the awaited messiah of the Jews

[cupid dave]

You may remember that claiming that black people descend from Ham has been the justification which white people have made for enslaving them? Shem, Ham and Japeth all referred to people who were living in the area around Mesopotamia at the time. The Jews considered themselves to be descendants of Shem. Do Jews look Mongoloid to you?
.

?
What does the scientific facts, wich are Academically Correct, have to do with the cultural Political Correctness which tries to make facts seem like a crime against people, whether a matter of Race or Feminists who call critics misogynists?

Since the three racial stocks that differentiated from the Noahians 150,000 years ago,...

...they have undergone numerous changes as shown above, there are no separate groups defined by this concept of racial stock, but merely a genetic connection to the many different peoples here now.

 

[Booko]

The three racial stock theory is a concept that seems confirmed by scripture.

Scripture is not a science text.

I never thought about whether I ought or ought not believe it, since i have taken it as theory developed through arguments that must have logical correlations with the available evidence.

This is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. This is a belief.

What I do believe is that the 22 names enumerated in the genealogy in Genesis corresponds very convincingly with the 22 extinct species of Humans which evolutionary theories say ended with Modern man's appearance Out-of-Africa 40 thousand years ago.

It's 22 species today, and it'll be 23 later when archaeologists make another find. Then your "theory" will be rendered moot.

I also believe the latest genetic research that confirms that all men today are genetically related (through their Y-chromosome) to just one man, presumably Noah, who lived @40 thousand years ago.

Belief is for religion. Evidence is for science. Please cite a peer-reviewed scientific journal that contains this latest genetic research about the Y-chromosomal DNA. Thank you. Though I would settle for a credible article.

It's entirely possible men are genetically related to one ancestor (or a small group of ancestors -- cf. mitochondrial DNA studies).

But YOU have the burden of prove to show this person was Noah.

From the realm of scripture there is a geneology in the Tenakh and the numbers do not add up to 40K years. So you will need some compelling evidence for why the geneology is so much shorter than 40K years.

And then prove that this ancestor was actually the person the Bible refers to as Noah. Use actual evidence, not some interpretation of scripture. Archaeological finds would be nice.

Include the evidence for a global flood while you're at it, please, as there is none to date. Because without a global flood that kills off everyone else but Noah and his family, your um theory is proved false.

These scientific finds in a totally foreign discipline are very convincing when used to make sense of Genesis in the Theological discipline.

If they're grossly misinterpreted they can appear to be so. Just as scripture can be twisted in some pretty odd ways to prove things that are untrue.

So far I'm closer to being convinced that you are abusing religion and science simultaneouly. But the conversation is young -- I'll wait to see what evidence you have to back up what you say.

The whole list of the theorized 22 extinct species can be found in the latest book by paleontologists available thru Amazon:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans (Hardcover)
by G. J. Sawyer (Author), Viktor Deak (Author), Esteban Sarmiento (Author), Richard Milner (Author), Donald C. Johanson (Foreword), Maeve Leakey (Afterword), Ian Tattersall (Introduction)

And do they also try to make this connection between Biblical figures and hominid species? Because they appear to be working in actual palentology and not pseudoscientific eisegesis.

 

[Booko]

Doesn't what you say here support the hypothesis that Jesus in 32AD MUST have been Elijah, the predeccessor of this coming messiah of the Jews, and the expected one of the Christians????

How does the conversation between Jesus and Peter about who Jesus was fit in with that? You know the one, where Jesus says of Peter "Upon this rock..."

One of the things in the list of things other people think Jesus is includes....Elijah. But Peter didn't say "I think you're Elijah" -- he said to Jesus "You are the Christ" -- and Jesus confirmed that, but not what others had said about Him being Elijah.

By contrast in Matthew Jesus says John the Baptist was Elijah.

So for Jesus to be Elijah returned He and John the Baptist would somehow both need to be the same thing.

And then according to Christian texts Jesus would be Elijah as the forerunner for His Own Return during the Second Coming...

I mean the stuff can make your head whirl in the simplest reading, I'm not sure how making it way way more complicated really fits.

 

[cupid dave]

(A) Actually 60 thousand years ago at the latest and there is no reason to think this is Noah. If there was a catastrophe which bottle-necked human evolution (as many scientists believe) it was not a flood but a super-volcanic eruption in Indonesia which caused global cooling.

(B)

(1) Seth, (Australopithecus anamensis)
(2) Enos, (Australopithecus africanus)
(3) Cainan, (Australopithecus aethiopicus)
(4) Mahalaleel, (Australopithecus garhi)

You realize that australopithecines were only slightly smarter than other apes and incapable of speech? They didn't even have opposable thumbs yet to make decent tools.

(C) Modern science has entirely discarded the notion of race as not fitting anything we know about human evolution.

(A) It is hypothetical that Genesis is reporting the Academically Correct facts which coincidentally agree in number and kind with our 22 extinct species in the ascent of man.
However, that all other mankinds disappeared starting 40,000 years ago is supportive of that hypothesis.

Add the coincidence that both science and Genesis see Modern man as having been derived from an early Noah and the case for my hypothesis is getting some teeth.

(B) I do "realize that australopithecines were only slightly smarter than other apes and incapable of speech" but my point is that from Seth forward, all the members in this clade had the singular difference of one less than the 24 Chromosomes of the Apes from which they had branched off of.
They were all Humans by virtue of the fact that they had only 23 Chromosomes.

This one Act of God, a mutation, which from the dirt of the earth had fused together two chromosomes and by such a mutation had made man with no other unnatural process necessary.
Like the chnages that progressed within our race, developing seven diiferent genetic types of mankind today, these earliest humanoids developed over thousands and thousands of years into what we have become.

(C)

See my graphic Organizer above.

The Paleontologists of the last century argued that evidence supported this gradually development of differences in the human race which was the result of three Stocks changing over thousands of years in different places and environment, much the way white rabbits today differ from brown.

 

[cupid dave]

One of the things in the list of things other people think Jesus is includes....Elijah.

But Peter didn't say "I think you're Elijah" -- he said to Jesus "You are the Christ" -- and Jesus confirmed that, but not what others had said about Him being Elijah.

By contrast in Matthew Jesus says John the Baptist was Elijah.

So for Jesus to be Elijah returned He and John the Baptist would somehow both need to be the same thing.

And then according to Christian texts Jesus would be Elijah as the forerunner for His Own Return during the Second Coming...

I mean the stuff can make your head whirl in the simplest reading, I'm not sure how making it way way more complicated really fits.

Yep...

It is Politically Loaded, too.

It is incorrect to suggest that allthese Jews missed out on this possibility and that Christians got it wrong.

Democratically speaking, the vote and the emotional opposition makes the case very weak in a jury of religious peers.

But Academically Correct, the fact remains that John SPECIFICALLY, clearly, without reservations stated, "I am not the Elijah, I am not even a prophet."



John 1:21And they asked him, What then?
Art thou Elias?
And he saith, I am not.

Art thou that prophet?
And he answered, No.

 

[cupid dave]

How does the conversation between Jesus and Peter about who Jesus was fit in with that?

You know the one, where Jesus says of Peter "Upon this rock...

That was one of the sam exact things that Elijah had done, 800 years prior, when he said the same thing to Alisha, who he gave his authority to:


Both Elijah and Christ appointed a successor, Elisha, by Elijah, and Peter, by Christ:
2 Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me
Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Booko]

?
What does the scientific facts, wich are Academically Correct, have to do with the cultural Political Correctness which tries to make facts seem like a crime against people, whether a matter of Race or Feminists who call critics misogynists?

Since the three racial stocks that differentiated from the Noahians 150,000 years ago,...

...they have undergone numerous changes as shown above, there are no separate groups defined by this concept of racial stock, but merely a genetic connection to the many different peoples here now.

This is not scientifically correct. It is racialism and it is bunkum and it is pseudoscience.

I looked at the site your graphic comes from.

I'm sorry but "theistic evolution" is not a field of science.

Science doesn't give a hoot about whether God or gods had a hand in how life developed, because it is not falsifiable.

Your "theory" is not just embarrassing...it's not even wrong.

 

[cupid dave]

1) This is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. This is a belief.



2) It's 22 species today, and it'll be 23 later when archaeologists make another find. Then your "theory" will be rendered moot.



3) Belief is for religion. Evidence is for science. Please cite a peer-reviewed scientific journal that contains this latest genetic research about the Y-chromosomal DNA. Thank you. Though I would settle for a credible article.

4) It's entirely possible men are genetically related to one ancestor (or a small group of ancestors -- cf. mitochondrial DNA studies).

5) But YOU have the burden of prove to show this person was Noah.

6) From the realm of scripture there is a geneology in the Tenakh and the numbers do not add up to 40K years. So you will need some compelling evidence for why the geneology is so much shorter than 40K years.

7) And then prove that this ancestor was actually the person the Bible refers to as Noah. Use actual evidence, not some interpretation of scripture. Archaeological finds would be nice.

8) Include the evidence for a global flood while you're at it, please, as there is none to date. Because without a global flood that kills off everyone else but Noah and his family, your um theory is proved false.



9) So far I'm closer to being convinced that you are abusing religion and science simultaneouly. But the conversation is young -- I'll wait to see what evidence you have to back up what you say.



10) And do they also try to make this connection between Biblical figures and hominid species? Because they appear to be working in actual palentology and not pseudoscientific eisegesis.

10) No.

Isn't it wonderful that these paleontologists were totally unaware of the corresponence between their science conclusions and just how supportive that information is for what we read in Genesis?

This observation I bring to your attention is clerly not contrived nor biased by an interest in proving or disproving what we read in Genesis.

Nor is the science written in stone, as they add and subtract from this present definitive list on a regular basis.

The State-of-the-Art at the moment conforms exatly to the Genesis genealogy.
In time, changes may occur in their scientific opinions, but God's Bible is in stone at these numbers.

 

[cupid dave]

Posted by Booko

1) This is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis. This is a belief.


[/quote]


No, its an idea presented for discussion and consideration concerning just why such an important book from a divine source would list the appearance of mankind with such a boring and mundane series of rather repetitious "begats."

It takes on enormous implications if we entertain the idea, a hypothetical consideration, that this list is absolutely correct in regard to our evolution.

This hypothesis is implying that some higher power actually knew about these things we are only today beginning to find evidence to support.

This hypothesis is actually implying that such knowledge was passed down to us by couching the facts in a story which was devised to be acceptable to peoples thru ages when the real facts would have ended with book burning and ridicule.

What a coincidence.
A set of coincidences, that is.

1) There were 22 extinct species in our ascent.

2) One man is the common father to us all.

3) We are derivied from three racial stocks, just as Genesis states in regard to the 3 sons of Noah.

4) There was a total extinction of all other humanoids @ 40,000 years ago.

5) Noah had three "sons" 100,000 year before the flood out of Africa, which took 40,000 more years.
Genetics supports that all men today had one common mother who lived @ 150,000 years ago.
(see the genetic evidence for Eve.)

6) The Flood-out-of-Africa did take 40,000 years as Neantherthals gradually disappeared.
And as stated in Genesis, this flood covered the whole Earth, even the moutain tops, even though the seven continents were widely separated and distance from northern Africa.

7) The claim of Gen 6:2-4, that certain "sons of God," (i.e., the men who would live thru the flood to come), hybrid with lower species such as Neanderthal has been gentically confirmed.


​

 

[cupid dave]

You are ignoring the fact that both the Jewish and Christian scriptures promise--in multiple places--that the Spirit will have a new name!

Peace,

Bruce

True.

Trinity has already been established now for 1800 years now, confirmed during the 1000 year reign of Jesus during the Universal and sole Christianity of the Dark Ages, from 54Ad with the appearance of the Holy Comforter until the first schism by the Greek Orthodox:


12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (i.e.; Trinity)

 

[cupid dave]

This is not scientifically correct. It is racialism and it is bunkum and it is pseudoscience.

I looked at the site your graphic comes from.

I'm sorry but "theistic evolution" is not a field of science.

Science doesn't give a hoot about whether God or gods had a hand in how life developed, because it is not falsifiable.

Your "theory" is not just embarrassing...it's not even wrong.

?
You looked at a site that uses this information which comes directly from the source shown at the bottom right hand of the graphic,....


COLLEGE ZOOLOGY
PROFESSOR ROBERT HEGNER, PhD

 

[Booko]

This observation I bring to your attention is clerly not contrived nor biased by an interest in proving or disproving what we read in Genesis.

Observations with no evidence are not worth the electrons they are printed on.

Nor is the science written in stone, as they add and subtract from this present definitive list on a regular basis.

You mean do Etch-a-Sketch pseudoscience. I'm underwhelmed.

The State-of-the-Art at the moment conforms exatly to the Genesis genealogy.

I asked you for proof it does. You just repeated what you said. That is not proof. Repeating something does not make it more true.

In time, changes may occur in their scientific opinions, but God's Bible is in stone at these numbers.

Well at least you correctly labeled them "opinions" even if "scientific" is way off base.

God's Bible is so etched in stone He sent Jesus to add some other stones to it.

Obviously this is some new meaning of "etched in stone" with which I was previously unfamiliar...

 

[SanFrank]

it my proof that the enemies of christ has twisted and perverted the gospel message by adding and taking away from scriptures

Jesus sowed good seed...the word of God...the enemy has sown corrupted seeds....the good seed brings forth children of the kingdom...and the corrupted seed brings forth tares

I always am amused at that reasoning. It must have been changed. From what was it changed then? Do you know? If you do not know, how can you assure me that the entire thing has not been changed?

Masoretic text (today's official accepted version of tanakh) changed psalm 8.2, specifically, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise" to "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength" for the reason of contradicting the Lord's own words as seen in Mathew 21.16.

The Lord fulfilled that prophecy and the priests knew it. That caused them to change the psalm's rendition.

Proof is seen in the Septuagint which shows "perfected praise" in the psalm.

 

[Huram Abi]

10)

Isn't it wonderful that these paleontologists were totally unaware of the corresponence between their science conclusions and just how supportive that information is for what we read in Genesis?

This observation I bring to your attention is clerly not contrived nor biased by an interest in proving or disproving what we read in Genesis.

Nor is the science written in stone, as they add and subtract from this present definitive list on a regular basis.

The State-of-the-Art at the moment conforms exatly to the Genesis genealogy.
In time, changes may occur in their scientific opinions, but God's Bible is in stone at these numbers.

It most certainly IS contrived and biased.


There are 26 species of hominids and you know this.

And the genesis geneology is much, much greater than 22.



Neither one of your premises are true in the slightest.

 

[Booko]

?
You looked at a site that uses this information which comes directly from the source shown at the bottom right hand of the graphic,....

No, dear, it's called a RIGHT-CLICK and Copy Image Location, and it shows me the URL where this graphic came from:

http://kofh2u.tripod.com/race_2.jpg

Now starting at the tail end of the URL remove the "race_2.jpg" to find the more general site the graphic is off of, and you get:

The Darwinian 21st Century Freudian-Spirit Bible

Titled The Darwinian 21st Century Freudian-Spirit Bible

But now that you mention it, 1932 is the date of this graphic. Wow -- that's some really up-to-date information there. It's contemporary with Social Darwinism and eugenics and (invoking Godwin's Law intentionally) Nazis. You know -- racialism stuff.

It's amazing what us dum creatures with mammaries who didn't always stay at home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen caring for rugrats but rather spent years working in IT can figure out when we just make a little effort.

 

[Huram Abi]

No, its an idea presented for discussion and consideration

This hypothesis is actually implying that such knowledge was passed down to us by couching the facts in a story which was devised to be acceptable to peoples thru ages when the real facts would have ended with book burning and ridicule.



1) There were 22 extinct species in our ascent.

2) One man is the common father to us all.

3) We are derivied from three racial stocks, just as Genesis states in regard to the 3 sons of Noah.

4) There was a total extinction of all other humanoids @ 40,000 years ago.

5) Noah had three "sons" 100,000 year before the flood out of Africa, which took 40,000 more years.
Genetics supports that all men today had one common mother who lived @ 150,000 years ago.
(see the genetic evidence for Eve.)

6) The Flood-out-of-Africa did take 40,000 years as Neantherthals gradually disappeared.
And as stated in Genesis, this flood covered the whole Earth, even the moutain tops, even though the seven continents were widely separated and distance from northern Africa.

7) The claim of Gen 6:2-4, that certain "sons of God," (i.e., the men who would live thru the flood to come), hybrid with lower species such as Neanderthal has been gentically confirmed.


​

[/quote]


1) Wrong. There are 26 (completely irrelevant to scripture, either way)

2) not unique to the biblical origin story

3) neither biblical or scientific

4) Wrong. Neanderthal and Denisovan man were around 35,000 years ago (also completely irrelevant to scripture)

5) Completely unbiblical

6) Wrong. It took over 100,000 years in a long series of events

7) Wrong again, both scripturally and scientifically.



So, there. Your belief has been presented, considered and discussed.

It has been found to be simply implausible, irrelevant and silly.

 

[Huram Abi]

Now starting at the tail end of the URL remove the "race_2.jpg" to find the more general site the graphic is off of, and you get:

The Darwinian 21st Century Freudian-Spirit Bible

Titled The Darwinian 21st Century Freudian-Spirit Bible

Now is the part where he will tell you that this is the site of the great and brilliant minded "Dr. Kofh" a made up character who acts as the frontman for his site. KOFH is an acronym for "kingdom of heaven."

 

[dfw69]

Masoretic text (today's official accepted version of tanakh) changed psalm 8.2, specifically, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise" to "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength" for the reason of contradicting the Lord's own words as seen in Mathew 21.16.

The Lord fulfilled that prophecy and the priests knew it. That caused them to change the psalm's rendition.

Proof is seen in the Septuagint which shows "perfected praise" in the psalm.

Well i don't doubt that there could be many more...

 

[dfw69]

Where would I have seen it was your birthday? If it's the front page I never load it.

But anyway:

That's okay...im good.....but thank you for the birthday wish.....

 

[LoAmmi]

Masoretic text (today's official accepted version of tanakh) changed psalm 8.2, specifically, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise" to "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength" for the reason of contradicting the Lord's own words as seen in Mathew 21.16.

The Lord fulfilled that prophecy and the priests knew it. That caused them to change the psalm's rendition.

Proof is seen in the Septuagint which shows "perfected praise" in the psalm.

NIV:

2 Through the praise of children and infants
you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.

Jewish translation:
3. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You have established strength because of Your adversaries, in order to put an end to enemy and avenger.

I am not seeing that much of a difference to be honest.

You are basically saying that a very minor difference in the text was changed because of something that is not even much of a prophecy.



Let us look at everything:

2. O Lord, our Master, how mighty is Your name in all the earth, for which You should bestow Your majesty upon the heavens. 3. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You have established strength because of Your adversaries, in order to put an end to enemy and avenger. 4. When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars that You have established, 5. what is man that You should remember him, and the son of man that You should be mindful of him? 6. Yet You have made him slightly less than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and majesty. 7. You give him dominion over the work of Your hands; You have placed everything beneath his feet. 8. Flocks and cattle, all of them, and also the beasts of the field; 9. the birds of the sky and the fish of the sea, he traverses the ways of the seas.

Please show me how you know this is a messianic prophecy. Please show me why it would need to be changed? Even if it said exactly what you said, it would make zero difference.