Which I quoted. I will quote it again:
LGW: POST FLOOD APPLICATION TO RACE; populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits.
That is what you said about post-flood. So now apply that to the post-flood quote:
Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2} Name the certain races. And name the ones not in the certain races.
No. All of this has already been answered and addressed in the linked posts just provided to you on the previous page. Which you seem unwilling to engage in. It was not my definition of "race" that was provided it was from wiki on the history of it's use.
Wikipedia - Race
A
race is a grouping of
humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by
society.
[1] The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common
language and then to denote
national affiliations. By the 17th century the term began to refer to physical (
phenotypical) traits. Modern science regards race as a
social construct, an
identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.
[2] While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
[1][3][4]
Social conceptions and groupings of races have varied over time, often involving
folk taxonomies that define
essential types of individuals based on perceived traits.
[5] Today, scientists consider such biological
essentialism obsolete,
[6] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.
[7][8][9][10][11]
Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that
essentialist and typological conceptions of race are untenable,
[12][13][14][15][16][17] scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways.
[18] While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among
fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the
scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive
[7] or simplistic.
[19] Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same
subspecies,
Homo sapiens sapiens.
[20][21]
Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the discredited theories of
scientific racism has contributed to race becoming increasingly seen as a largely
pseudoscientific system of classification. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and
loaded terms:
populations,
people(s),
ethnic groups, or
communities, depending on context.
[22][23]
.................
So as shown above her application to "the races" pre-flood and post-flood was quite consistent to the understanding and the application of the word "race" used in her day
APPLICATION TO RACES (Name the races?)
PRE-FLOOD APPLICATION TO RACE; national affiliations (believers and unbelievers; Sons of God and the Sons of Cain); observable differences in behavior
POST FLOOD APPLICATION TO RACE; populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits.
................
It is pretty easy to see the applications here in the quote you provided in regards to intermarriage and the races with application to believers and unbelievers in all nations of the world leading God's people back into idolatry. It is all through the bible. Sorry dear friend but we will have to agree to disagree. For me when the context is added back into your OP it is not saying what you are claiming it does.
So that will do it for me as it seems you have nothing new to add to what has already been discussed.
I will leave you to your discussion (merry go round)
