Serpent Seed

[granpa]

I dont put many people on my ignore list but I am close to putting you on it.

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

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.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Sorry if I offended you Granpa. I expect racist nonsense from Research3 but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[granpa]

I dont understand what there is to not understand.
I said exactly what I am trying to say. (as I usually do)


I dont know whether Research3 is a racist or not but that should have no bearing on what is being said.
Arguments are wrong because they are wrong not because the person arguing it is a racist.
Rather than just attacking the person why not just show where they are wrong.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

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.

As I said earlier this is not a sensible way of judging race because chimpanzees aren't directly related to us.

I dont know whether Research3 is a racist or not but that should have no bearing on what is being said.
Arguments are wrong because they are wrong not because the person arguing it is a racist.
Rather than just attacking the person why not just show where they are wrong.

I've come across Research3 before under his other usernames Research1 and Research2. He has claimed that only the 'Adamic' race - Caucasians / white people - were made in God's image. He has claimed that white people were created ex-nihilo while non-white people are not humans but rather hominids that evolved from apes, thus making them a lower form of life. Most importantly he has claimed that non-white people cannot be Christians. If that's not racism I don't know what is.

Adding a dash of blasphemy, he has also claimed God is literally a white man, that white people are the 'sons of God' just like Jesus was - except that Jesus was not concieved by the Holy Spirit. I and several other users have debated against him many times and he still doesn't listen. And I can back all this up with links to comments and threads.

 

[Research3]

I perceive that you do a lot of assuming.

That's all the evolutionists have - assumption and faith, no real solid empirical evidence.

 

[granpa]

I'll let you 2 get back to arguing now.

 

[Research3]

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?

Adam was not solely a single man. In light of the Mesopotamian context of Genesis its clear Adam was a dynastic house of multiple members. In fact you can match up the antideluvian patriarchal houses with those on the Sumerian King List. Scholars have already written heavily on this.

The 'creation' of Adam in Genesis refers to the creation of the first dynasty. The first kings came from Eridu (Mesopotamia) c. 5000 BC.

Prior to the first dynasty the Adamites were living in a semi-sedentism culture, basically primitive - as were all the other races.

Their exact origins are left entirely open. However Genesis 1 is very clear the Adamites never evolved. Both the sexes are described as having been created - yet evolutionists believe everyone evolved from asexual germs or bacteria billions of years ago.

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".

Japanese in ancient Mesopotamia?? There were no East Asians in ancient Mesopotamia. This is common knowledge. You really need to read a book on Mesopotamian history.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Adam was not solely a single man. In light of the Mesopotamian context of Genesis its clear Adam was a dynastic house of multiple members.

Possibly, but this is not evidence that he was caucasian.

Prior to the first dynasty the Adamites were living in a semi-sedentism culture, basically primitive - as were all the other races.

So are you arguing that there were human beings (particularly caucasians) before Adam?

Their exact origins are left entirely open.

You say that, but whenever someone suggests that man evolved and that Adam wasn't white, you argue against them. I should also point out that while Adam might have been the first 'human', mankind itself is constantly evolving.

Japanese in ancient Mesopotamia?? There were no East Asians in ancient Mesopotamia. This is common knowledge. You really need to read a book on Mesopotamian history.

No kidding eh?
My argument was that saying his name means 'blood / ruddiness' is not an indicator of his race, for two reasons. First because terms meaning 'blood' are often used to describe living things, especially humans. Second because fair skin is not exclusive to caucasians, but to many people in the northern hemisphere. The Japanese are fair skinned and they too show blood when they blush.

As always I admire your ability to completely miss the point.

 

[Research3]

I've come across Research3 before under his other usernames Research1 and Research2. He has claimed that only the 'Adamic' race - Caucasians / white people - were made in God's image. He has claimed that white people were created ex-nihilo while non-white people are not humans but rather hominids that evolved from apes, thus making them a lower form of life. Most importantly he has claimed that non-white people cannot be Christians. If that's not racism I don't know what is.

Adding a dash of blasphemy, he has also claimed God is literally a white man, that white people are the 'sons of God' just like Jesus was - except that Jesus was not concieved by the Holy Spirit. I and several other users have debated against him many times and he still doesn't listen. And I can back all this up with links to comments and threads.

- Most of this is incorrect or nonsense.

The only thing i would agree with is that i'm not a mainstream Christian, hence i was directed to the Unorthodox Christian Theology thread (where this serpent seed discussion was also posted & there are several dual seedliner poster there). Unorthodox Christians are still Christians.

The funny thing about evolutionists is that they mock creationism on the grounds that its not scientific and supernatural, yet at the same time have no problem with the idea of a spirit imgregnating a women (which in my view is pure crackpottery) and all the other 'miracles' in the Bible. Can't get my head around it.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Most of this is incorrect or nonsense.

If you wish I can dig up your old quotes. I have the tenacity of a lawyer when the mood takes me.

The funny thing about evolutionists is that they mock creationism on the grounds that its not scientific and supernatural, yet at the same time have no problem with the idea of a spirit imgregnating a women (which in my view is pure crackpottery) and all the other 'miracles' in the Bible. Can't get my head around it.

Once again, several users answered this question for you.

 

[Research3]

Possibly, but this is not evidence that he was caucasian.

So are you arguing that there were human beings (particularly caucasians) before Adam?

Adamic Dynasty = 1st Sumerian Dynasty (c. 5000 BC)

Genesis lists 10 antideluvian patriarchs. The Sumerian King List, lists 10 antideluvian rulers. Both sprung from the same historic personages. Not only are they phonetically linked but also in etymology. Genesis takes place in Mesopotamia. Noah = Atra-Hasis Ziusudra/Utnapishtim.

Many similarities in ANE literature of these flood heroes exist -

"the storm had swept...for seven days and seven nights" — Ziusudra 203
"For seven days and seven nights came the storm" — Atrahasis III,iv, 24

The Sumerians who were the patriarchs of Genesis were blue eyed Caucasians.

You say that, but whenever someone suggests that man evolved and that Adam wasn't white, you argue against them. I should also point out that while Adam might have been the first 'human', mankind itself is constantly evolving.

- Adam was Mesopotamian (Sumerian), therefore Caucasoid.
- Evolution is as plausible as creation, both have never been observed and fall outside of empirical science. However i reject evolution because i follow what the Bible says.

Nowhere does the Bible say Adam sprung from an ape.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Adamic Dynasty = 1st Sumerian Dynasty (c. 5000 BC)

Genesis lists 10 antideluvian patriarchs. The Sumerian King List, lists 10 antideluvian rulers. Both sprung from the same historic personages. Not only are they phonetically linked but also in etymology. Genesis takes place in Mesopotamia. Noah = Atra-Hasis Ziusudra/Utnapishtim.

Adam was Mesopotamian (Sumerian), therefore Caucasoid.

This sounds like bits of random and scant evidence you have pieced together to suit your beliefs. May I ask - if you are so convinced that man did not evolved from apes because the Bible does not explicitly say so, then why do you believe that Adam was white and from Mesopotamia when the Bible does not explicitly say so either?

The Bible does not say man evolved, so you don't believe man evolved. The Bible does not say Adam was a white Mesopotamian, so why should you believe he was?

Incidently you never did get round to this "serpent seed" - could you explain?

 

[Research3]

This sounds like bits of random and scant evidence you have pieced together to suit your beliefs. May I ask - if you are so convinced that man did not evolved from apes because the Bible does not explicitly say so, then why do you believe that Adam was white and from Mesopotamia when the Bible does not explicitly say so either?

The Bible does not say man evolved, so you don't believe man evolved. The Bible does not say Adam was a white Mesopotamian, so why should you believe he was?

Incidently you never did get round to this "serpent seed" - could you explain?

- Genesis takes place in Mesopotamia. Eden is positioned around the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen 2: 10 ff). Genesis also references Shinar (Sumeria), Ninevah, Assur (Assyria) and many other Mesopotamian localities.

- Abraham was born in the Mesopotamian city of Ur (Ur Kasdim) according to Genesis, chapter 11.

- All the antideluvian patriarchs were therefore Sumerians. The entire geographic basis of the Book of Genesis is Mesopotamian and Genesis as history is substantiated by the fact the Genesis figures appear in Sumerian (and later Babylonian) cuneiform sources, esp. the King's List.

- Genesis is clear Adam was Caucasian through etymology ''ruddy, rosy'' but furthermore by the fact there are physical descriptions throughout the entire Bible of Caucasoid racial traits of Adamic descendants. King David had red hair, Esau was also a redhead, Laban was a blonde, Leah had blue eyes, Moses was ''fair skinned'' (Yapheh), as was Sarah and Esther etc. The Book of Lamentations describes the Israelites as blue eyed and ''whiter than milk'' while Song of Solomon 1: 5 criticises a Hebrew female for tanning her skin dark by the sun when she should have kept it pale white. The Bible only concerns the history and future of this one race.

- Other people have different origins, Gods and religions. There are roughly something like 10 million recorded distinct Gods throughout history and these other peoples have different religious books which are not related to the Bible.

 

[Research3]

Incidently you never did get round to this "serpent seed" - could you explain?

- There is scriptural evidence of sexual activity in Eden in relation to the fall. Eve had Cain and Abel, but they both had different fathers. Cain's biological father was not Adam, but the 'serpent' while Abel was an Adamite.

In Genesis chapter 6, the Cainites are not called the 'son's of God' while the Sethites are. There is a distinction in descent.

I John 3: 12 - ''Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother''. Cain's father was the wicked or evil one i.e the serpent. Adam was not evil, he was only misled by the serpent.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Genesis is clear Adam was Caucasian through etymology ''ruddy, rosy'' but furthermore by the fact there are physical descriptions throughout the entire Bible of Caucasoid racial traits of Adamic descendants. King David had red hair, Esau was also a redhead, Laban was a blonde, Leah had blue eyes, Moses was ''fair skinned'' (Yapheh), as was Sarah and Esther etc. The Book of Lamentations describes the Israelites as blue eyed and ''whiter than milk'' while Song of Solomon 1: 5 criticises a Hebrew female for tanning her skin dark by the sun when she should have kept it pale white. The Bible only concerns the history and future of this one race.

Quotes please. Where does it mention that King David had red hair, or that Laban was blonde or that Leah had blue eyes? King David is particularly interesting because most of the red-hair mutations found in humans have been traced to Ireland, not the Middle East.

In almost all cultures being fair-skinned is desireable because it suggests they stay inside instead of having to work outside. It suggests wealth. Noticeably in Songs of Solomon 1:5 she has dark skin because she works outside. Lamentations 6 says they have lost their fair skin because their city was destroyed by fire and warefare.

You pick 'n' mix the verses you like. While it's possible that Mesopotamia was located close to where Eden may have been (it's descendant city, Babylon, is mentioned in the Bible), yet again you've made a fundamental mistake about race - being pale-skinned does not automatically make you Caucasian. Southern Caucasians such as Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, and southern Frenchmen are noticeably more tanned than northern ones. Equally some high-caste Arabs and Indians are fair-skinned and even have blue eyes.

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

There is scriptural evidence of sexual activity in Eden in relation to the fall. Eve had Cain and Abel, but they both had different fathers. Cain's biological father was not Adam, but the 'serpent' while Abel was an Adamite.

Again, quotes please. You have a habit of pulling your 'evidence' out of thin air. I also looked through several different versions of the Bible and nowhere in Genesis 6 does it mention 'Cainites'. Confusingly both pedigrees end with 'Lamech', and there's disagreement over whether they were the same person or group:

Lineage according to Genesis 4:
Adam > Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael [alternative spelling of "Methuselah"?] > Lamech

Lineage according to Genesis 5:
Adam > Seth > Enosh > Kenan > Mahalalel > Jared > Enoch > Methuselah > Lamech > Noah

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

Incidently you've started avoiding my questions again:
- Where there any people, especially Caucasian people, before Adam?
- Is there anything in the Bible which suggests the other races were created seperately?

I doubt it, considering Adam is described at the first (and only) created human.

 

[Research3]

King David, 1 Samuel 16: 12 (BBE):

''So he sent and made him come in. Now he had red hair and beautiful eyes and pleasing looks''

Adomi translates as red/ruddy (KJV, NIV etc). See also 1 Samuel 17: 42 -

''And when the Philistine, taking note, saw David, he had a poor opinion of him: for he was only a boy, red-haired and good-looking''

Laban, Genesis 31: 20, his name translates as ''white Syrian'' ''blonde syrian'' (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, #3835; 3836). The blonde haired Syrians are recorded by the ancient Greeks who called them Leuco-Syrians, blonde or white syrians (Strabo, Geographica, XII. 3. 9).

Leah, Genesis 29: 17:

''Leah was tender eyed''

Rakkot (tender) = blue eyes. Rashbam (1085 -1158), medieval rabbi, noted on this verse: (Rakkot) like light-colored ones''. The commentaries of Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, originally published in 1871 as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary note:

''Leah tender-eyed-that is, soft blue eyes''

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Thanks for the answers. A slight quibble though - the BBE (Bible in Basic English?) says "red-hair", but the New International Version of 1984 describes King David as "ruddy", as does the New King James version.

Today we can actually trace the origin of red-hair. Most of the mutations responsible seem to come from an ancient British tribe known as the Picts, from whom both the Scottish and Irish are descended from. It's unlikely King David was one of them. Some rare mutations are found outside northern Europe but most version of the Bible don't describe him as having red hair.

And it is possible for some Jews to have blonde hair and blue eyes, but you seem to be describing them as though they were the norm. I think describing the Jews as blonde-haired, fair-skinned, blue-eyes Aryan lookalikes would raise a few eyebrows among white supremacist.

Thanks for actually providing a few references. Care to answer any of my other questions?

 

[Papias]

r3 wrote:

Eve had Cain and Abel, but they both had different fathers. Cain's biological father was not Adam, but the 'serpent'

Genesis 4:1 has:

Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.”

Papias

 

[Research3]

Thanks for the answers. A slight quibble though - the BBE (Bible in Basic English?) says "red-hair", but the New International Version of 1984 describes King David as "ruddy", as does the New King James version.

Ruddy means red or reddish and can mean red hair. Xenophanes for example in an ancient fragment called the Thracians ruddy (red haired) and blue eyed (Diels, B16, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker). 1 Samuel 17: 42 also calls King David as 'white'' or of ''fair countenance'' (KJV). The Hebrew word means ''to be fair'' or ''light (skinned)'' (see Strong's Hebrew Dictionary). King David was therefore a pale skinned redhead. Genesis Rabbah and similar Jewish sources also describe King David as a redhead, all of these you can find online the website 'Jewishlibrary'.

Today we can actually trace the origin of red-hair. Most of the mutations responsible seem to come from an ancient British tribe known as the Picts, from whom both the Scottish and Irish are descended from. It's unlikely King David was one of them. Some rare mutations are found outside northern Europe but most version of the Bible don't describe him as having red hair.

The Picts/Scots descend from Israel. The Davidic line also is the British monarchy. How did this happen? You can read up in literature of how Tea-Tephi the daughter of King Zedekiah of Judah traveled to Ireland. There are also very old manuscripts in the British Library which trace Queen Victoria's linage back to King David. Indeed, even Queen Victoria herself believed she was ruling the throne of the Royal House of David. Again, there is so much of this online and in books, its open research. I don't need to go into this here.

Care to answer any of my other questions?

- You are asking these questions because you take a different view on the Bible. To you the God of the Bible is the creator of everyone, to me only of one specific people (hence i usually post in Unorthodox Theology). I study the Bible from a scholarly ANE context, i don't believe God created everyone or has anything to do with others, instead only those who have their origins in Mesopotamia. The God of the Bible, Yahweh, in my view is only the God of Adamites (Sumerians) and their descendants such as the Israelites. Not everyone. Other races have completely different Gods (creators) and religions and religious books.

 

[Research3]

r3 wrote:



Genesis 4:1 has:

Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.”

Papias

- Note how Cain or his descendants are only called 'man' while the Sethites through adam - the 'son's of God' (see Gen. 6).

Two different lines of descent.