Addressing False Doctrines

A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

As I explained in part #’s 1, 2 & 3, since the author didn’t use his own name but instead used the pseudonym of “Gabriel”, I will continue to refer to the author as “alias-gabriel”, whoever he happens to be. This alias-gabriel is quite a Scripture-twister, as I demonstrated in part #3, where he demanded that the “Adam” of Gen. chapter 3 was the Strong’s #119. As I explained in part #3, Strong’s #’s 119, 120, 121 & 122 are all the same identical Hebrew word, but represent different parts of speech. Strong’s #119 is a verb, hence alias-gabriel attempts to convince us that the verbal form of Adam is rather a separate and distinct noun! Since alias-gabriel claimed to have a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, he had absolutely no excuse for making such a claim, as Strong does not list a single entry for #119 under the words “Adam” or “man”. If that doesn’t classify one as running a pretzel-factory, I surely don’t know what it would take! Either Strong is lying, or it’s alias-gabriel, take your pick! And when alias-gabriel eats too many beans, J. Richard Niemela is one step behind, ready to sniff the exhaust!

With this paper, we’ll see more of the mishandling of Scripture which alias-gabriel wittingly or unwittingly perpetrates. I am going to quote a portion from this book on page 2, and as you read it, you may not at first see the significance of what he is promoting, after which I will expose his agenda:

“Gen. 1:3-25 ... describes the order in which God [Elohiym] created the component parts of the universe – our earth, and the living beings that dwell on it. The English word God used in the Bible comes from the Hebrew word Elohiym. From Gen. 1:1 through Gen. 2:3 this name appears as the entity doing the creating. ‘Elohiym,’ has a plural meaning, which means the interaction_. of the Godhead. Knowing this, helps explain the meaning of verse 26 ...”

A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

This is the third part of a critical review. As I explained in part #’s 1 & 2, since the author didn’t use his own name but instead used the pseudonym of “Gabriel”, I will continue to refer to the author as “alias-gabriel”, whoever he happens to be. With this issue, we’ll see more of the serious errors which this alias-gabriel makes. I’m not talking about some minor infractions, but departures from the truth of the utmost catastrophic kind! On pages 5-6, alias-gabriel states in part:

“In order to understand the rest of the Bible, one has to comprehend this very critical point ... In [Gen. 2] verse 19, we also discover that Yahovah [sic Yahweh] God calls this especially endowed man ‘Adam.’ To get more light on this name we must look up the meaning of Adam in the language the Old Testament was written in, because all the names in the Bible have a definite meaning. Adam aw-dam is the Hebrew word meaning: to show blood in the face, able to blush, rosy, ruddy, #119 (Strong’s Concordance).”

A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

This is the second part of a critical review. As I explained in part #1, since the author didn’t use his own name but instead used the pseudonym of “Gabriel”, I will continue to refer to the author as “alias-gabriel”. And since this book has been distributed to a number of people, even if I discover who the actual author is, I will continue to use this pseudonym so the reader can recognize the book to which I refer. To foster ones own agenda by using the name of “Gabriel” is nothing new, for Mohammed did likewise to promote his false doctrine, and should wave a red flag! In part #1, I showed where the author made many serious errors using flawed reasoning, rather than discovering the true context of the various Biblical passages. In this issue, I will continue to show more of these tragic miscalculations. The reader should be informed that alias-gabriel is an insidious no-Satan, no-devil advocate. I would also remind the reader that I have addressed this same no-Satan subject with a series of six brochures entitled Mark Downey’s Phony No-Satan Dogma.

To get started with this second paper on this critical review of alias-gabriel, and his tirade, I will cite a passage on pages 115-116 in Appendix E, “Job And Satan”:

“The word ‘Satan’ is a Hebrew word, signifying ‘to oppose, to be an adversary.’ The word ‘Satan’ is translated by our English translators ‘adversary,’ ‘withstand,’ ‘resist,’ and also transliterated as ‘Satan,’ in many places in the Bible.

 A Critical Review Of The Book, THE TWO CREATIONS 

Why would anyone write a book of 147 pages in a letter size format (8.5" x 11" - equivalent to a 300 page book 5" x 7") and not sign his name to it? Instead the author of this book uses the fictitious pseudonym of “Gabriel”! While this cloak-and-dagger author does bring forth a few important truths, he offsets those truths with deceptive lies. If he were aboveboard about everything he was putting forward, why did he not openly claim authorship? What’s worse, this author uses the name of “Gabriel” the archangel to legitimize his dogmas. If you will remember, it was the archangel Gabriel who was sent to Daniel to cause him to understand his vision (Dan. 8:16). It is evident that the author of The Two Creations is attempting to make the reader believe that his utterances are on the same high level of importance as Gabriel’s were to Daniel! All of this should wave a red flag at the reader!

In this book The Two Creations, on page ii, the address is given as Gabriel’s Enterprises, P.O. Box 513, Albert Lea, MN 56007. Now according to J. Richard Niemela, one Lloyd Palmer sells this book, which can be ordered from Gabriel’s Enterprises, P.O. Box 507, Albert Lea, MN 56007. Though the P.O. box is slightly different, could Palmer be the author, or is he just a distributor of the book? Since I’m not completely sure who wrote the book (but I suspect it is Lloyd Palmer), I will simply hereinafter refer to the author simply as “alias-gabriel”, as I see no need to capitalize a fictitious alias.

If you have not read brochure #’s 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 by this same title, you need to get copies in order to fully understand this one. In my possession I have two small pamphlets; one entitled Satan Dispelled by Kalamos (whoever that is), and the other The Bible Devil And Satan Defined (again anonymous). The first was republished from a publication entitled Lucifer Scrutinized, Satan Dispelled, by Christian Research, 279 Spring St., Eureka Springs, AR, 72632, and distributed by America’s Promise, P.O. Box 5334, Phoenix, AR, 85010. The latter is distributed by the inheritors of America’s Promise, located now at P.O. Box 157, Sandpoint, ID, 83864, and also Col. John R. Niemela, Ret., 1776 Wainwright Dr., Reston, VA, 20190.

The whole assumption of the “no devil” doctrine is based on the conjecture that the “flesh” is the devil. To show you this, I will quote excerpts from The Bible Devil And Satan Defined, pages 2, 10, 11, 12, 17 & 18:

“But once it is recognized that the devil relates to sin, and that sin comes from within, it will be acknowledged that the atoning blood of Jesus is a powerful weapon to defeat and destroy it! It defeats the power of sin by providing the means of forgiveness; it conquers death through the promise of a resurrection to life eternal  ... Though the devil basically relates to human nature, or the lusts of the flesh, it is manifested in various forms ... The ‘devil’ against which he warned them constituted the pagan, social and political world which was ruled by the flesh ... They were men of flesh, being dominated by its lusts, and therefore the progeny of the devil ... We have shown that the devil relates to the sinful tendencies of the flesh ... Immortal life in the Kingdom of God to be set up on earth ... is the hope set before us. To attain unto it we must conquer the devil, or sin in the flesh.” According to this supposition, simply look into a mirror and you are looking at a devil! I’ll bet you didn’t know that, did you? Neither did I!

As I demonstrated in brochures #’s 1, 2, 3 & 4, by this same title, Mark Downey and all his cronies professing this same erroneous theory of “no-Satan” little understand the proper parts of speech in English, Greek and Hebrew. Downey, in his remark that the name Satan is a pronoun, displayed his flagrant ignorance of English grammar, let alone his appalling inability to comprehend Greek and Hebrew grammar. This same lethargic attitude applies to all who take the same position that there is no Satan. In short, they are too lazy to take the time to learn the English, Greek and Hebrew parts of speech and document their premises. Not only are they lacking in grammar, but they are not skilled in properly interpreting Yahweh’s Word, for which I will demonstrate several examples.

In order to support a theory of no-Satan, one must totally misconstrue Revelation 12:7-9 which reads: “⁷ And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, ⁸ And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ⁹ And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Somehow, according to these no-Satan people, all of this passage, like a Chinese puzzle, pertains to the flesh.

At this point I would like to repeat a paragraph I wrote in #2 of this series: Downey scoffs at there being a war in heaven at Rev. 12:7, but he is overlooking Daniel 10:13, where the prince of Persia withstood Gabriel twenty-one days. Michael coming to assist Gabriel sounds like war to me! Surely, this was an angelic war between angelic beings!

As I demonstrated in brochure #’s 1, 2 & 3 by this same title, Mark Downey and all his cronies professing this same erroneous theory of “no-Satan” have little comprehension of the various parts of speech in English, Greek or Hebrew. In #1 of this series, I found it necessary to give the reader a general refresher course in the various parts of speech in English. The one for which I didn’t have space to do it justice was the Greek and Hebrew Substantive, and it is even more important than all I discussed in the first paper. In that paper, I showed you how Mark Downey falsely claimed that the name “Satan” was a pronoun.

Downey might influence others who don’t have the resources to examine the validity of his inaccurate conjectures. In my computers I have what is called the Libronix Digital Library System. In that system there are several Bible versions. But the principal books in that collection are two versions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th ed., of which one is an interlinear. The interlinear has four lines, the top being the Greek text. Under the Greek text is the Greek equivalent in English letters. The third line is a translation by McReynolds from the NA27 Greek. The bottom, or fourth line, is an abbreviated code for each Greek word and the part/s of speech it represents. But the LDL user doesn’t even have to check what the abbreviation depicts, as all one need do is place the cursor near the Greek word and at the bottom of the screen, just above the task bar, is a non-abbreviated readout of each part of speech. Therefore, I can go to any word in the New Testament and instantly determine its grammatical status. Not only do I have the NA27 by which to consult the Greek of the New Testament, but I also have four different Septuagint Greek texts to refer to, and I can check the grammatical status of every word in the Old Testament.

For instance, all I need do to determine the grammatical status of “Satan” at Rev. 12:9 is to go to the NA27 and place the cursor on Satan, and the grammatical readout that I get is “noun: masculine, singular, nominative”. I can go a step further and right-click and a window appears, and I can select “Selected Reference: noun: masculine, singular, nominative”, and every word with that same grammatical status will appear in light blue print throughout the entire New Testament, and all I have to do is scroll through it and it will show every word that is “noun: masculine, singular, nominative”. And if there is no Satan, as Downey insinuates, better than 90% of the people mentioned in the Bible didn’t exist either, including Yahshua Christ Himself!

As I demonstrated in brochure #’s 1 & 2 by this same title, Mark Downey and all his cronies professing this same erroneous theory of “no-Satan” have little knowledge of the parts of speech in English and lack comprehension of both the Greek and Hebrew. I am keeping Downey’s statements in italics.

To get started with this third composition, I shall quote from Downey’s What If Satan Isn’t Real, Can Christianity Survive?, ¶12: “So, where in the devil is a real supernatural Satan in all of this? ‘For this purpose the Son of God was manifested (the Word was made flesh), that He might destroy the works of the devil’ ( I John 3:8). But, in verse 5 it says, ‘He was manifested to take away our sins.’ ‘He put away (abolished or destroyed) sin by the sacrifice of Himself’ (Hebrews 9:26). Well, which is it, the devil or sin?

“From the foregoing evidence it is obvious that it is not either/or, but rather synonymous terms. The real satans of the Bible are not fallen angels, but in fact the carnal sin nature of man. ‘He that practices sin is of the devil’ (I John 3:8). In other words, when we transgress the Law of God, it’s from our own sin nature, being enticed by our own desires. ‘For the devil sinned from the beginning’, meaning Adam and Eve ...”

Well, if Downey is correct that Adam and Eve were the devil, inasmuch as Christ was genetically of Adam, and in the image of Adam, and often referred to in the New Testament as “the son of man” meaning “son of Adam”, that would make Yahshua Christ the devil also. Many, along with Downey, scoff at 1 John 3:12 which says: “Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”

As I demonstrated in brochure #1 by this same title, Mark Downey and all his cronies, professing this same erroneous theory of “no-Satan” theology, are sadly lacking an understanding of the parts of speech in English and have little comprehension of the grammatical rules of both Hebrew and Greek. Yet in their deplorable ignorance, they pretend they are authorities on the subject. By proclaiming that the term “Satan” is a pronoun, as Downey did, he clearly exposes his appalling, lethargic mentality. If you don’t already have Mark Downey’s Phony No-Satan Dogma, #1, you should get a copy to examine his gross error for yourself.

It is my opinion that what motivates Downey to promote a “no-Satan” position is to undermine the truth of Genesis 3:15. For if he can manipulate Scripture to somehow make it appear that Satan is but a figment of the imagination, he can falsely argue that there is no such thing as “the seed of the serpent”. What are Downey and his ilk going to do with Romans 16:20, where Paul said to them: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Prince Yahshua Christ be with you.”

This is already history, for when Titus and the Roman army besieged Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Romans represented “the seed of the woman” and the bad-fig-jews represented “the seed of the serpent” of Genesis 3:15, for which see Dan. 9:26. It takes a total imbecile to deny that this historical event was not a conflict between the two seeds of Genesis 3:15. Moreover, it was a physical bruising of a physical people, and not a figment of someone’s imagination! If the great Mark Downey is so god-almighty intelligent, let him point to the event Paul was alluding to when he said: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”

I have This series of brochures is not only directed personally toward Mark Downey, but to all those who are promoting this same fallacious doctrine of “no-devil”. By promoting this heretical concept, it expunges the foundation of Genesis 3:15 upon which all the rest of the Biblical Gospel story rests. For if there is no Satan, then there was no physical seduction of Eve, and in turn no “seed of the serpent”. And if there was no “seed of the serpent” to bruise the “seed of the woman”, we as Adamites have no salvation! And without being redeemed by a bruised Messiah, we shall forever remain in our graves! As you can clearly comprehend, the implications of such a diabolical heresy are utterly un-Christian. I don’t know what kind of bloodless “christ” Downey and his ilk venerate, but my “Christ” was “bruised” by the lineal descendants of the serpent (i.e. the Satan). Repeating: If there is no Satan, Christ was not bruised and we are still in our sins without any hope of a resurrection!

In rebuttal to Mark Downey and his no-Satan concept, I will cite several of his faulty remarks from eight articles he has posted on the Internet: Suppose Satan is Real, What Difference Does It Make?; What If Satan Isn’t Real, Can Christianity Survive?; Why We Hate Jews (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5) and The Fallen Angel Theory.

Because page numbers can vary when viewing or printing out articles from the Internet, depending on the size of the browser window, I will give the number of the paragraph (“¶”) of the article instead. To find Mark Downey’s website, type kinsmanredeemer.com into the URL line. Because Downey takes the “no-Satan” position, it subtracts in merit anything truthful he might express. In other words +2 plus  -2 = Zero.

Mark Downey shows his puffed up pride and a judgmental spirit in his writings. This is what I designate as a “god-syndrome”. To demonstrate this I will quote from ¶8 of his What If Satan Isn’t Real, Can Christianity Survive?: “If satan is not real, the dual seedliners are not only wrong, they are in grave danger of forfeiting any chance of redemption to enter the Kingdom. It would be better for them to do nothing and shut their mouths, than to be barking ‘satan is real’ outside the New Jerusalem with the rest of the dogs, idolaters and whosoever loves and makes a lie (Rev. 22:15).” Question: What is going to be Mark Downey’s destiny if he is wrong? For Downey, “god- syndrome” is an understatement, and at the judgment it will be rather late to take his inflammatory words back! One can always discern a person with a “god-syndrome” as they will habitually talk down to one (i.e. big me and little you).