Serpent Seed

[Notedstrangeperson]

Ruddy means red or reddish and can mean red hair.

I still maintain that "ruddiness" refers to the rosiness found in pale skin rather than actual red hair, but I'm not completely against the idea.

The Picts/Scots descend from Israel.

No. Just no. The Picts are the natives of the British Isles and have been living here since the Mesolithic era or 'middle stone age', approximately between 8000-4000 B.C. Mesopotamia however began roughly 5,500 years ago (begining at around 3,500 B.C.). In short the Picts are an ancient people who predate the Mesopotamians. They are not directly descended from them.

You're British, why do you care about ancient Israel more than ancient Britain?

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.

I'm afraid you do. If you're going to make a claim you need to back it up.

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.

I contend that your arguments are not only factually wrong but morally wrong too, in that they prevent non-Caucasians from becoming Christians. If the early writers of the Bible were only concerned with a small group of people, I would also ask why it's any more valid or important than other myths and religions.

And you avoided my questions again too. They're listed here.

 

[Papias]

r3 wrote:

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.

First, you earlier claimed that Cain was fathered by the serpent - but Gen 4:1 clearly states that Adam is Cain's father. So please either admit this or offer some reason why your literal interpretation ignores the literal text.

Second, I don't see at all what you are talking about. The "sons of God" in Gen 6 are never said to be Sethites - they appear out of nowhere, and could well be divine offspring from other events.

Third - to preserve two separate, parallel lines, without interbreeding, is practically impossible over any significant length of time. That's especially true in light of the first point (that a literal reading clearly says Cain is Adam's son).

Fourth - and most importantly - in addition to all of this being highly speculative, with little support, why does any of it matter? If Cain, Seth, Enoch, etc, existed, than nearly everyone on earth is descended from them anyway. You seem to not understand that basic math makes most people alive today descended from nearly all ancient races - including the ancient Sumerians, Gauls, Israelites, Egyptians, Chinese, Babylonians, Picts, Russians, Mongols, Assyrians, and so on. They are all our ancestors. That's what makes statements like this:

There are also very old manuscripts in the British Library which trace Queen Victoria's linage back to King David.

so silly. We are all (you, me, NSP, Obama, Justin Bieber and all Europeans) descended from King David, if he existed. We are also all descended from pharaohs, popes, peasants, and King Nebuchadnezzer. There's no such thing as a "separate line".


To suppose that there would be enforced divine divisions based on ancient regional groups ignores reality as well as the idea of a non-bigoted God.

Papias

 

[Research3]

The Picts are the natives of the British Isles and have been living here since the Mesolithic era or 'middle stone age', approximately between 8000-4000 B.C.

The Picts arrived in Scotland roughly between the 6th - 2nd century BC, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Picts have been dated to the British Iron Age (c. 750 - 50 BC). Most scholars preferring a figure inbetween those two extremes. Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle etc place their origin in Scythia from where they migrated around 300 BC.

Mesopotamia however began roughly 5,500 years ago (begining at around 3,500 B.C.). In short the Picts are an ancient people who predate the Mesopotamians. They are not directly descended from them.

Civilization began in Mesopotamia c. 5300 BC (Eridu Ubaid I). The Picts are no older than the 8th century BC (or see the range above estimated by scholars). There is no evidence the Picts descended from the Mesolithic inhabitants of Britain.

I think we are working with different takings on history. I use historical sources, i'm not sure where you picked up your odd views.

You're British, why do you care about ancient Israel more than ancient Britain?

Because the Israelites are the ethnic-British (Picts, Celts, Scots, Anglo-Saxons etc). Some links on the identity -

The British-Israel-World Federation
PlymouthNY.Net
The Ensign Message-Official Journal of the Ensign Trust

I would also ask why it's any more valid or important than other myths and religions.

It's only valid and important to descendants of Adam hence the name of the first book - genesis - ''The coming into being of something; the origin''. Read Gen 5: 1 - ''these are the generations (toledoth) of Adam'' (toledoth = genealogy, descent).

''By continuing our study of Genesis, we see how this Adamic blood line continues on through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We can see in the presentation of The Heirs of the Promise, that this bloodline continues on to this day. A closer study will reveal that the same enemies of Christ are working harder than ever to destroy this bloodline which we now refer to as the True Israelites, Christian Anglo- Saxon races. Our title question asked "Who Was the Bible Written For?" It was written for the True Israelites, God's chosen race - The descendants of Adam through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Bible was not written for the pre-Adamic races.'' Type on search engine for article: The Bible - For Whom Was It Written?

 

[Research3]

First, you earlier claimed that Cain was fathered by the serpent - but Gen 4:1 clearly states that Adam is Cain's father.

Gen 4: 1 says no such thing. All it says is that Adam ''knew'' (yada) Eve and in most Bible translations there is a fullspot after.

Yada has been translated more than 100 different ways.

Nowhere does the Bible say Adam is Cain's father. Quite the opposite. Note that in Jude 1: 14 Cain is not listed as a descendant of Adam. The authors knew Cain had a different father. Note also 1 John 3: 12 -

''Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother''

Matthew 13: 38 -

''The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]''

The serpent seed doctrine is found throughout the entire Bible.

Second, I don't see at all what you are talking about. The "sons of God" in Gen 6 are never said to be Sethites - they appear out of nowhere, and could well be divine offspring from other events.

Cains descendants were evil while the Sethites never were. This is made clear in Genesis as Cain's line is linked to badness or evil i.e polygamy and violence.

Third - to preserve two separate, parallel lines, without interbreeding, is practically impossible over any significant length of time. That's especially true in light of the first point (that a literal reading clearly says Cain is Adam's son).

Hence Noah and his house were only of pure stock and were saved. Genesis calls him of ''perfect generations''.His linage was not mixed with the Cainites.

Fourth - and most importantly - in addition to all of this being highly speculative, with little support, why does any of it matter? If Cain, Seth, Enoch, etc, existed, than nearly everyone on earth is descended from them anyway. You seem to not understand that basic math makes most people alive today descended from nearly all ancient races - including the ancient Sumerians, Gauls, Israelites, Egyptians, Chinese, Babylonians, Picts, Russians, Mongols, Assyrians, and so on. They are all our ancestors. That's what makes statements like this:

Stop with the cranky posts. So eskimos descend from Gauls and the Sumerians? Basic history prooves we all have different ancestors.

To suppose that there would be enforced divine divisions based on ancient regional groups ignores reality as well as the idea of a non-bigoted God.

Papias

And note how your take on the Bible is influenced by your modern socio-political views. Instead of reading the scripture you twist it to fit your politics or views on society.

 

[Papias]

r3 wrote:

Gen 4: 1 says no such thing. All it says is that Adam ''knew'' (yada) Eve and in most Bible translations there is a fullspot after.

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.”
Being that "yada" - "knew" is often used for "had sex with", and since it says in the same verse that Eve then became pregnant, it's hard to justify denying that Adam was Cain's father.

Note that in Jude 1: 14 Cain is not listed as a descendant of Adam.

Here's Jude 1:14-

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him......

So Seth, Noah, and everyone else aren't descendants of Adam, since they aren't mentioned in Jude 1:14, which only mentions Enoch? Come on! Even Enoch's father, Jared, isn't mentioned in Jude 1:14. So you are saying Enoch's father isn't descended from Adam, but Enoch is?

Here's John 3:12-

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

I think you mean 1st John 3:12, which only points out that Cain is a murderer (duh.) and doesn't say anything about his paternity.

I'd be hard pressed to find a more clear example of someone making up some idea and reading it into their chosen Bible.

The serpent seed doctrine is found throughout the entire Bible.

Please show me a verse that clearly states that Cain resulted from Eve having sex with an animal.

Hence Noah and his house were only of pure stock and were saved. Genesis calls him of ''perfect generations''.His linage was not mixed with the Cainites.

Here is Gen 6:9-
This is the account of Noah and his family.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.


Again, no reference to Noah's geneology. I see a pattern here. The Bible scholars translated the NIV as their learning best leads them to do, and you come along, and decide that you know better, and "re translate" (actually, "reword") the text yourself to mean what you want it to mean to support your racism.

Cains descendants were evil while the Sethites never were.

So in your racist form of Chrisianity, depending on who your parents were, you'll be evil and punished forever in hell, or inescapably good and destined for heaven? Do you consider God to be a just God? Do you consider punishment by heredity to be just?

So eskimos descend from Gauls and the Sumerians? Basic history prooves we all have different ancestors.

By "most people", I mean to exclude indigenous populations. All of us with European ancestors are descended as I described. Just do the math - you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 gg grandparents, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, and so on. Simple math shows that going back just 500 years gives about a million ancestors, and the numbers get really huge after that. There is tons of overlap, but also, because people move around, you soon include most everyone in Europe, the middle east, and so on.

Looking in the other direction, you see the same thing. That's why we are all descended from king david, who had over a half dozen wives and dozens of children. All those kids married non-David line people, and all their kids were of course descended from David, doubling the number. That process would grow the number of david descendants to hundreds in less than a century (by 900 BC), and to the whole population of Jerusalem by 700 BC, and start to include much of the surrounding cities too. By 600 BC, most Jews were descendants of David. That's when the diaspora happend (~ 600 BC), sending those descendants of David out across the mediterranean. Some in Gaul, Italy, Greece, and so on. By 100 BC that means that most of the population around the mediterranean was descended from david, so within a few centuries people in Germany and other nothern countries would be too, and by 800 AD, practically everyone in Europe. So of course we all have David as an ancestor. You can do the math yourself.

And note how your take on the Bible is influenced by your modern socio-political views. Instead of reading the scripture you twist it to fit your politics or views on society.

Oh no! I've failed to make my Christianity racist enough! I'm doomed for sure for that one!

On another note - the Picts descended mostly from local stock, according to historians, and did not arrive as a mass migration from israel.

Caledonians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-Papias, who is starting to think that he has better uses for his time.

 

[Research3]

Here's Jude 1:14-

Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him......

No, the point is the figure - 'seventh'. If Cain was Adam's son, then Enoch should be the eighth. However this is not the case (Abel was murdered before having any descendants so he doesn't appear on the geneaology list). Cain is never considered a biological descendant of Adam in the New Testament. Instead Cain's father is called the ''wicked one'' i.e not Adam since Adam was not evil or wicked. The serpent however was.

I think you mean 1st John 3:12, which only points out that Cain is a murderer (duh.) and doesn't say anything about his paternity.

Wrong again.

I John 3: 12 -

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one - NIV
Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one - KJV
not as Cain -- of the evil one he was - YLT

Please show me a verse that clearly states that Cain resulted from Eve having sex with an animal.

Genesis 3: 13 which notes Eve was 'beguiled' or 'seduced'. Furthermore when Eve knew of her sin, she (and Adam) covered their sexual parts in lioncloth - a clear symbolic reference to the sexual context.

Here is Gen 6:9-
This is the account of Noah and his family.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.


Again, no reference to Noah's geneology. I see a pattern here. The Bible scholars translated the NIV as their learning best leads them to do, and you come along, and decide that you know better, and "re translate" (actually, "reword") the text yourself to mean what you want it to mean to support your racism.

Check a Hebrew dictionary. Genesis was not written in English. The NIV is a modern English translation. If you check the Hebrew in this verse, you will find the word toledoth as well as dor - both translated as ''genealogical registration, descent, birth''. Noah was tamim dor - blameless, perfect in his generations, descent. He was of pure stock.

All those kids married non-David line people

Obviously false since the Old Testament prohibited the Israelites and Jews to interrmarry and those that did were punished (i.e Solomon).

The Israelites were to remain a seperate race, unmixed (Amos 9: 9; Deuteronomy 7: 3; Exodus 34: 16).

Deuteromomy 7: 3 -

''Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons''

I guess liberal Christians with a political correct agenda just rip these passages out their Bible.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The Picts arrived in Scotland roughly between the 6th - 2nd century BC, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Picts have been dated to the British Iron Age (c. 750 - 50 BC).

This site dedicated to scottish history shows a prehistoric villiage dated to around 5,000 years old. Another site looks at the origins of the ancient Britons, speculating that they came from southern Spain, France or even Scandinavia, but no mention of Israel.

I should also add a correction to the date of Mesopotamia (which according to this sites dates between 8000-2000 B.C.) but the first cities, palaces and recorded history only appear at around 3,500-3000 B.C. The peoples of Britain - the Picts and Celts being just two examples - arrived in Britain a long, long time before Mesopotamia existed.
Also keep in mind that the British Iron Age refers to cultural advancement rather than a specific time. While British tribes were learning how to wield metal, ancient Egyptian civilisation was already thousands of years old.

There is no evidence the Picts descended from the Mesolithic inhabitants of Britain.

Was that a spelling mistake? Elsewhere you wrote -

The Picts/Scots descend from Israel. The Davidic line also is the British monarchy.
...The Israelites are the ethnic-British (Picts, Celts, Scots, Anglo-Saxons etc). Some links on the identity

So which is it?

It's only valid and important to descendants of Adam hence the name of the first book - genesis - ''The coming into being of something; the origin''. Read Gen 5: 1 - ''these are the generations (toledoth) of Adam'' (toledoth = genealogy, descent).

I've heard you argue before that only caucasians can be christians (which is incorrect, for several reasons). So now are you arguing only Arabs can be Muslims or only East Asians can be Buddhists? And if so, what does that say about the validity of religion? Can Muslims, Christians and Buddhists all get into heaven?


[EDIT] I thought you might be interested in a skeleton known as "Cheddar Man", found in Somerset. He is estimated to be about 9,000 years old (making him older than Mesopotamian civilisation) and - this is revealing - genetic studies showed be belonged to haplogroup U, which is thought to have originated in the Middle East. Specifically he belonged to halpogroup U5, which is one of the oldest European mtDNA groups.

 

[Papias]

r3 wrote:

No, the point is the figure - 'seventh'. If Cain was Adam's son, then Enoch should be the eighth.

Simply false, because Cain was not Seth's father. It's counting generations from Adam, and any siblings that Seth had are not counted because they are siblings not parents. After all, Genesis also says that Adam and Eve had lots of other kids - they aren't counted in the line to Enoch for the same reason. So Jude 1 says nothing about Cain's paternity.

Cain is never considered a biological descendant of Adam in the New Testament.

His parentage from Adam is never denied, in either your old testament, my old testament or either of our Bibles.

I John 3: 12 -

Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one - NIV
Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one - KJV
not as Cain -- of the evil one he was - YLT

Of course, because he was inspired by the devil, just like others in the old testament. That doesn't say that the devil is his father.

Please show me a verse that clearly states that Cain resulted from Eve having sex with an animal.

Genesis 3: 13 which notes Eve was 'beguiled' or 'seduced'. Furthermore when Eve knew of her sin, she (and Adam) covered their sexual parts in lioncloth - a clear symbolic reference to the sexual context.

Gen 3: 13-

Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
​

Sorry, it doesn't say anything about her having sex with an animal.

The loincloths are because their eyes were opened and they felt ashamed of their nakedness - even if eve had had sex with the snake, then why would Adam cover up? It's clearly a story about humans becoming self-aware.

Check a Hebrew dictionary. Genesis was not written in English. The NIV is a modern English translation. If you check the Hebrew in this verse, you will find the word toledoth as well as dor - both translated as ''genealogical registration, descent, birth''. Noah was tamim dor - blameless, perfect in his generations, descent. He was of pure stock.

So you are still maintaining that you are a better Hebrew expert than the experts who translated the NIV? Wow, that's delusional arrogance. I at least admit that I'm not a seasoned Bible scholar and an expert in ancient Hebrew.
​

All those kids married non-David line people

Obviously false since the Old Testament prohibited the Israelites and Jews to interrmarry and those that did were punished (i.e Solomon).

So they all married their sisters and half sisters? Isn't that prohibited in Leviticus?

The Israelites were to remain a seperate race, unmixed (Amos 9: 9; Deuteronomy 7: 3; Exodus 34: 16).

Deuteromomy 7: 3 -

''Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons''

I guess liberal Christians with a political correct agenda just rip these passages out their Bible.

No, but we liberal Christians are adult enough to know that it is naive to think that such a situation is never violated. Besides, for much of the scenario I laid out (before the diaspora), there weren't marrying into other non-jewish groups, but were marrying other jews.


r3, I might not be able to get back to this thread for a while. I hope I've shown that you are reading your own racism into your Bible. From now on, could you do me a favor? Could you please never tell anyone about your racist Christianity? When people hear of your version of Christianity, it makes it much harder for people like me to convince people that Christianity is harmless and good for society.

Papias

​

 

[Research3]

This site dedicated to scottish history shows a prehistoric villiage dated to around 5,000 years old. Another site looks at the origins of the ancient Britons, speculating that they came from southern Spain, France or even Scandinavia, but no mention of Israel.

They are pre-adamites.

The Adamite occupation of Britain only began with the Trojans (c. 1100 BC) or if earlier legends can be trusted, the Samotheans around 2000 BC.

Type this on google: List of legendary kings of Britain

I wrote most of this article, refer to the dates. Also see my article on Tea Tephi at the bottom and Iolo Morganwg's Welsh Kings + Scota.

I should also add a correction to the date of Mesopotamia (which according to this sites dates between 8000-2000 B.C.) but the first cities, palaces and recorded history only appear at around 3,500-3000 B.C. The peoples of Britain - the Picts and Celts being just two examples - arrived in Britain a long, long time before Mesopotamia existed.

There is no evidence the Celts or Picts descended from the Mesolithic pre-Adamite inhabitants. There is evidence Britain was occupied as early as 12,000 BC, i don't dispute dates by radiocarbon testing. These were however a primitive semi-sedentary peoples who were wiped out. They are basically where the legends of the 'giants' came from in British mythology, much like the earlier Cro-Magnon inhabitants or Hominids.

So which is it?

The mesolithics are not the basis of who the ethnic-British people descend from. They were pre-adamites who were wiped out (i.e through war or assimilation). Cheddar man is evidence that there was some degree of assimilation, which is why a minority of people have a partial DNA match. Nothing non-expected there. People across Europe have some degree of Mesolithic or even Paleolithic DNA. The Adamites only migrated into parts of Europe, during the post-flood period. Europe was already long settled by pre-adamites.

Can Muslims, Christians and Buddhists all get into heaven?

- Yes, all different ones though, and i'm sure there are different afterlifes etc. In my view there are hundreds or thousands of Gods. This is why for my monolatrist views i was confined mostly to Unorthodox Theology. As i said from the start, i don't believe in a universal God.

I thought you might be interested in a skeleton known as "Cheddar Man", found in Somerset. He is estimated to be about 9,000 years old (making him older than Mesopotamian civilisation) and - this is revealing - genetic studies showed be belonged to haplogroup U, which is thought to have originated in the Middle East. Specifically he belonged to halpogroup U5, which is one of the oldest European mtDNA groups.

See above.

 

[granpa]

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.



- 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.

the sumerian king list places the flood at 25,000 years ago and the king list itself goes back 250,000 years

Sumerian King List - Religion-wiki

 

[Research3]

r3 wrote:


Simply false, because Cain was not Seth's father. It's counting generations from Adam, and any siblings that Seth had are not counted because they are siblings not parents. After all, Genesis also says that Adam and Eve had lots of other kids - they aren't counted in the line to Enoch for the same reason. So Jude 1 says nothing about Cain's paternity.

Generations is not in the original Hebrew. Only 'seventh' is.

I'm only interested in what was originally written. Mistakes have crept in by false translations, therefore i only use Bible translations like YLT (young's literal translation) and ferrar fenton.

A simple reading of this passage in the original Hebrew proves that Cain was not a biological descendant of Adam.

His parentage from Adam is never denied, in either your old testament, my old testament or either of our Bibles.

So why was Cain evil? Or his descendants if they came from Adam?

Of course, because he was inspired by the devil, just like others in the old testament. That doesn't say that the devil is his father.

Now where in Genesis does it say Cain was inspired by the 'devil'?

The devil = serpent equation was an invention by the Church Fathers about 200 years after Jesus lived.

Sorry, it doesn't say anything about her having sex with an animal.

The serpent was not a lower animal, note it was bipedal and could speak if you read the Genesis account.

So they all married their sisters and half sisters? Isn't that prohibited in Leviticus?

??? Incest is not endogamy.

r3, I might not be able to get back to this thread for a while. I hope I've shown that you are reading your own racism into your Bible. From now on, could you do me a favor? Could you please never tell anyone about your racist Christianity? When people hear of your version of Christianity, it makes it much harder for people like me to convince people that Christianity is harmless and good for society.

I just read what the Bible says, sorry i don't follow your liberal view of scripture (where you alter it to fit modern socio-political values).

 

[Research3]

the sumerian king list places the flood at 25,000 years ago and the king list itself goes back 250,000 years

Sumerian King List - Religion-wiki

The Sumerian and Babylonian 'years' were not literal solar years (365. ??) days we know today. The ancient Greeks recorded that they were months, or 2 months as did the Roman author Cicero.

Basically if you use different day figures for their years you get figures which fit with the Biblical chronology.

 

[granpa]

thats one way of looking at it but I would caution you against leaping to conclusions.

 

[tulc]

I'm only interested in what was originally written. Mistakes have crept in by false translations, therefore i only use Bible translations like YLT (young's literal translation) and ferrar fenton.

A simple reading of this passage in the original Hebrew proves that Cain was not a biological descendant of Adam.

I admire how instead of admitting that the Bible disagrees with your position, you simply throw the Bible under the bus and embrace the error.
tulc(suspects the only things free of error in the Bible are the parts that agree with you)

 

[Research3]

thats one way of looking at it but I would caution you against leaping to conclusions.

From what i've reseached the dates most closely fit with the dates of the patriarchs in the Samaritan Torah. It's hard though to get a physical copy of a Samaritan Torah and i'm just using PDF's and online fragments i can found of it translated.

 

[granpa]

there have been a lot of shinars and a lot of khans and a lot of czars and a lot of adams and a lot of noahs.

people find a couple of bits that seem to go together and build elaborate theories around them only to find out later that its all much more complicated than they thought. I speak from personal experience.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

They are pre-adamites.

The Adamite occupation of Britain only began with the Trojans (c. 1100 BC) or if earlier legends can be trusted, the Samotheans around 2000 BC.
...
There is no evidence the Celts or Picts descended from the Mesolithic pre-Adamite inhabitants. There is evidence Britain was occupied as early as 12,000 BC, i don't dispute dates by radiocarbon testing. These were however a primitive semi-sedentary peoples who were wiped out.

Wow, with a little bit of arm twisting I can make you say the native Britons were not human ...
The early natives of Britain are Caucasian humans and their descendants are still around today. For the sake of clarity I'm not talking about Neanderthals. They were thought to have gone extinct between 33,000 - 24,000 years ago, while the evidence we've looked at is only between 12,000 - 5,000 years old. Cro-magnon was an early form of homo sapiens anyway.

Can Muslims, Christians and Buddhists all get into heaven?

Yes, all different ones though, and i'm sure there are different afterlifes etc. In my view there are hundreds or thousands of Gods. This is why for my monolatrist views i was confined mostly to Unorthodox Theology. As i said from the start, i don't believe in a universal God.

I suppose I should be pleased - this is the closest you've come to showing some kind of racial tolerance - but your theology gets stranger and stranger ...
What about the ancient Egyptian gods like Ra and Anubis? Do they exist? Are the people who believed in them in their own personal heaven? What about Zeus, and Odin, and Vishnu? Do they all exist? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

You call yourself a Christian seeker but your ideas aren't very Christian at all. You don't believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, you seem to believe there is more than one God, and you certainly believe religion is based on race. You sound more like a pagan.
And before you complain that I've broken forum rules, you've basically claimed every non-white member of CF can't be a Christian because of their race.

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

Sorry for sounding so smug but I find it funny that a British-Israelism support just admitted Britons are not 'Adamites'.

 

[Research3]

Wow, with a little bit of arm twisting I can make you say the native Britons were not human ...
The early natives of Britain are Caucasian humans and their descendants are still around today. For the sake of clarity I'm not talking about Neanderthals. They were thought to have gone extinct between 33,000 - 24,000 years ago, while the evidence we've looked at is only between 12,000 - 5,000 years old. Cro-magnon was an early form of homo sapiens anyway.

The whole of Europe, as well as North Africa and the middle-east was first settled by Caucasians 10,000 or more years ago. They were not however Adamites. The Adamites are only those who descend from the Sumerian-Adamic dynasty (c. 5000 BC).

Genesis does not deal with a literal creation, only the 'creation' of the first dynasty or house. This occurred first in Sumeria. The Sumerian kings and royal houses were the oldest in the world. Ask any archaeologist, the Sumerian King List is the oldest chronicle of it's kind.

What about the ancient Egyptian gods like Ra and Anubis? Do they exist? Are the people who believed in them in their own personal heaven? What about Zeus, and Odin, and Vishnu? Do they all exist? How about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Ra, Anubis, Zeus, Odin etc were deified mortals. They became venerated through ancestor worship. Most mythology can be rationally explained through history, the Bible is no exception, though it is far more complex and spiritual.

You call yourself a Christian seeker but your ideas aren't very Christian at all. You don't believe Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, you seem to believe there is more than one God, and you certainly believe religion is based on race. You sound more like a pagan.

Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods (plural) before Me."

Psalms, 86:8: "Among the gods (plural) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

1 Corinthians 8: 5 ''For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords).

Sorry for sounding so smug but I find it funny that a British-Israelism support just admitted Britons are not 'Adamites'.

The ethnic-British (Picts, Scots, Celts, Saxons) are Adamites. However for some bizarre reason you think the Picts and Celts are thousands of years older than their actual age. The Picts are no older than around the 6th century BC and arrived from Britain from Scythia and Cimmeria. The Scythians and Cimmerians in turn were the Israelites (Khumri/House of Omri) which the Behistun Rock and Assyrian tablets identify (see Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets by Raymond Capt).

I don't think you have studied British history before. No scholar claims the Picts or Celts were Mesolithics. Both these tribes came from the east, moving through Europe. The earliest Celtic culture itself only dates to around 600 BC in Central Europe (Hallstatt culture).

 

[theFijian]

.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The whole of Europe, as well as North Africa and the middle-east was first settled by Caucasians 10,000 or more years ago. They were not however Adamites. The Adamites are only those who descend from the Sumerian-Adamic dynasty (c. 5000 BC).

So all 'Adamites' are caucasians but not all caucasians are Adamites. Racist against your own race. Nice ...

[EDIT] Just a thought - does this mean as well as creating all the races seperately, God also created groups of 'chosen' (Adamic) and 'unchosen' (non-Adamic) caucasians?

The ethnic-British (Picts, Scots, Celts, Saxons) are Adamites. However for some bizarre reason you think the Picts and Celts are thousands of years older than their actual age. The Picts are no older than around the 6th century BC and arrived from Britain from Scythia and Cimmeria.

My 'bizarre reason' for thinking that the ancient Britons were much older than you say is fossil and historical evidence, mostly from the Romans. Papias also gave you a link showing the Picts are descended from an earlier tribe known as the Caledonians.

The original inhabitants were not wiped out as you suggest, because these Britons are the original inhabitants. And the Roman invaders who apparently brought their 'Adamic' genes were not from Mesopotamia either, they were from Italy.
There was also something I overlooked earlier -

The Adamite occupation of Britain only began with the Trojans (c. 1100 BC) or if earlier legends can be trusted, the Samotheans around 2000 BC.

Type this on google: List of legendary kings of Britain

I wrote most of this article, refer to the dates. Also see my article on Tea Tephi at the bottom and Iolo Morganwg's Welsh Kings + Scota.

Using youself as a source?

Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods (plural) before Me."

Psalms, 86:8: "Among the gods (plural) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works."

1 Corinthians 8: 5 ''For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords).

Using the Bible to support polytheism. The concept of irony is completely and utterly lost on you. The writers of the Bible knew there were other gods - false, nonexistant gods:

Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. -2 Samuel 7:22
​

That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else. -1 Kings 8:60
​

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior. -Isaiah 43:10-11
​

Ra, Anubis, Zeus, Odin etc were deified mortals.

And what makes us think that the God of the Bible is not?

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

Again I'm surprised you didn't pick up on my note on the 'Cheddar Man'. Analysis of his blood showed be belonged to haplogroup U (specifically haplogroup U5 which is mostly found in Europeans), which has been traced back to the Middle East. Didn't it occur to you to use this as evidence that ancient Britons could have come from Mesopotamia?