose meaning are so clear as to make the reliance on such things as "eth ah Adam" to be ridiculous.
 
In Gen 1 it says God made man in his image in Chapter two it says "he formed the (ha) very (eth) man (Adam). " And this is supposed to be earth-shaking? Never mind the interpretation of the writers of the New testament who knew Hebrew far better than Dr. Murray (see below).
 
This is all I said on my website on the "eth" issue, specifically, because it is a non issue. It is smoke and mirrors, snake oil, trash-scholarship.
 

from: http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/debunker001.htm "

""Eth" and the import thereof?  If it is was important, I would have gone into it, but it happens to be a "red herring."  Dr. Murray is not a competent scholar of the Bible or Hebrew, he merely pretends to be.  He overemphasizes things like ARTICLES and bad English renderings of Hebrew words (like "replenish").Watchman_2 is a great scholar, why doesn't he go into it? "Eth Ha Adam," the significance is killing me. """"  

While Dr. Murray's students  will reference the particle "eth" and article "ha" they will never specifically tell you why this is significant, only THAT it IS significant and proves their point of view.  Eth is an emphatic particle and together with the article Ha make the noun emphatic, i.e. "ha-Adam" = "the man" and "eth ha Adam" = "the very man" or "that very man" But more like "Jesus is the way" vs. Jesus is THE way."  minus Jesus.  The significance of this depends on the context of the usage.

There is a lot of good material on that page but the focus is wider than you are asking for, the wider implications cannot be ignored.  This section from http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/email044.htm  covers the best reasons to reject the misuse of peoples ignorance of Hebrew in the "eighth day" shell game: (the blue text is the writing of someone emailing me, the black is my response).

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.
 
ok
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
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.

 
The following, on the subject of "born again" comes from the first page linked in this message.

So let's break it down, just a bit.First, I do not disagree with the idea that there may have been an earth-age before this one, I'm not going to argue with anyone on that, but if there was, there is really very little information given on it, and that information is extremely sketchy. Let's look at some of the sources Dr. Murray uses to back up his story:Job 38: 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? The problem here is that Dr. Murray has taken a single scripture and run with it; without regard to the context or the overall judgment of scripture on this issue. Verse seven is the focus verse for Dr. Murray, and Dr. Murray provides an answer, he says that we were there when God laid the foundation, we were those "Sons of God"  But the point that God is making here is that man is a puny  and ignorant thing, the answer is that man had nothing to do with any of those things. Man was nowhere.When Adam was created, he was not infused with a soul, he became one.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. The importance of this cannot be understated, the language is pretty simple, God formed man and brought him to life, and he became a soul right there on the ground.  This was Adams absolute beginning as a being.  One could argue that we all preexisted in the purposes of God, but I would not say it is even possible that we ever pre-existed as individual beings.The bible teaches that our lives begin in our mother's womb, no earlier time is ever mentioned for our beginnings.  The bible always talks about us as having originated from our mother's womb, never as having originated from somewhere else, and being implanted there, the only case of that would be Christ.John3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. Dr. Murray correctly states that "again" in "born again" can also mean "from above."  But he then goes on to say (perversely) that Jesus is indicating that, in order to be saved; our angelic persons, which we once were, have to come down from heaven ("from above" ) and be "born innocent of woman," and live in this flesh age, again, in order to be saved.That is not what Jesus was saying.  Pardon me, but that is a stinking load of crap, and no one should have to smell it.  We do have to be "born from above," but Dr. Murray completely botches the simple language that Jesus uses;  "You must be born again" indicates some thing that we lack.  Dr. Murray treats it like Jesus was informing us of something we already possess, but are ignorant of, as if saying, "You must realize you were born from above; we were all born from above."  But that is just devilish.  He usually throws in the 'angels that sinned' here as proof, claiming that their sin was that they did not submit to being born in flesh bodies, so they cannot be saved.  But he has left the teachings of Jesus Christ far behind by that pointVerse thirteen from John Chapter 3 is clear, Jesus alone is "he that came down from heaven" to be born of woman. No one else ever has.  Also, the phrase "so is every one that is born of the Spirit." from John 3:8 implies that "born from above" is not a universal phenomena.  If Jesus was trying to communicate that it was; he could have said, "everyone is born from above."Whenever the scriptures wish to refer to the earliest possible time in someone's life, they unerringly refer to the womb:Ps 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly

Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb,

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb,

Isa 49:1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Dr. Murray actually uses Jeremiah 1 to back up his claims; claiming that God knew Jeremiah before he was born because Jeremiah had existed in that angelic age.  But God here is speaking of the womb as the earliest period in Jeremiah's existence, Jeremiah was "formed in the womb,"  not just his body, but the person, Jeremiah.  God Formed him in the womb and Jeremiah became a living soul, his body was not infused with a soul, the formation of the body and the bringing to life was the act of creation for Jeremiah.  The foreknowledge of God does not give us any cause to suppose Jeremiah had existed in an angelic body prior to this genesis spoken of in this verse.  I suppose it could mean that, but that would really be pushing the issue, you have to have a very compelling reason to make an interpretation like that, such as some good collaborating scriptures,  which we have not found.  Dr. Murray's students become conditioned so that it becomes very difficult to see it any other way.Psalm 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. I used to look at this one and it really seemed like it said a lot, but I was just reading too much into it.  Dr. Murray colors the perceptions of the people who follow him, they see his story in the scriptures the way I can make you see a dragon in the clouds, by suggesting to you that it is there and by you being willing to see it.In these verses we are led to believe that God is pronouncing judgment on the Angelic host and condemning them to die in the flesh as part of the lesson of this earth age.  Well, that is the way I took it.  But really this is just a simple case of taking things out of contextPsalm 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. The second and third verses make it clear that this Psalm is in reference to earthly affairs and the men who rule in the Earth, but especially to the rulers of Israel.  In the old testament the only people who God ever referred to as his children were the people of Israel.And when people stand in the stead of God, handing down life and death, it is not unusual for God to call them "gods."  Ex7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Referring to these earthly leaders as "gods" is an acknowledging of the power they have over the people, and is further reinforced by the admonishment to "deliver the oppressed" and etc.  The "all of you are children of the most high," refers to all the children of Israel, and he is reminding the judges and rulers that they are all part of that covenant and that they all shall die and be judged by the judge of all nations.This has nothing to do with any "world that was."

All these fabricated details are laid over a skeleton of scriptures, and may seem convincing to those who are receiving his instruction innocently or to those who have been conditioned to read things with his doctrinal overlay in place.  But if one is able to look at the whole of scripture with a clear mind, Dr. Murray's fables are shown to be what they truly are.  Unfortunately,  many of Dr. Murray's long-term disciples become conditioned to see things in the text that are not there.  I used to see those things, but now I see that I was only conditioned to see something that was the product of the imagination of a man, but was never really there.  True "eyes to see" is the ability to read the bible as it is written, and that ability, oddly enough, is quite rare.

Hope that helps

Emailer's Reply:

----- Original Message -----
From:xxxxxxxxxxx
To: Paul Stringini
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Adam and the other races

Thank you so very much for responding so quickly and thoroughly.  I had answered most of my brother's arguments with numerous scriptural references except for this one.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Second Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Second Reply:

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Third Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Third Reply:

  

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Fourth Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Fourth Reply:

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Fifth Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Fifth Reply:

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Sixth Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Sixth Reply:

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Seventh Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Seventh Reply:

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Eighth Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Emailer's Eighth Reply:

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

My Ninth Response:  edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)

 

Original Message - 1st Response - 1st Reply - 2nd Response - 2nd Reply - 3rd Response - 3rd Reply
4th Response - 4th Reply - 5th Response - 5th Reply - 6th Response - 6th Reply - 7th Response
7th Reply - 8th Response - 8th Reply - 9th Response

Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page

Return to Oraclesofgod.org