Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The Christian Identity Movement and Arnold Murray

I recently had the opportunity to have a dialogue with a gentleman who is a follower of Arnold Murray. I had sort of heard of the theology of Christian Identity, British Israelism, and the Serpent Seed/Seed of Cain, but I had not investigated it and had no idea how dreadful and alarming this teaching was until I began this dialogue. I started doing research to get background information on the movement, then listened to hours of Mr. Murray's Genesis Lecture videos on Youtube to actually see from where on earth this gentleman was getting these teachings, as he most certainly was not getting them from a proper reading of the Scriptures. As in any theology, various teachers alter the teachings to suit their personal preferences, so what I am going to present is first a general history of the subject, and then my first hand encounter with these teachings through Mr. Murray's Genesis lectures on Youtube. As a warning, I take a strong Scriptural stand against this teaching. It is loathsome, vile, and degenerate, and I treat it as such.

Christian Identity is a loosely affiliated organization of churches that have a racial theology. There seems to be no hierarchy, each church appears to be on its own, however due to the commonality of the belief they will stand behind each other. Some followers of this theology believe that non- Caucasian peoples have no souls, so can never be saved. They believe that Jesus Christ paid only for the sins of the House of Israel and the House of Judah (although they have a completely different definition than Scripture of what those Houses are) and that salvation must be received through both accepting Christ and being born into the correct race. With the latter in mind, the key commonality between all of the variations on Christian Identity is the tenet which, as its offshoot, they take from British Israelism. This is the Two House theology that there are two currently existing Houses of Jacob (Israel), that of the northern lost tribes of Israel and that of the southern tribe of Judah. Where the difference comes in from BI is that while they both say that white Europeans are the literal descendants of the Israelites through the ten lost tribes which were taken captive by Assyria, CI takes this further and says that the tribe of Judah did not really come back from captivity either and are actually those white Europeans who settled in the land of Scotland and Germany, and elsewhere, thus the Nordics, Celtics, Germanic and Anglo-Saxons are the “true” Jews (Judah). They claim that the modern Jews are descended from Cain (the natural offspring or seed of Satan) who interbred with non-Caucasian races (meaning subhuman or beast of the field races). These so-called “pretenders” infiltrated themselves into the tribe of Judah long before Christ and therefore by the time Christ came, the people known as Jews were really a people called Kenites. [How Jesus, being from the tribe of Judah, managed to not be a Kenite is a mystery, if all these Jews were indeed Kenites. In fact that the Kenites were chosen to be identified as coming from Cain comes from the fact that their names sounds similar. Other than that, there is no reason to support this conclusion.] This entire theology has its roots in the belief of the Aryan nation, where the Aryans (white race) are a superior race above all other peoples on earth and are God's Chosen people. Some of its leaders had or possibly still have associations with subversive organizations that reflect this belief. Many of its members also belong to militias. Hitler was a proponent of this belief of white supremacy, which is why he wanted to exterminate all the Jews, as well as other people who did not fit his white skinned, blonde blue-eyed Aryan standard. CI concludes that the people referred to in Revelation as the “synagogue of Satan” are in fact the people who today call themselves Jews.

One of the major tenets of the religion is that there was a pre-Adamic race who were created as “beasts of the field.” These races are the non-Caucasian races, (such as African, Indian, Australian aboriginee, and Asian) as the Caucasian race came from Adam. These pre-Adamic races supposedly came millennia before Caucasians, as the days of the first week were not days, but long periods of time. Adam was, according to them, created on the eighth day in the image of God and also only created 6000 years ago. A further tenet of CI believes in the dual seedline from Eve. This states that Eve had sex with Satan and Adam at the same time, giving birth to twins Cain and Abel. Cain was the offspring of Satan or the serpent seed, who in being banished from Eden took a wife from the beasts of the field races thereby creating the hybrid race which eventually gave birth to the modern Jews or Kenites as CI refers to them. Seth (the replacement for Abel) was the son of Adam, who being the pure race led to the true Houses of Israel and eventually Christ. [Again, since Judah was already overrun with Kenites by the time Christ came, it is hard to understand how Christ is not a Kenite by their teachings.]

Some go so far as to believe that Jews are compelled by their Satanic seed to be perpetrating a conspiracy against the Adamic seedline, and have control of the earth through its financial, political, and religious institutions to destroy the white race and claim (illegitimately) that they are God's chosen people. This theology also has dual teachings about Noah's Flood. One is that the flood was not world-wide, thus the seed of Cain was able to survive it and continue after the flood. The other says that Noah was told to take every beast of the field two by two, and since the other races were beasts of the field, two of each race were taken in the ark also, which allowed for the seed of Cain to continue. [As the entire purpose of God was to wipe out the evil of mankind, and Noah was the only one to qualify, by taking two of every “race” God was ruining the very plan for having the flood by taking a bunch of evil people on board. It is completely illogical and unScriptural to assume this second premise (which is the one Mr. Murray espouses).] They do believe in a Second Coming, but see the rapture as a cult teaching. While I cannot verify that all CI believe the following, Mr. Murray whom I have listened to believes that everyone will be resurrected into spirit bodies to be taught during the millennium to become good. It will be a second chance for those who didn't get it right the first time around.

Now I will present what I have learned via listening firsthand to these teachings from Mr. Arnold Murray, pastor of Shepherd's Chapel located in Arkansas. As a biography on Mr. Murray, he is a man who has a television show on over 325 stations (the latest figure I was able to find) and has been preaching this stuff (for lack of a better word) for three decades or so. How I managed to miss hearing about this for so long is a puzzle to me, as I am pretty on top of things. His followers number in the tens of thousands, which is scarey considering what he teaches. Mr. Murray makes a statement about what we should believe. He says, “The proof is in the Word of God.” On this Mr. Murray and I are in full agreement. The proof is in the Word of God, and I intend to show how the Word of God refutes the base teachings of this theology, in particular as taught by this man.

As Mr. Murray - [I call him Mr. Murray, for even though he claims to have a doctorate, he refuses to produce proof of it and those who have tried to investigate him are unable to find out anything about this man. He is highly secretive about his background (maybe for good reason?) and makes unsubstantiated claims about his qualifications] - is one of the most visible teachers of CI being on so many stations and having so many broadcasts, I will use his statements and teachings as the foundation for this article. I spent numerous hours watching his videos to familiarize myself with his teachings, so that I would not misrepresent him or them. Therefore there will be quotes from these broadcasts during the course of this article, and I will be referring to him in that capacity.

Now as to his doctrine. His error begins in Genesis 1:1-2. What I will present is straight from his mouth via his Genesis lectures online.

In Genesis 1, Murray puts an entire world and history in between verses 1 and 2, even though there is nothing there in the Bible. His initial reason for doing this is that the word “and” in verse 2 is, according to Murray, a polysyndeton, therefore much more is meant by the word “and” than we see on the surface. Mr. Murray needs to go back to grammar school, as do his followers. A polysyndeton is a merely a sentence style that employs many conjunctions (i.e. six, seven, or eight conjunctions), making a very run-on sentence. It does not indicate any special significance of the words it is connecting. It is merely another way of saying it is a run-on sentence, not that the word “and” has a deeper meaning. Using this unfamiliar (to most people) word seems to give him some sort of appearance of a literary authority, when in fact it is a ploy to bamboozle people into thinking he is showing them some secret understanding that nobody before him has understood. People listen to “authorities” that throw around big words or say they know the definitions in other languages, but it is the rare Berean (I'm afraid much to Murray's probable chagrin, I am one of them) who actually checks out what these people say. His reasoning, as well as his definitions, are faulty and deceptive.

He claims first, that because science shows us that the world is millions of years old, (this can be demonstrated to be incorrect by creation science) that this can be accommodated [note his 1) need to accommodate evolution rather than believing the Word of God and 2) he uses this as a springboard to manipulate the Scriptures to create his theology] by God having created in verse 1 a heaven and earth, and destroying it between verses 1 and 2. The story goes that there was a pre-existing god-like spirit people (similar to or possibly being angels) with whom God populated this first earth. Then Satan decided to rebel taking one third of the angels/spirit people. The various spirits (angels/spirit people) chose up sides, and those who sided with God were then later to be re-incarnated into the Adamic people thereby known as "the elect" in this world. As God had to destroy that world, that is why in verse 2 it says that the earth was without form and void. The elect whom had sided with God were then apparently waiting around in heaven while he created a second world, the one in which Adam was created. They had to wait quite a while though, as God did not create Adam for thousands of years. The Bible nowhere teaches a pre-existing human spirit race, this is an imaginary creation, nor is re-incarnation (although he does not use this word, that is what it is) a Bible teaching. It is an eastern religious philosophy as is another eastern philosophy that he teaches which will be shortly shown.

Murray bases his entire defense for this fantastical story solely on the word “was.” He says that this is what happened, and since this is how this history occurred, (there is no evidence whatsoever either scientific or Scriptural to back this up, but he seems to know it anyhow) that we have to, and I quote, “take this word 'was' and make it mean...'to become'. That will do it.” So this man has taken this story out of thin air, which has absolutely no Scriptural basis, and inserted it in between verses 1 and 2, by making “was” mean “to become.” In other words, he forces his own belief upon the Scriptures by creating a way for it to happen. This is not how Scripture works. First, we are warned not to add to God's Word. Second, creation science shows that Noah's Flood explains everything that the fossil evidence shows. There is no need for millions of years to explain anything. Evolution is a theory that was created to explain evidence, by people who did not want to believe in God, thus it is biased to ignore evidence that proves it is not the correct interpretation of that evidence. The gap theory (which this sort of is) was created by Christians who erroneously felt the need to accommodate secular theories, however they did not create all these god-like spirit people to inhabit it. In actuality creation science and the Flood explain the entire fossil record.

Speaking of fossil evidence, Murray has a plaster cast of what he affirms positively is a footprint of an angel from the “first” world. I cannot even begin to deal with how gullible people would have to be to believe this. As P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute. First, should this have any credibility (which it doesn't) how would a footprint survive such a catastrophic destruction of the world as he says happens? Two times even, as Noah's Flood destroyed the earth a second time. He says that the world was so destroyed the first time that it became void. That means nothing was left, so a footprint survived? And he was fortunate enough to find it after it survived two catastrophic destructions of the world? Second, if it is a real fossil, why would it not be a man's footprint? Why does he assume it is an angel's, when angels do not have corporeal bodies as we do (nor supposedly did the first human race on that first world). Has he ever seen an angel's foot? How does it differ from a man's? By what authority does he make such a fantastic (and totally absurd) statement? How do we know it is not a plaster cast of his own foot? Angels are invisible to our eyes unless they choose to be seen, and as such, there is no reason for them to leave an imprint from weight in the ground. It is a bogus piece of “evidence.” And why would it have to be a fossil from a previous world, not from Noah's Flood? There are questions that could go on and on about this. To make such a ridiculous statement is just deliberate deceit and to believe it is simply inexcusable ignorance and gullibility.

Another so-called fossil proof of this previous world is that he says that there have been discovered in the American west, fossils of what are today African animals. Supposedly this proves a previous world. It does prove a "previous" world. That of Noah, but not of a previous world to that. As it is well-known that there have been found tropical fossils all over the world from before the Flood, including the arctic, it shows that at one time the entire world had a temperate climate. This was due to the vapor canopy that covered the earth as per Genesis 1:6-7. Creation science shows that this canopy worked like a greenhouse effect. So plants and animals had a tropical climate all over the earth in which to live and migrate before the Flood. There is no reason why there should not have been animals which now reside in Africa in the area of what are the Americas now. Before the Flood they were not restricted to any area by climate. After the Flood, all the animals came off the ark in the mountains of Ararat, so these animals simply did not migrate back to America after the Flood. They migrated to Africa. This is not a proof of a first world, (as in before Noah) and in fact yet again, Scripture bears out the opposite, as the Flood changed all the animals' habitats and accounts for these fossils.

Murray uses the verse in 2 Peter 3:5-7 to prove his point that there was a “first” world, which is ironic, as it in fact does just the opposite. “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” Genesis tells us that when God created the heavens and the earth, that the earth was without form and void, because it was nothing more than a watery matrix, as one of God's first acts was to separate the water into two separate bodies, above and below, Gen.1:6-7. That is exactly what Peter says. That people are willingly ignorant (as is Murray) that the world stood in and our of water. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen and every other element is derived from these two. God calls forth the land (all the elements) out of the water, so there is nothing but water at the start. Water does not take form unless it is in a receptacle of some kind, so of course it was without form. And God had not called forth the land, the vegetation, nor created any living creatures, so naturally it was void, as it was devoid of anything except water. This is not that hard to understand. Scripture bears out Scripture in this case, but it does not bear out the idea of a first world which was populated and was destroyed.

As for Satan's rebellion, had Murray been a little more familiar with all of Scripture, he would have realized that this scenario also goes against Scripture. First let us look to see when Satan was created. Genesis 1:21-2:1 “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” Most people assume that the phrase “and all the host of them” simply refers to all the animals and such but that is not what this word means. The Hebrew word for host here is “tsebaah”. The definition of this word is ” army,” “company,” or “soldiers” and that is how the word is used in the rest of the Old Testament, to describe a company or army of people. This is clearly not speaking of animals nor, as Adam and Eve were the only two people according to God's Word,was it referring to them. We do know though that the angels of heaven are referred to as a host or army. Scripture refers to angels as the host of heaven. Deut. 4:14-19, 1 Kings 22:19, 2 Chron. 18:18, Luke 2:13. So to call them "the host" is a common way of referring to them. It makes sense, since they are an army for God. They do battle with demon/fallen angels on our behalf, Daniel 10:12-14. So this is telling us that the angelic realm was created during that first week. Are there further Scriptures on this? Yes, there are. Nehemiah 9:6 divides God’s creation into the following categories: the heavens, the heaven of heavens with their host (the angels/stars) the earth and all that pertains to the earth (vegetation, animals, and man), the seas and all the life in them. It also adds that the host of heaven worships the Lord. This clearly puts the creation of angels in the creation week as this is what this verse is describing. It mentions the heavens (the initial creation of space-time-matter), the creation of the heavens and their host (stars and angels), the earth (and its inhabitants and vegetation), and the seas with its life. All of creation is contained in those four things. Job 38:4-7 says that the angels (morning stars) shouted for joy when the foundations (the solid part) of the earth were laid, which would put their creation sometime during the first few days.

We know that angels were created to operate in the sphere of this universe. Their prime directive, as it were, is found in Heb. 1:14 - ministers to the heirs of salvation. They act as guards or bodyguards, Ps. 91:11, protectors - Dan. 6:22, rescuers - Acts 12:7, carry out judgment - Gen. 19:3, Matt. 13:41-42, messengers from God to man - Dan. 10:12, Luke 1:13,28; comforters - Gen. 21:17, territorial protectors - Dan. 10:13, 12:1, keepers or overseers of various elements of nature - Rev. 7:1, and they are associated with stars or keepers of them, Deut. 4:19, Judg. 5:30, Job 38:7, Dan. 8:10, Rev. 1:20, 12:4. In the last cases in Revelation, angels are referred to as stars.

Since the Scriptures show that angels have jobs of overseeing people, nations, and nature, it is reasonable to believe that when they are called stars, it is because every star has an angel overseer that keeps it under control. This indicates that when the stars were created, the host were assigned to them. So now we have more evidence as to when the angels were created. This is important in that we have to consider Satan’s original role in creation. His name is Lucifer or light-bearer. He was second to God as far as importance goes in the angelic realm. He was the covering cherub. What did he cover? What in the universe is as important to earth as the light-bearer for the earth or the sun? The sun is the source of life for earth. Without it everything would die. It gives light and warmth. It is the center of our solar system. Is it possible that Satan is its angel, as all stars seems to have an angel assigned to them? If Satan is its angel, as the overseer of this body, Satan would be the most important person as far as earth is concerned, hence his pride. He apparently saw himself as the ruler of earth (the sun does rule the day and it is obvious he aspired to control earth as he actually does at this point) and when God turned the ownership of earth over to Adam, he was probably furious. That Satan did not fall until after Adam was created is evident in that after creation was finished, God said everything was good and He rested on the seventh day. To be good, it must have been free from sin. Satan had to have fallen after that, probably soon after that first week was over.

In Ezekiel 28:13-19 we read the following. “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

This passage is speaking about Satan. He was the covering cherub. We know that Satan walked in Eden in his splendor or unfallen state from the description given, so his fall did not happen before the end of creation week, as Eden was created that first week, and again God said it was all good, no sin yet, and if he was created in that first week, and walked in Eden in splendor, it had to be after that first week that he fell. First Satan fell, then by getting Adam to sin, the dominion of the earth was forfeit over to Satan, as he now became Adam's master instead of God. He now really was the Prince and power of the air (earth). (Not only the power in the sense that he has actual power, but the sun also gives us power - solar power.) This is why God especially hates the worship of the sun by pagans. And it explains why Satan has them worship that particular body. Of all the pagan symbols, the sun seems to reign supreme, and for good reason. It would seem to represent Satan, because it seems he may be its overseer.

So, as opposed to a fantasy story, created and inserted with no reason for doing so, here we have a slew of Scriptures that teach that Satan was created in that first week of creation, and that he fell after the first week. He did take one third of the angels with him, Rev. 12:4, so Mr. Murray has one thing correct.

Another passage that supposedly tells about this destruction of the first world is found in Jeremiah 4. Unfortunately for Mr. Murray, this chapter tells us to whom the passage is addressed, “For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem,” and it goes on to tell them what He will do to Israel and the nations at time of the Day of the Lord. It is describing the destruction that will go on then, not something that happened to an imaginary first world. To take these verses so terribly out of context and apply it in this way is simply deceitful.

Now it is said that when God said in Gen. 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,” that this is not speaking of Adam and Eve, nor is it the Trinity speaking to each other. It is said that God is speaking to the spirit-god people (the elect) when He says “our” and that this refers to a number of different non-Caucasion races that were created on the sixth day. These races were made to resemble God and the god-like people in that they look human-like even though they are “beasts of the field.” He groups the races with the beasts they represent. For instance, he says that when it says that these people were to have dominion over the fish, fowl, and living things, it means that one race would be fishermen (have dominion over the fish), one race would be hunters (have dominion over the land animals) etc. In fact he states about God that “He told them to go fish and hunt on the sixth day.” That is a complete fabrication. It is nowhere in the Scriptures, but he says it is there. The one thing Murray says God didn't tell them was to till the ground. “He didn't create the Gentile races to till the ground.” No, he didn't tell them to till the ground in that particular verse. Neither did He tell them to hunt and fish. It says He told them they were to have dominion. Now to me when it says God told them to have dominion, it means he has dominion over animals, land, and sea. And since God created man to be vegetarian, Gen 1:29, He did not tell them to hunt and fish.

Murray is setting up the scenario that the “white” race (Adam's seed) are the chosen people or “true” Israel, and all the other “races” are Gentiles. From this auspicious beginning, he then starts in with implications, saying things like “Now what people are there that get their living from the sea? Who raises grain from the sea (rice) and eats fish?” (Again he is ignoring the fact that God made man vegetarian). Then he says that he's not directly saying anything, but he just wants people to think about the suggestion he is making, and that God has always loved animals, placing these two suggestions side by side. The implication he is making is that these people are not “real” humans, but animals or subhumans. He won't come out directly and say it, because it is called plausible deniability, but he certainly does everything but come out and say it.

This is followed up by another false teaching, that of Adam and Eve being created on the eighth day. He uses as the basis for this teaching Genesis 2:7 “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The reason given for this being a different man than in the first chapter, of being a superior man that is of the elect souls saved from the first world, is that the word in Genesis 2 in Hebrew is “(eth) ha-Adam” while in Genesis 1:26 it is simply the word “Adam.” Now according to Mr. Murray that little addition of the “ha” which is simply the article “the” in English makes all the difference in the world. This is a different species of man because of that article "ha". He is the white man, the superior race, because it is the spirit race from the first world, unlike the beasts of the field people. People accept this explanation, because Mr. Murray supposedly has a PhD, and knows these things. The problem is, if one gets a Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) and looks at the Hebrew, one finds something very interesting. The verse 1:27, which immediately follows verse 1:26 and which says “So God created man in his own image,” referring to the same man he created in verse 26 on the sixth day, which Murray says are the inferior beast races, is the same word “(eth) ha-Adam” which is used in chapter two that Mr. Murray says is specific to the superior white spirit race of Adam. Mr. Murray neglects to tell his followers that. And with good reason. It completely disproves the very teaching he is trying to prove. Murray convinces his followers that his interpretation is right by saying and I quote, “Many of you that are inexperienced with the Word just simply translated “man” in English, if you have a companion Bible, your appendix 14 will teach you a great deal about humankind, man, and it will teach you about THE man, the special man “eth ha Adam” is what his name is.” Yes, these people must be inexperienced in the word to believe this interpretation. Naturally he sends them to the Bible with his commentary in it to make them believe his interpretation is right. When one uses oneself as the authority to validate one's teachings, one will never be found to be wrong. Why does nobody go to other authorities to verify what he is teaching? A simple checking of the Hebrew Scriptures would show that his entire premise is bogus, because “eth ha Adam” is said to have been created on day six in Genesis 1:27. And unlike Mr. Murray, you do not need to take my word for it, because any Hebrew Tanakh will show you that what I have said is exactly true.

Now had Mr. Murray bothered to read his Bible as written rather than as he wants it to be, he would see that it further disproves his teachings. Chapter two starts with these words. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” What is not understood about it all being finished, everything that God intended to create, and that God ended His work? That is the entire purpose behind observing the Sabbath. God wasn't just taking a day off and then beginning again, He was finished. It is as plain as can be, yet it is ignored. If that is not enough, there is more at the end of the chapter in verses 18-19 where we read, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field.” Now we know in the first chapter that God created all the animals before day seven. Yet here it says that after God created Adam, He then created the animals to be companions. The first chapter is a general overview, but chapter two is the specific details of what went on that day. It is not a separate creation account as many assert. Well now there is a problem, because if Adam was created on day eight, then the animals were created on day eight too, but they weren't. They were created on day six, when man (Adam) was created. Mr. Murray gets around that by saying that domestic animals were created on day eight. That is not what God says. God said He created them on day six. Gen. 1:24-25 “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” The “beasts of the earth” refer to wild animals. The “cattle” refers to domestic animals.

Now Murray goes on to teach how Eve came to be. God did not take one of Adam's ribs (or side). According to him again I quote, “Now this is a false teaching. It misleads people and has from the beginning of time.” So we are being told that what God says is a false teaching that people have believed since the beginning of time. People have believed it since the beginning of time, because God said this was how He did it, and He was the only witness to that event. But Mr. Murray would have us believe that now after all these millennia, he has gotten down to the truth that has eluded people all this time. [I remember someone else recently saying that. His name is Harold camping.] Murry is saying God is a liar. He didn't do it the way that He said He did. Mr Murray goes on to say, “Do you know what this word 'rib' is in the Hebrew? It's 'curve.' He took the curve from Adam. That's why women have better curves than men.” He then explains that rib or side really means DNA. That God took the feminine DNA or the helix curve out of Adam and gave it to Eve. He then states. “Man's got all of his ribs, but he doesn't have all of his curves. The helix curve is gone.” Really? Men have one less helix strand? I don't think so. He doesn't seem to know much about biology, if he thinks men have one less helix spiral. That's as ignorant as saying men have one less rib. The Hebrew word used is “tsalah” which happens to mean “rib.” It is derived from the Hebrew word “tsala” which means “curve.” As a rib is curved, it makes sense that the word “curve” is the basis for the word rib. That does not mean that the word “tsalah” means “curve” and especially it is not a description of a DNA spiral, which is a spiral, not a curve. It is the same linguistics practice that is used in any language. For instance our word “circus” does not mean “ring” or "circle" even though the basis for the word “circus” comes from the Latin word for "ring" which happens to be "circus." Because the Roman arenas were built in circular shapes, the events that took place there came to be known as "the circus," and from there it evolved to the association with our circuses, who also perform in rings, but who have more to do with clowns and trapeze artists than gladiators. So just because a word is derived from a similar word (or in the case of circus, the exact same word) does not mean that is has the exact same meaning. This is a case of manipulating words that people would not know to make it fit your point.

This belief continues to worsen when Murray says that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was really a description of Satan. That is because the word "tree" is to be taken metaphorically in this one instance. Why that is, in this instance, is simply because it is needed to for this theology, no other reason. It is the same word as tree in every other instance throughout Genesis, but in this case, Mr. Murray needs it to be something else, so he makes it mean something else, just as he did before with the word “was” in Genesis 1:2. So this tree is actually Satan according to Murray. His arms were the limbs, the body was the trunk, and the central nervous system which runs up and down the backbone is the knowledge of good and evil. Huh? The central nervous system is the knowledge of good and evil? This comes straight out of Hinduism, not the Bible. Kundalini is the serpent coil that is at the base of the spine. Supposedly as one is awakened to higher knowledge, this knowledge goes up the spine or backbone. This has nothing to do with Christianity, but it is part of the Hindu philosophy and is occultic in conception. Back to the word “tree,” every other time this word is used in the book of Genesis it means a literal tree, but in this instance we are to assume it doesn't? On what grounds? Wishful thinking? What about the word “eat.” Amazingly, the Hebrew definition of this word means to “consume food,” yet he insists that we interpret this euphemistically to mean “having sex” when it comes to this one and only tree. Why? They are told they may eat of any tree except this one. So we are to understand that God is talking about real trees and real fruit when He says that they may eat of all the trees, but He is talking metaphorically about sex and Satan when He forbids them to eat of that tree? Or are we to understand that all these other trees possibly represent the other races, as trees apparently stand for people? But then why would they be told to freely eat of all them if eating is sex? According to Murray, the white race of Adam should not intermix with the "beasts of the field." This is forbidden. And eating freely of all they see would mean that fornication with multiple partners was acceptable. The inconsistency in interpretation is so obvious that it is amazing people buy into this. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was not Satan. It is unimportant what fruit it was, for the knowledge came not from the fruit, but the consequences of the act of disobedience. Disobedience opened their eyes to evil or sin, not the fruit itself. Disobedience broke the fellowship they had been created to have with God. The immediate consequences of that broken fellowship and the catapulting of them into a world apart from God taught them the difference between good and evil in a split second. Murray says that it is stupid to teach that they ate an apple and that was what caused sin. Yes, that understanding is also ignorant, for the knowledge was not in the fruit, it was in the act of disobeying God. The fact that even Murray does not understand this simple doctrine shows his lack of understanding.

Now to balance that he has made Satan the tree of knowledge, he says that the tree of life is actually Christ. While I will not dispute that our eternal life comes from Christ, this was not what this was. This was a real tree that will again exist in the millennium. Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14 “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God..... In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations......Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” If Christ is the tree of life meant in Genesis, then we are all in trouble, for they are barred from ever getting to the tree of life in this world, as are all of their descendants when they are run out of the garden of Eden and cherubim are placed there to guard it to make sure nobody ever eats of it and cannot die. Death is now the only way to eternal salvation, so all must die (or be raptured). The actual tree was destroyed in the Flood of Noah. So by Scripture if nobody can eat of the tree of life, and by Murray's theology Christ is that tree, then nobody can receive salvation from Jesus, which means nobody can be saved. The theology simply does not work. Of course there is another problem involved with this teaching. If eating of the tree means sex, and Jesus is the tree of life, then are we to have sex with Jesus in order to gain eternal life? How is it that nobody can see where these beliefs lead when taken to their conclusions?

Getting back to Adam and Eve and Satan, Murray tells us that Eve told the serpent they were not to eat of the tree nor even touch it. Then he makes the following statement, “That's what the commandment was, and she reported that exactly and correctly to Satan.” WRONG!!!! Everybody who has ever read that Bible knows that God did not say that to Eve. He did not say that they were not to touch it. Everyone knows that Eve added to the Word of God, something we are told not to do, and something Murray does continuously. God said in Genesis 2:16-17 “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Why on earth is Murray lying about something that is so easily checked? And why are not his followers checking and calling him on this lie? They are not calling him on this, because they use Murray's Bible, with all his notes and appendices, and he tells them to “get a concordance [to check whether he is right or not] from our library. You get the best. A lot of copies have been contaminated.” In other words, use only the books he has edited to reflect his beliefs, as to go to true sources would show how in error he is. Just as Jehovah's Witnesses are only allowed to use their own books, written by their own people, slanted to verify their own beliefs, so Murray wants his followers to only use books to which he has added his comments or edited to his benefit, so that they will not find any conflict in what he teaches from the truth of the Bible.

If all of this is not bad enough , it continues to get worse because of how this making Satan the tree makes the next part of the story go. He says that the real events between Satan and Adam and Eve were that they had a ménage à trois with Eve getting pregnant by both at the same time, the two boys being twins, Cain being Satan's son, and Abel being Adam's son. Since Eve “ate” (meaning had sex) of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and then had Adam eat of that tree with her, it means that the three of them had sex together. And yet Murray holds that the Adamic race is pure and elect and that the original sin is attributed to Satan? After something as vile and against God's ways as a ménage à trois? Since for Adam to eat of this “tree” meant he had to have sex with Satan, Murray again infers, though won't directly say, that it was a homosexual union. Rather it is implied by saying “you know what I mean” with a wink, wink at his audience. I believe the reason he will not come out and state these things directly is that when accused of teaching these things he can flatly deny he ever said it. He may not say it directly, but it is most certainly implied and suggested in the most overt ways so that nobody can misunderstand what he wants them to understand that he is teaching. Again, it is deceitful.

Getting back to Adam, Eve, and Satan's orgy, there is absolutely no Scripture to back up this vile assertion. The Scriptures say the following in Genesis 4:1-2 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” The Bible says that Adam knew (the Bible's way of saying having sex) Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. This is very straightforward and clear. To make it mean anything else is to simply deliberately twist the Word of God. Further she attributes it to whom? To the LORD, not to Satan. Is it just that people cannot read simple English? This seems extremely clear to me. Next Murray states that the word “again,” when it says that Eve “again bare his brother Abel” means "to continue to do a thing.” Yes, the word “again” means "to continue to do a thing," but Murray insists that it means to do it again immediately or at the same time. In other words, this is God's way of giving us the clue that these boys were twins, and that this idea that Eve has had sex with two different persons as a threesome and conceived by both at the same time is now verified by the word “again.” That is utter nonsense. The word “again” simply means to repeat something that has been done earlier, but there is no time constraint as to when that repetition might occur. Just as when Noah sent out a dove, and it came back, then he did it “again” seven days later. Genesis 8:10 “And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark.” There was a seven day gap between the two sendings. We do not know how long the gap was between Cain and Abel's birth. We are not told. But we are told that both of these boys were the offspring of Adam. If they were not, the only conclusion we can absolutely pull from Scripture is that Cain is definitely Adam's offspring, for it says that “ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” A simple reading of this verse indicates that Cain is Adam's son, and that God is the one who arranged this conception. God gave Adam and Eve this son. Cain is clearly stated to be Adam's son, so the seed of Cain is actually the seed of Adam. But it simply says that she again bore a child, Abel. So if there were any doubt as to paternity, it is not Cain's paternity that is in question, it is Abel's. Having committed this heinous sin (if it were true, but it is not) would not Abel, Adam's son be truly sinful too, as the sin Adam committed by having homosexual relations with Satan was a sin that God abominates?

I believe, from my discussion with the Christian Identity gentleman, that it is taught that Adam's seed (the “true” Jews) through Seth are not sinners like Cain's seed, as it is taught that the original sin was Satan's fall, not Adam's disobedience. That is not what Scripture teaches. It teaches that Adam brought sin upon all men, and because of that, all have sinned and all are condemned to death. Death came through Adam, not by natural evolutionary causes, nor by Satan. Death came by Adam according to Scripture. It is only through Christ that our spirits are again made alive for eternal life. It does not matter if we are speaking of Cain, Abel, or Seth. All three were born sinners, because their father brought sin and death into the world. Cain chose through his free will, just as Satan and one third of the angels, and his parents Adam and Eve, to rebel against God. Abel and Seth chose to obey God.

Cain did not commit murder because he was Satan's seed. As Adam is the author of sin, it makes sense that his son Cain would be, as a sinner like his father, capable of murder. Murray teaches that original sin was Satan's sin, but death did not come because of Satan. Death came because of Adam. Romans 5:12-19 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1 Cor. 15: 20-21 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”

To continue, the verse that is used to try to imply that Cain is Satan's son is 1 John 3:12 “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.” As is usual with people who are twisting Scripture to their own benefit, he does not take it in context, nor does he interpret it correctly. Again, the Bible clearly teaches that through Adam's fall, sin entered the world. Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” The entire passage used by Murray reads as follows in verses 8-12 “He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.” Now we can see that this is telling us that people who sin (that is all of us) are of the devil. In other words, Satan is our spiritual father at birth, as we are born sinful due to Adam's sin. But Jesus came to destroy Satan's works. Whoever is born of God, is no longer a child of the devil, for God's Holy Spirit remains in us. John 3:16. The children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil or Satan by their works. The children of God live righteous lives (or should). The children of the devil are unrighteous. They love neither God nor their brothers. Cain was one who fell into this latter category. He was unregenerate, an unrepentant sinner, and he killed his brother. In this he was a spiritual child of Satan, but certainly not the literal son of Satan.

In discussing Cain and Abel, Murray states that another way we know that they were twins is that “they both came to the age of accountability and sacrifice at the same time. Why? Because they were twins.... It becomes so obvious it stares you right in the face here.” Let's see how in the face it stares at you. What do the Scriptures say. Genesis 4:3-5 “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” What this tells us is that “in the process of time” or in other words, somewhere down the line. That is as specific as it gets. There is nothing here that says that this is designating some arbitrary age of accountability. That is adding to Scriptures, yet again. Murray then says that the reason Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable was because his fruits weren't good quality as Abel's sheep were, and here I quote him, “The soil won't produce for a Kenite. (the term used for Cain and his seed by CI) So God didn't respect it, because it wasn't good fruit. The earth will never produce for a Kenite even to this day. If Kenites have farms, they have to have workers to farm it for them or it won't produce. It's a curse from God. And vagabonds they are.” That is not the reason God did not accept Cain's sacrifice. The sacrifice was to be blood, as only a blood sacrifice atoned for sin. That is why God initiated blood sacrifice on behalf of Adam and Eve's sin and used the skins to cover their bodies. The implication is that God did not accept Cain's sacrifice, because it came from a Kenite. What does God say about this?

Genesis 4:6-7 “And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” God tells Cain that if he is obedient to the rules and gives an appropriate sacrifice (with the appropriate attitude) he will be accepted just as Abel was. How can that be if he is a Kenite or serpent seed? No sacrifice should be acceptable from Cain if that were so. So we can see that the problem is not that Cain is a Kenite or serpent seed, for no such thing exists. It was because Cain had the rebellious heart of his father Adam. As to the land not producing for Kenites, if that were true, then the people known today as the Jews have been vindicated of being of the seed of Satan, for since they have returned to the land of Israel, they have turned the country from a barren inhospitable desert to a beautiful verdant crop producing land. And since they are all Jews, they don't have other people from other nations doing the farming for them. They do it themselves. Here is what is said about the agricultural industry of Israel today. (courtesy of Wickipedia).

Agriculture in Israel is a highly developed industry: Israel is a major exporter of fresh produce and a world-leader in agricultural technologies despite the fact that the geography of Israel is not naturally conducive to agriculture. More than half of the land area is desert, and the climate and lack of water resources do not favor farming. Only 20% of the land area is naturally arable. Today agriculture represents 2.5% of total GDP and 3.6% of exports. While agricultural workers make up only 3.7% of the work force, Israel produces 95% of its own food requirements, supplementing this with imports of grain, oil seeds, meat, coffee, cocoa and sugar.

Israel is home to two unique types of agricultural communities, the kibbutz and moshav, which developed as Jews from all over the world immigrated to the country and embarked on a pioneering enterprise.

Modern agriculture developed in the late nineteenth century, when Jews began settling in the land. They purchased land which was mostly semi-arid, although much had been rendered untillable by deforestation, soil erosion and neglect. They set about clearing rocky fields, constructing terraces, draining swampland, reforesting, counteracting soil erosion, and washing salty land. Since independence in 1948, the total area under cultivation has increased from 408,000 acres (1,650 km2) to 1,070,000 acres (4,300 km2), while the number of agricultural communities has increased from 400 to 725. Agricultural production has expanded 16 times, three times more than population growth.

Water shortage is a major problem The area of irrigated farmland has increased from 74,000 acres (30,000 ha) in 1948 to some 460,000 acres (190,000 ha) today. Farmers have also grown more with less water, using 12% less water to grow 26% more produce.

Due to the diversity of the land and climate across the country, Israel is able to grow a wide range of crops. Grape vineyards are found across the country, as the country's wine industry has developed to become a world-player Israel is one of the world's leading fresh citrus producers and exporters, Israel produces vast quantities of flowers for export. Israel is a world leader in agricultural research and development which have led to dramatic increases in the quantity and quality of the country's crops.

What a remarkable testimony of agricultural prowess for a group accused of being cursed and unable to ever get the earth to give forth its fruits. They take some of the worst land on earth, and even with a lack of water manage to make it bloom and produce in a way no other people have. They are not only not under the curse of Cain, they are blessed with a gift for agriculture which would imply they are of the seed of Seth, if one believes in the premise of CI. Again, another lie of this theology that they are the seed of Cain.

Jumping to a verse that Murray uses at this point to show that Cain's descendants, the “serpent's seed” were Jewish pretenders at the time of Christ is Matthew 23:33 where He is speaking to the Pharisees. “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” By calling the Pharisees serpents, Murray states that “He's talking to Kenites. The Jews were already Kenites then. As it is written in Jeremiah Chapter 35, where they first took shelter in Jerusalem and began to be called of our brother Judah simply because they moved in with him for protection.” This creates a major problem. Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah of that day. Is Jesus then a Kenite? If the tribe of Judah was dispersed into Europe after the Babylonian captivity instead of returning to the land as Murray claims, then Jesus is one of their offspring, or a Kenite also. So now we have a major dilemma. If Jesus is a Kenite, does that not make Him an offspring of Satan? Would He not be the antichrist instead of the Christ? This brings up another question. If Satan is the father of lies, then are not those who teach false teachings, or lies, (just as the Pharisees did) the children of Satan or in the words of CI, Kenites themselves? How many false teachings of CI have been already been exposed by Scripture in this article? Added to that we have the fact that Mr. Murray made the following prophetic announcement many years ago. He prophesied that the war of Armageddon would begin on June 8/9, 1985. What is even more interesting is where he placed this war of Armageddon. He put it in a valley on the Alaskan peninsula. Now by Scripture, we have to declare Mr. Murray a false prophet, as Armageddon did not take place in 1985. Not only that, he has a complete lack of understanding that the battle of Armageddon is going to take place on the plains of Meggido in the land of Israel. Alaska is not mentioned in the Bible at all. False prophets were stoned according to the Law of Moses. If we still lived by the Law, Mr. Murray would not be spreading his lies now.

Another teaching to show that not all races are from Adam, is contrived from Genesis 3:20 where it says “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” Murray says that Eve is not really the mother of all (in spite of the fact that Scripture says this), because she was not the mother of all races, but only the mother of the line of Christ through Seth, so she was the mother of the “living,” meaning only those who have eternal life. He further defines who that is by saying, “She is the mother of all the eternal living, in Christ and of this woman.” By this statement he effectively has eliminated from salvation all those whom he says are from the so-called races created on the sixth day, as they are not from Eve, according to this theology. By his definition this means those whom he says God calls the beasts of the field are not eligible for eternal life, because they would have to be of the woman (only Seth's offspring) and in Christ. “And this beasts of the field means any living creature. That means all of the races, all of the people.” [who were created on day six according to Murray]. The Scriptures say in Genesis 3:20 “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” What is there not to understand about this. She is the mother of all living human beings. We are all one race, the human race. There are no “beast of the field humans” which Murray refers to as Gentiles. He sometimes gives lip service to the possibility that “other races” can find salvation, and that he respects them, but when one really listens, one hears things like this which show that he does not really believe that the “other races” can find salvation. He also makes statements that people should be proud of the race they are from, but the fact of the matter is, he still feels they are inferior subhumans, so he does not consider them equal, which means he does not respect them.

Another so-called proof of Adam not being Cain's father is when the point is made that you do not find Cain in Adam's genealogy, although a short genealogy for Cain is given. There is no need to list Adam, as the Scriptures have already told us that Adam is Cain's father, and Cain's genealogy is only included so that it can be seen that 1) the sins of the father are visited on the sons, and 2) it showed how technologically advanced man was in several areas in the antediluvian world. Cain's descendants were responsible for the creation of the art of metallurgy and musical instruments. This was worth recording, thus Cain's line to that point was recorded. The reason Adam's lineage is traced through Seth, is because this is the line through which Christ would come, and it was important that Christ's lineage be proven not only in the gospels, but also that it could be followed from Genesis on. This genealogy was really the only one which mattered. Adam had other children, but none of their genealogies are recorded either. Neither are the siblings of any of those in the line of Seth. It is only the one line that is being traced down that is important. All of Adam's descendants except for Noah and his sons would perish in Noah's Flood, so the only genealogy that carried over the Flood was Seth's. There was no point to record the rest of them.

CI does not believe in the world-wide flood of Noah as a rule. Murray bypasses dealing with this at all in favor of a slightly different way of handling the problem of getting Cain's descendants over the hump of Noah's Flood. He teaches that when it says in Genesis 6:19 “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female,” that the word “flesh” means for Noah to take a male and female of every kind of non-Adamic race. The problem with this is that God then clearly specifies what He means by flesh in the next verse and a later verse. Genesis 5:20 says “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them.” This specifies birds, land animals, and insects. Again in Genesis 6:2-3 God tells Noah, “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.” This specifies land animals, clean and unclean, and birds. People are not included in either list. Now, if beasts were to refer to people, then we have another problem. People would have to be either 1) clean beasts, which were taken by sevens, for the purpose of sacrificing one, which would mean human sacrifice, which is an abomination to God, or 2) unclean, which would mean that true Jews should not have anything to do with them, which in fact must be the belief that Murray espouses, as he does not think Caucasians should intermarry or breed with other “races.” As the seed of Cain, they would be unclean and we know that everyone but Noah's family were wicked. If the purpose of the Flood was to purge the earth of all these wicked people, why then bring them along? That defeats the entire purpose of the Flood. But we see that this is not what Scripture teaches anyhow, so it is ridiculous to discuss this.

For the purpose of disproving the other belief, that it was not a world-wide flood, what does God say about how widespread this flood was? Genesis 7:19-23 “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Fifteen cubits is over twenty-two feet at the minimum, and that was above the highest hills on the earth under the whole heaven. Nobody could have survived this. God also said that He was giving the rainbow as a sign that He would never flood the earth again in the same way. But there have been terrible local floods. Just ask New Orleans. So either this flood was world-wide, or God is a liar. God's Word is quite clear that this was a world-wide flood, and that only Noah's family made it to the other side. Only animals were saved other than Noah's immediate family. To say anything more than this is again to add to God's Word.

I have not addressed every issue that came up in the course of listening to Mr. Murray's study of Genesis to this point, nor do I feel it necessary to continue to show how his teachings are completely unscriptural, as this could go on for a very long time. He also has incorrect teachings on many other things. He teaches that there is no Trinity, but that God takes on different “jobs” at different times (this is called modality). The problem with this is that Jesus prayed to the Father (How could He do that if He were the only manifestation of God?) and told Mary that He had not yet ascended to His Father making it clear that He and the Father, while being one, were also two individual persons. Also the Holy Spirit descended upon Him as a dove, indicating that the Holy Spirit is also a different person of the Trinity. One of his teachings on the end times is that people who believe in a rapture (being caught up in the air) are a cult. I have no idea how he therefore explains the following verses. Matthew 24:30-31 “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Mark 13:26-27 “And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.” 1 Thessalonians 4:17 “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” Again, Scripture is quite clear that the elect, at the time of the Lord's Second Coming will be caught up in the clouds, in the air, to meet the Lord. How is this not understandable? It is quite clear.

Further, Murray teaches that there is no eternal punishment or hell. Just annihilation, and that happens only after having a second chance. He teaches that if you are not saved the first time around, you are resurrected at the Second Coming (which creates a problem as according to Revelation 20 there are two resurrections separated by 1000 years) to live through the millennium. The “elect” (by CI's definition) will teach these people and try to get them to believe this, the second time around. First, there is not a single Scripture that teaches that the saints will teach people, and second, there is no second chance. Scripture is quite clear about that, which is why it is so important to accept the Lord while we have the chance, as we do not know what day we are appointed to die. And after we die, comes judgment, not a second chance. Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.” This teaching lets people think they can live as they want now, as they will just use the second chance to do it God's way. They will be sadly mistaken.

One last really dangerous teaching is that about the mark of the beast. According to Murray in one of his newsletters he teaches “They could tattoo “666” from your head to your feet and it would not change your feelings or mind about Christ. This is important. I hope you understand” (Newsletter #264 Oct.2000). It is important, very important, that people understand about this mark. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Scripture is clear about taking the mark. Revelation 14:9-11 “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. ” Again, it appears that Murray does not understand the simple reading of Scripture as this could not be more clear. He is telling his people it is okay to receive the mark of the beast. Would any true preacher of God teach people to take the mark so that they can continue to buy and sell, knowing that it automatically condemns them to eternal perdition? Or would a wolf in sheep's clothing, a seed of Satan do this? Therein lies a very good question. One that all CI people should ask themselves.

Christian Identity is really nothing more than white supremacy or Aryan Nation belief all dressed up in the guise of religion. It is racist and anti-semitic. Hitler (who was one of the heads of the beast of Revelation) was a believer in this idea that the white man was a superior race of people and that the other races were merely beasts of the field, and that the Jews were of the devil. Look what he did for mankind. This belief will only lead to this same problem again. The next beast (the beast of Revelation) who comes on the scene will persecute Jews and Christians alike (just as Hitler did) and will be the one known as the antichrist. It would appear that CI people will be there taking his mark (as they have been told them can do) and being helpful in carrying out this agenda for him (as they feel the seed of Cain needs to be annihilated). They are being programmed to do so. In fact, Mr. Murray gave a great demonstration of this very thing on television when a person on set called one of his teachings blasphemous. Mr. Murray jumped up, got his briefcase out, pulled out a gun, and told his followers to “take this nine-millimeter to that boy.” Yes, that is how every good loving Christian should react, isn't it? This can be seen at this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf2Xa3H0eQI

This is just the tip of the iceberg with these teachings, but as can be seen, when the foundation is built on a swamp, the house will sink. And it will also stink. And so does this theology.

*After posting this, it was brought to my attention that those who would think of themselves as the Ephraimite part of the Two Houses under this theology have a major problem. They are hybrids according to their own teachings. That is because Joseph, the father of Ephraim and Manasseh married an Egyptian, who would be classified as one of the beast of the field races. I believe that would probably make them the seed of Cain according to CI. I don't think they thought of this.

11 comments:

  1. "He claims first, that because science shows us that the world is millions of years old, (this can be demonstrated to be incorrect by creation science)"

    Creation science? No such thing. The very phrase is an oxymoron. Sorry, you had me until you tried arguing against one myth with another :(

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually there is, but as I am sure you have never bothered to investigate it due to what I am assuming to be extreme prejudice, you cannot know what it teaches. That's what is so sad. People never investigate things before having an opinion. They simply listen to others and parrot them without ever checking the facts. That is why I spend so much time in investigating things and ferreting out the truth. God holds me responsible for what I believe and I can't pass the buck on to anybody else. Neither can anyone else. A lot of people are going to find that excuse doesn't fly with God.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Speaking of lies and fabrications.....the author appears to be an expert in that area....For one to really understand the Bible you have to go back to the original text....of which Pastor Murray has a great understanding. Maybe the author should listen to more of Pastor Murray's teachings to develop a better understanding instead of attempting to smear someone who is doing God's work in educating people on Bible truths?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do not have to lie or fabricate any evidence to show that Arnold Murray's teachings are completely unscriptural. One need only read the Bible to see that. A little research shows that he knows no more about the original languages than the average person, as his conclusions and interpretations do not bear up under scrutiny. I listened to more than enough of his teachings to know exactly what he is teaching. The difference is, I examined what he said under a microscope against the Word of God. Have you? Or do you just accept what he says without question? He is not educating people on Bible truths, he is brainwashing people into his antisemitic, unscriptural balderdash. Calling me a liar is not going to change the fact of what he is teaching and doing. The truth is the truth, but you are welcome to listen to him if you want. Be forewarned that there will be a price to pay for it, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. One fool attacks another fool.. The bible is a 'racist' book full of hate for against Gentiles and no amount of gibberish from Jesus Christ about 'for god so loved' this or that changes it.(A lie since no god would torture for eternity its own creation if it loved it and it was he apparently who created hell so that rules out the nonsense about him desperatly wanting to 'save' humanity from it). Back to the point, Identity Christians believe caucasions to be 'chosen' Mainstream Christians believe Jews to be 'chosen' superior or whatever you call it. The difference between the two is youns swap around who you believe is 'chosen' or 'elect', but the fundamentals is the same, just look at the genocide and all the rest in the old testament. You are right enough about the genesis account in that there is no 'superior' or 'chosen' people groups mentioned in it. The whole superior people thing comes later with the whole abraham and his special 'seed' covenant which points to the bible being a compilation of various sources. The old and new testaments are the most outstanding examples of this since they're basically two opposites. Look you showed good intelectual quality in watching this man Murrays videos and analysing them which a lot of Christians wouldn't do cause they'd get into a rage(I would know from personal experience and such) but why don't you take a look at a more peaceful or reasonable religion like say Hinduism or something, one that doesn't call for genocide of others that doesn't place Caucasions or Jews as 'chosen' races. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Bible does not teach a superior race, nor does it teach hatred against Gentiles. You mistake the word "chosen" for superior. Nobody is superior, however God chose a person who loved and worshiped Him and promised that through him and his descendants the Messiah who would provide salvation to every person on earth would come. This happened to be the Jewish race, not by any merit of theirs, for they were unfaithful to God, but because God always keeps a promise and He had promised this to Abraham. This Messiah is for everyone,Jew and Gentile alike, so it is not a matter of some people being chosen and some not. You and every other person on earth do the choosing. God is holy. He cannot tolerate the presence of evil, therefore those who choose to reject a relationship of holiness with Him, must be allowed to live in a place for eternity where God does not exist. Hence God provided that. Hell is what the absence of God creates. He didn't make it to torture people, it is simply the result of providing a place where His presence cannot go and He does not intervene. Hell creates itself, for it is merely everything that God is not. It is hatred, violence, badness, merciless, etc. Hinduism, and other religions do not offer forgiveness of sins and a cleansing to purge all evil out of you so that you can live in the presence of God. Only Christ, through taking the eternal punishment of those sins for you could substitute His righteousness in your place. No other religion offers that. To be chosen simply means that you have chosen God and therefore He chooses you. He knows in advance who will choose Him, as He has foreknowledge, hence He calls those whom He knows will choose Him, His elect. Anybody can fall into that category - Jew, Gentile, slave, free man, man, woman. There is no respecter of persons with God. He accepts anybody that wants Him, including you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just a question: IF the indians and orientals are the children of the serpent god(s) of Genesis 6....as in your giants article. it would seem no salvation is available to them.

    Indians and orientals never in history have ever seemed to respond to the gospel in any large way. I know europe and the USA are not much better today. When you think about it is it not mostly whites of European descent who have carried the Bible all over the world?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't know for a fact that they are the children of the serpent god, they SAY they are the children of the serpent god. The fact that they have continued with religions that are Babylonian oriented and been resistant to the gospel is an interesting fact that would seem to bear your idea out, however some have been saved, so obviously salvation is available to them. I don't know that if the blood were diluted enough with only a very small amount of angelic blood, if people would still fall under the Adamic covenant. This is a question I have wrestled with for a long time. Can humans with tainted blood be saved? I know that the ones that were in the land of Canaan apparently were not, but is that because they chose to reject God, or they couldn't be saved? I can't find anything specifically in the Bible that rules out salvation for the descendents way down the road. The reason it was so important to rid the world of that blood before the flood was because Jesus had to have pure human blood. But that reason no longer exists. There is reason to believe that some of the nephilim were the Nordic gods, and that they had descendants that were reddish/blonde haired with blue eyes. My cousin jokingly said that he can trace our ancestry back to Odin, the head Nordic god. I don't know that I believe him, but what would that mean for me and the line of godly ancestors I have from that particular line? It's a mystery to me as to where the line gets drawn on salvation and people's bloodlines. How much tainted blood is too much? I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zec 14:21 -
      Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

      Good sound questions. I must admit I like your site and agree overall. The giants were tied into the canaanites and the Bible says one day no more canaanites. Yes I know Simon is called a canaanite - but is he of the race or the area of canaan?

      Thanks for the Hoggard expose - strange bird indeed

      But you have some good teachings on this site.

      Delete
  9. You need to be VERY thoughtful and careful about preaching about a Rapture. This is a very dangerous and likely false doctrine and very controversial. If you preach of something this substantial and it is not true (which is very likely), you might as well join the ranks of the false prophets you so often speak of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bible teaches a rapture, although it is called "being caught up in the air" in the Scriptures. The word "rapture" is merely a synonym that was coined for easier reference. It is not a false doctrine. It is the timing of it that is in dispute and can be a false doctrine. The pre-trib rapture is not taught in Scripture. I believe the Scriptures should be taken at face value and that the rapture is where Paul said it is, at the last trump. I suggest you read my article on "Is there a Rapture?" http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-there-or-is-there-not-rapture.html. You also need to be very careful to look at what you are being taught to see if it truly lines up with Scripture. What Arnold Murray teaches does not.

      Delete