Here we take a chapter from Charles A. Wiseman’s booklet Not Of One Blood where he demonstrates that one of the favorite, go-to verses for universalist, egalitarian Christians — Acts 17:26 — does not — and cannot — be used to support their “anti-racist” reading of the Bible.
Chapter 5: Acts 17:26
It does not take much intelligence for anyone who reads the Bible to see that it is actually about one people — the descendants of Abraham called Israelites. From Genesis to Revelations, they are the theme and object of the Bible. Yet some claim there are verses which not only place all races on a complete equal standing with Israel, but on equal basis with them genetically. One such verse is Acts 17:26 —
And [God] has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.
This verse was used as a topic and theme for a book written by several Christian authors to prove the fatherhood of God and “brotherhood of man” concept. One of their comments on the subject is this statement:
The Bible does not even use the word ‘race’ in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of ‘one blood’ (Acts 17:26). This, of course, emphasizes that we are all related.
Is this then what Paul meant when he spoke these words to the men of Athens? Was he trying to tell them that Chinese, Pygmies, Eskimos, Tasmanians, Negroes, Israelites and Greeks well all blood relatives? That would seem to be a rather bizarre statement for Paul to make. What then does this verse mean?
With a book by the title of One Blood, which uses Acts 17:26 as its theme, subject matter, and proof text, one would expect there to be some analysis of that verse; however, the verse is referred to only a few times in the book. There is no study, evaluation or biblical exegesis of this verse. There is only a presumption that it means what the authors say it does. Since the meaning of the main topic is only a presumption, that makes it a poorly written book.
Let us then examine Acts 17:26 to see what it says — and what it does not say. Most authorities make note that the world “blood” is not in the ancient manuscripts. But we will ignore that issue for now, and ask what is meant by “one blood.” Does it mean that all blood is the same genetically?
It is common knowledge that blood is grouped into four types: A, B, AB, and O. Each type is also classified by an Rh factor — either positive (+) or negative (-), which makes eight different blood types. Each type is produced by a specific gene. The blood types are so different that if one type of blood is transfused into a person with a different type, it can result in death.
It is also known that blood contains different alleles — or alternate genes at certain locations on the chromosomes which contain specific inheritable characteristics. Here are some facts about the genetic difference in blood among the races:
The percentage of the population of the several races having certain blood groups vary enough so that the race of a population, if not of a particular individual, can often be identified based on blood analysis. Further a person’s blood can often eliminate him as a member of a particular race.
The Diego (Di) blood antigen is absent in Aryans and Negroes but high in Turanians (Orientals). The Cell (K) antigen is common in Aryans, but is rare in Negroes and Turanians. The Sutter (Js) antigen occurs only in Negroes….Blood group A1,2 is found in Negroes, but is seldom found in Aryans or Turanians. Contrary to popular myths, the races do not share a common blood. [Thomas C. Allen, Species Of Men, TC Allen Co., 1999, p. 24-36]
The Lewis (Le) allele is found in most races but is absent from the blood of Australian aborigines. The FY-O allele is found in most Negroes, but is not in Asians or Australians. The r blood allele is common in Europeans, but does not exist in Australians, Polynesians, or American Indians. Almost 90% of Bushman have the cDe allele but is near zero in other races. The Duffy null allele, which confers resistance to malaria, is found in 100% of African Negroes and 0% in other races. This source also states that the ALDH2*2 allele is frequent in Asians, but 0% in Africans and Europeans. The blood gene for sickle cell anemia is found mainly in Negroes.
A study of an enzyme haplotype in the blood showed “Africans have predominately a different haplotype not found in other populations. On a genetic and biological level, blood varies considerably, and is a distinctive characteristic which can set the races apart:
A person’s blood group is one of his physical characteristics, just as dark skin may be, or blue eyes or a hooked nose. Like other physical characteristics, blood groups can be used to divide mankind into races. [William C. Boyd & Issac Asimov, “Races and People,” Abelard-Schuman, New York, 1955, p. 145]
All blood is clearly not the same, whether viewed within a race or among races. So the term “one blood” could not possibly mean that all blood is the same biologically or genetically. This is especially true since the field of genetics was not even known during biblical times. When we use the term “blood” today, we often use it to denote race, heritage, lineage, or relationship. We might say someone is of royal blood, or has Indian blood, or is mixed blood, etc., but the term “blood” was never used in the Bible that way.
Here is what some Bible authorities have to say as to the meaning of “blood”:
The blood contains the vital principal or the essence of animal and human life (Genesis 9:4 – “But flesh with life thereof which is the blood thereof, you shall not eat.” Because of the sacredness of life, the Israelites were enjoined from eating the blood. [“The Zondervan Pictoral Bible Dictionary”]
Blood is used as the substantial basis of individual life in John 1:13; Acts 17:26. The expression corresponds to the idea contained in Leviticus 17:11 — ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood.’ [“The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament”]
It was anciently believed that the blood is the seat of the life. [“Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon”]
The term “blood” in the Bible was used to refer to the essence of life. The only other way it was used was in reference to sacrifice or atonement. It was not used to indicate the biological relationship of people. It thus is a blatant error to say that “one blood” in Acts 17:26 means all people are related. Remember, this was only a presumption of the authors of the book One Blood — and obviously that presumption is wrong.
The use of the word “blood” to indicate relationship is not even accurate. That usage has its origin in medieval times. [John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press, 1974, p. 14]. At that time, they had no understanding of DNA and genetics, so they employed the word “blood” to best convey relationship and lineage. It has been used to up modern times in that way.
Those who use Acts 17:26 to claim that everyone is related — or have the same genetic lineage — have made a very big error in Bible interpretation. The error is applying modern concepts and definitions to words spoken 2 or 3,000 years ago. The meaning and usage of words change. Even when the King James Bible was translated in 1611, words they used then have different meanings today.
The world “blood” was never used in the Bible to convey the idea of one who is a relative or biologically related. Instead it used the words “bone and flesh” to convey the idea of biological relations as in the following verses:
Gen. 2:23 — “And Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Gen. 29:14 — “And Laban said to him [Jacob], Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.”
Judges 9:2 — “…remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.”
2 Sam. 5:1; 1 Chron. 11:1 — “Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spoke, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh.”
2 Sam. 19:12 — “Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh.”
Ephesians 5:30 — “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”
Now in modern day language those speaking in these verses might have said, “You are of my blood.” But that meaning did not exist in biblical times, so they used the words “bone and flesh.” If Paul had said in Acts 17 that “God has made all men of one bone and flesh,” then the egalitarians might have an argument, but as it is with the word “blood”, they have no argument.
Since we are not talking about genetics in Acts 17:26, we could say that all people do have the same or one blood. That is, once we understand that biblically, blood means the essence of life. We all have this essence of life — not only man but animals. Blood does the same thing in man as it does in animals — it carries oxygen, nourishment, vitamins, antibodies, and electrolytes to cells and tissues and takes away waste and carbon dioxide. We all have that in common — all races and all mammals. The Bible reveals that we all have other things in common as well. In Ecclesiastes, it says:
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; even one thing befalls them: as the one dies, so dies the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” (Eccl. 3:18-20)
Here the Bible says that man and animal both have “one breath,” and that they both are made out of one and the same “dust.” Does that mean we are related to animals? If you apply the interpretation (presumption) of the egalitarian Christians, you would have to say we are. These verses have nothing to do with being related or having the same lineage. Neither does the fact that all people have “one blood” or the same nature of life make them related.
So if Paul used the word “blood” in Acts 17, it would be saying no more than that everyone has the same vital principle of life — blood — which came from God. Blood could only have referred to the life-giving principle in man and animals — not their biological relationship.
Now, what did Paul mean in this verse? To get a better understanding of what he meant, biblical exegesis requires that we look at the context to determine the meaning. Let’s start by reading the surrounding verses:
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Paul was speaking to the men of Athens. These people had a lot of pride and ego regarding their culture and nation. They considered their culture to be the best — that they had the best religion and idols, the best academics, etc. Paul thus addresses these problems of conceit, as one bible commentator says,
The Apostle rebukes the narrow pride of the Greeks, who divided mankind into Greeks and barbarians, the latter being of no account [J.R. Dummelow, “A Commentary on the Holy Bible,” p. 842].
According to a Greek, you were either a Greek or a no count barbarian. Thus the two main issues of contention Paul has with the men of Athens are their idolatry and their conceited view of their nation. Paul was telling them that there is one God who made all things, including all nations. The word “nations” is a key word here. Everyone reads Acts 17:26 as though it says, “God had made of one blood all men.” The book One Blood quotes it as, “God had made all men of one blood,” but that is not what it says.
It says God has made of one blood all nations of men. The issue is nations which consist of men. God made or established all nations, including Greece. This fact would tenf to deflate the conceited view of the Greeks. So the issue is nations, not individual men. Most have failed to see this because they have been conditioned by the erroneous interpretation of this verse and develop a mental block and unable to read it correctly.
Once we understand that the issue is nations, we can see that the word “blood” does not fit in the verse very well. The better reading is this — “God made from one every nation of men.” Also the word “from” is more appropriate here than is the word “of.” So it actually reads “from one.”
But what is the “one” in this verse? Looking again at the context and Bible as a whole, many authorities have said that the “one” in this verse could be Adam:
Bullinger’s Companion Bible — “One Blood” — The texts omit ‘blood.’ The ‘one’ here means either Adam, or the dust of which he was formed.
The Interpreter’s Commentary — “…from one (some manuscripts add ‘blood’), I.e., from Adam.
Peak’s Commentary on the Bible — ‘From one.’ The Western text adds ‘blood,’ probably failing to realize that the reference is to Adam.
The Oxford Annotated Bible — ‘From one, i.e., one man (Adam).
It would seem that the “One” in Acts 17:26 is a reference to Adam, or to the dust of the ground. But remember, it would not read, “God has made of Adam all men.” Rather it would be saying, “God has made from Adam all nations.” Paul thesis is stating biblical history. This verse is cross-referenced to Deuteronomy 32:8 which reads,
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
We can see the similarity of Acts 17:26 with this verse — both talk about God dividing the nations within their own boundaries. Moffat translates Acts 17:26 as follows: “All nations has he created from a common origin.” The message is that God establishes nations and boundaries, but He used the sons of Adam to do so.
Adam and his descendants would be the common source of all nations. Before Adam there were no nations. His descendants spread out over the earth forming various nations, and often had those nations named after them. Genesis 10 lists some of these nations formed by Noah’s descendants.
It is possible that the “one” Paul mentions could be the earth or dust of the ground — since Adam was formed from the ground? God made all men and thus all nations from the dust of the ground. But he also made animals the same way.
There is strong evidence that the word “blood” in Acts 17:26 was an interpolation in the Masoretic text. If it was, then it would not be the first error with that text or the King James Bible. There are certain differences between the Greek Septuagint and the Masoretic text. While God’s word is true and infallible, men have made some errors in copying and translating it. I think that only a Pharisaical-minded individual would have a problem with this.
Even if one insists that the word “blood” is to be in Acts 17:26, that word was never used in a genetic sense, so we can dismiss the common interpretation of that verse. Further, that interpretation does not concur with biological facts.
The Latin Vulgate was the first Bible and the only accepted Bible for all Christians until the 16th century.
In the Vulgate Acts 17:26 reads:
fecitque ex uno omne genus hominum inhabitare super universam faciem terrae, definiens statuta tempora, et terminos habitationis eorum,
And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation.
Not one word about “blood,” but certainly “genus hominum” (mankind). One need not be a racial ideologue to insist on honesty about what is actually in the Bible, a valuable book, but a book without which 4 centuries of Christians did just fine depending upon the preaching of Jesus, the Apostles, the DIsciples, and the Early Fathers.
You don’t have to be a “racial ideologue” to understand that the Vulgate was translated into Latin from the original koine Greek.
And to suggest the Vulgate takes precedence over the Greek is self-serving if you are advocating Catholic hegemony over all Christians.
The original Greek, which precedes the Vulgate by 400 years, clearly uses “blood” in Acts 17:26 as in “haimatos” (Strong’s 129).
And let’s not forget that it was the Vulgate that first coined the term “gentilis” as a translation of the Greek “ethnos”, which has misled Christians for over 1,500 years into thinking it means “non-Jew”.
Vulgate-Only Catholics are in the same boat as King James Only Christians.
Neither are perfect or “divinely” inspired.
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
—1 Thess. 5:21
Catholics claim that Christ founded the Catholic Church with Peter. That means for the next 400 years, the “Catholic Church” used the original Greek manuscripts until Jerome and company decided to translate them into Latin.
In those first 400 years, every “Catholic” who read Acts 17:26 saw the word for “blood” in it. Yet for unknown reasons, Jerome removed it.
I could speculate that by 400 AD the Catholic Church was already proselytizing non-whites and Jews who were not of “one blood” and they changed the translation to hide the fact that it was forbidden by Acts 17:26.
Why else would they do it?
Hear, hear. Great observation/question
I get the feeling that many of the Catholics who read the articles at CFT are secretly racially aware and agree with it on a visceral level, but will never admit to it because it goes against official Church dogma that race is not a consideration in conversion or salvation.
I used to go to Catholic Church myself, but was not satisfied with their take on scripture, which had too many unanswered questions, too many cop outs.
If “racism” is truly a sin according to the Catholic Church, then these Catholics are sinning by even visiting this site, and should repent of it in their next confession.
I suppose they would claim that they come to this site to “convert” us all away from our “racism”, but if that’s the case, they’ve done a half-hearted job of it, or don’t know enough about scripture to make the case against it, especially if they have to deal with a condordance and translation problems.
Al Liguori ……………
Why not also challenge the content of the article. Rather than make your argument over “translation” ………….. why not also challenge the many statements made in the article?
I’ll give you one — “….All blood is clearly not the same, whether viewed within a race or among races. So the term “one blood” could not possibly mean that all blood is the same biologically or genetically. …”
What do you say to that?
Al …………… if we were to remove every Icelander from Iceland and replace them with 500,000 pure blacks from the Congo and then restrict immigration —– Question — In how many years will it take for yellow, white and red peoples to emerge from the loins of a racially pure black couple???
5000 years? 10,000? How many?
If we are all related to Adam and Eve or Noah and his family —– how in the world did we get 4 very distinct races of people — yellow, white, black and red?
Do you have an explanation? And please don’t send me a link to “answers in Genesis” — Ken Ham’s website.
This (wrong) belief, that you profess, polygenism has been rebuked by the early Christians in the First Council of Nicaea and the extremely long Christian tradition both oral and written, also every cultured Christian knows that this polygenist theory has been created and shared around originally by jews and later by atheists like voltaire.
Here’s the culprit:
You say it’s a wrong belief. Ok. Your opinion.
But could you please explain to me — Adam and Eve were a homogenous couple.
So, how then do we get 4 DISTINCT groups of people — White, black, yellow and red?
Real World Example —– If we were to remove every White Icelander of Iceland and replaced them with 500,000 blacks from the Congo —- Question — in how many years will we see White and yellow peoples emerge from the loins of a homogenous black couple?
Do you wanna guess — 5000 years? 10,000 years?
So everything the First Council of Nicaea “rebuked” is wrong? But they were right about this because…? There were a lot of disagreements at that Council.
Many early Christians did not believe that all “peoples” descended from Adam and Eve for the simple reason that it defies common sense. So-called “polygenism” arose because it made no sense that all “peoples” could have come from one couple of the same race, same kind. It defies all genetic science even today.
I doubt Doug will come back. Which is typical of these peoples. They come in — preach their doctrines; tell us how wrong we are — and then never return to face our critique.
The irony here is that I just did a precursory study on that Council and NOTHING was mentioned about Pre-adamites.
I think Doug is pulling our chain. And like you said — “who cares???” As if the Council of Nicaea were genuine Christians in the first place.
I’m embarrassed actually to admit that I believed all the races came from Adam and Eve.
I was ASLEEP in church!!!! So I just accepted it because everyone around me accepted it.
But actually COMMON SENSE and the REAL WORLD prove otherwise.
No one has ever commented on my challenge. Not one person.
Remove all Icelanders from Iceland and replace them with equal amount of pure blacks from the Congo. Restrict immigration. In how many years will we see white and yellow peoples emerge from the loins of a homogenous black couple????? Not in 10 million years.
But hey ………………… somehow it happened 5000 years ago.
All they have is a house built on sand.
I am sure I once read one of the Apostles saying that at one time only 8 people were in existence (meaning Noah, his wife and his three sons with their respective wives), do you dare to doubt even the word of the Apostles? The same men that our God Jesus chose?
That’s very arrogant from you and it will only lead you to damnation both in this life and in the next.
First let me commend you for coming back and replying.
But you have more to answer for if you would like to continue to “rebuke” us all here.
I would say 99% of CFT readers believe as myself. And we have MANY arguments against your position.
Do you want to continue???
You could start by seriously thinking about my “challenge”.
How did it happen Doug? Whether you want to start with Adam and Eve or go straight to Noah and his family.
How is it Scientifically possible? Noah was perfect in his Generations — meaning that he was of pure blood. We have to assume his family was also as this was ONE of the reasons God chose Noah and his family.
Question — How do you get a white or yellow person out of the loins of a black couple (Using my Iceland challenge)????
It will never happen in a million years.
As long as White people mate with White people — there will always be White children.
As long as Yellow people mate with Yellow people — there will always be Yellow children.
And so on and so forth.
There are plenty of articles and resources here for you to study further.
I will include two for you —
West, I saw your last message and took some time to check all the sources, first of all isn’t “Weissman” with only one “n” a Jewish surname?
This expert says this:
Regardless of that, you and others in the comments here attack me as if I am a believer in evolution when I never said I was, I know about the differences of races and all of that, but about the origin of them I differ from you and so do the Christian sources and traditions, the Ancient Israelites, Hittites, Philistines and Amorites populations were all related by blood, the only difference among them being religion and culture and those same populations would later disappear by mixing with each others so the theory of Weissman about the origin of modern jews is totally wrong just like with the polygenism doctrine.
It is stated clerly that for example the arabs descends from Hagar and this is a case of a non-White population being created by a White population (The Israelites).
With all due respect, I have no respect for your rebuttals. You haven’t taught me anything of substance.
You first start out using a Straw Man argument to attack the author. I’ve had too much experience dealing with people who, when they have no argument, they try to attack a person’s character. You do realize that Jews living in Germany took on German names ….. right? Weisman is a German name which the jew hijacked. Go look at photos/videos of Charles Weisman. He is certainly not a Jew. This attack was a blatant misdirection.
Second ………………… you provided absolutely no theories as to how such a thing is even possible — all races come from Adam.
Third — I never claimed you were an Evolutionist. And by reading the comment thread, no one else did either (unless I missed it).
Now, let’s get to the “meat” of your argument —
“…I know about the differences of races and all of that, but about the origin of them I differ from you….”
This is absolutely fine. You can have this opinion. You can have your own opinion. It was YOU who first attacked us.
You simply could have started out with your original comment stating that you believe this teaching to be wrong. But instead you came off all “half-cocked” with an Authoritative attitude. Then you accuse us(me) of being anti-christian and on our way to hell — in this life and the next. Not a great way to start a conversation.
You said to me — “…That’s very arrogant from you and it will only lead you to damnation both in this life and in the next….”
I get Patronized almost weekly by my family — I certainly don’t need to hear it from some anonymous person on the internet.
Doug, I believed as you for over 20 years of my adult life. Since then, I’ve come to a different opinion/theory/conclusion. And this changed belief of mine has alienated me from my flesh and blood family and a social circle of christians that numbered in the hundreds. I was very “plugged in” so to speak in my former judeo-christian life. Since, they have all UNfriended me.
I’ve lost much for my new beliefs. And you are right ……………… mainstream christianity for the most part agrees with you and shuns people like me.
However …………….. CFT is on my side of this debate and most of the commenters do as well.
So, I find a home at CFT and then people like you come in here and SHAME me all over again.
Often times, because of that kind of pressure, I do get weak and ‘question’ my own beliefs.
So when someone like you comes in here, I want to know WHY you believe what you believe. Because no-one ever taught me why it is so. They just believe it because everyone around them believes it. It’s a kind of “peer pressure”.
So, I was asking you sincerely to explain it to me. And you couldn’t do it. No one has been able to do it— explain it to me.
How is it possible???
I gave you a real-world example which you keep avoiding.
Answer my challenge. If we remove every Icelander from Iceland and replace them with 500,000 pure black Africans from the Congo —– in how many years will yellow and white children emerge from the loins of a Homogenous black couple?
Take a guess Doug. 5000 years ……. 10,0000 years?
Doug …………….. I mean this sincerely ………………… it is because of people like you — and I truly do thank you for it — that I am confident in my new beliefs today.
So, ultimately, THANK YOU. Thank you again for proving to me how wrong I was then — and how right I am today. 20 + people since my time here at CFT have tried to shame the “Pre-adamic” theory. And they all behave just as you.
If I were to call Hank Hanegraff at the Christian Research Institute and asked him questions like I do, he would call me a nazi and a devil and then hang up on me.
So, thanks sincerely, for your response/attitude.
You wrote — the Ancient Israelites, Hittites, Philistines and Amorites populations were all related by blood..”
That’s right, but the part you fail to understand/accept is that they were all WHITE peoples. This is the WHOLE POINT of this Website. You can find articles that will prove this point. This is the Central Thesis of Christian Identity.
You then argued — …It is stated clerly that for example the arabs descends from Hagar…”
Where is it “stated clearly” that Arabs are descendants of Hagar? And where is it “stated clearly” that Hagar was a non-white? Ishmael was White and so was her mother. Perhaps 1000 years later some of Ishmael’s descendants mixed their seed with non-white peoples, but so what? White men do this today all the time. Or I should say white women mostly. How do you think we got Mexicans? White men from Spain screwed the Red Indigenous women living in South America — voila — we get the mexican.
Again …………… your counter argument(s) are weak and have nothing to do with proving the “Pre-Adamite” theory wrong.
I’m curious Doug …………….. why are you here at CFT? What brought you here and will you keep coming back? Hardly a man believes as you here. The only people who do are outliers and they come in here to cause confusion and division and they don’t stay very long. Or they come back but with a different Avatar.
The majority of the commenters and all of the Administrators don’t share your belief.
Come here to learn Doug. We are all very welcoming people.
But when you come in here and start your argument by telling us we are wrong — it’s not going to go over well. And then, another piece of advice — don’t threaten Hell Fire and Damnation. It’s an old trick and it doesn’t work.
How old are you? You come off as being like 25 years old. But I have a feeling you are probably my age — 55. Well, act your age Doug.
Be a man. Speak like a man. HAVE A CONVERSATION.
You have been challenged on many of your statements but choose to ignore them, which makes many of us believe that you are not acting in good faith. You’ve painted yourself into a corner, and attack anyone who questions you and your universalist doctrines.
You have the arrogance to put yourself in the Judgment Seat and decide who is “going to Hell” based on their beliefs, as many like-minded judeo-Christians who show up here thinking they know better. It’s “Christians” like you who have done a wonderful job souring and alienating your own people from embracing Christianity. If “racism” is such a sin, why is it never mentioned anywhere in the Bible as an evil? Why isn’t one of the Ten Commandments?
I asked you, “So everything the First Council of Nicaea “rebuked” is wrong? But they were right about this because…? There were a lot of disagreements at that Council. ”
You claim that the apostles say there were only 8 men left after the flood as proof that all people must descend somehow from those 8. Those 8 were Adamic, from the original creation. Noah and his sons were preserved because he was “perfect in his generations”, that is, his Adamic genealogy. Look it up.
You ignore Genesis 5:1 which clearly states that the Bible is only about “the generations of Adam”, which implies that there are people who are not part of the “generations of Adam”. We know there were such people because that’s where Cain got his wives, and those who built the cities with him. There is no conceivable way that Aborigines and Pygmies are part of that original Adamic creation. No way to account for them, nor the ape-men who lived in trees in Borneo up until a few hundred years ago. They are just as genetically distant from white Adamic man than chimpanzees are to man.
Your favorite tactic is a false appeal to authority and tradition, as if the early Christians were incapable or error. And you presume that they believed any race were considered “men”, and that is false. The word translated as “man” in the Bible often comes from the Hebrew “Adam”, which is a very specif kind of man. The ancient Greeks did not believe any such notion that all hominoids were “men”, and they had a profound influence on early Christianity.
Regardless, you need to explain how all the races could have possibly descended from a racially homogeneous family of Noah in such a short amount of time. Saying that those 8 apostles believed it is a logical fallacy called “begging the question” you insist that’s what they believed merely because it’s “true”. Saying it’s a “mystery” or that it’s true because they did, is a logical fallacy.
Racial exclusivity is apparent all throughout the Old and New Testaments. It’s the story of one race or kind of people: Adamic, and their Israelite descendants. Christ said in no uncertain terms that He “came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel”. You don’t get more exclusive than that. Of the Israelite people, God said in Amos, “Of all the families (or tribes), only you have I loved”. The Israelites who wrote the Bible would scoff at the ideas that you claim about racial universalism, which is a modern Marxist concept you have imposed upon the Bible.
Mark …………….. Thanks! Much more eloquent than I. I appreciate you weighing in. Nice to have other like-minded men around. Sincerely.
American Renaissance recently ran an article explaining how all of the races “evolved” from the same stock.
With his exception for Eskimos, the author notes that the IQ evolved inversely to the amount of sunlight the population received.
What puzzles me is how people with this mindset can be so very concerned as they are about huWhite Genocide. After all, by their secular logic, if we were all blacked, wouldn’t we eventually “re-evolve” back to White in the less sunny climes?
Is there a sound way to argue this point?
The obvious hole in Taylor’s “cold climate evolution” theory is that ancient Greece and Rome were not in cold climates, and those people had no need to “evolve” to adapt to the European cold climate. And, yes, the Greeks and Romans were white. So were the ancient Persians, aka, Aryans.
How Jared Taylor cannot see this flaw is mind-boggling. The white race in Europe first settled in the Mediterranean basin, a very temperate climate. Same with the Phoenicians, as they migrated north into Spain, Britain, and Ireland.
Greece was inhabited long before northern Europe was, and yet no one has to come up with a crackpot theory to explain how “Africans” moved north to Greece to “adapt” or “evolve” to survive the moderate climate there. Pure nonsense.
If European whites evolved from black Africans, then we would still carry many of their genes, and we would still be capable of creating “blackish” offspring with some African traits. No archeological evidence supports this idea, no transitional black-white skeletons have ever been found in Europe. No black skeletons at all. Why not?
And if we used to be black, why would we care if we mixed with our ancestors? What about so-called “hybrid vigor”? Evolution is amoral, and if pressures cause race mixing, then all the better, no? If evolution is amoral, so is race mixing, and the white race should “benefit” from that potential infusion of black genes.
But no, Taylor wants his cake and eat it too. And his readers fawn over him because he’s a Harvard man and devoted to “science”. Evolution is not science. It’s metaphysics and pure speculation.
People who even think this are insane. It seems the “muh equality “ crowd will use anything to prove their points or maybe twist them.
Anything that started in a Sin-O-GOG i don’t want any part in. If GOD Almighty needs a “middleman” then how can that Being claim to be the Supreme God? Just like according to the OT fables of the jews “satan” was kicked out, but then in the book of JOB “satan” is allowed to go to back to “heaven” to the place that is supposed to be 100% holy every moment of all existance and basically “pollute” that “place” with it’s presence. See the fable of the jews and co-“religionists”.
I’m all for a man or woman truly wanting to purify itself through Grace and understanding.
Sanskrit is probably one of the oldest languages.
Not what the word “re” means and then add that to “ligion”
Christ is said to have cast out the “legion” right?
Ever consider that? Change one letter and ligion becomes legion.
It is wrote in the OT that for the abundance of “his merchandise” “lucifer” was “cast out”. Eze_28:16
re “with reference to,” used from c. 1700 in legalese, from Latin (in) re “in the matter of,” from ablative of res “property, goods; matter, thing, affair,” from Proto-Italic *re-, from PIE *reh-i- “wealth, goods” (source also of Sanskrit rayi- “property, goods,” Avestan raii-i- “wealth”).
So they whole earth is basically populated with vain “RELIGION” according to the epistle of James.
The ancients know that “lesser gods” where put in charge of the “lesser” part which is physical Creation.
Like I’ve said all through out the bible OT and NT you have two competing “christs” one of the Eternal Universal Love. forgiveness mercy,compassion the real Christ who KNOWS the processes of the Supremem Almighty and the other OCD (obsessive compulsive ) type which only knows a tiny part of the processes in place which it learned before its fall.
cas, so-called “satan” in Job does not refer to some supernatural evil character. Rather, “satan” is better understood as an adversary or false accuser of Job. Not a supernatural fallen angel as you are falsely suggesting.
And the same is true of “Lucifer” who appears only once in the entire Bible, and refers to the King of Babylon, not some fallen angel or supernatural demon. It was a blatant mis-translation in the Latin Vulgate, and many of the new translations of the OT have rightly dropped “Lucifer” completely in favor of the more accurate “morning star”, a reference to Venus.
All of which makes your interpretation of the Bible here without merit or substance.
Didn’t we just go through this a few weeks ago here?
While Satan can refer to a human adversary in the Bible, such as in some translations of 1 Kings 11, the idea that it was a human who challenged God over Job, or who tempted Christ by offering him the world, does not compute.
With Babylon being both a metaphor in the Bible, covering what is to come, as well as the long-gone historical empire, does dismissing Lucifer as a long dead Babylonian ruler necessarily jibe?
Chaplain Bob Walker
The NIV deleted the word LUCIFER and inserts MORNING STAR which is a name Jesus called himself in Revelation 22.
Thus turning Jesus the morning star into Lucifer in Isaiah 14.
Jesus = Morning Star = Lucifer
The “complete [messianic] Jewish Bible” does the same thing and turns Jesus into Yeshua into the morning star into Lucifer.
Jesus = Yeshua = Morning Star = Lucifer
and you wonder why I am so hard on Messianic so called J’s?
Cas: Synagogue is originally a Greek word, not a Hebrew or Aramaic word, or English as you imply. And it simply means “meeting hall” or “assembly” is not even specific to Jews. Only later did Jews appropriate the Greek word into their lexicon, so that now people think its a “Jewish” word, when it’s not.
Therefore, your analysis of “synagogue”, twisting into somehow related to “sin” is makes no sense at all. You simply made it up by its superficial appearance. The prefix “syn” means “with” or “together” in Greek, where we get the word “synthesis”, which is easy to relate to bringing together in an assembly place.
There is only one race called the human race which was originally made in the image and likeness of God in Adam until he and all his offspring regardless of the colour of their skin were cursed in the Fall.
Those who remain under the curse until death are the seed of the serpent also described in Scripture as the goats, tares, children of the devil and reprobate while those chosen before the foundation of the world in Christ are the seed of the woman also described in Scripture as the sheep, wheat, children of God and elect who are saved by grace through faith in the person and work of Christ in whom the image and likeness of God which was lost in Adam is restored.
Everyone is born with the same cursed blood and desperately needs the forgiveness of sins that comes through the shedding of blood of He who knew no sin but became sin for His people by becoming a curse for them by hanging on a tree and wearing their cursed crown to satisfy divine justice in order to grant righteous mercy to them in His resurrection from the dead which is evidenced in them becoming new creatures through regeneration dependent not on the person or their work but solely upon the free sovereign grace of God.
Max, whom did Cain marry? Who built Cain’s cities? (Genesis 4:17) It seems that there were people who were outside of the Genesis creation of Adam and Eve, that is, pre-Adamites, who did not share the “same cursed blood” from Adam as you claim. Please explain how we got the different primary races out of Adam and Eve who were clearly, and undeniably, of the same bone and flesh.
The Bible says that Adam lived to be 930 and therefore he had many children exponentially, so Cain married one of his relatives who also had cursed blood like him.
The only people who argue for people outside of the Genesis creation account of Adam and Eve are those who try to justify the absurd theory of macro evolution over millions of years and its need to divide humans into different races.
A very simple explanation for the varied colours of skin from Adam can be found in this short video below.
Sorry, Max, that video link you submitted is full of fallacies, both scientific and biblical.
The video very dishonestly reduces racially differences to skin color. This is absurd. Not only that, the discussion of melanin is also unscientific. It pretends that a couple of the same race (Adam and Eve) can produce children with significantly different melanin content. Absurd. Not unless one or both are different genetically.
Fallacy Two: that the dispersion from Babel genetically isolated people into looking different via language. Look at Europe. The same people separated by language for two thousand years. Why didn’t they all look different, with different skin color etc? Can you really tell one European from another, aside from those countries that suffered from mixing from non-white invasions, like Spain, Italy and Portugal? Good luck. What a joke, sorry.
Racial differences are profound, and affect not only external appearance, but biology, immune response, skeletal form, brain formation and size, etc. From a genetic point of view, racial differences amount to over 8 million different genes! The glib video says the only “racial” different” is skin color relies on people’s ignorance, but for biblical universalists and egalitarians, this is “science”.
Take an educated guess for me please …………….
If we clear Iceland of all it’s inhabitants and replace them with 500,000 pure black men and women from the Congo — in how many years would you guess we would begin to see White people emerging from the loins of black couples?
Take a guess please. 3000 years? Less? More? Of course it would be gradual according to your theory. Babies will become less and less black and more and more white.
Did you read “Not of One Blood” from the PDF above? I’d be curious your critique.
I’d love to be wrong about my beliefs, but no one will answer my simple question/challenge. What does that say about what you believe?
Pastors are all unwilling to answer my challenge. They ridicule me and call me names instead. No one here has called you any names and we have been cordial with you.
I hope the video below helps to answer your questions,
and make you understand why one the twin sisters seen in the article below can be white and the other black.
Again, Max, this story of biracial sisters has nothing to do with the Bible. It admits that the parents were not of the same race, of “one flesh”, of the same “bone and flesh” as Adam and Eve. One parent was biracial. Of course, a biracial parent can produce biracial children. What does that have to do with the Bible and the Genesis 10 nations that were all the same Adamic race?
I will accept that your “Non-Answer” is because you can’t answer my question because you know it is impossible.
If we removed all the inhabitants of Iceland and replaced them with pure black men and women from the Congo —– Not in a million years will White people begin to emerge from the loins of black couples. It is IMPOSSIBLE and you know it.
Now the question is why? Are you a deceiver on purpose? If you are a White man, why would you want to do that? It is one thing to be deceived and not know it. Some how I don’t believe you to be ignorant.
That article from CNN, and the DM article that it cites, both rely on statements from the sisters to prove their biological sisterhood.
[Quote]’So she had no idea that we were so different. When the midwife handed us both to her she was just speechless.’[/quote]
How would the sisters reliably know what their mom’s midwife did? For all the sisters know, the fair skinned lass could have been adopted/switched at birth.
(If the sisters are correct, then the fair-skinned one ain’t White, to be sure)
Where is the DNA testing?
I’m seeing a meme going around claiming that King Tut had a hooknosed “heeb” on the bottom of his sandal. Unfortunately, the meme suggests to the more secular sorts that the Israelites who had been in Egypt were hooknosed “heebs”.
While we here know that this is not the case, assuming it is legitimate, how does this sandal get “square” with history?
Very simple, king tut was White as where all his ancestors and most of the ancient Egyptians, on his sandals are depicted a black man and on the other an arab.
Nobody asks to be born as they say. In the eyes of the lord, what will become of the hybrids, half chats, – the mongrels? Will they pay for the sins of their fathers/mothers miscegenation? None are heirlooms thanks to their parents choices. Children born white today in an average household, have hell to look forward to, – no roots, no home. Amongst Jews and the Arabs of Iran/North India, as well as Turks and Armenians there are Asiatic beings who look just as Adamic as North Europeans. Some more so.
I’ll wager that 50% of White Americans today with appearances of North European Adamic stock are pretty much a mixed variety and include East and Southern European genes in their make-up. The Asiatic gene is prevalent in all of the latter countries. Irish Catholics make up the dominant white template in America for want of a better word but a huge percentage of them are race blind and open to pollution as are the Scandinavians. The results are everywhere from Australia to SA, to UK/Europe, North and Central America. The English (bluebloods that is) have long been a minority in their own country. They were surreptitiously displaced in many towns and cities by Irish migrants around 1975. There’s probably more bluebloods in Jamestown Virginia. Germany the same. Probably more Poles (Catholic) and Czechs in Germany than blue blooded Saxon Germans.
Very interesting thoughts. Thanks for sharing. I for one do not believe a mixed race person would suffer eternal torment just for being of mixed race. As you say, it wasn’t their choice. The White parent …………………. not so sure about that one.
God is a Righteous Judge. I trust His judgement.
” I ONLY COME FOR THE HOUSE/PEOPLES OF ISRAEL ” hint its not the middle east apostate fake israel. Everyone else can NOT receive Salvation ONLY the house/peoples of Israel the PRO-JESUS CHRIST, NOT THE ANTI-JESUS, ANTI-BIBLE jews. So the people game is narrowing on who the Heck is ISRAEL is Jesus the Father eternal is ONLY for a certain peoples and the rest is like the floods and sodom & Gomorrah sh!t out of luck . What part of ” I ONLY AM FOR/COME FOR THE PEOPLES/HOUSE OF ISRAEL ” IS CONFUSING. Another hint as to may NOT be Israel is in scriptures if you dare to open and search its in there. Here, I will give you two for free then you must you Wisdom from Jesus the Father to disern who the Father God ONLY is for and is coming back for. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT because the rest are like it or not left out. And God clearly has illistrated in the past he can destroy millions upon millions by just drawning and burning them.
LEVITICUS 21:18 ” Do NOT approach he who has the FLAT NOSES, and do NOT offer to them the BREAD of/from your God to them. THEY ARE A BLEMISH TO YOUR GOD ” Duh////
Song Of Solomon 5:10 KJV original all others are rewritten blaspheme books””””””””””””””””” MY BELOVED IS WHITE AND RUDDY ”
( ruddy means to be able to blush, turn flush and or to show red like the blood of Jesus under skin/face easily. )
Your interpretation of Leviticus 21:18 is wrong and taken out of context. These verses are talking about people “of the seed of Aaron” who have physical blemishes, including “flat noses” and “brokenhands”. This refers to Israelite priests of the Arronic bloodline who have physical deformites….and therefore are unfit to making offerings in the temple. “Flat noses” is not a reference to non-Israelite, non-white racial aliens, if that’s what you are trying to suggest.
Take it up with Jesus and question him and call him unfair then if you dare. That verse there Leviticus 21:18 is to allow the reader to distinguish who is a BLEMISH before the eyes of God. Allow the scriptutre to speak for itself…. It is a Leviticus warning, advise, just like the warnings and advise of the food laws to be obeyed. The Bible is ONLY for the house of Isarael. NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ISRAEL no matter how you judeo-christian try to squeeze the unfit puzzle piece into the wrong slot. Your duty here on earth is to find out WHO IS REAL ISRAEL, AND WHO THE APOSTATE FAKE ONES ARE which happen to be actually enemies of Jesus the Father. Wise up! Because one group/race gets Salvation by being Jesus direct Descendance and his election within his own peoples because many of Gods peoples will end up in hell, and the others do not. When the Disciples in the early years try to tell ones like you this they too could not accept that and called it racist, anti this and that and the jews and mixed multitude peoples put up posses hunted them and murdered them. I think that’s where they get the saying ” DONT KILL THE MESSENGER ” which is in fact what you are doing and the judeo-christian ones that cant accept the truth as it is written.
Christians For Truth
Where did you get the idea that this was a “judeo-Christian” website? Everything you are saying is based on a false premise. Why do you feel a need to misrepresent who were are? Have you not read our essays on the Bible? Please show us where we advocate universalist doctrine? Before you start commenting on a site, the least you can do is actually read its material first, so as to not embarrass yourself and waste everyone’s time.
And by the way, we’ve noticed that you have a bad habit of insulting people who disagree with you. If you accuse anyone of being a “kike” again for not agreeing with your doctrine, you will be banned from further commenting. It’s slander and un-Christian.
Thanks. Just for starters:
Kale U. is correct, and Daniel is flat-out wrong. Leviticus 21:18 has nothing to do with separating the wheat from the tares, so to speak, or separating Israelites from non-Israelites. It is specifically addressed to the Arronic Priesthood who were presenting appropriate sacrifices on the altar. The priests themselves were to be without physical blemish. Those are the plain words of Scripture that “speak for themselves.”
And, no, the Bible is not only for Israelites — Genesis 5:1 refutes that idea. The Bible is about the “generations of Adam”, which obviously includes non-Israelites. Was Abraham an Israelite? No. Issac? No. Noah? No.
What do you think the “wild olive branch” parable is about in Romans 11? Are you seriously going to try to argue this refers somehow to Israelites? What do you take the meaning of the “fullness of the nations” to mean?
Are you seriously claiming that Christ did not come to also gather the righteous from the Genesis 10 nations? Wasn’t that the whole point of Paul’s ministry to the nations, like Greece and Rome? What Bible are you reading, seriously? You have taken Matthew 15:24 out of context. Christ originally came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel, but then His gospels would be brought to the Adamic 10 nations. Paul makes that abundantly clear, no?
Your comment is clearly a rebuke to me. Which is fine. But, let’s be Christian here and ask questions first before making false accusations. Non-believers and judeo-christians do frequent this site. What kind of example did you just set? Did you forget about 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.
Slow down …………………. Why don’t you ask me a question about what I wrote. What made you jump to such a conclusion about my Spirit?
Hi CFT admins, I got a question specifically for you.
Are White southafricans/Afrikaners Israelites too?
Because they are on average 4-5% non-European as many of them had slave ancestors and since they are all closely related they all share the same blood.
You wrote many articles about them and therefore I ask you what do you think about this?
Will they too be saved or they are just other mamzers?
Christians For Truth
Mark Lucius, we cannot comment on your allegation that White South Africans “on average” — which we take to mean 50% of them — have 4-5%” non-European admixture without seeing your proof. Please post links to multiple genetic studies that support such a contention. Surely, you do not expect us just to take your word for it?
I have this article:
and also by genealogical means you can find the non-White ancestors of the afrikaners.
For example pistorius, elon musk, charlize theron all have asian and black ancestors from the 1600s.
Check the website ethnicelebs in the afrikaner section and they have an extensive genealogical map of many random afrikaners that prove their mixed origin.
The genetic study you cited used a very small sample of Afrikaners — only 77 people. And there’s no indication of how those 77 people were chosen for the study. Given there are about 3 million Afrikaners in South Africa, that doesn’t seem like it would be a reliable sample.
And the notion that white South Afrikaners showed Native American Indian admixture, according to this genetic study, is highly suspicious, considering that their white Europeans (their ancestors) would not have had any — it is an American phenomenon.
But again, one study should never be relied upon, especially considering how there is an undeniable political motive to convince white Afrikaners that they are actually mixed. After all, if most whites are mixed, then their “racism” is hypocritical and pointless. That’s why most DNA companies include non-white DNA in their results — to convince whites that they are “mixed”. They have admitted as much.
We cannot comment on the “ethniccelebs” website — as that seems largely based on hearsay and gossip.
My thoughts exactly.
You look at Theron’s wiki and there is NO mention of any non-white admixture.
Trust me ……………. if there was — it would be in BOLD.
The page cited above says it is “possible” she has “1/1024 Khosian descent”.
Huh? What is 1/1024?
Seems like more of the same — Propaganda by the Usual Suspects.
Although not exactly on point, Willie Martin’s text, “The Anglo-Saxon race is Lost Israel
[and North America is the land of their regathering]”, is supportive.
“Read Amos, and be assured that though Ephraim may forget God, God will not forget Ephraim. Amos, too, was a prophet to the northern kingdom. And this is what we read there:
9: For lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all the nations, like as a grain is sifted, in a sieve, yet shall not the least kernel fall to the earth.
That statement is not mere rhetoric. It means something. It means that God is watching over His Israel people in and through all their wanderings, their wars, their trials, their chastisements, and their tribulations, “O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.” (Isaiah 44:21)
In the song of Moses, which the Lord instructed him to write, we have this remarkable statement:
8: When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9: For the LORD’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
For the Lord’s portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance.
This statement concerning God’s providential dealings with the nations is confirmed by the statement of Paul at Athens, when he said:
24: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25: Neither is worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26: And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.
It seems quite evident that God never intended that the people of Israel should be confined to the little land of Canaan. Had they continued increasing as they had done in Egypt and later, long centuries before the coming of Christ it would have been a physical impossibility for the land of Canaan to have held and sustained them. That Canaan was to be the center of their government and worship is clear enough.
But manifestly, they were not to be confined to that territory. We find that as early as the early part of the days of the Judges, Dan and Asher were a seafaring people, going as far west, doubtless, as “the ends of the earth,” the British Isles. In the song of Deborah and Barak we have this: …. [More at this link shown below]:
The Native American Indians have many nations! Cherokee, Quapaw etc..etc.. the list is too long to write. Point is, THEY ARE ONE RACE/BLOOD IE..” nation” of Native Americans. Why is it to the jews…that’s where nation ends? European Whites are nations too. The Bible is a White man’s book. So Paul is addressing the white peoples.
One thing Mr Daniel – indians are NOT Native Americans. Celts and Danes were here first. If you have to live around indians, you will see that they basically – wish I knew how to italicise that – come from a couple of groups; some look like South American ‘indians’ and some are very ‘asian’ in their features. Some are fairly White also; these are usually the ‘civilised tribes’ that genocided White people as they moved in but kidnapped/kept the women. See various books on archaeology and history such as “In Plain Sight” , “Christians Before Columbus” , America BC” etc etc.
And yes, the Bible is written for and about White folk. 🙂
Paul was no doubt like Jesus was mainly addressing the White Israelites/Hebrews in his preaching. negroes and chinese and latinos would never bow to a White man or call him Lord God……… VOLUNTARILY that is. so when Paul addressing Acts 17 to the interested Christian WHITE Israelite crowd they would have known EXACTLY what another White Christian man was talking about as far as ” NATIONS ” of WHITE PEOPLES. Those would be the Nordics, Celts, Scandinavians, Germans, Italians, French, Dutch, and even Spaniards of Spain….etc… They are all WHITE ” NATIONS” of Israelites, more like the 12 Tribes ( NATIONS ) maybe Paul was referring to in some form and or fasion.
But its awful funny these ” so called Judeo-Christian church/synagogue kikes” that SADLY make up 90% or more of the White race in modern day live by the Democratic liberal ways of following the Freaking science while ignoring Biblical warnings, advise, etc… then turn around to defy the obvious science fact that like the author of this article ( cft) says and KNOWING that putting different blood into peoples bodies that is NOT A RACIAL MATCH WILL RESULT IN SICKNESS AND DEATH!
Yet they steadfastly in your face with the anti-Jesus, anti-Bible jew cliché ” we be one blood like blood brathas ” What type of sick Judeo-Christian church going fools are we dealing with actually? Well, 75% or more of the jews also trusted and believed and received with enthusiasm in the jew covid and their earthly serum as they acted as gods on the earth with MANDATES or the police whom are actually the agents of the satanic evil jew government.
Some translations get it right….that the nations arose out of one man, Adam.
But many take that to include non-Genesis 10 nations. Nations in the Bible refer to only those that came from Adam unless otherwise defined.
” One man ” is the judeo-christian other versions INSERTION rewritten by antiJesus, AntiBible, anti-White-Jacob jews! The original ( best of the worse that was tampered with by translators) King James Version as always says the opposite of the other false cult versions. REVELATION 22;18-19 kjv SAYS IT ALL and the punishment for doing such.
The Greeks were about as “racist” as you can get. Their marriages and social structure were very restrictive. The idea that a racial egalitarian religion would appeal to them is patently absurd. Tell an ancient Greek that there was no difference between them and a black african, and you’d probably be putting your life at risk. Same for Romans. No early Christian would dare utter such nonsense in Judea or elsewhere.
Neither the Greeks nor Romans recognized “race.” They didn’t even have a word for it. At least one of the Roman emperors was dark-skinned enough (from N. Africa) to be recognized today as Black. Find one passage in a Latin or Ancient Greek text that refers to race.
At least one of the Roman emperors was dark-skinned enough (from N. Africa) to be recognized today as Black.
Elaborate please. Documentation if you have it. Not sure exactly your point here. Thanks.
There were a few non-White Roman emperors like philip the arab and septimius severus who was 1/4 or 1/8 black and his son caracalla.
Back then most people in the middle east and north africa were still White without counting some zones in egypt and syria.
But anyway none of these people left a trace on the current White populations of Europe cause all their descendants were killed or their lines didn’t survive one way or the other.
There is also the possibility that philip wasn’t an arab but just born in an arab district and therefore got his nickname from there and also severus could have been just tanned, I say this cause the bust of both of them looks like the face of typical White people so that’s a possibility.
Septimius Severus was not part black. He was Italic and Punic, and the Punic part meant he was part Phoenician, which is white.
His second wife was part Arab, so his sons from that marriage, including Caracalla, were also part Arab, and his bust looks like he was touched by the tar brush:
Roman historian Dio wrote this of Caracalla, “Caracalla is descended from three different races and that he managed to combine all of their faults into one person: the fickleness, cowardice, and recklessness of the Gauls, the cruelty and harshness of the Africans, and the craftiness that is associated with the Syrians.”
Thanks for the contribution. Usually if someone has black admixture, it is obvious. A White person mixing with a mixed race black person is even fairly obvious. That guy would have stuck out like a sore thumb had he been of black admixture.
Then we have “Arab”. What exactly is that? Rhetorical. Meaning, or in other words …………. Arab is not an Original Peoples. At least I have never come across any anthropologists of the past claiming Arab was an orginal creation — White, black, yellow and red. Does not the word “Arab” mean ‘mixed’?
So, who were the first Arabs — Were they a mixture of black and yellow peoples? To me it seems like the first Arabs were a mix of black and yellow and then White. Meaning the White person had sex with a mixed person of black and yellow ethnicity.
The other problem we have is that people still insist that if such a person was born in a geographical place — therefore that geographical place defines their ethnicity.
Ex: a black person born in Ireland will be considered “Irish” by the world at large. Conversely, a White person born in Japan will NEVER be called “Japanese”.
Christians have that Pavlonian response when they read the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch to jump to the conclusion that the Ethiopian had to be black because he was born in Ethiopia!
The other mistake Christians make is that they say Ishmael was the father of the Arabs. Huh? How do they jump to that conclusion. Ishmael was White. As was Hagar. But since Ishmael is the “father of the arabs” therefore Hagar had to be of a different race. Thus proving their heresy that Israelites were race mixers as was Moses for marrying Zipporah. Funny enough — google Zipporah and look at the images.
It’s all so convuluted it makes my head spin.
Until otherwise proven, I’m fairly confident God created 4 original peoples — black, yellow and red during the animal creation and then White with the story of Adam and Eve.
West, I think the contention is not that Ishmael himself was Arab or mixed, but rather his descendants eventually became mixed, and those mixed bloodlines became largely what we now know as the Arab-Muslim peoples.
What I find odd about the whole scenario is that no one seems to know when, exactly, Ishmael’s descendants began mixing with Arabs. It isn’t mentioned in the Bible, but there were already a lot of Arabs by the time of Christ….
I think the contention is not that Ishmael himself was Arab or mixed, but rather his descendants eventually became mixed
I can agree with that as a theory. But if you were to poll “christians” as to the Ethnicity of Hagar, pretty much we will find they all believe Hagar to be “Brown” in complexion ie., a non-white. Ironically, I just did an image search and classical paintings all portray Hagar as White. Which I find inspiring. At least our Ancestors weren’t so gullible. 🙂
“…It isn’t mentioned in the Bible, but there were already a lot of Arabs by the time of Christ….
I don’t necessarily disagree with you here, but what would you cite to support this conclusion?
I’m trying to figure out how “Modern Arabs” came to be in the first place. I suspect the black and the yellow had to first mix and then add White admixture to the cake and you then get what we know today as an Arab. And would modern Arabs look the same as “Arabs” from the first century?
It just seems to me that circa the first Century, the Tribes of men — White, black, yellow and red — remained pretty much homogenous. Certainly there was the mixing of those tribes but that would have been a minority. Look at the Yellows …. they are a large population of relative homogeneity. Same with blacks in Africa.
But I don’t know ………………. it’s not my expertise.
A study of Alexander the Great may shed some light on this topic i.e., journal entries of observations of peoples etc., etc.
But again, I would be very interested in how you would document your comment — that there were many Arabs during the time of Christ.
Thanks for the convo. 🙂
Dixie Brat: “Neither the Greeks nor Romans recognized “race.” They didn’t even have a word for it.”
How about the koine Greek word “genea” (Strong’s 1074), which means “race, family, generation”…
And Roman latin word “gens” (from gentis), which means “race or clan”.
Since Dixie Brat isn’t responding, I don’t want to speak for Dixie, but I will assume what he/she meant was that the Greeks didn’t recognize Non-whites as part of their Family Tree. The word Genea is translated “sometimes” as the english word — Race. The english word “Generation” seems to be a more accurate translation.
If you go to this page — https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1074/kjv/tr/0-1/
They only list — Generation; time; age and Nation. They don’t even include the word ‘race’.
I think you missed Dixie’s ultimate point — the Greeks didn’t recognize “race” as we do today. Never would they have thought that blacks or yellows were part of their family tree.
Just my two cents.
What was your overall point? What is your opinion of this topic? Do you believe all upright Bi-peds are related to Adam and Eve?
I’m just not sure your overall rebuke of Dixie’s comment. It seemed Hostile.
Actually ‘barbarian’ in the Greek means foreigner.
I thought a “barbarian” was specifically someone/anyone who did not speak Greek….so, a foreigner who doesn’t speak Greek?
915. βάρβαρος bárbaros; gen. barbárou, masc. noun. A barbarian, i.e., a man who speaks a foreign or strange language, a foreigner (1 Cor. 14:11; Sept.: Ps. 114:1). The inhabitants of Melita (Malta) were called barbarians because they spoke a dialect of the Phoenician language (Acts 28:2, 4). In Rom. 1:14, “to the Greeks, and to the barbarians,” Paul refers to those who were not Greeks as barbarians. In Col. 3:11, bárbaros seems to refer to those nations of the Roman Empire which did not speak Gr. such as the Jews, Romans, or Spaniards. The Greeks generally called the Romans and Jews barbarians. The Egyptians also referred to non–Egyptians as Berbers
Geneticists claim that all “humans” share 99.8% the same genes. What they don’t tell you is that “little” .2% difference between the races actually is enormous, and includes over 8 million different genes. 8 million!
So for a black person to “evolve” into a white person, it would require over 8 million gene mutations minimum, and that’s assuming none of them were lethal, which 99.999% of them are.
Conclusion: mathematically impossible for a black to evolve into a white person, or vice versa.
So great to have access to this article! Weisman’s pamphlet is out of print and good luck finding one.
If only this article and pamphlet would have been distributed to every Church in America Pre-WW2.
I have asked this question to judeo-christians countless times. I have never once heard someone respond with a logical explanation.
The Question is Simple —- If the United Nations were to remove all 500,000 Icelanders from the Island of Iceland and replaced them with 500,000 pure black men and women from the Congo and restricted immigration to only black men and women — in how many years would we begin to see White people emerge from the loins of homogenous black men and women?
If their theory is correct —– it should only take about 4000 years or less. I’m not great with Biblical Chronology, but their theory is that once God scattered man at the Tower of Babel — as groups of men went East, North, South and West, the climate determined whether or not a person became black because of the extreme heat — white because of the lack of sun — or yellow with squinty eyes because the snow was so bright etc., etc., etc. And this all had to happen within a few thousands of years.
So, we should expect then that Iceland, if filled up with pure black men and women would one day turn White once again. In how many years would they say???
Boy, would I love to hear a judeo-christian pastor answer this challenge!
I would appreciate any input here from the choir if I have mistated my question via chronology etc., etc. Or could have asked the question better or diferent entirely.
I am no expert on Biblical Chronology.
Thanks CFT for taking the time to put together such a much needed article. I’ve been passing weisman’s PDF around but hardly a man bothers to read it. They say PDF’s are hard to read or something stupid like that. And that I’m the anti-christ for even bringing up the question in the first place.
Assuming natural selection works, according to Darwin, it is “blind”, no? No plan behind its selection, which is random.
So why would this Black African population on Iceland selectively breed for lighter skin, straight hair, and blue eyes even if they could? What advantage would that give them in Iceland? And how could they get these Africans to agree to selectively breed as such, when as we know, Black Africans are among the least organized people on Earth?
The only Darwinian “selection” we’d observe is that all of them would be dead from the harsh climate without the White man’s help keeping them alive long before we saw any evidence of natural selection.
The only Darwinian “selection” we’d observe is that all of them would be dead from the harsh climate without the White man’s help keeping them alive long before we saw any evidence of natural selection.
On another note …………….. how long has the White man been in Africa now? I see no evidence that homogenous Whites are slowly turning black.
I’m embarrased I once believed all of this. But I was very selfish then and the Holy Spirit was absent from my soul. This is not a game of intelligence. This is Supernatural. We must always keep that in mind or we will go insane trying to figure people out.
Plant seeds ………………………… God does the watering. Move on if the plant fails to grow.
But you have to admit that the Jews, through their media control, have done a masterful job demonizing “racism”.
It’s far worse to be labeled a “racist” than even a serial killer, and that’s not an exaggeration.
Amazingly, the achievements of the white race speak for themselves, and no other race comes close, and they all know it.
There’s just a tacit agreement that we won’t mention the accomplishments of whites, and our mind-boggling history in such a short time span.
All major civilizations.
All major inventions.
All high art.
To argue for racial egalitarianism is the ultimate denial of reality.
But you have to admit that the Jews, through their media control, have done a masterful job demonizing “racism”.
No doubt about that. So where did we go wrong in your opinion/understanding?
Do you believe race-mixing to be a sin worthy of the loss of Eternal Life?
I think about our Ancestors who explored the Earth and ran into peoples unlike themselves. As an example, I believe the Japanese are a mixed race peoples — White and yellow.
Will God have judged those men for having families with the yellows? Or given them a pass. It’s all speculation but an interesting conversation none the less.
Mexicans are clearly a mixed race people — White Spaniards mixed with Red aboriginals. Those Whites were our peoples.
Of course God is a Righteous Judge and the only Judge, but I’m curious your opinion.
It’s not an endorsement and I’ll probably get criticized here, but the prohibition is not overly obvious in the Scriptures. To the Israelites it certainly was. But how about before Abraham? And then after AD 70, when we lost our identity as Israelites.
I’m reminded of a historical visit I took to Greenville South Carolina. There is a rather large monument dedicated to Richard Pearis, born in Ireland, who is the founder of Greenville. He took an Indian woman for a wife and fathered a son with her. According to his bio he was a “Christian”. What did he miss ……… I guess is the question I have.
Someday all will be revealed.
Well, according to Romans 5:13, there is no sin where there is no law:
“(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.”
I know that people have claimed that the sin of race mixing is mentioned early in Genesis (Gen 1:25) as the law of “kind after kind”, but is it an actual law or just an observation about creation? It’s repeated, of course, in Leviticus 11:22, but does that make it a law in Genesis 1? I presume that the early Genesis 10 nations were very tribal, that is, very “racist” toward other tribes, but only because that seems to be the natural state of Man that God put on our hearts.
White men who explored the world often took native “wives” just out of sheer loneliness or physical need. I’m pretty sure there were those who disapproved of such behavior, while others felt justified. Just like with any moral dilemma. It’s the half-caste children that cause the real problem when they become absorbed into the white race. But the white parent is the one who is accountable.
Thanks for weighing in.
It seems to me the “consequences” of such an action are only now rearing their ugly head. It wasn’t that long ago that it wasn’t a problem because it was a small minority of peoples. Just like homosexuality. It was such a fringe minority that it didn’t seem to cause problems in society.
But now …………………….. clearly race-mixing and homosexuality is destroying White Nations RAPIDLY.
Thanks again for your opinion. It is nice to have conversations with other commenters. So many commenters drop in with their opinion and never come back to explain or answer objections. Cheers.
Ps. is it possible that Romans 5:3 is only refering to the Law delivered by Moses? God has Natural Laws. He wiped out almost the entirety of our people in the flood and this was before the giving of the Mosaic Law. Cain was punished for murder (Natural Law). Seems to me Romans 5:3 is specifically pointing to the Law given by Moses. Thoughts?
Natural Laws — Murder, Rape, Theft …….
Yes, the problem with race mixing is that it does its damage exponentially, as you said, it starts out as a trickle, but as the mixed offspring have children, the numbers increase rapidly, and become a flood.
White babies born in 2011 were the first whites born as minorities in the U.S., and those numbers will gain momentum, and in 20 more years, whites will really start to feel the effects, but it will be too late to do anything about. Whites in the U.S. eventually will be like the whites in South Africa, a small minority keeping things going, on whom the non-whites rely.
I alluded to “natural law” or “pre-Mosaic” law in Genesis. Yes, Romans 5:13 refers only to Mosaic law, not natural law. But I personally believe that all Adamic peoples are born with “natural law” or “morality” encoded in our DNA. Our laws are biologically based, much more than learned. I think that’s why many so-called “white nationalists” believe that we can do well as a people even without the Bible. And the Bible is the story about our moral failure, with or without the laws written down or codified.
I do believe that race mixing is one of God’s “rods of chastisement”, and as we continue to disobey Him, we will see more of it, and as Leviticus 18:23 says, it brings about “confusion” and disrupts our social cohesion, as a mixed child cannot serve two masters.
Great answer/explanation! I appreciate you.
I personally believe that all Adamic peoples are born with “natural law” or “morality” encoded in our DNA.
I so agree. Thanks again for the convo. 🙂
You’re bang on target and one of a growing number who comprehend entirely how inflated the Trotsky invented ‘racist’ label is these days within “western” establishments. I know of a case where a white guy was harassed and bullied in his UK work place by South Asian female managers. He complained to a pair of white female HR managers within the same company producing tape recordings and written evidence to back it up which they chose to ignore. It got to the point where he lost it completely and walked out telling them what he thought of them in ‘racist’ terms. When questioned online by HR he replied he could no longer work with “lying Paki bastards”. Later that day he was arrested and charged with ‘Malicious communication’ and ended up with a suspended prison sentence, a fine of £1200.00 and community service. Career destroyed. Similarly his white neighbour was violently assaulted by a mixed group of scumbags over a parking space. They attended the following day and nobody was charged despite CLEAR CCTV footage ?!?
Just my .2 worth.
[And [God] has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.]
I don’t agree with time being able to change what God created and determined. This is why this engineered emigration (or whatever it’s called) is so evil to me (and according to the Word) also to God. This is why He also commanded to not mix seed whether human seed or animal seed or vegetation seed. There is a curse on it because He did not create it that way…man has created it that way. ‘Hybrids’. Everywhere we look today is the curse of hybrids and it is causing the whole earth to suffer. ‘Scientists’ are the ones to blame for it…acting like God. Jews are the sole ones behind the mixing of races and ‘determined boundaries’. All domestic animals are hybrids. All (except for heirloom varieties) vegetable seeds are hybrids. The curse with a hybrid plant is that they can’t reproduce seed. And this is also why domestic animals (esp. the kind that are eaten) are impregnated with a ‘seed’ from certain male stock by a veterinarian. Hybrids can’t withstand most if not all harsh weather conditions, disease, etc. But an heirloom (for lack of a better word)…or pure, wild not tampered by man…can withstand or can tolerate a more vast range of conditions.
To answer your question…I do not believe an African being placed in Iceland would last as long as the natives because he was not created to be there (and his blood, genes, etc gives witness to that. Vice versa imho…I could and would never last long in Africa without specialized controlled conditions just as a ‘hybrid’ would need. The amazing thing about the animal kingdom which was created on the same day before man…never goes beyond it’s boundaries in all aspects…but the so-called more intelligent man has! And with him he has defiled what God has Created. This imho is why we don’t live as long as man used to. The Blood of Jesus Christ takes away our sin and therefore restores us from where we have fallen to produce ‘good fruit’ pure and undefiled.
Thank you CFT for bringing this forward and your excellent insight therein. God Bless to all.
Phillip R. Mellon
Jews are indeed hybrids who then turn around and encourage the non-hybrids to become hybrids, as if being a hybrid is some sort of virtue. Jews know on some level that they lost their “chosen” status with God when they became hybrids by marrying non-Adamic spouses, ignoring and/or rewriting God’s laws against such marriages. So now they want to live in a world that reflects their low hybrid state back to themselves, to justify it. Those who resist this agenda are called “racists”.
The trouble with them is that they arrogantly claim they are ‘chosen’ (lol) all the while they (most are converts) worship satanic talmud…and vehemently hate Jesus Christ (The Word). [What does Light have to do with darkness…] They are not only ‘hybrids’ but fake and lie. To completely ignore just the Commandments and embrace their ‘racist’ imaginations as identity the verses from Matthew 7:16-20 come to my mind:
16 You will fully recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every healthy (sound) tree bears good fruit [worthy of admiration], but the sickly (decaying, worthless) tree bears bad (worthless) fruit.
18 A good (healthy) tree cannot bear bad (worthless) fruit, nor can a bad (diseased) tree bear excellent fruit [worthy of admiration].
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.
20 Therefore, you will fully know them by their fruits.
The Amplified Bible. 1987 (Mt 7:16–20). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
And I might add that He is referring to not only good fruit via Holy Spirit…but also reminding us of the fact of mixing seed. The only way we can be forgiven for that curse is to obey Him (Torah) and Spirit (Holy Spirit) to be delivered of our sin (unintentional or willful) through repentance by the only pure seed that is revelation of God and His Blood of atonement.
Thanks for weighing in. 🙂
To answer your question…I do not believe an African being placed in Iceland would last as long as the natives because he was not created to be there
Agreed. But my ultimate point was that the obvious conclusion to my question was/is — we will never see, even in a million years, White people emerging from the loins of a homogenously black couple. No matter where they live.
Judeos have accepted this premise that “climate” dictates the color of one’s skin. So, I am just making an illustration to prove such a ridiculous theory — Wrong.
I appreciate you weighing in. It’s nice to have conversations with people. I get so sick and tired of people dropping in, challenging our teachings or criticizing us, but never returning to answer our questions and challenges. John Kaminiski comes to mind. Cowards ……… all of them.
Thanks West for clarifying…I agree with you.
So much gold I keep unearthing by reading here, and I’ve been a pretty serious Bible student for decades. Thank you, CFT.