• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

General Refuting 119 ministries' Unbiblical Anti-Poly Video

I think it would be hard to prove the verse is referencing African Americans. But even if it was is it really racist? A slave that believed the tyrant using them to wage war on his other subjects would treat them right or give them true freedom would be deluding himself. A bigger cage is not freedom. I doubt the colonists felt any better toward any other enemy of any other color. It was WAR! It could have just been talking about how the truly free men in the colonies viewed those under King George. Hireling was in reference to the mercenaries George paid to come against the colonists because he probably lacked sufficient support from the English who were reluctant to wage war on their own. The man fighting for money wants to live to spend it. The man fighting for liberty and the ability to control his substance (king George wanted all goods sent back to, and only traded with, England) and the opportunity to give his children an inheritance of substance and freedom he has SAND. He is fighting for something precious.

"Now The Lord is that spirit and where the spirit of The Lord is there is liberty" 2 Cor. 3:17

Hirelings can't match people that see true freedom in reach.

Oh, and for the record I don't believe in judging books by covers, or people by color.
I am pretty sure that only African Americans were enslaved by the time of the War of 1812. Indentured servitude was pretty bad, but it wasn't sustainable, especially since the Americans had been independent of the British for almost 40 years, by that point in time. It's not hard to put yourself in the mind of a slave who is under cruel oppression, thinking that fighting for one side, will not only liberate themselves, but all people who were enslaved. Slavery had not yet been abolished in the British Empire, but the slave trade had been abolished, by that point in time, and as it turned out, though no one could have foreseen the future, the British abolished slavery 30 years before the United States did.
 
And... over time, we may be overwhelmed by negative comments. This is a long game, but for the moment, 119 and YouTube have provided us with an amazing platform!

The Father can/will use our efforts thus far. Quite an exciting week for pushing the ball forward. Guessing we interacted with as many this week in YT as we do in a year on BF...

119 may not change their position, but they have been presented with a sound refutation and will be held accountable. My Bible says you can't curse Abraham and his progeny and get away with it.
Well for now, we're back to the top 12 comments being positive (good work everyone), so it's still ticking along well.

If anyone actually has an organised approach to swinging this the other way they will succeed, or if 119 decides they're sick of it and start deleting our comments. I agree it won't last forever. But for now it is hopefully causing a few people to think.
 
The sad thing is, right now the Thumbs up/Thumbs down ratio, is 149:28, as of this posting.
 
My Bible says you can't curse Abraham and his progeny and get away with it.
I commented where some guy claimed Abraham transgressed Yah's law. He had a verbose response and implied I put Abraham on a pedestal. I am shocked when people run Abraham down because Yah never criticized the man, and he had face to face interactions with the The Almighty.
I'm not so sure that the consequence for cursing his descendants is the same. That was spoken to Abraham with the specific word 'you' used in English translations.
Yah did and does purpose to bless Abraham's descendants, but He also promised to deal with them as sons, chastising them when they need it.
Since Yah promises curses on Israelites that don't walk right, I really believe if someone cursed an Israelite that stole from him as an example it would not be held against him.
That verse is often said, and often applied to people called Jews, but I fear the secular anti Christ possible imposters use it as a shield against anyone that might criticize the State of Israel, or individual Israelis.
 
I am pretty sure that only African Americans were enslaved by the time of the War of 1812.
Human farming is what central governments do. Since the first king of Babylon, and continuing until Yeshua fully establishes the kingdom, acting free can have political consequences. Just look at the myriad of laws so called in the so called land of the free.
though no one could have foreseen the future, the British abolished slavery 30 years before the United States did.
There is a wonderful movie called Amazing Grace about the man who worked to end the slave trade in England. Sadly America just changed from private endentured servatude with the 14th amendment to the previously free people being reclassified under the fed. It is when we went into the prophesied end times captivity mentioned in scripture. Without looking at the global big picture, most Americans are less free then some in Europe, but don't realize it. Thankfully Yah gives us hope that this will end. I hope I live to see it change.
 
Trying to understand the youtube comment ranking algorithm. It's way over-complex. Here's the best explanation I could find. Google's never published it but these people did a lot of maths to figure it out - a few years ago, so it could be outdated and they mightn't have found every detail.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions...tube-comment-system-sorting-ranking-algorithm

Basically, it depends on four things:
1) Time it was posted,
2) Like/dislike ratio of a comment,
3) Number of replies,
4) And, believe it or not, WHO posted it (ie the overall like/dislike ratio that person has received over the whole of youtube).

You can dislike comments, but nobody can see the number of dislikes. However, the dislikes very strongly affect the ranking order.

So my particular comment is sliding down the ranking gradually because it was posted some time ago (1), but also probably because when I posted it I'd never posted before so had a decent like/dislike ratio, and since then I expect many naysayers have disliked both that comment (2), and other subcomments of mine (4), so it's sliding down based on all four factors except 3.

So, if we think it's worthwhile trying to maintain good first impressions for anybody looking at the top few posts in that comment section (the only ones that most viewers will read):
- Like the posts that should float up (2). But also,
- Like other subcomments by the people who authored the posts that should float up (3)
- Dislike posts that should float down (2)
- Dislike other subcomments by people who authored posts that should float down (3)
- Post comments on posts that should float up (3), and
- Feel free to make new posts that would be a good first impression for people (1).

This is so ridiculous... But it's interesting from a mathematical perspective.
I saw you as #2 when I logged in about 17 hours ago.
It's curious to see the gender disparity. The women were posting persuasions based on emotive reasons. The men were posting based on concrete, scripture based arguments. On tactical points, the men have the match won, but the women are playing a whole different game! Interesting.
 
The discussion has been excellent. 119 gave us such a wonderful platform to contend for truth! May our Father use it to His glory, opening eyes and spreading truth!

This is a key point. Think of how Trump got media attention. Every time they attack the truth, it gives us eyeballs and a chance to reach their viewers. This sort of work can have a tangible impact on public opinion.

I don't think the majority of the people we are interacting with will be changing their minds anytime soon (if ever), but they sure do a good job of showing the contrast between the two sides, and which one is standing on the side of sound doctrine.

Yep you're planting seeds, if not in their minds then in the hearts of others who read.
 
There is a wonderful movie called Amazing Grace about the man who worked to end the slave trade in England.
That was such an awesome movie. The man's name is William Wilberforce. It has some cool scenes in there with a man who plays the role of John Newton. I highly recommend the film. Also, I would recommend "Amistad". Excellent film!
 
Yep you're planting seeds, if not in their minds then in the hearts of others who read.
I like to think of it as "nudging them in the right direction". Fence sitters come over to our side, those diametrically opposed, perhaps not so much, and those who are kind of against it, but not sure why, can become fence sitters.
 
I just came across one comment where they are trying to promote the Essenes teaching:

Have anyone considered the "Sin of Fornication"section mentioned in the Fragments of Zadok 7:1-7 concerning the fornication in taking two wives during one's life time?

This is not the first time I have seen someone try to promote this "Damascus Document" as if it were inerrant Scripture.

Here is what Zadok 7 says:
7 1-7. The Sin of Fornication. Divorce forbidden.
7 1 The builders of the wall who walk after law-the law it is which talks, of which He said: Assuredly they shall talk-are caught [by two] by fornication in taking two wives during their lifetime. 2,3 But the fundamental principle of the creation ‘Male and Female created He them.’ 4 And they who went into the Ark, ‘Two and two went into the Ark.’ And as to the prince it is written, 5 ‘He shall not multiply wives unto himself.’ But David read not in the Book of the Law that was sealed, which was in the Ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar and 6 Joshua, and the Elders who served Ashtaroth. And it was hidden (and was not) discovered until 7 Zadok arose: Now they glorified the deeds of David save only the blood of Uriah, and God abandoned them to him
On the surface, it sounds like this is saying that having a second wife is wrong, even after your first wife dies, but I anticipate someone will argue that the phrase "during their lifetime", means the lifetime of the two wives. I responded that the claim that David did not know the law, is false.

On another YouTube video, a user posted that John the Baptist was an Essene, and so that somehow lends validity to this previously unknown Scripture.
 
Last edited:
It is a sectarian text. Pharisees and Sadducees had them as well. It is more accurately described as commentary rather than scripture. Its been a while since I read it but I don’t think they considered it to be scripture, just sect rules

It does have value in understanding cultural norms of the day, however the sectarian docs should be understood as sect norms, not culture in general
 
Way to go Jeremy!!!!


Shawn Kovac
1 day ago
@Jeremy, thanks, Jeremy! i did easily find the refutation that you mentioned. i started reading it. GREAT content!! thanks so much! it's a long video and a long transcript, so it might take me days to get thru it. :) But i think worth it in order to dig deep into Abba's truth! Thanks so much!!
One fence sitter, likely persuaded!
 
I commented where some guy claimed Abraham transgressed Yah's law. He had a verbose response and implied I put Abraham on a pedestal. I am shocked when people run Abraham down because Yah never criticized the man, and he had face to face interactions with the The Almighty.
I'm not so sure that the consequence for cursing his descendants is the same. That was spoken to Abraham with the specific word 'you' used in English translations.
Yah did and does purpose to bless Abraham's descendants, but He also promised to deal with them as sons, chastising them when they need it.
Since Yah promises curses on Israelites that don't walk right, I really believe if someone cursed an Israelite that stole from him as an example it would not be held against him.
That verse is often said, and often applied to people called Jews, but I fear the secular anti Christ possible imposters use it as a shield against anyone that might criticize the State of Israel, or individual Israelis.
Hall of Faith.... Hebrews 11:8-19
 
Just thought I'd let you know that over on Facebook, 119 Ministries themselves "liked" this comment of mine. So there may be some openness there to think about this further.
And if that's fine for you <name removed>, good for you. Statistically, most men will be monogamous anyway. The question is however whether it is a sin. This is a serious question for some people - for instance an African chief who has just come to Christ, but has multiple wives. Does he have to divorce all but one, or can he keep them? This is a very serious question, and is not to be dismissed just because you feel it is irrelevant to your life, or emotionally think women wouldn't want it (just because you haven't yet met one of the many women in the world who do).
 
Back
Top