The following email exchange took place just prior to the death of one of the most exhaustive, most diligent, most persuasive watchman on the wall, one whose writings have had a positive effect on men all around the world, particularly those who’ve awoken to the glorious heritage of those of the House of Israel—Arnold E. Kennedy.  You can find excerpts from his excellent writings at http://fathersmanifesto.net/aek which is where this document will soon be found.

 

Prior to Arnold’s untimely and almost instant death, this author, while traveling across Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Ireland and other Eastern European and European countries, had been in almost daily contact with Arnold by Skype, and had some magnificent video conferences.  Some of those video conferences were from an HP Ipaq which involved 6 different conferees who, because Skype video doesn’t work on an Ipaq, were able to log in to Russian webcams which did have video to complete the connection. Because the six of us agreed on so many fine details about Scripture, even though we had all come to it from completely different perspectives, we had agreed to pick topics on which we could disagree.  The cantankerous tone of the following email exchange was the result of that agreement.

 

Had we all known then what we all know now, that his health was failing, this author would have gladly taken him up on his offer to visit him in Australia.  But it was not Arnold’s nature to complain about personal problems, all of which he concealed very well in some very lively video debates, so we never understood the urgent nature of his invitation.

 

God bless you, Arnold—and please excuse us for missing the opportunity to visit you when we had the chance.

 

But you have eternal life—by your intellect, your holy seed, and your writings which will live forever.

 

 

 

 

Feminism's Finest Hour

 

 

 

 

Edited 2/8/07

 

Dear Arnold,

 

 

 

Even my wife was ticked off by the following feminazi statement.  Please don't cancel your subscription to "How to Win Friends and Influence People":

 

"Some controlling men"

 

It's REQUIRED by God that men "control", otherwise they reject God's Orderly  Arrangement.  You may retort "some over-controlling men", but that leaves the topic wide open about WHO decides that, and someone who espouses feminism so forthrightly is not the person I would want to decide just HOW much is too much in my life.

 

Betty Friedan would be proud of you.

 

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11:3

 

How can a man be the "head" of a woman or his family if he doesn't control her and it?

 

He cannot. And just how MUCH control is not something to be decided by amoral feminazis like Friedan.

 

 

<<<But is it about all women ? The contexts do NOT say so. In both verses the word for "women" is "goo-nay" (or "wife") and the word for

"man" is "an-aur" which means "husband".>>>

 

It is actually translated as "husband" in one verse, but not in the other, but this is shown in the Adam and Eve relationship mentioned in that verse

 

Agreed that there's no provision for single women:  because Numbers 30 which  Paul was quoting makes NO provision for single women to be granted legal rights.  Agreed also that "goo-nay" has been translated as both "woman" and "wife", and agreed that it must mean one or the other.  But your assertion that this verse applies only to wives, based on the putative "marriage" between Adam and Eve [a concept which didn't even exist at the time], is faulty.  "goo-nay" must mean woman, not wife, and clearly Numbers 30 shows how all women are to be under the authority of A man--usually a husband or father, but sometimes a brother or another close male relative.

 

All of Numbers will be included here because it's pertinent to some other serious errors:

 

Num 30:1  And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded.

Num 30:2  If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

Num 30:3  If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father's house in her youth;

Num 30:4  And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.

Num 30:5  But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

Num 30:6  And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;

Num 30:7  And her husband heard [it,] and held his peace at her in the day that he heard [it]: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.

Num 30:8  But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard [it]; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

Num 30:9  But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her.

Num 30:10  And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath;

Num 30:11  And her husband heard [it], and held his peace at her, [and] disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.

Num 30:12  But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard [them; then] whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.

Num 30:13  Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.

Num 30:14  But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which [are] upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard [them].

Num 30:15  But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard [them]; then he shall bear her iniquity.

Num 30:16  These [are] the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, [being yet] in her youth in her father's house.

 

 

 

 

 

So in both verses Scripture refine the women concerned down married women only . We can see this in the second verse where it talks about

the wife being saved in childbirth. A single woman does not have a husband to have children with. There is no evidence that these two

passages refer to single women, even in a future potential manner.

 

Biblical marriage in its real meaning is not established without witnesses to a covenant.

 

Because of morons like Betty Friedan and her band of feminazis, who God HATES to His Marrow [whose phallic symbols, or "groves" God commanded the Israelites to pound to DUST] most women in the US who have children do NOT have husbands.  But you, of all people Arnold, know that "marriage" doesn't require a ceremony, nor even a vow from a woman [a vow which she can't even take unless her husband or father allows it]:

 

 

·          Exo 22:16  And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

·          Exo 22:17  If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

 

Unless her father "utterly refuse[s]", a man who has sex with a woman must "endow" [read: marry] her.

 

It says exactly nothing about women being subject to other men than her husband here.

 

 

Which is why you must refer to Numbers 30 which DOES say something about other men, and many of those other men are not husbands, which is why "goo-nay" must be a reference to any "woman" and not just a "wife".

 

 

Historically, husbands and wives sat on opposite sides of the meeting place

 

Chapter & verse, please. I've never heard such a preposterous thing, never saw a single verse which says that, never personally witnessed it in any place I've ever been in the entire world, and can imagine it to be true only in sinagogues.  I also can't imagine how it would cause such a reaction, but have seen many unruly, noissome women in churches who this should and most likely does apply to.

 

·          and Paul prohibited wives from calling out to their husbands to ask questions, but to wait until they were at home to do it

 

Where does Paul get such authority?  Paul was simply quoting Scripture as he always did.

 

·          Asking husbands at home says absolutely nothing about praying, praising and prophesying in public.

 

You of all people KNOW, Arnold, that the word "ekklesia" which you infer means only "church" is used numerous times, by Paul himself, to refer to any public meeting, so your disingenuity here is, well, exposed for all to see and witness.  What else can I say about that--you know you're wrong the instant you pen it.  There's no provision for "single" women to even BE in church, much less have rights & priveleges denied to married women.

 

[additional note:  ek klesia actually refers specifically to those Israelites "called out" by Jesus.  Iow, unless Jesus Himself called you out, you are not part of the "ek klesia"]

 

·          Subjection to a husband is not to be the result of a wife being terrorized!

·          The essence of this passage can be seen in the word "silence"

 

No, the essence is "have no authority" & "obedience", which is translated from "hupotasso", which is defined as follows:

 

G5293, hupotasso¯, hoop-ot-as'-so, From G5259 and G5021; to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, (be, make) subject (to, unto), be (put) in subjection (to, under), submit self unto.

 

Would you say that "reflexively to obey" would appear to be a Greek military term?  If so, as an ex-military officer, I can knowledgeably advise you that "reflexively obey" does not even begin to imply "terrorized", as these are two different and almost opposite reactions or emotions.   You cannot reflexively obey if you're terrorized.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

John Knight

 

 

 

 

 

From:My MSN

Write E-mail

Inbox

Address Book

Folders

From: "Jacob Israel" <jacob1srae1ite@gmail.com>

To: fmanifesto@hotmail.com

Subject: Fwd: Women in he church

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Arnold Kennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz>

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 10:35:53 +1200

Subject: Women in he church

To: clintonfultz@charter.net, YAYA <minerva24@verizon.net>

Cc: debunks <debunks@sbcglobal.net>, jk@jacobisrael.us, preacher

<preacher@sfaw.org>, Ray Williams <tlmray@bellsouth.net>,

FRANKKJV@aol.com, clay@freeamerican.com, Don Brown

<donbro8729@bellsouth.net>, horse176@windstream.net, "Stephen E.

Jones" <Godskingdm@aol.com>, Clifton Emahiser

<caemahiser@sbcglobal.net>, ricniemela <ricniemela@earthlink.net>,

chrseparatist@netscape.net, Daniel Johns <bydpastordan@yahoo.com>,

Buddy <buddy@netcommander.com>, Trisha Kelly

<nlovewithyahshua@msn.com>, Columbus Marcum <cmarcum7849@charter.net>,

Raymond Campbell <lastumpjumper@yahoo.com>, Eli James

<eli-james@sbcglobal.net>, rowell@gcstation.net

Dear friends,

I have been much concerned at the emotive way the subject of "women"

has been handled. If contexts are ignored, we are going to have wrong

conclusions, and wrong conclusions seem to be in vogue! I will try to

be as simple as possible and I have transliterated the Greek words.

Let us examine the context of two passages that involve the role of

women in the assembly. Please watch out for context all the way

through. Below are the two major passages that are often used, in my

view quite wrongly and out of context.

1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is

not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under

obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing,

let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to

speak in the church.

1 Tim 2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in

modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided

hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women

professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not

a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in

silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not

deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue

in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

 Some controlling men [it's REQUIRED by God that men "control", otherwise

they reject God's Orderly  Arrangement:  christ head of man]  will read

these verses and say, "See, women are

not even to speak in the assembly", the Bible makes this very clear".

Indeed, if the contexts were the same in every way, this might appear

to be so, on the surface that is. In both verses we have "women" as

one subject and both contain the word "learn". The two phrases are,

"if they will learn anything" and "let the women learn", and so the

context is about women learning something from someone. In both the

word "learn" is the same Greek word "man-than'-o" which is about

understanding as well as learning. So obviously women can both learn

and understand.

But is it about all women [no provision for "single" women in Numbers 30]? The contexts do NOT say so. In both

verses the word for "women" is "goo-nay" (or "wife") and the word for

"man" is "an-aur" which means "husband". It is actually translated as

"husband" in one verse, but not in the other, but this is shown in the

Adam and Eve relationship mentioned in that verse. Those with a

little knowledge of language know that the word for "man" here is NOT

the generic term "anthropos". It is "husband".

So in both verses Scripture refine the women concerned down married

women only [dowry, Exodus 22:16]. . We can see this in the second verse where it talks about

the wife being saved in childbirth. A single woman does not have a

husband to have children with. There is no evidence that these two

passages refer to single women, even in a future potential manner.

 Now that we have looked at some things in common in these verses, we

can consider some of the differences. The major difference is found

in the word "silence" which is one single word in English, but they

are two different words with different meanings in the Greek. This

effectively makes a context and meaning change in regard to married

women opening their mouths in public meetings.

In the 1 Corinthian 14 passage, the word translated as "silence" is

Strongs 4601 "see-gah-o" to which he assigns the meaning as being, "to

keep silence, hold one's peace, to be kept in silence, be concealed"

In the 1 Timothy 2 passage, the word translated as "silence" is

Strongs 2271, (hay-soo-khee'-ah) to which Strongs assigns the meaning

as being "stillness, that is, desistance from bustle or language: -

quietness". It is the feminine form of Strongs 2272 meaning "still

(undisturbed, undisturbing): - peaceable, quiet".

In the light of these different words for "silence" we can re-appraise

the application of these two verses. We will read the first verse

again,

1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is

not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under

obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing,

let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to

speak in the church.

Here the context is that of husbands and wives in the assemblies.

Historically, husbands and wives sat on opposite sides of the meeting

place [chapter & verse, please, I've never heard such a preposterous thing, never saw a single verse which says that, never seen it, and can imagine it to be true only in sinagogues.  I also can't imagine how it would cause such a reaction, but have seen unruly, noissome women in churches who this should and most likely does apply to], and Paul prohibited wives from calling out to their husbands to

ask questions, but to wait until they were at home to do it [where does Paul get such authority--Paul was simply quoting Scripture as he always did].  This

passage is prefixed with "For God is not the author of confusion, but

of peace, as in all churches of the saints" and thus we see that it

would be shameful for wives to so "speak" in the church because this

would be confusing and disturbing in such a public meeting.

We have here the phrase, "as also saith the Law". Some men say this

means that all women are to be subject to all men, but they cannot

produce any place in the Law of God where this is said.

What we can find in the Law is much about wives being subject to their

own husbands. Ephesians 5:22 says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto

your own husbands, as unto the Lord". There is nothing said about

wives being subject to other men's' husbands [which nobody claims it does--but it does make no provision for "single" women to even BE in church, much less have rights & priveleges denied to married women]. Peter puts it this

way:

1 Peter 3:6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose

daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any

amazement.

Subjection to a husband is not to be the result of a wife being terrorized!  [hepatuso]

 Then comes the balance in the next verse:

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge,

giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being

heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not

hindered.

Next we have the extension to all members of the believers:

8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,

love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Asking husbands questions is where wives are required to be silent in

the assembly and this limitation only is what is determined by the

context.

Thus Paul details the objective of the exercise which is to maintain

quietness and order an assembly. Asking husbands at home says

absolutely nothing about praying, praising and prophesying in public. [the word "ekklesia" which you infer means only "church" is used numerous times, by Paul, to refer to any public meeting].

 Now we can compare the second passage and see if it means that all

women should not speak in the assembly.

1 Tim 2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in

modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided

hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women

professing godliness) with good works.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not

a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in

silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not

deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue

in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

The essence of this passage can be seen in the word "silence" [no, the essence is "have no authority" & hepatuso]. We

have seen that it carries the sense of "stillness, desistance from

bustle or language, quietness, still, undisturbed, undisturbing,

peaceable, and quiet". It is about a wife's attitude, behavior,

manner of attire and her relationship with her (own) husband. This is

about the manner of speaking rather than not speaking at all.

The latter part of this quotation has reference to Eve being deceived.

This provides an indication as to why women are not to teach

husbands, and this indication is that women are more easily deceived

than men. We can all see how many cults were started by women. The

woman said: "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat". Adam received

the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he

was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this

she was subjected to the domination of her husband: "Thy desire shall

be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"- Gen. 3:16. In God's

order He has subjected the wife, expressly, to the government of her

husband. This context continues to the end of this chapter where we

read about "if they continue" showing the context is still about the

husband and wife in regard to teaching - and that much only. It says

exactly nothing about women being subject to other men than her

husband here.

 To extend these limitations beyond the context of each of these

passages, is to be found guilty of false teaching by wresting

Scripture.

Below I have listed the two passages with Strong's numbers so that all

can see that the word "silence" is NOT the same in both verses. Then

I have listed the Strong's details. If anyone wants to say this is

"wordsmithing", their argument is not with me. It is more certain

that the "wordsmithing" is being done by those who deny the "it is

written". If someone says their view stands, then it is obvious that

the different words for "silence" have NOT been viewed, AND NEITHER

HAVE THE CONTEXTS.

In view of the simple context of both passages it is absolute folly to

even mention foreign women as being the subject. From these passages

it is folly to conclude that all women should be subject to all men.

The only place where this applies is in church order, apart from

husbands! Even the "straw man" mention is folly. The emails on this

subject have been mostly folly, but it is good to see some sense in

such as David Bell's email summarising this subject. This is found

somewhere below. I commend it to all.

If this forum continues on ignoring context, it will be like the

person who put a pin in the Bible and read, "Judas went and hanged

himself. Then they put in another pin and read, "Go thou and do

likewise". Yes, the Bible does say, "Go thou and do likewise", but

that is in a different context, so it does not mean anyone should go

and hang themselves, does it? So all those who want to really

understand the role of woman must apply the context rule, else they

will hang themselves - and others!

One thing more, what is it that you all seem to find so difficult

about context? You should be able to understand my simple but graphic

example.

Arnold Kennedy.

1Co 14:34 Let your5216 women1135 keep silence4601 in1722 the3588

churches:1577 for1063 it is not3756 permitted2010 unto them846 to

speak;2980 but235 they are commanded to be under obedience,5293 as2531

also2532 saith3004 the3588 law.3551

1Co 14:35 And1161 if1487 they will2309 learn3129 any thing,5100 let

them ask1905 their2398 husbands435 at1722 home:3624 for1063 it is2076

a shame149 for women1135 to speak2980 in1722 the church.1577

1Ti 2:9 In like manner5615 also,2532 that women1135 adorn2885

themselves1438 in1722 modest2887 apparel,2689 with3326

shamefacedness127 and2532 sobriety;4997 not3361 with1722 braided

hair,4117 or2228 gold,5557 or2228 pearls,3135 or2228 costly4185

array.2441

1Ti 2:10 But235 (which3739 becometh4241 women1135 professing1861

godliness)2317 with1223 good18 works.2041

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman1135 learn3129 in1722 silence2271 with1722

all3956 subjection.5292

1Ti 2:12 But1161 I suffer2010 not3756 a woman1135 to teach,1321

nor3761 to usurp authority over831 the man,435 but235 to be1511 in1722

silence.2271

1Ti 2:13 For1063 Adam76 was first4413 formed,4111 then1534 Eve.2096

1Ti 2:14 And2532 Adam76 was not3756 deceived,538 but1161 the3588

woman1135 being deceived538 was1096 in1722 the transgression.3847

1Ti 2:15 Notwithstanding1161 she shall be saved4982 in1223

childbearing,5042 if1437 they continue3306 in1722 faith4102 and2532

charity26 and2532 holiness38 with3326 sobriety.4997

2271 h`suci,a hesuchia {hay-soo-khee'-ah}

Meaning: 1) quietness 1a) description of the life of one who stays at

home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the

affairs of others 2) silence

Origin: from 2272;; n f

Usage: AV - silent 3, quietness 1; 4

4601 siga,w sigao {see-gah'-o}

Meaning: 1) to keep silence, hold one's peace 2) to be kept in

silence, be concealed

Origin: from 4602;; v

Usage: AV - hold (one's) peace 4, keep silence 3, keep close 1, keep secret 1; 9

John, I have just answered this in another email in which I said, "You

amaze me. You quote a lot of verses about husbands and wives, and

then transfer to context to men and women in general. Can society's

activity modify the word of God? I know that you believe that casual

sex equates with marriage, but Biblical marriage in its real meaning

is not established without witnesses to a covenant. The very nature

of Biblical espousals bears witness to this. You have missed out

something important and by doing this have reached a wrong

conclusion".

No, it is not true that there are only wives and virgins. What ever

makes you think that a chaste married woman is the same as a married

woman who is a whore?

You have once again abused context, in this case 1 Cor. 7:34. Paul is

making an issue between godly wives and godly virgins. Whores do not

come into the equation, do they? What Paul is saying here is a matter

of comparing differing attitudes between godly wives and godly

virgins. If you want to say that there are godly whores, then you

are way off beam.

If you care to read the passage more carefully, you will see reference

to "her husband" and "his wife" (both singular). In your view, a

whore must have plural husbands. So when you ask, "Do you agree that

if a woman has sex and is no longer a virgin, that she's then a

wife?", my response is that if she was a whore, she would be "wives"

to more than one husband. If a single woman had sex just once, she

is a fornicator, not a wife. Under the Law a whore is to be stoned,

but a wife is not. So they must be very different! So, my answer is

"No"!! I will explain a little further.

In regard to marriage, this is expressed as being a covenant through

Scripture. Mal 2:14, "Yet ye. say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath

been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou

hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of

thy covenant". Your definition of marriage being just sex is

seriously deficient and is one that leads to wrong conclusions. Your

whole email is based upon a wrong premise.

No, I have not said there is gender equality in all ways. There are

so many things where this is not so and not so in a big way. What I

said is that there are some things a wife can do that you would not

allow.

What Chief said about your not reading emails properly is one I agree

with. For instance, I detailed the differing words for "silence" and

gave the differing meanings, and yet you breeze on as if they were the

same. You do not really "hear" what other people are saying as your

own thoughts overpower you. If you do not accept such differences you

are not "hearing" what is written.

I am sorry to have to say this, but you demonstrate this too often

not to be true.

----- Original Message -----

From: clintonfultz@charter.net

To: YAYA ; Arnold Kennedy

Cc: debunks ; jk@jacobisrael.us ; preacher ; Ray Williams ;

FRANKKJV@aol.com ; clay@freeamerican.com ; Don Brown ;

horse176@windstream.net ; Stephen E. Jones ; Clifton Emahiser ;

ricniemela ; chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Daniel Johns ; Buddy ;

Trisha Kelly ; Columbus Marcum ; Raymond Campbell ; Eli James ;

rowell@gcstation.net

Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:26 AM

Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

-- The word say's in genesis 3:16 :" That a woman desire would be

unto her husband and he would rule over her. " Yahweh set the divine

order it is the law, & commandments. look in numbers 1 yahweh tells

moses to go and number Israel according to there father houses. ( not

mother)and set men up as governors not women.. and if A man hear his

wife make a vow the man (husband) can nulify the vow the woman made .

But the woman cannot dis-anul the man vow. There is a divine order,

God, man ,woman.. This is the order because man was first created. You

cannot pick and choose what part of the truth you will accept.

Sarah obeyed Abraham in all things even calling him lord. this is

your example.

Women are not to teach they are to be help mates and take care of

children.They even sat outside in a section for women outside the

temple. Only the male priest was chosen to enter the holiest of holies

. not a woman. If a woman was in her menstration cycle she was not

allowed in the camp. Or the temple;. she is unclean.. same for today

we do not lay with women in there menstration cycle because they are

unclean.

It's not my attention to offend you but you must obey the word of

Yahweh and do not try to teach Or asurp authority over a man. Your to

teach the young women and children at home.

Did Yahweh choose a woman to go and teach ? no

The woman is the weaker vessel and Yahweh and me love her. but she

has her place at home & not teaching. Show me were Yahweh said for her

to teach men? were he commanded her to teach.

www.clintonfultz.com

---- YAYA <minerva24@verizon.net> wrote:

> 

> 

> "Women are not to teach or asurp authority over a man. "

> 

> Clinton....I agree with this statement, to a DEGREE, but NOT

because it is SCRIPTURAL....in the OLD testament YAHWEH had WOMEN

perform some of the duties that would NORMALLY fall to a man to do,

which they either neglected to do, or maybe because it was more

expedient for a woman to do. At any rate, if YAHWEH selected WOMEN to

fulfill some of the things HE wanted done, who is PAUL to enter the

picture and USURP YAHWEH'S authority, and replace it with his, PAUL'S,

authority????

> 

> "There to keep silent in church, and if they have any question

there to ask there husband at home."

> 

> Clinton...this is a bunch of B.S. THIS is a STATEMENT that SAUL of

TARSUS, the ''jew-PLANT'' made....there is POSITIVELY NOTHING

SCRIPTURAL IN HIS ALLEGATION AND IF YOU CAN FIND JUST ONE REFERENCE IN

THE BIBLE, PLEASE FORWARD IT TO ME, SO THAT I MAY READ IT, TOO>

> 

> YAYA

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: clintonfultz@charter.net

> To: YAYA ; Arnold Kennedy

> Cc: debunks ; jk@jacobisrael.us ; preacher ; Ray Williams ;

FRANKKJV@aol.com ; clay@freeamerican.com ; Don Brown ; Stephen E.

Jones ; Clifton Emahiser ; chrseparatist@netscape.net ; ricniemela ;

Buddy ; Daniel Johns ; Columbus Marcum ; Trisha Kelly ; Raymond

Campbell ; Eli James ; rowell@gcstation.net

> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:15 AM

> Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> 

> 

> --Women are not to teach or asurp authority over a man.

> 

> There to keep silent in church, and if they have any question

there to ask there husband at home.

> 

> There desires are to be unto there husband and he shall rule over

her. gen 3:16.

> www.clintonfultz.com

> 

> ---- Arnold Kennedy <aekennedy@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> > Yaya,

> > The "BibleWorks" Bible program has the Douay Version that is

searchable, plus just about every other translation equally searchable

[but not the Holy Name version]. There are a number of Greek Bibles

with verse separation in this program, and comparisons on a verse by

verse basis [even English and Greek] can be made extremely quickly. It

is well worth the money to buy it. At first glance it appears complex

to use, but the basics are not difficult.

> > The Douay of course has the RC Egyptian/Alexandrian text

modifications and this is where untranslated words such as "gentiles"

comes from.

> > Overall, very often these ctranslation omparisons do not really

help because there is so much copying one from another. For example we

find "gentiles" in a dozen and one versions, and a comparison means

exactly nothing.

> > With BibleWorks a click onto Srongs 1484 will find every place

such a word [from the Hebrew or Greek] is found regardless of

translation. In the end we have to get beyond concordances and

versions and use lexicons because concordances only give ways words

have been translated and not definitions. Concordances tell us nothing

about grammar and how this can modify meaning. This is why so much of

email flow is useless, pointles and childlike. One concludes one thing

and another concludes another, just as Jesus said in Matt. 11:16

> > But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto

children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And

saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have

mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither

eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man

came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a

winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified

of her children.

> > Many emails are devoid of wisdom and understanding. I can recall

my mother teaching me, "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get

wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding"- Prov. 4:7.

> > If we all had a single perfect translation, different people

would take different meanings from a single verse, because of their

pre-conditioning as to doctrine and word meanings [and their reliance

on concordances]. This is why Jesus said we have to be doers before we

can build upon that doing foundation. None of us could believe that

who send abusive and rude emails are "doers". They are anything but

"gentle, easily entreated" which indicates the wisom that is "from

above".

> > Regards, Arnold.

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: YAYA

> > To: debunks ; Jacob Israel ; Arnold Kennedy

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton fultz ; Buddy ;

FRANKKJV@aol.com ; preacher ; Godskingdm@aol.com ; Eli James ; Trisha

Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond Campbell ;

rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela ; Columbus Marcum ;

chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser

> > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:19 AM

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> >

> > debunks...

> > The KJV has been COMPROMISED over the years with each printing.

I use the Smith-Goodspeed Bible which has the Books of the Apochrypha

included, but the one I use most is The Holy Name Bible published by

The Scripture Research Association in Brandywine, MD. My Greek bibles

are more difficult to use for reference because there is no division

of the verses in the chapters, but I refer to them when the need

arises. Several of my friends who have left the RCC teachings have the

Douay versions and the KJV and they tell that the Douay version IS

different. I cannot confirm this as I do not have the Douay for

comparison.

> > YAYA

> >

> >

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: debunks

> > To: Jacob Israel ; Arnold Kennedy ; YAYA

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton fultz ; Buddy ;

FRANKKJV@aol.com ; preacher ; Godskingdm@aol.com ; Eli James ; Trisha

Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond Campbell ;

rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela ; Columbus Marcum ;

chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser

> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:20 PM

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> >

> >

> > PS: I am just as comfortable using the KJV as well insofar as

the New Testament is concerned. I will not use the New World

Translation which contains insidious insertions and excisions.

> >

> > -------Original Message-------

> >

> > From: YAYA

> > Date: 8/29/2006 1:45:15 PM

> > To: debunks; Jacob Israel; Arnold Kennedy; donbrown

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton fultz; Buddy;

FRANKKJV@aol.com; preacher; Ted Weiland; feedback@stonekingdom.org;

Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha Kelly; Daniel Johns; Ray

Williams; Raymond Campbell; rowell@gcstation.net; ricniemela; Columbus

Marcum; chrseparatist@netscape.net; Clifton Emahiser

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> > Don....don't bother....notice that his claim to reading of the

Bible is in the PAST tense....that may mean that he doesn't read the

Bible that we read. In fact, I know some FORMER ''catholics'' who told

me that they were not even allowed toOWN or read the Bible that we

use.....there is an entirely different Bible that the catholics

use....I think they called it the ''adonai'' bible...am not sure, but

I may be able to find out.

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: debunks

> > To: Jacob Israel ; Arnold Kennedy ; donbrown

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton fultz ; Buddy ;

FRANKKJV@aol.com ; YAYA ; preacher ; Ted Weiland ;

feedback@stonekingdom.org ; Godskingdm@aol.com ; Eli James ; Trisha

Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond Campbell ;

rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela ; Columbus Marcum ;

chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser

> > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:09 PM

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> >

> > I have READ the Bible. What citation do you want to draw my attention to?

> >

> > -------Original Message-------

> >

> > From: donbrown

> > Date: 8/26/2006 5:30:32 PM

> > To: Jacob Israel; Arnold Kennedy; debunks

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton fultz; Buddy;

FRANKKJV@aol.com; YAYA; preacher; Ted Weiland;

feedback@stonekingdom.org; Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha

Kelly; Daniel Johns; Ray Williams; Raymond Campbell;

rowell@gcstation.net; ricniemela; Columbus Marcum;

chrseparatist@netscape.net; Clifton Emahiser

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> >

> > READ THE BIBLE GOD DIVORCED THEM AND TOOK THERE IDENITY ,READ THE BIBLE

> >

> > -------Original Message-------

> >

> > From: debunks

> > Date: 08/26/06 19:20:08

> > To: Jacob Israel; donbrown; Arnold Kennedy

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton fultz; Buddy;

FRANKKJV@aol.com; YAYA; preacher; Ted Weiland;

feedback@stonekingdom.org; Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha

Kelly; Daniel Johns; Ray Williams; Raymond Campbell;

rowell@gcstation.net; ricniemela; Columbus Marcum;

chrseparatist@netscape.net; Clifton Emahiser

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> >

> >

> > Paul repeatedly draws a clear distinction between Israelites and

Greeks or any other pagan cultures. The culture and religious

convictions of the Greeks and Israelites are so dissimilar that it is

ridiculous to seek to compare them as equals. How does Zeus, by any

stretch of the imagination, translate into Adonai/Yahweh? It doesn't.

Greeks had a very long established belief in mythologies which were a

by-product of their own culture and peculiar to their ancient beliefs.

These beliefs existed among them for ages and there is not ONE hint

that these idolaters who worshipped multiple gods had any concept of

the God of the Israelites. If the Greeks were really Israelites, why

didn't the Old Testament Israelites, during the age of the prophets,

applaud the intrusion of the Hellenes into their society and welcome

them as long lost brothers? The rites and beliefs of the Greeks are

easily traceable for thousands of years in their own writings, as in

Herodotus, Plato, Socrates, Plutarch, Solon, etc as well as in the

numerous monuments, statuary and artistic representations erected in

homage to these pseud-gods. The names alone prove that they bear no

relationship to Hebrew cognomens. Why is Scripture completely SILENT

in respect to this theory of yours which is, with all due respect to

you, absurd, fanciful and factually unsustainable.

> >

> > -------Original Message-------

> >

> > From: Arnold Kennedy

> > Date: 8/26/2006 3:52:09 PM

> > To: Jacob Israel; donbrown

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com; clinton fultz; Buddy; Debunks;

FRANKKJV@aol.com; YAYA; preacher; Ted Weiland;

feedback@stonekingdom.org; Godskingdm@aol.com; Eli James; Trisha

Kelly; Daniel Johns; Ray Williams; Raymond Campbell;

rowell@gcstation.net; ricniemela; Columbus Marcum;

chrseparatist@netscape.net; Clifton Emahiser

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> > John, By "Paul used "jew" to refer to Israelites of the House of

Israel living in Judaea, and "Greek" to refer to Israelites of the

House of Israel living in Greece" you really mean, "Jew" to refer to

Israelites of the House of Judah living anywhere and "Greek" to

Israelites of the House of Israel living anywhere. The Galilleans for

instance were not in Greece. Arnold Kennedy.

> >

> > ---- Original Message -----"

> > From: Jacob Israel

> > To: donbrown

> > Cc: clay@freeamerican.com ; clinton fultz ; Buddy ; Debunks ;

FRANKKJV@aol.com ; YAYA ; preacher ; Ted Weiland ;

feedback@stonekingdom.org ; Godskingdm@aol.com ; Eli James ; Trisha

Kelly ; Daniel Johns ; Ray Williams ; Raymond Campbell ;

rowell@gcstation.net ; ricniemela ; Columbus Marcum ;

chrseparatist@netscape.net ; Clifton Emahiser

> > Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 8:26 AM

> > Subject: Re: WTL-100.pdf

> >

> >

> > donbrown,

> >

> > Even the most comitted Christian or Israelite student has

questions about the way the "church" has "interpreted" what Paul wrote

[to say the least], so you should SUPPORT a fellow Israelite who

supports someone who criticizes Paul.

> >

> > Had it not been for Pastor Weiland raising these same questions

and writing his excellent critique of Galatians 3, many of us might

still now know that Paul used "jew" to refer to Israelites of the

House of Israel living in Judaea, and "Greek" to refer to Israelites

of the House of Israel living in Greece. Someone who hasn't yet

grasped this could easily misunderstand what Paul wrote:

> >

> >  http://fathersmanifesto.net/weiland.htm

> >

> > John Knight

> >

> > On 8/26/06, donbrown <donbro8729@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >

> >

> > do you people know that ELI AND DAN JOHNS had this guy on the

radio show and are now supporting

> >

> > clay douglas and giving out his number for people to support him

i would like to know if you people

> > support clay also. ELI is going to be on clays show also and

this guy hates paul.he is a paul

> > basher ,so i guess now ELI and dan johns are too,this is what i

call helping the anti-christ

> > let me know what you think.if you do not believe me listen to it

on yahweh design ,The Voice of Christian Israel

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > The right of jews, niggers, and latrinos to impose themselves on

us will never exceed our right to free association with whom we please

> >  http://blackexile.com

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

> > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.6/430 - Release Date: 8/28/2006

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >

> > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/432 - Release Date: 8/29/2006

> >

> >

> >

> > __________ NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________

> >

> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

> >  http://www.eset.com

> >

> >

> > __________ NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________

> >

> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

> >  http://www.eset.com

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> 

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date: 8/31/2006

__________ NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

 http://www.eset.com

__________ NOD32 1.1734 (20060831) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

 http://www.eset.com

--

The right of jews, niggers, and latrinos to impose themselves on us

will never exceed our right to free association with whom we please

 http://blackexile.com

 

 

 

© 2005 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.   

Privacy Statement 

Arnold Kennedy

To:

clintonfultz, minerva24, debunks, jk, preacher, tlmray, FRANKKJV, clay...

Date:

3:35 pm

Subj:

Women in he church

 

Dear friends,

 I have been much concerned at the  emotive way the subject of "women" has been handled. If contexts are ignored, we  are going to have wrong conclusions, and wrong conclusions seem to be in  vogue! I will try to be as simple as possible and I have transliterated  the Greek words.

 

 Let us examine the  context of two passages that involve the role of women in the assembly.  Please watch out for context all the way through. Below are the two major  passages that are often used, in my view quite wrongly and out of  context.

 

 1 Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the  churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under  obedience, as also saith the law.  And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:  for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 

 1 Tim 2:9-11 In like manner also, that women adorn  themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided  hair, or gold, or

more (31 pages left)

Next conversation

 

1 Reply

2 Reply to all

3 Forward

4 Archive

5 Mark unread

6 Add star

7 Trash message

 

8 Compose Mail

0 Inbox (14238)

   Starred

   Sent Mail

   Drafts (2)

   All Mail

   Spam (1254)

   Trash

   Contacts

   more views

 

 

Sign out | Help

©2006 Google

 

3/3/07