- Feb 18, 2016
- 1,503
- 81
- 73
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
From everlasting, in the beginning of the creation; yes, I agree.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
From everlasting, in the beginning of the creation; yes, I agree.Yes exactly. In which case the WAY between HEAVEN(GOD) and EARTH (MAN) was set in place from the beginning
So do you understand this significance that a firmament was set in place before GOD began the work of creating from that day forward?From everlasting, in the beginning of the creation; yes, I agree.
God created the heaven and the earth from everlasting, in the beginning of the creation. Man was included in the creation, and we know this because of the man; Melchisedek, which is from everlasting, as said in Hebrews 7:3. Therefore, although man was made in the new earth on the sixth day of the creation; he had been created from everlasting, as implied by Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them from the beginning of the creation.So do you understand this significance that a firmament was set in place before GOD began the work of creating from that day forward?
Your theory doesn't work.
You have the 6th day natural man created on the 4th day yet GOD put a dividing line between
Heaven and earth already and from the beginning
And no the firmament is also not everlasting as revelation clearly shows
I'm sorry, but I don't see the word, "dome," in the KJV Bible. Sorry, but you can not change the Word of God to fit your personal interpretation. I can't use it.You can't have water from the beginning then GOD saying let their be light and then Him separating the waters above from the waters below (by that firmament) and claiming that it was from everlasting
It wasn't
He simply separated the waters with the firmament
The waters above the firmament were called the heavens and then he began his work within the dome of the waters below
But let's go to the source word, "firmament" for help.You can't have water from the beginning then GOD saying let their be light and then Him separating the waters above from the waters below (by that firmament) and claiming that it was from everlasting
It wasn't
He simply separated the waters with the firmament
The waters above the firmament were called the heavens and then he began his work within the dome of the waters below
Regarding Strong's Lexicon: let's go to the source word, "firmament," for help.You can't have water from the beginning then GOD saying let their be light and then Him separating the waters above from the waters below (by that firmament) and claiming that it was from everlasting
It wasn't
He simply separated the waters with the firmament
The waters above the firmament were called the heavens and then he began his work within the dome of the waters below
Please read CHRIST (who is THE ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST according to the order of Melchizadek (who was simply a shadow and prefigure of CHRIST)God created the heaven and the earth from everlasting, in the beginning of the creation. Man was included in the creation, and we know this because of the man; Melchisedek, which is from everlasting, as said in Hebrews 7:3. Therefore, although man was made in the new earth on the sixth day of the creation; he had been created from everlasting, as implied by Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them from the beginning of the creation.
Yeah, that's all well and good and all, just one thing; that's a different message than the one I am reading. They are incompatible. So, we can revert back to your sanctioned hermeneutics and continue to misinterpret God's Holy Word.Please read CHRIST (who is THE ETERNAL HIGH PRIEST according to the order of Melchizadek (who was simply a shadow and prefigure of CHRIST)
CHRIST said HE did not come to bring peace but division
To one group who did not believe HE said:
I am going away and you can NOT follow ME where I am going you can not come and If you do not believe I AM HE, Ye shall die in your sins
And yet to another group (those who believed in HIM) HE said:
I am going away and you can not follow ME now
But you will later
There are two groups sir
One group has passed to new life in THE SON
Anorher group remains outside
Oh no it's notYeah, that's all well and good and all, just one thing; that's a different message than the one I am reading. They are incompatible. So, we can revert back to your sanctioned hermeneutics and continue to misinterpret God's Holy Word.
Or,
We can try to listen to what Paul is saying to us when he wrote afore in few words; and maybe, we will be enlightened.
Oh thank youAnd mind you, this interpretation has not been ready for us until of late; because of man's wisdom, scientific knowledge.
One side is presentedIn Revelation 17:15, I believe both sides of the shadow are presented. Peoples and multitudes represent the body, and nations and tongues for the mind. And they are all plural, which fits our; doublet of days, format.
Have funAnd scientific knowledge could be said to hinge on the total eclipse of the sun, that moved the stars for our cameras. That's all.
I am sorry to say that I believe you are so lost in your interpretation, you are unable to see the spiritual message, hidden in the format of the text. Please excuse, no offence intended.One side is presented
Those whose "houses" aren't marked by the blood of the lamb
Those whose "houses" are marked by the blood of the lamb are represented in WHITE ROBES
These have NOTHING to do with the "woman In the basket" of whom you are referring to in revelation 17
These have no place in
THE HOUSE because they dont have the RIGHT BRIDEGROOM's GARMENT
So they can't come to THE WEDDING
No offense taken. I certainly do not need you to validate meI am sorry to say that I believe you are so lost in your interpretation, you are unable to see the spiritual message, hidden in the format of the text. Please excuse, no offence intended.
You say you understand, but I can't see it in what you write. You always go back to Christian Dogma, which has nothing to do with what Paul has given us in his revelation. Your interpretation is trapped in antiquity. It can't get out!Oh thank you
You don't think I didn't already know that?
Sorry to say this but really?
Did you think science is sovereign over GOD?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?