I will alternate between this book and A History of the Bible, another excellent, well researched book by Pastor Herrell.
So with that intro out of the way, I bring you Pastor V.S. Herrell's excellent treatise on one of the most misunderstood commandments in the bible.
The Sixth Commandment
In many people's minds, there is a very great difference between these two translations, though, as we shall see later, this is due primarily to the purposeful degeneration of the etymology of the word adultery. At issue in the Greek Septuagint and in the Greek New Testament are two Greek words: ou moicheuseis.
In the Latin Vulgate, Exodus 20:13 was translated as non moechaberis and Romans 13:9 as non adulterabis. The Latin word moechaberis is an inflected form of moechari, a transliteration of the Greek moicheuo, and is of little etymological importance since what it means is merely dependent upon what the Greek word means, which we will explore. However, what is important is adulterabis, an inflected form of the word adultero, since this is the Latin word most often used in the Vulgate and elsewhere to translate the Greek word moicheuo.
The Greek word ou and the Latin word non are simply negative particles, translated not. Thus, the words that we need to define in order to determine the correct translation of Exodus 20:13 and Romans 13:9 are the Greek word moicheuo and the Latin word adultero.
First, in order to define the word moicheuo, let us turn to a commonly used and commonly available dictionary, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated into English by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Now let us note that Kittel was a well-renowned German Greek scholar and is held in high-esteem by the scholarly community.
Under the entry word moicheuo, the following definition is given: "of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races."2 This, of course, is the classical definition of mongrelization. So the Greek of the New Testament and the Greek Septuagint confirm that the translation You will not mongrelize is correct.
So now that we have defined the Greek, what about the Latin Vulgate? Now we must define the Latin word adultero, and we shall do so using the finest Latin dictionary currently available and the standard among Latin scholars, the Oxford Latin Dictionary: "To mix (a substance or kind) with another, adulterate: to impair the purity or strength of, to give a variety of appearances to, change . . . to corrupt, debase." Once again, when this is applied to people, we have mongrelization. So we find age-old agreement between the Latin and the Greek.
Therefore, using two of the most respected reference works available regarding Biblical Greek and the Latin language, and simply looking the words up, we find that these verses in the Bible are in fact an explicit prohibition against race-mixing.
To any intellectually honest person, the above definitions should be more than enough to convince him that the Bible clearly and explicitly prohibits race-mixing. This is exactly why the coalition of evil is so against a true and literal translation of the Word of God. In fact, it may be stated that their theology is little more than a justification system for the breaking of this divine law of God. If the translation You will not mongrelize is wrong, then the two reference works cited above, certainly two of the most prestigious works of their type available, are also wrong. Any legitimate Greek or Latin scholars would agree with these definitions; any one who would disagree with these definitions have in fact turned their backs on legitimate scholarship and should stop being hypocritical and admit that they do not believe the Bible instead of trying to change what it and what legitimate scholars say.
Now, many people will simply go and find a dictionary that defines the above words as adultery, and then ignorantly presume that adultery is defined as marital infidelity and simply forget about the two definitions cited above.
To show the stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of these people, I have previously written a work entitled Hidden Truth, now published under the title The Truth Unveiled, which gave many more proofs of the definitions of the Greek and Latin family of words commonly translated adultery, and examined in detail every Biblical passage, both Old and New Testaments, where these words occurred. That is not the purpose of this present work. The reader is encouraged to also read the chapter regarding this family of words in The Truth Unveiled for a complete Biblical analysis of this family of words. The objective herein is to examine in detail the etymology of both the Greek and Latin words commonly translated adultery, the ways these words were used in other Greek and Latin literature and in key passages in the Bible, and to explore how the web of deception regarding these words has been woven through the degeneration of language. The information presented hereafter is indisputable and not a subject of debate: one will either be intellectually honest and believe it or one will suffer the fate of all liars and those who help make a lie.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This is the Sixth Commandment in the Greek Septuagint, but in the antichrist Jew-corrupted, Hebrew, Masoretic Text it is the Seventh Commandment. For more information on the Masoretic Text, please see the last section of this book, 'The Errancy of the Masoretic Text and the KJV', as well as The History of the Bible by V.S. Herrell and The Septuagint vs. the Masoretic Text by David C. Tate. |
2 In the German original, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, we find the original words of Kittel: "auch von Vermischung von Tier und Mensch oder von Mischung verschiedener Rassen."
Etymological Introduction
When using lexicons or dictionaries to define words or research etymologies of Greek or Latin, it is very important to have an understanding of the development of the modern lexicon or dictionary and other tools used in translating Greek or Latin into English. For translating Biblical passages or researching Biblical words, it is also very important to understand how the Catholic Church, through the Latin language, has controlled how both Latin and Greek words are defined. These facts are certainly no truer than in the case of the word adultery.
The history of modern Greek and Latin lexicography, especially wherein Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries are concerned, starts in about the 15th-16th centuries, a time when also the first English translations of the Bible were being made (from the Latin Vulgate).3 At this time, the universal language of scholars was Latin and the source of Latin knowledge was primarily the corrupt Catholic Church. The purpose of the first English translations was to bring the Bible to the common man who could not speak Latin. But Latin was and remained for a very long time the common language of all scholars and scholarly books.
Thus, the first Latin dictionaries did not have English definitions as a Latin dictionary today might have, but rather Latin definitions. Known as Thesaurae, these Latin-Latin dictionaries were much like current day English dictionaries which have English definitions; they were intended for those already fluent and skilled in Latin to better understand Latin words with which they might not be familiar. The greatest of these was the Dictionarium seu linguae latinae thesaurus, printed first in 1531 by Robert Estienne. Not surprisingly then, the first Greek dictionaries were Greek words with Latin definitions meant once again to help scholars already fluent in Latin understand Greek also. The greatest of these was the Thesaurus graecae linguae, a 5 volume work first printed in 1572 by Henri Estienne, the son of Robert.
We will examine the definitions of some of these types of lexicons later in this present work. What needs to be understood at this point, however, is that when Catholics like Wyclif first translated the Bible (again, from the Latin Vulgate), the only Latin dictionaries they had were Latin-Latin thesauri, and in later years when Reformation era translators began consulting the original Greek texts, the only Greek dictionaries that they had were ones with Latin definitions, prepared, of course, by Catholic scholars.
By the time the first Greek-English, Greek-German, or Latin-English, Latin-German dictionaries were prepared, many translations of the Bible in English or German had already been made, as well as of other classical writings. In fact, after the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, many non-Biblical Greek and Latin texts were translated into English for public consumption, and nearly all of these documents were being translated either by Roman Catholic priests or Catholic trained scholars or by Jews who controlled many of the printing houses. The effect of this was that the translations were heavily influenced on the one hand by Roman Catholics, who would not dare to contradict any of the then current Roman Catholic teachings in any of their translations, such as universal salvation, and on the other hand, by Zionistic Jews who had their own agenda and motivations to hide truth.
By the time the first Greek-English and Latin-English lexicons were made, the English definitions given were simply whatever English words were being used by translators in the current translations, especially wherein the Bible was concerned. This is much like the Greek Dictionary found in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which gives as definitions either the same word used in the King James Version or a definition of the English word used in the King James Version. Thus, the first Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries contained in them all of the theological prejudices of the Catholic Church and the calculated corruption of antichrist Jewish printers, in the same way that Strong's Concordance contains the calculated prejudices of the Protestant English churches. Subsequent Greek-English and Latin-English dictionaries were often mere revisions and expansions of previous dictionaries, with maybe a few more textual references and a slight rewording of the same definition.
An example of this may be found in the current reference standard for the Greek language: Liddell-Scott Jones Greek-English Lexicon. This edition, finished in 1940 (with a subsequent emendations volume being published) was a revision of the eighth edition of the original A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, edited by Henry Jones and Roderick McKenzie. The original Liddell and Scott lexicon, published in 1843, was itself based upon the Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache by Franz Passow, printed in 1828, which was a revision of the Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache by Johann Gottlob Schneider. Schneider himself based his lexicon on previous works in one fashion or another, making great use of the Thesaurus graecae linguae first printed by Henri Estienne II in 1572 and subsequently updated.
Thus, it is rare, if ever, that a Greek or Latin word has been given fresh consideration, and even then it is often that errors still remain. To demonstrate this, we will examine such an error regarding the Greek word akeraios, which I have already dealt with in my previous book The Truth Unveiled. This word has been translated pure-blooded and nonmongrelized in the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament where it occurs in Philippians 2:14-15, which reads:
"Do all things separate from murmurers and disputers, in order that you may be perfect in our kind: pure blooded and nonmongrelized, faultless children of God, amidst a race perverse and having been corrupted, among whom we appear like luminaries in the orderly arrangement."
This Greek word is translated harmless in the King James Version, which is a far-cry from pure-blooded and nonmongrelized. But reconciling this difference is a perfect application of what we have learned about the history of lexicons. Let us first look akeraios up in a pre-1830's Greek Lexicon, the Novus Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus by John Schleusner, published in 1829. This was a Greek-Latin lexicon printed in London. The first part of the definition of akeraios reads: " [A keraizen], ... innocentem..." The first thing that we are told in this definition is that akeraios is the opposite of keraizen, then it is defined (in Latin) as harmless. Now it should be understood that when an alpha was placed at the beginning of a Greek word, it often served to negate the word. So what Schleusner and most lexicographers before him assumed was that akeraios was the opposite of keraizen.
When we look keraizen up in Liddell-Scott Jones, we find that it means: "to ravage, plunder." Or in other words to harm, so the opposite must be harmless or inviolate, unravaged, untouched, etc. This was what was assumed at the time of the translating of the King James Version and other early translations, in the 16th-17th centuries, and this explains why the term harmless was incorrectly used in the KJV. Now, however, let us take careful note of the definition of akeraios in A New Greek and English Lexicon by James Donnegan, published in 1839 (first printed in 1832). He gives the following definition: "unmixed, pure ... unharmed, uninjured ... Some derive from [keraizo], but it seems merely another form of [akeratos] and of [akerasios]. Th. a priv., [keranummi], [kerao]."
We notice three important things here. First, that Donnegan gives the definition of unmixed and pure as the primary definition. Secondly, we notice that Donnegan corrects the false origin of the word akeraios assumed by Schleusner and others. The word is, in fact, the opposite of keranummi and kerao, which are the same Greek word, and this word is defined by LSJ as: "to mix, mingle ... mixed half and half ... mix, blend ... compound." Thus, the opposite of that word would mean unmixed, unmingled, etc
The third important thing we notice about Donnegan's definition is that although he had the courage and intelligence to realize that his predecessors were wrong about the origin of this Greek word, still he failed to omit their definitions. He still defines akeraios as unharmed and uninjured even though there is absolutely no basis whatsoever etymologically for these definitions. This is an example of how each lexicon is built upon previous lexicons and that even when a mistake is found, it is not deleted but rather added to. So now Donnegan has left the user of his lexicon with a choice of definitions to use, even though he himself admits that one of the definitions is wrong.
Let us now look up akeraios in the LSJ: "pure, unmixed ... unalloyed ... of persons, pure in blood ... II. unharmed, unravaged." Once again, although Liddell and Scott were honest enough to admit that when the word is being used of persons it means pure in blood, still they have preserved the erroneous definition. In non-Biblical works, translators have no problem translating akeraios correctly. For example, let us read Edward P. Coleridge's translation of Euripides' Phoenician Women, 942-943:
"Now thou are our only survivor of the seed of that sown race, whose lineage is pure alike on mother's and on father's side, thou and these thy sons."
Here Coleridge translates akeraios as lineage is pure. But translators and lexicographers cease to be honest when it comes to the Bible and other early Christian literature. For example, let us look at an accurate translation of Barnabas 3:6:
"So then, brothers, the long-suffering One foresaw that the people whom He prepared in His Beloved should be persuaded in racial purity..."
According to LSJ and Coleridge, this is an accurate translation, rendering akeraiosune as racial purity. However, other translators, such as Kirsopp Lake, use the word guilelessness, a totally absurd translation unsupported by any true scholarship, but used only because the translators capitulate to political and religious correctness. If these translators throw away their integrity on the subject of race-mixing, then it is no large step for them also to endorse homosexuality or other things at the expense of God's Word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 This of course excludes the Wyclif Bible, which was made in 1384, being totally complete in 1397, thus missing the designation "15th century" by three years. But, its scope and importance certainly lies in the 15th century and it was the beginning of many of the problems that would come to be associated with all subsequent English translations, since most were, in some way or another, based upon those translations which came before. I highly recommend that the reader consult my book The History of the Bible for more information.
Adultery and the Lexicons
Any Greek word which contains the prefix moich- belongs to the family of words usually translated adultery. When we look these words up in most any Greek lexicon, all we usually find are definitions which contain the English word adultery. What follows are a few important exceptions with comments.
LSJ (1940), for the verb moichao: "falsify." This definition is supplied by LSJ to help ease the translation of the innumerable Greek passages which cannot in any way be talking about marital infidelity, some of which we will look at later. To falsify something carries the connotation of adulteration or debasement or change.
A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the verb moichaomai: "adulterate." Here Lampe, whose lexicon is entirely concerned with early Christian literature written in Greek, also has to admit that this Greek family of words carried the connotation of adulteration and debasement. When we look up moichao in Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, a Greek-German Lexicon by Hjalmar Frisk (1973), he defines the word with the German "verfälschen," which means to adulterate. Adulteration is the process of adding something to something else and debasing it or mingling things together. When we are talking about people being adulterated in the physical sense, we can only be talking about race-mixing or at the very least mingling family lines together and causing confusion in the family regarding issues of paternity. In fact, in my book The Truth Unveiled, the overall definition which is assigned this family of words is, first, to mongrelize or to mix or mingle races, and secondly, to mix or mingle and therefore corrupt seedlines. As we shall see later, however, the idea of mixing or mingling is paramount to truly understanding the definitions and etymology of this moich- family of words. In this definition by Lampe, we see very clearly that early patristic writers understood that this family of words was used for adulteration or mingling.
A Patristic Greek Lexicon by G.W. H. Lampe (1961), for the adjective moichozeuktikos: "of or relating to an adulterous marriage." Again, we see that some of the early Patristic writers spoke of adulterous marriages. The obvious question is, If adultery involves extra-marital sex, then how can a marriage itself be adulterous? Obviously, the emphasis is upon seedline corruption and mingling, and all throughout Greek literature, we find that very often being married is not an issue when the moich- family of words is used.
A Comprehensive Lexicon by John Pickering (1847), for the noun moichidios: "bastard, spurious." This Greek word should correctly be translated as mongrel, and a true understanding of the English language reveals that when Pickering, in 1847, used the word bastard, he too meant a mongrel. This was a common understanding of the word in the mid-19th century and before, as we shall prove later. Pickering was not the only one, however, to understand that the word moichidios meant mongrel. In Lexicon Manuale by
Cornelius Schrevel (1796), the word moichidios is defined with the Latin word "adulterinus." According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, or OLD, adulterinus means: "adulterated, impure." Lewis and Short add: "not full-blooded." Leverett's Lexicon of the Latin Language: "begotten basely, not thorough-bred, not full-blooded, adulterated." Most importantly, however, A Large Dictionary by Thomas Holyoke (1672) states that adulterinus is equivalent (in the ancient translations and commentaries) to the Hebrew mamzir, which according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary means "a mongrel." This dictionary also states in the same definition that the Greek moichikos is equivalent to mamzir and also is equivalent to the Greek kibdelos which is defined by LSJ as: "adulterated, base." We will discuss Holyoke's definitions and the word kibdelos in more detail later, but what is important to notice here is that all of these lexical authorities agree that the Latin word adulterinus means "mongrel," and therefore the Greek word moichidios, universally defined by this Latin word, also means mongrel. Pickering's definition of bastard must be understood to have its mid-19th century meaning of mongrel.
In Lexicon: Anglo-Græco-Latinum Novi Testamenti by Andrew Symson (1658), under the entry "adulterer" for the Greek word moichos: "it maketh a confusion in families, through an illegitimate brood." This is very similar to the definition expressed in Latin in Critica Sacra by Edward Leigh (1662), who said of the Greek word moichos: "nam familias confundit illegitima sobole," which translated says, "for it mingles families with an illegal race." Both of these men understood that the Latin words with the root adulter-, which were used to define the moich- family of words in Greek-Latin lexicons meant to mix, mingle, etc. They are therefore here trying to explain how the idea of mixing or mingling relates to the idea of marital infidelity, and they have both defined the word very closely to the true concept behind this family of words - that of seedline corruption, both interracial and intraracial, and as we have said before, the idea of marriage is very often not an issue in ancient Greek literature where these words are used.
In A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament by John Parkhurst (1769), under the definition for moichalis, we find this comment regarding Matthew 16:4: "Dr. Doddridge interprets [genea moichalis] 'a spurious race degenerated...'" In the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament, these two Greek words are translated "mongrel race," which is equivalent to Dr. Doddridge's translation, again understanding the archaic language of over 300 years ago. One reason that only a few lexicons actually use the English word mongrel for defining any Greek or Latin word is that the word mongrel was not commonly used 300-400 years ago. Since the lexicons are based upon one another, they preserve many of the archaic terms used in previous lexicons. So instead of saying mongrel, many lexicons use terms like bastard or spurious. The definitions of both of these words have subsequently changed, but that does not erase what men meant by these words when they were originally used several hundred years ago.
In any event, there is no doubt as to what Dr. Doddridge meant by the words a spurious race degenerated, and it is also clear that Dr. Doddridge, an honest scholar, understood the true definition of the moich- family of words.
Finally, we have the definition of Kittel already given for moicheuo: "of the intermingling of animals and men or of different races."
So does this pastor believe that infidelity is not a problem/sin?
ReplyDeleteDoes he have any children?
I'm sure he does, Lormarie. That sin would be covered under the 10th commandment. I'm sure he has children but I don't know for sure.
ReplyDeleteThe reason I asked about his children is because of the comment below:
ReplyDeleteSo we immediately notice that this commandment is explicitly stated in both the Old and New Testaments. The reason is that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). With God, there is no variance or shadow of turning (Jacob 1:17).
He appears to be saying that God's laws in the OT are laws period...not null in void according to various passages in the NT (according to Christians that is). If God's laws are the same yesterday, today, and forever, does the pastor also apply that principle to other OT laws:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
That's only one of many...
I don't know about that one Lormarie but I remember this one:
ReplyDeleteIII Corinthians 14:31-32
31 Women are to be seen and not heard.
32 Especially gynocentric feminists.
:)
Seriously, I'm not clear on the laws and if they still apply. I think they do (even food laws) but I'm only a layman and would have to defer to someone like Jeff VA Preacher Man.
I'm pretty sure the commandments still apply though.
Lormae, of course I was just funning ya. Come on back and axe some more questions!
ReplyDeleteI'm not directing this against LorMarie in particular, for I've (we've) run across this argument many times from our own folk. And yes, that scripture quoted by Orion in Corinthians (or wherever it's found), does have a time of application.
ReplyDeleteShe says she has more even - I've run across whole web sites that do nothing but pick and choose every seemingly little thing at variance with our conditioned mindsets of what we consider to be righteous and just.
This desire to try and discredit the Bible can never be countered with the truth that is easily provable .. they are not interested in learning to make sense of the whole anyhow, but to demonize.
Like Pastor Pete once said - it's like trying to stab a marble with an ice pick ... virtually impossible and a waste of time.
My initial outburst would probably be - if God said we had to shave our heads and walk around with a feather stuck up our ass, well I reckon we'd either comply or not. Let's not forget who is God ... and who aint. Let each run their chosen course and see how ya fare at the end thereof.
The further we have strayed away from a true Godly society, the more abhorrent it has been made to appear to our humanistic, propagandized minds - and we're probably farther from Him than any time in our history. We have been thoroughly indoctrinated to suppose that indeed we know better and have a better grasp on the definition of justice.
In the case of the family depicted in the Deuteronomy example, do you not think they loved their child ? Do you not think they suffered long and tried everything they could to right his behaviour ? I think stubborness, gluttony,
drunkeness and rebellion entailed a whole lot more than we readily envision.
Perhaps he was a 35 y/o slob who beat on his parents, raised hell with them all the time, terrorized the neighbors - who knows.
There will always be law in a civilized society (or the law of survival of the fittest without), no vacuum will exist - it's just a matter of whose law will be enforced as supreme. If mans law doesn't line up with Gods, then you have another god being served.
These "Christians" who give lip service to Christ as their King are the same ones who say His law has been done away with ... contrary to the plain words of Jesus Himself. Dialectics at work and they're rendered totally useless - stumbling blocks actually.
Most who hold this view usually quote Paul (out of context), even though Peter told us to be careful interpreting his words for he was indeed a deep fella to comprehend.
It's a big beef in CI but I maintain the food laws are still in effect .. this is my studied opinion, each to their own. The only laws done away with were the sacrificial and ritual cleansings .. Christ's Blood was the only perfect way for the atonement of His people.
I don't follow any of the feast days and such but I could be wrong on that.
The Word says that execution of the sentence would cause the people to see, hear and fear .. and they'd never no more do such an evil thing (whatever the capital crime might of been). Do we think the out of control masses would have progressed as they have over the years if this had been applied ?
Look at our present conditions world wide and the fruit of mans sense of justice for vindication of where God said our disobedience would lead - exactly as He warned us.
And yes, that scripture quoted by Orion in Corinthians (or wherever it's found), does have a time of application.--Rev. Jeff
ReplyDeleteHe was joking. He made up that passage.
This desire to try and discredit the Bible can never be countered with the truth that is easily provable .. they are not interested in learning to make sense of the whole anyhow, but to demonize.--Rev. Jeff
That's definitely true for many, especially atheists. But some people have arrived at those conclusions out of sincerity. It can be quite traumatic for some to find out that the scriptures we have today are imperfect and certainly not divinely inspired. There are way too many holes, mistakes, and contradictions to claim otherwise. Even if we allow the mistakes, many people are troubled by what's clearly written.
Exodus 31:14
14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every
one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth
any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
I agree that the OT consequences were used to bring fear. The problem is, a passage in the NT rejects the concept of fear:
21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
Perhaps he was a 35 y/o slob who beat on his parents, raised hell with them all the time, terrorized the neighbors - who knows.--Jeff
Sounds plausible. On the other hand, if I'm not mistaken, the same Hebrew/Chaldee word used to describe the infant Moses in Exodus (Yelad) was used to describe the children who were torn by shebears after they insulted a Prophet. Even the rebellious son could have been underage.
Hehe, Lormarie caught that one. The actual passage is I Corinthians 14:33-35:
ReplyDelete33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Pastor Jeff was up too late and skimmed over my post!
I think Jeff makes a good point. In order to stay the plague, sometimes we must be harsh. Look at what we do with adults that have sex with little children. Instead of putting them to the rope, we jail them and then set them out into society. Murderers the same thing. Think of how many people would be alive today if we had followed God's law concerning these crimes.
ReplyDeleteIn a Godly society there would be no need for prisons or jails, and we'd be a lot more free than we are today.
LorMarie - I'm gonna point out first off in case it was missed by any others that you side stepped what the posting was all about.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I'm acting in a civil manner with you for Orion's sake (it is his blog) and that others of our people may be induced to think and study. I don't purport to have any great revelations on my own.
Third, you are not one of us. Simple fact and end of story. Unlike many of my folk I do believe there can be other races blessed by adherance and obedience to Christ and His Word, but this does not bring them into the covenant established long ago.
This does not imply supremacy as so many are wont to sling about - it is Biblically proven fact. Call it what you will but your outbursts are against God. But any accrued blessings by others will require obedience (which includes segregation) and reverance (of which you haven't a clue) - neither of which you are willing to submit to.
I don't try to persuade you and will expend no more energy countering your pokes. Whether YOU believe or not is really unimportant to me. You seem young enough that you will probably live to see the new day that is dawning ... provided one of your own doesn't snuff you first. We'll let coming events convince you.
1 Corinthians 14: 34 - 35
Women are to obey and learn from their husbands / to keep quiet in church
1 Timothy 2: 9 - 15
they are to dress modestly, be sober, to learn in silence and not to teach or exert authority over man.
There are many others and exceptions / qualifications could be made, but not by me and not now.
---
"There are way too many holes, mistakes, and contradictions to claim otherwise. Even if we allow the mistakes, many people are troubled by what's clearly written."
----
Tell you what - you concentrate on the "holes" and I'll stick with what makes perfect sense and I'll keep steadily chipping away at these "holes" for all is explainable and will tie together. We've been at this much longer than you and comprehension does come to those for whom it was intended.
Troubled by what's written ? Is it an assault upon your feminine emotions and intellect (see aforementioned scripture)or is it a genetic thing you can't overcome (My sheep hear My voice)? Perhaps there is good reason God put man over the woman - 1 Corinthians 11:3
( #1)
God is not the author of confusion - 1 Corinthians 14:33. When we pick and choose what we desire to believe, using scripture to negate scripture .. we are in error. Continuity can be found, but who said it would be easy.
ReplyDeleteIt's never ceased to amaze me the time, effort, blood/sweat 'n tears folks will put into pursuing a career or in "schools of higher education" ... coming out 10 times more inept and stupid than when they went in. What in comparision have they invested in understanding and seeking God ? Very minimal. Highly educated idiots who think they grasp all cosmic secrets of the universes.
OK .. capital punishment seems a lil mundane and overdoing it at this point for sabaath violations. What say we start where the bigger violations are most pronounced - faggots, race mixers, THOSE WHO WOULD DEFAME OUR GOD. Care for chapter and verse ? I think visual proof that folks were serious about instituting Gods law would spread real quick and we'd see some fast, overnight changes in society.
Your efforts to disannul His law are feeble and futile, and once again you've missed what has already been said.
1 John 3:4 - sin is violation of His law
Matthew 5:17-20 (Christ) -
think NOT that I am come to destroy the law OR the prophets, I came not to destroy but to fulfil (Luke 24:44).
Most take the latter part to destroy the former in that verse - a double minded people unstable in all their ways.
What is plainly stated in simplified fashion in the Lords prayer so many quote from heart -
Matthew 6:7-15, 33
... thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth.
seek you first the kingdom of God and His rieousness.
Will ? Righteousness ?
Defined by what ? Our perceptions of right and wrong ? Some king they expouse - no law and no particular guidelines.
Romans 2:11-13
Revelation 14:12/20:12-14
22:14
Works/deeds are deemed just or not by someones standard .. but "every man did what was just in his own eyes". The song remains the same as will the punishment.
I have a child .. I call him my "boy" (english - a male child, fledgling, off spring). I also use the same term "boy" when addressing snot nosed punks who need putting in their place. My child .. my boy is 32 y/o and flys jet engined aircraft .. but to me he's still my boy. Your hebrew word search has no bearing here.
" the children who were torn by shebears after they insulted a Prophet."
Lesson to be learned ? Don't insult the prophets and don't underestimate Gods wrath.
(#2)
Naw, I caught the gist of what you meant, man and vs. 31 captured it. Of course vs. 32 is in the St. Louis revised version.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I'm acting in a civil manner with you for Orion's sake (it is his blog) and that others of our people may be induced to think and study. I don't purport to have any great revelations on my own.
ReplyDeleteThird, you are not one of us. Simple fact and end of story.--Jeff
I needed to respond to this first. There's no need to be civil with me for Orion's sake. If it's that difficult for you to be civil with a black person, I'd rather you didn't bother responding to my posts. To be very honest, sir, I'd rather not be bothered. And you are right, your people aren't mine which is why I don't push my agenda here.
LorMarie - I'm gonna point out first off in case it was missed by any others that you side stepped what the posting was all about.--Jeff
Sidestepped? Let's see:
When speaking of Matt. 5:27 (among others), the pastor claims:
In the literal translation of the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament and in the true translation of the Ten Commandments in The Truth Unveiled, these passages are translated as: "You will not mongrelize."
Matthew 5:27-28 (King James Version)
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
The subject of this passage cannot possibly be about mongrelization as this pastor claims. If so, the passage would not make sense and would have to be revised or changed completely. The other passages simply mention adultery. I question the validity of the Anointed Standard version he speaks of or question the pastor himself. I didn't want to get into it, not out of intimidation but because it's not important (and I have no desire to change anyone's mind on the subject)...especially when I compare it with the link "How to become a Christian" on your blog. I'm an exChristian but I know many a born-again Christian who would cringe at that link. Getting that straight is more important, ya know. Christian Identity folk seem to be different from those in the born-again camp.
OK .. capital punishment seems a lil mundane and overdoing it at this point for sabaath violations.--Jeff
But God is the same yesterday, today, and forever is He not? You accuse me of defaming God but you refer to his directive to execute as mundane and overdoing it.
What say we start where the bigger violations are most pronounced - faggots, race mixers, THOSE WHO WOULD DEFAME OUR GOD. Care for chapter and verse ?--
Are you saying I deserve to be put to death? And you call blacks uncivilized? Yes, I care for the chapters and verses. Do share.
Troubled by what's written ? Is it an assault upon your feminine emotions and intellect (see aforementioned scripture)or is it a genetic thing you can't overcome (My sheep hear My voice)? Perhaps there is good reason God put man over the woman - 1 Corinthians 11:3
When we have societies where all women receive protection, respect, and freedom from dehumanization, I'll consider allowing men to be heads. But keep in mind, even in that case women will be the necks. The head can do nothing without the neck.
You are wrong about me and my motives...
The subject of this passage cannot possibly be about mongrelization as this pastor claims. If so, the passage would not make sense and would have to be revised or changed completely.
ReplyDeleteGood point, but is the word 'Adultery' in the passage you cited the same as the one as used in the Septuagint? I'll have to pull out my Strongs Concordance and check it out. I don't have a lexicon at this time.
This is the issue with translations, as Pastor Herrell points out in his History of the Bible. You go from paleo-hebrew, to greek, to latin to english.
Naw, I caught the gist of what you meant, man and vs. 31 captured it. Of course vs. 32 is in the St. Louis revised version.
ReplyDeleteYes, St. Louis revised version, Mississippi Edition :)
As far as my statement concerning conveying my sentiments in a civil manner for Orion's sake, the rest of it said it was to help keep any of my own people from being deluded by your pokes at Gods Word. Something that might of been hampered if I had of simply stated harsher facts point blank. We have to pussy foot around our own at times for many cannot handle even the milk.
ReplyDeleteI'm certain you were on this blog a while back when I expended much effort in talking to a black man, trying to reason with him from scripture. It is yall's job to figure it out, to find your rightful place in His plan of things and take it to your people. My efforts are not to be largely expended in your direction, for in doing so I neglect my own.
I have little patience with a stranger (one not of our race), and a woman at that, who would have the gall to attempt to explain the correct meaning of the Bible to whites. Telling us what is applicable and what's not. Yes I have held back but this does not mean I'll remain silent and let your words stand.
You have not pursued your agenda ?
Who are you to question whether Gods laws are still in effect or to attempt to emasculate and redefine Christ ? Like I said, others may benefit in a residual manner but the fact you'd never submit to His Word/ law is clearly evident by your tone and direction.
What NT precepts do you find being taught in the words of Christ in Matthew 15:21-28 ? It's not real hard to understand, although resistance against it is expected.
The gist of the post concerned mongrelization - the mixing of the races. Your comments chose to deal with adultery from the infidelity aspect, and that you found capital judgment upon offspring wrong. You made no mention of interracial relations, but from past posts I already know where you stand regarding this (and other scriptural violations you support).
In Exodus 20, are vss. 14 and 17 just repeating themselves ?
Genesis 6:9-13 / 26:34-35 / 28:8-9
Leviticus 20:22-26
Deuteronomy 7:1-6
1 Kings 8:51-53
2 Kings 17:13-15
Ezra 9/10
Nehemiah 9:2 / 13:1-3,23-31 / 10:28
Matthew 24:36-39
Hebrews 12:15-17
1 Peter 2:9 (Deut. 14:2)
I never said that verse in Matthew 5 had anything to do with mongrelization - but the post topic implies this is the subject. I didn't choose that text.
Concerning questioning the validity of a particular translation, I would question the validity of your stance (per evidence thus given) using any translation.
"How to become a Christian" on my blog was not directed to you. It's a covenant thing for our/His people - I don't expect you to understand. And these "born again Christians" you know are just the self assured type I have long battled with. I have to keep reminding them that Matthew 7:21-23 applies to someone, but it's always simpler to just label it as being me, as opposed to explaining the scriptures I quote. In their minds - problem solved ! It's like dealing with semi retarded children.
I'd say the vast majority of those calling themselves Christian haven't a hint of a clue of what really is what regards the Bible. Call it arrogance, call it what you want if it makes it easier for ya. I know the countless hours upon hours I've tried reasoning together with them from scripture to just have them say as a final trump - well, we don't believe like that. ????!!!!
Well ... don't then. I'm quoting scripture, do what ya wanna with it.
Judeo Christianity (which is the majority rule in these churches) is largely nothing but emotionalism .. going with the flow and what seems right. The easy, popular wide path. Biblical fact has little sway there. Thanks for noting Christian Identity is quite different from their version, although admittedly we have our few problem children.
(#1)
My mundane reference was in regards to your obvious pokes at having such a harsh penalty for seemingly small offenses - to this I sarcastically countered with a recommendation to put into play the requirement for the violations where the penalty was obvious to any and undeniable (knowing your not really pro enforcement on anything no how, i.e., being a hypocrite).
ReplyDeleteI would say that you are treading on very dangerous ground and playing with fire by the direction you're taken and what you have chosen to debate. You imagine yourself being the intellectual by questioning our God, His Word and thinking to put us in our rightful place. You're in over your head.
------
"When we have societies where all women receive protection, respect, and freedom from dehumanization, I'll consider allowing men to be heads. But keep in mind, even in that case women will be the necks. The head can do nothing without the neck.
You are wrong about me and my motives..."
----------
I did not write the Bible. And it doesn't matter what you will "allow". You have no say in the matter in the long run. None of us prosper from disobedience.
Like I've stated many times and many places, if my studies led me to find that the Martians were the people of God, I would have to accept it ... and my position wherever it might be. HE lays the ground rules, not me.
Once again, this is not a supremacist thing. With position (knowing ones identity) comes responsibility and knowing you'll probably be rejected by most of your own folk. It is what it is. His ways and thoughts are not ours.
You want your society free from dehumanization, with respect and protection for your women ... we are no different. But it will never be accomplished outside of obeying Gods will. The jew profits from all the unrest in an integrated society (for this he was created), but he is not alone in accomplishing this evil. We all have racial sell out's.
Contrary to the media propaganda, black society fared much better in a segregated world and a majority followed Christianity after their fashion. If you're not among us, you cannot be "exploited" - nor guilt trip us for all eternity.
You will note that when I spoke of the man being head over the woman, I also stated - there are many others and exceptions / qualifications could be made, but not by me and not now.
There were more important matters to be addressed, not whether some would consider it advantageous or not to serve God .. depending upon what He required. If He wants to explain Himself to us He will, but there is by no means any requirement He do so. Where do we get off questioning Him ?
One qualification for that order is - the man must be in subjection to God. You can't expect one without the other.
Women are held in very high regards in a Christian society. There's no - honey, get me a beer while you sit on your fat ass. There is common courtesy, respect and they are indeed held aloft as our cherished companions. They do not serve in the military nor do they change their own flat tires. This judaized world has turned us against each other.
In conclusion, yall work towards your own Godly society if you want to survive - we intend on doing the same according to His commands. And regardless of what others think.
YOU are wrong about me and my motives. You might not like them and I'm not gonna change my beliefs nor methods .. but I've really gone above and beyond knowing most will never understand nor believe.
Folks better get to know THIS side of our God also, 'cause He aint all fluffy lovey dovey as commonly portrayed.
ReplyDeleteYes, He's coming back and it wont be for any communal love fests either.
Deuteronomy 32:36-43
Hebrews 10:30-31
Revelation 18:20-21
The gist of the post concerned mongrelization - the mixing of the races. Your comments chose to deal with adultery from the infidelity aspect, and that you found capital judgment upon offspring wrong. You made no mention of interracial relations, but from past posts I already know where you stand regarding this (and other scriptural violations you support).--Jeff
ReplyDeleteJeff, I made no mention of IR because I wasn't interested in talking about it with you or others here. That would be similar to me going to a board full of lesbians telling them why they should prefer men. My whole point was connecting the stance of this pastor with all the laws of the OT.
Regarding the passages I asked you to bring in, I'm familiar with how some connect them with IR. However, the OT prohibitions against intermarriage was clearly about religion rather than race. If they were about race, then we'd have proof that God is inconsistant wrt His commands. There is no other way around that. Jesus was not racially pure, period.
I would say that you are treading on very dangerous ground and playing with fire by the direction you're taken and what you have chosen to debate.--Jeff
I believe you would say that. However, it may surprise you that I don't have a huge issue with the OT. I'm simply arguing to prove a point. Even you admitted that a directive from the law was too much. I've already been through all of this with various atheists. I personally believe that the dispensational explanation is better then stating that the law still applies. You may think that I'm on dangerous ground but others would say that you are (How to become a Christian).
You want your society free from dehumanization, with respect and protection for your women ... we are no different. But it will never be accomplished outside of obeying Gods will.--Jeff
I want ALL women to be and/remain treated with dignity. I'm all for traditional roles (husband/wife) in marriage. Other than that, no.
I never said that verse in Matthew 5 had anything to do with mongrelization - but the post topic implies this is the subject. I didn't choose that text.--Jeff
I was talking about the pastor who wrote the article.
It is yall's job to figure it out, to find your rightful place in His plan of things and take it to your people. My efforts are not to be largely expended in your direction, for in doing so I neglect my own.--Jeff
Not asking you to do any of the above...nor am I interested in taking anything to any people or in a god who would require me to do that.
YOU are wrong about me and my motives. You might not like them and I'm not gonna change my beliefs nor methods ..--Jeff
Jeff, I don't care about your beliefs about the bible, race mixing, or women. You stay the way you are and you have made it clear that you will not change. Fine. You must do what makes you happy. But understand that I to have no intention of being anything other than what I am (gender assertive, agree with "race-mixing", not afraid to ask questions, etc.)
Boy I hope so, Jeff. I ain't in no mood for a love fest.
ReplyDeleteLormarie, how can you say Jesus was a mongrel?
Revelation 22:16 (New American Standard Bible)
16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."
What did David look like?
1 Samuel 16:12 New American Standard Bible)
12 So he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and a handsome appearance And the LORD said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is he."
Am I missing something when I assume "ruddy" means white?
Orion - let's see what all can be found in one segment of scripture -
ReplyDeleteThe day of the Lord shall invoke great fear, trembling and astonishment / embarrassment
upon the deceived / denying
portion of our people ..
(note the flaming faces - adamic man only)
The arrogant and the proud will finally receive their come uppance ...
There will be widespread racial violence as each will be forced to take to their own kind and return to their own lands, or to suffer total annihilation ..
(this includes the beast of the field)
Isaiah 13:6-18
Amos 5:18-20
" .. even so, hurry Lord Jesus. Revelation 22:20
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteI see no point in continuing this discussion. You resent what you perceive as me telling your people what they should believe since I am a stranger (black) and a woman (which appears to upset you even more). However, you have no problem telling me, a strange woman, what my place is in the world according to your view of scripture. That just proves that you are the type of person who wants to dominate discussions (and probably everything else) and will dismiss those who don't see things the way you do. If I were white and male you still would not engage me since you feel that it is your way or no way. Just as you can decide that a biblical directive is outdated, I can decide that Paul's words concerning women were good for his time and not ours.
Just remember that the whole world doesn't revolve around you.
Proverbs 1:7,20-33
ReplyDeleteThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge:but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets;
She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates:in the city she uttereth her words,saying,
How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity ? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge ?
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord:
They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
Therefore they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
But whomever hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.