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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 6:14 PM

Subject: kenites

Paul S.

I want to clarify one thing. Reading your website full of counter statements, I think i understand your problem. Kenites survived the flood. It is written after genesis. "Adamic souls" Only means that they were special .

God created ALL the races on the 6th day. Black Yellow and White. Adamic souls were the only pure souls NOT mixed with the nephiliam. The Adamic souls were perfect in their generations. This had to be because Jesus Christ had to have a pure line to enter into this world. The dual seedline/linage is an old doctrine from around 120 AD that Gnostic Christians taught THAT was racist.
Pastor Arnold Murray does not teach that particular doctrine.He teaches a non racist variation of it.  He does teach that the FAKE jews are kenites.(words of Jesus Christ states in many places that the wicked ones are different seedline) THERE ARE real Jews but it is not the real Jews that Arnold Murray speaks thereof.

PM also teaches that every tribe was intermixed with kenites, which is biblically sound.

Regardless if they were on noahs ark or not, The flood failed to wipe out all the giants and all the kenites because we see both after the flood. However God wiped the giants from the earth, you dont see any mile high giants walking around crushing people under their boots. you dont see any 30 foot tall people walking around....you will hardly see anyone over 7 foot tall. I happen to believe that Arnold Murray teaches this doctrine soundly. Have you not read who the son of the wicked one is? Paul taught this

"1Jn 3:12  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."

Certainly you are not calling Adam the wicked one are you?

Also explain for me one thing. Who is Adams First born son. According to the progeny in genesis Adams First born son is Seth whom was replacing Abel. This is Jewish heraldry  law.

A woman ,in this case Eve, bared a son Cain First.(twins by two fathers first to come out is still firstborn in Jewish custom) Abel was Second. Yet Abel was Adams First born son and Adams Progeny starts with Seth.

Do you think Moses just made a mistake about the most important history in the world?.....I think not. 

Pastor Arnold Murray is an ordained Pastor of God. God the Father which is in Heaven, Jesus Christ Which is He whom came to Earth The Son of God to die for our sins and be resurrected. and the Holy spirit which abides within God and Jesus Christ they are at the same time separate and equal and united in one Office, we call the Godhead. 3 Separate manifestations are noted in the Bible. God speaking from heaven, Jesus Christ being baptized and the Holy spirit which came down from Heaven represented by a Dove. The fact that Jesus Christ Said He is "I Am"  ...how could anyone think otherwise? I learned this from Arnold Murray and The Holy Spirit taught me using this man, the bible, other people the internet etc........That is Trinity is it not?

That is not modal-ism as you have labeled it which is a heretical teaching at best.

In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

The term Sabellianism comes from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the third century. Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus was fully God."

And so what if He teaches  modalism(which he doesnt) instead of Unitarianism.....whats your point before Christianity had some "councils" there was debate on many subject matters pertaining to God....is God 1 3 9 10 30 50 100 gods Gods ......and that debate raged on even to  the late 1500's when the so called church announced Unitarianism as the victor.

Personally I believe in Trinity , Jesus The Christ The Son(Yeshua Messiah), God the Father (YHVH) and the Holy Spirit(Ruwach)....

I eagerly await your reply,

In Jesus Christs precious name, Amen.

Name Withheld

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:56 PM

Subject: Re: kenites

Name Witheld, first of all, thanks for being patient, I know what it is like when you feel strongly about something and are waiting for a reply that does not immediately come.  That being said, I have other important things going on, and I definitely want to take time to help people, but most of what you said, has already been covered on my website in the letters section. Though it would take some digging. I have taken time to write you so I expect you will take the time to read. 

 

I think i understand your problem. Kenites survived the flood. It is written after genesis. "Adamic souls" Only means that they were special .

 

I covered this before. The bible does not mention "Adamic Souls."  The bible mentions "EIGHT SOULS" As in, only eight souls survived the flood.  It is only from a desire to circumvent the teaching of scripture that men like Arnold Murray have created the term "Adamic Souls."  Murray's terms.  The text of the bible is clearly against it.

 

Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

 

1 Peter 3:20  ... in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

One of the things which sickens me about Arnold Murray is his wanton disregard and disrespect for the scriptures.   Maybe that statement surprises you, but if you look at these passages and just LISTEN to what the BIBLE is saying and let the bible speak to you instead of letting Arnold Murray's conditioning lead and deceive you; you will plainly see that what God is trying to say here is that there were ONLY EIGHT SOULS on the Ark, that is an absolute limitation.  He gives a specific number to absolutely limit the group.

 

To interject "Adamic" in order to be able to insert into an extra-biblical narrative that only exists in the minds of its adherents certain obscure references to "Kenites" in verses referring to a population census (they are never included in the genealogies) is completely out of balance.  Is there no better explanation that does not require us to corrupt the scriptures?

 

1 Peter 3:20  ... in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight -ADAMIC- souls were saved by water.

 

That is corruption.  That is adding to the word of God.  That is Leaven.

 

The name Cain is not unique, it is faulty logic to assume that the Kenites listed after the flood were survivors of the flood.    It is more reasonable to believe that they were descended from a different man named Cain.  After all, only eight souls survived the flood and Cain was not one of them nor were his descendants listed among them.  Arnold Murray is fond of falsely pointing out that Cain is not in "Adam's Genealogy,"  the actual case is that Cain is not part of NOAH's genealogy, so if we take that to mean that the lines remained completely separate, then no descendant of Cain could have survived the flood.  Another possible explanation is that the people called "Kenites"  actually took that name on themselves or were named so by others because of their vagabond lifestyle,  not from any direct descent from the original Cain.  Are all Indians from India?  it is not logical to assume such.

 

2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

It is not fitting to overturn the clear INTENT of two very clear scriptures (Genesis 7:23  & 1 Peter 3:20) for the sake of inserting an obscure tribe mentioned in a few places into a very suspicious extra-biblical narrative.

 

God created ALL the races on the 6th day. Black Yellow and White.

 

I never read that in the bible, unless your bible also has Arnold 3:16 in it.  But I read in my bible that GOD created one man and one woman, and that all the races of men come of one.  That is not tradition, that is what the bible says.

 

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

 

Science also agrees that all men come from a common ancestor.  The idea of separately created races is just a fiction created by men like Murray who are basically racial separatists.  It is not in the bible.

 

Adamic souls were the only pure souls NOT mixed with the nephiliam. The Adamic souls were perfect in their generations.

 

This only obscures the more pertinent facts and is not even entirely accurate to Arnold's teaching.

 

The most pertinent facts are that Noah and his family were "pure," and those were the ONLY eight souls that survived, because the point of the flood was to destroy the corrupted race of man.

 

Listen carefully again, the whole point of the flood was to destroy the corrupted race of men, The whole point of you saying "Adamic souls," over, and over, is to prove that the flood was a failure and that the tainted seed survived.  Doesn't that strike you as a bit screwy?  You are basically telling me that the flood was the biggest failure in history and that God brought about a flood on the whole world to destroy corrupt man, but instead destroyed the world and let corrupt man slip through his fingers.

There is a major problem with that!  My god is not a bumbling buffoon, but your doctrine makes your God look like one.  The bible claims the flood was a success.

 

This had to be because Jesus Christ had to have a pure line to enter into this world.

 

No, "This action," did not have to be taken by God because of, "that consequence," I hate that kind of logic.  As if God is bound by forces outside of him which are leading him on. If God could keep the line pure in the supposedly Kenite infested Palestine of the first century, (according to the doctrine of some), then God was not constrained by any other considerations than his own will. 

 

Any man who tells you things like, God has to do it this way because of this consideration, or of that consideration, is full of it.  That is just a by-product of the human need to make God like us. (i.e. weak and reacting to circumstances more powerful than himself)

 

The dual seedline/linage is an old doctrine from around 120 AD that Gnostic Christians taught THAT was racist. Pastor Arnold Murray does not teach that particular doctrine.He teaches a non racist variation of it.

 

Right,  he is a racial separatist,  Arnold is not a white supremacist, Arnold is not a Racist in the common sense, but I also know that he does not approve of putting "cream in coffee," in other words, he does not believe the races should mix (even though he presides over mixed marriages). And if you don't know that, then you don't know Arnold.   Racial separatism is bunk, hybridization produces a stronger seed.  Isolation creates races as a result of the loss of genetic information and vitality.

He does teach that the FAKE jews are kenites.(words of Jesus Christ states in many places that the wicked ones are different seedline)

 

I have covered this numerous times, here is the secret of the seeds, if you can receive it...

 

Who are the children of God and who are the children of the Devil?

 

1John 3:9 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 seed is a spiritual seed.  If we have the seed of God in us then we are his children.  What marks us is our DEEDS not our ancestry. Jesus also referenced this many times, but you have misunderstood him thanks to the leading of Arnold Murray..

 

John 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me , because my word hath no place in you.
38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

 

Here we have Jesus in the space of three verses proclaiming that these men were "Abraham's seed" and then denying that they were Abraham's children.

 

Either they are the literal seed of Abraham and spiritually not his children, or the reverse, and the reverse does not make sense because of their deeds.  I hope you understood that.   Whether they are of mixed race is not the issue here.

 

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

 

1John 3:9 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.

 

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

 

Is Adam God?  Is it the seed of Adam verses the seed of the Devil?  NO!  The seed of God; and the seed of the devil; those are the two seeds.  Adam is not the father of this seed..  They are planted of God.  1 John 3 is the key to the teaching of the seeds and to the parable of the tares.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

They were of the devil, witnessed by their deeds, not because of their descent.  It is contrary to the doctrine of Christ to judge any man by his descent.  And that is what this doctrine does it confuses the issue of who the children of the devil are.   The tares are burned, no exceptions, but they are a spiritual seed, not a carnal offspring.

 

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

 

THERE ARE real Jews but it is not the real Jews that Arnold Murray speaks thereof.

Do you know who they are?  Those who say they are Jews and are not but do lie? Arnold Murray and the identity movement are the false Jews.  They are the descendants of tree worshipping pagans who wish to claim the heritage of Judah and Israel.  The Shepherd's Chapel is a synagogue of Satan.

 

PM also teaches that every tribe was intermixed with kenites, which is biblically sound.

 

Really?  Does that mean that anything that is not specifically denied by the bible is a biblically sound idea?  The bible says nothing about the tribes intermixing with Kenites, so why is that a biblically sound idea? 

 

- Kenites are mentioned in the bible living in proximity to the tribes of Israel

- PM teaches the Kenites mixed with all the tribes of Israel

- Therefore this is a biblically sound doctrine

 

Doesn't sound logical to me, and it is not biblically sound either.  Have you considered that, according to the Jewish law, anyone who was of mixed descent would likely be stigmatized for generations? And even so, would that make them children of the devil?  Children of a race that does not even exist?

 

Really, if Kenite blood was their excuse for devilish behavior in Jesus day, then what was their excuse in the days of Moses and Joshua? or in the days of Joseph, their brother whom they sold?  What was Adam's excuse?  What about you?  What is your excuse for committing unrighteous acts?  Where dwells the seed of Satan?

 

Are you saying only these genetically tainted people are capable of really bad sins?  That only they could have crucified the lord? What then? What is the point of a Kenite? The tares are burned, no exceptions. 1 John 3 is the key to the seeds.  Period.

 

Regardless if they were on noahs ark or not, The flood failed to wipe out all the giants and all the kenites because we see both after the flood.

 

You don't consider alternate hypotheses, only the ones that fit your story, that is not good. Do you ask whether the Giants after the flood may have had another source? (such as from a second incursion of fallen angels, "and also after that,"  look it up in your Companion Bible, appendix 25)  And as for the Kenites, I already gave you the more logical and biblically sound answer to that.

 

Also, listen to yourself,  "The flood failed " , you say, therefore the bible does not teach you, you are not a bible student, the bible is YOUR student, and you teach it what to say.  If you were a bible student you would accept the following.

 

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

 

I remember when I was like you, and I read this passage, the part I had trouble getting around was the term "under the whole heaven" i knew that "earth" might refer to a "land" or some smaller division of Earth, and I wanted the flood to be less than planetary.  Aside from my desires, the bible says what it says.  "Every living substance"  and "Noah Only"  The flood was not survivable.  At least not according to the bible.  But maybe you can teach the bible a thing or two...  Read between the lines.... Corrupt the word of GOD.  Do you know what you are handling with your fingers?

 

However God wiped the giants from the earth, you dont see any mile high giants walking around crushing people under their boots. you dont see any 30 foot tall people walking around....you will hardly see anyone over 7 foot tall. I happen to believe that Arnold Murray teaches this doctrine soundly.

 

I happen to think that you have been far too uncritical in your thinking.

 

Have you not read who the son of the wicked one is? Paul taught this

"1Jn 3:12  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."

Certainly you are not calling Adam the wicked one are you?

 

But John was not talking about a literal seed, you took that verse out of context.  John had just told us how the seed of God and the seed of the devil are manifest.

 

1 John3:7 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.

 

Cain was of the devil, but not carnally.  Carnally he was Adam's son.

 

Also explain for me one thing. Who is Adams First born son. According to the progeny in genesis Adams First born son is Seth whom was replacing Abel. This is Jewish heraldry  law.

 

Adam was not Jewish! Cain was disinherited, and Cain is not in the genealogy of NOAH (Gen 5 is Noah's geneology), but ADAM IS IN CAIN"S GENEALOGY (Genesis 4).  Cain was his carnal firstborn, and the bible says so, it is not unheard of for the firstborn to be put out for evil deeds, or unfitness, Esau, Reuben, etc..  David was not the firstborn of Jesse and Christ descended from a line of David which never were kings.

 

Genesis 4 is the Genealogy of Cain, Look carefully at verse one and 17 and notice how the formulation of paternity is identical. 

 

Genesis 4:1

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Verses 2-16 are inserted parenthetically to explain Cain's disinheritance. Verse 17 continues the genealogy.

 

Genesis 4:17

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
.

The bible makes it clear that Cain was the product of the union of Adam and Eve, just as Enoch was the product of the union of Cain and his wife.  This is witnessed by the repeated formulation in verse 17.  Also this is not the only Enoch in the bible, and you can bet there have been more than one guy named Cain, Just like there are guys named Jesus people called Christians of no relation to my Lord...

 

A woman ,in this case Eve, bared a son Cain First.(twins by two fathers first to come out is still firstborn in Jewish custom) Abel was Second. Yet Abel was Adams First born son and Adams Progeny starts with Seth.

Abel is never once called Adam's firstborn.  Cain was driven out so he could hardly be Adam's heir.   This is the beginning of Adam's progeny.

 

Genesis 4:1

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain

 

The reason Cain is not included in the genealogy of Noah in Chapter 5.  Is that Noah was not a descendant of Cain.  If Noah had descended from Cain, Cain would have to be in the genealogy, but that is contrary to the facts, Cain, was driven out and Seth inherited in his place, it has nothing to do with imaginations about sex with the devil or reading sexual innuendo into passages that have no such intent.

 

Do you think Moses just made a mistake about the most important history in the world?.....I think not. 

 

You do.  You think Moses was mistaken, Cain was not the son of Adam,  You think Moses was mistaken, the flood did not destroy all the people, you think Moses was mistaken, more people than Noah survived according to you.  You are the one who disbelieves was is written,

 

There was a tree, it grew dfrom the ground and they ate of it,  doi you believe that?  or was Moses wrong again?

Pastor Arnold Murray is an ordained Pastor of God.

 

He is ordained alright!

 

Jude1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I reject Arnold Murray.  he is a false prophet and a false teacher and if he does not repent then he will surely be condemned.

 

God the Father which is in Heaven, Jesus Christ Which is He whom came to Earth The Son of God to die for our sins and be resurrected. and the Holy spirit which abides within God and Jesus Christ they are at the same time separate and equal and united in one Office, we call the Godhead. 3 Separate manifestations are noted in the Bible. God speaking from heaven, Jesus Christ being baptized and the Holy spirit which came down from Heaven represented by a Dove. The fact that Jesus Christ Said He is "I Am"  ...how could anyone think otherwise? I learned this from Arnold Murray and The Holy Spirit taught me using this man, the bible, other people the internet etc........That is Trinity is it not?

 

It is not my fault if you do not know Arnold Murray's doctrine correctly.  You must be new, but back in the day, we knew that Arnold was explicitly anti-Trinitarian, and later he started doing this doubletalk about the Trinity, he is disgusting. You said "one office," the Godhead.  That is basically Trinitarian, but not of Dr. Arnold Murray.  The trinity is three persons, one office.  but Arnold teaches one God(person) THREE OFFICES.  If you have not picked up on that, I do not know what to tell you but I do not attempt to misrepresent his teachings.

 

 I'm not a Trinitarian, I do not come from that tradition, and that word means many different things to different people, so I dislike it, but a Trinitarian told me my doctrine  http://oraclesofgod.org/doctrine/01_On_Jesus_Christ.htm was not heretical according to his doctrine, so whatever, I'm glad.  You oversimplify the nature of God, but what you describe is not really the doctrine of the Trinity either but a collection of impressions, observations and statements about God which I do not disagree with, but are simply not the Trinity.

That is not modal-ism as you have labeled it which is a heretical teaching at best.

 

I don't know how or if Arnold has changed his tune, I first studied with him back twenty years ago and back then his teaching was basically modalism.  The idea of "three offices"  or roles is the tip-off.  The trinity says that God is manifest in three distinct PERSONS.  And if you don't like that word "persons" then you are not a Trinitarian, The Trinity is an historical doctrine that dates back to the council of Nicea, we can't just redefine it according to our tastes, if you don't like it just the way it is, then reject it, as I have.   3 Offices are not the same as 3 persons and that is what Arnold teaches, One God, three offices, unless he has changed his tune.  Also I can't say that Arnold is very deep on this one, he does not go very deep on important topics.

 

I recommend my free bible studies

http://oraclesofgod.org/studies/studies.html

You owe it to the truth to see if what I say is true.

 

Like I said, I had already answered all these questions before, but my heart goes out to you.  I do not have time to argue with you, if you need clarifications or assistance, if this is in any way doing anything other than hardening your resolve, feel free to write, I am at your service.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini

 

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:24 PM

Subject: Re: kenites

Reply one. Adamic souls

Adamic is not part of scripture and it was not added now let me explain.

Linage is written from Adam to Noah. They did not intermix as was custom and commanded by God.

Therefore Noah was Adamic.

The others with Noah, his wife, their children(sons) and their wives Adamic according to customs. These 8 had the breathe of life within them. everything else was bestial.

Therefore by interpretation we can see their indeed were 8 Adamic souls on the ark. The amount of other living flesh on the ark is unknown. Were all the pre-Adamites created on the 6th dayslain by Noahs flood?

No. Giants survived and the progeny of Cain survived and it is well documented.

Furthermore, doesn't it say in genesis to take

"Gen 7:2  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3  Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
"

"beasts that are not clean by two"

בּהמה
behêmâh
be-hay-maw'
From an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); properly a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collectively): - beast, cattle.

ok this clean beast means cattle

So what of the preadamite hunters and fishers? 

6th day starts here:

Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

(every living creature after his kind:cattle, insects  and "beast" "chay"

Gen 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

again beast:chay" and cattle and insects

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

now we come to mankind....notice it says Ha-Adam.....which is not a name but is represented of the whole of mankind MALE and FEMALE that means WHITE BLACK YELLOW or properly the Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid races of this earth.
Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(Notice how the breath was not breathed into them here.)
Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Fisherman hunters of beasts and birds

dominion over the fish of the sea (fishermen)
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.(hunters)
(notice there is no farmer)
(notice they are living creatures different than the beasts but still included in the scripture and they were not breathed into yet)
(notice that indeed the soul is breathed into Adam in chapter 2 and it is a completely different singular Eth Ha-Adam which means that special singular man Adam.

(notice difference in the word beast used in gen 1 is chay whereas in gen 7 it is behêmâh surely you dont think Noah brought behemoths on the ark do you?

look really closely at chay......living creatures.................so Noah saved the 6th day hunters and fishers "beasts" think of it like this recently in our culture we abolished slavery right?

in the 1950's black men were considered not human by racist white people right?.

Native Americans were considered "savages" and not human by the English 150 years ago.

THERE are still tribes in brazil which will attack and kill anyone coming near their villages.....Isn't that beastly?

The poor are still considered subhuman by the rich.....

Sure this could be considered racist but I highly doubt that was its intention by the author of Genesis(Moses). I believe it was intended to show the difference between the races, Science shows us history that the mongloid and negroid races have settlements to about 10-14 thousands years ago.....Caucasians dont go that far back so there is a GAP theory that arises.

H2416
חי
chay
khah'ee
From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: -  + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

So recap hunters fishers birds beasts insects and everything that moves on the earth.

So you might understand better the way that Pastor Arnold Murray makes commentary on Scripture is not only sound but it is accurate. James Strong, Jay P Green, E.W. Bullinger and many other Modern day Scholars agree that the Chaldee(Aramaic), Koine Greek, and Hebrew are poorly translated into English with the bible being translated and transliterated starting in the mid 1500's and just now little over 500 years becoming more accurate without religious bias and traditions of men creeping into the translators copies of the bible.

So now we have these scholars whom did more to give us the bible in English but we have theologists which have shown us that their are false doctrines being taught such as rapture and well go to any church and youll start seeing different false doctrines that you should avoid.

I believe what the Bible says because I have one teacher and His name is Jesus Christ. Pastor Arnold Murray is Ordained as a Pastor forGod in the name of Jesus Christ. The Shepherds Chapel is part of Jesus Christs Church.

I stand by what i said Kenites survived the flood.

Num 24:22  Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.

H7014
קין
qayin
kah'-yin
The same as H7013 (with a play upon the affinity to H7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: - Cain, Kenite (-s).

A Kenite is a descendent of Cain (as shown in the image from the Hebrew Dictionary--H7014)

Do you agree that Noah is Adams however many times grandson?

Do you agree that Cains lineage differs from Adams linage as the bible teaches?

In Jewish Law Progeny passes Father to First Born son. So tell me why is Seth listed as Adams Firstborn son(replaced Abel) Did Moses make a huge mistake giving Cain his on Progeny?

Why Does Jesus Christ teach that there are indeed sons of the wicked one.

Why is it written that Cains father is the wicked one?

1Jn 3:12  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.

Certainly you dont think Adam is the wicked one do you?

Ok that is enough for now I will finish my reply later this is alot for you to process I know.

Thank you for the response and I do not mind the length of time that it took I realize that we all have obligations and we all must be diligent in our studies 2 Tim 2.15

Name Withheld

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:00 PM

Subject: Re: kenites

Shane, ...you waste my time,  you have already written enough to embarrass yourself on my website as another inept Shepherd's Chapel student put in his place by a competent bible teacher (and for wasting my time, I am not going to hold back on you).  That you did not read my letter is evident in your response.  That is extremely rude since I took the time to write you, and I also told you that it was a sacrifice on my part to do so.

 

In this message you repeat VERBATIM several arguments that I already answered in the last letter (not to mention that all of it has been covered in earlier letters, this advances the conversation NOWHERE since you are not countering what I have said to you or anyone else really, but are either repeating yourself like a mindless machine or simply "moving on" to "new" arguments without fully addressing what I have said in response to your first assertions. 

 

Do not reply to this message without reading MY FIRST MESSAGE, I have already warned you I was nice but you have been rude and now you get what you have coming.  If you are going to just blog at me, I'm going to ignore you.  And I have told you, I have covered every single point you bring up before, you have not brought up a single new point yet.  I have no problem telling you to take a hike,  you are no match for me, and I don't need to prove it to myself, I have already proved it on my website.  You should have read what was already written instead of trying the same old tired arguments which your brethren did a better job than you of making in the past.  Add something to the conversation, all you are doing is throwing the same old crap against the wall and it still won't stick.  It's pathetic.

 

Maybe you think you are doing ok, but you forget what this is about, my website is where people come when they want to learn more about Arnold Murray, to the tune of several thousand a month, you may think you are in just another conversation, but this is not just another chance for you to repeat mantra-like arguments over and over.  Thousands of people read my page, and they turn from Murray, because they see the fruit of his ministry, if you can't answer me, people notice, you may think I am trying to convince you, and that is partly true, but the ones I am really trying to convince are the ones who have been watching Arnold Murray for a few weeks and have some questions about the things they have begun to learn, those are the ones I'm trying to convince, and I know I'm doing a good job, and that you and your brethren are doing a very bad job.

 

Reply one. Adamic souls

Adamic is not part of scripture and it was not added now let me explain.

 

You are confusing the idea of "adding to the scriptures"  with the idea of adding to the word of God.  You certainly are inserting a foreign idea into God's word.   People who have only recently become involved with the Chapel are wondering if you are going to have anything to say to what I am saying, but really, what can you say?  Everything I'm about to say is evidently true.

 

Souls do not come in varieties such as "Adamic" or "Non-Adamic," the idea is unprecedented. There is no indication in any of the scriptures that different human beings have different classes or kinds of souls.  This is the most elementary blunder in your logic. 

 

Also, If it were not for your need to have more than eight souls survive the flood, you would not even be talking about, "Adamic souls" it is a classic example of faulty reasoning:

 

The bible says that only eight souls survived the flood,

but you believe that more than eight souls must have survived the flood,

therefore there must be more than one kind of soul.

 

That is terrible logic. It is actually a very corrupt method for interpreting the scriptures. People who read this will agree, even if you do not.

 

Also, there are no human beings who ever lived who are not ADAMIC. 

 

EVE was ADAMIC,  after all she was taken out of Adam

 

So even if CAIN was not Adam's son (and I am not saying he was not), he was also of Adam. 

 

You presume the existence of other kinds of souls for the bald purpose of corrupting the scriptures. 

 

Inquiring readers will see, even if you do not.

 

Linage is written from Adam to Noah. They did not intermix as was custom and commanded by God.

Therefore Noah was Adamic.

And so was everyone else on the earth.  Even the giants are Adamic, because they were born of his daughters. There is no 8th day (though you have not mentioned it, that is another fiction.  I wrote about it extensively.  The so-called eighth day is the result of poorly educated clouts like Arnold Murray willingly mishandling the scriptures.  This is the key verse that gives the context of the falsely so-called "eighth day"

 

Genesis 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,

 

The verses that follow are thus contextualized into the context of the first chapter.  Hence Genesis 2:4-25 are a closer inspection of the creation of man which had occurred on the sixth day, you have made the mistake of assuming that because something is written sequentially in the text that it must also have happened sequentially in regards to a timeline, but verse 4 makes that impossible because verse 4 specifically gives context to the creation of ADAM as having occurred in the same timeframe as was related in the previous chapter. 

 

Your willingness to follow the doctrines of Arnold Murray have led you down a rat-hole to nowhere, the text is clear, and I thank God that people who find my site and are looking for answers about Arnold Murray will clearly see that, even if you do not.

 

The others with Noah, his wife, their children(sons) and their wives Adamic according to customs. These 8 had the breathe of life within them. everything else was bestial.

 

But a soul is a soul.  You make void the word of God because of your tradition.  8 souls only survived?  "No," you say, many souls, just only eight ADAMIC souls.  Why didn't PETER SAY SO, I guess he didn't KNOW ABOUT IT!!!!  because this is a new god that sprang newly up, the god of Arnold Murray.

You hold the doctrines of men over the word of God and are a classic study in that behavior.

Therefore by interpretation we can see their indeed were 8 Adamic souls on the ark. The amount of other living flesh on the ark is unknown. Were all the pre-Adamites created on the 6th dayslain by Noahs flood?

 

I love the way you use this form of speech that is intended to sound scholarly, "therefore by interpretation," give me a break, therefore by circular reasoning you mean!  It is filled with assumptions which have no sound basis and rhetorical questions which are merely intended to lead some weak-minded ignorant person down a predetermined route to the answers you want to give.  You have the wrong man, Name Withheld, I'm not some fool you can lead down a path.  I am a bible teacher of nearly twenty years, and Arnold Murray was my first instructor, the grass is coming up long between my toes and there is no one less fit to take me on than one of his students. 

 

No. Giants survived and the progeny of Cain survived and it is well documented.

 

No it is not. You are not clearly understanding what documents what. It is true that giants existed after the flood, but there is no evidence that the giants we find after the flood are the descendants of the giants from before the flood, I guess you didn't read that Appendix 25 I mentioned. 

 

You can't just say, "to heck with what the bible says about the flood, the existence of Giants and a tribe of men called Kenites after the flood proves that it cannot be correct, we must reinterpret the word of God and create new ideas to accommodate this astonishing fact."

 

You have to consider other explanations that do not require such radical departures from the plain meaning of the message communicated in the bible.  

 

Has it ever occurred to you that no child could ever get this from the bible, and that is one of the biggest lies Arnold tells you.  Give any kid a copy of Genesis ,any translation, make it a kid that speaks fluent Hebrew, I guarantee he won't come up with this junk without a little "guidance."

 

You must not have read my email because the bible clearly says the flood wiped it all out, now you can argue all you like about what you imagine happened, but everyone who reads this will see that you have chosen to ignore what it written in favor of your own opinion which is the definition of heresy.  And no heretic will inherit the kingdom of God.  Repent. (Gal 5)

 

Furthermore, doesn't it say in genesis to take

"Gen 7:2  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Gen 7:3  Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

"beasts that are not clean by two"

בּהמה
behêmâh
be-hay-maw'
From an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); properly a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collectively): - beast, cattle.

ok this clean beast means cattle

 

Well, that was an exercise in pointlessness. I know what you are getting at but people will see it for the convoluted bunch of corruption that it is.

 

So what of the preadamite hunters and fishers? 

6th day starts here:

Gen 1:24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

(every living creature after his kind:cattle, insects  and "beast" "chay"

Gen 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

again beast:chay" and cattle and insects

Gen 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

now we come to mankind....notice it says Ha-Adam.....which is not a name but is represented of the whole of mankind MALE and FEMALE that means WHITE BLACK YELLOW or properly the Caucasian, Negroid, Mongoloid races of this earth.

 

That is bunk, the term does not mean "black yellow etc"  i.e. races in plural.  It means the man.  You are fundamentally mistaken about races and about the usage of eth, races came later, Races are the result of a debasement and isolation of the human gene pool.  In the beginning there were no races.  Races have to be bred-out,  the species is one, the aces are a by-product of separation. No different than  the way all Budgerigar Parakeets are green in the wild, but in captivity and through selective breeding we have rapidly developed many varieties, which if isolated in similar family groups would become races.

Gen 1:27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(Notice how the breath was not breathed into them here.)

 

Your fundamental error here is in the way you read the text, what you choose to ignore and the silences which you interpret as red flags,  when they are really red herrings.  The breath was not breathed into them "here" in this text, but it was on this day.  Because there is no eighth day. (notice how Name Withheld tells us to notice things that are not there more than to notice things that are, that is a red flag indeed dear reader) (that was not a later editorial comment for the web)

 

Gen 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Fisherman hunters of beasts and birds

dominion over the fish of the sea (fishermen)
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.(hunters)
(notice there is no farmer)

 

Wrong, you just missed the reference.  You are a victim of a con-artist, Arnold Murray plays the confidence game.  This part is called "suggestion"  he suggests that there is no farmer mentioned here, but that is sort of like when he says he never "begs,"  No he never begs, but he constantly asks for money, he is hawking books, tapes, CD's asking for donations.  He has duped people with a semantic game.  Substituting beg, for ask.  But really what is the difference? 

 

Here is your farmer you overlooked

 

and replenish the earth, and subdue it: ( F A R M E R )

 

The most fundamental act in subjugation of the earth is to use the ground for our purposes, to till and plant.  So this could definitely be taken as a reference to farming, as easily as dominion over the fishes could be taken as a  reference to fishing.  Notice, there is no reference to "fishermen" either, you added that.  Subdue, and take dominion.  Farming is a from of subjugation of the earth.  so you are falsely claiming a silence here, which is worse than an argument from silence.

 

(notice they are living creatures different than the beasts but still included in the scripture and they were not breathed into yet)

 

Different than beasts?  how about MADE IN GOD"S IMAGE!  But still included?  This is insidious.  Do you see that folks?  The way he is trying to lead us? These beings made in God's image are sub-human to him. He did not listen to anything I said in the first letter, and probably not this one either but I know you are listening and getting it..

(notice that indeed the soul is breathed into Adam in chapter 2 and it is a completely different singular Eth Ha-Adam which means that special singular man Adam.

 

The ETH does not give you the right to create all these races and other badly constructed monstrosities of poorly executed deduction.  It is the same  Adam as in Chapter 1.  In fact, the whole point of ETH is to draw your attention back to the first reference to man, meaning that this is "indeed the man."  It indicates, "the very same man."  ETH means the opposite of what you are saying.  It draws the passages together, it does not separate them. This is one of the proofs that Arnold Murray is not the scholar of Hebrew he pretends to be. 

 

(notice difference in the word beast used in gen 1 is chay whereas in gen 7 it is behêmâh surely you dont think Noah brought behemoths on the ark do you?

 

Irrelevant.  Living thing, but man was made in the image of God.  A text without a context is a pretext.

 

look really closely at chay......living creatures.................so Noah saved the 6th day hunters and fishers "beasts" think of it like this recently in our culture we abolished slavery right?

in the 1950's black men were considered not human by racist white people right?.

Native Americans were considered "savages" and not human by the English 150 years ago.

THERE are still tribes in brazil which will attack and kill anyone coming near their villages.....Isn't that beastly?

The poor are still considered subhuman by the rich.....

 

This is an argument that lacks any relevance, the weight of evidence to the contrary makes this add-on absolutely pointless.  The idea of sneaking men into the ark based on a highly suspicious textual trick like this is absolutely ridiculous.  It takes a special kind of willingly perverse mind to accept this sort of corrupt handling of the sacred text.   The text is pretty clear about what got on the ark.  To add "Niggers" and "Gooks" to the list of "Animals." (and don't forget the Kenites and Giants, the giants who were supposed to be destroyed by the flood) 

 

Honestly, That is just one of the most ham-handed, just-plain-stupid, ways to handle a biblical problem I have ever encountered. 

 

There are better explanations for Giants and Kenites, than this corrupt and deceitful explanation.  Explanations that do not require us to stoop over the bible and relieve ourselves on it's sacred pages.

 

 I think you are smarter than this, but you have let your intelligence corrupt you, your mind can bend the scriptures and that is dangerous Name Withheld.  Instead let the scriptures bend your mind, and then you will be on the right path, And all the people said, AMEN.

 

Sure this could be considered racist but I highly doubt that was its intention by the author of Genesis(Moses). I believe it was intended to show the difference between the races, Science shows us history that the mongloid and negroid races have settlements to about 10-14 thousands years ago.....Caucasians dont go that far back so there is a GAP theory that arises.

They had words to indicate other races, they did not need to hint at it with vague references to beasts.  The thing is that you are reading this all INTO the text, and deep down you know it.

 

H2416
חי
chay
khah'ee
From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: -  + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

So recap hunters fishers birds beasts insects and everything that moves on the earth.

So you might understand better the way that Pastor Arnold Murray makes commentary on Scripture is not only sound but it is accurate.

 

Since Eve is the mother of all living, I fail to see how any of this is relevant.. Beasts are beasts, living things, but men are referred to separately here,  This is not one of those "mistranslations" 

 

Did you ever read strong's instructions?  On how his tool works?  I know many chapel students who have not read it,
so they misunderstand what everything after the  : -    means. 

This stuff:

 

: -  + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

Everything after  : -  is not the definition of the word.  No, this stuff is just a list of the way the King James translators chose to translate the word in various circumstances, so these lists don't mean much unless you go back to the original context of each usage, you can do that with a good Hebrew concordance.  But the point I'm making here is that out of the context of the passage in which the translators made their decision, you can't even tell if they made the right decision or not.

 

This is the definition of the word:

 

From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively: - 

Everything after : - is not part of Strong's definition.

 

James Strong, Jay P Green, E.W. Bullinger and many other Modern day Scholars

 

Those guys are all dead and they lived over a century ago... Hardly modern day.  And I don't trust "scholars" (for the mere fact of their scholarship, the argument to authority is not logical) 

 

agree that the Chaldee(Aramaic), Koine Greek, and Hebrew are poorly translated into English with the bible being translated and transliterated starting in the mid 1500's and just now little over 500 years becoming more accurate without religious bias and traditions of men creeping into the translators copies of the bible.

 

This is a bad joke.  The way you use Green's is what I call "tool abuse" and you are basically guilty of doctoring the translation according to your religious bias...  that is exactly what you are doing.

 

So now we have these scholars whom did more to give us the bible in English

 

What? 

 

but we have theologists which have shown us that their are false doctrines being taught such as rapture and well go to any church and youll start seeing different false doctrines that you should avoid.

 

Yes, like Arnold Murray.  It isn't the translation that is the problem, it is the interpreters.  Men such as you who abuse the tools and insinuate new meanings into plain verses, he (Murray) was the one who taught you how.. 

I believe what the Bible says

 

You are a liar.  You disregard what the bible says in order to keep your doctrines of men.

 

Verses that Name Withheld does not believe:

 

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

1 Peter 3:20 wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.  (only eight souls were saved by water, of any variety, PERIOD, it does not even reference purity of pedigree or any such thing, in the days of Noah, eight souls were saved, and eight souls means eight souls.)

 

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; 

 

If we kept talking I would find many more more verses which you do not believe.

 

I would bet on these You probably don't believe these either:

 

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he (Jesus) that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

 

I know, because these verses used to trouble me when I was a chapel student, they conflicted with what I had learned.  So unless you are a complete waste of time, they probably trouble you too.  As they ought to.

 

because I have one teacher and His name is Jesus Christ.

 

You are a liar.  You call him Pastor, do you not? God has appointed teachers in the church, and I am your teacher in the stead of Christ which is at the right hand of God and whose spirit dwells in me with power. You could not have learned all this nonsense you go on pointlessly about if it were not for MEN, you hold the traditions of Arnold Murray, and you have my pity.  What is the point of all your learning?  How does it bring you one step closer to being like Christ?  What do you really know?  Forget all of this.  This is all just a bunch of garbage which will never bring you one step closer to Christ.

 

Pastor Arnold Murray is Ordained as a Pastor forGod in the name of Jesus Christ. The Shepherds Chapel is part of Jesus Christs Church.

No, it is a synagogue of Satan and Arnold Murray is a minister of Satan.  He claims to be a Jew and is not, he lies he is a blasphemer and a fraud, a documented false prophet.. http://oraclesofgod.org/1980/1980.htm  

 

I stand by what i said Kenites survived the flood.

 

Not surprising, but disappointing. It is a pointless doctrine.  Now that you have your Kenites.. What will you do with them?  How does this knowledge increase  righteousness?  What is the point of a Kenite doctrine?  Watch those Jews!  Arnold Murray is a murderer, he slays souls.

Num 24:22  Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.

H7014
קין
qayin
kah'-yin
The same as H7013 (with a play upon the affinity to H7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: - Cain, Kenite (-s).

A Kenite is a descendent of Cain (as shown in the image from the Hebrew Dictionary--H7014).

And that is a poor assumption.  It might be another Cain, in fact, that is the most logical answer. (the descendants of Cain prior to the flood are never designated Kenites)

Do you agree that Noah is Adams however many times grandson?

Do you agree that Cains lineage differs from Adams linage as the bible teaches?

 

Cain's lineage is Adam's lineage, Cain's lineage differs from Noah's lineage, you didn't read my letter, I find that insulting, especially coming from a third-rate student such as yourself.

 

In Jewish Law Progeny passes Father to First Born son. So tell me why is Seth listed as Adams Firstborn son(replaced Abel) Did Moses make a huge mistake giving Cain his on Progeny?

 

As I said in my last letter, Adam was not under Jewish Law, And Cain's progeny were wiped out by the flood (unless one of Noah's sons wives was a daughter of Cain, which I think is totally plausible, and still irrelevant) There are exceptions in inheritance law, and in my last letter I mentioned a few but you didn't read it so I have begun to loose respect for you.

 

 

Why Does Jesus Christ teach that there are indeed sons of the wicked one.

Why is it written that Cains father is the wicked one?

1Jn 3:12  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.

Certainly you dont think Adam is the wicked one do you?

 

Did you cut-and-paste that????

You didn't read my letter, I already answered this.

 

Ok that is enough for now I will finish my reply later this is alot for you to process I know.

Thank you for the response and I do not mind the length of time that it took I realize that we all have obligations and we all must be diligent in our studies 2 Tim 2.15

Name Withheld

You bore me, if you keep this up I will reject you next letter without responding, I'll just post my response on my website when I update.  You have added nothing..

 

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 12:51 PM

Subject: Re: kenites

seriously are you that inept that you must resort to avoiding my documents, I did read your words and you sir are wasting time, i am not inept nor am I uneducated. The Theology I choose differs from your own, but at least I am honest snd forthright. Your disdain for Pastor Murray shows your personal incompetence. Pastor Murray is not my teacher.

Do you think that Jesus Christ teaches the serpent seed-line? He took His apostles aside and taught them straightforward, but to the masses he taught parables. Why is that do you think? Because like you who are not ready for this doctrine it is too much to process. Prove to me using 2 sources alone biblically that cain is not satans son.

did cain follow good or did he follow evil?

is he the first murderer?

But looking closely at the word it says cain is like his father who is wicked.

and abel is like his father who is righteous.

Adam even though he was a sinner was a righteous man. God made Adam, God made Eve.

the devil planted a seed in eve, was it spiritual only? the text says the serpent was an angelic being that shines. many scholars point this out. nachash means "the shining one" nachash means serpent.

so was the serpent a being , is the devil a being?

are they the same being?

look up the word sperma in your greek concordance , you will see that it means more than just seed. do you need reference to the verse where this comes from or can you find it yourself?

I will ask you one time to respect my wish and desist in attacking a pastor in which has shared with me the candle light that helped lead me to Christ. It is insulting to me to think you are audacious enough to attack a man whom God truly gives the gift of ministry.

Continue in your blatant disrespect of an elder and find this discussion forever closed.

Shall we continue then or are you done?

Name Withheld

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:45 PM

Subject: Re: That second letter is different

not only are you annoying you truely believe the garbage you spew. Arnold Murray is my elder brother and in relation to you which are not in slumber like i thought but evidently youre convinced that this knowledge you have is truth. I will stand with Arnold Murray and I deny you and your idiocy.

You say that the giants are adamic, but you must not believe that the fallen angels saw the daughters of men and found them fair and taking wives making the halfbreed giants even with your reasoning they were not adamic.Your half bakes ideas do not even make sense....People go to your website....really? big deal? puff your chest out some more.

You confuse legalism with reading the Word of God and interpreting the laws thereof. You cannot convince me nor will I allow further dialog between us because I see you in the light and well simply "Have a nice trip. Go plow.".

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:22 AM

Subject: Re: That second letter is different

Correction:  In regards to "Adamic Giants," I SAID the giants would have been Adamic, but I do not SAY that, because there is no such thing as an "Adamic" soul or an Adamic anything. In other words, I don't teach any such thing.  I don't think the giants were "Adamic."  I don't think in those terms.  I don't even teach about the giants in general,  because it is a pointless doctrine.  It only comes up in this part of my ministry, where I oppose Arnold Murray. 

 

And I'm not just puffing out my chest (that is Arnold's routine, Mr. Tough-Guy Marine Sergeant) I'm telling you the truth, I'm telling you that people are going to read your arguments and judge them. You treat this like a disposable conversation, and that is fine with me, I just want you to know that I routinely turn people away from the Shepherd's Chapel, I get letters frequently thanking me for the work I do exposing the Shepherd's Chapel and from people who say, "I had just started studying with Pastor Murray..."  And then they tell me how my work saved them from wasting time and money with a false teacher. 

 

You say you don't care, that is absolutely fine with me, good for you. Personally, I don't think false teachers should go unopposed, but if you want to let me go unopposed that is your choice.  I do like to play fair,  I like to make sure that people like you understand that this is their big opportunity to show the world what a great bunch of bible scholars and exemplary Christians the students of the Shepherd's Chapel are and how inept and off-the-wall I am, but they keep showing themselves to be incompetent students and sore losers.

 

I don't want to convince you, I want to convince people who started listening to Arnold last week.  I want to get to them before they become like you. 

 

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

From: Name Withheld

To: Paul Stringini

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 1:47 PM

Subject: Re: That second letter is different

So im curious, if there is no such thing as Adamic Heritage AKA linegage of Adam (which is all it is mean) then praytell why put geneology in the bible. You have such a small minded view of things and a huge hatred for someone you have never even met.

First off the whole theology of heritage makes is paramount to understanding why God was so mad at people. The cause of God sparing Noah and his family was simply put they didnt crossbreed with the geber AKA giants. Everyone else has. Do you follow? No? Didn't figure you would. Secondly, what was the cause of the war in Heaven? Simply put satan tried to overthrow God. How did he try to do this? by deceiving eve which was evidently a sexual action as to the way it is stated , and if you cannot even grasp that well you need to go back to seminary school and drink lots more milk since you are not ready for the meat of this theological discussion.

Have you not read anyone who hates his brother does not love God, Arnold Murray as wicked as you say he is, is still your brother. You built an entire website to expose him, put countless hours into slandering him and you probably havent even met him. Perhaps you need to learn who Jesus Christ is an abandon your religion which has mired you down into this pit of hell. You say all your words are going to infuriate me? nothing you wrote infuriated me, nothing you wrote was even worth my time to read. your counter points are wholly irrelevant and you have shown me nothing of Christian Value perhaps you should take advise from 2 Tim 2:15.

Goodbye

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

From: Paul Stringini

To: Name Withheld

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 3:46 PM

Subject: Re: That second letter is different

Name Witheld....First of all, I have met Arnold Murray.  Once again, I ask you.  Who goes to war without first sizing up the enemy? 

 

This is not some secret.  I have a picture of myself with Arnold Murray and a video clip of him saying my name, I was married right in front of his desk.  I can't say that we were buddies or anything, but I spent my honeymoon in Gravette in 1995 and I met some of the people there.  Dr. Murray was nice to us, David Murray shot my wedding footage (see the clip below).  Shane, I came into this seven years ago with very mixed feelings.

 

The photo:

http://oraclesofgod.org/emails/special2.htm 

The video:

http://oraclesofgod.org/images/WeddingMovie.wmv

 

You have such a small minded view of things and a huge hatred for someone you have never even met.

 

You know, I liked Murray a lot more when I first started talking publicly of my problems with his teachings.  When you first wrote me, did you know I used to be one of his students?  I guess you have me a little confused, I put a lot of info about myself out there and I don't know how much you know or not... not that I expect you to  study up on me because I'm so interesting or something, but if you are going to take me on, then I would expect you to be wise about it...

 

It has been seven years since I first started talking publicly against Murray and I have come to like him less and less as time goes on, because of the fruit of his doings.  His students.  And because people whom he has hurt come to me...

 

So im curious, if there is no such thing as Adamic Heritage AKA linegage of Adam (which is all it is mean)

 

I said there is no such thing as an ADAMIC soul as opposed to other sorts of souls (Mongoliodic Souls and Negroidic Souls), and that all human beings are descended from ADAM so there is no heritage other than from ADAM.  And that is biblically sound, unlike the things you have tried to tell me. 

 

then praytell why put geneology in the bible.

 

Genealogies do not edify me unto godliness.  They do not improve my behavior, they do not make me one whit more like Christ, they add nothing to me, their purpose has been fulfilled.  there is no need to keep combing over them, Christ came, the seed line was preserved, there is no more need for this carnal obsession.

 

1Tim1: 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus... that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

Arnold Murray's doctrines are basically fables, imaginations, and insinuations.  With a good measure of too much attention to genealogy.

 

I want to grow up into Christ

 

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

 

I can't become like him in the flesh, I can't become a Jew, but in the spirit, I can become like him, I can be made like unto him, by the power of God and by faith in his promises.

 

2Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

I want to partake of the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world, I want to live in obedience to the faith that the Apostles preached, but no genealogy can help me do that.

 

Genealogy had it's place, but does nothing for me.  Like the law it has passed away.

 

First off the whole theology of heritage makes is paramount to understanding why God was so mad at people.

 

Shane...No, Wrong. That is so wrong.. have you not read???

 

Genesis 6:5 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.

 

That is a lot more than an angelic invasion, and honestly, why should God get so mad at men for something that he has said nothing about.  "Thou shalt not breed with Angels?"  In the garden the command was to refrain from eating a particular fruit, if Eve actually fornicated with the serpent then it would not have been a sin.  God gave no command concerning having sex with the devil.  And if there was an angelic incursion, would not God bear some responsibility??  Would he not be the one who allowed it?  Why would he be so mad at man about that and only that??? 

 

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
...29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Honestly, I think the focus on genealogy and seed lines allows Arnold and his followers to take the focus off where the REAL problem is.  People think they can just keep on sinning and everything will be ok, but they will be sorely surprised.

 

The cause of God sparing Noah and his family was simply put they didnt crossbreed with the geber AKA giants. Everyone else has. Do you follow? No? Didn't figure you would.

 

That is all fine, but what does that have to do with me? I mean, I know it is a sin to sleep with my neighbor's wife, or give my daughter to wicked men, so it is no stretch to realize that I ought not give my daughter to a wicked supernatural being or bow down before them.

 

How is this so important?

 

Secondly, what was the cause of the war in Heaven?

 

This is very typical. 

 

"intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, "

 

You are intruding into affairs which God has not given us understanding.  I think part of Murray's appeal is that he tells people a story that pleases their need to tie up loose ends, but this is speculation and imagination.

 

1Cor 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;

 

That is not the way Shepherd's Chapel students approach the bible.  They exalt Imaginations above that which is written.

 

Simply put satan tried to overthrow God. How did he try to do this? by deceiving eve which was evidently a sexual action as to the way it is stated , and if you cannot even grasp that well you need to go back to seminary school and drink lots more milk since you are not ready for the meat of this theological discussion.

 

I never went to college, the only bible teacher I ever had was Arnold Murray.  He was my teacher.  That is why I talk about him, and not guys like Jimmy Swaggart or other false teachers, because they were not my teacher, Dr. Murray was.

 

Have you not read anyone who hates his brother does not love God, Arnold Murray as wicked as you say he is, is still your brother.

 

No, he is not my brother.  He is my neighbor.  And if I hated him, I would have kept my mouth shut instead of speaking out about his sins.

 

Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

 

You built an entire website to expose him, put countless hours into slandering him and you probably havent even met him.

 

I don't slander him. Do  you know what slander is? I say he is a false teacher, that is my opinion.  His doctrine is different than mine.  Slander would be if I said that he raped little girls in his free time, but I don't say stuff like that, I keep it about doctrine.  That is not slander.

 

You built an entire website to expose him, put countless hours into slandering him and you probably havent even met him. Perhaps you need to learn who Jesus Christ is an abandon your religion which has mired you down into this pit of hell. You say all your words are going to infuriate me? nothing you wrote infuriated me, nothing you wrote was even worth my time to read. your counter points are wholly irrelevant and you have shown me nothing of Christian Value

 

 These be but empty words  I actually prove your irrelevance.  You are just talking.  Arnold Murray is just a small part of my website, I guess you fail again at doing your homework.

 

perhaps you should take advise from 2 Tim 2:15.

 

Well, I'm the one who backed up everything he said with scripture.  You are the one who ought to be ashamed at his performance.  Most people won't get this far, they will read the beginning of our discussion and once it descends into this sort of stuff they stop reading, besides, it is not Paul Stringini who is in question here, it is Arnold Murray

 

2 Tim 2:15...Maybe you should keep reading...

 

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus AND ARNOLD MURRY;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

 

Sincerely,

Paul Stringini