The cover art by the book was supplied by the publisher. The publisher is a self publisher because I knew the book would be too controversial for a traditional Christian publisher. Surprisingly, many online Christian bookstores picked it up, too, and I found that an occasional Christian or secular bookstore in the U.S. and Britain picked it up, too. No chains picked it up yet. Just independent stores I see on the net from time to time. Barnes & Noble picked up Patrick Heron's book and it sold so well that Patrick's book, which was self-published (one of the few to be picked up by a chain), was bought by a regular secular publisher.
I am in the middle of writing my second book which has nothing to do with TWI.
Concerning the publishing of your book, get it copyrighted and then put it on CD and seek out a traditional publisher, whether Christian or secular. If it fails there, you can self-publish then. Don't let major publishers make you believe your book isn't worth it when you know for a fact people would not only want to read it, but buy it for others to read.
I'd be fascinated in seeing what you wrote and buying a copy myself. I kind of like to collect books by ex-TWI members if I can find them. There are so many ideas I never saw myself.
Thanks for responding. Well, I have to assume neither of you care if you're called a "heretic" or not.
Not particularly. I once came within the skin of my teeth of being excommunicated and probably still have been consigned to hellfire and damnation by one so-called Christian group. I'll look up your book on Amazon. It sounds like an interesting read whether I agree with it or not.
"This chapter discusses the topic of the "Unforgivable Sin" and why Christians have not, nor ever could, commit this sin. Again, the Way believed this sin was to be "born again of the devil."
NO WHERE did Dr. Wierwille or any other believer say that a Christian could be born of the devil's seed? We already know that a believer with incorruptible seed cannot commit this sin. Not sure what he is getting at but if this is a prelude to the book, he's misquoting VPW.
Again in the book, he quotes "This chapter raises the question of God's mercy and why the Lake of Fire is so misunderstood in the western mind. Do evil people who die really go to a literal Hell and burn for eternity? It is answered in this chapter."
No where did Dr. Wierwille EVER say that an evil person who dies goes to a literal Hell and burn for eternity. The Word says that devil spirts will be in Hell and tormented. When the Word talks about seperation from the Lord, it gives those that could have believed a glimpse at what they could have had then they are cast into the Lake of Fire for the 2nd death. Not torment.........
I still think it takes a small soul to sit back, cry their little eyes out, and then huff, "well. You oughtn't have donit, letting DEVILS influence you to cause divisions, not adhering to the letter of the almighty words of HIS HOLINESS which HE committed to us, by, our VERY OWN WICTOR PAUL WIENERWILLE.."
"no new research, period".
Sounds like a Geerite, if not he himself.
Does anybody else detect just a LITTLE BIT of spiritual immaturity here?
Doesn't want to grow up.. wants to be a vics r us kid..
I read POP and the considerations letter.. this accusation of heresy really smells the same to me.
Where have these guys BEEN for twenty years?
Maybe right before his demise, the vicster sent them off to hide in a missle silo or something, with instructions to emerge twenty years later and resurrect his plan for the world..
<<< If his eyes start following you around the room, you know you're in trouble..
I must be in trouble then...
Eagle- Thanks for the advice and info. I may have to go the self publish route anyway as my topic...well lets just say "contraversy" is puting it lightly. Got myself a friend that is a professional artist that is doing the cover art for me. As soon as it comes back I will begin the publishing process. I will look into some publishing companies first. I have to wait anyway, might as well learn something.
Just for the record for any VP enthusiasts out there that may be reading this, my book will absolutely contradict everything and I do mean everything ole Vic and good ole boy Loy had to say on the subject. I didn't plan it that way but I would rather contradict man than God so I'm sticking by my research. But that's all I'm gonna say for now.
I have not read the book so my response is based only on your post.
I do not see in this section that you quoted, where Eagle implies that Dr. Wierwille ever SAID(or wrote) that a christian could be born of the seed of the devil. I also do not see where he claimed Dr. Wierwille SAID( or wrote) people could be cast into the lake of fire.
Concerning VP saying that people can be born again of the Devil's seed: See pages 319-320, Power For Abundant Living, by Victor Paul Wierwille, in the chapter of the Unforgivable Sin. He is quoted exactly as saying that. That is what he believed.
Concerning the Lake of Fire, I do not quote Wierwille as doing anything on that but did a further research into the work of Ernest Martin Ph.D.
God Bless you, Lorna. Hope this helps...
EyesOpen:
I just HAVE to get your book now. It intrigues me you research independently. PLEASE let me know when it is published.
Steve, just reading the short blurbs was fascinating. Congrats on your book. Just ordered it from my local B&N bookstore here in Hickory and Eyesopen, let me know when you get your book published.
I am wondering, from those who read the book, if they believe it was "heresy" and if I am "causing division", or is this a possible attempt to stop me from promoting the book.
Not for nothing, but we're all heretics to someone. If you're going to make doctrinal statements and claim the bible tells you so, well, there are just too many other people out there making the same claim but with different doctrine. And they usually aren't shy in telling you about how short-sighted and stupid you are.
As for the book, I certainly didn't find it heretical. In fact, I found it rather Wayish. You argue from the same rhetorical positions, just come to different conclusions. If I still believed in an inerrant bible, I probably would have liked it more.
Steve, just reading the short blurbs was fascinating. Congrats on your book. Just ordered it from my local B&N bookstore here in Hickory and Eyesopen, let me know when you get your book published.
Jumpin Jive, I can't see how you found that "Wayish". I even used more exhaustive research methods than TWI taught. My issues with TWI doctrine have to be concluded as "non-Wayish" or "anti-Wayish." My conclusions are the opposite of "Wayish."
I think you get the idea it was Wayish from reading the issues I had with the Way on doctrine. The issues I had in the book were deliberately directed at the Way's doctrine, therefore could be said it "looked Wayish."
Larry, I could post a few excepts here. I'll have that done tomorrow. I think you can google it and I am working with Amazon so people can "read inside."
Larry, I could post a few excepts here. I'll have that done tomorrow. I think you can google it and I am working with Amazon so people can "read inside."
I would appreciate that Eagle. I'm very interested in reading your take on "The Seed of The Serpent - A Problem With Scripture and Common Sense".
I budget myself to spend no more than $30 a month on books. This month I purchased a book on the Constitution. So next month I'll keep your book in mind when I make a decision.
I think you get the idea it was Wayish from reading the issues I had with the Way on doctrine. The issues I had in the book were deliberately directed at the Way's doctrine, therefore could be said it "looked Wayish."
Eagle
Yea -- I think that's it. I kinda picked up on that as well.
I just went through the Seed of the Serpent chapter,
as well as the Unforgivable Sin chapter.
Since you address docvic's teachings on those items (and other's in the book) --
yea -- it could be considered *wayish*.
But you did an impeccable job of documenting/ quoting/ referencing/ etc.
(Unlike any work THEY (twi) have produced !!)
May I say -- You did not produce just a *literary meal*.
Thanks dmiller, for the great feedback, it means a lot.
Larry, per your request, I'll post excerpts from the book here on GreaseSpot. Here are excerpts, per chapter, of The Genesis Pursuit: The Lost History of Jesus Christ copyright 2006 Stephen J. Spencer Xulon Press
Chapter 1: The Fall and the Redemption of Man
The chapter does debate VP Wierwille's and LCM's perception of the fall being sexual in nature:
page 20:
A past ministry I was involved in took a cue from George
Lamsa’s Idioms In The Bible Explained in which he said the tree
of knowledge of good and evil metaphorically meant a “sexual
relationship.”1 The ministry took further notice of New Testament
teachings that declared that the “man has no power over his body
but the woman” and that the “woman had no power over her body
but the man.” This passage in the bible was referring to the marriage
relationship of Christian men and women, and the meaning here
politely but bluntly referred to those attempting to sexually satisfy
themselves, and that God designed sex as a gift one to another in
a Christian marriage relationship. However, when considering the
magnitude of the extent of damage from the fall of man, one would
think God would spell out much more clearly if this were the case.
In fact, the Bible was pretty silent about the act of personal gratification.
Summing up, the Bible pretty much recommended against it,
as it did not bless the other partner but only one’s self.
page 23-25:
The Hebrew vs. Lamsa Aramaic Creation Accounts
As stated before, Hebrew was common among the Israelites
prior to 586 B.C. when the Babylonian captivity occurred, and the
Aramaic dialect also took hold of the Hebrew people. Hebrew was
kept as a “holy” language and read in the synagogues and the temple,
just as some Catholic churches like to read Latin in the Mass. But the
language became basically Aramaic. In George Lamsa’s Holy Bible
translated from the Aramaic, it was shared that the word “tree of
life in the midst of the garden” meant a sexual relationship within a
family. This was shared with various ministries and churches around
the United States. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was
taught metaphorically to mean a sexual relationship. Period. It made
one wonder what kind of sexual relationship could be wrong when
God gave Eve to Adam and said that she was his wife:
Genesis 2:18-25
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should
be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of
the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see
what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every
living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave
names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every
beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help
meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to
fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs,
and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which
the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and
brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now
bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall
a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto
his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both
naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Further, the command to God was for Adam and his wife, Eve,
to multiply. This means they were commanded to have sex with
each other:
Genesis 1:26-28
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image
of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue
it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon
the earth.
Thus, the interpretation goes, if taken from the Lamsa Aramaic,
it must be a forbidden type of sexual relationship. The only way
for that to happen, so some churches thought, was, with only two
people present, is to sexually satisfy themselves, or self-gratification
(masturbation). Verses from the New Testament were taken to
collaborate this kind of thought on the fall:
I Corinthians 7:1-5
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto
the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto
the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but
the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power
of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other,
except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves
to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
What these verses were said to allude to is that in verse 4, it is
meant that the wife should not be sexually satisfying herself, but the
husband, and the husband should not be sexually satisfying himself,
but the wife.
My problem with the interpretation of this verse is that the context
is fornication, not masturbation. If the context was self-gratification,
then it would say in verse 2: “Nevertheless, to avoid self-gratification,”
but the word is “fornication.” The word “power” of their own
bodies refers only to the fact that the one belongs to the other, and
not themselves. In marriage, we have no right to turn ourselves over
to another partner.
page 27-29
The Babylonian Account of “Lilith” As The Fall
This is a rare belief among certain churches and ministries that
homosexuality was the cause of the Fall of Man. The reason it is so
rare is that one reader can plainly see that there was only one man
and one woman in the Garden of Eden when the Fall occurred. But
one ministry I experienced taught this doctrine.
The belief centers on the serpent, or the devil, turning himself
into a woman and had a lesbian affair with Eve, the beginning of
the Fall of Man. Where did this come from? If any ministers are
looking at Israel during the Babylonian period and are attracted to
Aramaic texts, then a few tend to gravitate to teachings of George
Lamsa who believed that the Fall of Man was due to some kind of
illicit sexual relationship. Since the thought still was alive that the
possibly practice this kind of sin having sex with each other, and
since the Bible was rather silent on self-gratification, there was only
one other option, and that was the fact that the devil was also in the
garden. In order for Eve to make this sin, she had to have sex with
someone else. It was either the devil came into concretion and had
sex with Eve, or something else.
The one ministry that worked this belief was not all that worked
up against extra-marital sex or fornication, so it fell to the only
possible sexual sin left – homosexuality and lesbianism. And since
we were dealing with Aramaic, one minister I knew went into Jewish
mythology formed from Babylonian folklore and pulled out a creature
named “Lilith.”4
Lilith is a Jewish myth associated with demons and the demonic
world. She has been associated with the devil, and was known as a
seductress. Some accounts have her as the Serpent seducing Eve,
causing Eve to have a menstrual period, and then convinced Adam
to have intercourse with Eve during the period, a sinful act in the
Law. The problem with that is that Lilith has several stories, one
of them being the former wife of Adam before Eve. Lilith is an
invented character, and the Law did not come for thousands of years
after Adam and Eve. Although the devil is not made up, and that the
allusion here is that the devil, being real, is just portrayed as Lilith
in fables, the fable had true origins. Still, since logic escapes every
point of that account, it cannot be taken seriously.
What then, caused the sexual nature of the interpretation of the
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Aramaic as well as the
sexual nature of the Tree of Life? Few Hebrew versions allude to a
sexual sin in the Fall but upon reading the heavy figures of speech
does not offer much in the immediate context either. But if the sin
was not sexual, how did it work its way into the Jewish thoughts of
the Fall after the common people began to change their language
from Hebrew Chaldee to Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity?
Note: This is Chapter 1, tonight, it takes a lot of work pulling
text from the book and posting it here. Just excerpts. I can post a chapter
a night on this thread, so I'll do that.
See you tomorrow. This was an excerpt into my debate on the Fall by Wierwille and Martindale, though I try not to mention their names all that much on this one. Some other churches believe some of this, too. I present what I feel is the Fall using scripture, history, etc. in the chapter so that one is not just left with trying to disprove a theory without replacing it with what I think it really is.
After reading some of the link of Google to parts of your book
I saw that it seem you do not like the Gnostic books because of a book witten of fiction around a group of books
I believe the Da Vinici code is just a book written around many books the bible too
have you read the Gnostic books any of them
I am just trying to make a point Look I read treads on other boards making God seem evil because of the Old Testament wars of fleshly men against fleshly men
my point - just because a writter uses a book to make the writters point that does not make the book bad it only makes the writter's goal bad
look at VPW he used the bible to gain power and money but the bible is still a good book or is it
just sharing what I think but its a great book my friend
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
7
5
4
Popular Days
May 31
12
May 28
10
May 27
8
Jun 8
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Eagle 27 posts
Ham 7 posts
Eyesopen 5 posts
Larry N Moore 4 posts
Popular Days
May 31 2007
12 posts
May 28 2007
10 posts
May 27 2007
8 posts
Jun 8 2007
7 posts
Posted Images
Eagle
EyesOpen:
The cover art by the book was supplied by the publisher. The publisher is a self publisher because I knew the book would be too controversial for a traditional Christian publisher. Surprisingly, many online Christian bookstores picked it up, too, and I found that an occasional Christian or secular bookstore in the U.S. and Britain picked it up, too. No chains picked it up yet. Just independent stores I see on the net from time to time. Barnes & Noble picked up Patrick Heron's book and it sold so well that Patrick's book, which was self-published (one of the few to be picked up by a chain), was bought by a regular secular publisher.
I am in the middle of writing my second book which has nothing to do with TWI.
Concerning the publishing of your book, get it copyrighted and then put it on CD and seek out a traditional publisher, whether Christian or secular. If it fails there, you can self-publish then. Don't let major publishers make you believe your book isn't worth it when you know for a fact people would not only want to read it, but buy it for others to read.
I'd be fascinated in seeing what you wrote and buying a copy myself. I kind of like to collect books by ex-TWI members if I can find them. There are so many ideas I never saw myself.
God's Greatest to you!
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Not particularly. I once came within the skin of my teeth of being excommunicated and probably still have been consigned to hellfire and damnation by one so-called Christian group. I'll look up your book on Amazon. It sounds like an interesting read whether I agree with it or not.
Edited by JeaniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
In replying to the excerpt for Chapter 3 he says
"This chapter discusses the topic of the "Unforgivable Sin" and why Christians have not, nor ever could, commit this sin. Again, the Way believed this sin was to be "born again of the devil."
NO WHERE did Dr. Wierwille or any other believer say that a Christian could be born of the devil's seed? We already know that a believer with incorruptible seed cannot commit this sin. Not sure what he is getting at but if this is a prelude to the book, he's misquoting VPW.
Again in the book, he quotes "This chapter raises the question of God's mercy and why the Lake of Fire is so misunderstood in the western mind. Do evil people who die really go to a literal Hell and burn for eternity? It is answered in this chapter."
No where did Dr. Wierwille EVER say that an evil person who dies goes to a literal Hell and burn for eternity. The Word says that devil spirts will be in Hell and tormented. When the Word talks about seperation from the Lord, it gives those that could have believed a glimpse at what they could have had then they are cast into the Lake of Fire for the 2nd death. Not torment.........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I still think it takes a small soul to sit back, cry their little eyes out, and then huff, "well. You oughtn't have donit, letting DEVILS influence you to cause divisions, not adhering to the letter of the almighty words of HIS HOLINESS which HE committed to us, by, our VERY OWN WICTOR PAUL WIENERWILLE.."
"no new research, period".
Sounds like a Geerite, if not he himself.
Does anybody else detect just a LITTLE BIT of spiritual immaturity here?
Doesn't want to grow up.. wants to be a vics r us kid..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Makes me wonder what vp did to some of these guys, give them a lobotomy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I read POP and the considerations letter.. this accusation of heresy really smells the same to me.
Where have these guys BEEN for twenty years?
Maybe right before his demise, the vicster sent them off to hide in a missle silo or something, with instructions to emerge twenty years later and resurrect his plan for the world..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It's like, really, really bizarre. Like one of them thaws out ever year or so..
"well. did you check the context? what about administrations, figures of speech.."
"Well. What do you want to know THAT for? You know you shouldn't read stuff the Mog didn't approve.."
or a glassy-eyed "It's so WONDERFUL that we HAVE the ANSWERS.."
Almost like conversations I had twenty five years ago..
Sorry.. carry on..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
off topic
honestly Mr. Ham
that picture of the giant mouse is beginning to look like he is talking straight to me!
look at it!
see?
scary isnt it?
carry on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
giant mouse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
<<< If his eyes start following you around the room, you know you're in trouble..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I must be in trouble then...
Eagle- Thanks for the advice and info. I may have to go the self publish route anyway as my topic...well lets just say "contraversy" is puting it lightly. Got myself a friend that is a professional artist that is doing the cover art for me. As soon as it comes back I will begin the publishing process. I will look into some publishing companies first. I have to wait anyway, might as well learn something.
Just for the record for any VP enthusiasts out there that may be reading this, my book will absolutely contradict everything and I do mean everything ole Vic and good ole boy Loy had to say on the subject. I didn't plan it that way but I would rather contradict man than God so I'm sticking by my research. But that's all I'm gonna say for now.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lorna
I have not read the book so my response is based only on your post.
I do not see in this section that you quoted, where Eagle implies that Dr. Wierwille ever SAID(or wrote) that a christian could be born of the seed of the devil. I also do not see where he claimed Dr. Wierwille SAID( or wrote) people could be cast into the lake of fire.
What am I missing here?
Did I misinterpret your post?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Lorna:
Concerning VP saying that people can be born again of the Devil's seed: See pages 319-320, Power For Abundant Living, by Victor Paul Wierwille, in the chapter of the Unforgivable Sin. He is quoted exactly as saying that. That is what he believed.
Concerning the Lake of Fire, I do not quote Wierwille as doing anything on that but did a further research into the work of Ernest Martin Ph.D.
God Bless you, Lorna. Hope this helps...
EyesOpen:
I just HAVE to get your book now. It intrigues me you research independently. PLEASE let me know when it is published.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I absolutely will let you know. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Steve, just reading the short blurbs was fascinating. Congrats on your book. Just ordered it from my local B&N bookstore here in Hickory and Eyesopen, let me know when you get your book published.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Not for nothing, but we're all heretics to someone. If you're going to make doctrinal statements and claim the bible tells you so, well, there are just too many other people out there making the same claim but with different doctrine. And they usually aren't shy in telling you about how short-sighted and stupid you are.
As for the book, I certainly didn't find it heretical. In fact, I found it rather Wayish. You argue from the same rhetorical positions, just come to different conclusions. If I still believed in an inerrant bible, I probably would have liked it more.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I will Thomas. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Eagle, if it would not be too much trouble for you could you post a few excerpts from your book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Thanks Tom B. I appreciate what you said.
Jumpin Jive, I can't see how you found that "Wayish". I even used more exhaustive research methods than TWI taught. My issues with TWI doctrine have to be concluded as "non-Wayish" or "anti-Wayish." My conclusions are the opposite of "Wayish."
I think you get the idea it was Wayish from reading the issues I had with the Way on doctrine. The issues I had in the book were deliberately directed at the Way's doctrine, therefore could be said it "looked Wayish."
Larry, I could post a few excepts here. I'll have that done tomorrow. I think you can google it and I am working with Amazon so people can "read inside."
Thank you all.
Eagle
Edited by EagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
I would appreciate that Eagle. I'm very interested in reading your take on "The Seed of The Serpent - A Problem With Scripture and Common Sense".
I budget myself to spend no more than $30 a month on books. This month I purchased a book on the Constitution. So next month I'll keep your book in mind when I make a decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yea -- I think that's it. I kinda picked up on that as well.
I just went through the Seed of the Serpent chapter,
as well as the Unforgivable Sin chapter.
Since you address docvic's teachings on those items (and other's in the book) --
yea -- it could be considered *wayish*.
But you did an impeccable job of documenting/ quoting/ referencing/ etc.
(Unlike any work THEY (twi) have produced !!)
May I say -- You did not produce just a *literary meal*.
You SUPER-SIZED the thing.
(More to *chew* on there, than I thought!)
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Thanks dmiller, for the great feedback, it means a lot.
Larry, per your request, I'll post excerpts from the book here on GreaseSpot. Here are excerpts, per chapter, of The Genesis Pursuit: The Lost History of Jesus Christ copyright 2006 Stephen J. Spencer Xulon Press
Chapter 1: The Fall and the Redemption of Man
The chapter does debate VP Wierwille's and LCM's perception of the fall being sexual in nature:
page 20:
A past ministry I was involved in took a cue from George
Lamsa’s Idioms In The Bible Explained in which he said the tree
of knowledge of good and evil metaphorically meant a “sexual
relationship.”1 The ministry took further notice of New Testament
teachings that declared that the “man has no power over his body
but the woman” and that the “woman had no power over her body
but the man.” This passage in the bible was referring to the marriage
relationship of Christian men and women, and the meaning here
politely but bluntly referred to those attempting to sexually satisfy
themselves, and that God designed sex as a gift one to another in
a Christian marriage relationship. However, when considering the
magnitude of the extent of damage from the fall of man, one would
think God would spell out much more clearly if this were the case.
In fact, the Bible was pretty silent about the act of personal gratification.
Summing up, the Bible pretty much recommended against it,
as it did not bless the other partner but only one’s self.
page 23-25:
The Hebrew vs. Lamsa Aramaic Creation Accounts
As stated before, Hebrew was common among the Israelites
prior to 586 B.C. when the Babylonian captivity occurred, and the
Aramaic dialect also took hold of the Hebrew people. Hebrew was
kept as a “holy” language and read in the synagogues and the temple,
just as some Catholic churches like to read Latin in the Mass. But the
language became basically Aramaic. In George Lamsa’s Holy Bible
translated from the Aramaic, it was shared that the word “tree of
life in the midst of the garden” meant a sexual relationship within a
family. This was shared with various ministries and churches around
the United States. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was
taught metaphorically to mean a sexual relationship. Period. It made
one wonder what kind of sexual relationship could be wrong when
God gave Eve to Adam and said that she was his wife:
Genesis 2:18-25
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should
be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of
the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see
what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every
living creature, that was the name thereof. 20And Adam gave
names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every
beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help
meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to
fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs,
and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which
the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and
brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now
bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called
Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24Therefore shall
a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto
his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25And they were both
naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Further, the command to God was for Adam and his wife, Eve,
to multiply. This means they were commanded to have sex with
each other:
Genesis 1:26-28
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image
of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue
it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon
the earth.
Thus, the interpretation goes, if taken from the Lamsa Aramaic,
it must be a forbidden type of sexual relationship. The only way
for that to happen, so some churches thought, was, with only two
people present, is to sexually satisfy themselves, or self-gratification
(masturbation). Verses from the New Testament were taken to
collaborate this kind of thought on the fall:
I Corinthians 7:1-5
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is
good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid
fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every
woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto
the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto
the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but
the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power
of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other,
except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves
to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
What these verses were said to allude to is that in verse 4, it is
meant that the wife should not be sexually satisfying herself, but the
husband, and the husband should not be sexually satisfying himself,
but the wife.
My problem with the interpretation of this verse is that the context
is fornication, not masturbation. If the context was self-gratification,
then it would say in verse 2: “Nevertheless, to avoid self-gratification,”
but the word is “fornication.” The word “power” of their own
bodies refers only to the fact that the one belongs to the other, and
not themselves. In marriage, we have no right to turn ourselves over
to another partner.
page 27-29
The Babylonian Account of “Lilith” As The Fall
This is a rare belief among certain churches and ministries that
homosexuality was the cause of the Fall of Man. The reason it is so
rare is that one reader can plainly see that there was only one man
and one woman in the Garden of Eden when the Fall occurred. But
one ministry I experienced taught this doctrine.
The belief centers on the serpent, or the devil, turning himself
into a woman and had a lesbian affair with Eve, the beginning of
the Fall of Man. Where did this come from? If any ministers are
looking at Israel during the Babylonian period and are attracted to
Aramaic texts, then a few tend to gravitate to teachings of George
Lamsa who believed that the Fall of Man was due to some kind of
illicit sexual relationship. Since the thought still was alive that the
possibly practice this kind of sin having sex with each other, and
since the Bible was rather silent on self-gratification, there was only
one other option, and that was the fact that the devil was also in the
garden. In order for Eve to make this sin, she had to have sex with
someone else. It was either the devil came into concretion and had
sex with Eve, or something else.
The one ministry that worked this belief was not all that worked
up against extra-marital sex or fornication, so it fell to the only
possible sexual sin left – homosexuality and lesbianism. And since
we were dealing with Aramaic, one minister I knew went into Jewish
mythology formed from Babylonian folklore and pulled out a creature
named “Lilith.”4
Lilith is a Jewish myth associated with demons and the demonic
world. She has been associated with the devil, and was known as a
seductress. Some accounts have her as the Serpent seducing Eve,
causing Eve to have a menstrual period, and then convinced Adam
to have intercourse with Eve during the period, a sinful act in the
Law. The problem with that is that Lilith has several stories, one
of them being the former wife of Adam before Eve. Lilith is an
invented character, and the Law did not come for thousands of years
after Adam and Eve. Although the devil is not made up, and that the
allusion here is that the devil, being real, is just portrayed as Lilith
in fables, the fable had true origins. Still, since logic escapes every
point of that account, it cannot be taken seriously.
What then, caused the sexual nature of the interpretation of the
Tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Aramaic as well as the
sexual nature of the Tree of Life? Few Hebrew versions allude to a
sexual sin in the Fall but upon reading the heavy figures of speech
does not offer much in the immediate context either. But if the sin
was not sexual, how did it work its way into the Jewish thoughts of
the Fall after the common people began to change their language
from Hebrew Chaldee to Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity?
Note: This is Chapter 1, tonight, it takes a lot of work pulling
text from the book and posting it here. Just excerpts. I can post a chapter
a night on this thread, so I'll do that.
See you tomorrow. This was an excerpt into my debate on the Fall by Wierwille and Martindale, though I try not to mention their names all that much on this one. Some other churches believe some of this, too. I present what I feel is the Fall using scripture, history, etc. in the chapter so that one is not just left with trying to disprove a theory without replacing it with what I think it really is.
God Bless...
Eagle
Edited by EagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
I had trouble posting a url for the googled version of the book. I am trying again:
The Genesis Pursuit by Google
Okay, that one worked. But Google does not put the entire book in there and does not do graphics except for the cover.
Eagle
Edited by EagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Eagle
God loves you my dear friend
After reading some of the link of Google to parts of your book
I saw that it seem you do not like the Gnostic books because of a book witten of fiction around a group of books
I believe the Da Vinici code is just a book written around many books the bible too
have you read the Gnostic books any of them
I am just trying to make a point Look I read treads on other boards making God seem evil because of the Old Testament wars of fleshly men against fleshly men
my point - just because a writter uses a book to make the writters point that does not make the book bad it only makes the writter's goal bad
look at VPW he used the bible to gain power and money but the bible is still a good book or is it
just sharing what I think but its a great book my friend
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.