• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Serpent Seed

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Thread to talk about serpent seed. Currently writing a research paper on this, converted to a dual seedliner only last month. Fascinating stuff, it just seems to explain everything.

I'll post back here in a few days, however if you don't know about the dual seedline theory just look it up. What converted me? I found a Babylonian tablet in the British Musem which fully corroborates it. The ancient mesopotamians knew of two primal races, these are found in the distinct lines of descent in Genesis, chapter 6 -

Cain's descendants (son's of man)
Seth's descendants (son's of God)

In Babylonian/Sumerian these appear as Zalmat-Qaqadi (dark race) while the Sarku (light race). Sarku = Sethites. Zalmat-Qaqadi = dark race. Both were racially different. Cain was Turanian, the other Caucasian. This is because the Cain was the serpent's seed - i'll get more into this later.

Basically this thread is just to discuss the serpent seed. If anyone knows anything etc feel free to post and it can help with my studies.
 

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
It is usually assumed that the entire human race became fallen after the garden of eden but what if it was only the descendants of cain that were fallen (Nephilim) and the rest were unfallen (Sons of God)

This would not imply that one was black and the other white.
In fact, I think blacks evolved from whites much later.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
but what if it was only the descendants of cain that were fallen (Nephilim) and the rest were unfallen (Sons of God)

The Nephilim were the descendants of Cainites and the Sethites.

That the Sethites were the 'sons of God' (Gen. 6) was believed by the following early sources -

Pseudo-Philo
Biblical Antiquities 3:1-2

Genesis Rabbah 26:5-7

Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108a

Julius Africanus
Chronology, Fragment 2

Ephrem the Syrian
Commentary on Genesis 6.3.1

John Chrysostom
Homily on Genesis, 22.6-8

Augustine of Hippo
City of God 15:22-23

The other view is that the Nephilim were the descendants of angels.

Whatever the interpretation, the fact is the flood was a punishment for the intermarriage between the Cainites and Sethites (or if you prefer angels) and only the house of Noah was saved from the region (local flood only in light of the ANE context).

Why was only the house of Noah saved in the region?

Noah was "pure in his generation" (Gen. 6:9) meaning his linage was not mixed. He was of pure stock. The Hebrew word translated as generations - toledoth from yalad meaning ''descent, genealogical registration, genealogies, birth''. Therefore it is clear the house of Noah was ethnically pure and had no Cainite admixture.
 
Upvote 0

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
that verse is difficult and obscure.
I would caution you against leaping to conclusions.

All I know is that the flood occurred around the time that Caucasians (Japhet) evolved.
According to the book of Enoch, Noah was an albino.

The flood story ends with Noah, cursing Canaan, awakening from his wine.
 
Upvote 0

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
If it were a new species that evolved at the time of the flood then the interpretation would be straightforward.

There would be fallen nephilim and unfallen sons of God from some earlier species.
The sons of God would raise this new species up to becomes sons of God.
God looking at the situation declares it to be unstable
and declares that it is just a matter of time before this new species becomes fallen too.

No doubt the canaanites are supposed to be the fallen ones.

But of course it wasnt a new species. It was just a new race.


Not only is this passage difficult and obscure but I suspect that it is also deliberately ambiguous.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research3: Do you think of anything else other than how superior Caucasians are compared to non-Caucasians? Does anything other than the issue of race enter your mind? Anything at all?

The original members of homo sapiens were probably Negroes. All humans are descended from Adam and Eve - and even people who do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve know that all humans are members of the same species and are all related.
God is concerned with the welfare of all humans and anybody can be a Christian if they choose. The Bible backs this up. You're reciting the same tired old blather you recited months ago. You're not going to change anyone's mind.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Research3: Do you think of anything else other than how superior Caucasians are compared to non-Caucasians? Does anything other than the issue of race enter your mind? Anything at all?

The original members of homo sapiens were probably Negroes. All humans are descended from Adam and Eve - and even people who do not believe in a literal Adam and Eve know that all humans are members of the same species and are all related.
God is concerned with the welfare of all humans and anybody can be a Christian if they choose. The Bible backs this up. You're reciting the same tired old blather you recited months ago. You're not going to change anyone's mind.

Once again, you enter threads and make wild claims you can never back up or substantiate biblically.

- Where in Genesis does it say everyone descended from Adam and Eve?

All the Bible says is that God created adom or adam. This is entirely left open to interpet. No where does Genesis say adam was everyone or the ancestor of the whole of mankind.

The authors of Genesis had a very limited geographical knowledge and the ethnography of the Bible is severely restricted. In the other threads a while back you proved yourself to be quite a crank claiming that eskimos and australian aborigines are in scripture, yet when i asked where - you never replied.

So please explain how everyone on Earth today descended from Adam 6,000 or 7,000 years back. Where did the eskimos come from? Where they also on Noah's ark with Peruvian junglemen in the middle-east?
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
I had no idea that the fact that anyone can become a Christian is a "wild claim". :|

Research3 said:
Where in Genesis does it say everyone descended from Adam and Eve?

There was one creation of man:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.​
- Genesis 1:26-27 (NIV)​

Genesis 2:4-19 (NIV) describes how God put the man in Eden and that his name was Adam. Hence, Adam was the first human and father of the human race.​

Now, where in the Bible does it say a) there was more than one creation of man and b) Adam was a white man?

Research3 said:
The authors of Genesis had a very limited geographical knowledge and the ethnography of the Bible is severely restricted. In the other threads a while back you proved yourself to be quite a crank claiming that eskimos and australian aborigines are in scripture, yet when i asked where - you never replied.

I and several other users answered this question already and you completely ignored them. You appear to have difficulty reading comments you disagree with. Here's a fun fact, did you know the Bible doesn't mention house cats? I guess they don't exist.
 
Upvote 0

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
The original members of homo sapiens were probably Negroes.

I am curious to know what you base this on. Surely you don't think that just because Africa today is populated with blacks and our earliest ancestors were from Africa that they were necessarily black. Thats a bit simplistic.


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 evolved from whites at least once in Africa and possibly a second time in India.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
granpa said:
I am curious to know what you base this on. Surely you dont think that just because africa today is populated with blacks and our earliest ancestors were from africa that they were necessarily black. Thats a bit simplistic.

The earliest fossils of modern humans are found in Africa. Go back far enough in the human genome and you'll find that all humans have African ancestry. And yes, black people are - and always have been - native to Africa. :p

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.

I've never heard of this, do you have a source? Besides, humans are not directly descended from chimpanzees, so they are not a good example.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
There was one creation of man:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.​

- Genesis 1:26-27 (NIV)

The Hebrew word translated as man is adam. It does not relate to the whole of mankind - only the Adamites. How do we know this? Throughout scripture adam is rarely ever translated in the generic, but instead only relating to one race or people of specific descent:​



''If the Bible translators had translated the original Hebrew word for man, "Adam," as Adam instead of "man," there would have been no doubt that the Bible deals ONLY with the Adamic race, who were created in the likeness of God to have dominion over all the earth, i.e., over all the other primitive races. An examination of "Young's Analytical Concordance" will show that in over 500 cases the Hebrew word for man in the Old Testament is "Adam," making it self-evident that the Old Testament deals only with what its Hebrew says, the Adamites''


- Tracing Our Ancestors: Were they descendants of Apes or of Adam?


by Frederick Haberman


Now what is the significance of Adam being translated as man? Note the following -​


''...the word ‘‘man’’ is applied only to the Adamic Race, according to Max Mueller, the great Oxford scholar, who stated: "Man, a derivative root, means to think. From this we have the Sanskrit 'Manu,' originally the thinker, then man.''
- Haberman, Ibid.


The term man thus was an ethnic label only applied historically to the Aryans, note that in Sanskrit the progenitor of the Aryans was 'Manu', while in Germanic (see Tacitus' Germania) he appears as 'Mannus'. The term has its etymology only linked to one race - its not universal.​

''Now, where in the Bible does it say a) there was more than one creation of man and b)''

There only was one creation of man. See above. The term man only is found in Hebrew and Sanskrit linked to one race.​

''Adam was a white man?''

Proven by Akkadian, Assyrian and Baylonian tablets and the Hebrew etymology - Adam = ruddy/rosy skinned. I spent a year working in the British Museum and have actually examined such tablets.​

Akkadian/Assyrian: adamatu ''ruddy-skins''/''rosy-race'', according to assyriologist Archibald Sayce: ''adamatu used to express the abstract conceptions of "red race'' (Lectures upon the Assyrian language, 1877, p. 145). In babylonian tablets adamatu or adamu is translated as ''ruddy'' - ''ruddy race'' (see Chaldean Account of Genesis by George Smith).

In Hebrew Adam translates as ruddy, grow or look red, emit redness. - The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) translates Adam as: ‘‘be red… ruddy… redden, grow or look red… emit redness’’. The root of the word Adam is dam, meaning blood (red, see Strong # 1818).​

Anthropologist (PhD) Nina G Jablonski in her book Skin: A Natural History (2006, p. 17) sums this up:​

‘‘…Hemoglobin is one of the skin’s main pigments, but it is most visible in people who have relatively little of the dark brown melanin pigment in their skin. Rosy cheeks and blue veins are more evident in people with light skin than in those with dark skin.’’​

Adam in word derivation comes from the Hebrew word adom, meaning: ‘‘ruddy’’, ‘‘red’’, ‘‘to be red’’, ‘‘to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy -- be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).​

Only people with light skin can can blush or turn rosy. Throughout history ruddy has only ever been a term applied to Caucasians.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
I am curious to know what you base this on.

A poor misunderstanding of history...

Surely you don't think that just because Africa today is populated with blacks and our earliest ancestors were from Africa that they were necessarily black. Thats a bit simplistic.

Spot on.

The fact is North Africa was first settled by Caucasoids, we are indigenous to North Africa. Today you can still go to parts of Algeria and see the native Kabyles who have blonde or red hair and pale skin. They could pass as native english.

Black Sub-Saharan Africans never traveled or migrated anywhere. They couldn't even cross to the closest Island to them. Madagascar was first settled by indonesians.
 
Upvote 0

Research3

Avatar photo: Charles Ottley Groom Napier
May 24, 2011
123
1
✟258.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
The earliest fossils of modern humans are found in Africa. Go back far enough in the human genome and you'll find that all humans have African ancestry. And yes, black people are - and always have been - native to Africa. :p

I can only presume you are some sort of black supremacist or afrocentric as you seem obsessed with bringing black people into every thread.

This thread was to discuss the serpent seed doctrine which has nothing to do with sub-saharan africans (who the authors of genesis never knew and have nothing to do with the events in the garden of eden).
 
Upvote 0

granpa

Noahide/Rationalist
Apr 23, 2007
2,518
68
California
✟3,072.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
The earliest fossils of modern humans are found in Africa. Go back far enough in the human genome and you'll find that all humans have African ancestry. And yes, black people are - and always have been - native to Africa. :p

I perceive that you do a lot of assuming.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Research3 said:
The Hebrew word translated as man is adam. It does not relate to the whole of mankind - only the Adamites. How do we know this?

By apparently basing your entire argument on the ramblings of a racist. Aside from the opinion of this one single man do you have evidence - any at all - that Adam was caucasian, or that non-caucasian races existed before him?

Research3 said:
Proven by Akkadian, Assyrian and Baylonian tablets and the Hebrew etymology - Adam = ruddy/rosy skinned. I spent a year working in the British Museum and have actually examined such tablets.

As yes, the "blushing" argument. I recall you using this before. Using this argument I could say Adam was Japanese, as they too are fair-skinned. Many, many tribes on Earth use a word which using a term meaning "blood" in reference to living things, especially mankind. One tribe known as Pirahã, famous for having one of the simpliest languages in the world, refer to living things as 'blood-one' and to spirits as 'not-blood-one".

I also don't believe your claim that you work at the British museum.

Research3 said:
I can only presume you are some sort of black supremacist or afrocentric as you seem obsessed with bringing black people into every thread.

So far the only mention I've made to black people is the out of africa theory (see below). I like the way you assume I'm favouring Negroes. How do you know I'm not as Asian supremacist? :p

Granpa said:
I perceive that you do a lot of assuming.
On the contrary, the Out of Africa theory is the most accepted theory of human origins in anthropology.

-------

You missed an excellent opportunity Research3. You could have have picked up on my point that many of the earliest hominid and pre-hominid fossils are found in Africa, and argued that this is evidence that a) 'pre-Adamic' races existed before caucasians and b) non-Adamic races evolve but caucasians don't. But you didn't. This would have been a great way to use my own argument against me, but instead you prefer to blindly disagree with whatever I say, simply because I in turn disagree with you.

Your debate tactics are so poor even I can make up better arguments to justify racism than you can.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
36
✟19,524.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
granpa said:
I never said that man didnt come from africa.

You are putting words in my mouth then arguing against them.

So, you're arguing that black people didn't come from Africa? Hell I think even Research3 would disagree with that. :p
 
Upvote 0