What People?

[Dodo_David]

What he's saying is in Gen 1:27 God created all the different races, then later he created Adam and Eve, end result = Adams race though Seth ect is saved; the humans from Gen 1:27 are not. In the mean time they mixed there genes Gen 6:2 ect, the end result being God preserving the supreme race through Noah and Abraham.......... Heil Hitler.

Wow, what an odd argument that is.

I will quote from the Jewish Publication Society's English translation of the Tanakh.

First, here is the beginning of Genesis 1:26 :

And God said, "Let us make man in our image . . ."

According to Old Testament theologian John C.L. Gibson, the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:26 translated as man is the Hebrew word adam.

[Source: John C.L. Gibson, Genesis, Volume 1, The Daily Study Bible Series (Westminster Press: 1981), p. 69.]

The same Hebrew word adam appears in Genesis 2:7, which the JPS Tanakh translates as follows:

the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth.

Nowhere in the first two chapters of Genesis do I see even a hint that the adam of Genesis 2:7 isn't a part the adam of Genesis 1:26.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is what everybody fails to consider ....... how did they (geologists & archeologists) come up with their dating process in the first place ???

You will find they pretty much made it up as they went along ... counting layers and assigning an age to them however they saw fit

In another place I mentioned ice core samples scientists measured at 18,000 years turned out to be only 50 years actual

Too many people just assume the scientists have an accurate method to determine age ..... they do not .... and never have ..... I have old science books that date things in the thousands of years .... and in modern science books those same things are now said to be millions of years old.

It is not wrong to question science. They go on a lot of assumptions .... and assumptions are not the same as factual evidence.

Scientist do too have accurate methods to determine ages. That one scientist can mis-date something doesn't imply that all scientists do.
And, no, scientists didn't just make things up. They use a scientific method for determining dates. Over time, scientists make new discoveries that allow them to improve on the data that they have. That is why old text books may say one thing and new text books say another. The latter reflects the improvements that scientists have made

For the record, I used to be a young-Earth creationist, believing that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old. Back then, I was making the mistake of requiring scientific theories and discoveries to pass a religious litmus test, which is a violation of the rules of science.

 

[veteran]

veteran - So you're saying that many millions of years occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?
Who teaches such stuff?

Who teaches that? Many pastors trained in the Hebrew with the God-given ability to teach it. Yet, Apostle Paul also taught it, which was his subject in the Romans 8:19-22 Scripture. There's been several Christian scholars that taught it also, Barnes was one of them, Bullinger was another.

Some theologists call it the "Gap Principle", or "Gap Theory", etc.

So, can you explain Paul's Romans 8:18-22 Scripture?

So, you are admitting that humans have been on Earth for much longer than 10,000 years, since the dinosaurs became extinct more than 50 million years ago.

Not at all. No more than 10,000 to 14,000 years ago.

Clearly, you haven't read what all I wrote in my previous posts.

The existence upon the earth back before Satan rebelled was an ANGELIC type existence upon the earth, NOT FLESH MAN.

I know that's difficult for many here to wrap their mind around, since so many are used to thinking fleshy thoughts about God's creation, and even think God's future Eternity of the sons of God is going to be a flesh type existence on the earth like it is now, but that kind of thinking is not Biblical, and would mean the Bible believer would have to strike out ALL Scripture of what Apostle Paul taught about future existence in a "spiritual body" and "image of the heavenly".

So one must needs to make a choice who... they are going to listen to, men's doctrines which are always tied to a fleshy thinking, or to God's Word which reveals things beyond a fleshy mind.

What Hebrew manuscripts are you referring to exactly?

One that I'm using now is Green's Interlinear.

The Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger also made the same kind of distinction in the Gen.1:26-27 6th day creation of flesh man, the word 'aadam' with no Hebrew article or particle, and then 'eth ha aadam' with the Hebrew article and particle.


From Appendix 14 of The Companion Bible (KJV study Bible compiled by 1800's Christian scholar E.W. Bullinger):

'Adam, without the article, denotes man or mankind in general (Gen. 1:26; 2:5; 5:1, followed by plural pronoun). With the article, it denotes the man, Adam, though rendered "man" in Gen. 1:27; 2:7 (twice), 8, 15, 16, 19 (marg.), 22 (twice); 3:12, 22, 24; 5:1; 6:1 (rendered "men"), 2, 3, 4. After this, the Hebrew 'Adam = man or men, is used of the descendants of Adam. Hence, Christ is called "the son of Adam", not a son of Enosh.

With the particle ha ('eth) in addition to the article it is very emphatic, and means self, very, this same, this very. See Gen. 2:7 (first occurrence), 8, 15.

Rendered in the Septuagint (anthropos) 411 times; (aner) eighteen times (fifteen times in Proverbs); (brotos), mortal (all in Job); once (gegenes), earth-born, Jer. 32:20.

Here is what everybody fails to consider ....... how did they (geologists & archeologists) come up with their dating process in the first place ???

You will find they pretty much made it up as they went along ... counting layers and assigning an age to them however they saw fit

In another place I mentioned ice core samples scientists measured at 18,000 years turned out to be only 50 years actual

Too many people just assume the scientists have an accurate method to determine age ..... they do not .... and never have ..... I have old science books that date things in the thousands of years .... and in modern science books those same things are now said to be millions of years old.

It is not wrong to question science. They go on a lot of assumptions .... and assumptions are not the same as factual evidence.

If you're talking about evolutionary science, they make errors all the time, a lot of them on purpose just to push their theories of evolution.

But evolution is NOT... what I'm talking about. I do not believe in evolution, period.

But those who believe all the races of mankind came from Noah and his three sons, DO believe in evolution theory, because it's the evolutionists that teach the falsehood that climate change with people living in different areas of the earth is what produced their various skin colors, even though there's actually more feature differences between the races which God created in the beginning.

Many of you just do not realize... how you've been duped into believing in the theories of evolution with the falsehood that all the races came from Noah's three sons.

The reality is that GOD Himself created ALL... the root races in the beginning, and He said "it was very good." (Gen.1:31).

You know what that does with men's vain ideas of racial prejudice? It completely... destroys it!!! Since God created all the races how He wanted them to appear, in the beginning of this world, NO one race can claim... superiority!

 

[John S]

veteran - Are you saying that Paul talked about evolution - or lack thereof?

You are doing the same thing that you scream at the Pre-Tribbers for doing - changing verses to fit your incorrect belief.

 

[veteran]

veteran - Are you saying that Paul talked about evolution - or lack thereof?

You are doing the same thing that you scream at the Pre-Tribbers for doing - changing verses to fit your incorrect belief.

Did you not understand the following statement I made...

"But evolution is NOT... what I'm talking about. I do not believe in evolution, period."

Shall I have to repeat that to you 100 times before you will read it???


WHERE have I changed any verses in God's Word? Did you not understand what the Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger said?...

'Adam, without the article, denotes man or mankind in general (Gen. 1:26; 2:5; 5:1, followed by plural pronoun). With the article, it denotes the man, Adam, though rendered "man" in Gen. 1:27; 2:7 (twice), 8, 15, 16, 19 (marg.), 22 (twice); 3:12, 22, 24; 5:1; 6:1 (rendered "men"), 2, 3, 4. After this, the Hebrew 'Adam = man or men, is used of the descendants of Adam. Hence, Christ is called "the son of Adam", not a son of Enosh.

With the particle ha ('eth) in addition to the article it is very emphatic, and means self, very, this same, this very. See Gen. 2:7 (first occurrence), 8, 15.


Get an Interlinear Bible (like the Green's Interlinear), and you'll see what he and others, and myself speak of.

For others, the meaning in the Hebrew is simple grammar between 'aadam' without the article or particle in Gen.1:26 VS. with the Hebrew article in the Gen.1:27 verse.

'aadam' = mankind in general
It's the same idea of speaking of all peoples in general. Like if I said, "Man does this, or that...", I'm speaking of mankind in general. That's how the KJV "man" in Gen.1:26 is meant (i.e., the races of mankind).

'eth aadam' = a specific man, singular
This is the idea of speaking about a particular man. Like if I said, "The man walked home", I'm speaking of a specific man, and not all men. That's how the Hebrew for KJV "man" is in the Gen.1:27 verse.


The KJV Bible doesn't make that distinction, because it's a translation. But the Hebrew does.

This answers who the people of the "land of Nod" were about, showing God had already created 'mankind' on His 6th Day along with... the specific Adam He placed in His Garden to till the soil. So there were people outside of His Eden, and then the man Adam He specifically placed in His Garden of Eden. It's because the man Adam in His Eden was to be the Seed that our Lord Jesus Christ would be born through.

For the flood of Noah's days, the races of mankind were preserved, since God told Noah to take aboard the ark two of every thing wherein is the breath of life.

This explains how the root races of mankind did NOT evolve, but were created by God. It further explains why God said to not allow one of mixed race into the congregation in Old Testament times per Deut.23:2.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

TVOT - If people believe that nonsense, then I feel sorry for them. As I said, I doubt that Adam and Eve were white.
I would be more inclined to believe that their bodies were filled entirely with hair than to believe that they were white.
I also don't subscribe to any notions of racial superiority by one color or another. Why should I? - God doesn't.


veteran - So you're saying that many millions of years occurred between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2?
Who teaches such stuff?

I don't believe in racial superiority either, but I'm laying out the arguments for those who do, foremost being Christian Identity. I do believe in superior culture, that Western Civilization, through the grace of God, has brought civilization to the world in tandem with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fact that Western culture is largely comprised of white people can be dismissed as coincidental. God is no respecter of persons, that is true, but God does use one people as a font of blessing to all nations as he did with the Jews.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Scientist do too have accurate methods to determine ages.

David ..... I am not interested in arguing about the age of the earth .... my point is that scientists themselves keep changing their dating methods on a regular basis .... today they use radiometric dating which itself is based on some assumptions.

Assumptions and scientific facts are two completely different things.

A short clip below with a couple of highlights in red.

.............................

Many great thinkers throughout history have tried to figure out Earth’s age. For example, back in 1862, Lord Kelvin calculated how long Earth might have taken to cool from its original molten state. He concluded that Earth was born 20 to 400 million years ago. Today’s scientists believe that answer is incorrect, but Kelvin’s calculations were scientific in being based on logical thinking and mathematical calculation.

Scientists tried to determine Earth’s age via our planet’s layers of rock, which must have been built over time. . But Earth’s layers of rock did not give up the secret of Earth’s age easily. Their message proved difficult to decipher.

How old is Earth? In the early part of the 20th century, scientists still weren’t sure. However, from working with layer upon layer of rock laid down on Earth over long time spans, early 20th century scientists came to believe Earth not millions of years old – but billions of years old.

Modern radiometric dating methods came into prominence in the late 1940s and 1950s. These methods focus on the decay of atoms of one chemical element into another. They led to the discovery that certain very heavy elements could decay into lighter elements – such as uranium decaying into lead. This work gave rise to a process known as radiometric dating. This technique is based on a comparison between the measured amount of a naturally occurring radioactive element and its decay products, assuming a constant rate of decay – known as a half life.

 

[veteran]

I don't believe in racial superiority either, but I'm laying out the arguments for those who do, foremost being Christian Identity. I do believe in superior culture, that Western Civilization, through the grace of God, has brought civilization to the world in tandem with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fact that Western culture is largely comprised of white people can be dismissed as coincidental. God is no respecter of persons, that is true, but God does use one people as a font of blessing to all nations as he did with the Jews.

I agree with that too, except I use the word Israel to include the ten tribes that God scattered primarily to those western nations.

God created all the races, so there shouldn't be any superiority thinking regarding the idea of race, even though He did choose Israel to be a holy people for to be in care of The Gospel to all other peoples on the earth. In that sense, they were chosen because of a duty to other peoples, which again is not about any kind of race idea.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Scientist do too have accurate methods to determine ages. That one scientist can mis-date something doesn't imply that all scientists do.
And, no, scientists didn't just make things up. They use a scientific method for determining dates. Over time, scientists make new discoveries that allow them to improve on the data that they have. That is why old text books may say one thing and new text books say another. The latter reflects the improvements that scientists have made

For the record, I used to be a young-Earth creationist, believing that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old. Back then, I was making the mistake of requiring scientific theories and discoveries to pass a religious litmus test, which is a violation of the rules of science.

Hi David ..... I am not picking on you by the way .... what I wish to show is that all of us (scientists & creationists) rely at some point on assumptions .... and that is just fine for theories .... but we should be cautious not to label them as proven scientific facts .... read my hastily written scenario below and notice how we all rely on assumptions at one point or another.

================
Pretend for a minute you have two careful and accurate scientists and one creationist sitting in a lab.

A warm and heavy piece of steel is placed on the counter and they are told to measure the temperature and measure the rate it cools down:
They measure the temperature at 7am and it is 100*
They measure the temperature at 8am and it is 50*

Scientist #1 reports the item cools by 50% (Half) per hour
Scientist #2 reports the item cools by 50 degrees per hour

========

Scientist #1 is asked to determine what the temperature of the steel was 24 hours ago and he reports it would have been 1,677,721,600 degrees because it cools by 50% each hour for 24 hours

Scientist # 2 is asked to determine what the temperature of the steel was 24 hours ago and he reports it was 1200 degrees because it drops by 50* per hour x 24 hours

The Creationist onlooker claims nobody can know what the temperature was 24 hours ago because Moses did not tell us in Genesis .... besides Moses said there was not even such a thing as steel 24 hours ago ... it was created less than one day ago. ...... everybody laughs at the idiot creationist bible thumper and tells him he knows nothing about science.

========

So with such a huge discrepancy between the three viewpoints we challenge them to explain why they feel their answer is correct

Scientist #1 says he is correct because he makes the assumption that the temperature declines by 50% (half) every hour

Scientist # 2 says he is correct because he makes the assumption that the temperature declines by 50 degrees every hour.

The Creationist says he feels he is correct because he makes the assumption that Moses was telling the truth in Genesis when he said steel was only created recently.

The professor walks into the room and explains that technically both scientist #1 and #2 could be correct because what they both observed was accurate science ..... but for the sake of evolution we will proclaim scientist #1 as the model to use because it fits well with all our other theories that count everything in billions .

Then Moses walks into the room amid laughter until he explains that he works at The Ford smelter just down the road and he actually made the whole steel thing in 23 hours the day before.

Moses went on to explain that there in no natural steel on earth ..... you have to heat certain rocks to over 3200* in a smelter to create steel .... and that is exactly what he did yesterday morning at 9AM .... he let the steel ingot sit at the smelter overnight until it cooled to 100* and then dropped it off at the scientists lab at 7AM in the morning.

 

[day]

Jesus is referred to as the second Adam, Jesus was someone representing the whole human race in a covenant with God. The first Adam could therefore have been the same, God's chosen representative of humankind, specially formed for the purpose.

As far as different human races are concerned, remember everything bottlenecks at the 8 people on Noah's ark.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Further to my posts #66 & 68

Radiometric dating measures the decay of chemical elements ... some elements decay as fast as ten years , and others take 100 million years.

Mankind cannot measure decay that began 100 million years ago because we were not around then , and besides we do not have a measuring tool that big ..... so guess what earth scientists use ..... meteorites from outer space .... they analyze them to estimate the chemical decay .

because they cannot measure accurately the radiometric decay of all the elements .... they put them theoretically into one big mush and then estimate the half life of the whole works

Not a lot different than scientist #1 in post #68 .... he used the half life measurement and came up with 1.6 billion degrees ..... the other scientist did not use the half life measurement and came up with only 1200 degrees

Meteorites contain nickel iron .... and many are completely nickel iron .... a substance that does not occur naturally here on the earths surface .... yet the scientists use meteorites to date the age of the earth.

Mankind can dig some rock from the earths surface .... put it in a smelter and make steel .... add a little nickel .... and voila we have nickel iron just like the meteorite .. and Moses the smelter worker in post #68 could do it all in 23 hours.

The so-called accurate radiometric dating is based on a lot of assumptions.

Assumptions are not the same as facts.

 

[veteran]

Jesus is referred to as the second Adam, Jesus was someone representing the whole human race in a covenant with God. The first Adam could therefore have been the same, God's chosen representative of humankind, specially formed for the purpose.

As far as different human races are concerned, remember everything bottlenecks at the 8 people on Noah's ark.

That's 8 Adamic people (descendents from the man Adam).

The fact is that one of mixed race, if they continue their lineage on only one side, their features will revert to that one side, going back to how God originally created the races of 'mankind'. Evolutionists don't like to admit that, but it's a phsyiological fact.

Thus the races of mankind survived the flood of Noah's day, and I believe that's exactly what God meant when He told Noah take aboard two of each of everything wherein is the breath of life.

 

[Rex]

That's 8 Adamic people (descendents from the man Adam).

The fact is that one of mixed race, if they continue their lineage on only one side, their features will revert to that one side, going back to how God originally created the races of 'mankind'. Evolutionists don't like to admit that, but it's a phsyiological fact.

Thus the races of mankind survived the flood of Noah's day, and I believe that's exactly what God meant when He told Noah take aboard two of each of everything wherein is the breath of life.

WoW!
The scriptural gymnastics you use threw-out your prophesy interpretations never cease to amaze me.
The foundation is a good place to start when examining how and why people believe what they do, It's now no surprise why you believe as you do.
It's becoming clear why you dogmatically defend what you do. I can say I disagree with everything below, it's nothing but quicksand.
Using this as the lens to discern the scriptures explains a lot.

Like a previous earth "age" Gen verse 1 and 2
People first created in Gen 1:26-27
And now stowaways on the ark with Noah

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

WoW!
The scriptural gymnastics you use threw-out your prophesy interpretations never cease to amaze me.
The foundation is a good place to start when examining how and why people believe what they do, It's now no surprise why you believe as you do.
It's becoming clear why you dogmatically defend what you do. I can say I disagree with everything below, it's nothing but quicksand.
Using this as the lens to discern the scriptures explains a lot.

Like a previous earth "age" Gen verse 1 and 2
People first created in Gen 1:26-27
And now stowaways on the ark with Noah

It seems you view Genesis as an exhaustive account and that nothing possibly could have happened between the lines. Any honest exegesis of Genesis shows a compressed account of creation and the first generations of man. The genealogies, like most from that time period, revealed only the firstborn and didn't include siblings, wives, or other relatives. It's possible that up to 50 people were on that ark with Noah, particularly when you consider it took 120 years to build it and several generations had been sprung in that time period. So let's not have a view of Genesis as telling us every minute detail of what happened.

 

[Rex]

I see you have solved the problem
And yes when the bible says that 8 souls were on the ark I take that to mean 8

It seems you view Genesis as an exhaustive account and that nothing possibly could have happened between the lines. Any honest exegesis of Genesis shows a compressed account of creation and the first generations of man. The genealogies, like most from that time period, revealed only the firstborn and didn't include siblings, wives, or other relatives. It's possible that up to 50 people were on that ark with Noah, particularly when you consider it took 120 years to build it and several generations had been sprung in that time period. So let's not have a view of Genesis as telling us every minute detail of what happened.

The words flip flop come to mind, but I realize your simply disagreeing with me at the expense of the truth.

I'm sorry, that sounds like a very Mormon belief, that we descended from the Lamanites, one of the "lost tribes of Israel". Adam and Eve were likely white if my theory holds true that the most natural rendering of Genesis is that human civilizations existed when Adam and Eve were created. But it becomes moot when you consider that all of humanity today came from Noah and his sons and it's clear that racial divergences still sprang forth from that generation. I don't buy into the nonsense that the flood was a local event because any flood that surpasses even the peaks of the Ararat mountains certainly affected the entire globe. But those who support the idea of an Adamic race (whites) claim the flood was local to solve that problem. It's the reason I don't really know what to believe and haven't committed myself either way.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I see you have solved the problem
And yes when the bible says that 8 souls were on the ark I take that to mean 8

Or it means that the writer of the epistle was operating on the same record of events as we are.