Pre-Adamite Doctrine, History and Teaching

Status
Not open for further replies.

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
Archaic Homo sapiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this says that archaic homo sapiens go back 500,000 years.

of course, homo erectus goes back 1.5 million years.

Estimates vary, I put this together some time ago.

Early Ancestors:

A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of ~430cc lived about 3.5 mya.
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of ~480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya.
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.​

(Source: Smithsonian Human Family Tree)

Homo Erectus Skulls:

Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc

Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc​

(Source: Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 2006)

Turkana Boy would have been anatomically human in every sense except his skull was a little below average.
 
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 have affros like the Negros. The kinky hair is found only among blacks.

Buddy if you can't tell the diffrence between two completely different people from two completely different continents because you think they kinda look the same, well ... ^_^

theWaris1 said:
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?

Cheery-picking much? All that stuff about Africa is rubbish but when it's an apparently 'white' skeleton found in North America it MUST be true man, it MUST be!


Incidently the next time a creationists complains that evolution is racist I'm going to show them this thread, and all the other threads Research3 has commented it.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Then you changed the date -



At least try to keep your 'facts' straight.

Try to learn to read. I pointed out the YEC date of the flood is estimated at 2350 BC (e.g. James Ussher).

I'm not a YEC. I follow the date on the Sumerian King List and the geological evidence (flood strata at Kish dated c.2950 BC).
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Have you seen the articles on the oldest known skeletal remains in North America being from Caucasians? At least two separate finds predate any other remains.

Sorry but this is false. Americas is homeland to the Amerindians not Caucasians. The only people claiming whites were in Americas first are white american supremacists on websites like Stormfront.

Because Americans know they are not indigenous to America and invaded they invent nonsense about them being there before the Amerindians. Stems out of insecurity, and its just like the crazy Afrocentrics who think they were in Europe before whites. Their evidence? They claim stuff like the legendary ''black dwarves'' of Norse mythology were infact Africoid pygmies. LOL.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
And as Ishraqiyun pointed out, much as this Aryan business was romantized by late 19th / early 20th century racialists.

Irrelevent. You only have to go to North India today to see how different the Northern Indians are to the southern Dravidians. This is because of their Aryan genes.

All the bollywood models are the lighter skinned Aryans.

Aryan Indian -

Bollywood_finalist_1.jpg


Dravidian:

3621073057_884a27ba0c.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
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.

They sprung from a common racial ancestor, anthropologists call it the ''proto-australoid''.

Basics -

Proto-Australoid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-Afro-Negrito's
-Australian Aborigines
- Capoids (Bushmen)
- Negroids

--- Dravidian Indians are considered to be an Australoid offshoot.

Australoid race - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huxley's original model included populations in India. Some scholars still use the term Australoid denote the small populations, mainly of some of the Adivasi and the Andamanese people in India and the Veddas in Sri Lanka. The American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1996, p. 382) by American Association of Physical Anthropologists. L. L. (Luigi Luca) Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza in their text, The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994, P. 241) both use the term

Kashyap (2006) designates 23 out of 54 Indian populations studied as Australoid.
 
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Sorry but this is false. Americas is homeland to the Amerindians not Caucasians. The only people claiming whites were in Americas first are white american supremacists on websites like Stormfront.

Because Americans know they are not indigenous to America and invaded they invent nonsense about them being there before the Amerindians. Stems out of insecurity, and its just like the crazy Afrocentrics who think they were in Europe before whites. Their evidence? They claim stuff like the legendary ''black dwarves'' of Norse mythology were infact Africoid pygmies. LOL.
Who you disputing?

caucasian skeletons found 15000 year in morth america - Google Search

it's on science frontiers and the Uni of Texas'
The Kennewick man is 9300 year old White man.

It isn't something I made up or from stormfront. It is a scientific find. American bash often?
Get over yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Buddy if you can't tell the diffrence between two completely different people from two completely different continents because you think they kinda look the same, well ... ^_^



Cheery-picking much? All that stuff about Africa is rubbish but when it's an apparently 'white' skeleton found in North America it MUST be true man, it MUST be!


Incidently the next time a creationists complains that evolution is racist I'm going to show them this thread, and all the other threads Research3 has commented it.
Differences? There are difference that come from every group that branches off of another.

Do the Swedes look just like Norwegians or Danes?
Do either look just like Germans? How about Switz?
They all have differences but yet came from similar origins.


You invented the racial crap here bud. I never said the white bones were a true man. That came from your mind. You should show them just how racist you are. You can take your racist attitude and ignorance somewhere else.
 
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

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Differences? There are difference that come from every group that branches off of another.

Do the Swedes look just like Norwegians or Danes?
Do either look just like Germans? How about Switz?
They all have differences but yet came from similar origins.


You invented the racial crap here bud. I never said the white bones were a true man. That came from your mind. You should show them just how racist you are. You can take your racist attitude and ignorance somewhere else.

You are as bad as notedstrangeperson. Both of your views are linked to your modern socio-political outlook. While notedstrangeperson is a far lefty whose views are all based on a politically correct agenda, you appear to be a right ring american eurocentric who has also a personal agenda and twists archaeological findings to claim europeans were in america before the Amerindian. Not good. You are basically dumping on all academic research and history of the Americas. Your views are also deeply offensive to the real native amerindian peoples of America.
 
Upvote 0

theWaris1

Seeking
Apr 21, 2011
593
26
The Obamanation
✟8,403.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You are as bad as notedstrangeperson. Both of your views are linked to your modern socio-political outlook. While notedstrangeperson is a far lefty whose views are all based on a politically correct agenda, you appear to be a right ring american eurocentric who has also a personal agenda and twists archaeological findings to claim europeans were in america before the Amerindian. Not good. You are basically dumping on all academic research and history of the Americas. Your views are also deeply offensive to the real native amerindian peoples of America.
I did a quick search and didn't investigate every link. the skeleton finds were big news. My wife is part Amerindian. You just another American bashing kook with your own agenda. My agenda is simply to seek truth where ever it may be found. You are a liar that thinks you know much.
You are a big lie.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Bible basics -

Israel to be a seperate people, never to intermarry (Amos 9: 9; Deuteronomy 7: 3; Exodus 34: 16).

Isaac was not allowed to marry outside of his own people (Genesis 24: 4; 28: 1), nor Jacob (Genesis 28: 6).

The sin of Solomon was taking wives from other ethnic-groups or races (1 Kings 11: 2).

Deuteronomy 23: 2 - Israelites are not allowed to produce mamzers. James Strong's Hebrew Dictionary (1890) defines a mamzer as a mongrel, the Luther Bible (1584) defines it as a mischling (mixed race or cross-breed) as well as Webster's Dictionary which also defines mamzer as a mongrel or mixed race.

A Comprehensive Lexicon by John Pickering (1847), for the noun moichidios: "bastard, spurious." This Greek word should correctly be translated as mongrel, and a true understanding of the English language reveals that when Pickering, in 1847, used the word bastard, he too meant a mongrel. This was a common understanding of the word in the mid‑19th century and before, as we shall prove later. Pickering was not the only one, however, to understand that the word moichidios meant mongrel.

In Lexicon Manuale by Cornelius Schrevel (1796), the word moichidios is defined with the Latin word "adulterinus." According to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, or OLD, adulterinus means: "adulterated, impure." Lewis and Short add: "not full‑blooded." Leverett's Lexicon of the Latin Language: "begotten basely, not thorough‑bred, not full‑blooded, adulterated." Most importantly, however, A Large Dictionary by Thomas Holyoke (1672) states that adulterinus is equivalent (in the ancient translations and commentaries) to the Hebrew mamzir, which according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary means "a mongrel." This dictionary also states in the same definition that the Greek moichikos is equivalent to mamzir and also is equivalent to the Greek kibdelos which is defined by LSJ as: "adulterated, base." We will discuss Holyoke's definitions and the word kibdelos in more detail later, but what is important to notice here is that all of these lexical authorities agree that the Latin word adulterinus means "mongrel," and therefore the Greek word moichidios, universally defined by this Latin word, also means mongrel. Pickering's definition of bastard must be understood to have its mid‑19th century meaning of mongrel.

Deu 23: 2 NIV -

No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.

Deu. 23: 2 KJV
A bastard (mamzer - mixed race) shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

--- According to Deuteronomy none-pure Israelites from forbidden intermarriages can never enter the congregation of the Lord (heaven)....

not even after the tenth generation. What a sin...

This is in your Bible. Of course the liberal christians will put up all sorts of excuses...
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
More Bible basics -

Paul only considered Christian females to be one race (Adamites).

KJV -

''But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering''

Only certian races can grown hair long for covering.

7417522-long-beautiful-hair-covering-half-face.jpg


Crystal-Gayle-Hair.jpg


In contrast many races including the negroids cannot grow straight hair that covers them:

2714463807_8ee728b740.jpg


Again this is in your Bible.

Evidently Paul considered female Adamites to be the ONLY Christians. There are far more ethnological references.
 
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

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How does hair being "kinky" prevent it from covering a person? I would say it covers just as well as straight hair.

20090424oprahshair.jpg


Why don't Europeans speak a Semitic language if they are actually descended form the Israelites? Did they forget it and borrow someone elses language?
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
How does hair being "kinky" prevent it from covering a person? I would say it covers just as well as straight hair.

Wooly hair cannot grow long, people with it cannot cover themselves.

Why don't Europeans speak a Semitic language if they are actually descended form the Israelites? Did they forget it and borrow someone elses language?

Isaiah 28: 11. The House of Israel lost their original languages.

- If the Israelites continued to speak Hebrew then they couldn't be the Israelites. The language is a main identity as Israel is to be found among people who do not speak Hebrew.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research3 said:
Irrelevent. You only have to go to North India today to see how different the Northern Indians are to the southern Dravidians. This is because of their Aryan genes.

The photographs you've posted aren't of Northern and Southern Indians, they're high- and low-caste Indians. The caste system is based on class, not race, and originates from Hinduism.

Your understanding of the link from Wikipedia (not a reliable source BTW) on Proto-Australoids is mistaken too. The term 'Aboriginal' simply refers to indigenous people, not just the natives of Australia. Noticably the article not only tracks the route to Australia but also the route to north America - so unless you think Red Indians are also 'negroids' the link is irrelevent.

theWaris1 said:
(To Notedstrangeperson) You invented the racial crap here bud. I never said the white bones were a true man. That came from your mind. You should show them just how racist you are. You can take your racist attitude and ignorance somewhere else.

Followed by ...

Research3 said:
(To theWaris1) You are as bad as notedstrangeperson. Both of your views are linked to your modern socio-political outlook. While notedstrangeperson is a far lefty whose views are all based on a politically correct agenda, you appear to be a right ring american eurocentric who has also a personal agenda and twists archaeological findings to claim europeans were in america before the Amerindian. Not good. You are basically dumping on all academic research and history of the Americas. Your views are also deeply offensive to the real native amerindian peoples of America.

Sucks to be called a racist doesn't it? :p
Funny to see him try and defend Native Americans though. Is this the begining of a new, more tolerant Research3?

Research3 said:
No i'm a true racial/ethno nationalist/CI proponent. I don't muck around with my ideology and don't have time for posers who fool around with it.

As i predicted you yourself are either a mutt, and its no surprise your wife is also mixed race. I'm not therefore sure why you are toying around with British Israelism or Christian Identity tenets (e.g. Northern Europeans are true Israel). The Bible commands the Israelites to remain a seperate people and never to intermarry. America is the polar opposite of this, look at your history - and furthermore you just admitted your wife is not white. I'm not sure then why you are subscribing to CI/BI beliefs, you are dumbing down our movement.

Guess not. Anyone who disagrees with with Research3 is obviously one of those disgusting, mongrel heathens God hates so much. How dare you betray your race by marrying a non-Adamite.

Ouch. You're turning into a vicious little bully Research3. And I'm pretty sure it's damn near impossible to further dumb down the Christian Identity movement. ;)

Research3 said:
''But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering''

Only certian races can grown hair long for covering.

Ah, so next on the long list of requirements for Adamites is long hair. I think Muslims have a similar law regarding beards length. Interestingly the record for the world's longest hair belongs to Xie Qiuping. Judging by her name I'm guesing she's not an 'Adamite'.

-----------------

Following a quick calculation regarding Deuteronomy 23:2, anybody who is (roughly) more than 1/1000th or 0.01% non-Jewish cannot be a Jewish. Or "Adamite". Damn. Can anybody here trace their family lineage back 10 generations? I'm pretty sure you'll find a good chunk of 'mongrel' genes in there.

On a side-note Research3, why do you keep using the Old Testament to describe Christianity? Christianity didn't even exist when it was written.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I think you have done a good job exposing the racist ( more correctly "tirbalist" because people didn't even know about the modern concept of "race" then) nature of the so called Old Testament. It also has divinely sanctioned calls for ethnic cleansing and bigotry. That's one of the reasons I don't follow it. It doesn't coincide with the teachings of the peaceful , loving, and internationalist Christ. Unfortunatly for your position the "race" that it favors isn't "europeans" or "aryans". Rather it's a "race" closely related to and simmilar in appearnce with the Arabs. Europeans aren't Israelites. Their ancestors worshiped Gods like Zeus, Odin, Lugh, Abellio, etc.. and not YHWH. The ancestors of the Saxxons were not semeitic desert dwelling nomads. I also highly doubt there is such a thing as "pure race" to begin with. We are all mixed.
 
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

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
there may have been a time when the descendants of adam were told not to marry non-adamites
but today all people are descended from adam
so there should be no prohibition against intermarrying.

as for the israelites, well i have stated elsewhere that I thought
they might have had some kind of breeding program going on.
I have a pretty good idea of what they might have been trying to create
but lets not get into that here.
(It should be obvious. And it wasnt aryans)

granpa said:
chimpanzees are born white and become black as they age.
at some point hominids evolved that remained white throughout life.
this is called neoteny.

Since all modern blacks are born black and remain black it seems more probable that they (modern blacks) evolved from whites at least once in Africa and possibly a second time in India.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.