Celt

I guess this means then, most of you are totally against the idea of the royal families who must show their geneaology? I once asked a rabbi if the kingline of Israel couldn't come from the Zarah line also, since Zarah was another son of Judah, and God ordained that the "chief ruler" will be of Judah. He said no, it must continue through the house of David. It appears many think a certain country is always synonomous with a certain race. Ethiopia in ancient times referred to a much larger portion of land than today. And from the earliest times, Abyssinia was controlled by Caucasian rulers. Not all ancient Ethiopians were of the Black race. Even lower Egypt in ancient times for five hundred years was controlled by a Hyksos dynasty of Hebrew people, a Semitic people. So there's my answer concerning the wife of Moses being called an Ethiopian, and the wife of Joseph being an Egyptian. It's just as probable they were of Semitic origin. And in the case of Num.12:1, it's also just as likely that Aaron and Miriam spoke out because of thinking Moses' wife had a different religion. There's at least 3 verses to show she was a daughter of a Midianite priest (Jethro), so sorry, one cannot just try to throw that evidence out of the Bible in favor of a Num.12:1 reading only. Nor am I "anti-Semitic", anti-Black, anti-Indian, anti-Oriental, or whatever some of you think to use as propaganda smear terms. It's those who are against God's creation of all the races as they appear that reveal ideas leading to racism, because of belief on man's theories of evolution. If we think that God created one race, and that all other races 'evolved' from that one race, that is saying there must be a superior race that all others came from. But understanding that God created all the races the way He wanted them to appear is just the opposite of that idea. It shows respect for God's creation and all races as His children. It destroys the many curse myths of doctrines of men for the origin of races. Afterall, some still believe that the snake in the Garden of Eden was a real snake, even though our Lord Jesus told us that was but another title for Satan in Rev.12:9 and 20:2. Concerning Tamar and Rahab in our Lord's lineage, it's not specifically written if they were Semitic or not. It's still possible they were, so merely assigning them as Gentiles is not really correct. The same mistake is done with the wife of Joseph merely because her father was a priest in Egypt. Biblically, we're not told their genealogy. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source for this type of info.

I shouldn't have to defend God's Promises to His chosen Israel, but it's obvious today's doctrines of men taught in many Churches today means someone has to. Rev 7:1-4 1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. 4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (KJV) Rev.9 tells us what that sealing is about. It is God's sealing for the endtime, in the foreheads of His servants, the spiritual opposite of the 'mark of the beast'. Each tribe of Israel is specifically named. Both the "house of Judah" (Judah, Benjamin, Levi) and the "house of Israel" (ten tribes) are included. The only two names not mentioned are Dan and Ephraim (which are put back in, in final per Ezekiel 48). And per Bible history, the Jews are only represented by the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (see 1 Kings 11 forward). The rest of the tribes exist somewhere else in the world, scattered among the nations. Also, per 1 Kings 11:28-36, God said He would always leave one tribe in Jerusalem, for the sake of His servant David, and for Jerusalem's sake. That tribe was Judah. And a remnant of Judah has remained there, even to today, and will forever. One does not have to be an orthodox Jew to realize that, nor many other of God's Promises that were specific to Israelites only. AND AFTER THAT, THEN GENTILES ARE MENTIONED: Rev 7:9-10 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God Which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (KJV) Some may want to lie to theirself and deny that distinction exists between Israelites and Gentiles even in the New Testament Book of Revelation, the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they'd just be lying to theirself about that distinction of genealogy there. Rom 3:1-2 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (KJV) Rom 3:9-12 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (KJV) Even the apostle Paul showed an ordained mission God has for Israelites. That's per God's choosing; it has nothing to do with the kind of sinner they are, for it's well proven we are all sinners. The importance is that God gave them a specific 'calling' that no man can change. And that calling for the literal seed of Israel is still... in effect for today, even as shown with the Revelation 7 distinction. And just because The Gospel has gone to us Gentiles, and we received It, still does not make us better than them, because they still..., even today, have that calling God gave them, and many of the promises, even though many of Israel have still refused Christ today. Gen 49:10 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be. (KJV) Here's a prophecy Jacob gave for his son Judah, meant for "in the last days" (Gen.49:1). That means even for today. What does that show? It reveals part of what the apostle Paul was saying about the importance of God's calling for Israel. So how would Israel mixing up its genealogy go against that? And if one doesn't think it would interfere, then that shows who the truly decieved are. Even though, I doubt one who is deceived knows what that verse means. So to make sure, I'll outline its meaning. God has a birthright blessing He gave to His chosen Israel. It began with Abraham, and then went to Isaac, then to Jacob, then to Joseph, and then to Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5). And it is a promise involving the 'literal' seed of Israel. Per the 1 Chronicles 5 Scripture, it is in two parts. One part is about the royal sceptre of rule and caretaker of God's law; the other is about the blessings of wealth, blessings of resources, and blessings of the womb (meaning great number of seed, 'literal' seed), as outlined in the promises God gave to Israel (Jacob) in Genesis 27. Of the tribe of Judah was to come the "chief ruler" per 1 Chron.5. That means the royal sceptre, AND caretaker of God's law. That specific Gen.49:10 verse says neither the royal sceptre, nor the position of lawgiver, is to part from Judah's responsibility, ALL THE WAY UP TO SHILOH'S COMING, AND THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE TO HIM. The name "Shiloh" in that verse is put as a symbolic name for our Lord Jesus Christ.

I will be blunt also then. For Moses' father-in-law to be a Midianite priest, as God's Word says, and in more than one Scripture, he would have had to been a Midianite first, and not Ethiopian. But maybe some think Midianites and Ethiopians then were the same peoples? Well, they were not. There's a reason why God gave these geneaology links in His Word. One example was with the Levitical priesthood, because He commanded that only Levites and the sons of Aaron were to hold the priest office to Israel. And in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, some of the Levites had mixed their lineages, and Nethinims (given to Temple service) that had returned from Babylon with Judah were considered "polluted" from the priesthood because their genealogy could not be found of Israel: Ezra 2:58-62 58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two. 59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: 60 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. 61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: 62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. (KJV) If Nethinim priests who were foreign born, were put from the priesthood EVEN THOUGH IT SHOWS THEY LIVED AMONG ISRAEL AS ISRAELITE PRIESTS, then why were they considered "as polluted", if it was ONLY about religion? It was because of God's Commandments for Israel to remain separate, and for the priesthood especially! So don't try and tell me that one's genealogy was not important to God per the Old Covenant times, especially within the Levitical priesthood. God even separated the tribe of Levi only, to carry the ark of the Covenant. Anyone else would suffer for carrying it. Judg 1:16 16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people. (KJV) In that verse, it's alluding to Jethro being of the Kenites, which was a nation of the land of Canaan, a people which God told Israel not to marry into. So what was Jethro, a Kenite, a Midianite, or an Ethiopian? Maybe some of you might want to try and go pay some prophet of Baalam to try and put a curse on me for saying all this. You can try, but God will reverse it back to you, because I'm staying in His Word on this matter of genealogy, because God is Who ordained the separation of peoples per the Old Covenant times. Here's a question within New Covenant timing: In Revelation 7 is mentioned 144,000, twelve thousand from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, being SEALED WITH GOD'S SEALING FOR THE ENDTIMES AGAINST DECEPTION. Does that mean 144,000 of ALL nations, or just Israelites? If the matter of geneaology is no longer important to God, then why does that still show a separation, even in the New Testament?

Per Exodus 2 & 3 & 18, Moses' father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Midian, and that would mean of the people of Midian. Midian was a son of Abraham by his later wife Keturah.

Someone who believes the races came from some curse, or by various theories of evolution are actually the 'racists'. Neither of those corrupt views give all races an equal standing in God's creation.

So does that mean not to expect a particular antichrist coming to sit in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, which will work great signs and wonders on the earth to deceive with? We cannot exchange workings of believers falling away to things of this world for the specific warnings our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul and John gave about a particular false one that is coming to direct all worship, and anything that is worshipped, to himself or an idol of himself. Rev 13:11-15 11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (KJV) Except for the "great wonders" and "miracles" that coming false one is to personally do, those type of events happenned once before, in the days of Daniel. The false prophets that were jealous of Daniel being exalted above them coerced Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon into making a golden image of idol of himself, and commanding all to bow to it at the sound of the psalter. And those who refused to bow in worship to it were to be killed. That's the type of event the apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus was talking about in 2 Thess.2 and Matthew 24. Deeper... That false idol image is about the "image of jealousy" like in Ezekiel 8. Hearken to Ezekiel's vision, because it reveals just how far Judah had fallen away to bring their Babylon captivity, and how it relates to events of Rev.13 in final. Ezek 8:1-5 1 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. 2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. 3 And He put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy. 4 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, according to the vision that I saw in the plain. 5 Then said He unto me, Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north. So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry. (KJV) Don't forget this, for it is a parallel to the events coming, and relates to that false image of Rev.13. It's an "image of jealousy", and it's oriented towards the north, symbolic of God's Place. Our Heavenly Father said He is a jealous God; doesn't like it when His people fall to worship something else, especially a false idol. Ezek 8:6-11 6 He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from My sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations. 7 And He brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. 8 Then said He unto me, Son of man, dig now in the wall: and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door. 9 And He said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here. 10 So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about. 11 And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up. (KJV) Here the supposed leaders of the house of Israel are, bowing to anything and everything except God. And to make it look holy and religious they paint the images of them upon the walls. Do you think this is going on today? Ezek 8:12-14 12 Then said He unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth. 13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. 14 Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. (KJV) These things are taking place inside a Temple, in secret, behind closed doors. But God is showing Ezekiel, and us, what's really being done there. All this is by vision to Ezekiel. It serves as a blueprint for the falling away in the end times. Tammuz worship originated in ancient Babylon. Ezek 8:15-18 15 Then said He unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. 16 And He brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. 17 Then He said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. 18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: Mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in Mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. (KJV) In Ezekiel 9 God tells angels with an inkhorn to go into Jerusalem and put a mark upon the foreheads of the righteous that sigh and cry because of the abominations. All others He tells the angels to smite with a slaughter weapon, and to not spare, nor have pity, and to begin at His sanctuary (see what Apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 4:17 about where judgment will start).

Now then, for those who read my last posts. Later Assyriologists began to deny the early 3790 B.C. dating for Sargon, and inserted a later history timeline based on other names in the tablets that had no event-history correlation. They became divided into two main schools about the origin of the sudden higher culture among the Sumerians. But most all agreed on the existence of the Black race as Sumerians and a Semitic race of rulers. Some of the ancient Babylon brick tablet carved images of two races in the British Museum even support that. For those who want to disregard that, you can simply opt out, for I won't answer you, and that because what that evidence shows supports God's creation per The Bible, and the accounts of Genesis 2 through 4 also. Jer 13:23 23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (KJV) There's no Biblical evidence that the races of man sprang from any curse. And that Jeremiah 13 verse is yet another example in favour of the argument of God's creation of all races in the beginning. Nor is there evidence that moving from one location on earth to another produced changes in race. So just HOW did the races of today come about? And per the documentation about the ancient Sumerian Black race before the flood, how did they come to exist after the flood? For those who really consider this, they'll discover that God creating all the races in the begininng is closer to His Word than the many doctrines of men we've been taught, like curses, and evolution theories.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 10 "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her. The Lord did not forbid the Israelites from marrying people of other nations. Nor is there ever a mention of race involved. The problem was when they took wives who still followed and worshiped their old gods. That was the issue, not genetics. That's not Darwinian! Darwinian claims the human race came out of a population of evolved "ape ancestors". Darwinian claims populations of people moved to other regions and that population evolved traits to adapt to the region. Darwinian mocks the idea of the entire human race being started with one man and one woman. Nobody knows where the Garden of Eden was located, nor where Adam and Eve went to after being cast out of the Garden, nor how the earth looked before the Great Flood. But as for preachers believing in evolution and the like, this theory of yours isn't the counter to that. Your arguments cannot be supported Biblically either, as you have been shown. That Deut.21 Scripture must be read in context of the previous Deut.20 chapter, where God told Israel to literally wipe out the peoples in the land of inheritance He gave to Israel. Like I've already shown with children of Lot, many of the nations outside Canaan had a link with Abraham's family. That's who the Deut.21 Scripture applies to, and not to the nations of Canaan. When Esau married a daughter of Canaan, Isaac and Rebekah showed concern, but not when he also married a daughter of Ishmael. Yet what did his brother Jacob do? He married within his own family of Hebrews like he was told. The theories of evolution covers small theoretical changes within a specie also, like that of skin pigment color. If that is according to God's creation, then it would mean a working He set forth in nature, and it should still be happenning today. Yet there's no evidence for it today creating new races, nor in His Word. Instead, evidence in His Word is against such an idea of evolving skin colors (Jer.13:23). Here's an inscription quote by an Assyriologist about Sargon who came to ancient Babylonia-Sumer: "For forty-five years [the number of years is admittedly undecipherable] the kingdom I have ruled, and the black heads (or black) race I have governed. In multitudes of bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands. I governed the upper countries (Assyria, etc.). Three times to the sea I have advanced." (Ragozin's Chaldea, pp. 205-207.) Early Assyriologists (like Sayce and Hilprecht) documented Sargon's reign back to 3790 B.C. Sargon suddenly appears in the Sumerians early history, building the first city, giving them knowledge of agriculture and the sciences, etc. Something to note is that 3790 B.C. was long before the date for the flood of Noah. Also something to note; per bishop Ussher's Bible chronology (17th century) of going back from the time of Christ to the man Adam, the date of the man Adam in God's Garden was around 4004 B.C. The Assyriologists discovered Sargon's facial mask also, which is still in the British Museum. Sargon had what the Assyriologists called Semitic features, yet Shem wasn't even born in Sargon's time. The main point is, there's archeological evidence to show that the Black race existed back to Sargon's time, around 3790 B.C., long before Noah's flood, and quite close to the time of the man Adam (a mere 200 or so years difference). And, a man of Semitic features came among them (Sargon), advanced their culture, built their first city, and ruled over the ancient Sumerians (before it was Babylonia or Assyria-Babylon). And out of that also came another account of the creation, a version which more and more pastors subscribe to, simply because its archaeological record is older than the oldest Old Testament manuscripts (I personally do not subscribe to the Assyrian Tablet creation account, but the Biblical account instead.) Along with that, Sargon started the ancient pagan ideologies and religion which transferred to ancient Egypt and the Far East. So the archeological record does reveal the existence of the Black race even before the flood of Noah.

Gen 1:26-27 26 And God said, Let Us make man (aadam) 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. 27 So God created man (eth ha aadam) in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. (KJV) When aadam appears without the eth and ha, it means mankind in general. But with the eth and ha, it means a specific man. The Our likeness refers to the outer form shape or appearance, i.e. the image of man which God and the angels have. With the eth ha aadam, a greater specific is given with, "in His own image". The KJV translators did not bring forth the different Hebrew rendering of the word aadam in those verses. I'll lead you to it, but because of your attitude against me this is all I'll say on that... In Genesis 2 with the river that comes out of God's Garden of Eden to feed four other rivers on the earth, where are those other four rivers located? That's all I'll say on that point. Hey, you're only making that case against today's orthodox Jews who still hold to the Old Covenant ways of staying separate from the nations. That's where they got that tradition from, per the Old Covenant commandments. But me personally, it still doesn't mean I'm going to go out and seek to marry someone of another race. If others want to do that, that's between them and The LORD. I won't treat those who do differently either. I'm not a racist. How can I be, being also part Cherokee? But don't try and push popular socialist ideas of today into God's Own commandments per the Old Covenant for Israel to stay separate from the nations. You're only arguing against His order He setup then for Israel, and not against me.

Converts to Judaism were always allowed into their congregation. In the OT Law, the Lord also gave instructions for how they were to take wives for themselves among the people they conquored, if they chose to do so. You are failing to produce evidence that the Bible speaks of race - anywhere. Celt - you just lost your argument right here. The Scriptures are quite clear that Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives were the only human beings to have entered the ark. Read Gen. 7 No it is not. You have inserted your own interpretation of the word mamzer. If you want to convince anyone that this word means "mixed race" and not "illigitimate", you need to offer actual evidence. What you are proposing actually results in a problem called inbreeding. Cultures where no "new blood' is added to the mix always result in a high percentage of people born with physical deformities. What you are missing is that Scripture does not state from which nation Moab obtained his wife. And your evidence for such a claim is . . . ? I have not found anywhere in the Old Testament commandments where God said it was OK for Israel to marry among the nations. There are plenty of Scriptures which give His direct command to not take wives of other nations, and that He made Israel a separate people, even severed them from other nations (Lev.20:26). Even when speaking of allowing the stranger to come in among Israel, and be treated as one of them, the idea of marriage is not specifically covered; it is assumed only by many (like end of Lev.19). See Ezra 9-10 after the return of a small remnant of Israel for what many of Israel had done while in the Babylon captivity. Even the children of those mixed marriages were separated per the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Even the Nethinim foreigner priests that returned with a remnant of Israel from Babylon could not show their genealogy in Israel, and were thus deemed polluted from the priesthood (Ezra 2). That was per the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. I realize the word mamzer is considered to mainly mean an offspring out of wedlock, see also Zech.9:6 for its usage. "Judaism" is about the religion of the Jews, an oral based tradition system which groups like the Pharisees came up with after the return from the Babylon captivity. Christ and His Apostle Paul had many things to say against the religion of the Jews. The idea about "new blood", so that's why my corrupt college Biology text taught why the royal families of Europe are messed up, because they didn't mix with other races also, but kept to marriages in their own families? Abraham and Sarah were half-sister and half-brother, yet we didn't see the "new blood" idea making a difference with them. A lot of that is just hype by the same ones that want us to believe the false human embyro drawing in Biology texts that looks the same as other animals too. Concerning Ruth the Moabitess; there's no evidence she was of a different race. The main argument God had against the Moabites was because how they tried to curse Israel, and had fallen into false worship. Even the other son by Lot's daughter was named 'Benammi', which means "son of my people", referring to Lot's people, who was nephew to Abraham a Hebrew. Benammi became the people of Ammon. We are not told specifically where Lot's wife was from, so it's not enough to say she was of a different people. The evidence that the races did not come out of the man Adam and Eve exists in the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27, with the difference between the article and particle before the word 'aadam', and also another 'aadam' without which points to mankind in general per the Hebrew. One reads this man Adam, and the other reads 'man'. This is why I believe God created a specific man in His Garden to till the soil, which would represent the seed of the woman from which Christ would come, and He also created all the races and placed them outside His Garden, which is represented by the "land of Nod" from which Cain took his wife from. It points to God creating the man Adam, and all the races on His sixth day, and then He said it was good. Adam and Eve having other sons and daughters is not even mentioned until Genesis 5.

Where do many get the false idea that this matter is about hatred of races? Those who began that idea long ago were merely dishing out disinformation to fit their personal political correctness. This idea I'm speaking of from God's Word is in SUPPORT of His creation and in SUPPORT of all the races He created, and God said it was good! I've had Black people come up to me almost crying with tears because they knew very well their race did NOT spring from some curse because of Ham's sin, and I showed Biblically how they are right, they didn't come from some curse. So this matter is not about racial bigotry like some have been falsely fed that it is. Can you imagine how many Black people feel when some illiterate preacher teaches their race came from a curse, especially when that is not Biblical? I also am part Cherokee Indian, my great-grandmother was half. My grandmother was the last to have any of the Cherokee features and ways, yet she was a very strong Christian woman. So I'm not preaching "racial separation"; I'm showing how God is The Creator, and how He originally created the races the way He wanted them. That makes us all equal racially, and gets rid of any curse superstitious ideas that have crept in over the centuries from men's doctrines. And like I said, this is not a Salvation issue since the New Covenant came. But under the Old Covenant, Israel was to remain a separate people per God's Word, and it was not only about marrying into the other nations because of pagan religion, though that was a major part of the reason. What's really sad, is that a lot of preachers today have gone over to side of Darwinism because of believing the races came out of one man and one woman, some even believing their theories that all peoples came out of Africa. That cannot be supported Biblically.

Wow, some here are actually going to try and infer that the Jewish people have not tried to keep their race? When did the Jewish people ever teach that it's OK for them to mix up their own race? God's Word covers the possibility of two of each race on board the ark, because God told Noah to take two of ALL flesh on board in Gen.6. The eight souls mentioned by Peter were from Noah's family. If we're going to try to do absolutism here, then this must be considered too... Gen 6:19 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. (KJV) Further, in Gen.7 God told Noah to take aboard of every 'clean beast' and clean fowl by sevens. And personally, I believe the flood covered the whole earth. The Deut.23:2 verse is proof that God does not want us to mix our race. It is about one of mixed race not being allowed to enter the congregation of The LORD to the tenth generation, and that applied to Israel in Old Covenant times. It is not a Salvation issue today, but it still shows God created all peoples the way He wanted us to appear. Why else would He declare that for Israel? Because like He said, Israel was to be a holy people to Himself. What happens after the offspring of a mixed race continues to marry only in one side? The mixed racial characteristics begin to be purged out, which shows a natural going back to the way God created, and is the opposite of the idea of evolution of species. It stands as Biblical proof that the races did not spring from evolution. About Ruth: Moab was one of the sons of Lot, and Lot was a son of Abraham's brother Haran (Gen.11). There's no reason to try and create a new race from what Lot's two daughters did unto their father. Trying to say that event created a new race is no different than those who try to say the Black race came out of Ham's sin he did unto his father Noah, to produce Canaan. Because God allowed Ruth, a Moabitess, to be a part of Christ's lineage, likewise with Tamar, Bathsheba and Rahab, it's still not reason enough to assume they were different races simply because of coming from different nations. No, I do not believe that all peoples came out of Adam and Eve, for that's the idea of evolution of species. God is not an evolutionist. Eve is not the mother of all peoples simply because of the phrase "mother of all living". She represents the mother of all living in the spiritual sense, because Christ would be born through her seed, as shown in Genesis 3:15.

Acts 17:25-26 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (KJV) So how do we, as Christians that believe in God's creation, understand that Acts verse about God having made of one blood all nations of men? It's time to check what you believe folks. Is it God's creation, or is it men's doctrines of evolution? Are peoples from different races able to share like blood types in a hospital? Yes. Does that mean all races evolved too? No. It's either God's creation, or man's evolution, there's no middle ground on that in God's Word.

Can't buy that. What you are appear to be saying is that Noah also brought to of each race of Humans on the Ark and the Bible doesn't support that. 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were only eight people aboard the ark. Wrong. The word for "perfect" as used here is a moral term, not a physical one. The whole verse is talking about Noah being an just and blameless man. The word for "perfect" means blameless. The verse goes on to say that Noah walked with God. No, it says one born of a forbidden union. It refers to a child born out of harlotry, or out adultery or other forbidden union. God only forbade intermarriage as it pertained to those who worshipped other gods. In that manner the commandment would keep them pure. It was not with a view of racial "purity" of spiritual purity to keep idolatry out of the Land of Israel. Moses married a black woman and we have record of other interracial marriages in the Bible. If you want to really get technical, even Jesus had a mixed lineage. You don't subscribe to the racist "British Israelism" garbage that holds that the white/caucasians are the "ten lost tribes" do you? I'm aware of the 1 Peter 3:20 verse which says "eight souls" were saved by water. I'm also aware that somehow... the races survived the flood. And there's not one bit of evidence to support that today's races came about from some curse, or evolution. If there was such evidence, there'd be more races springing up than what there are today. Yet we cannot find a single shred of evidence to suggest that two parents of one race produce a totally different race. The reason no such evidence can be found is because God already created the races long ago, before the flood, and they are still with us today. That leaves only 2 possibilities for their survival through the flood of Noah. 1) either two of each race were also brought on the ark, along with the eight souls of Noah's family, or 2) the flood was only to a local area on earth, and not over the entire earth. The word translated to "earth" can also be translated to "land". The word "perfect" in Noah being "perfect in his generations" of Gen.6:9 is the Hebrew word tamiym, a word ALSO used to describe a perfect unblemished animal for sacrifice (like Exo.12:5). Noah was both morally pure and also geneologically pure. In that Gen.6 chapter we are told the "sons of God" looked upon flesh daughters, and took WIVES, and begat children, the Nephilim (fallen ones), called "giants" there. So that Genesis 6 chapter has very much to do with the subject of geneaology. It is not simply a morality description. In Jude 1 we are told those angels didn't keep their first estate but left their own habitation. It was about co-habitating with flesh woman to produce offspring. Excuse me, I mean Deut.23:2, which states that a "bastard" is not to enter into the congregation of The LORD to his tenth generation. That most definitely is about geneology. The Hebrew word is 'mamzer', which is pointing to one of mixed race. Concerning the wife of Moses, many get that wrong too, for his father-in-law was a Midianite priest. Midian was one of the sons of Abraham and his later wife Keturah (Gen.25; Exo.2). So the wife of Moses was not of the Black race. That's a myth some try and use in support of racial intermarriage. I see you're more concerned with an idea like "British-Israel" which I never mentioned, instead of checking out what I stated about the Behistun Rock carving in northern Iraq. Strange there's so much junk being pushed to support inter-racial marriages today by certain ones, when God's Word does not support it. In Leviticus 19:19 God showed that we aren't even to mix animals to make hybrids, so what makes some think it's OK to mix the races He originally created the way He wanted them to appear? It's really not that difficult to distinguish even here on this Forum those who are set on supporting theories of evolution instead of God's creation per His Word.

God created ALL the races the way He wanted them to appear. Anything else is not the concept of His creation, but the theory of evolution. Think about it. Isn't it possible that many have missed something in His Word that supports His creation, and not the idea that all races 'evolved'? I think so. In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26-27, there's a distinction between the word 'aadam' with the article and particle, and 'aadam' without the article and particle. With the article and particle (eth Ha aadam) means a specific man Adam, but 'aadam' by itself means mankind (i.e., the races). It's the same idea in the grammar of all languages. If we speak of 'this man' doing something, we know it means singular, a certain man. But if we speak of 'man' doing something, it means mankind in general. Gen.1:26-27 reveals God created a specific man Adam, and adam (mankind) on His 6th day. In Deut.7:6, God said He created Israel to be a special people separate from all the nations; that He created Israel to be a holy people unto Himself. He wasn't knocking the nations of Gentiles with that, because Israel was to be caretaker of His Truth for the benefit of ALL peoples. That purpose is also shown in Gen.2 with the man Adam, since it's eth Ha aadam there again in Gen.2. Canaan: In Gen.6, we are told that Noah was "perfect in his generations". That means from the Hebrew he was not mixed with other races, so his specific race was pure. It is an important matter, because God showed in Deut.24 that one of mixed race was not to enter into the congregation of Israel to his tenth generation. What does that mean for Noah's three sons, Ham, Japheth, and Shem? It means they also had to be the same race as Noah. Can't say Jewish, nor Hebrew, for the ones born where those titles came from weren't born yet. The sin Ham did unto his father Noah was about incest, because the expression 'thy father's nakedness' means the nakedness of one's wife per Leviticus 18 & 20. Ham got his father Noah drunk, and then slept with his own mother, and the offspring result was Canaan. And again, Canaan had to have been of the same race as Ham, and thus Noah. The Biblically illiterate started the false idea that the Black race came out of Ham's sin long ago, but it's always been a very un-Biblical idea. Also, it was Noah that said 'cursed be Canaan', not God. That's why Canaan was Ham's son. In today's northern Iraq, the Behistun Rock mountain carving still exists, showing the features of tribal chieftans bound together of the ten tribes of Israel after they were taken captive by the king of Assyria. Their features are Indo-European or Caucasian per that carving. Even the Assyrian Tablets show racial feature distinctions between Sargon the first and the race of people in ancient Sumer (later Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Iraq) which called theirselves the "blackheads". A metal mask of Sargon's facial features still exists in the British Museum, and he had what's called Semitic features. Many scholars assume Ham was of the Black race when that's unBiblical too. Ham's name means 'hot', so no doubt that helped such interpretations, and also the fact that Ham became the father of the Cushites, Mizraim, Phut (Put). How strange is it that the Canaanite peoples were not necessarily Black, but the other nations of Ham generally were? I believe the matter becomes easier once we realize the possibility that since God told Noah to bring two of all flesh on board the ark, that it meant two of each race of those God created on the sixth day also. Anything else would be the theory of evolution. It would explain how Ham and Japheth mixed with the other races to produce the races in the areas where they migrated to, with Shem only staying pure all the way back to the man Adam. Naturally, the evolutionists are going to be against this, along with those who have 'bought in' to the evolution concept.

You definitely brought up a good topic. The Revelation 13:1 verse is a good example. Note this one also... Rev 12:3-4 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. (KJV) Does that sound like the idea of one-world government is something new? It shouldn't sound like a new thing... Isa 9:6-7 6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV) What it's really all about today is Satan trying to mimic Christ's future Perfect Government on earth, Christ's Kingdom that is coming upon this earth that will continue forever. From the Revelation 12:3-4 example, we know Satan tried this once before on the earth when he first rebelled against God. That might seem difficult to understand for some, but God's Word hints at that.. Ezek 31:1-8 1 And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? 3 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. This comparison God gives us here requires we stay sharp. He begins speaking of Pharoah, and then immediately compares him to the king of Assyria, but then starts a riddle about the king of Assyria. The "cedar in Lebanon" is a symbol for the righteous in Ps.92. In Ezekiel 17, the high cedar of Lebanon is used as a symbol for Zedekiah king of Judah. The idea is of a high ruler, a king. God compares the king of Assyria to that cedar, of a high stature, his top among the thick boughs. What our Heavenly Father is conveying in this won't be revealed until the later verses. 4 The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. 5 Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. God compares the Assyrian to a great cedar tree, planted by great waters, with rivers running round his plants, and from thence the little rivers went out to water all the trees of the field. Those are very powerful metaphors, and they connect to some of the Revelation symbols. The waters represent peoples per our Lord in Rev.17. This can also point to the River of the Waters of Life feeding the cedar, and from thence going out to water the field (world). You'll see that I'm not just guessing with this later. 6 All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. God continues the great cedar metaphor, and then suddenly He makes it plain what He's talking about. In several ways He is comparing His Own Power with these kings who want that same power on the earth. Now we know the other trees and the field and beasts are really about peoples and nations on the earth. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters. Those "great waters" serve as a reference to the Great River of the Waters of Life, because of the following... 8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty. (KJV) Now all of a sudden our Heavenly Father is describing Satan, but in a state before his rebellion. We know Pharaoh and the king of Assyria never were in "the garden of God" (Eden). But Satan was, as it was originally his job to guard God's Throne (Ezek.28). This means to compare Satan's original rebellion with the high status Pharaoh and the king of Assyria sought as kings ruling over nations. Satan wants to be God, and KING, ruling over all nations upon the earth. The Rev.12:3-4 Scripture shows that kind of working at his first rebellion. The joining of nations in order to rule over all is what that was about, and again for our day. Isa 8:5-20 5 The LORD spake also unto me again, saying, 6 Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: 8 And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel. At the end of Rev.12, there's a flood that comes out of the mouth of the dragon, an attempt to flood God's people with lies. Note what's connected with that working... 9 Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. 10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us. God doesn't like it when His people join with other nations for the purpose of forming up a world government or world kingdom. He's going to break it down, for the only true Government is His with His Son on the earthly throne. 11 For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, 12 Say ye not, "A confederacy", to all them to whom this people shall say, "A confederacy"; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. 13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. God's people are not to join in with those who work towards world government with the joining of all nations. He says don't fear that working, but instead fear Him. 14 And He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. God is allowing that joining of nations in the last days. It's to serve as a snare to those who are unfaithful to Him. 16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among My disciples. 17 And I will wait upon the LORD, That hideth His face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for Him. Is there someone else besides God that many will mistakenly find in the last days? Yes, the antichrist, false messiah, as many will be fooled into thinking the false messiah is God come to earth. In that sense, God is hiding His face from His people for a short time, to trap the rebellious and wicked, while His children are to wait and look for His coming after the false one's working. 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, Which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19 And when they shall say unto you, "Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter": should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (KJV) This world government being setup today is under the supervision of the occultists and their evil minions, those who knowingly serve the devil, the high leaders among the Theosophists, Kabbalists, Rosicrucians, Masons, etc., the mystical secret societies that span all nations.

I agree; that's why I said the real meaning of "eagles" there is vultures. Yet I think there's a reason why it's rendered 'eagles'. In Deut.32:31 God is referred to as The "Rock" (uppercase), and the devil as the "rock" (lowercase). The word "Tyrus" in Ezek.28 where God compares flesh kings to the devil means 'rock'. It's in the sense of Satan wanting to be The Rock, but all he can ever be is a little "rock", a fake. Because the first one 'taken' in the field (world) is taken to wheresoever those 'eagles' are gathered, it means they are fake eagles, vultures disguised as eagles (like the wolves in sheep's clothing idea). Per Rev.12:7-9, the devil and his angels are going to be booted down to this earth in the last days. That's who those fake eagles will be. I assume you mean the idea of men thinking they themselves are their own God. Assuming God's Place is truly what the "strong delusion" is about, but it's applied to a specific false one that's coming which the majority of the world will actually believe... is God. It's not just about people in general that want to be their own gods. Paul says "that Wicked" in verse 8, even assigning to him "Wicked" as a proper name. Who did the first sin? Wasn't Adam. Who first rebelled in wanting to be The GOD? Wasn't flesh man. Who is the primary 'Wicked one'? Again, not flesh man. Who only has already been judged and sentenced to 'perish' in the "lake of fire"? I hate to drop this as a surprise for many, but only the devil and his angels have already been judged and sentenced to perish. No flesh born man has been judged to perish yet, not even Judas who betrayed The Lord Jesus, and that even though Judas was referred to as the "son of peridition" in John 17:12. In John 6:70, Christ referred to Judas as "a devil", and that's why the son of perdition title was applied to him. It's in the sense of the "many antichrists", while there still is a primary 'the' antichrist (the devil). In 2 Thess.2, the apostle Paul is not talking about Judas as "the son of perdition", because Judas was already dead and gone. Paul is pointing the original "son of perdition", the one who has already been judged and sentenced to perish in the lake of fire, the devil himself. I strongly disagree that Paul is referring to 'people' in the plural sense or to some movement by people who want to be God, but directly to the devil himself. What Paul mentioned in 2 Thess.2:3-4 about that certain Wicked one sitting in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God must be weighed in conjunction with our Lord's warning in Matthew 24 about the 'pseudochristos' (a false Christ), and the setting up of the "abomination of desolation" in the "holy place" (meaning inside a physical Temple, one in Jerusalem that the orthodox Jews are ready to build in our day). There's no reason to interpret that particular false one Paul mentions there as some false spiritual movement that people in general might practice. The only false spiritual movement it's about is those on the "strong delusion" falling away to worship a false one that comes according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders (2 Thess.2:8-9). That's the same warning Christ gave in Matt.24 and Rev.13:11 forward about a false one that is to come doing miracles and wonders in the sight of men, all in order to cause as many as will to believe on him in place of God. The "strong delusion" is in believing on that false one in place of God, because of the great signs and wonders that fake one will work on the earth.

Let's face it, some books sold in Christian bookstores are out to make money, using Christianity as a crutch to support materialistic aims. That's how I view the Jabez prayer fad books that came out a few years ago. If one actually studies God's Word to find out what the prayer of Jabez was about, they'll find it was a prayer for material gain. Some have handed me a card with the Jabez prayer the author dreamed up, and told me if I would pray that daily God would bless with me with wealth. Well, I don't need to say a prayer using someone else's thoughts and words when asking our Heavenly Father help in matters of daily needs. The Jabez prayer fad is being used like a scientific experiement, or formula of success, like, "Hey, if you say this prayer you'll be blessed. It really works!" So not all books found in Christian bookstores are based on Christian principles from The Bible. Do we want to get into the "Left Behind" series of books too? I have not found some doctrines in those books to be in line with The Bible. And the author has made a lot of money off it, some Churches even using them to teach their Sunday School class instead of God's Word directly from The Bible. Don't be deceived just because the sign out front says "Christian Bookstore". Likewise, we shouldn't be deceived just because a Church has a sign out front that says "Church". What makes it a Church is whether or not God's Word is taught there. The sign outside doesn't mean much, it's the content that matters.

The difference between killing and murder has already been covered in a few posts back. The actual reading in the Hebrew of God's Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" means to not commit murder (see Matt.19). I agree with you, killing is sometimes necessary for self-defense, and in defense of our nation (I'm Vietnam era vet). Christ's enemies love to confuse God's people on this issue of killing and the death penalty, when the laws still on the books in our nation to govern such matters came directly out of God's Law. The reason I brought up the manslaughter issue was to show how God's Law defines different judgments for different crimes, and that's why our judicial system still does too.

???? Beating someone up is "self defence"? Granted, right at the end when the other guy picked up the axe it was self defence, but remember who it was who started the fight. When you instigate the fight (provoked by finding his wife in bed with another man), you can't then turn around and argue self defence when they react by picking up a weapon. But with that said, let's assume for the moment that it was self defence and he was wrongly sent to jail for murder (there have been cases where this has happened). Doesn't that just show you how flawed the system is and therefore how it is impossible to properly institute the Death Penalty???? Just a thought, Yes, the question of self-defense could have been argued by both sides, and probably was. But an angry jealous husband is not sufficient evidence to prove intent to murder. If he brought a weapon with him, that would probably be enough to suggest an intent to do murder. Does that case show how flawed the system is? No, but releasing a murderer that rapes and tortures little children is evidence of a flawed system. When there is so much direct evidence found to prove a murderer guilty beyond a doubt, those should get the death penalty. No way I'm going to believe the majority of murder convictions happen because of error on the system's part.

Me neither. But based on your story, was that really 'murder', or could it have been deemed as 'manslaughter'? If the guy went after his wife's lover with the intent to kill him, that would be murder. But if her lover was killed because he tried to stike the first blow, and a trained reflex by the friend of your family took over, couldn't that be manslaughter instead, because the question of self-defense does appear to be part of his action. In the U.S. there's different degrees for the act of murder. Pure premeditated cold-blooded homicide is 1st degree murder. And that's the ones I was talking about. We should remember that a conviction of 'murder' does not always mean in the 1st degree. Per Numbers 35, the conviction of murder meant a sentence of death by the revenger of blood. But manslaughter didn't, unless the manslaughterer left one of the appointed cities for his protection.

Ans. 1 Note the main subject of both passages... 1 Cor 15:35 35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? (KJV) 1Thes 4:16 16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: (KJV) Paul is speaking of the same event in both passages, the resurrection of the dead. He's simply going into more detail in the 1 Cor.15 Chapter, defining the type of body the resurrection is, while also covering Christ's second coming on the final trumpet, the 7th of Rev.11:15. Both passages support each other, and are not separate timelined events, which is in support of a post-tribulational rapture, not a pre-trib rapture. Further, the original pre-trib doctrine came from John Darby's 1830's idea of the "secret rapture". Prior to the 1800's, Christianity as a whole held to the post-tribulational coming of Christ and our gathering to Him. The Pre-Trib view is a relatively new doctrine when comparing it with how long the post-trib view has historically been held by the Church. And because of that, some so-called Pre-Trib scholars have been found guilty of 'revisionism' with writings of the early Church fathers. Ans.2. The 1 Thess.4 passage is not about a pre-trib rapture. Paul is simply giving comfort about the saints who have passed on, saying that if we believe that Christ rose from the dead, then know that He will bring those saints with Him when He comes. The actual Greek word for "prevent" in 1 Thess.4:15 means 'PRECEED'. The saints still on the earth at His coming shall not 'preceed' the saints that sleep in Jesus. It simply means they are with Him now, and He will bring them with Him at His coming, when He will gather all of us together, on the 7th trumpet. Ans.3 The only way to properly understand our Lord's Book of Revelation is, to get it directly from Him within study of all His Word. But of course, you already knew that right? But maybe not this; all the symbols in Revelation have already been covered in previous Books of The Bible. And most of them occur in the Books of the Old Testament prophets. The reason there's many faulty views of Revelation is because of lack of study in how The LORD already used its symbology in other Bible Books, and how He already covered many of the Revelation events prophetically in the Old Testament prophets. I understand how that might sound like a kind of let-down for many believers who thought all they need to really understand is The New Testament Books. For the majority, that's gonna' mean going back to do in-depth study of the Old Testament prophets, and then covering Revelation anew. It's getting late, so some might need to get crackin'. I can assure those who do go back and study, they will be rewarded with much more understanding than they could imagine. Not just Revelation is being opened up to us today, but many endtime Messages within the Old Testament prophets too. This is also why Peter gave us the following admonition for the last days... 2 Pet 3:1-2 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: (KJV) Peter tells us study of the Old Testament prophets in the last days is still important. There is a concerted effort by the "crept in unawares" (Jude 1) to keep many brethren from going back and doing that Bible study. I'm not surprised, because ideas like the Old Testament Books being all past history helps keep them deceived, and allows all the confusing symbology conjured up by doctrines of men to be applied to Revelation instead.

Here's a suggestion... Pray the prayer our Lord Jesus gave us to pray per Matthew 6, and if there's some 'specific' matter you need help with, or some matter others might need help with, talk about it with our Heavenly Father just before ending The Lord's Prayer He gave us. That way, you're not simply saying the prayer our Lord Jesus gave like a repetitive thing only, but opening dialog with The LORD by declaring Who the prayer is to, recalling the things our Lord gave us to keep in mind within that prayer of Matt.6, then focusing on your specifics, and in final sealing the prayer by again recognizing Whom all Glory belongs to. No disrespect intended Mead, but I've got to give a warning about 'eastern meditation', and I speak from experience in my younger days. Eastern meditation is very dangerous, because it teaches to actually let the mind go, the object being not to think of anything, but put the mind in 'receptive' mode. The idea was so as to 'receive' impressions from a higher source. The problem with that is, what higher source is not well defined like how our Lord Jesus told us to pray to our Heavenly Father. Thus eastern meditation can open up influence by evil spirits.

Just like with all other businesses, a Christian bookstore has got to make a profit too. So I find the idea of a 'Christian' bookstore a bit misleading from the start, and would never expect to find nothing but The Truth there. It's simply impossible while still expecting to make a profit, because the Truth never has been popular with the majority. It's just as impossible to find a Church that is perfect in God's Truth also. I respect those who try, but that's all they'll be doing, trying to keep only to God's Truth. When I go into one, I head straight to the scholarly works and reference section. So if I have to go all the way in the back of the store to find that kind of rack, or not find much in that rack but can only order it, then that's my go-no-go guage telling me how much that store is trying.

No, what I said was not directed at you personally, which I noted that in my very first sentence. You shouldn't take that as a personal attack, nor should anyone else here. I simply wanted to make sure we all understand per God's Word that He does not expect us to just lay down and be treated like second class citizens by those who are evil in this world. And, to distinguish how the KJV translators mistranslated our Lord's commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill', which really is about not doing murder per the Hebrew. Once someone understands what the Hebrew really means there, they should make it a point to give the correct meaning. And I'm sorry for your personal loss, just as I also feel the same way you do about our people that have died defending freedom in the world. When things like school and Church shootings happen, we all know who is especially going to take that as an excuse to disarm law-abiding citizens with ever increasing legislation against gun ownership. That should not be viewed as an event to make us want to disarm, but instead to want to 'better' arm ourselves, and even go get training in self-defense. That's the way to stop even those types who go off the deep-end for whatever reason, regardless of how they obtain a weapon. Even if there were no guns in existence, those types are going to create some other type of weapon to do their evil with. I recall years ago when Florida passed the right for concealed carry permits, and Sarah Brady was asked in an interview what she thought was the cause of the sudden crime rate drop in southern Florida, since it appeared to point to the new concealed carry laws for law-abiding citizens. She flat lied, and denied the statistics showed the crime rate went down, when it clearly did. Later in Florida we started hearing about people being held-up getting off airplanes at the airports. It was because the criminals are not dumb, they want 'easy' prey, and they knew positively that folks getting off airplanes would not be armed. In New Orleans years ago, there was a major problem with car-jackings. Criminals that 'somehow' were armed would go up to a car window stopped at a red light and hi-jack the car on the spot. In one case, a law-abiding citizen with a carry permit pulled his own weapon and shot a car-jacker in the act. Mysteriously, the rate for that crime in New Orleans suddenly dropped too. Like I said, criminals want an easy prey. Our Lord does not expect us to put up with that bunch, but to defend ourselves. Even the Apostle Peter showed how adept a swordsman he was when he cut off the ear of one of the band coming to take our Lord Jesus. But we're not going to hear the Truth about this listening to the Left-leaning news media. Instead, they want to prey on our emotions to get us into a frenzy against the idea of anyone having possession of a weapon. A lot of their rhetoric is about violating one of the God-given rights of the American people, the second amendment of our U.S. Constitution. And nor does it taake much research to find out that is also a desire of certain backers within the United Nations who are intent upon imposing their international laws against gun ownership upon us instead of respecting our nation's Constitution that defines the rights of the American peoples.