Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page
On the Serpent Seed and Importance of Bloodlines: "Dude, let me really blow your mind."
Question/Comment:
My First Response:edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)
Hello, "In Genesis chapter 5 verse 3 it CLEARLY tells you that Adams FIRST BIOLOGICAL son was Seth. QUOTE . " And Adam begat a son IN HIS OWN LIKENESS AFTER HIS IMAGE and called his name Seth ".
So you are saying that Abel was not a son of Adam, either? That is a new one. So not only is Cain not Adam's Son but neither is Abel? Ridiculous. I'm going to pretend you didn't mean that. Here is the way in which Cain Came into the world:
Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain
Here is the way Seth Came into the world
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:
These are very simple phrases describing a very simple narrative and a very simple fact of nature. Knowing your wife makes babies. It is the total disregard for what the scriptures communicate that separates Dr. Arnold Murray and such from other false teachers. You all seem to despise the very word of God and want to tell us all that what he (God) said is not what he meant.
Cains own geneaology does not list him as a descendent of Adam nor is Cain or Abel listed in the genealogy of Jesus Christ.
Neither are other first begottens Ishmael, Reuben, Ephraim, or Esau in Christ's genealogy.
Noting that Genesis Chapter 5 is not the Genealogy of Adam, Adam has no genealogy (not as such, Adam being created not born), only descent; it is the genealogy of Adam's sons, but not of all of his sons, Adam also begat many other sons besides Cain, Abel, and Seth, yet none of them appear in chapter 5's genealogy either.
Genesis chapter 5 is, in essence, the genealogy of Noah, Cain was not the father of Noah, that is why Cain is not counted. The children of the flesh are not counted, it is the children of promise who are counted for the seed. Cain was rejected, not because he was not the son of Adam, he certainly was.
There are many examples of the firstborn being passed over. Esau, Reuben, Ishmael, etc. None of those men are listed in Luke chapter 3 either, but that does not indicate that Satan had sex with their mother, it is merely that they were not counted for the seed, though they were the children of the flesh.
You apply a standard to Gen 5 and Luke 3 that I find nowhere in the bible: that only the firstborn son counts. Nonsense. The firstborn is special, but notice, firstborn is first "BORN" not begotten. "All that open the womb" are said to be God's. Cain opened the womb, not Seth. Ishmael was Abrahams first biological son, but not counted.
You also left out the TRUE Hebrew definition of PIRACH , NAGA , and NACASH .
Nonsense. You must mean, Tree=Body, Touch=Sexual intercourse and Serpent=Shining Angelic being.
Those are not the "true definitions." you are painful confused, you have my pity. You cannot overturn the meaning of a passage based on the misappropriation of a few words.
Just because "touch" can have an idiomatic usage is not reason to assume that usage in every case. Are you one of those people who giggles every time you hear the phrase 'the cock crew'? Because that is essentially what this is, words with two meanings like this do not always take on the sexual or other idiomatic meaning.
Context is everything in this sort of issue. If the word "touch" would have been used of the serpent as in "thou shalt not touch the serpent" Then maybe you would have something, but only maybe.
Same thing with "tree" the language is very clear 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 tree of the knowledge of good and evil (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? Do not do violence to God's word in the reckless abuse of idioms. There is no context for this usage here, only the conditioning of miserable teachers.
Serpent is snake, almost every time it is used the translation "snake" or serpent is certainly appropriate. There is nothing strange about talking animals in the bible.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.
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.
So there are your three words, they do not do all the magic you suppose.
God put a curse on Eves sexual reproductive organs NOT because she had a piece of fruit
He didn't? But it says he did.
Gen 3:13 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. 16 Unto the woman he said, (Because thou hast done this) {elipsis supplied from v14} I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
You contradict God.
He that is of God heareth God's words. He did not curse her "organs," just her labor.
The last time I checked, women still enjoy sex. That is not true of all animals. God did not curse anyone's organs.
nor did Adam and Eve cover their reproductive organs in shame for eating some fruit my friend.
On that one you are almost right. They didn't cover themselves because of the fruit (Well, not directly because of it)
They covered themselves because they were naked. But not because they had been doing "the nasty" with the devil.
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 knowledge came from eating the fruit.
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 or have sex with him."
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 Get yourself a good Hebrew and Greek Concordance and ask the Holy Spirit for TRUE Revelation of Gods TOTAL TRUTH . I have one, but I tell you to put yours away, it is just a tool for evil men to pervert your understanding from the simple language in God's word. They are not revealing secrets, they are clouding the truth.
Luke chapter 3 is trying to tell you something so read and study the WHOLE CHAPTER
I have, but, in truth, everything important comes before verse 23.
1Tim1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Think about how much you have looked for the devil in endless genealogies (and obsession with genealogy is endless) but never where he is truly lurking. This is the truth about the serpent's seed from the mouth of an Apostle:
1John 3:7 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, if such nonsense had an ounce of truth to it)
You don't need a concordance or a teacher to understand that. Just look at those verses. Read them. Believe them. Let no man deceive you.
Sincerely,
My Second Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)
My Third Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)
My Fourth Response: edits in maroon and in ( ), as in: (this is an example of an edit)
Return to "The Shepherd's Chapel and Dr. Arnold Murray" Main Page