Rapture Bible Prophecy Forum

(Rapture is a Vatican/Jesuit Lie )
The "Resurrection" has been erroneously labeled The "Rapture". 
THERE IS NO RAPTURE

WHY THE TITLE RAPTURE BIBLE PROPHECY FORUM?
WE STARTED OUT BELIEVING IN A 7 YR PRE TRIBULATION RAPTURE
BUT FOUND OVER TIME AROUND 2006 THAT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SHARE A 
BIBLE VERSE WHATSOEVER INDICATING A 7 YR PRE TRIBULATION RAPTURE

BIBLE VERSES EVIDENCE:

While Yahusha/JESUS was alive, He prayed to His Father: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.  John 17:15 (KJV)

Yahusha/JESUS gave signs of what must happen before His Return:  "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:"  Matt. 24:29 (KJV)


WE DAILY STUDY TO SHEW OURSELVES APPROVED 
WE ARE NOT AFRAID TO SAY WE ARE LEARNING DAILY AND 
ARE ABLE TO ADMIT WE MAKE MISTAKES BUT STUDY TO 
LEARN EVERY DAY.

LET YHVH/YAHUSHA BE TRUE 
AND EVERY MAN A LIAR.

To Join and post on this site e-mail for a password
​​​​​​​stevensandiego@ymail.com

WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.RAPTUREBIBLEPROPHECYFORUM.COM

FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rapture-Bible-Prophecy-Forum/362856490414697

Hebrew 5783-5788   Gregorian 2023-2028

THIS SITE IS ABOUT Yahusha/JESUS
 We are followers of Yahusha/JESUS Only​​​​​​​
Yahusha/JESUS IS GOD/YHVH
Yahusha/JESUS is YHVH/GOD/YHWH-Yahusha/Son:
​​​​​​​Yahusha/JESUS is The WORD

Yahusha is I Am That I Am  (Exodus 3:14)

Yahusha is YHWH  come in the flesh, He put aside His Diety to become a human, born of  a Virgin.

Yahusha is the Word, As The Most High, He spoke all things seen and unseen into existence

When YHWH created Light, He was revealed to the angels. 

John 14:26
"the breath of life"

But the Comforter, which is "the breath of life", whom the Father will send shall teach you all things.

God is not His  Name but a term.  The Holy Spirit is not a person but the very Breath of the Father.

There is no Trinity.  The Father, YHVH  and Yahusha are One  (John 10:30)

THE BOOK OF ENOCH

NOW IS THE TIME!

 FOR A REMOTE GENERATION THE LAST GENERATION FOR THE ELECT!

REFERENCES IN THE BOOK OF ENOCH TO THE BIBLE

https://bookofenochreferences.wordpress.com/category/the-book-of-enoch-with-biblical-references-chapters-1-to-9/chapter-1/

Book of Enoch: http://tinyurl.com/BkOfEnoch

The book of Second Peter and Jude Authenticate the book of Enoch and Vice Versa

Yahusha/JESUS QUOTED FROM THE SEPTUAGINT:

THE APOSTLES QUOTED FROM THE SEPTUAGINT

JEWS WERE CONVERTING TO CHRISTIANITY

FREE DOWNLOADS

All Of The Apocryphal Books Of

The King James 1611 Version

http://www.scriptural-truth.com/apocrypha_books.html 

Pray for one another, as we watch for the Lord's  return!


Bible Prophecy Forum Postings
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: No , Adam was not a slug

> I posted the question on the chat room I go to....... they responded:
>
>
>
> -------------------
> 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
>
> This verse suggests that Adam, with eyes wide open, ate the fruit knowingly and voluntarily. The positive view of this is that Adam, like Jesus who became sin for us, became sin for the bride he loved. Not that he could impart righteousness by his sacrifice, but he chose to join her in her fate.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Lot's of questions and mystery revolve around the actual "fall" account.
>
> First of all, I will almost without exception .. I'd even have to think on it a while to see if I hold to an exception at all .. I take scripture at face value.
>
> As you pointed out Lewis, the Word says that Adam was there WITH her.
>
> Note: As I type this, I see MichaelJ has posted an intriguing verse and thought.
>
> Genesis 3:
> 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (ESV)
>
> I'm thinking that Adam hadn't sinned yet, until he ate the fruit that Eve extended to him. That being said, Adam could not possibly be "a 'slug' that wouldn’t protect his wife a short time later" because that would've been sin. However, Adam, being the head of his wife, is still held responsible just as the head of any organization is the one responsible for a fault.
>
> Romans 5:
> 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
>
> Then there is this:
>
> Genesis 1:
> 26 Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
> 28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply ...
>
> So "man" (v.27) is singular (any Hebrew scholars want to chime in if that is correct?) but God made singular him, two; male and female; created them .. plural?
>
> Was there sin in the world before Adam disobeyed? If only Eve had, would Adam have been a sinless covering for her and all would be well? Yes, according to the verse that MichaelJ quoted above, she (Eve) was clearly in transgression. But would a sinless Adam have been a covering for that? We won't know for sure, because as is plain in scripture, he did transgress .. but also plain in scripture, it was his transgression by which death entered the world.
>
> 1 Corinthians 15:
> 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
> 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 1 Timothy 2:
> 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
>
> that at least when it comes to Eve, she was deceived. Adam apparently could claim that as it says, he was not deceived.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by MichaelJ
> This verse suggests that Adam, with eyes wide open, ate the fruit knowingly and voluntarily. The positive view of this is that Adam, like Jesus who became sin for us, became sin for the bride he loved. Not that he could impart righteousness by his sacrifice, but he chose to join her in her fate.
> I kind of wonder about this .. (NOTHING CONCLUSIVE on my part) .. The reason Jesus' righteousness could be imparted by His sacrifice, is because He alone .. totally alone .. was righteous. But IF Adam hadn't sinned, he would have still been righteous .. so could that have been imparted to Eve? Probably not .. just thinking out loud here ..
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Before the fall there was no "godly order". Adam and Eve were completely equal (( I ????? )) therefore he would have had no "protective instinct". It was AFTER the fall that God enacted order within the relationship.((again, I ????)) ..one that so many don't exactly like but they'll have to take that up with God!
>
> Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
>
> I submit that had Adam been deceived and eaten first, then gave to his wife, this order would have been switched.
>
> However, one could speculate all day on why Satan chose Eve instead of Adam. Was it a 'lucky guess' or did he know something about the way God created them? That's a question I don't think we'll know the answer to here.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The most important questions are
> ""what will be the effect of preaching this opinion that Adam is a slug"" ???
> ""Will it edify the Church or cause disruption confusion"" ???
>
> Even if the doctrine were correct, which I SERIOUSLY doubt. imho it does not need to-- or should be--- taught ......
> Lewis