That's your choice to follow a 'tradition' that actually is different per God's written Word. Whirlwind already revealed that the word "blood" is not in the Greek texts there of the New Testament. The KJV translators added it based on that tradition of men.
Debate with Veteran
- Thread starter TheWarIs1
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That's your choice to follow a 'tradition' that actually is different per God's written Word. Whirlwind already revealed that the word "blood" is not in the Greek texts there of the New Testament. The KJV translators added it based on that tradition of men.
That's correct. Look into it. Many commentaries mention this addition to the text that Veteran speaks of.
There is simplicity in Christ but the "simple Word of Truth" is not simple to all eyes and ears. If it was we would all understand Scripture in the same way. LOL...you would all see it as I do or we would all see it as you do.
.
Zechariah 4:11-14 Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves? And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord. Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.
There are two olive trees. The natural (Israel) and the wild (Gentiles). They speak of many.
There are two olive branches that empty golden oil. We see a picture of them on the mount of Transfiguration...Moses and Elijah who are...the law and the prophets.
Both the olive trees and the olive branches are...the anointed ones standing by the Lord.
.
Don't let them confuse you with their clamor about the word blood being added. It is the only word the translators added and that merely to complete the logical thought.
I personally prefer the obvious 'one man Adam' but it does simply say, "made from one".
That is why I pointed it out, so that we ought to not conclude Paul meant that all are merely made one by the blood of Christ in that text of Acts 17:26. So actually they have just proved my point.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And the fact remains strong that the separate creation idea for how we got the races of of mankind (which Veteran first compared to the evolution idea of the single seed and all evolving from it) is false and if Veteran's expressed impression be typical, then it is a spawn off of the evolution theory to combat that ideology.
Veteran said:
That is not so much what concerns me as it is that the separate creation of race idea undermines an important core Bible teaching. And who would want to do that but the devil. Just look at what building on that idea has birthed. A great divination. Indeed, a great delusion.
I am not dogging anyone for teaching a falsehood. Lord knows I also have in my zeal done so. I find it cute that TheWarIs1 imagines me as stomping my feet. 
This is all quite normal. And, if we are to work to gather to get at the fuller truth then we ought to not allow the possible origin of the beliefs to be more than a brief consideration which says nothing more than, "Maybe there is cause to rethink this idea."
Not even one of us asked to be born not knowing the answers to these things. We all do the best that we can.
That does not alter the truth that we need to be concerned as to what we believe and what we espouse as to whether it is true.
And the only way we know to do that is to try to learn what we can with the tools we were given. Those tools are natural creation which the Bible tells us does speak (such as "go to the ant") and our Bible, the spirit of which we believe helps us to understand what we observe.
This is all quite normal. And, if we are to work to gather to get at the fuller truth then we ought to not allow the possible origin of the beliefs to be more than a brief consideration which says nothing more than, "Maybe there is cause to rethink this idea."
Not even one of us asked to be born not knowing the answers to these things. We all do the best that we can.
That does not alter the truth that we need to be concerned as to what we believe and what we espouse as to whether it is true.
And the only way we know to do that is to try to learn what we can with the tools we were given. Those tools are natural creation which the Bible tells us does speak (such as "go to the ant") and our Bible, the spirit of which we believe helps us to understand what we observe.
The word blood was not added by translators to acts 17:26. It has had the word blood in it since it was written by Luke in 160 AD. Even the oldest translation "the Latin Vulgate" has the word blood in it.
God created the many different races through time as He saw fit but from the same blood as Adam.
As God saw fit to form man into what ever vessel He chose he also chose to mutate their blood to suit His purpose.
Not that there is any fault with what God has done because they all have the same savior, If they will. If they will not, they make themselves the enemy of God.
Well, we do assume that he did that through genetics internal to Adam, because after Adam and Eve bore their first child the following was either true or not true, you take your pick:
Hebrews 4:3 "For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."
God is Spirit and inhabits His creation. He forms every child in their mothers womb.
Even though this scripture is about Christ it is also about every Child formed.
Psalm 139
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.
Yes indeed!!!
That shows we need not quibble about genetics or how he does that, doesn't it. We can just be glad he does.
It obviously is explained in that from the foundation of the world man had been made for his spirit to work within him.
If he takes away his spirit that which lives dies.
And what if some texts do have it; what does it change in regards to what's been covered here? Nothing, which is why one regardless of one's race can donate blood to another race, as long as it fits type, like 0+, 0-, AB, etc. It has nothing to do with the idea of evolution of races from one man and woman.
I'm well aware of that. But that's still no excuse for believing the lies of men's theories of evolution, which some here are espousing, whether knowingly, or unknowingly.
The verse with the word 'blood' has been used to say we are all from the same Adam.
Yes, I know that. It's because of the tradition of men that assumes everyone 'evolved' from one of Noah's three sons.
It's because of KJV verses like this:
Gen 10:32
32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
(KJV)
But I've already documented from God's Word in Gen.15 that the peoples called Kenites, Kadmonites, Perizzites, and Rephaim cannot be traced back to any... of the sons of Noah. The Rephaims specifically, were the 'giants'.
LOL...that is quite true. If one cannot see that God created the various races...from the beginning...then one does indeed believe in evolution.
.
I know of no one that calls themselves Christian who says God did not create all the races.
Our difference is about how he did it.
Two peas in a pod.
Our difference is about how he did it.
Two peas in a pod.
Evolution is not the same idea as 'creation'. And there is absolutely NO scientific or Biblical evidence, that the races of mankind evolved from one man and woman. Actually, archaeological evidence about Sargon and the ancient Sumerians in 3800 B.C. exists to prove that other races of people already... existed in the days of Adam, pointing to God having created them on His 6th day like the Hebrew texts of Genesis 1 do reveal.
Similar threads
