Does Cain’s punishment support evolution?

Notedstrangeperson said:

Goodness, this thread went downhill pretty fast. Quick reply -

1. Jesus was circumcised. He celebrated the Passover. He taught in a synagogue. He was referred to as "Rabbi". The wrote "King of the Jews" on his cross. Hebrews 7:14 says he was a descendant of Judah. Jesus was undeniably jewish.

2. The name "Adam" means "to be red" and it also means "man". However it is related to the words adamah (which means "ground" or "earth") and adamu (which means "to make"). Taken altogether it means "the man made out of red earth". Presumably the first time he blushed is when he realized he was naked.

3. Christianity was only a "white religion" in the sense that most of the people who practiced it were Europeans. This isn't the case any more. People of all coloured can become Christians, hence it cannot be called a white religion.

Click to expand...

The word Jewish is not mentioned in the Gospels,you are confusing the modern Jews with the Gospels.

2453. Ioudaios ee-oo-dah'-yos from 2448 (in the sense of 2455 as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah:--Jew(-ess), of Judaea.

Where ever ''King of the Jews'' is stated,Jew means,the above definition ''Judaean'' which is a geographic/national title.

Jesus was from Judea. Matthew 2:1 ''Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea''

The Passover was an Israelite festival(Exodus 12)

Matthew 23:8:But you are not to be called rabbi (teacher), for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. - Amplified Bible.

The title Rabbi is like Teacher.

Israel was of the Tribe of Judah.The Tribe of Judah WAS made up of Israelites of all Tribes.

2 Chronicles 11:14:For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD:

2 Chronicles 11:16:And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers.

As for Christianity been a White Religion,it is still Predominately a White Religion even if non-whites practice it,in Europe Christianity is the predominant Religion.
The People who practiced it in the past were Israelites who migrated in to Europe.
Are you going to say that the men and women who practiced it in the past were racist because it was a white Religion?


The word Adam means in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance,Hebrew..

119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

To show blood in the face or turn rosy - not everyone has that characteristic,can you name the people who do?

dagelos said:

Google the text ''origin of the word Jew'' - Here is an extract

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Read more here....

Origin of the Word Jew

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The word "Jew" was current in English many centuries before the 18th century edition of the KJV. Notably, it was used by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice (Shylock) as well as other plays before the KJV was first published in 1611. Two centuries earlier than that, it was used by Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales. And if the author means this is the first time it was used in the Bible in English, he is still wrong as it was used in the Geneva Bible of 1599* which was widely used in English churches until it was displaced (by royal order) by the KJV.

No one needed to introduce it to the English language for the first time as late as the 18th century.

gluadys said:

Nonsense. The word "Jew" was current in English many centuries before the 18th century edition of the KJV. Notably, it was used by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice (Shylock) as well as other plays before the KJV was first published in 1611. Two centuries earlier than that, it was used by Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales. And if the author means this is the first time it was used in the Bible in English, he is still wrong as it was used in the Geneva Bible of 1599* which was widely used in English churches until it was displaced (by royal order) by the KJV.

Click to expand...

It was also used in the Wycliffite Bible in the 14th century.

gluadys said:

Nonsense. The word "Jew" was current in English many centuries before the 18th century edition of the KJV. Notably, it was used by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice (Shylock) as well as other plays before the KJV was first published in 1611. Two centuries earlier than that, it was used by Chaucer in The Canterbury Tales. And if the author means this is the first time it was used in the Bible in English, he is still wrong as it was used in the Geneva Bible of 1599* which was widely used in English churches until it was displaced (by royal order) by the KJV.

No one needed to introduce it to the English language for the first time as late as the 18th century.

Click to expand...

Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice," V, III, I, 61, Shakespeare wrote as follows "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" You see there was not even a letter "j" or "J" until the middle of the 18th century. Check any encyclopedia you wish for proof of this.

Extract taken from Origin of the word Jew(Israel elect)

Jew definition

The name derived from the patriarch Judah, at first given to one belonging to the tribe of Judah or to the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12; 38:19; 40:11; 41:3), in contradistinction from those belonging to the kingdom of the ten tribes, who were called Israelites.

During the Captivity, and after the Restoration, the name, however, was extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Esther 3:6, 10; Dan. 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12; 5:1, 5).

Originally this people were called Hebrews (Gen. 39:14; 40:15; Ex. 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9, etc.), but after the Exile this name fell into disuse. But Paul was styled a Hebrew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5).

The history of the Jewish nation is interwoven with the history of Palestine and with the narratives of the lives of their rulers and chief men. They are now [1897] dispersed over all lands, and to this day remain a separate people, "without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image [R.V. 'pillar,' marg. 'obelisk'], and without an ephod, and without teraphim" (Hos. 3:4).

Till about the beginning of the present century [1800] they were everywhere greatly oppressed, and often cruelly persecuted; but now their condition is greatly improved, and they are admitted in most European countries to all the rights of free citizens. In 1860 the "Jewish disabilities" were removed, and they were admitted to a seat in the British Parliament. Their number in all is estimated at about six millions, about four millions being in Europe.

There are three names used in the New Testament to designate this people,

(1.) Jews, as regards their nationality, to distinguish them from Gentiles.

(2.) Hebrews, with regard to their language and education, to distinguish them from Hellenists, i.e., Jews who spoke the Greek language.

(3.) Israelites, as respects their sacred privileges as the chosen people of God. "To other races we owe the splendid inheritance of modern civilization and secular culture; but the religious education of mankind has been the gift of the Jew alone."

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

dagelos said:

Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice," V, III, I, 61, Shakespeare wrote as follows "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" You see there was not even a letter "j" or "J" until the middle of the 18th century. Check any encyclopedia you wish for proof of this.

Extract taken from Origin of the word Jew(Israel elect)

Click to expand...

It's not a different word just because spelling conventions were different. Shakespeare didn't even spell his own name consistently.

Actually, 'i' 'y' and 'j' were all considered forms of the same letter and used interchangeably, according to the taste of the writer. Similarly 'u' 'v' and 'w' were all considered forms of the same letter.

It is certainly true that standardized spelling was an 18th century development, but that doesn't make the word new to the language.

That would be like saying the English had no concept of debt until Samuel Johnston decided the spelling should be latinized to "debt" instead of keeping to the more traditional spelling of "dette".

1an said:

Jew definition

The name derived from the patriarch Judah, at first given to one belonging to the tribe of Judah or to the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12; 38:19; 40:11; 41:3), in contradistinction from those belonging to the kingdom of the ten tribes, who were called Israelites.

During the Captivity, and after the Restoration, the name, however, was extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Esther 3:6, 10; Dan. 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12; 5:1, 5).

Originally this people were called Hebrews (Gen. 39:14; 40:15; Ex. 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9, etc.), but after the Exile this name fell into disuse. But Paul was styled a Hebrew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5).

The history of the Jewish nation is interwoven with the history of Palestine and with the narratives of the lives of their rulers and chief men. They are now [1897] dispersed over all lands, and to this day remain a separate people, "without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image [R.V. 'pillar,' marg. 'obelisk'], and without an ephod, and without teraphim" (Hos. 3:4).

Till about the beginning of the present century [1800] they were everywhere greatly oppressed, and often cruelly persecuted; but now their condition is greatly improved, and they are admitted in most European countries to all the rights of free citizens. In 1860 the "Jewish disabilities" were removed, and they were admitted to a seat in the British Parliament. Their number in all is estimated at about six millions, about four millions being in Europe.

There are three names used in the New Testament to designate this people,

(1.) Jews, as regards their nationality, to distinguish them from Gentiles.

(2.) Hebrews, with regard to their language and education, to distinguish them from Hellenists, i.e., Jews who spoke the Greek language.

(3.) Israelites, as respects their sacred privileges as the chosen people of God. "To other races we owe the splendid inheritance of modern civilization and secular culture; but the religious education of mankind has been the gift of the Jew alone."

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Click to expand...

What a bunch of bunk.
That just isn't true.

but the religious education of mankind has been the gift of the Jew alone."

Click to expand...

Total garbage. Jews have given nothing to the world but demands and false guilt. They gave us enough religion to tell us they are Gods chosen, the greatest lie of the century. You are obviously not getting anything from our discussions today. A complete waster of time.




.

dagelos said:

Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice," V, III, I, 61, Shakespeare wrote as follows "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" You see there was not even a letter "j" or "J" until the middle of the 18th century. Check any encyclopedia you wish for proof of this.

Extract taken from Origin of the word Jew(Israel elect)

Click to expand...

This is completely bonkers. Shakespeare (probably) never saw the spelling "Jew", but he was certainly familiar with the word. Words have varied enormously in spelling at different times and in different places, while still remaining clearly the same word. That's why if you look up most words in a good dictionary, you'll find a history of their spelling. For "Jew", the OED lists 18 different spellings, and yet it considers them all spellings of the same word. (Note: the form "Jew" is listed as occurring since the 16th century, not the 18th.)

sfs said:

This is completely bonkers. Shakespeare (probably) never saw the spelling "Jew", but he was certainly familiar with the word. Words have varied enormously in spelling at different times and in different places, while still remaining clearly the same word. That's why if you look up most words in a good dictionary, you'll find a history of their spelling. For "Jew", the OED lists 18 different spellings, and yet it considers them all spellings of the same word. (Note: the form "Jew" is listed as occurring since the 16th century, not the 18th.)

Click to expand...

Just to confirm what you are saying, Jews were certainly known in England in the 12th century.

"Richard I was officially crowned duke on 20 July 1189 and king in Westminster Abbey on 3 September 1189. When he was crowned, Richard barred all Jews and women from the ceremony, but some Jewish leaders arrived to present gifts for the new king. According to Ralph of Diceto, Richard's courtiers stripped and flogged the Jews, then flung them out of court.

When a rumour spread that Richard had ordered all Jews to be killed, the people of London began a massacre. Many Jews were beaten to death, robbed, and burned alive. Many Jewish homes were burned down, and several Jews were forcibly baptised. Some sought sanctuary in the Tower of London, and others managed to escape. Among those killed was Jacob of Orléans, a respected Jewish scholar."

Wiki.

ADDED
I am reading that, "William the Conqueror brought Jews from Rouen to London" This would have been soon after 1066.

http://www.jhse.org/rsrch-chrono

.

It really don't matter much when the word came to be or who used it but the meaning of the word which meant anyone who was born in or lived in Judaea and it describes those who follow Judaism a perversion of the religion of the Hebrews. Kenites and Canaanites, Idumeans were forbidden from entering the congregation of Yahweh, forever yet they became scribes and Pharasees which was a against he rules.

King Herod was an antiChrist JEW of Idumean decent




ponder this....

Under the heading of “A brief History of the Terms for Jew” in the 1980 Jewish Almanac is the following: “Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an Ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew.”

— 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3 (the writer is obliquely referring to the true history of the Eastern European Ashkenazim, or Khazars).

Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol 10:23:
"JEWS BEGAN IN THE 19TH CENTURY TO CALL THEMSELVES HEBREWS AND ISRAELITES IN 1860".



Esau has stealing back his inheritance and fulfilling his vow to Jacob. O Jacob watch your back for Esau hates you and vowed to kill you too.

Jacob pretended to be Esau and now Esau is pretending to be Jacob and it's working because most Christians are oblivious to the facts.


"Edom is in modern Jewry." —The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, Vol.5, p.41


Proof that Yemanite JEWs whom most have moved to Israel admit and boast of being related to Teman/Yemen a son of Esau just as it says on Wiki.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemenite_Jews

Teman (Hebrew: [FONT='SBL Hebrew', David, Narkisim, 'Times New Roman', 'Ezra SIL SR', FrankRuehl, 'Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Lucida Grande']תמין[/font]‎&#8206, was the name of an Edomite clan and of its eponym, according to the Bible[1] and an ancient biblical town of Arabia Petraea. The term is also traditionally applied to Yemenite Jews.


Mal 1:4 . ../... The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.


1Ch 2:55 And thefamilies of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Kenites are Canaanites and sons of Esua who were forbidden from entering the congregation of Yahweh.


Who said God loves everyone? It doesn't come from the scripture.

This is your wake up call


.
.

For God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, that whoever believed in him might not perish but have eternal life

Isreal said:

So he taught in the temple, how does that make one Jew?
Where does it say Christ was born in the house of Judah?

Click to expand...

Matthew, Luke, and Hebrews. You do read your bible?

The weapons of war and instruments were given to the sons of Cain by evil angels according to the book of Jasper or the book of Adam and Eve.

Click to expand...

Oh, you read this one. Do you mean Jasher, by the way?

While it's true Seth replaced Abel it still never mentioned Cain as a son.

Click to expand...

Was Abel his son? The bible says they were brothers in a couple of passages. Now I know you will refer to Israelelect here and how it says 1 John 3:12 claims Cain was satan's child. But that is incorrect interpretation. If you read the whole passage it says his actions were evil. This is why he is of the devil. Jesus called some people children of the devil too, does that mean satan went around pregnanting women everywhere? Uh...no. You have to understand the context. Cain was son to both Adam and Eve.

The passover and Succot was a Hebrew/Israelite feast and not necessarily a Jewish thing. Christ told them not to call him or any man Rabbi. You're confusing Jews with Hebrews and Israelites because they have led you and most people to such false conclusions. Tzitzit does not make one Jewish.

Click to expand...

Okay, which ones are you against, Jews, Hebrews, or Israelites? It seems you hate the Jews but then try and make us prove Jesus is a jew. What do you want?

Show me where scriptures say Yeshua was a Jew

Click to expand...

Show me where it says there is a trinity. Neither is in there word for word but I believe in it. The thing you are doing is skipping over what is actually being said. He did everything jewish people did. He spoke Aramaic and I would imagine Hebrew. He worshipped in the temple like Jewish religious people. He taught the torah. He wore traditional rabbinic clothes. What do you not understand about this? If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck. It must be a duck.

IF you're gonna insult me with words like utterly ignorant yu shooold lern to spel da wurd ignorant. Thanks you very much for that.. you got me laughing.

Click to expand...

. That is funny. By the way how do you spell Abraham? And Esau? And Christ? And how do you say "Who were these people"? Check out your own postings before you make that kind of comment. By the way since you don't read contextual posts and scripture, I will repeat what I said...I said "A statement that is utterly igonroant". Not the person, just the statement.

Here is one reason... Cain went into the Land of Nod, meaning nomads. Who were the nomads? And he built a city there. You don't build a city for 2 people plus your offspring that you have later. He feared the people may kill him for his crime against Abel. HE were these people he feared?

Click to expand...

Who said it was only him and his wife. They are the only two mentioned. Maybe he already had his clan. We don't know. Plus since he was kicked out of the presence of God he wanted to build a haven for himself and a place where he could be important. His actions were evil. This would be the city he was building. He built it after his son was born as well. He knew his family needed a place to live. Sure none of what I said is in the Bible verbatim. But again I am looking at the whole idea not one line, not one website, and certainly not some "lost book of Eden".

Hidden within the scriptures is a certain creature of the field who had hands and feet and were able to repent like other men. These creatures or beast of the field were created on the 5th day. Moses talked to these creatures and warned them along with Hebrews not to put their hands on the temple mound or they would die. The creatures even fasted and wore sackcloth in repentance of their sins along side the Hebrews. Science has good evidence that not all men came about at the same time. Scriptures say that Yahweh sent these creatures to Nimrod to help build the great city of Babel. Should I apologize if the truth is uncomfortable to some or do we just rewrite the scriptures to our liking?

Click to expand...

Please let me know where this is said in scripture, not some Kabbalah, Koran, Mormon book, lost books, or other non-bibical reference.

An Idumean was a son of Esua whom Yah has indignation for ever.
Kenites were of the same lineage out of Canaan and they became Scribes and Pharasees. They had no part in the promises of Abraham and were mixed blooded.
Christ told them they were not of Abraham or they would do the works of Abraham. These sons of Esau were never to be allowed in the congregation of Yahweh, ever! But they slipped in and were called Judeans too. They perverted the laws Yahweh and twisted the religion to a new religion called Judaism today. They were not related to Christi or King David. There offspring of serpents as Christ and John the baptist called them admitted they they had never been in bondage to any man. Yet it was to far back the real Judeans of Judah were in bondage in Babylon and much earlier were enslaved in Egypt for 400 years. Wouldn't a child of Judah know his family was enslaved for many years?

It's the tell tale signs you need to see here.
The logical course will provide you with the truth that Yahweh has allowed to be hidden from most people eyes.

The fact is Ashkenazi Jews have admitted that they has no ties to old Israel. These sons of Japeth converted to the evil religion of Kenites and Idumeans hundreds of years ago and they have stolen the land from other people while ignorant Christians say they must bless Israel or be cursed. the true Israel has already blessed the entire world with the gospel of their kinsman redeemer Yeshua ha'Mashiach and many great technological inventions and they have fulfilled all the promises to Abraaham. And it was not the Jews who have not had many nations come out of their loins. The first promise to Abraham.

Click to expand...

Too much to even talk about.

Will the real Israelites please stand up!
I am one of those

Click to expand...

I think I figured it out. There is a group of African-Americans who claim they are the lost tribes of Israel. I am not being racist here at all. I am clearly stating things I have heard. They are black Jews as opposed to black Moslems (Nation of Islam-Farakhan). Are you one of these lost tribes of Israel?

Think on these things. Need more my brother?

Click to expand...

Way more.

dagelos said:

When, in 1604, James VI, King of Scotland became King James I of England, the first ruler of Great Britain and Ireland, he ruled a nation in religious and political turmoil. And, when a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new king, James, saw this as an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. The redaction began in 1604 and was completed and published in 1611 and this the new English Bible became known as the "Authorised Version" because its making was authorised by King James. This "Authorised Version" became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the Anglican church. There have been several revisions of the King James Bible in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 with the most substantive changes occurring in the eighteenth century. Then, Dr Thomas Paris (1762) published an extensive revision at Cambridge while Dr Benjamin Blayney did the same at Oxford (1769). Blayney's redactions included much modernisation of spelling, punctuation, and expression, but, in which the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition are used. It is this 1769 update by Blayney that is the basis of the modern King James Bible. Also, since 1885, 14 books representing the Apocrypha were "officially" removed from it. These Apocryphal books were included at the insistence of the king and, unlike the Rheims-Douai and other Roman Catholic Bibles that scattered them throughout the Old Testament, were placed between the Testaments.

Consequently, any modern, so-called "1611 Authorised King James Version" available today is NOT a facsimile of the original 1611 "Authorised Version" but a copy of the 1769 revision. Even those editions that may even proclaim "1611" in the frontispiece to promote sales are deceptions, for, they too are simply modern print runs of the Blayney's 1769 edition. These are editions in which the original text and words of the "1611 Authorised King James Version" have been altered with spellings revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769 and, also, with fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features removed from almost every printing done since 1885. To get an original, un-redacted "1611 Authorised King James Version" is more problematic and far more expensive. Originals are rare and eminently collectible and fetch huge prices while facsimiles and exact photographic facsimile edition are less exorbitant but still expensive.

Click to expand...

See what I mean? (see page 21, post #201)

Isreal said:

Many of the translations use the word Teacher in most of those instances

Teacher and Master were often called the same but Master is the word Christ asked them not to call a man.
I doubt he would rebuke them for calling men teachers.

But calling a teacher a master was a habit and I would guess Christ didn't get on them for it constantly..

1an you missed an important note about the use of the word Jewish in Titus.

Click to expand...

Blah. He got on them for everything else, but this one he let go????
Rabbi means teacher. Plus he says there is only one teacher. Uh, that would be Him. He would be the greatest Rabbi of all time. Again, read the context.

Notedstrangeperson said:

Goodness, this thread went downhill pretty fast. Quick reply -

1. Jesus was circumcised. He celebrated the Passover. He taught in a synagogue. He was referred to as "Rabbi". The wrote "King of the Jews" on his cross. Hebrews 7:14 says he was a descendant of Judah. Jesus was undeniably jewish.

2. The name "Adam" means "to be red" and it also means "man". However it is related to the words adamah (which means "ground" or "earth") and adamu (which means "to make"). Taken altogether it means "the man made out of red earth". Presumably the first time he blushed is when he realized he was naked.

3. Christianity was only a "white religion" in the sense that most of the people who practiced it were Europeans. This isn't the case any more. People of all coloured can become Christians, hence it cannot be called a white religion.

Click to expand...

Hey Stranger, We agree!!!!

Isreal said:

It really don't matter much when the word came to be or who used it but the meaning of the word which meant anyone who was born in or lived in Judaea and it describes those who follow Judaism a perversion of the religion of the Hebrews.

Click to expand...

But in post #202 you said:

7) I care when the term Jew came into existence. It means a great deal if one is deceived by Jews. The term Jew had been skewed and misused by ... Jews.

Click to expand...

So, do you care or not?

Teman

Click to expand...

(Hebrew: [FONT='SBL Hebrew', David, Narkisim, 'Times New Roman', 'Ezra SIL SR', FrankRuehl, 'Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Lucida Grande']תמין[/font]‎&#8206, was the name of an Edomite clan and of its eponym, according to the Bible[1] and an ancient biblical town of Arabia Petraea. The term is also traditionally applied to Yemenite Jews.


Mal 1:4 . ../... The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.


1Ch 2:55 And thefamilies of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.

Kenites are Canaanites and sons of Esua who were forbidden from entering the congregation of Yahweh.

Click to expand...

So?

Who said God loves everyone? It doesn't come from the scripture.

This is your wake up call

Click to expand...

Enough said?????

progmonk said:

For God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, that whoever believed in him might not perish but have eternal life

Click to expand...

true but..

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

IF Yahweh has indignation for ever on the people of Esau ~ Mal 1:4
and if he doesn't draw them then they remain in his indignation forever. Only those the Father draws can come to Christ for salvation.

Do Yahwehs words fail?
Does forever mean forever as we think of it?
Certainly only Yahweh can judge a Tare from the wheat.

All through scripture Esau and his people were hated.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Did this hated end?
Could Esau's kin ever enter in the congregation of Yahweh?
Did the law end with the new covenant?


Why did Christ immediately pounce on the Scribes and Pharasees who came to his baptism and he flat out told them there destiny before they spoke a word? His cousin John called them also offspring of serpents as did Christ who even pointed at their relations to Cain.
Who are the tares? And the world still thinks Christ was related to these Jews.

Why did Christ tell Paul in the spirit to flee Jerusalem that he wouldn't do any good there at a time when mostly Edomites were living in Judea acting as Judaeans and taking part in the congregation of the Lord against the rules?

Did Christ' voice call all the true children of Judah & Benjamin out before he died?

James 1:1 tell us that all 12 tribes were scattered abroad at that time.
Zarahites of Judah were ruling with Kings in another part of the world long before the time of Christ.

.
.

Isreal said:

true but..



All through scripture Esau and his people were hated.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Did this hated end?
Could Esau's kin ever enter in the congregation of Yahweh?
Did the law end with the new covenant?.
.

Click to expand...

Salvation is for all who repent including Esau should he choose.

It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hate" in the comparative sense the same as we say black and white, rich and poor and we see this throughout scripture in phrases like

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;"

"No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.;

"if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."

.

1an said:

Salvation is for all who repent including Esau should he choose.

It was common among the Hebrews to use the terms "love" and "hate" in the comparative sense the same as we say black and white, rich and poor and we see this throughout scripture in phrases like

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;"

"No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other," etc.;

"if any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, etc."

.

Click to expand...

It just don't look good for anyone related to Esau.
Tares I wonder?

Indignation forever.
So God changed his mind or dropped his indignation towards Esau and his seed? Does he have indignation for Esau forever or not?
Was his anger only for an age? These are some tough questions that few in the church never discussed. Martin Luther did discuss these things. He distrusted Edomites and hated who the Lord hated just as King David did.


Psa 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?



Do you think Esau's kindred belong in Israel acting like Jacob's seed?

Revelations 2:9
The Blasphemy of them Which say they are Jews, and are Not



.

Paul. said:

While reading through some threads, I came across this statement

just looking for some bible verses supporting evolution. I know about Genesis 4:13 (Cain's punishment)

Click to expand...

Despite reading the relevant passage several times, I fail to see how it supports evolution. Would someone explain to me, the reasoning behind the belief that Cain’s punishment supports evolution.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to where that was said? Thanks