Tim, I think CB has NO problem with debating to further to understand God's Words.I know CB has a problem with debating if it's another Catholicism vs Protestant. I am neither of them, for both are very flawed.................Christina, just in case if I'm wrong about the top of what I said, please edit, actually add-on to my post AT the very bottom saying that I'm not allowed to debate for any right reasons I think of.................(tim_from_pa;63554)
According to the rules, we are not to debate here, but since you brought this up, I'll answer your questions.(Jordan;63551)
Where did black people, yellow people, red people, white people come from? Can Adam contains all that skin colors at once?
Most certainly. You are not going to suggest that Adam is only of the white race that blushes, do you? One easy scripture to disprove that is Kedar and his descendants. Kedar literally means "dark" (skinned). I can clearly and easily trace Kedar to Adam, ie. I can list his fathers back to Adam. That's clearly and indisputably in the bible.(Jordan;63551)
If all the humans born of Adam's seed, who was Cain afraid of (Genesis 4:14) after He murdered his HALF-brother Abel (Genesis 4:8) when God banned him from Adam & Eve? (Genesis 4:14) Who did Cain married (Genesis 4:17) after he started dwelt in a land called Nod, which means the land of Wander? (Genesis 4:16)
Adam and Eve had other children clearly stated in scripture. Genesis 5:4. Nowhere does it say in scripture how old Cain was when this happened, but old enough that more people were around then. The apocryphal books claim that Cain married his sister Awan. I'm sure somebody does not go to bed one night and just dream this up. The idea came from somewhere. The other people came from Adam and Eve. And for an extra bonus, the bible does not specifically say Cain met his wife in Nod, but it matters not whether he did or not. As long as Awan or whoever one wants to call her existed, she could have been near the proximity of Cain, or she could have migrated there. As for building a city, if each couple had 10 kids, simple math would show that in 3 generations there would be about 300+ people from one couple alone. Nothing says how many kids Adam and Eve had nor each one of their kids. Like all good cities, it probably had a modest start but grew in size. But the genealogies list just the predominant lineages.(Jordan;63551)
And no, the flood did not take the entire races out. He spared 2 of each race as God commanded Noah to do so. 1 Male and 1 Female of each race. (Genesis 6:19, Genesis 7:15) except Adam's offspring which has 8 souls in the ark. (Noah, his wife, his three sons, and his son's wife) Is not men part of flesh? (Genesis 6:3)
There's several problems I see here. First of all, the flood was worldwide. How do I know? even science attests to that. I can go to Australia or up in Canada on opposite sides of the world and see a rainbow. A rainbow was a sign of the covenant that God would never flood the earth again. If there was no flood in say, Australia, then the sign would be meaningless. We all know that a rainbow is merely the prism effect created by water droplets, so there is nothing to create. What must have changed is the nature of earth's atmosphere. Clearly, the atmosphere does not change in only one location and not the other. Secondly, if the flood was local, there would be a tremendous mass on one side of the earth. If it could stay there, the earth's angular momentum as it rotated would create a washing machine effect. You know what that is? Something as little as a wash cloth or towel bunched up on one side of the drum causes the wash machine to become terribly unbalanced and shake like crazy making the machine walk across the floor. Do this to the earth and it would fall apart. Indeed, the rotation would try to distribute the water worldwide even if only a certain portion of the sky broke open as the rotation would naturally distribute the mass. And Lastly, Noah would not need a boat. He could have just migrated like the so-called Satanic races to escape judgment. I don't have too much respect for any God that would wipe out the human race because of the tainted offspring of the angels and then not destroy all the angels themselves. that would be pretty ineffectual. Jesus makes the coming end times sound as "in the days of Noah". Are we then to believe that the Tribulation is on only one part of the earth?Secondly, by your own admission, or I should say by deduction, that these alternate races do not have souls. Yet you say they can believe and be saved. The bible teaches that only 8 souls were aboard the ark. Sure there were other animals, but the bible does not give them the same level as the 8 that were saved. So if there were other races of men on there, then all I have to say is they are no better than the beasts and incapable of salvation. If on the other hand all men are capable of salvation, then they must be considered souls that came from these 8. And that brings to mind another point. God only breathed life into Adam (Genesis 2:7) which gave him that God quality--- no other race.I can respect this forum if folks here say that they want to believe the bible and not teachings of men. But your interpretations have to come from men to conjure up a meaning by picking the words apart to fit a preconceived notion when other scriptures clearly say the opposite. This is because when there are other scriptures that clearly teach the opposite, then one has to song and dance around it to make it say something else. That very act is what those who do not believe in the lost tribes of Israel do. A verse like Genesis 35:11 clearly teaches that nations would come from Jacob, but then mainline religions song and dance around that verse by making it into spiritual nations, or nations that were not blessed in the genealogies or whatever. This is why they cannot answer that point.Likewise, why would I want to pride myself in interpreting God's Word in a straightforward manner like the passage that says 8 souls were saved, and then song and dance explaining that this is not what the bible really means? I'd be then doing exactly what I accuse my critics of doing. Let's all stay consistent here.This post is disgusting to be honest.Quote #1 - You say "Most certainly."Scriptures?Quote #2 - You say "The apocryphal books claim that Cain married his sister Awan."I do have a problem, a major flaw in that. I do have a problem in your conclusion that God who banned Cain from going back to Adam & Eve after murdering Abel, was then allowed to marry his sister. Which came first? Genesis 4? or Genesis 5? Cain is not the son of Adam, clearly contradicts Genesis 3:15.Secondly, I do have a problem with the fact that since Cain is indeed the son of Adam in your conclusion, that Satan and Christ indeed can dwell together... That's disgusting.Thirdly, I have a problem with Jews and Gentiles being directly with Adam since you said that the whole human race by him.Quote #3 - You say "the flood was worldwide."No one is disagreeing with you that the flood is worldwide. And no I don't believe that the tribulation is part Earth. Scriptures made it clear that the whole world will be deceived by Satan. It is the whole World event. Just the fact of the details you posted. We will have to agree to disagree.I will say the same to you. Likewise, why would I want to pride myself in interpreting God's Word in a straightforward manner?