Pre-Adamite Doctrine, History and Teaching

[theWaris1]

I Kings 9: 5 - ''then I will establish your royal dynasty over Israel forever as I promised your father David when I said, 'You will never fail to have an heir on the throne of Israel.'

- The House of Israel today must have a monarchy ruling over them. That narrows it down heavily as many countries don't have monarchies.

Also note - the so called Jews today have no monarchy.

They are not the House of Israel and never were. Judah and Israel were two different peoples after the collapse of the united monarchy of Israel.

Further marks of identity without doubt prove Britain are Israel. These are found listed throughout Jeremiah, Isaiah, Numbers etc.

I agree & I do believe that the Union of Jacob(union Jack) has taken place when Judah and Ephraim(two Sticks) have came together as in the Scottish and British coat of arms making the Anglicized Union Jack..

the Lion and Unicorn of Joseph(Ephraim) have joined in the union Jack.

 

[Research3]

I agree & I do believe that the Union of Jacob(union Jack) has taken place when Judah and Ephraim(two Sticks) have came together as in the Scottish and British coat of arms making the Anglicized Union Jack..

the Lion and Unicorn of Joseph(Ephraim) have joined in the union Jack.

I believe this, but only half so far has been fufilled. I don't believe the two houses are today re-united. How do we explain what you posted?

II Kings 18: 13, states a small portion of the tribe of Judah was deported with the House of Israel. Many people forget this. Therefore alongside the '10 lost tribes' was also a small segment of Judah. That is how Judah's symbols arrived in Britain. A good book on this topic is 'Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage' by W. H Bennett (1976).

Skeptics have also been destroyed by the prism of Sennacherib which records II Kings 18: 13 as being a factual historical event.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Biology, Eldra Pearl Solomon, Linda R. Berg, Diana W. Martin, Cengage Learning, 2005, pp.381-383 defines macroevolution as:

''large scale phenotypic change above the species level''

And you can look up the biology textbook i cited above from google. Its a university level biology book. Are you saying the phd biologists who believe in evolution themselves made a mistake?

I'm not quite sure why you would accept this one definition over all the others. I've had a look for this quote and unfortunately I can't find it. The only exact quote I can find in listed on "Talk:Objections to evolution" (cached) on Wikipedia, written by a user called "Anglopyramidologist", which I suspect is one of your accounts.

[EDIT] Found it here.

Also keep in mind that if phenotypic changes alone caused evolution, not only would caucasians and negroes be different species, blondes and redheads would be different species too. Albinos, blue-eyed, green-eyes and brown-eyes people would all be different species too. Obviously this isn't the case.

 

[Research3]

- If macro is how you define it, everyone would believe in evolution.

Obviously though this is not the case.

The reason people doubt or are skeptical of evolution is because macroevolution (large scale phenotpic change) has never been observed.

If macroevolution was solely speciation then no one would object to evolution because note: observed speciation never has invovled large scale phenotype change. speciated flies are still flies, not only flies, but they remained basically virtually identical.

Once again what we have here is evolutionists deceitfully extrapolating on what actually has been observed when large scale change never has been observed. Which kind of leaves me puzzled -

*evolutionists reject creationism on the grounds its not observable or scientific...

Yet at the same time they believe in macroevolution which is not observable. Evolutionists blindly/dogmatically believe they descended from an ape (or hominid). Never, never never been observed or tested though...

 

[mark kennedy]

Tea Tephi was Zedekiah's daughter. She appears in Irish mythology.

Zedekiah's male successors were all put to the sword by the Babylonians, however Zedekiah's daughter(s) lived to continue the Davidic bloodline (see Jeremiah 43: 6).

I think we can agree that kings in Israel (not considering the Israel/Judah split) must be physical descendants of David. We know that the house of David continued from the time of Babylonian invasion until the time of Christ because of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, if for no other reason.

The only requirement to be king of Israel would seem to be an heir to the throne from the house of David. This heir in the first century was Jesus Christ and he continues to be the rightful heir to the Davidic throne.

When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. (2 Sam 7:12)​

I know nothing of Irish legends but even if Tea Tephi was a Davidic heir of some kind the house of Zedekiah was cut off. The lineage of the house of David did not get cut off but continued, Christ fulfilled the requirements and though he does not sit on the throne he remains Israel's rightful king.

As a biological descendant of the Davidic Royal House (through Joseph and Mary) however only during the millenial reign will Jesus rule over this house as king having re-unified the House of Israel with Judah. My entire taking on scripture and prophecy is Two House Theology based.

The fact that the split occurred and continues changes nothing with regards to Jesus Christ being the rightful heir to the throne of David. Even if he does not sit on the throne there is no other legitimate successor.

I'm having real trouble understanding how you figure the house of David continues to the present day as sovereign in Britain because the monarchs descended from a blood line through Tea Tephi. You have somehow neglected hundreds of years of history in Israel leading up the Christ arriving as the rightful heir to the Davidic throne.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

- If macro is how you define it, everyone would believe in evolution.

Obviously though this is not the case.

Put simply macroevolution is the evolution between species / the evolution of one species into another. Microevolution is the evolution within a species. Most creationists (such as Mark Kennedy) believe in micro- but not macroevolution.

If macroevolution was solely speciation then no one would object to evolution because note: observed speciation never has invovled large scale phenotype change. speciated flies are still flies, not only flies, but they remained basically virtually identical.

Large phenotypic change has not only be observed, but has been observed in microevolution. Again I'll use the example of dog breeds: they come in all kinds of colours and many kinds of shapes and sizes. They look very different but they are all the same species.

 

[theWaris1]

Things to consider:


The dual seed theory comes from Gen 3:15
~And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy (satan)seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The serpent was a beast and more subtle than any other beast of the field. v14

beast = 'chay' means 'alive 'or 'creature'

Beasts of the field were created on the 6th day with Cattle and every creeping thing.
Are beast different than creeping things?
The serpent was a creeping thing or was he?

Lets look at the beast in scripture.


What kind of Beast(creature) eats Grapes & Olives and other crops? You can't say pigs because they were forbidden.


Exo 23:11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.

Exo 22:31 And ye shall be holy men unto me: neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.




Exodus 19:13 If man or beast(creature) puts a hand on the temple mount they should be killed.


Mose was to tell the Beast(creature) and men not to put their hands on the temple mount or they would die.

Did Mose talk to other animals and expect them to listen?



Jeremiah 27:6: "And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him."



A distinction is made in the OT for different kinds of men.
Adam & Iysh means man
Enoch & Enosh both mean men

Gen 2:5 ....and there was not a man(adam) to till the ground.

Wasn't Cain cursed from growing things?
Among Cain's descendents, you find cattlemen, musicians and metalworkers, but not one farmer



Num 23:19 God is not a man(Iysh), that he should lie; neither the son of man(Adam), that he should repent:

Only by viewing the original words can you see a difference. Iysh are lying, unrepentant men and Adamites do repent.


When Cain was born Eve said and "the lord gave me an Iysh" How did Eve know Cain was an Iysh at birth and not an Adam man?



The geneology of Adam was void of Cain and his descendants.


Jonah 3:7-8: .... But let man and beast(dumb beast in Strogs) be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands."

So dumb beast are supposed to repent and wear sackcloth alongside man and cry unto the lord?


Eze 14:15 If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:
*Creature

Since when are men afraid to pass through land because of loud beast?

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, I'm not really sure what the point of the multicultured Egyptian ethnicity is but lets see what you have for me.

One would have to ask the YEC's or other Christians:

*If everyone descended from Adam, how did the races originate?
*If the flood was global, where did the races come from?

The sons of Noah coming down from Ararat in modern Turkey would have had nearly pristine genomes, which holds true for the creatures the Ark housed for six months. Most, if not all, adaptations come from genes being expressed, turned on and off and working in concert and recombined. The descendants of Noah like the creatures that emerged from Ark had the means to adapt quickly, probably within a couple of generations.

This could account for the urgency with which the people building Bable were dispersed. Also, this banding together would lead to inbreeding further limiting the gene flow and even creating bottlenecks if the unions were incestuous. For a couple of generations inbreeding is not dangerous, it's only after several generations that you get diminished immune systems and other degenerative effects.

--- Please remember the earliest artwork and written documentation of the different races dates from c. 2000 BC, ancient egypt.

Following the descent from Ararat and into Mesopotamia they would have naturally followed geographic paths. As they faced different environments and ate different foods they began to adapt to their new places.

When Gregor Mendel did his famous pea plant experiments he was looking at 7 traits involving texture, color and size mostly. He identified dominant and recessive traits occurring in a nearly 3 to 1 ratio with one objective in mind, creating hybrids. One of the problems with this is that the tendency after two generations is to revert back to the original traits. There is also the issue of infertility from selective breeding that Darwin called the 'ban of horticulture' but we won't get into that right now.

The races came from the environments they migrated to and from nearly pristine genomes could readily have done this in a couple of generations. What would have changed would have been external traits like size, color and texture along with things like blood type and a host of other expressed traits.

Now we use the term differently but in Darwin'a day race was used interchangeably with variety and species. It was believed that there was maybe 4 distinct human species and multiple sub-species, this is now know to be false. Darwin spoke of these sub-species in his morbid book the Descent of Man, the example he used were the Irish and the Aborigines.

Ok, we can get into this more later because I'm well aware that I have a tendency to dump the truck on people. Just suffice to say, the differences you identify as race are external traits readily accounted for from a comprehensive application of known genomic molecular mechanisms and processes.

How on earth do you get all racial types in only 200 or so years?

That is no less then 10 generations with overlapping generations occurring almost constantly. There is ample time for the genomic mechanisms to be triggered, engaged and fixed in this amount of time. The biggest problem for me is covering the distance of the 10,000 mile circumference of the globe to all points on the compass. The only real problem after that is the accumulation of mutations, which we see happening ever since on a nearly constant basis. There are repair mechanisms and ways the genome screens mutations through recombination but we can get into that later.

Answer: YEC's ironically embrace macroevolution (e.g. Ken Ham) to explain the sudden origin of the different races in only a few hundred years.

We do, whether Ken Ham knows it or not, embrace an explosive adaptive radiation in a radically short space of time that would have scared Darwin to death. The populations of humans, animals, birds and reptiles would have had to go from dozens of original genotypes to literally millions of species and an enormous number of genus level spceciations.

Yes, of course this is macroevolution on an unprecedented scale but it resulted from genomes that had few, if any mutations following mass migrations to all parts of the globe. It makes perfect sense to me even though that would make Young Earth Creationists among the most radical of evolutionists except that there would be no need for change from the kingdom to the phylum level as far as I can tell.

 

[mark kennedy]

Put simply macroevolution is the evolution between species / the evolution of one species into another. Microevolution is the evolution within a species. Most creationists (such as Mark Kennedy) believe in micro- but not macroevolution.

I find those terms to be awkward just as I find the term 'mutation' to be highly ambiguous. How do I differentiate between species level adaptations and genus level adaptations, by calling them micro and macro? What is more how do I differentiate between an error in the copy of DNA and an allele at a specific loci altering the sequence and function of a gene or genes resulting in normative adaptation without disrupting function?

Large phenotypic change has not only be observed, but has been observed in microevolution. Again I'll use the example of dog breeds: they come in all kinds of colours and many kinds of shapes and sizes. They look very different but they are all the same species.

Dogs actually have more genes then us, I think that helps to explain the vast variety of different dogs. Dramatic differences in expressed traits need not result in radical changes in DNA sequences. The random variety involved in changing color depends, almost exclusively, on the ability of genes to express them as external traits.

My favorite example is Arctic white fur wild life. I would just love it if I could identify the genes and what would have had to change for Arctic wolves, foxes, rabbits and Polor Bears to have their fur color change permanently.

There is also the ability to adapt to the unforgiving cold or arctic regions. I found an article on the Arctic Zebrafish (I believe that's what it was called) that had a gene that created an antifreeze protein for this population. The problem is that other Zebrafish in less frigid temperatures don't have this gene at all. Now the gene is a string of simple repeats but what is extraordinary is that the genome would have had to build a brand new gene. I would just love to know how this happens since I have to believe it happened in a remarkably short span of time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[theWaris1]

I believe this, but only half so far has been fufilled. I don't believe the two houses are today re-united. How do we explain what you posted?

II Kings 18: 13, states a small portion of the tribe of Judah was deported with the House of Israel. Many people forget this. Therefore alongside the '10 lost tribes' was also a small segment of Judah. That is how Judah's symbols arrived in Britain. A good book on this topic is 'Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage' by W. H Bennett (1976).

Skeptics have also been destroyed by the prism of Sennacherib which records II Kings 18: 13 as being a factual historical event.

2Ki 19:31 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this.

The remnant went to Ireland with King Milesius, imo.
I'm of the Irish bardic family which wrote a book on the origins of this lineage. Below is an Ebook version

Celticæ ... - Family lineage
Page 149 of this E-book mentions the sons of Mile`and the year they came to Īweriū/Iberia from Spain.

W = V which sounds like B.

Iberia = Eber/Iber/Ayber = Hebrew/Eber
Romans changed it to Hibernia

It was kept in memory by these bards.
It is no Myth as some claim. The author was my ancestor and this book was translated from Gaelic.



In 1581 Vincenzio Galilei (father of the astronomer, Galileo Galilei) wrote that the Irish believed themselves descended from David, King of Israel, and that was why they used a harp as their symbol.

Galilei comes from the Hebrew word for Galilee which was Galiyla but pronounced Gauliylah. (Gaul)
Gilgal = Gilgaul
Galiliee = Gaulilah

Golan comes from Gaulantitis (Greek for belonging to Gaulan)(which you hardly find in history.


The lost tribes were Gauls and called Celts by Greeks.
Assyrians wrote the name Gyumri in stone for their captives. Gyumri is a city in Armenia today and believed to come from sons of Omri. A king of Israel.
Gyumri can be traced to Wales.


The Corinthians were Israelites.
In Corinthians Paul mentions these peoples Fathers being with Moses in the desert.

1Co 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;



1 Peter 1:1 Shows that ALL 12 tribes were sojourning and under the Black Sea.. not just 10.


the 7 churches were among the lost tribes as they were moving West and they then fell into Pagan hands as they sojourned onward.





The lost sheep of the house of Israel

 

[mark kennedy]

-

*evolutionists reject creationism on the grounds its not observable or scientific...

Yet at the same time they believe in macroevolution which is not observable. Evolutionists blindly/dogmatically believe they descended from an ape (or hominid). Never, never never been observed or tested though...

Again it depends on what is evolving, if we are talking about texture, size and color this has been observed on a massive scale. Also blood type, metabolism and various other changes that could be described as happening on a macro scale. However, when it comes to changes in genes involved in vital organs, these genes do not respond well to changes (commonly referred to as mutations)

Mallon found this article:

A genetic analysis of a Turkish patient whose brain lacks the characteristic convolutions in part of his cerebral cortex revealed that the deformity was caused by the deletion of two genetic letters from 3 billion in the human genetic alphabet. Similar variations of the same gene, called laminin gamma3 (LAMC3), were discovered in two other patients with similar abnormalities.

“The demonstration of the fundamental role of this gene in human brain development affords us a step closer to solve the mystery of the crown jewel of creation, the cerebral cortex,” said Murat Gunel, senior author of the paper and the Nixdorff-German Professor of Neurosurgery, co-director of the Neurogenetics Program and professor of genetics and neurobiology at Yale.​

Tiny Variation in One Gene May Have Led to Crucial Changes in Human Brain

And thoughtfully started a thread because he knew I would be interested:

Human Brain Evolution

I have spent a lot of time on the subject and a jewel like this is simply priceless. The article suggests that a couple of mutations could have resulted in a better developed ape brain resulting in a human brain. Sounds like it just takes a couple of random and choice mutations right?

I did some looking around and found this comparison of the Lamb3 gene in humans and chimpanzees. What follows is a cut and paste from my response in the 'Human Brain Evolution' thread:

At a glance I find it interesting that the human gene is smaller, considerably smaller in fact. What is more it has considerably fewer amino acids.

Chimpanzee gene is 45, 050 base pairs long/15,016 amino acids
Human gene is 37,610 base pairs long/12,536 amino acids.

Mutations in this gene result in frameshifts causing something called Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa and other dreadful things. How the two genes emerged from a common ancestor is a question that interests me greatly.​

That is over 7,000 base pairs and over 2,000 amino acids that mark the differences in the size of the gene alone. The article is describing what happens when just two base pairs are changed, terrible dysfunction. In order to understand why frameshifts are such a terrible problem you have to understand how reading frames for protein coding genes are effected.

Extra base pairs may be added (insertions) or removed (deletions) from the DNA of a gene. The number can range from one to thousands. Collectively, these mutations are called indels.

Indels involving one or two base pairs (or multiples of two) can have devastating consequences to the gene because translation of the gene is "frameshifted". This figure shows how by shifting the reading frame one nucleotide to the right, the same sequence of nucleotides encodes a different sequence of amino acids. The mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein specified by these new codons will be worthless. Scroll up to see two other examples (Patients C and D).

Frameshifts often create new STOP codons and thus generate nonsense mutations. Perhaps that is just as well as the protein would probably be too garbled anyway to be useful to the cell. Mutations, the Kimbal Biology Pages​

If you take a look at the 'Human Brain Evolution' thread I have another example of such a dramatic change that would be required for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes.

This is my whole problem with humans evolving from apes, there is neither the time nor the means.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Biblewriter]

There are some early Christians who said that the Primal Man, the God called "Man", existed before the creation of the earthly psychic Adam. Earthly man was then created by the demiurge as a prison / tomb to bind the Spirit. I wonder if Papius knew about that?

The people you refer to were indeed from the early Christian period, and they called themselves Christians. But I reject the conclusion that these people were Christians. These were the Gnostics whose doctrine Irenaeus exposed as totally incompatible with Christianity in his famous work titled "Against Heresies." Irenaeus wrote this near the end of the second century A.D.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Dogs actually have more genes then us, I think that helps to explain the vast variety of different dogs. Dramatic differences in expressed traits need not result in radical changes in DNA sequences. The random variety involved in changing color depends, almost exclusively, on the ability of genes to express them as external traits.

My favorite example is Arctic white fur wild life. I would just love it if I could identify the genes and what would have had to change for Arctic wolves, foxes, rabbits and Polor Bears to have their fur color change permanently.

Just to clarify I was talking about do breeds i.e bulldogs, greyhounds, bloodhounds, rottweilers etc. rather than subspecies.

Dog breeds (or any breed of domestic animal) are a good example because they have been deliberately bred by humans for their features. We can pick and chose which genes we want. As such you get many different version of the same species: some dogs are dwarved, some are huge, some have long noses, others have flat faces, some are short-haired, some are long-haired, some are slender, some are stocky and so on and so on. Deliberate breeding also means these breeds appeared very quickly. The German Shepherd was only made an official breed in 1899 and did not take on it's modern form until WWII.

My point was to say that not only have dramatic phenotypic changes been observed, but that phenotypic change alone is not responsible for evolution. You can get a huge amount of variety within the same species. Same goes for humans.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have done a little reading on the subject and even the Scofield Study Bible has a reference to a preadamite race, it would seem to be connected to the Gap Theory.

I am an Old Earth creationist, and well acquainted with the so-called "gap theory." But I have never heard this theory connected with any kind of doctrine about any humans living in the earth before the time of Adam.

Any doctrine that there is, anywhere on this earth, a human being that is not descended from Adam is contrary to explicitly stated scripture.

 

[Biblewriter]

Some insist that the modern day Jews are not Israelites at all. It says the true Israelites are European, particularly British, and through them, the Americans. It claims the so-called lost tribes of Israel migrated to this area after Assyria was defeated. But it is well known that the British are descended from the Celts, and that their ancestors were the Cimmerians. A number of ancient sources identify this ethnic group as Biblical Gomer, not as Israel. Two of these sources were from the Assyrian empire. This proves that Cimmeria already existed when Assyria was in power. So this theory cannot possibly be correct.

Further, those in Judea are instructed to flee when they see the abomination of desolation. Zechariah prophesied of the times following this event.

“Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of drunkenness to all the surrounding peoples, when they lay siege against Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall happen in that day that I will make Jerusalem a very heavy stone for all peoples; all who would heave it away will surely be cut in pieces, though all nations of the earth are gathered against it.” (Zechariah 12:2-3)

“For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the LORD will go forth And fight against those nations, As He fights in the day of battle.” (Zechariah 14:2-3)

“‘And it shall come to pass in all the land,’ Says the LORD, ‘That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, But one-third shall be left in it: I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, “This is My people”; And each one will say, “The LORD is my God.”’” (Zechariah 13:8-9)

Since these words were written, there has never been a time when siege was laid to Jerusalem, and the Lord came to her rescue. Nor has there ever been a time when half the city was led away captive, but the other half remained there. Nor has there ever been a time when two thirds of those in the land were killed, but one third were saved and restored to faith in the Lord. Thus we see that these prophecies unquestionably refer to the future. But they are about Jerusalem, Judah, and the land. In the last section we saw many specific details proving these prophecies refer to the physical descendants of the ancient nation of Israel. But that is not all they prove. They also prove these prophecies refer to the physical land of Judea (the land now called Israel) and to the physical city of Jerusalem.

We therefore understand that Judah, that is, the real Jews, will be in their ancient homeland when all this happens. Yet the ones who live in this land are not the British or the Americans, but the modern day Jews. Thus we see that this doctrine, which is sometimes called British Israelism, is contrary to both history and scripture.

 

[Research3]

Large phenotypic change has not only be observed, but has been observed in microevolution. Again I'll use the example of dog breeds: they come in all kinds of colours and many kinds of shapes and sizes. They look very different but they are all the same species.

That's called domestication. Dogs didn't arrive in their variations today by natural macroevolution. You have basically debunked your own argument, unless of course you think large-scale phenotypic evolution is driven directly by an external force. This would not make you a theistic evolutionist, but something closer to a progressive creationist/''directed'' evolution believer.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am an Old Earth creationist, and well acquainted with the so-called "gap theory." But I have never heard this theory connected with any kind of doctrine about any humans living in the earth before the time of Adam.

Any doctrine that there is, anywhere on this earth, a human being that is not descended from Adam is contrary to explicitly stated scripture.

What!!! Are you saying that the Scofield Study Bible got it wrong?

Also of interest in this regard is the fact that not even the Scofield Reference Bible (which so adamantly defends the Gap Theory in its “Notes”) makes an argument for a “pre-Adamic” race on the basis of Genesis 1:28, and has changed its KJV text at this point (and in Genesis 9:1) by substituting “fill” for “replenish.” I also might note that the Gap Theory’s leading spokesman (until his death), Arthur C. Custance, acknowledged that the Hebrew male’ means only “to fill” (1976, p. 314). Neither does male’ mean to “refill” or “repopulate” in Genesis 9:1. Rather, its meaning is “to bring forth abundantly” (Workman, 1982, p. 185-204). Of the more than 300 times the KJVuses the word male’, it is translated by the word “replenish” only seven times, and even those seven could be rendered correctly as “fill” (Morris, 1976, p. 76). God's Command to "Replenish" the Earth​

Just kidding, I know study notes are not infallible. It is rather curious though, the whole concept of catastrophism as it applies to Biblical exegesis would seem to have come down to a single word translated 'replenish'.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Research3]

A distinction is made in the OT for different kinds of men.
Adam & Iysh means man
Enoch & Enosh both mean men

Gen 2:5 ....and there was not a man(adam) to till the ground.

Wasn't Cain cursed from growing things?
Among Cain's descendents, you find cattlemen, musicians and metalworkers, but not one farmer

Num 23:19 God is not a man(Iysh), that he should lie; neither the son of man(Adam), that he should repent:

Only by viewing the original words can you see a difference. Iysh are lying, unrepentant men and Adamites do repent.

Excellent stuff.

Note as you pointed out in Gen 2: 5 the reference to the Adamite being the race of the plough, the tiller - the Aryans.

What is the etymology of Aryan?

Arya = ‘‘plough’’. Aryan = Ploughman (A Sumer Aryan Dictionary, Laurence Austine Waddell, 1927, p. xiii).

The Adamites are just one race. As i said earlier the biggest blow to Christianity was the belief all races descend from Adam.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's called domestication. Dogs didn't arrive in their variations today by natural macroevolution. You have basically debunked your own argument, unless of course you think large-scale phenotypic evolution is driven directly by an external force. This would not make you a theistic evolutionist, but something closer to a progressive creationist/''directed'' evolution believer.

You've missed the point. You argued that macroevolution was large scale phenotypic change, which essentially means if they looked different enough they became a new species. This isn't true as you can get a lot of phenotypic mutations within the same species.

If you want a natural example instead of domestication, this sites looks at the phenotypic differences between populations of snails, birds and humans. This page specifically looks at race, both animal and human.

As i said earlier the biggest blow to Christianity was the belief all races descend from Adam.

Your version of Christianity perhaps.

 

[Research3]

Ok, I'm not really sure what the point of the multicultured Egyptian ethnicity is but lets see what you have for me.

The point is this -

*YEC's (or most Christians) date the flood between 2350 - 2200 BC.
*They believe the flood was global.
*They believe all races descended from Noah after the ark.

Yet:

*Egyptian artwork (c.2000 BC) shows 4 + distinct racial types.

How do you get all the races from Noah in just 200 or so years?

You would have to believe in macroevolution.

YEC's ironically believe in evolution when they need it to suit their model of history...

The sons of Noah coming down from Ararat in modern Turkey would have had nearly pristine genomes, which holds true for the creatures the Ark housed for six months. Most, if not all, adaptations come from genes being expressed, turned on and off and working in concert and recombined. The descendants of Noah like the creatures that emerged from Ark had the means to adapt quickly, probably within a couple of generations.

Genesis states the ark landed on the Mountains of Ararat. Note the plural - not a single mountain. It's not the same as the mountain in Turkey.

Most early Christian writers placed mountains in Syria. Other locations also have been suggested.

The races came from the environments they migrated to and from nearly pristine genomes could readily have done this in a couple of generations. What would have changed would have been external traits like size, color and texture along with things like blood type and a host of other expressed traits.

A few points:

* All of Noah's descendants were one race.
* Post-flood settlement only regards an ANE geographic context.

Both of these are common sense points. Do you really think Noah's kids were australian aborigines who landed in Asia Minor and then migrated thousands of miles to Australia? Or the eskimos, thousands of miles to the Arctic?

And how do you get all the races from one race in only 200 or so years?

And why have no races evolved in 4,000 years or recorded history? But YEC's say they suddenly did as a 'one off' in only 200 years?????????

That is no less then 10 generations with overlapping generations occurring almost constantly. There is ample time for the genomic mechanisms to be triggered, engaged and fixed in this amount of time. The biggest problem for me is covering the distance of the 10,000 mile circumference of the globe to all points on the compass. The only real problem after that is the accumulation of mutations, which we see happening ever since on a nearly constant basis. There are repair mechanisms and ways the genome screens mutations through recombination but we can get into that later.

We do, whether Ken Ham knows it or not, embrace an explosive adaptive radiation in a radically short space of time that would have scared Darwin to death. The populations of humans, animals, birds and reptiles would have had to go from dozens of original genotypes to literally millions of species and an enormous number of genus level spceciations.

Yes, of course this is macroevolution on an unprecedented scale but it resulted from genomes that had few, if any mutations following mass migrations to all parts of the globe. It makes perfect sense to me even though that would make Young Earth Creationists among the most radical of evolutionists except that there would be no need for change from the kingdom to the phylum level as far as I can tell.

None of this is science.

Races have never been observed to change or evolve in 4000 years, so how could they suddenly have done so in only 200 after the flood?