goatguy-too

Sorry. The first part of the last post got lost due to a technical difficulty traceable to somewhere between the chair and the keyboard. This post should go at the top of the last one: The Bible was written by one author: God, and is Book of Life the concerning itself with everything from the beginning to the end. The Book of life has three books: The Book of the Father: Genesis The Book of the Son: History of Israel The Book of the Holy Ghost: New Testament The Book of the FatherGenesis is concerned with the patriarchs; the fathers. There are two sets of Fathers that follow the same pattern of a Father and two sons. The first son dies desolate, and the second son gets the inheritance. This is a continuing motif throughout scriptures which is a subset of the "First shall become last" motif. The first three Fathers are God, Adam and Noah The second set are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Both Adam and Isaac are miraculous 'births'. Both die desolate.Adam died in the garden because of sin and was 'resurrected' in a new life outside the garden. Isaac died figuratively by being threatened with death, and was figuratively resurrected when the ram took his place. Noah became fruitful after the flood ( a death and resurrection image) Jacob became the fruitful after he returned to Esau. He left Isaac and was alone, and returned with many children. The first three fathers are 'heavenly' fathers: God , of course Adam because of his being filled with the spirit of GodNoah, as a symbol of the firmament between the waters, the firmament was in the heavens. The second three are earthly fathers The prominent feature about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is God's blessing that they would have land.

Yep. And have the power to back it up. No better one to do a good curse than the ultimate sovereign.

The last one in Genesis is Joseph. He is not one of the fathers. He is the son who became the king of kings. The Father writes of the Son to show his joy in his son's accomplishments. He mentions sin, but the son has it covered. He chose a bride for his son, and watched as his son wooed and worked for her, but he is always the object of affection. His daughter-in-law is incidental in his narratives. The Book of the Son When God confronted Pharaoh through Moses, he said that Israel was his son. The history of Israel is the story of how the son was given a bride chosen by his father, but she was a prostitute. It is his story about how she continually broke his heart, though he loved, wooed and worked for her. The story has two parts: Israel in the desert, and in the promised land. The first is how the prostitute had to die, and the second is his virgin bride. Both brides were obtained through the death of the water. All but two who crossed the Red Sea died in the desert as the flesh was separated from the spirit. Those who went into the promised land were the spiritual bride. Though literally there is not much to love about them, in the hidden narrative it tells how Chirst removed the frailties of the flesh. The love poems are written to woo his bride. The proverbs to instruct her. All is written and done in preparation for the marriage of the Lamb. It is a story of the love of the Son for his bride. The Book of the Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost is akin to the best man at the wedding. His book has two parts. The first concerns before the wedding, and the second after the wedding. That statement there makes me a heretic in the minds of 90% of Christians. The marriage of the Lamb takes place at the cross. Consider what Jesus said when he was challenged about the woman who was married seven times. He said that there is NO marriage in the resurrection...and furthermore, to add insult to injury, he said that those who believed that there was did not know the scripture nor the power of God. Their error does not prevent salvation, but it keeps them from knowing the hidden Bible. The first section of the Book of the Holy Ghost proclaims "Here comes the bridegroom!" and the second tells how the couple are fruitful and multiplying. It is the marriage of a virgin bride who remains a virgin, and who gives virgin births. The church is fruitful 'spiritually' by possessing the fruit of the spirit. And she multiplies through discipleship... through teaching. The virgin birth of Christ is not the final fulfillment. It is his earthly fulfillment which is a shadow of the spiritual fulfillment which occurs at the cross. The church is born from his dead flesh, the same way that Eve came forth from the sleeping flesh of Adam. The Bible or Book of Life encompasses everything from the beginning to the end, It has three authors, each of whom wrote two parts, a heavenly expression and and eartly expression. Each part is a shadow of Christ. Genesis 1 is a table of contents to all the parts, and we will tackle that next time.

yeah, how to do that here? Oh duh... I see it now.... OK.. Font intentionally large so you can see the Hebrew letters better. Old fart, you know... didn't notice the editor was different. A lot of new buttons and features... If I hit the merge button, do I become one with the cosmic consciousness?

In Christianity, God authored a system of cause and effect. It is man who causes suffering, pain and death by choosing things which result in suffering, pain and death. It's called sin. The result is that men recognize that things are not the way they are supposed to be, and acknowledge God as God. God says that when men do not acknowledge him as God, he gives them what they want (to be gods to themselves) and lets them wallow in the consequences. So the purpose of your sin is to make me miserable, and turn to, and acknowledge God. The reason the place is a mess is because we have so many gods running around. The underlying principle is not too different from karma. And Job said that you reap what you sow: Job 4:8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.

The name יהוה Yahweh has two heis with the first two letters of creation interwoven. He created the letters before he spoke the words which created. But when he ordered the alphabet, he put the א alef and the ב as the first two letters, spelling אב father. א The א aleph is a vav with two yods. The vav says that God spoke, and the yods say he created two things, the heavens and the earth. The alef is a silent letter, so he created the heavens and the earth when there was no one to hear him. The alef can also represent God who created by speaking, or the creation which was formed by speaking. It also represents the discerning, separating or joining of two things. The heavens and the earth were separated by the word, but also connected to each other as the firmament joined them on the single face (also a metaphor of alef). The gospel of Thomas uses it to represent war, an 'also included' metaphor as the separation of two nations. John uses is as the Spirit which hovered over the waters. (1 Joh 5:8). ב The ב bet is a ר resh which intesects a horizontal line. Each stroke of the letter within the square text template is a metaphor. The upper horizontal represents those things which can be known about God, and the lower horizontal represents the things which are earthly. The right vertical is a vav speaking to man. The left vertical is a ז zayin returning to God. An intersection that is at right angles represents a receipt, but a rounded intesection is a transfer of personality. The ד dalet is right angle. It is a declaration, or a word. The ר resh is rounded. It is the revelation of the person of God. It is the Word. Some font's don't accurately represent the intersections. TimesRoman work well. Back to the ב bet. it is translated 'in' as a prefix to words. The ר resh, the Word has come to man. God is 'in' the world. A side note to show how some word play works: The word אבן eben (stone) is composed of אב father and בן son. When the stone was split, it represented the separation of the Father and the Son at the cross. יהוה אהבה יהוה אהבה Yahweh ahabah is the God of love. His second most important attribute, revealed through the morphing of his name is that God is Love. (1Jo 4:8 ) Though it is not used in scripture, יהוה אהבה expresses the number two, and the two attributes of God which are the second layer of the fractal. (The first was God's sovereignty). All the rest of the scriptures express the unity of God, and the basic duality of God. The universal duality is not good vs. evil but holiness ( an expression of divine sovereignty) and love (also an expression of sovereignty). The reason that God chose to reveal himself through the duality, is because we do not understand either, if holiness (justice - another expression of holiness) and grace (an expression of love) are mixed up. If a judge lets a criminal go free, we say there is no justice. If we don't get to go free, we say there is no grace. All the silly laws against mixing various things are just learning aids to teach us that we can't mix law and grace. Only Christ could do that at the cross in order to bring the duality back into unity and show the character of God as both attributes perfectly mixed. One of the sayings that represents God's love best is "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first." God who is first, placed man first at the cross as he bore man's sin, revealing the depth of his love. Our response is to put him back in first place. From the top down. The number one is God's sovereignty which is expressed everywhere in the Bible. The number two is the Holy/Love duality which is the essence of everything that appears in pairs within scripture. Next we will look at three and the three primary physical divisions within the Bible. Most Christians think that there are two; old and new covenants. That is a convenience only for the literal Bible. The hidden Bible was written by three authors, and we can discern personality differences between them.

Cool Brian. Thanks. Naturally I will be assuming that the readers have familiarity with the Bible and I can make references to stuff. This probably won't be as true as I suppose, so I hope you will feel free to ask qustions of clarification if I assume more than I should. I used the term 'fractal' to describe the unity of the Bible. The main unity of the Bible can be expressed by the name יהוה Yahweh, I am. It is the name that God chose for himself spelled with nothing but vowels. We are most familiar in the form shown which has two hei's which gives it the sound of breath, expressing that he is spirit. The word itself means "I am" and it derives this meaning from the letters. The blank page represents God. Man is not supposed to represent God in any way, so the best representation we can have is something that is untouched. The page is. God is. י yod is the smallest letter. It represents God's first thought of creation. Everything that could be thought, said, and made, is contained in the yod. It is like the Big Bang point. Everything that is, comes from it. As an idea it is separate from God, yet is not separated from God. It is a magnificent metaphor which can be looked at from many sides. יעל up - (י thought על el, thought of God) it is God who thought the thought. יטה down (י he טה spread out) it is everything that God created by through the thought קדם east (ancient) it is everything in eternity ים west (The Son finished what God thought) it is everything in time ימן right (God's manna) it is all spiritual things שמאל left (reputation of God) - it is all fleshly things Two of the six directions do not have a yod. The silence speaks. Eternity was not included in the thought of creation. Eternity is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing. It is the absence of time. The only thing that existed prior to creation was God. The missing yod from שמאל samal (left) tells us that God's reputation is in the hands of his witnesses who have free will. Your choices are not in the yod. They are yours. "The heaven of heavens cannot contain thee" so when God started to create, he made a void within himself to place all of creation. The yod is that void. ו the vav (a yod extended)... God spoke into the void and created the heavens and the earth. It is translated 'and' and just like 'and' it makes a distinction between two. It both divides and joins. It clarifies. It is the Word which is sharper than a a two-edged sword, able to discern between the passing thought and the intention of the heart... between the soul and the spirit. A word is made by combining the metaphor of its letters: Together the י yod and the ו vav represent י the creator ו who discerns. יו יום yom (day) is יו the creator who discerns ם the finished work of the son of man. It is also ו a distinction between י God's plan and ם the finished work of the son of man. It is the word 'day'. Each day in Genesis 1 is a distinct picture of Christ fulfilling the will of the father. יון yawen (miry, a troublesome or intractable situation) יו the creator discerns ן the son of man in death. or ו a clarification of י God's plan and ן the son of man in death. ה he represents a declaration which is heard and partially reponded to. It can also refer to the response to the declaration. הוה havah (be) - the essence of being is to have a choice. הוה is a ו clarification between two ה responses. יהוה Yahweh (I am) the name God chose for himself was not just יו The God who knows, but יהוה the י creator הוה who has choice, who is. His name mean that he has the ultimate choice, he is the Sovereign God. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to man. This one word accomplishes that revealation and summarizes the Bible. God is the soveriegn being who created, and by virtue of having created it, owns it and has the final say in all the choices. The name sets forth the primary rule of law, "You cannot control that which you cannot destroy". By virtue of having created it, he can destroy it. No one can judge him in his choices. From the letters of his name we have seen that the blank page is self-existent, the yod is different from the page but is not separated from it. The vav extends from the yud and is different but not separate. The three are an expression of the Trinity as the substance, the thought, the word; Inseperable, yet different. The word 'person' is a frail expression of the parts of the Trinity. The second message derives from the first. God chose the name יהוה for himself, now replace the smaller description of God יו with Father אב and we get אהבה Love. This will be the topic of the next post.

We see the authors of the Bible use gematria occassionally, but in a much different way than the sages. For instance the aleph has the number 1, but its name אלפ means 1000. the doctrine is related to the word and gematria play/ Consider John's usage: The word for heaven has gematria of 3. The three consonants represent the Spirit, Father, and Son The word for earth has gematria of 3. The three consonants represent the Spirit, Water, and the Blood Their use is more related to word play than to mathematical substitutions of meaning. --- The four-legged shin is not used in any word. It is the real source of the tradition that we aren't supposed to say the name of God. The very existence of something you are not supposed to say, tempts you to say it. So the target was moved from the four-legged shin to the name of Yahweh. We say it all the time without consequence. The unpronouncable letter has a meaning, related to the relationship of God and man, that is so enticing, that it would cause the elect to stumble if that were possible. This guy doesn't know it's meaning, but has stumbled upon a closely related temptation. Each thing he says has mostly truth, and then he throws in a critical error. He is only seeing 1/4 of the Bible and misses the point because he threw out 1/4 that he could have read. I'll be sharing all four layers. in the sensus plenior thread. I'll show how to solve the riddle in an objective way, rather than the subjective way that he uses to impose meaning. Though admittedly, he says a lot of stuff most of the folks here would like to hear.

Hmm.. seems like it was not a foul since even wikipedia seems to do the same. "Huxley argued for human evolution from apes by illustrating many of the similarities and differences between humans and apes, and did so particularly in his 1863 book Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution Chapter name "On the natural history of the man-like Apes" Addendum name "A succinct history of the controversy respecting the cerrebral structure of Man and the apes" Seems that Huxley himself used the term frequently: 1861. Man and the Apes. Letters to the Athenaeum, March 30 and September 21, p433 and 498. 1862. The Brain of Man and Apes. letter to Medical Times & Gazette, October 25, p449. So I think the bishop is cleared.

I do not like the term creationism. I prefer the term forensics. Can you tell the difference between pits in the sand caused by wave action and footprints.

I think you summarized it appropriately. However, that common ancestor was a different species than either the cat or the elephant, so it is still proper, according to the theory which you explained, that we can say one species supposedly evolved from another. It would avoid confusion if it was clarified that the theory does not state that a modern species can evolve into another modern species.

Sorry, you missed your cheap shot target. Dropping "On" is a common practice in referring to the book: (Dropping 'the' is merely an error of the early morning, and unless it can be shown that it changes the meaning of the title, surely does not support an accusation of sophistry.) http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ http://www.amazon.com/The-Origin-Of-Species-Anniversary/dp/0451529065 http://www.amazon.com/Species-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature-Collection/dp/1853267805 You do much better when you actually address the issue ;-) Great!

Good answers all the way around Brian! The one most "scientists" miss is the part about modelling and confusing the reality with their model. So the ability to measure red shift is based on the presumption that the physical properties of the vacuum are the same everywhere. If in fact the properties are different across the universe, the frequencies of light given off by exciting stuff in different places would change. The spectral signature could be red shifted simply by the 'different kind' of vacuum it occurs in. When we believed that a vacuum was nothing, it seemed to be a safe bet. But now that there is a field of study called "vacuum engineering" which has nothing to do with your Hoover, but is concrned with manipulating the properties of the vacuum, all bets are off. There is room for another model.

I had been estimating that probably 80% of Christians weren't really Christian. Then one day Billy Graham said that 75% of Christians probably weren't Christian. The only conclusion I could come to were that 5% of those lying bastards had pulled the wool over Billy Graham's eyes. ;-) I think a similar phenomenon happens with atheists. A large number of atheists give up their faith in nothing when times get hard and actually pray to something. Or they become angry when their stereos get stolen revealing their hypocrisy in saying that there is no absolute right and wrong. So I think most people really just make it up as they go and have no real commitment to anything. But if you think it is bad with Christians teaching Creationism, wait till this is a Muslim country and they enforce it at the edge of a sword. It occurred to me that often the discussion of evolution is actually sophistry by semantics. THe 'bible' on evolution is a book called 'Origin of the Species' yet when an evolutionist is confronted with a question about one species coming from another they say that that is not evolution but speciation, and that evolution is simply change. See the subtle shift in the meaning of the word. Darwin certainly claimed that evolution was the origin of the species. If we say that life cannot magically spring forth from non-life, the evolutionist says that is not evolution but a-biogenesis. But going from a Big Bang to having living organisms is a required belief in evolutionism, and the shifting of the conversation to a-biogenesis just a dodge. There are lots of places where we can argue evolution or creation, but there is little discussion on the fallacy of changing the semantics in the middle of the argument. We started heating milk just after it became a 'fact' that living things to not magically become alive. But if we push the conversation back billions and billions of years, we throw that 'fact' out the window and claim that life happens. As the great theologian Forest Gump said, "Sh** happens". No wonder life is like sh** for so many. ;-) Anyway, a real debate can't happen until people use the same language.

Scientists are only great grandchildren of philosophers ;-)

If you read that Gospel of Thomas thread, you'll see where I'm coming from. I know I am in a minority here. My skill set is interpretting sensus plenior. I popped into this thread since it was off topic and thought I'd throw something completely different at the conversation. Few people convince others of much, so it's there as something to think about. It's probably not a surprise to those who have been following in the other thread. Nice to meet you. Are your goats packers or meat or dairy?

My pack goats love tomatoes. In a completely different context I wrote this: http://thetaobums.com/topic/32359-gospel-of-thomas-class-notes-on-sensus-plenior/#entry491424 I think our concept of reality is inverted. Imagine a hyperdense crystal. In an instant, the energy distribution is such that the vibrations in a particular location cause discontinuities. The structure of the crystal is unstable where they occur, so they collapse sending energy back into the structure where it spreads out some and opens more discontinuities. This is the nature of the photon. It is energy traveling through a crystaline structure, popping open tiny voids as it goes which collapse again sending the energy back into the crystal. In this fashion a void can travel great distances without actually existing in between. With a completely different model of reality, where what we think is a vacuum is a crystal, and what we think are particles are voids within the crystal, time becomes irrelevant as the voids spread out. A cluster of primary voids where the structure around it is in tension is a charge, and if in compression, an opposite charge. The two are attracted to minimize the stress in the crystal. All the properties which we currently assign to various particles, are really properties of the geometry of the crystal. There is an implicit unfied theory, because only one thing actually exists, which defines all other observable phenomenon. This is a very brief overview not intended to be any kind of proof or pursuasive argument. Just a hint that there are alternate models for the universe.

The thing about scientific facts, is that the people who use them rarely tell you all of them which apply to the situation. Doppler red shift is also caused by rotation. An alternative to an expanding universe is a rotating universe. Red shift can also be caused by gravity. So if we were inside a hypdense sphere, light originating near the inside surface or reflected off the inside surface would be red shifted. But lets all drink the same kool-aid whatever it is because we no longer actually believe in scientific debate. I am happy to say I don't know which is true.

Love his vid. He makes the point precisely. We are expected to believe that the mass of our solar system arrived here without colliding into stuff faster than the photons that couldn't move because they would collide with stuff. So at some magic time, massless photons could finally move because space opened up enough for them. Our solar system and the hot stuff that wanted to send out photons but couldn't were all at the same place right at the time of the Big Bang. So the photons patiently waited for all the mass to spead out enough so they could travel. However, as soon as the mass spread out a tiny bit, it would cool and be able to absorb a photon from hot stuff, so the hot stuff had to somehow decide to not send out the photon until the mass got really far away. Makes sense ;-)

Hi ralis, don't think we have had an opportunity to chat. Nothing is more annoying than to be invited to a dinner by an Amway salesman and when you ask if it is an Amway presentation to be asked "What's Amway?". Is it possible to get off topic in "Off Topic"? ;-) I proposed an unheard of alternative to classic creationism and the other thing <grin> and you wish to feign ignorance of 'the fall' to lead me down some other road. Sure sounds like Amway. It's late here and I was up early. I'll be happy to talk in detail about the alternative, but I suspect you are quite capable of googling "The Fall" if you really don't know what it is. Be happy...

Now for something completely different... ;-) I always thought that creation happened in a timeless eternity where things that appear to happen in billions of years can occur in the same timeless quantum fluctuation as things which appear to take a billionth of a second. Oh, and that time started and is merely an indicator of decay as a result of the fall. So I guess I would say I believe that the universe wasn't created in seven days, but in a timeless instant. And even though nothing travels faster than light so they say, we got here before the radiation from the Big Bang did (evidenced by the fact that we observe the background radiation of Big Bang) because in a timeless existence there is no such thing as speed, hence no speed of light. ;-) ..... running for the exit before the rotten tomatoes fly.

Deci, You are a great encourager, though I am pretty sure we have fundamental differences in our understanding. I am not sure that we have an "inherent wisdom" but more of a universal ignorance ;-) Let's examine it scientifically. http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/iqtable.aspx There are more than 2,000,000,000 Christians in the world today. I have found no evidence that these riddles have been solved by anyone since the time of Christ when the apostles knew how. Using just today's Christian population that would give me an IQ of 198. Oh... just to solve a single riddle. Since I am able to read the double entendre of most of it, that would give me an impossible IQ. It is not my inherent wisdom. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to give wisdom (the ability to solve the riddle). We can study, but it is He who brings it to remembrance and correlates it for us in whispers. I know my role in the process, and though the result is verifiable, the process is more akin to revelation. I stuff the scripture in my head, like so many others have done, but He makes it make sense. I would be remiss to not give credit where it is due. Others incorrectly use that verse to suggest that a burning bosom is a sign of having received wisdom. Judge for yourself if the propositional truths shared through this method of interpretation are not verifiable and reproducible. They do not require an oracle, but can be discerned by children (often more easily than by adults). Whatever errors there are, are mine. And they will be flushed out and corrected as others learn to apply the hermeneutic.

Thanks for the note. I apologize. Sometimes I don't know when to go into more detail in explanation. It's like a giant crossword puzzle. In explaining it, I just say "15 across is this", without getting into details since it derails the mainpoint. And sometimes I forget that people don't already know it, and I assume they are following along. There are four "voices" of God: prophet, priest king and judge. Eveything said in revelation comes through one or more of these voices; usually through all four at the same time giving scripture a four-fold meaning. When there are two things, they are two aspects of one thing. One is a heavenly (H) or spiritual aspect, the other is an earthly (E) or physical aspect. The number 4 is two two's. So there is H-H, H-E, E-H, and E-E. The four voices map into this pattern. The Priest speaks of heavenly things in a heavenly (hidden) language H-H. The king speaks of earthly things in a literal language. E-E. The Prophet and judge are the mixtures. The judge speaks of God's view or opinion on earthly matters, and the prophet speaks of the earthly life of Christ in a hidden language. The prophets must die. It is a symbold of the prophecy being fulfilled. The judge must die, because all judgements cease. We are told that we are kings and priests. We must rule over our flesh (live in the spirit) and intercede for other. The only one who actualy did this was Jesus. And so in this riddle, where all the men are said to be kings, they all refer to Christ. (Besides the point that everything works to reveal Christ). When I get a chance to make another good post, I will start to flush out how each one prefigures him. The idea of being a king may be a bit different. Normally we think of kings ruling over others. I think the term is used in the sensus plenior to speak of ruling our own flesh; the earthly part of us. There is nothing in the teaching of Christ which would tempt the flesh or elevate the ego to lord things over others. I think it is a great disappointment to Christ that so few Christinas get this point. Christ says that the greatest one in the kingdom is the one who serves all. One is unable to do that if his ego is desiring to rule over others. The self must be ruled. The point of intercession is taken to the greatest actualization when one can give himself for an enemy, which can only be done when the self is undercontrol. The one who does not fear death because he lives in the spirit already, can lay down his life on behalf of one who hates him in order to give the other a chance to reach the same place. ---added Side note: In the symbol of the cross, the upper part represents priest (in the heavens), the lower represents king (on earth), and the two horizontal arms are the mixtures; judge and prophet, which are suspended between heaven and earth. --added more... 5am , I am note awake yet. Concerning the king: Jesus was literally the king of Israel through his genealogy. But his "kingdom was not of this earth". His is a spiritual kingdom. The New Jerusalem is the "new teaching of peace" which he ushered in at the sermon on the mount. So if the king of kings did not lord it over others, how much more so should we not seek to rule but to serve? (There's that Jewish val chomer argument again.) --- added On agreement: The nice thing about a hermeneutic that is self-correcting is that it removes opinions. I may have things not quite right, but rather than have a battle over opinions, a collaborative effort is made to "solve the crossword". For instance, when someone claims that leaven represents sin, there is no need for an arguement, but for a question: Since Jesus said the kingdom of heaven is like leaven, how is the kingdom like sin? Hmm.. so collaboratively, we search for the answer to the riddle. We eventually decide that "teaching" works in every case where leaven is used, and we erase the "sin" that someone had pencilled in and write "teaching" until we come to an understanding of all truth. In the set of rules laid out at the beginning of the thread, I cannot claim to "know" until the whole riddle is solved. So everything I present should be validated by others using the same rule set.

King 'King' refers to one who rules over the earth or the flesh. Christians are made to be kings and priests because they are supposed to rule over their own flesh, and intercede on behalf of others. In the riddle, all of these are men who ruled over the flesh. This does not speak of the historical men. It sets the stage for the next layer of discovery. How do they represent someone who had ruled over the flesh? Since all men have sinned (Ro 3:23) except for Christ,it is expected all of them to represent Christ in some way. In the genealogy of Genesis 5, the word 'lived is used 17 times. It is not used at all in the genealogy of Cain. If someone did not 'live' they must have 'died'. The seven generations of Cain were dead, while the ten generations of Adam were alive. Seven represents 'completion' or 'fulness': and ten represent the dual-natured man. So the fullness died so that Christ in the flesh would live. Five are fallen Re 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. Of the seven generations of Cain five are fallen. The word lived is not used for any of them, so we start with a list of seven that appear to be fallen. Two of them are not. Two names show up on both lists: Enoch and Lamech. So although we cannot say they live from Cain's list, they are said to live in Adam's list. One is and one will come Enoch was taken to be with God without dying. (Ge 5:24) Enoch "is", which leaves Lamech to be the one who "comes". Lamech means "power" In the end, Christ comes in power to claim his own. The riddle of verse 10 has been solved, but there is more to come. The beast must be discovered. As we examine the seven aspects of Christ represented Cain's genealogy, or the ten aspects of Christ represented in Adam's genealogy, the beast will be revealed.

First we have to identify whre the seven and the ten come from. 1. Cain 2. Enoch 3. Irad 4. Mehujael 5. Methusael 6. Lamech 7. Jabal - Jubal and (8) Tubalcain 1. Adam 2. Seth 3. Enos 4. Cainan 5. Mahalaleel 6. Jared 7. Enoch 8. Methuselah 9. Lamech 10. Noah Now we can start to solve the riddle of verse 10. Why are they (the 18 sons) called kings? Which of the sons of Cain are fallen? Which is? and Which is not yet come?