Was There a Pre-Adamic Race?

[squint]

And still...no clue as to the meaning of that verse.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the ploy being put in play is that a certain genetic line, that of Cain, is not only evil, but the genetic offspring of Satan, which claim is and remains patently absurd.

All have sinned. All have sin.

Sin is of the devil.

That is not a matter of a certain line of genetics, as valiantly as you are trying to make it so.

s

 

[YeShallTread]

So what? Neither is Abel.

Abel was slain so didn't produce a child in the line to Christ. Cain was still kicking and yet...not listed.

Nobody is disputing that Seth is the lineage in play. Still doesn't mean Adam did not have TWO SONS, Cain and Abel.

It is written that Adam had "sons and daughters" after Seth. Cain isn't there for a reason. The lineage of Cain is given separately for a reason.

and Cain, the tare? Again, who are you kidding? A lot of the inhabitants didn't make it past the flood and had their lineage presented.

Yes, Cain the tare...the first of many.

All have sin. All have sinned. No one is righteous, no not one.

You are wrong about that Squint. Yes, all have sinned but there are many righteous. You are not reading the verse properly for those that are not righteous...no not one...refers to THE TARES.

 

[YeShallTread]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the ploy being put in play is that a certain genetic line, that of Cain, is not only evil, but the genetic offspring of Satan, which claim is and remains patently absurd.

All have sinned. All have sin.

Sin is of the devil.

That is not a matter of a certain line of genetics, as valiantly as you are trying to make it so.

s

You give me too much credit Squint. LOL. To think that I am trying to make it so is laughable.

It is written and written for a reason.

 

[Tzaousios]

Just as I said, here is what one gets when one provides Scripture to back up their challenges of YeShallTread. She automatically asserts that they do not know what the verse means, and thus have misinterpreted it. Yet still, she engages in no interpretation herself. A lot of good that did.

Bumped for YeShallTread.

 

[YeShallTread]

Bumped for YeShallTread.

I replied to it in #440

 

[Tzaousios]

It wasn't a challenge to anything I have said...nothing at all.

It doesn't deal with the first earth age, the seed of the serpent, or anything being discussed. The poster improperly applies that verse.

So you accuse Squint of misinterpretation, yet in return you still do not engage in the interpretation of the Scripture that you provide?

How is one to know that this is not just the blanket statement you will give to anyone who provides Scripture to back a challenge of what you have posted?

 

[squint]

Abel was slain so didn't produce a child in the line to Christ. Cain was still kicking and yet...not listed.

Neither of them are listed and they both were Adam's children. One doesn't have to have children to be one themselves or to be listed as an offspring.

It is written that Adam had "sons and daughters" after Seth. Cain isn't there for a reason. The lineage of Cain is given separately for a reason.

The only reason the lineage of Seth is singled out is that lineage carries through to Jesus Christ, proving that He was a MAN.

It doesn't mean that Cain was any less of a son of Adam or a son of God for that matter.

Yes, Cain the tare...the first of many.

Obviously you missed the obvious gapping hole in that phony theory of a genetic evil line.

Need a repeat of the facts again?

All have sin. All have sinned.

Sin is OF THE DEVIL.

Though I can appreciate anyone wanting to scramble away from those facts in order to NOT have their own sin implicated as THE DEVILS it is quite a fruitless exercise. To try to pin that matter on someone else using the basis of genetics is equally fruitless.

You are wrong about that Squint. Yes, all have sinned but there are many righteous.

Every righteous person was/is also a sinner. There is no escaping the math that sin is of the devil and trying to make some other person a genetic devil and isolate and insulate the righteous from having sin, which is OF THE DEVIL. There is no point in evading the obvious problems with that method.

You are not reading the verse properly for those that are not righteous...no not one...refers to THE TARES.

There is no doubt that the children of the wicked are devils.

Your mistake is trying to make the devils children a certain genetic line of mankind when the fact is that ALL of us sin and ALL sin is of THE DEVIL.

That association is NOT GENETIC. Never was. Never will be.

You have already conceded the basis of SATAN as being an anti-Christ spirit and that spirit TEMPTS and CAUSES sin in MANKIND ALL.

The New Testament is rather clear on these matters and essentially eliminates old wives tales of women having sex with the devil.

s

 

[squint]

You give me too much credit Squint. LOL. To think that I am trying to make it so is laughable.

It is written and written for a reason.

You claim not to do it while simultaneously doing exactly that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know nothing of the Jehovah's witness. Do they deny that Father and Son are One?

Yes.

They teach that the Father's name is Jehovah and that Jehovah alone is God almighty. They believe that Jesus Christ is God's first creation, so God's unique Son, but a creature and not Almighty God.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Jesus prayed that we would be one "even as" He and the Father are one

 

[Rev Randy]

No. On the sixth day God created man. After the seventh day of rest He formed Adam. The sixth day creation is not Adam.

Ahh, so Squint was right. You follow Murray and his two creations or at least share his beliefs.

I guess it couldn't possibly be that the text explains creation and then goes back to focus on mankind as that's the point of Genesis (God's love for man).
Chapter One is simply a general overview. Chapter two is not a second happening but the beginning of the story focused on man. If it is then Adam was given a false name by God.

I'll not call you racist. I have no evidence to support such. But I will say you share the belief if many a racist including the KKK. Two separate accounts is also what they teach. that God created all the evil races and later made the sweet lily white Adam: of the supreme and clean race.

This is what happens when we discover that we can't read Genesis in a complete literal fashion. We either need to understand that God doesn't give us all the details or invent another story.
So I just have to ask: Did God create woman the first time out of Man's rib or was she just popped in out of thin air? I mean He created them male and female.

 

[YeShallTread]

So you accuse Squint of misinterpretation, yet in return you still do not engage in the interpretation of the Scripture that you provide?

How is one to know that this is not just the blanket statement you will give to anyone who provides Scripture to back a challenge of what you have posted?

He didn't interpret anything....He misapplied it. As I said, it has no bearing on the topic under discussion although it is certainly important. Here, let me quote the explanatory part....

1 Corinthians 5:15-17 And that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.


​

When He dwells in us we have crucified our flesh, our "old man" is dead...our flesh body figuratively lies in the street...which is why it can't be buried:

Revelation 11:8-9 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.


​

 

[Messy]

Genesis 5:1-2 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

This chapter gives the generations of Adam, the man Adam. Also notice that Adam (without the article) is not eth ha adam or the man Adam. Rather, it refers to mankind that was created male and female. God mentions them and then....God speaks of the particular man Adam and his lineage....
​

5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Please notice....CAIN IS NOT LISTED!!! The line of Cain, the tares, is given in his very own genealogy. Do you wonder why?

He called their name Adam, because Eve (her spirit, He didn't breathe in Eve) was still in Him (man and wife are one), He called them mankind, because out of one all mankind came.
It makes no sense. First He creates millions of people, mankind, then Adam and Eve, who brought forth a son of satan, here we have 3 different races of mankind now and a son of satan wouldn't be called a man, the giants weren't called man either.
Of course Cain is not listed, the Messiah came through Seth.

 

[Going Merry]

Why would Adam need his rib taken out if he wasnt alone?

 

[Rev Randy]

Why would Adam need his rib taken out if he wasnt alone?

Now we have a question asked that shows some wisdom.

 

[YeShallTread]

Ahh, so Squint was right. You follow Murray and his two creations or at least share his beliefs.

I follow God. I read His Words. I supplied His Words and you are denying them.

I guess it couldn't possibly be that the text explains creation and then goes back to focus on mankind as that's the point of Genesis (God's love for man).

As mankind was given in the first chapter...why be redundant?

Chapter One is simply a general overview. Chapter two is not a second happening but the beginning of the story focused on man. If it is then Adam was given a false name by God.

You see a difference in man...addam (mankind) vs eth ha addam, (the man Adam) in Hebrew.

I'll not call you racist. I have no evidence to support such. But I will say you share the belief if many a racist including the KKK. Two separate accounts is also what they teach. that God created all the evil races and later made the sweet lily white Adam: of the supreme and clean race.

I bet they also teach God loves us. Are they wrong on that? Because they cherry pick something doesn't mean they are wrong on all things.

This is what happens when we discover that we can't read Genesis in a complete literal fashion. We either need to understand that God doesn't give us all the details or invent another story.

I have to laugh at that. I am always being chastised for seeing spiritually.

So I just have to ask: Did God create woman the first time out of Man's rib or was she just popped in out of thin air? I mean He created them male and female.

God created mankind male and female on the sixth day. God formed Adam after the seventh day of rest and he was without a help meet. He took the rib...meaning curve which I think is the DNA, helix curve of Adam to form Eve. Bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. One being.

 

[YeShallTread]

He called their name Adam, because Eve (her spirit, He didn't breathe in Eve) was still in Him (man and wife are one), He called them mankind, because out of one all mankind came.

That is impossible. All races did not, could not come from one man.

It makes no sense. First He creates millions of people, mankind, then Adam and Eve, who brought forth a son of satan,

Adam and Eve DIDN'T have a son of Satan. Eve did that without Adam.


Adam was formed for a reason...can you not see that?

here we have 3 different races of mankind now and a son of satan wouldn't be called a man, the giants weren't called man either.

Satan is called a man...angelic beings are called men.

Of course Cain is not listed, the Messiah came through Seth.

He certainly didn't. Jesus came from the Adamic line and Cain was only half of the equation. Cain has his very own lineage.

 

[Tzaousios]

He didn't interpret anything....He misapplied it. As I said, it has no bearing on the topic under discussion although it is certainly important.

So, in the end, if anyone provides Scripture to back up a challenge they have made of your posts, you will discount it as misapplication, misinterpretation, or some other method with the prefix mis- applied to it?

 

[Going Merry]

It might be a form of micro evolution.. Like the spotted moth turning into the black/gray moth...

I thought I read something about people being a lot shorter during the times of pharaoh or noah.

 

[Messy]

Eve thought Cain was the Messiah, her seed, not satans seed.
Genesis 3:15

New King James Version (NKJV)

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

And bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord”: The name Cain basically meant, I’ve got him or Here he is. It is likely Eve thought that Cain was the seed that God promised, the deliverer who would come from Eve (Genesis 3:15). There is a sense in which Eve said, “I have the man from the Lord.”

Under normal circumstances, parents want good things for their children. They wonder if their children are destined for greatness. Adam, and especially Eve, had these expectations for Cain, but it went farther than normal parental hopes and expectations. Adam and Eve expected Cain to be the Messiah God promised.

Eve thought she held in her arms the Messiah, the Savior of the whole world