Pre-Adamite Doctrine, History and Teaching

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Like my man Nagarjuna:

nagarjunaoffering.jpg
 
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Where did you get the map from? Is there any science backing up your claim? It also has a glaring obvious mistake - Australian Aboriginals are not negroes. They're a completely different race.

vimeo.com/412997

They may not be negroes but they are closely related.
different branch?

http://genographic-project.wikispaces.com/ks+Day+3+and+4

[FONT=Georgia,serif]The haplogroup that branched off of L3 was called M. Humans traveled out of Africa through a small gap in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. This group traveled across the coast and ended in Australia and Polynesia. The age of this haplogroup is 60,000 years old. Since scientists know how old this haplogroup is they can infer that this group is one of the first groups to leave Africa.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,serif][FONT=Georgia,serif]
aboriginals.jpg
[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia,serif] : Remote Tribes » Aborigines Tribe

[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia,serif]The Aborigines of Australia believe that their people arrived in Australia when the Earth was created. They call their creation story "Dreamtime." During "Dreamtime" spirits rose from below the Earth and turned into all the natural elements in Australia. Aborigines of Australia believe that these spirits are alive within the land of Australia. They view their land as sacred.[/FONT]
I don't believe the scientist and I don't believe all people came from Africa.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
theWaris1 said:
They may not be negroes but they are closely related.
different branch?

Not really. Don't be fooled by appearance, they're not directly related to Africans (how could they be?). Their nearest relatives are Asians, specifically Indians.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is what the relatively recent migration out of Africa looked like logistically. The last place to be reached were the Americas.

320px-Spreading_homo_sapiens.svg.png

Not really impressed with how they determine dates but for a species that has been around for 150,000 to 5,000,000 years we sure took our sweet time getting out of Africa.

According to the New World migration model, a migration of humans from Eurasia to the Americas took place via Beringia, a land bridge which connected the two continents across what is now the Bering Strait. The most recent point at which this migration could have taken place is c. 12,000 years ago, with the earliest period remaining a matter of some unresolved contention Indigenous peoples of the Americas

The last hurtle being the leap from Europe to the Americas.

According to archaeological and genetic evidence, North and South America were the last continents in the world with human habitation. During the Wisconsin glaciation, 50,000 — 17,000 years ago, falling sea levels allowed people to move across the Bering land bridge that joined Siberia to north west North America (Alaska). Aboriginal peoples in Canada

I must read this book, Wells seems to have a real gift for colorful expression.

By 10.000 years ago all the world's continents (apart from Antarctica) had been colonized by humans. In just 40,000 years our species had traveled from eastern Africa to Tierra del fuego braving deserts, towering mountains and frozen wastelands of the far north. Their ingenuity had stood them in good stead during this journey, and they had become exquisitely well adapted to life in conditions that were a far cry from their African birthplace. But just as these Upper palaeolithic wanderers were settled into their new homes, something significant happened. Although it started out as a trivial experiment, it was to change for ever the way that humans interacted with their world. it could be called the second 'Big Bang' of human evolution, like the Great Leap Forward, it would launch another human journey-this one into the realm of recorded history. (The Journey of Man, a Genetic Odyssey, by Spencer Wells)​

Sure, there is a problem reconciling the dates being estimated with the genealogies of Genesis. However, what is important to realize is that all of these RACES, falsely so called, measure their inherited genetic commonality in thousands, not millions of years.

You have a real problem Research3, where is this mythical Pre-adamic race mixture if all the humans on the face of the globe are so closely related?

Have a nice day :wave:
Mark
 
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Not really. Don't be fooled by appearance, they're not directly related to Africans (how could they be?). Their nearest relatives are Asians, specifically Indians.
India was once very White. Land of Aryans

No those people are very similar to Africans
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
theWaris1 said:
India was once very White. Land of Aryans

No those people are very similar to Africans

Sorry to be blunt but I much prefer looking at the evidence than taking your word for it. :p What's you basis for thinking they're Negroes anyway? "Well they both kinda look brown ... ?"
And as Ishraqiyun pointed out, much as this Aryan business was romantized by late 19th / early 20th century racialists.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Sorry to be blunt but I much prefer looking at the evidence than taking your word for it. :p What's you basis for thinking they're Negroes anyway? "Well they both kinda look brown ... ?"
And as Ishraqiyun pointed out, much as this Aryan business was romantized by late 19th / early 20th century racialists.
They have affros like the Negros. The kinky hair is found only among blacks.

I have talked to some people from India that claim the White people have been bred out and not very long ago.
I was also told "To be White is to be looked up to now."
 
Upvote 0

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
granpa said:
what country is associated with adam or kenan or enoch?
Eden is believed to be southern Iraq and Adam probably didn't stray to far from Eden.

Cain is belived to be Sargon of Babylon which is in the same area as Lower Iraq.

So everyone from adam to noah lived in one place in mesopotamia
but then after noah they spread everywhere around the globe?
That seems a little strange to me.

Sons of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
using the table of nations one can easily trace
the large scale migration routes across continents and very often along rivers.

Since we know humans originated in africa
then why not extrapolate the migrations back toward and through africa?
MapOfNations.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
There are Indians in a wide range of skin tones. Do a Google image search for "Indian Models". Indian women are some of the most beautiful on earth:blush:
Sure there is a wide range of skin tones but most White skinned poeple have been bred out.

I don't find those women anymore attractive than others.
There is beauty in every group, more so in some than others.
 
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So everyone from adam to noah lived in one place in mesopotamia but then after noah they spread everywhere around the globe? That seems a little strange to me.

Sons of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



using the table of nations one can easily trace the large scale migration routes across continents and very often along rivers.
That map is close to what I believe is correct for a certain period. Things changed on a major scale often.

Turkey is one place that went through many changes and different peoples.

Some claim that mohammand was white and not Arab. The Syrian royal family now is of a minority group there but claims to be of the lineage of Mohammand. the Syrian king is very white with Blue eyes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Erm, it's from a site looking for the lost city of Atlantis but OK. :p
Pretty impressive but they're not the oldest human skeletons discovered:
So far, the earliest finds of modern Homo sapiens skeletons come from Africa. They date to at least nearly 200,000 years ago on that continent.​
The species that you and all other living human beings on this planet belong to is Homo sapiens. During a time of dramatic climate change 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens (modern humans) evolved in Africa.​
This finds were front page news. It is on more than that site I just googled.
The point was Causcasins were found 15,000 years ago in North America older than Indians remains. I don't believe that scientific junk about 200,000 year ago. Bones are not found that old. Can we really believe carbon dating or other methods are accurate?
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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

Actually, all kidding aside, I am aware of several errors in Scofield's notes. But that is immaterial to our discussion.

The Scofield Bible indeed teaches the so-called "gap theory." And it suggests, in a note on Genesis 1:2, that the pre-Adamic earth may have been inhabited by angels. But in a note in Genesis 6:4 he explicitly rejected the idea that angels had interbred, or even could interbreed with humans.

No "gap theory" teacher that I have ever met or that I have ever read has expressed a notion that there was a pre-Adamic race of humans.

But the "gap theory" is not based on the word "replenish," although we sometimes take notice of it.

The theory is based on several things.

First, the Hebrew bara, translated created in Genesis 1:1 means to make something out of nothing. But elsewhere in the creation account Hebrew word asah was used. This word implies making something out of something else. (Genesis 1:7, 11,12,16,25, 26, and 31, 2:2, 3, 4, 18.)

Second, the Hebrew word hayah, translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 is translated "became" in every other place it occurs in the entire creation account. (Genesis 2:7, 10, 3:22)

Third the Hebrew word translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2 is tohu. But exactly the same form of exactly the same Hebrew word in used in Isaiah 45:18, which explicitly says that the Lord did not make the earth tohu.

So I and many others believe that the Bible says that God created the earth, and it became tohu, but God did not make it tohu. And thus it not only allows the so-called "gap," but actually says it occurred.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Actually, all kidding aside, I am aware of several errors in Scofield's notes. But that is immaterial to our discussion.

The Scofield Bible indeed teaches the so-called "gap theory." And it suggests, in a note on Genesis 1:2, that the pre-Adamic earth may have been inhabited by angels. But in a note in Genesis 6:4 he explicitly rejected the idea that angels had interbred, or even could interbreed with humans.

I never really rejected the angles and the daughters of men possibility, just never put a lot of stock in it. Also I never used the Scofield Bible even though I've known a number of people who really liked it.

No "gap theory" teacher that I have ever met or that I have ever read has expressed a notion that there was a pre-Adamic race of humans.

The pastor of a church I attended off and on for years believed something like a gap theory. He really didn't like to talk about it because he seemed to think speculation like that was unproductive. he also believed that Cain selected a mate from a pre-adamic race but again, he never dwelled on the topic.

But the "gap theory" is not based on the word "replenish," although we sometimes take notice of it.

The theory is based on several things.

First, the Hebrew bara, translated created in Genesis 1:1 means to make something out of nothing. But elsewhere in the creation account Hebrew word asah was used. This word implies making something out of something else. (Genesis 1:7, 11,12,16,25, 26, and 31, 2:2, 3, 4, 18.)

Second, the Hebrew word hayah, translated "was" in Genesis 1:2 is translated "became" in every other place it occurs in the entire creation account. (Genesis 2:7, 10, 3:22)

Third the Hebrew word translated "without form" in Genesis 1:2 is tohu. But exactly the same form of exactly the same Hebrew word in used in Isaiah 45:18, which explicitly says that the Lord did not make the earth tohu.

So I and many others believe that the Bible says that God created the earth, and it became tohu, but God did not make it tohu. And thus it not only allows the so-called "gap," but actually says it occurred.

Never really got that from the passage. I believe in the 'gap' but think the earth sat void and without form until the Spirit hovered over the face of the deep. That's the primary reason to, the earth wasn't desolate in the sense of some cataclysm, it was covered in darkness and the surface was covered in water. I believe the earth was uninhabitable and uninhabited right up until the the six day creation.

Actually toyed with the idea that some primitive life existed but it seems impossible given that it was total darkness.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.