Page 1 of 2

Human-animal hybrid embryos should be born, says bishops

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:22 am
by Art Vandelay
Human-animal hybrid embryos conceived in the laboratory - so-called “chimeras” - should be regarded as human and their mothers should be allowed to give birth to them, the Roman Catholic Church said yesterday.

Under draft Government legislation to be debated by Parliament later this year, scientists will be given permission for the first time to create such embryos for research as long as they destroy them within two weeks.

But the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, in a submission to the Parliamentary joint committee scrutinising the draft legislation, said that the genetic mothers of “chimeras” should be able to raise them as their own children if they wished.

The bishops said that they did not see why these “interspecies” embryos should be treated any differently than others.


The wide-ranging draft Human Tissue and Embryo Bill, which aims to overhaul the laws on fertility treatment, will include sections on test tube babies, embryo research and abortion. Ministers say that the creation of animal-human embryos - created by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs - will be heavily regulated.

They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb.

The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence.

In their submission to the committee, they said: “At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.

“In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.

“Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.”

The draft Bill will also allow the screening of embryos for genetic or chromosomal abnormalities that might lead to serious medical conditions, disabilities, or miscarriage. It will permit doctors to check whether an embryo could provide a suitable tissue match for a sibling suffering from a life-threatening illness.

The Bill would abolish the requirement for fertility clinics to consider the need for a father when deciding on treatment. This means clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers.

The Catholic bishops said that most of the procedures covered by the Bill “should not be licensed under any circumstances”, principally on the grounds that they violate human rights.


link to story

:dizzy:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:36 am
by apfuchs
I knew there'd be X-men at some point. Just didn't think it'd be so soon! lol

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:49 am
by Art Vandelay
So THAT'S how Wolverine was born. :wink:

"Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Smith. It's a healthy 8 lb baby...um....boy?"

Image

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:20 am
by AlmostHome
Art Vandelay wrote:So THAT'S how Wolverine was born. :wink:

"Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Smith. It's a healthy 8 lb baby...um....boy?"

Image



:rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing: :rolllaughing:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:42 am
by wschaub
For the record I am against human animal hybrids. but I must admit to a sick curiosity at wondering what the result would be if allowed to become fully developed. It may not even be viable and not live long anyway (that would be my guesss) In any case the result would be an abomination.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:09 am
by lahalbo
I can't even understand who would think this is a good idea to begin with??

I can only imagine illegal drugs were involved in this initial idea.

And the woman volunteering to carry it in her womb??!!

:puke:

From Redeemed

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:16 am
by redeemed1953
:armor:


If it wasn't so twisted, it might have some reading value funny, but it makes me want to wretch. :puke:

I am working my way through the book of Isaiah, inductively, and God :bowing: wasn't "in sync" with Israel's wicked ways.

I don't think He is very happy with this. Or much else, anymore.

:a3:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:33 am
by soldieroflight
"The Island of Dr Morreau" becomes reality. :puke:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:48 am
by Disciple
absolutely disgusting...what an abomination...vile...reckless...there just isn't a word for this level of depravity.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Not so

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:08 am
by Gods_rambunctious_child
While the RCC can say that they should be accepted, the Mighty One has already said what He thinks....they are not acceptable to the Mighty One...just see Genesis 6.
God Bless,
Grc

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:15 am
by perigrini
lahalbo wrote:I can't even understand who would think this is a good idea to begin with??

I can only imagine illegal drugs were involved in this initial idea.

And the woman volunteering to carry it in her womb??!!

:puke:

I'm with you...what were they thinking to even create such mixes?!

This is a modern day tower of babel where the scientists are saying we will be like unto God.


perigrini

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:28 am
by lahalbo
As I re-read the article there are so many insconsistencies.

On the one hand they say
the genetic mothers of “chimeras” should be able to raise them as their own children if they wished.


then they say
They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb.[/quote]

So, they can only implant it into an animal's womb?? Then the genetic animal mother should be able to raise them as their own??

The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence.

In their submission to the committee, they said: “At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.

In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.

“Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.”


This article is just double talk. We don't think you should do this, but just in case you do....

My head is reeling!!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:58 am
by YoungLion
This is unspeakably nasty...

boy, are we ever in trouble.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:40 am
by Final Trumpet
There is nothing new under the sun. This is just a new and modern version of pagan practices over the course of history (and it still is in some places). Animal sex rituals were done in many pagan religions to try and usher in half-man, half-animal gods after the ones they worshipped. Now, they are just doing it in a petri dish in the name of science since as we know, human and animal genetics are not compatable enough to allow a human and animal to mate and produce offspring. Just like infant sacrafice was replaced by abortion, this is just another way that Satan has been able to twist men to do his vile evil to pervert God's ways.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:44 am
by joymart
Final Trumpet

Excellent observation.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:51 am
by water
Final Trumpet wrote:There is nothing new under the sun. This is just a new and modern version of pagan practices over the course of history (and it still is in some places). Animal sex rituals were done in many pagan religions to try and usher in half-man, half-animal gods after the ones they worshipped. Now, they are just doing it in a petri dish in the name of science since as we know, human and animal genetics are not compatable enough to allow a human and animal to mate and produce offspring. Just like infant sacrafice was replaced by abortion, this is just another way that Satan has been able to twist men to do his vile evil to pervert God's ways.


Remeber this too...as it was in the days of Noah.

Does anyone recall any genetic experimentation going on back then?

This can't be coincidence.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:58 am
by joymart
Oh yes, Water, the sons of whatever taking human wives. I had not thought of that.
Giants on the earth as a result.
:( :shock:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:10 pm
by Disciple
nephilim...good observation...I was thinking the same thing...this age is resembling the times of Noah more and more.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:25 pm
by AndCanItBe
I keep wondering if what they're discarding somewhere is going to come back and sting them....for about 5 months.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:44 pm
by WhiteH2OWoman
Aaarrrgghh! :shock: :shock: :shock: :dizzy:
The Nephalim! The days of Noah! Who knows if they were doing experiments back then...but the results were similar!

I've got alarm bells going off in my head now! :scared2: :disappointed: :strike:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:46 pm
by Art Vandelay
lahalbo wrote:As I re-read the article there are so many insconsistencies.

On the one hand they say
the genetic mothers of “chimeras” should be able to raise them as their own children if they wished.


then they say
They insist that it will be against the law to implant “chimeras” - named after the mythical creature that was half man and half animal - into a woman’s womb.[/quote]

So, they can only implant it into an animal's womb?? Then the genetic animal mother should be able to raise them as their own??

The bishops, who believe that life begins at conception, said that they opposed the creation of any embryo solely for research, but they were also anxious to limit the destruction of such life once it had been brought into existence.

In their submission to the committee, they said: “At the very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings, and should be treated accordingly.

In particular, it should not be a crime to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them.

“Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term, she should not be prevented from doing so.”


This article is just double talk. We don't think you should do this, but just in case you do....

My head is reeling!!


From what I understand, Parliament will debate a piece of legislation that if passed, will allow scientists to create animal-human hybrid embryos for research so long as the embryos are destroyed within 2 weeks. The Catholic Church says that the embryos shouldn't automatically be destroyed within 2 weeks, rather, they believe that the genetic mother should be able to carry the chimera to term if she so chooses.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:03 pm
by DontLeaveMeBehind
Image[/quote]

Man that's creepy.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:17 pm
by water
DontLeaveMeBehind wrote:Image


Man that's creepy.[/quote]

I agree...it is some *artists* sculpture...I think she (the artist) did a whole family of these things.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:48 pm
by Disciple
That picture is sooooo creepy..it gives me the "heebie-de-be-jeebies" every time I look at it.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:59 pm
by crmann
As Peri wrote:
This is a modern day tower of babel where the scientists are saying we will be like unto God.


And, as Final Trumpet wrote:

There is nothing new under the sun. This is just a new and modern version of pagan practices over the course of history (and it still is in some places). Animal sex rituals were done in many pagan religions to try and usher in half-man, half-animal gods after the ones they worshipped. Now, they are just doing it in a petri dish in the name of science since as we know, human and animal genetics are not compatable enough to allow a human and animal to mate and produce offspring. Just like infant sacrafice was replaced by abortion, this is just another way that Satan has been able to twist men to do his vile evil to pervert God's ways.


Just because mankind now has the know how, doesn't mean we should be doing it.

I cannot see that this is of God.

If I am not mistaken, it was the fallen angels who taught mankind much of what they knew after the fall of mankind.

The Old Timer

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:05 pm
by Britbloke
I've often wondered if the half man half animal 'gods' depicted in many ancient civilisations (Mayan, Egyptian) were in fact REAL entities, created by genetic experimentation by the nephilim?

Or is that too 'out there'?

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:29 pm
by crmann
Hi there, Britbloke...

I thoroughly believe the half man half animal 'gods' depicted in many ancient civilisations, Mayan, Egyptian, and those of ancient Greece and Rome were in fact REAL entities, created by genetic experimentation by the nephilim.

They were myths passed down through thousands of years from live beings which actually walked the earth before the flood.

I believe that this is one reason God destroyed the earth by the flood. Noah was not only an upright and righteous man, his blood line was still pure, and his DNA had not been contaminated.

The Old Timer

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:46 pm
by RomaLynnStar
:sheep:
We sort of were discussing this in the Signs area where the Nephelim were mentioned.
Yes I believe there is truth to all of those myths out there. Remember the wolrd tells us that the Bible stories are all myths too, right???
Anyway, Paul warned us in 1Cor, to have our covering because of the angels. He also said we will judge the angels as the church. Something to think about.
Has God's plan changed, no. Has Satan's plan changed, no. He is still trying to thwart his judgement day using anything and anyone who will let Him.
Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King. I find myself crying out to God more and more each day for deliverance from this unholy place. I know he hears, because his heart is grieved at the evil taking place in his beautiful creation. Work while there is day, for darkness cometh when no man can work. We are getting really close.
I thank Jesus, so much for you people on this board. You have been such a blessing to me over these past few years. I signed up last year but never did post.
Recently I felt led to post concerning this same subject. So glad for true fellowship. Most, people who are saying they are believers, will not even talk to you regarding the angels mixing with humans. They shake their heads and look at me like I am an idiot. Angels and Satan have always interacted with humans, and we now in this age being so reluctant to admit it, have fallen for Satan's lies more and more.
Thanks again for all of your fellowship. You all have been vital to me for a long time now.
And Herb, was such a blessing to be a true watcher, and willing to admit that he had to diligently seek to make sure he had not been misled either.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:27 pm
by YoungLion
WhiteH2OWoman wrote:Aaarrrgghh! :shock: :shock: :shock: :dizzy:
The Nephalim! The days of Noah! Who knows if they were doing experiments back then...but the results were similar!

I've got alarm bells going off in my head now! :scared2: :disappointed: :strike:



Yeah!! Me too...

"As in the days of Noah..."

Wow, Jesus was great at hinting... He knew we'd figure it out. Hate to be pitted against Him in charades or something. Clearly, there is similarity between the genetic games going on then and the laboratory perversions of today.

It's disgusting.

We're really in for it. Who knows what accidental critter they're liable to come up with!

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:06 pm
by WhiteH2OWoman
Amen, Young and CRM!

I do get a sense that this whole thing is yet another sign that we are very close to the end of the age, mainly because it's so much like what we read about the days of Noah, but also because this is a very dangerous development that cannot be sustained for very long. I.E., it has the potential to wipe most of us out if these genetically engineered chimeras go on the loose. Also, if they start messing with people's DNA on a large scale...in other words, messing with most people's DNA! Scary, scary, scary...

Lordy, I'd like to go back to writing science-fiction, but it's really hard to do when the news is increasingly bizarre!

So what DID happen in the Garden of Eden?????

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:01 pm
by peanutsrnuts
Blessings everyone.

As some might know, I lean towards a careful study of the scriptures from more of a "Hebrew" mind set. To this end, I came across a series of articles last year about what happened in the Garden of Eden. The author, Rabbi David Fohrman, is an excellent communicator and he is able to impart layers of Torah Study knowledge which escapes people who have only studied the Word of God from a Greek/ Christian mindset.

I love to read the Scriptures but have tired of not being able to see the "layers of meaning" which those steeped in the Hebrew language and cultural mindset can impart.

May I recommend a careful read of the entire article series for those of you who love to "dig" deeply into God's Word?

This particular article lends itself to this subject matter. I'll offer an excerpt and links to the article series, as well as a link to purchase the series as an Ebook. You won't be disappointed reading it. Although, I must warn you it will stretch your thinking and challenge any preconceived notions you've had in grasping the "real" story of our Creation in the Garden of Eden.

Here's the excerpt:
http://www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/ ... Part_5.asp

This as you may have noticed is PART 5:

WHERE DOES OUR STORY BEGIN?
Most of us are used to thinking that the story of the Forbidden Fruit begins at the start of chapter 3, when the serpent shows up, engages Eve in conversation and tempts her to eat what she shouldn't be eating. But in truth, that's not the beginning of the story. The story actually begins way back in the middle of Genesis, chapter two, where the Tree of Knowledge is first introduced, and the command to avoid it is first given:

Out of the ground God caused to grow every tree pleasant to the sight and good for food; the Tree of Life in the middle of the garden, and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (2:9). And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying 'Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely. But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil you shall not eat...'(2:16-17).

The reason it's easy to miss the fact that the story begins all the way back in chapter 2, is because after these two verses appear and introduce the trees, the text inexplicably digresses. In the verses that follow, God declares that "it is not good for man to be alone," and the Almighty then sets about trying to find a helpmate for him. The Almighty creates all the beasts of the field and parades them before Adam. Adam names all the creatures, but has no success finding a mate among them. Finally, the Lord puts Adam to sleep and takes a rib from him, out of which He builds Eve. And only then -- after the text tells us about the creation of both Eve and the animals -- does the story return to the Forbidden Fruit. Our familiar snake comes along, offers the fruit to Eve, and the rest is history.

All in all, it's a strange path for the text to take. Why does Adam's search for a mate interrupt the story of the Tree of Knowledge? At face value, it would seem more logical to get the creation of Eve and the animals out of the way first, and then begin talking about the Tree of Knowledge; that way, the narrator can bring each story to its conclusion without interruption. But for some reason, the Torah doesn't do this. It places the creation of the animals and Eve right in the middle of the Tree of Knowledge narrative. Why?

Let's begin by examining this "digression" a little more closely. The truth is, the story it tells is quite bizarre in its own right. Put yourself, for a moment, in the "shoes" of the Almighty. Imagine that you had created Adam and were then concerned that he not be all alone. You decide he needs a helpmate. What's the next thing you would do?

You'd probably decide to create Eve.

But that's not what happens. Instead, the Almighty creates all the beasts of the field and brings them before Adam to see if he might find an appropriate mate among them. One by one, Adam rejects them. In the process of that effort, Adam names each of the animals. Now, let's stop a minute to ask: Why, exactly, did God have to perform this little experiment? Are we to believe that God, the Great Matchmaker in the Sky, couldn't figure out that a zebra wouldn't be a good match for Adam? And after the zebra didn't work out as a wife, was it really necessary to try the hippopotamus and the flamingo also? The experiment with the animals seems almost like a charade. Why do we need to hear about it?

MAYBE THE DIGRESSION IS REALLY PART OF THE STORY

The combined weight of these questions suggests that perhaps we have been too hasty in classifying God's "attempt" to find a mate for Adam as a digression. Apparently, this thread is not an interruption of the Tree of Knowledge narrative at all. Instead, it would seem to be an integral piece of the larger picture. But how so?

Here's the outline of a theory. It's only an outline, so don't jump out of your seats and scream at me quite yet; we'll flesh this out later. But I'd like to suggest that the creation of the beasts of the field -- and Adam's rejection of them -- is actually crucial to the entire Forbidden Fruit narrative. In particular, I am going to argue that it is entirely impossible to understand the snake and his temptation without all this.

We had been puzzled earlier about the snake's motive. He is "cunning," but to what end? Well, perhaps the Torah doesn't talk about the motivation of the snake because it's clear from context. The earlier story about possible companions for Adam, I would suggest, provides the missing motive for the snake. In other words, perhaps it was Adam's rejection of the animals in favor of Eve that propelled the snake into action...

Remember how God had brought all the "beasts of the field" [Hebrew: chayat hasadeh] before Adam to see if he could find a mate among them? It turns out that this phrase, chayat hasadeh, is relatively rare. It only appears in one other context in the entire Book of Genesis -- in the description of the snake. When we first meet this primal serpent, the Torah describes the creature as "more cunning than all the beasts of the field [chayat hasadeh]."

Perhaps that, indeed, is what "drives" him -- this walking, talking serpent. The representative of the animal world closest, as it were, to man -- was seeking to succeed where all other animals had failed. All the chayat hasadeh had been unsuccessful in providing a companion for Adam. The snake, perhaps, was more cunning than all the chayat hasadeh: He was seeking to convince mankind that at least one "beast of the field" could be his companion after all.

A fascinating and perplexing ancient Midrashic text seems to suggest precisely this. The Sages of the Midrash were puzzled, as we were, with the missing motivation of the serpent. What drives him? Their answer is shocking: They say that the snake was on an assassination mission. The snake, knowing that the forbidden fruit harbored the promise of death, hoped that Eve would pass the fruit to Adam before partaking herself. Why? Because according to the Midrash, the snake wanted to assassinate Adam and marry Eve.

At face value, the Midrash seems preposterous. "Assassinate Adam and marry Eve? What would the children look like!", you protest. But Midrashim are not all meant to be taken literally. The rabbis often have a way of conveying deeper truths in mysterious, allegorical garb. Perhaps the Midrash is trying, in its own inimitable way, to lead us towards the very conclusion we have gingerly been approaching ourselves: That somehow, the snake's offer of forbidden fruit follows naturally from the immediately preceding story about Adam's choice to reject the animals in favor of Eve. Perhaps, on some deep level, the animal world -- to speak anthropomorphically -- was leveling a challenge to Adam. What makes you so special? What makes you so different than us that you stand alone and require an Eve as your mate? We can be your soul-mates too...

The rest of the story is continued at the above posted address....You can pick up the rest of PART 5 where it reads: IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE by Rabbi Fohrman

End of Excerpt....

Truly this is a totally fascinating "take" on might have really happened in the Garden. If this is an accurate understanding, then what we are seeing with chimeras today is exactly what Satan had tried to make happen in the Garden of Eden.

Here's a page where you can access all of the articles in the series:
[Sorry mods for the LONG link I don't know how to make it a tiny url]

Link

In case the above address is a "dead" link I found it by "just" Googling the following phrase: " Serpents of Desire by Rabbi Fohrman "

Here's a page where you can order Rabbi Fohrman's EBook.

http://www.jewishexplorations.1shoppal. ... 130305.htm


The Order and the addresses of the Series are as follows:

Serpents of Desire: Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden...An Introduction. by Rabbi David Fohrman. Beyond the Lullaby Effect: Reading the Bible with open ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/Serpent ... uction.asp - 68k -


Adam, Eve and the Elephant in the Room - Serpents of Desire, Part 1
Why would God want to withhold a knowledge of good and evil ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/Adam3_E ... Part_1.asp - 73k -

A Tale of Two Trees - Serpents of Desire, Part 2Mankind's undetermined nature, perched precariously between mortality and ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/A_Tale_ ... Part_2.asp - 72k

The Dark Side of Paradise - Serpents of Desire, Part 3The mystery of the walking, talking snake. ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/The_Dar ... Part_3.asp - 73k

The Naked Truth: Serpents of Desire, Part 4Discovering the key to the deeper layers of meaning beneath the narrative. ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/The_Nak ... Part_4.asp - 74k

What's In It for the Snake? Serpents of Desire, Part 5Forbidden Fruit and the assassination attempt. ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/Whats_I ... Part_5.asp - 75k

Beauty and the Beast: Serpents of Desire, Part 6Which Divine voice should you listen to? The voice of God that comes to you in ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/Beauty_ ... Part_6.asp - 73k

A World of Broccoli and Pizza: Serpents of Desire, Part 7A Knowledge and the nature of good and evil. ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/A_World ... Part_7.asp - 73k -

A Dark and Rainy Night in Manhattan: Serpents of Desire, Part www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/A_Dark_ ... Part_8.asp - 73k -

The I of the Beholder: Serpents of Desire, Part 9
Desire can confound our perception of the way things really are. ...
www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/The_I_o ... Part_9.asp - 79k

Friedrich Nietzsche and the Disc Jockey: Serpents of Desire, Part 10
Torah as the Spice of Life. ...
Link - 78k


Hope you all enjoy it as much as I did. In fact, in light of this Bishop's statement, I think I'll re-read the series again myself.


links shortened by acib

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:20 pm
by Lookfortruth
This is all creepy, and interesting. I am going to move this thread to signs. :grin:

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:27 pm
by RomaLynnStar
:sheep:
Say thanks for the post for Hebrew information. I for one, do believe there is more to the story than a stupid little apple bite.
And I have heard the hebrew word for serpent is not quite what we think it is. Whatever, I tell you one thing, our Lord is able, not by might, nor by power, but by his Spirit to bring the last days believers back to the whole truth that his early church for sure knew.
And I for one, do believe that the whole truth has been deluded so much for a long time.
One thing for sure the Roman Catholic Church, had a motive behind it to enslave the people back to their priest system, and man being over the church, which Jesus Christ did not institute, and the Roman Catholic Church has a plan to bring back its Holy Roman Empire.
I tried to believe for many years, as I had a lot of Catholic friends, now the word Catholic meaning universal, they try to say includes all Christians, but that is not true, they only include the ones that agree with their mother church.
Anyway they do have a plan to bring the "seperated brethren" back into the church. Anyone who does a good study of what the RCC truly believes will have no choice but to recognize they have a different gospel, and a different Jesus. I do not say this to offend anyone, but speaking the truth in love, as we have been commanded of Jesus.

Please check out a website called the Real Presence or google that and the Eucharist, and it will start you on a journey.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:34 pm
by anewthing
Thanx peanutsrnuts!!! I am blissfully lost in this series... :mrgreen:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:14 am
by crmann
Hi guys,

I, for one, have for a while, believed that there is more to the story than simply eating of a forbidden fruit.

Questions for to consider.....

Why is Eve called the mother of all mankind, but Adam is not called the father of all mankind?

Were Cain and Able twins with two different fathers?

The Old Timer

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:24 am
by Be still
I, for one, have for a while, believed that there is more to the story than simply eating of a forbidden fruit.

Questions for to consider.....

Why is Eve called the mother of all mankind, but Adam is not called the father of all mankind?

Were Cain and Able twins with two different fathers?

The Old Timer



I've read about this theory as well Cleveland, very interesting.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:05 pm
by WhiteH2OWoman
crmann wrote:Why is Eve called the mother of all mankind, but Adam is not called the father of all mankind?

Were Cain and Able twins with two different fathers?



I guess I assumed the answer to your first question is that God is the Father of us all...but you've asked a very thought-provoking question!

I don't know...

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:21 pm
by ic0n612
I remember reading and/or hearing somewhere that in the original Hebrew, the word for serpent means "shimmering one". Perhaps, an angel?

Also, "knowing" is also used euphemistically in the Bible.

Now, couple that with the Nephilim. As well as with Cain's shedding blood.



See where I'm getting at with this?



Just putting that out for contemplation.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:56 pm
by Bob the Quiet
joymart wrote:Oh yes, Water, the sons of whatever taking human wives. I had not thought of that.
Giants on the earth as a result.
:( :shock:


It should be noted that the Bible does not say that giants were the "result", but rather simply comments that "there were giants in those days".

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:11 pm
by Sherree
Were Cain and Able twins with two different fathers?


Cleveland, does this theory put forth the idea that Abel was Adam's son, and Cain was the serpent's! :faint:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:35 pm
by Salty Skipper
It's hard to say. The lineage of Adam starts with Seth. So, it's hard to say whether or not Cain was Adams. Scripture does not come right out and say. I don't think we can safely read too much into it without venturing into strange territory. JMO. :eek:

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:43 pm
by Sherree
I'm with you, Salty! Very strange territory indeed!

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:47 pm
by Salty Skipper
Also, Cain and Abel were twins? I'm not understanding how we get that from scripture. :eek:

Genesis 4:
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."


Soooo, either Cain was disowned, or he wasn't Adam's to begin with. I'm still not getting the twins thing, though.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:20 pm
by Sword of Geddon
The return of our lord can't be that far away at all now...not with this going on....not far at all.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:37 pm
by Be still
I, for one, have for a while, believed that there is more to the story than simply eating of a forbidden fruit.


Yes, I believe that's what Cleveland is saying Sherree.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:28 am
by Sherree
There sure is that possibility, Karen. I've just never heard this theory, though. It's something that I will have to study further.

It would help if I knew what the theory was!

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:33 am
by Lookfortruth
Soooo, either Cain was disowned, or he wasn't Adam's to begin with

So if the forbidden fruit was Eve being seduced and becoming impregnated by the serpent (?!) How then would she have shared this fruit with Adam, and how exactly would he participate? :alrighty:

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:37 am
by mouserpg
Salty Skipper wrote:Also, Cain and Abel were twins? I'm not understanding how we get that from scripture. :eek:

Genesis 4:
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."


Soooo, either Cain was disowned, or he wasn't Adam's to begin with. I'm still not getting the twins thing, though.
I don't understand how that shows cain as being "disowned" in any possible way. Could you elaborate?

Two theories (cain not being Adam's Son, and Cain being a giant) killed with one stone in Genesis 4:1. :wink:

Genesis 4:1 (King James Version) wrote:1And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:03 am
by Sherree
Yeah, mouser, that doesn't sound like Cain had any other father, but Adam. Even Eve said he was from the Lord. I can't find anything in the first two verses that imply that Cain and Abel were twins, either. :wink:

PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:18 am
by Be still
Twins? I don't see that anywhere in Genesis. Can you please provide scripture that says they were twins.