BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 95,965
- 32,000
- 2,250
You know EXACTLY what I mean.Imagine that. Some people don't care for beastiality being called marriage.It was exactly like this when mixed couples tried to marry. The bigots eventually got over it, at least enough to do their jobs. I know many who still whine about it,
I agree, but you know that is not the same don't you? Ask an adult what those words mean.
Sure I do. Like many crazy right wingers, you want to equate same sex marriage with bestiality. It's not the same and you are a disgusting idiot for thinking it is.
Wrong. I was talking about groid/white "marriage"Imagine that. Some people don't care for beastiality being called marriage.It was exactly like this when mixed couples tried to marry. The bigots eventually got over it, at least enough to do their jobs. I know many who still whine about it,How about obeying the law? Works for me...
As long as the objector is not the one actually getting married to same sex they should not impose their faith or beliefs on others.
This is becoming a ridiculous game of attrition.
Was it this bad when mix couples tried to marry? What of mixed faiths?
What do they teach in the churches here that makes people so intolerant of others? I can understand some areas of the world, but I would have through tolerance should be the norm not the exception in such a melting pot of people
Beastiality? Lesbians?
Washington, Arizona, Pennsylvania, NY, men who were married. The most recent case in the news involved a horse and four dogs. ................ and they had what to do with homosexual marriage?
Part I - The Beasts of the Field!
When the word "beasts" is used in the scripture, it often simply means "a living creature." For example, in the book of Revelation (KJV) the term "beast" is used to identify certain heavenly creatures who serve God day and night before His throne. Thus, in Revelation 4:6, 8-11 we have the statement - "...and in the midst of the throne, and about the throne were four beasts . .
In connection with this, read Revelation 5:6, 8 and 6:1, 3, 5, 6, 7, where the word "beast" is used. I have quoted the above scriptures principally to show that there is nothing belittling, demeaning, or derogatory in the biblical use of the term "beast". It is as honorable as the term "angel" or "man".
The English word "beast" is translated from three different Hebrew words:
(1) "behema", meaning cattle or quadruped;
(2) "beir", meaning a brute beast; and,
(3) "chevyah", meaning a "living creature".
The Greek word translated "beast" is "zoon", and this is the word used in the passage quoted above, and in Revelation 7:11; 14:4; 15:7 and 19:4.
Many Bible translations, including the very reliable Revised Version, translated the Greek word "zoon" as "living creature", rather than "beast", and so it is used in all the aforementioned passages. The same should apply to the Hebrew word "chevyah", and does, according to Young's Analytical Concordance. Most translations, however, seem to prefer the expression "beast of the field," or "beast of the earth," to be the best translation of the Hebrew "chevyah". This is the word used in Genesis 3:1.
From this passage it becomes evident that two very definite and distinct types of living creatures are described in the scripture, one identified as "beast of the earth, or the field," while the other is described as the "beast before the throne". Very often the word "beast" is used without the phrase "of the field," or "of the earth".
There is a fundamental principle which every Bible student should remember. It is this: God never troubles to explain things which are not absolutely necessary for us to know. He states the factual truth as it is, and, because HE is completely incapable of untruth or error, He expects us to believe exactly what He says even when no details are given. It is here that faith and trust in the veracity of God always thrive. It is written: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That statement is true! You may ask ten thousand questions about it, such as: "Where did God come from?" How did He make the earth? Where did He get the materials? How did He make the stars? How long did it take Him to create it all? and many, many others which the wisest of men cannot answer.
The Lord did not say He wanted us to understand everything He does. He simply states the indisputable facts and leaves man to believe or disbelieve as he wishes.
The scriptures say that a certain man was named Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided (Genesis 10:25). God does not explain what method He used to divide the continents and islands, but in passing, the revealing statement is made: "In his (Peleg's) days the earth was divided". This answers a problem which has baffled the best scientific minds for centuries. If you believe it without explanation, it answers much. If you try and pry into it, you get hopelessly lost in the fog.
Thus, in Genesis 3:1, where the scripture says that the "serpent was more subtle than all the beasts of the field that the Lord had made," it becomes a baffling passage, yet wholly true.
We may ask a thousand questions about this passage. Who was the beast of the field who is here referred to as a serpent? Where did he come from? When was he made? If he was a beast, how come he could speak an understandable human language? But God leaves you and I to believe His Word and then discover its truth, "line upon line, precept on precept". Only then does it become understandable.
In Genesis 3:1, we have an introduction to this "living creature," called a "serpent". The English word for "serpent" as used here, comes from the Hebrew word "nachash". It makes sense, if we use it as a proper name as it was intended to be. Thus the text would read: "Now Nachash was more subtle than any beast of the field." The Hebrew word for "man" is ADAM, and the translators wisely left this word capitalized, naming this first White man as Adam. Why not use the same principle with Nachash?
It is universally admitted among Bible scholars, that the Hebrew word "Nachash" presents great difficulty when translated as "serpent". This difficulty disappears, however, when instead it is translated properly as "Nachash", and we leave it as a proper name, as it was intended to be. Dr. Adam Clark who has become known as the "prince of Bible commentators", has much to say on this subject. In his labors to solve this difficulty concerning Genesis 3, he said that this was "one of the most difficult, as well as the most important of all narratives in the whole book of God". "We are obliged," he said, to seek for some other word to designate the word Nachash in the text, rather than the word serpent, which in every view of the subject appears to me to be inefficient and inapplicable. In all this uncertainty it is natural for a serious inquirer after truth to look everywhere for information. In such an inquiry, the Arabic may be expected to afford some help from its great similarity to the Hebrew. A root in this language, very similar to that in the text, seems to cast considerable light on the subject. 'Ghanas, or Khansas', signifies that the (Nachash) 'departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away.' From this Arabic root comes 'ahhnas, knanasa and khannoos', which all signify an 'ape', or a creature similar to an ape genus
Dr. Clark combats the idea that the tempter of Eve was of the serpent species maintaining that none of them were ever able to walk upright. The very word "serpent" comes from "serpo" which means "to crawl". For that class of reptiles, it would be neither a curse nor punishment to go on their bellies. Furthermore, serpents have no organs of speech nor any kind of articulate sound. They can only hiss.
Dr. Clark continues with this summary: In this account we find
(1) that whatever this Nachesh was, he stood at the head of all inferior animals as far as wisdom and understanding was concerned;
(2) that he walked erect, for this is necessarily implied by his punishment to crawl on his belly;
(3) that he was endued with the gift of speech, understandable to humans;
(4) that he was able to reason, and,
(5) that these things were common to this creature.
There is no doubt that Eve had seen him walk upright, talk and reason and therefore showed no surprise when he accosted her in the language of the text.
According to Genesis 3:1, Nachash posed his question as a challenge to God: "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" It is quite obvious that there was much more to the discussion between Eve and Nachash, than what is recorded, since the scriptural record seems to begin in the middle of their conversation. Eve reiterated what Nachash obviously already knew when she told him that she and Adam were allowed to eat of the fruit of every tree in the garden, except that of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," which was forbidden by God, on the pain of certain death.
From the little recorded of this conversation, it becomes evident that Nachash understood very well the disasterous consequences to Adam and Eve, should they disobey God, for he went about his seduction with artful cunning, which is not a characteristic of lower animals, and was no doubt inspired by Satan. (Some teach that the "serpent" was Satan himself, but there is no scriptural evidence of this).
It becomes evident that the Adversary of man, sometimes called the "devil" or "Satan", used Nachash as his willing tool in corrupting mankind. There is little doubt that Nachash was morally responsible for his action, for he was not of the lower order of animals without mind or consciousness towards God. He was one of the "beasts - the living creatures" of the field, and the wisest and smartest of them all. If he had not been morally responsible for his actions, God would not have judged him as He did. Notice in Genesis 3:14, that the curse against Nachash was directed against him as an individual and did not effect all members of his kind, as many teach. He was reduced from walking upright to a condition lower than that of cattle, going about on all fours as an ape and compelled to eat his food in the dust of the earth.
The judgment on Eve was:
(1) greatly increased conception;
(2) accompanied by sorrow and pain;
(3) her husband should rule over her;
(4) and her desire should be to him.
Adam was sentenced:
(1) to toil on cursed ground;
(2) in sorrow would he eat all the days of his life;
(3) thorns and thistles would come forth to fight the food he planted;
(4) and with the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread, until he died and returned to dust. The moment Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they began to die, thus fulfilling the curse.
With these thoughts in mind, it might be well for us to consider this seven fold proposition, all relative to the "beast of the field":
(1) It would be able to speak, reason and carry on an intelligible conversation with humans;
(2) It would be able to "fast", and "pray", and "bear responsibility before God";
(3) It would be able to wear clothing and put them on and take them off under its own power;
(4) It would be a biped, walking upright like a man, having hands and feet, rather than the paws and hooves of other lowly animals;
(5) That he would often associate with man;
(6) That he alone of all the animal family would be able to crossbreed with man and because of this, this cross-breeding was forbidden by God; and,
(7) He was not a nation and never had a civilization of his own.
The first proposition states that this "beast of the field" was not a dumb animal, but an intelligent being, able to speak, reason and carry on intelligent conversation with members of the human family. This proposition has been covered by examining the scriptural account of the conversation between Eve and Nachash. It is evident that Eve was not surprised by his ability to speak with her. Since he was more subtle, "clever" than any others of his species, it is very possible that he had been chosen by Adam to supervise other members of the Nachash and was responsible to Adam for helping him "dress the garden" Genesis 2:15). Evidently in this pristine setting it was a pleasant task. It is evident that Adam was the ruler in the garden, an overseer, but not a common laborer. Adam's authority was over all creatures on earth, in the seas, and under the earth. He was the master in every respect and every creature did his will. I believe that Nachash and other members of this "beast people" were his intelligent servants, who had been given this special task by God Himself. When Adam named every creature, he gave them names suitable to their usefulness and ministry and it was not until after his disobedience that man himself became a servant and slave with none to serve under him. He had to make his own way, with the sweat of his brow.
It would seem rather ridiculous for God to place Adam in the Garden of Eden to be it's caretaker, and place him in control of all creatures, and still neglect to give him intelligent living creatures to help carry out his duties. It was that way in the beginning, and will be that way when the Second Adam, Jesus Christ, comes back to rule in His restored kingdom.
In this way, Adam was first given dominion and rulership, but through disobedience was forced to do the work that his servants had previously done.
When the master became the slave, then Nachash and his race were reduced to nothingness, since they had no one to serve. For this reason the continent of Africa, became known as the "Black Continent," not because of the color of men's skin who lived there, but because of the darkness that had descended on Nachash and his people. For over 6,000 years they have waited in darkness, ignorance and poverty, for the day when they will once more assume their appointed tasks to the king, in His Kingdom.
In spite of all efforts by liberals and Black leaders to manufacture a great Black civilization in Africa, there has never been any.
We have abundantly proved that this Nachash was an intelligent creature, able to think, reason, and bear moral responsibility. He was not a snake, but an intelligent creation known in scripture as the "beast of the field". The rendering of the word "subtle," in the Ferrar Fenton translation indicates that it means: "imprudent, lacking in modesty, contemptuous, cocky, and capable of using his intelligence for deceptive purposes, to gain his own advantage".
The second proposition was that this being could "fast," "pray", and bear moral responsibility before God. If we can show this creature, variously described in scripture as "beast of the field," is simply "beast", is capable of fasting, prayer, and repentance. Then most certainly we are dealing with an intelligent being, possessing God-consciousness and far above the realm of serpents, who though often associated with man, is not man, or a descendant of Adam.
In the third chapter of Jonah we find an interesting story. (This is just another case where the Bible states the truth, as it is, but does not make any explanation). We should remember, that all Israelites of that time, understood the proper identity of the "beasts of the field". Jonah preached, on the order of God, that the city of Ninevah would be destroyed in forty days. The King of Ninevah evidently believed the prophet, and set about to seek God's mercy for his people. (Please accept the facts as they are recorded in God's Word without trying to make them fit into modern tradition, which is far more often wrong than right).
Note: "Word came unto the King of Ninevah (regarding Jonah's message) and he rose from his throne, and laid his robe from him, and covered himself with sackcloth (like burlap sacking, in those days a sign of sorrow or repentance), and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Ninevah by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying: 'Let neither man nor BEAST, herd nor flock, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water...' (Now consider the following words very closely): 'But let man and BEAST be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily unto God.' "(Jonah 3:6-8). Read these words again! The herds and flocks, that is, all the lower animals were to be restrained from eating and drinking, but MAN and BEAST were to put on sackcloth and ashes and pray to God and repent! Be honest now, have you ever heard of a cow or horse, or monkey putting on sackcloth and praying to God for mercy?
Of course not! They are incapable of this. But the "beast of the field," could do this, so the Word says!
So let's start examining the question and see who this creature is who is called a BEAST, but who is capable of fasting, praying, and repenting, just as man can do. The BEAST mentioned here is without a doubt, of the same race as the BEAST mentioned in the Garden of Eden, who talked with Eve and tempted her. NAC HASH, the tempter of Genesis 3:1, was of the BEASTS of the field. (He WAS NOT SATAN! as some teach, although he no doubt was under Satan's control).
Note further, that not only was this being capable of fasting and prayer, but, along with man, he was commanded to turn from his evil way and from violence that was in his hands, (Jonah 3:8). Animals do not have hands! "BEASTS of the field" do! Lower animals are never guilty of violence that could be accounted as sin before God. So here we see several different points: First, these beings called BEASTS can pray; second, they can put on clothing (in this case sackcloth); third, they have hands and can walk erect; and fourth, and finally, like men, they are commanded to put away the violence in their hands. These are things animals cannot do, nor are they ever asked to do in scripture. Therefore we MUST conclude that the "beast of the field" is an intelligent, morally responsible creature, similar to man, although not man.
Our fourth proposition was that this creature was a biped, walking upright and having hands and feet, not hooves or paws. This proposition has been fairly well covered. But there are other passages which point out the moral responsibility of these BEASTS, and show they have hands and therefore walk erect.
At the time when the Law was given to Israel at Sinai, this command was given by God to Moses: "Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be put to death: there shall not any HAND touch it (please note) he shall surely be stoned or shot through, whether it be BEAST OR MAN, IT SHALL NOT LIVE..." (Exodus 19:12,13). Surely, no one reading this would be foolish enough to believe that this passage was speaking about animals. Dare we charge God with utter foolishness? When He speaks of the HAND of MAN and the HAND of BEAST, then these MUST possess the knowledge and responsibility to refrain from reaching out to touch the mountain. While we do not have time or space to explore this further, it should be accepted as it is given at the hands of two or more witnesses in the Word, and is therefore established!
In proposition five, we stated that the BEAST is closely associated with man. This we have already proven. He talked with Eve in the garden of Eden. He fasted and prayed with the men of Ninevah.
He was commanded, along with man, to refrain from putting his hands on the mountain. In the book of Daniel (Daniel 4:25) we have a further account of the BEASTS of the field, as they cared for King Nebuchadnezzar when he was driven from dwelling with men during the period of his insanity. God's word to the king was: "They shall drive thee (Nebuchadnezzar) from MEN, and thy dwelling shall be with the BEASTS OF THE FIELD, and they (the BEASTS of the field) shall make thee eat grass as an oxen and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven". (Please note the words: "They shall make thee"). A domestic animal would have paid no attention to the king, let alone care about what he ate. But the BEASTS OF THE FIELD caused him to eat grass and sleep in the dew. No known lower animal has ever been known to do things such as this, but remember, the BEASTS OF THE FIELD are not lower animals.
There is one more thing we MUST mention, for it is of surpassing importance in our day and ties in closely with the theme of this book on miscegenation. These commands, found in God's Word are almost completely ignored because of a dreadful lack of understanding on the part of people, especially those who go by the name of Christian. In Leviticus 18:23, we find this definite command given to Israel by God: "neither shall he lie with any BEAST to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a BEAST to lie down thereto: It is confusion! And if a man lie with a BEAST, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the BEAST. And if a woman approach unto any BEAST, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman and the BEAST; they shall surely be put to death..." (Leviticus 20:15, 16). (Oh, how the Judeo-Christian crowd will cry about this command. They will no doubt say: "That was the harsh God of the Old Testament. The New Testament God is a God of love". Yet these hypocrites teach that "God never changes, and is the same yesterday, today and forever." If this is true, then His commands against sexual union between MAN and this BEAST [which is not an animal] is as true today as when it was written some 3500 years ago, Billy Graham not withstanding).
Any sexual relationship between MAN and this servant race known in the Bible as BEASTS, BEASTS OF THE FIELD, or BEASTS OF THE EARTH, is strictly forbidden. These two morally responsible parties, who cross this forbidden boundary, were to be put to death. (Not my words, but from God's Law, which was never changed in the New Testament).
We have reached a crucial point here. God has clearly ordered that KIND MUST BE AFTER HIS KIND! There MUST be no crossing over between MAN and BEAST (and remember, we are not speaking here about four footed animals, but about a being that walks upright, can reason, knows right from wrong, and is capable of sexual relations with man).
Any cross over between MAN and this BEAST is confusion and abomination to God according to Leviticus 18:3. The end results are so bad, that in Israel the guilty parties were immediately put to death, so there would be no possibility of a hybrid offspring. (Knowledgeable people know this would be impossible with any sexual union between man and lower animals. In fact, it is impossible for man and lower animals to cross-breed. There is only one being, other than man, who can do this and this is the BEAST OF THE FIELD, which we today know as the Black race). There is no other conclusion an intelligent person who believes the Word of God can make. (These were the men CREATED from nothing in Genesis 1:27, male and female, and are completely different from ADAM man FORMED from the dust of the earth, male only, in Genesis 2:7).
No animals crossbreed with man. (The Negro, or Black, as the "politically correct" would have us call them), is a perfectly honorable being, created by God for a distinct and glorious purpose, but he is not of Adam's race. He is closely related to man, but he is not descended from Adam. (Evidence proves that he was on earth before Adam was FORMED).
The seventh proposition was that this being is not a nation and never has had a civilization of his own. That the Negro in God's wise plan was created for the purpose of serving appears evident in the light of the fact that no Negro civilization, as such, has ever existed, in spite of all efforts by Blacks and liberals to prove otherwise. All races of mankind have had their civilizations. The Chinese, the East Indian, the Arab, the Ethiopian, the American Indian - all of these had their own civilization, some highly developed, but in spite of all efforts to prove otherwise, the Negro has never had a civilization as such. His native home, given to him by God is Africa. In his native state he plowed no fields, harnessed no oxen, developed no government, polished no gems, extracted no oil from the ground, and carried on no united projects with other tribes. Today, in areas where he has been untouched by White civilization, he lives the same as he has for the last 6,000 years, with no knowledge of the wheel, or the ability to start a fire. (I have seen this with my own eyes in Central Sudan - Ed. Mohr). The only civilization Blacks have enjoyed, have been those in association with other of earth's nations, primarily Whites. Thus, it will continue until the day when in the kingdom of God, the Black will be raised from his present status, to the place of service God intended for him to have.
This subject is not as complex as it is vast and because of this vastness and the abundance of evidence available, we must confine ourselves to only a few questions which will come to the minds of those of you who read this article, especially if you come from the Judeo-Christian churches which teach that all mankind came from Adam and Eve. If you are honest in your desire to know the truth, it can be found, as usual, in a close study of the Bible. (It will not come by going to your pastor and asking him for an explanation. For he will give you the answer he was taught in seminary).
Someone is sure to ask: "How did the Negro get through the flood?" The answer should be relatively simple to a thinking person. He came through the flood, inside Noah's ark, the same as all living creatures did. Though we have no scriptural record of it, I do not believe we would be far wrong if we said that he helped Noah and his sons with the tremendous task of taking care of the animals on the ark. Have you ever thought about this. It must have been a tremendous task, for these animals had to be fed, and cleaned up after. Any boy who has lived on a farm can understand this. When the flood was over, the Blacks came out of the ark, just like all the others and continued to propagate their race up to the present time. The only race totally destroyed by the flood, were the giants, who were the product of illicit union between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men".
I am no christian but I used to be a adherent of Christian Identity and its quite obvious n!ggers are NOT fully evolved beings therefore beasts. White women/n!gger males=beastiality same with white men/n!gger women.
Nice try, but your post had no biblical implications. You are a disgusting idiot.
