Giving in Marriage
Gen. James Green
“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Mt. 24:37-39).
I BELIEVE what brought on the “Great Flood” (Genesis 7, NLT) in the days of Noah was the same thing that brought down the WRATH of God upon Sodom and Gomorrah and the other five cities of the plains (Genesis 19)—crimes against God and crimes against one another. Among those “crimes” was SAME-SEX SEX AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. What? I believe this.
I know that in the Bible, and in extra-Biblical materials (like the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), Sodom is referred to in many euphemisms and spoken of in both implicit and explicit ways.
The Biblical and extra-Biblical records point out that the notoriety of Sodom consists of “crimes,” for which the Sodomites were BURNED UP, and thusly became an example. This whole emphasis is wholly consistent with the Genesis account. The fiery judgment inflicted upon Sodom and Gomorrah (and 5 other cities) revealed just how God felt about these “crimes” (note the plural which had universal significance, see 2 Pet. 2:6. I just did a long article on this). Of course, there were other judgments upon nations (Pharaoh’s Egypt was a BIG one too). 3 Maccabees mentions 3 judgments: the flood, Sodom, and Pharaoh (2:3-6). Macc. mentions “wicked deeds;” and it was not “inhospitality” as our opponents tell us. I’m not going to rewrite what I just covered in my previous article entitled “Homosexual Movement and Religious Freedom.”
Back to Genesis
GEN. 6:1, 2 mentions “daughters” and “sons of God” and “wives.” Sounds ok so far. We assume only monogamous marriage. Then we read in v. 5 that “God saw that the WICKEDNESS of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was ONLY EVIL continually.” Sounds just like today. Verse 7 says: “…I will DESTROY man (both male/female) whom I have created…” Verse 8 says that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD (along with his small family)”.
Verse 11 comes back to Noah’s generation: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence”…sounds like today. Verse 12 repeats it again, so in v. 13.
Just what were the “crimes” that God looked upon? It doesn’t say much, but I suggest—but can’t prove—that adultery, fornication, incest, sex with beasts, and same-sex sex was among them. As far as marriage goes, it seemed right. I suggest that it got so vile that, as Romans one tells us: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations (Gen. 6:5), and their foolish heart was darkened.” We know the rest: “God gave them up to UNCLEANNESS through the LUSTS of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.” We could say that this was natural sex, forbidden, but natural. It doesn’t say either way, but we rightly can say unnatural sex.
Verse 25 is telling that they: “worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator…”—hence, idolatry. But was the “creature” an ANIMAL/ANIMALS only? I think it implies more. Gen. 3:5 reveals that: “…ye shall be as gods…,” and “gods” need to be WORSHIPED. So, to believe the lie (“ye are gods”) is to reject “the truth of God” and participate in idolatry (Gen. 3:5; Col. 3:5; 2 Thes. 2:11). This last verse, I believe, is what has happened to the whole homosexual GLBTQ movement—they have been TURNED OVER to STRONG DELUSION! And I also believe that all these “Christian” leaders/pew-warmers who endorse, condone, and even “celebrate” the GLBTQ perversions are guilty of SIN; they are also DELUDED. The reason for the “delusion” is that God sees that those who are intent upon doing “their thing,” and refuse repentance, will be DAMNED (v. 12). This I believed happened in the days of Noah and in Sodom/Gomorrah.
Romans one continues: “For this cause (goes back to Rom. 1:25 where self-idolatry was implied, even sex-idolatry) God gave them up unto VILE AFFECTIONS: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” In my previous article, I go into all this, pointing out the Greek words which mean same-sex intercourse.
… “God gave them over to a REPROBATE mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (v. 28). Three main considerations should be looked into in Rom. 1:26, 27:
1—the definition of the Greek word physis and physikos;
2—the nature of the homosexuality involved; and
3—the significance of the texts for contemporary ethics…which goes back to WHY God gave these people up, and over.
Two passages have ideas similar to those in Rom. 1:19-27: a. the Wisdom of Solomon 13:1 (with homosexuality and Sodom in its context) speaks thus: “…men being foolish by nature;” and b. the Testament of Naphtali 3:4, 5 refers to the sin of Sodom as changing “the order of nature.”
Let It Be Said…
I ADDRESS this to the homosexuals: the ONLY, and I mean ONLY!, model of sexual expression found in Scripture is that which finds its pattern in Genesis 1-2 Creation model. Jesus also taught this model in Mt. 5:27-32; 19:3-12. Heterosexual marriage ONLY! That settles it once and for all. Anything else is sheer rebellion.
Paul, who followed up on Jesus’ teachings, wrote in Romans one that ONLY male with female sexual intercourse was right, therefore, ETERNALLY VALID! But, the “Pink Revisionist” camp does not, nor will not, accept Scripture. What’s new?
The Creation accounts are foundational and fundamental for the understanding of marriage and sexuality. But men are contrary to this. They insist that homosexuality is not condemned in Scripture. This represents the (hubris) diversity of thought within their camp.
The World’s Need
PAUL’S WHOLE discourse in Romans one is that the world needs God’s salvation through Christ (1:18-3:31). Men had turned from God (before there was a written/spoken “law,” men were created with a conscience “to know God”). Paul speaks of God’s indictment against idolatry. I believe he inferred to “self-idolatry” as well as other types. I believe that Genesis speaks indirectly of same-sex marriage. More than this, I believe both Genesis and Matthew speak indirectly of “marrying one’s god or goddess.” Mark it down, we’ll see this come to pass here in America sooner or later. We already have same-sex sex and same sex marriage...now we wait for the marriage to gods/goddesses…even marrying one’s very own self! There, I said it.
Does the Bible Approve of Same-Sex Marriage?
LET’S START in the Apocrypha, which is not included in the King James Bible, but is found in the Catholic Bible. The Apocrypha contains books of history, poetry, wisdom, edifying fictional stories, and various writings that were appended to canonical books. The Apocrypha cites or alludes to the Old Testament. It has influenced the content of the New Testament. So, most believe the Apocrypha to be (largely) true.
The Wisdom of Solomon 14:23-26 touches upon sexual crimes (50 BC-AD10?). Since my article deals with “idolatry,” cpt. 14 discusses the origin and the results. Wisdom of Solomon points out a deliberate connection between “idolatry” and “sexual vice. Note this:
“For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication” (which would include homosexuality; 14:12; also 14:27). The author enumerates the evil results of idolatry in vv. 23-26:
“For either slaughtering children in solemn rites, or celebrating secret mysteries, Or holding frantic revels of strange ordinances, No longer do they guard either life or purity of marriage But one slays another treacherously, or grieves him by adultery. And all things confusedly are filled with blood and murder, theft and deceit, Corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, Disquieting of the good, Ingratitude for benefits received, Defiling of souls, confusion of sex, Disorder in marriage, adultery, and wantonness.”
“Confusion of Sex” (v. 26) is what we must look into. The above is Samuel Holmes’ translation (see also CDSP translation, “Confusion of sex;” Edwin C. Bissell’s “Abuse of sex,” The A of the O.T., 1880, p. 262. Bissell cites the AV’s “changing of kind” (margin, “sex”). The NRSV has “sexual perversion.”
Prof. J. B. DeYoung, Th.M., Th. D., examines the words “geneseos enallage, enallage,” in which he says that only here do these words occur in all Biblical literature, canonical or non-canonical (with the exception of Aquila who uses it in his Greek translation of Psalm 9:12 and Isa. 66:4. Several cognates exist, but only one occurs in Biblical writings.). We should appreciate scholars who dig out truths for us.
Enallax is used for the Hebrew sakal in Gen. 48:14, i.e., Jacob blessing the 2 sons of Joseph by “crossing” his hands (one might want to examine enallagma (Aquila, Isa. 66:4); enallaktes (Aquila, Isa. 3:4); enallaktikos (Aquila, Deut. 22:14); enallassein (Aquila, 1 Kgs. 21:13, 14; 31:4); and Codex Alexandrinus at 1 Kgs. 6:6). The LSJ (Liddell, Scott, and Jones Greek English Lexicon), 554, renders some of these cognates from Aquila as “perverse actions” (Isa. 66:4), “perverse person” (Isa. 3:4), and “perverse, wanton” (Dt. 22:14).
The LSJ claims the last has a sexual connotation; it means, according to them, to change a wife with “shameful conduct” (Heb. ulilot, in reference to violating her virginity.). Elsewhere, this Hebrew means: “have success, understand, see, make keen,” or, “clever,” or “act with insight, devotion, piety.” The Greek occurs only in 1 Clement 12, 4 (“she pointed in the wrong direction, crosswise”) and Barnabas 13:5, which is referring to Genesis 48:14.
What Does All this Mean?
Confused yet? Hang in there!
REGARDING THE FIRST term in the phrase geneseos enallage, the New Testament uses geneseos of such ideas as “birth”/ “origin” (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:14), “existence” (Jam. 1:23), “genealogy” (Mt. 1:1), and the “course of life” or “wheel of human origin” (Jam. 3:6). (See the Septuagint—the Greek Old Testament—where it occurs 40 times, and 20 times in the Apocrypha. About half of these uses in the Apocrypha occur in Wisdom. The most frequent Hebrew term is yalad or “bear, bring forth” or a cognate. So, the idea is “generation or genealogy.”
Let’s press onward ➔➔➔
ENALLAGE OCCURS more often in classical Greek= “interchange, change, or variation.” The pertinent meaning for “genesis” includes “origin,” “manner of birth,” “generation,” “kind,” and “family.” Evidently, no other example of the phrase in Wisdom of Solomon 14:26 occurs in known Greek literature. So, the basic meaning of “geneseos enallage” appears to be “interchange, change” of something such as “generation,” or “kind.” We’re getting there!
In this context, stressing sexual vices, the meaning “change of sex” fits and most certainly allows for a homo meaning. We could connect-the-dots with the term endiellagmenou (“changed” of sex), used by Aquila, and also by Origen at 1 Kgs. 22:47 (in English translation see 22:46). (Origen, c. 185-255, was a pupil of Clement of Alexandria. Origen writes the following: “Such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themselves with men, effeminate men…” (c. 245, E), 9.500). He refers to both passive (female) and aggressive (male) homosexuals. The “passive” was the one penetrated, the “aggressive” was the penetrator in their same-sex sex.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.282) wrote: “The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong and instruction to those who hear. The sodomites had fallen into uncleanness through much luxury. They practiced adultery shamelessly, and they burned with insane love for boys.”
He continues: “The whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans. These men detested effeminacy of conduct. The giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they JUDGED WORTHY OF THE MOST EXTREME PENALTY” (c. 195, E), 2.77).
He continues: “Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature. Women are at once both wives and husbands…o miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct! (c. 195, E), 2.276).
So, now you know where Origen and Clement are coming from.
David Winston’s Take
D. WINSTON’S take on this passage lends support to this kind of idea of “change of sex” by translating the two words as “interchange of sex roles.” He cites (Jewish) Philo (On the Cherubim 92) used “physeos ergon en allage.” D. W. translates Testament of Naphtali 3:4 as “that ye become not as Sodom; which changed the order of nature” (or “enellaxe taxin physeos autes”); and he renders Rom. 1:26 as “their women exchanged (metellaxan) natural relations for unnatural.” Winston believes, as others have, that “geneseos” occurs incorrectly here, for they expect “genous” (“kind”) instead. (See DW’s “The Wisdom of Solomon” in W. F. Albright and David N. Freedman (general editors of “The Anchor Bible”). Winston uses words such as “irregular, inordinate” (citing Plato’s Laws, 840e). He also renders the two words we’re discussing as “sexual perversion” (he points to a similar list of immoralities in Hosea 4:2, which we have taught on before).
Changing of Race?
LIBERAL AUTHOR (and mentor of John Boswell, who died of HIV/AIDS at age 47) Sherwin Bailey (“Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition,” 1975) argues that Wisdom 14:26 could refer to “changing of race.” What?? He certainly argues against homosexuality. William Countryman (“Dirt, Greed, and Sex,” 1998) agrees. But, he also supports the literal idea of “alteration of generation” or “of procreation.” These (and there are more) hold a revised view of the Bible’s position on homosexuality. I have read most of their views.
Wisdom’s Vice List
WISDOM 14:23-26 is a catalog of vices, like that found in the Bible. And in these vice lists, we always find sexual prohibitions. In Jer. 7:9 we find adultery, in Hos. 4:2 we find adultery, in Matthew 15:19 we find evil thoughts (could suggest sexual thoughts), adulteries, and fornications; in Mark 7:21 (Jesus’ vice list), we find evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications (certainly including homosexuality, for Jesus knew of Lev. 18); in Romans 1:29-31 we find fornication (the whole of Romans deals with male/female homosexuality), unrighteousness certainly includes homosexuality; 1 Cor. 6:9-11 deals with fornicators, idolaters (certainly could include homosexuality), adulterers, effeminate (soft ones=passive male homos), abusers of themselves with mankind=homos; Gal. 5:19-21, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10, profane, whoremongers, them that defile themselves with mankind (homos); Rev. 22:15, dogs (homos), whoremongers, idolaters.
Touching Our Lives
THIS WHOLE “Pink Revolution,” and the debate surrounding it involves overt sexual behavior (one can see both hetero/homo filth 24/7/365 somewhere in the U.S.A., plus there are magazines that can be read, web sites etc…all dealing with this vile filth. How the american society used to deal with all this is entirely different than today. Public morality and public health are not concerns in today’s political arena. Your insane hubris homo prez Obama and his gang of D.C. criminals claim all this to be legitimate and may (MUST!) be practiced without restraint from public/Biblical morality or the law…so the marginalizing of Christianity by these “Pink terrorists” goes on day after day. Hey!, it’s time to do warfare people! We fight on our knees.
God does not, nor will He ever, condone this GLBTQ BULL! Passing men’s opinion in favor of what the Bible condemns is never going to legitimatize it. These GLBTQ people need to REPENT. I mean this. they are headed to their own damnation.
Same-sex sex/marriage is nothing new. It is foolish to debate the issue of same-sex marriage, when same-sex sex is condemned in the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha...plus there is plenty to read up on from the pagan world itself—both pro or con on this issue. So, it is basically out of the question to ask: “Is homo marriage right?”
JESUS DID NOT have to specifically denounce sodomy because it was rare in His day. Remember, Lev. 18/20 were still the “law.” But, for the record, in finishing up here, let’s look at some of His statements and His implicit references to homo conduct and orientation.
IF ONE LOOKS UP these references, including parallel texts, you’ll discover that He had His say on this issue. Why don’t our opponents point all this out?
1—Mt. 10:15 he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah in a negative way;
2—Mt. 11:23, 24 He mentions Sodom;
3—Mk. 6:11 He mentions Sodom and Gomorrah;
4—Luke 10:12 He mentions Sodom;
5—Luke 17:26-37 He mentions Noah’s day: “…they married wives, they were given in marriage.” I believe this could imply same-sex marriage. For what is the point of merely mentioning marriage (a divine covenant between man and woman)? His point was bring up Sodom (v. 29) as an example of God’s wrath—because Sodom and Gomorrah were given over to sexual vice (no doubt same-sex marriage). His point goes beyond pre-flood sins or Sodom and Gomorrah’s sins, it goes to the end of time “Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”
Jesus’ clear object lesson describing God’s hatred for what took place in pre-flood days and in Sodom and Gomorrah and surrounding cities, in His day, and in our day—God’s hatred for same-sex sex et al, is ETERNAL. Sodom is an object lesson with an entirely NEGATIVE message. Like then, as now, repentance is called for...repentance assumed guilt. Jesus saw, in Sodom, a lesson for ALL generations.
Pseudepigraphal 4 Ezra makes 3 explicit reference to Sodom: 4 Ezra 2:8, 9; 5:7-8; 7:106 (or 7:102-31).
IT’S REALLY STUPID of our opponents to claim that Sodom’s guilt was merely inhospitality. No other text or texts in the Bible or Apocrypha mention this: Sodom and Gomorrah are always connected with sexual vice. One shouldn’t even have to debate this, but our “pink” opponents insist upon it. Jesus never even hints at it, nor do the New Testament authors.
So, if (/since) sin of Sodom was homosexuality, Jesus was anything but supportive of same-sex sexuality. He knew that Sodom’s SIN was that. Sodom’s SIN was “exceedingly grave” (see Gen. 13:13; 18:20; 19:13, 15). True, arrogant pride, injustice, and inhospitality were sins too, but sexual vice was THE SIN of Sodom and Gomorrah (and the 5 cities of the plains). Romans 9:29, 2 Pet. 2:6, and Jude 7 all mention this.
What we have Learned
VICES IN THE Wisdom of Solomon 14 include:
* “Confusion of sex” (geneseos enallage);
* “disorder in marriage” (adultery—could imply either husband or wife, or both leaving the natural use of their bodies and doing homo/lesbian acts. This is a possibility), and
* “shameless uncleanness” (could also be homosexuality).
As already written about in my previous articles, there is:
~ Second Enoch 10:4, 5=pederasty, “child corruption in the anus after the manner or Sodom;”
~ Jubilees 16:5, 6= “fornication of Sodom” (see also 20:5). Also a reference to animal sex (bestiality) in 7:24 occurs after a reference to “watchers who committed fornication with the daughters of men;”
~ Testament of Naphtali 3:4, 5 and 4:1= sin of Sodom as changing “the order of nature;”
~ Testament of Asher 7:1=sodomites “sinned against the angels;”
~ Testament of Benjamin 9:1= “the fornication of Sodom;”
~ Testament of Levi 14:6= “unlawful purification” is “the union like unto Sodom.”
So, Sodom was not a place that the Bible, or the Apocrypha honors. HOMOSEXUALITY INHERENTLY VIOLATES THE STANDARD OF MARRIAGE AND THE DIVINE IMAGE. Two-person heterosexual union is what Jesus taught. He also condemned adultery both as a thought, and as a deed (Mt. 5:27, 28). It is sheer foolishness to believe that Jesus finds GLBTQ vices acceptable, while condemning heterosexual adultery/fornication. Yet, these “Pink Perverters” of truth preach this BULL!!
Jesus’ Last Say So
JESUS’ MATT. 5:17, 18 speech ought to settle this issue once and for all. He aggressively asserts: “Do not think that I came to ABOLISH the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to ABOLISH, but to fulfill…” The Law was moral, eternal, and it includes judgment AGAINST GLBTQ/heterosexual sins. Period. He WARNS AGAINST annulling ONE commandment, yet, the Homo movement goes about doing exactly this—they have struck down every text that condemns GLBTQ deeds. Even of late, psychopath Obama has declared that the Word of God must evolve (to fit his/their VILE/DEVIANT sexual conduct.
In light of these considerations, dear readers, we can rightly assert with boldness the implicit condemnation of the whole GLBTQ movement. TO HELL with liberal higher criticism: “times are a changing…so God’s Word must change.” You wish!
If one really digs deep into the New Testament alone, one will dig up 27 vice or catalogs of vices (Paul penned 16; 7 lists relate to heterosexual believers that commit sins, and 8 concern evil practices of the unsaved; the last list (Gal. 5:19-21) contrasts the workings of the Spirit, with works of the flesh. The Spirit should produce fruit.
The revisionist camp needs to be honest. They ought to mention 116 different terms used in the 27 lists (though 4 or 5 terms are cognates with a common or related root). So, with 223 words used, you would think people could connect-the-dots. 76 terms occur once, while the most frequent terms in the New Testament vice lists shows the importance of SIN/sins. The Old Testament Decalogue certainly influenced the New Testament authors. By juxtaposing the Old Testament and New Testament (and the intertestamental texts), only a blind person could not see the obvious—the eternal condemnation against idolatry and immorality. The vice lists show both implicit and explicit references to homosexuality. Bible language is broad enough to imply references to homosexuality (like porneia, i.e., “immorality or fornication,” see Mt. 15:19; Gal. 5:19; Rev. 21:8). In other articles I have done over the years, they include akatharsia/akathartos (“uncleanness,” 2 Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5) and poneria (“wickedness,” Mk. 7:22; Rom. 1:29; 1 Tim. 6:4). Good anti-homo authors on these words are DeYoung, Gagnon, Bullough, Keysor, Satinover, Schmidt, Wold and many more.
Even the word hyperephania (“ARROGANCE”) could imply a description of homosexuality because it refers to the attitude underlying the behavior. Obama certainly fits this description.
The Prophet Ezekiel explicitly refers to arrogance as the Sin of Sodom in Ezek. 16:49, 56. Both the A/P uses such terminology. Lawlessness (anomos—1 Tim. 1:9) is associated with homosexuality (cognates=anomia/anomenma). They define the sin of Sodom (Ezek. 16:47, 49, 50, 58/ Isa. 1:4, 5). Both the Bible and the Apocrypha speak of King Josiah “abolishing the abominations” (Ecclus. 49:2; 2 Kgs. 23:1-13; Dt. 23:17, 18; 1 Kgs. 14:24; 15:12; Jer. 16:18—all speak of the houses of sodomites/abominations). Aselgeia (sensuality—Mk. 7:22; Rom. 13:13; 2 Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; 1 Pet. 4:3 etc.), in Jewish contexts that refer to same-sex vice, occurs in Wisdom 14:26 after “confusion of sex” and “adultery” (as we’ve seen already). The Greek words bdelygma and kyon ought to be studied. Rev. 21:8 uses bdelygma (a participle: ebdelygmenais means “abominable”). Rev. 21:8 goes back to Lev. 18:23 and 20:13 which FORBID sodomy and calls it an ABOMINATION—20:13 has the death penalty attached to it (this is found also in Rom. 1:32!).
Rev. 21:18 (bdelygma/participle) comes from Revelations vice list (22:15) where “dogs” (kyon) occurs. I have written on “dogs” already where the word “dogs” derives from Dt. 23:18 where the term is side-by-side with “whore” (Female prostitute in Israel; parallels qades/qedesah found in 17). Thus, “dogs” refers to male prostitutes. Our “pink” opponents point out (falsely) that homo prostitution is condemned (they cite Rom. 1), but not homosexuality itself. Duh! Does the buying/selling of flesh make it the sin, or the butt/oral sex? Get serious “Pinkos”!! Paul calls ALL homo/lesbian/prostitution etc. vices SIN.
One voice ONLY
THE BIBLE—Old Testament and New Testament—speaks with ONE VOICE on this subject. All the attempts by our opponents are futile. Get a life (in Christ)! You folks just want to have it YOUR WAY, which is really the devil’s way. There are plenty of explicit, implicit, and the use of euphemisms (like “dogs”) that cannot be refuted. All your hubris “Pink twisting” will not change the Word. I like the way one scholar (straight) put it: “While fornication, lawlessness or arrogance is not homosexuality, homosexuality is fornication, lawlessness, or arrogance.”
It is a DISGRACE that so many churches (and they grow weekly) approve of these sins. Many leaders are GLBTQ themselves. Fine. Have it YOUR WAY…and go to Hell. Enough said.
AS I WAS FINISHING this article, the Spirit spoke and said that because of all this overt perversion, that creatures likened unto skin walkers were going to arise more and more.
We have lived among the Southwest Native Americans since 1998 (when we moved from our South Community—near El Paso, TX). The skinwalker is a real creature that torments, frightens, and even kills Native peoples. We have dealt with some of these cases. We have seen one near our community here at Fence Lake (this property actually borders part of the Navajo Reservation). Also, around us are the Zunis, many Pueblos, and Apaches (the Hopi are further away as well as the Utes). All these tribes are plagued with these creatures.
Lycanthropy is a form of insanity in which the person turns himself/herself into a wolf/coyote/ different kinds of scavengers/(large) birds etc. (this is a mixture of both skinwalker and Lycanthropy). Werewolves are said to be such.
The Spirit said that because the perversion movement is now OUT, these creatures will increase! The mixing of man/woman/beast is forbidden in Lev. 18 also. You may want to order our Trilogy on witchcraft in which I have gathered lots of materials.
There is plenty of “witchery” among the Natives. I have actual transcripts from the early/late records in and around New Mexico and Arizona involving the “Witchery Way” (Navajo antizi) and “were-animals” (yenalλosi). N.M. History is full of records of such. This ought to interest you movie making buffs.
Perverted sex is all part of skinwalker activities, death, and the eating of human flesh. We have met one known skinwalker at our prayer booth in Gallup, NM. Mostly they stay out of the public, only doing their evil deeds at night, but some in daylight.
Frances Toon’s, “A Treasury of Mexican Folkways” (NY, 1947, p. 155) mentions “Red,” “white” and “black” forms of witchcraft. “Red”=for bewitching; “white”=for curing; “black”=for killing!
The Bible, of course, warns us against such activities (see Dt. 18).
I believe that most American churches are under witchcraft in one form or another (i.e. religious demons basically rule all this “church” stuff). Most people have little or no power against these wicked forces. Repentance is greatly needed folks. Where have all the “deliverance” ministers gone?...to be with the demons!!!