Creation and PreAdamites

yeshuasavedme said:

Perhaps you haven't read his followers books, nor learned that the doctrines of Darwin's racism spawned the horrors of wicked abuse of fellow human beings by NAZI Germany?

Click to expand...

What's weird is that I've read that Amillenialism lead to the horrors of the holocaust, mind you it was a dispensationalist who said it. Funny how people invoke the Nazis to shore up their arguments.

Mallon said:

B) The evolution of human races from a common human ancestor is completely in line with the Bible's description of the origins of the different races..

Click to expand...

What is that ancestor of humans that evolutionists believe is "one"?

How does evolution show the descent of "man" from that "one ancestor to all humans?

Is that ancestor to all humans the ancestor of all species on earth, in evolutionary teaching?

Are apes and humans classified by evolutionists as different branches of that "one ancestor" to them both?

Do evolutionists classify human beings as coming from one ape ancestor, which came from one ancestor of all species, or do evolutionists classify human beings as different branches of different apes who came from one ancestor of them all?

And what is the "favored race" of Darwin's teaching?
What are the "primitive humans" in evolutionary teaching?
What are the "savages" in evolutionary teaching?

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n*gro or Australian and the gorilla." Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

Click to expand...

By the above, Darwin believed that "caucaisians [a racist term] were descended from baboons, and that n*groes [a racist term] were descended from gorillas. Tell me again how racist doctrines of "superior races and inferior races" is not the child of evolutionists like Darwin. and compare for me what the Word of God states, that all Adam is one single "kind", formed from the dust of the earth and made male and female, of one single created spirit [the Adam spirit] and one bone, blood, flesh, and blood, and made male and female, as I posted the Scripture proofs of, earlier.

Tell me how evolutionists, like yourself, deny that all Adam-kind are descended from Noah's three sons, and that all the colors [many and varied of them] of the one race are from the three sons of Noah and their wives, who got their colors and different features, as expressed in single individuals, from the loins of the created firstborn father of the race.

You're still bearing false witness by attributing the racist thoughts of early workers of evolution to ALL workers of evolution, yeshuasavedme. We've come a long way in the 150 years since Darwin and the common racism of his day (among both evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike). Words like "favoured race" and "savages" are no longer used in the evolutionary literature. No credible scientist today advocates for polygenism as Darwin did. Your entire argument is nothing more than poisoning the well and is, by definition, a logical fallacy. If evolution is inherently racist because some of its early thinkers were racist, then you are being a hypocrite for not also viewing YECism as racist because some of its early thinkers were racist.

YeshuaSM wrote:

all Adam-kind are descended from Noah's three sons, and that all the colors [many and varied of them] of the one race are from the three sons of Noah and their wives, who got their colors and different features, as expressed in single individuals,

Click to expand...

So ironic that you are saying that mainstream science is racist, while you youself advocate this view of the races as originating from Noah's sons, which was the basis for Christian-approved slavery for centuries. You are familiar with the Curse of Ham, right? (Curse of Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

You know that slavers from Jefferson Davis on down used the Genesis story of Ham, coupled with Ham being the origin of people with black skin, by your view, as the reason why they said that the word of God itself told us we could (and indeed, should) have slaves, as long as they were black?

Also, have you read "on the Jews and their Lies", by Martin Luther? After reading that, would you really blame the holocaust on Darwin?

With the History of Christian justification of slavery, by both Catholics and Protestants, based on Genesis, it really hurts Christianity for you to even bring up the slavery/ham/Genesis topic.

Papias

Mallon said:

If evolution is inherently racist because some of its early thinkers were racist, then you are being a hypocrite for not also viewing YECism as racist because some of its early thinkers were racist.

Click to expand...

The Word of God has never changed, which is what I base my beliefs and opinions and life style on.
It is strange that you who are evolutionist believe that evolution has "evolved", "morally" from its foundational teachings of different races of human beings evolving from different sub-human groups at different times, with some more evolved than others, and some more primitive and closer to the sub-humans than others, and yet still follow the anti-Word of God doctrines of evolution.
Psa 119:160 Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.
Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not...
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Papias said:

YeshuaSM wrote:



So ironic that you are saying that mainstream science is racist, while you youself advocate this view of the races as originating from Noah's sons, which was the basis for Christian-approved slavery for centuries. You are familiar with the Curse of Ham, right? ..

Papias

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.
Ham's son, Cush, fathered Nimrod, the greatest king of king's the world has ever had, up to this time, as typed in the statue with the head of gold and the words God gave Daniel to speak to Nebuchadnezzar with.

Ham also fathered Mitzraim/מצרים Mitsrayim/ Egypt, who "measured the earth".

The fact of Bible doctrine is, that there was never a division of the tribes of Adam's descendants until after the dividing of the one tongue at Babel, and the scattering of the nations over the face of the earth from that time. Even long after that, parents would not know what color their children would be, until the further separation that began with the dividing of the tongue at Babel was enforced with the dividing up [Peleg] of the land mass that also began at the time of the confounding of the tongue.
Further, God began to cut off and diminish [Yoktan] the lives of the sons of Adam from that time, specifically doing these three things so as to ensure that the people would no longer be one people, in one place, with one tongue, and one evil heart living long lives in wicked rebellion against God's one plan for redemption of the race -and of the earth.
God never divided the race by color, but by tongue and by land mass, and ensuring no more rebellion like Babel's, until the end of the millennium [when all rebellion ends at that war], by shortening the lives of the race, from the time of Babel's rebellion.

Colors of the one race came with the migration of the tribes, only, and isolation of genetic information, which became more isolated with the further division of the tongues, which were 70, at the beginning, into the the many thousands of these days. Isolation of Adam by Color was never a factor in anything having to do with "judgment". -In fact, Miriam was cursed with leprosy as a judgment for speaking against Moses for the Ethiopian wife he had formerly married -which you can also read about in the Book of Jasher.
In Jasher, also, during the years Israel was in Egypt, the king of Africa married the daughter of a deceased Italian king, and built aqueducts from her home mountains to bring water to Africa, because the water of Africa made her sick. Never, ever, in the Word of God is color a curse, but a creation of God. in Enoch, in the dream visions, Adam is white, Eve is black, Cain is black, Abel is red, and so we know then, why Seth is the first white son in his daddy's "likeness" -"white".
Noah was white, but as his sons were of different colors, then we can assume their wives also were, even though they were sisters, as pr Jasher.



In the Book of Jasher, when Joseph was made king of Egypt, second in rule under the Pharaoh, there were still only seventy tongues recognized, which were confounded from the one mother tongue at Babel; but as English today is spoken in so many nations with so many different dialects that it can be like another tongue to those not familiar with the different dialects, then I am sure that there already divisions like that, even then.
God likes color diversity in the human race. He created it so. Israel is coming back from all the nations after the dispersion with all the colors of the Adam race in their flesh. Wait a couple hundred or more years, and they'll not be knowing what color of skin, hair, or eyes, the offspring of any two parents will be, either, just like it was in the beginning.

YeshuaSM wrote:

Absolutely not.

Click to expand...

(familar with the curse of ham)


Well, maybe it's a good idea to read up on it, instead of posting speculation. I gave you a link. It wasn't just a person here or there, but as mentioned, it was most of Christianity before the 19th century. This is well exemplified by what Jefferson Davis said:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

Papias

yeshuasavedme said:

It is strange that you who are evolutionist believe that evolution has "evolved", "morally" from its foundational teachings of different races of human beings evolving from different sub-human groups at different times, with some more evolved than others, and some more primitive and closer to the sub-humans than others, and yet still follow the anti-Word of God doctrines of evolution.

Click to expand...

1) Again, the idea of polygenism is not a "foundational teaching" of evolution. It was one evolutionary hypothesis that some early thinkers used to justify their own predisposition to racism. With genetic and morphological testing, this hypothesis has since been shown to be wrong. The notion that species adapt to their environments does not rise or fall based on whether some humans are more closely related to, say, gorillas than others. Rather, the foundational teachings of evolution are: (i) that species are variable; (ii) that that variability is heritable; and (iii) the resource limitation produces competition, resulting in differential reproduction of variants. How one finds these teachings in any way to be racist, I have no idea.
2) Evolution, like any scientific theory, does not concern itself with "morality". Science concerns itself with what is, not how things should be. It makes no value judgments because value judgments are subjective. Just as some early thinkers erred in not making this distinction, you are repeating the same mistake. You have now been corrected, and so I hope that you will not continue bearing false witness.

Papias said:

YeshuaSM wrote:
(familar with the curse of ham)


Well, maybe it's a good idea to read up on it, instead of posting speculation. I gave you a link. It wasn't just a person here or there, but as mentioned, it was most of Christianity before the 19th century. This is well exemplified by what Jefferson Davis said:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

Papias

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Darwin rejected slavery.

Papias said:

(familar with the curse of ham)

Papias

Click to expand...

Absolutely not a doctrine of the Word of God.
You are trying to take this away from the discourse of what the Word states, and has never changed from stating.

Mallon said:

You're still bearing false witness by attributing the racist thoughts of early workers of evolution to ALL workers of evolution, yeshuasavedme. We've come a long way in the 150 years since Darwin and the common racism of his day (among both evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike). Words like "favoured race" and "savages" are no longer used in the evolutionary literature. No credible scientist today advocates for polygenism as Darwin did. Your entire argument is nothing more than poisoning the well and is, by definition, a logical fallacy. If evolution is inherently racist because some of its early thinkers were racist, then you are being a hypocrite for not also viewing YECism as racist because some of its early thinkers were racist.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my questions. And you avoided the fact that your claim is that evolution has evolved -from its own foundational doctrines on the origin of "races", which doctrines spawned Hitler's NAZI belief and evil practices, and many other things, like euthanasia, the abortion industry, and death panels for senior citizens. These are the fruits off the branches of the evolution "tree".
That you even believe in "races" is racist, itself, in the sense that evolution has made it so, for in the Word of God there is only one human being race, created male and female, and of varying colors and features.

I'm satisfied that nothing you've said in away refutes my point that racism is not a "foundational teaching of evolution", yeshuasavedme. And with that, I'll bow out, leaving the last word to you.

According to midrashic literature, Adam's first wife was not Eve but a woman named Lilith, who was created in the first Genesis account. Only when Lilith rebelled and abandoned Adam did God create Eve, in the second account, as a replacement. In an important 13th century Kabbalah text, the Sefer ha-Zohar ("The Book of Splendour") written by the Spaniard Moses de Leon (c. 1240-1305), it is explained that:

At the same time Jehovah created Adam, he created a woman, Lilith, who like Adam was taken from the earth. She was given to Adam as his wife. But there was a dispute between them about a matter that when it came before the judges had to be discussed behind closed doors. She spoke the unspeakable name of Jehovah and vanished.

In the Alpha Betha of Ben Sira (Alphabetum Siracidis, or Sepher Ben Sira), an anonymous collection of midrashic proverbs probably compiled in the 11th century C.E., it is explained more explicitly that the conflict arose because Adam, as a way of asserting his authority over Lilith, insisted that she lie beneath him during sexual intercourse (23 A-B). Lilith, however, considering herself to be Adam's equal, refused, and after pronouncing the Ineffable Name (i.e. the magic name of God) flew off into the air.

Adam, distraught and no doubt also angered by her insolent behaviour, wanted her back. On Adam's request, God sent three angels, named Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof, who found her in the Red Sea. Despite the threat from the three angels that if she didn't return to Adam one hundred of her sons would die every day, she refused, claiming that she was created expressly to harm newborn infants. However, she did swear that she would not harm any infant wearing an amulet with the images and/or names of the three angels on it.

At this point, the legend of Lilith as the "first Eve" merges with the earlier legend of Sumero-Babylonian origin, dating from around 3,500 BCE, of Lilith as a winged female demon who kills infants and endangers women in childbirth. In this role, she was one of several mazakim or "harmful spirits" known from incantation formulas preserved in Assyrian, Hebrew, and Canaanite inscriptions intended to protect against them. As a female demon, she is closely related to Lamashtu whose evilness included killing children, drinking the blood of men, and eating their flesh. Lamashtu also caused pregnant women to miscarry, disturbed sleep and brought nightmares.

edited and reposted

YeshuaSM wrote:

Absolutely not a doctrine of the Word of God.
You are trying to take this away from the discourse of what the Word states, and has never changed from stating.

Click to expand...

OK, then let's go straight to the word. Here is what the Bible says about slavery:


Ex 21:

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

So, it's OK to not only have a slave, but to beat the living tar out of them as often as you wish, as long as they survive for a day after you beat them?

Darwin, for your information, was not ony opposed to slavery when most clergy supported it, but it appears that his opposition to slavery (calling the abolition of slavery a "sacred cause"), may have helped him come up with the idea of evolution, because the common descent of all humans so powerfully refutes slavery.

Papias

P.S. Yep. thanks, Mallon.

Mallon said:

I'm satisfied that nothing you've said in away refutes my point that racism is not a "foundational teaching of evolution", yeshuasavedme. And with that, I'll bow out, leaving the last word to you.

Click to expand...

Have a good day!

Papias said:

YeshuaSM wrote:



OK, then let's go straight to the word. Here is what the Bible says about slavery:

.

Click to expand...

This thread is not and has not been about slavery at any point.
Though it is hi-jacked from its OP, the theme of slavery is not where the hi-jacking has gone, nor shall I go there, here, and FYI: slavery in history was never by color dominance, as slaves were of all colors and some persons of all colors kept them; so stay at least on topic of the high-jacked thread

As the Bible and the book of Jasher show us, Abraham was born before Noah and Shem died, and in Jasher, we learn that Abraham lived with them from age 10 to 49, and during that time, the tower of Babel was built and destroyed and the language confounded and the tribes scattered by tongues [seventy of them, then]. We also learn in the Book of Jasher that Abraham went to Egypt about forty years after the fall of the Tower. Reading in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we also read in Abraham's own written history [survived in fragments, only], which is included in what is called "Genesis apocryphon" in the DSS, that the wise men of Pharaoh praised Sarah to the king for her whiteness, and they were dazzled by her beauty. Obviously, by the image from ancient Egypt, pasted below, they were not white, but were black like Ham, which was not a curse, ever.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eadspell17.jpg


In the Genesis Apocryphon, Dead Sea Scrolls translated to English by Florentino Garcia Martinez (Editor), W. G. E. Watson (Translator) , on page 233, which you can view at Amazon.com by signing in [and which I have formerly purchased], you can see that the Egyptians were dazzled by Sarah's white skin and smooth hair. They did not have white skin and smooth hair, and they were not primitives, nor savages, nor were they evolved, but they were simply descendants of Misraim/Egypt, son of Ham.

http://www.amazon.com/reader/9004105...der_9004105891

yeshuasavedme said:

Obviously, by the image from ancient Egypt, pasted below, they were not white, but were black like Ham, which was not a curse, ever.

Click to expand...

The ancient egyptians were not black, nor was Ham.

No where does the Bible state Ham was black, so once again you are guilty of adding to scripture.

The ancient Egyptians were Caucasian, the females appear as pale white or yellowish-white while the men sunburnt red on all the artwork. This is because in ancient egyptian culture (like ancient Greece) the men worked outside and were reddened by the sun, while the females kept their skin pale white - as they only worked in doors.









From the ancient Egyptian Book of Gates:




This shows 4 racial types: top left: Asiatics, top-middle: Nubians,top right: Libyans and the bottom middle shows egyptians.

The eygptians were called rot meaning reddish. Note how their red skin compares to the black Nubian, and they also have straight hair.

Stele of Nefertiabet (2500BC):

They did not have white skin and smooth hair

Click to expand...

Wrong again.

Forensic analysis of the early egyptian pharaohs and egyptian royalty were all straight haired, often with blonde or red hair - further proving their Caucasian heritage. Blacks don't have straight blonde hair.



Queen Tiy (blonde)




Ramses II (blonde)

Professor P. F. Ceccaldi, a famed Egyptologist, studied his mummy. Microscopic examinations showed that the hair roots contained natural red pigments, and that therefore, during his younger days, Ramesses II had been a red head. With age, his hair got even lighter yellow.



Princess Nsikhonsu with straight auburn hair

The above is recorded in history, when a "yellow" wife was chosen for a Pharaoh, and the religion was changed during her husband's reign.
Otherwise, for those who want to know about the black descendants of Noah's son, there is a man who does do the history.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/RTGpix1.htm
Ancient Egyptian Photo Gallery -- Courtesy of Return To Glory
Return To Glory --
YouTube - African American History: Joel Freeman 1/3

YouTube - African American History: Joel Freeman 2/3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uph9a-FZK3g&feature=related