Dan_79

Must of caused offence to the mayor and his family or the wider community.

Im not sure to be honest, I have quite some study to do in the hope of being brought up to date. The problem I have found is (being reletively new to bible studies) is not everyone is reading from one complete and agreed source, in faith we are but denominations and languages and opinions are differing on key points. The main problem for me so far is knowing how to approach the topics (like this one and others) regarding "racial pedigree" contained within the bible while in the over saturation of the politically correct realm of internet censorship. It should not matter as long as we have a sincere (of heart) regard for truth and it can be discussed for that reason....we all have an oportunity to learn, drop heresy and biblical error and share or disseminate what is true. Right..... Cush! Ive put that on my study list now. Need to study the post flood lineage in detail. Noah was " perfect in his generation" is the first clue as he was chosen to father who would later become (Jacob) Israel.

Boaz and Ruth Ruth, a resident of Moab, is identified five times as a Moabitess in Ruth 1:22, 2:2, 2:21, 4:5, and 4:10. Once again, even if Ruth were a racial Moabite, she was not from another race. The Moabites were descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot (Genesis 12:5) through his incestuous relationship with his eldest daughter: Only one race is represented in Boaz and Ruth’s marriage. In fact, there is no reason to even conclude that Ruth was a racial Moabite. She could not have been a racial Moabite for the same reason that Rahab could not have been a racial Canaanite: the Israelites were forbidden to intermarry with the Moabites. It was for this very reason that Ezra commanded the Judahites to put away their Moabite companions: Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, Boaz would have been required to put Ruth away, if he had even married her in the first place. Ruth must have been known as a Moabite because she had lived in the country of Moab, a possession of the Reubenites at that time. Evidence that Ruth was a Moabite by residence rather than by physical descent was demonstrated when Boaz applied the levirate law to her. The levirate law requires Israelite men to raise up a male heir for a deceased kinsman, in order to preserve his name and estate: Had Ruth been from the forbidden lineage of Moab or from another race, the levirate law would not have applied because her previous relationship with Boaz’s kinsman Mahlon would have been unlawful and, therefore, adulterous. Had Ruth been a racial Moabite, the nearer kinsman (Ruth 3:12, 4:5-6) would have only needed to raise this objection to keep from having to redeem Ruth along with Mahlon’s land. Ruth must have been an Israelite, or at least a descendant of a racially alike lineage with whom the Israelites were permitted to marry. Otherwise, Mahlon’s estate, in part or in whole, would have been lost to a non-Israelite descendant, which was one of the reasons that prompted Ezra to command the Judahites to put away their Moabite and other foreign wives in Ezra 9:1 - 10:3. For the point under discussion, it does not make any difference whether Ruth was an Israelite or a Moabite. In either instance, she was of the same race as Boaz her husband. Salmon and Rahab Rahab is often alleged to be the Canaanite who helped the two Israelites spies escape from Jericho. There is no conclusive proof, however, that the Rahab who helped the Israelite spies in Joshua 2 is the same woman Salmon married, or that she was even of Canaanite descent. Rahab is never identified as a Canaanite. Although she lived in the Canaanite city of Jericho, it is speculation to identify her as a Canaanite from this fact alone. As an example, Moses, who was unquestionably an Israelite, was identified as an Egyptian by the daughters of Reuel: Moses was known as an Egyptian, not because he came from the loins of the Egyptians, but because he came from the land of Egypt. Because Rahab is listed in the book of Hebrews -- in the Hebrew hall of fame no less (Hebrews 11:31) -- she was very possibly an Israelite slave who resided in Jericho (Numbers 21:1). This could perhaps explain why the two Israelite spies sought her out and also why the king of Jericho suspected her of harboring them (Joshua 2:1-3). It makes no difference whether the Rahab from Jericho was a Canaanite. Even if Rahab were a racial Canaanite, two races were not represented in Salmon’s marriage to Rahab. As already established, the Canaanites, although a forbidden lineage, were descendants of Ham, the brother of Shem who was a progenitor of the Israelites. Rahab and Salmon were from the same race and, therefore, their marriage was not interracial.

Hi HisFirst:) Yes. God did not have a problem with that union because according to the link in the first message the writer addresses this union and shows they were both infact from the SAME race. Do you think the writer has got this part of scripture wrong? If so Why? Moses and Zipporah Only one race is represented in the marriage of Moses and Zipporah. Moses was a descendant of Abraham, an Israelite from the tribe of Levi. Zipporah was a Midianite, a descendant from Abraham through his wife Keturah’s fourth son Midian:

To Love God with all your might and all your strength in obedience.

Please read the link at the beginning of this topic which I have now added (afterwards because I was genuinely not sure if it would break forum rules). I was banned from an online Christian forum for putting something similar accross (It must not of been taken well by one of the forum moderators). The link directs to an article which discusses and makes note of the same things essentially but omits naming names so to speak) as well as being clearly laid out with all the source material supplied. Does anyone else feel this article or the premise of this commandment is erroneous (in regards to translation of "adultery") in it's present day form? If so I would like to know why, please. I have held the belief for some time that it is inconsistent with the rest of scripture (to make my position clear), but not being as well versed in scripture as many of these writers or to be able to debate it thoroughly and correctly it has been left a lingering doubt, I would appreciate knowing if it be incorrect, but reasoned clearly enough as to why (and without the negative stereotypes and labels being used in place of a sincere regard for the truth). Kind regards Dan

Thanks Yown

Thank you Gandolf Very helpful indeed.

I was given the "Good News Bible" and how it ended up in my possesion was very strange to be honest. It is the only Bible I have read in book form. I was told to seek out KJV version by someone also which I still haven't read. They are all downloadable for android phones these days but I actually like holding it and going through its physical pages.

Am I allowed to post links to websites on here so I can maybe link where this topic is laid out?

Thanks Gandalf. I have a Strongs exhaustive concordance which I purchased to do exactly what you described, not long after I read on another forum I read a long debate regarding who it was who was that was employed or tasked to translate and it put a stumbling block infront of me or that I shouldnt trust Strongs. Basically it was being interpreted that the modern bibles relied on who translated the dead sea scrolls to greek or latin or both into english and also doubt was placed on the insincerity of funding and a whole host of other details. Christian Identity adherents banned me from one forum and a non denominational forum banned me doing exactly the same thing (Im aware of laws governing the discussion of racial matters) but its been bothering me for a while now. I found the whole thing very confusing at the time and still being influenced by the ongoing debate regarding immigration and that is something I cannot debate now due to losing ground on self reflection and the whole thing being externally motivated just like you already mentioned. Also Im still confused as to what bible I should be learning from and reading or should I read as many as I can? Thanks for your reply too

Some really informative answers to help me here. Can I say thanks for not banning me moderators as I know its a dodgy topic. Im a very gullible so Im told and it helps me to overcome to just ask people "what do you make of this" its having the courage to ask sometimes but I have held onto some very strange beliefs in the past and looking back I am suprised to learn where I picked them up from. (edit: perhaps I'm asking man instead of God to show me and this causes error!) Thanks

Thank you Deborah. I certainly didn't know this. The lack of definition as to what that faith was I found strange anyway because if you are Christian and not ashamed to be why not just declare it openly...as opposed to subversively denying it.

Hi everyone. I read somewhere (and have found myself saying the same thing) that since God commanded man not to covert another mans wife, this was to mean that extra marital affairs was already covered in this commandment and left adultery to mean mixing as in thou shalt not mix/adulterate/miscegenate thy seed because otherwise this is a repeat of another commandment. What is everyones thoughts on this? This resulted in me joining at least 2 racially driven Christian forums and feel the legitimacy to question it. Dual seedlines etc etc This has got me banned from a forum as I posted up a speech that basically called out who was ISRAEL and who was EDOM. I dont wish to attack anyone on racial grounds, however once I adopted this belief I have found fewer and fewer Christians willing to debate this using scripture and I still believe the truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny (obviously its a very touchy subject I realize this.) I need to know what is wrong with this based on scripture if its heresy I can drop it and move on. Dan www.hope-of-israel.org/7thcommandment.html

Your reply certainly sobered me up quick. I have heard about the one world government and can almost sense something is going terribly wrong with the world as a whole, I guess this is part of the letting go of the old you and coming to terms with it and getting hungry for the truth. I cannot make sense of how some of these institutions have fooled me up until now. I guess there will come a time soon where even honoring and submitting to these authorities will become hard due to the knowledge of there wickedness. I ditched politics a long time ago but like many others who are prophesised to fall away from the message so will some come into knowing it by the gift and grace of God. I like the inquisitive mind I had in my youth and the realisation of how important the spiritual aspects are now. In a strange way I cannot help thinking that as the world goes down the pan so to speak the sooner Christs return. Even if I dont make it into the kingdom myself, it is a great feeling to know the suffering of the innocent will be stopped sooner rather than later. Glory be unto God.

Yeah of course, I dont wish to bad mouth the woman but I cannot help wonder what the point of it all is now as an institution, if its not pro Christian it must be anti Christian? It has been mentioned else where that she is actually being held captive in a political sense, in which case defending the faith (Christian?) is not possible anymore.

I will read Romans 1 now as I am still quite a long way from knowing scripture. I take it this is a warning?

Why does the queen of the uk give royal assent to man made laws and laws that oppose those found in the Bible? Excuse my ignorance but she is said to be Christian, she was made to swear her oath to God at her corronation (if I have this correct) and promotes or endorses (Royal assent) to "strange gods" and "gay marriage" amongst other laws, all of which nullify Gods commanding laws? I dont understand. I heard a comment made by someone along the lines of if she is a defender of the faith she is doing a good job invinting invaders in who want to destroy it... And it got me thinking the same thing.