In the following sermon, Bertrand Comparet demonstrates from the Genesis account of creation that Adam was not the first man — and that there must have been “Pre-Adamics” — that is, people who existed prior to the creation of Adam.
There is a dispute among Bible scholars over whether God created these Pre-Adamic peoples — or whether they were the result of rebellion among the fallen angels — however, Comparet does not directly address that controversy in this sermon. Either way, there is ample evidence in Genesis to prove conclusively the main thesis here — that there were indeed Pre-Adamic peoples.
You can listen to Comparet’s sermon here.
Or reading the following transcript:
Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven science — not just unproved theories.
One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact that science knows human beings have lived on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the Bible — and the common belief that the Bible says that Adam was the first man.
But the truth is that the Bible nowhere says that Adam was the first man. Yes, I know that most of the preachers say that, but the Bible does not say it — it merely says that Adam was the first man of a new [creation] or the White race.
The many mis-translations in the King James Bible obscure much of the truth. For example Genesis 1, verses 1 and 2,
In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void…
…As though God made it all a complete mess. In the Hebrew, however, it says,
Now the earth had become chaotic and empty.
For example, see Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible. That is, some early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not without form and void before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations for their wickedness.
Jeremiah 4 verses 23 to 27 gives us a vision of it:
I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains and lo, they trembled and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord and by His fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam — and skeletons which can be dated by the Carbon 14 process as many as thousands of years older — but the Bible itself tells us about this.
Next the Bible tells the creation of men — in the plural — in Genesis 1, verses 26 to 28 saying,
Male and female created He them and God told these people, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
Plenish is an obsolete English word meaning to fill. And you cannot replenish what was never plenished — or filled — before. But in the next chapter, Genesis 2, we find the Adam (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word “aw-dawm” — rendered Adam in English — is from a root word meaning to be of a ruddy complexion, showing blood in the face — a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the White race. And when the Bible is speaking of the particular man — Adam — who was created in Genesis, chapter 2, it always says the Adam.
Bible scholars know that Genesis 3, verse 20:
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living…
…Is a forgery — a later interpolation which was not in the earlier manuscripts. For example, see Moffatt’s translation.
In Genesis 3, verse 3, when Eve tells Satan that God has said that they must not touch the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil, the word there translated “touch” is the Hebrew word “th gou” meaning “to lie with, to have sexual intercourse with,” which plainly shows that these were people, and that there were other people in the world at that time.
The fourth chapter of Genesis records the birth of Cain and Abel. In the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth when Adam was 130 years old — certainly long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over a century earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel — and in punishment was driven out of the land — he complained to God that “Any one that findeth me shall slay me,” Genesis 4, verse 14.
Also, Genesis 4, verse 17 records that upon being sent away, Cain found in the land to which he went many other people — because he not only married a wife, but found enough people there to build a city. These were the pre-Adamic races mentioned in the latter part of Genesis chapter 1.
The Garden of Eden was not a plantation of ordinary trees and shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation just to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears when He already had millions of pre Adamite peoples available for that sort of work.
We are told that the Garden of Eden contained the Tree of the Knowledge — or experience — of Good and Evil. Now, no tree of the forest has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. And the 31st chapter of Ezekiel says,
Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough and of an high stature; Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field and his boughs were multiplied and his branches became long; all the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was likened to him in his beauty. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God envied him.
Obviously, the trees in the garden of the Lord in Eden were family trees of races and nations who admired and envied the early Assyrian empire — for an ordinary wooden tree can’t envy anybody. These races and nations made up the garden that Adam was to cultivate. That is, Satan had been what we might call the superintendent or governor of this planet — to rule it in obedience to God’s will — until he forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to take his place — it was Adam’s job to rule the various nations and races of the earth as God’s representative here, educating them in God’s laws and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and nations had been here many thousands of years before Adam.
Therefore the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all descended from Adam and Eve — for there were other races on earth — already old, already numerous — when Adam was created. And among these other races there are several who are simply pre-Adamic — and one at least, which is satanic.
If you will read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that immediately after the fall of Adam — when God required them to answer what they had done — God condemned Satan. The word mistranslated serpent here is the Hebrew word “naw-khash,” which literally means enchanter or magician. And no doubt Satan, still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter or magician.
It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said seduced Eve, for this is what she admitted in the original Hebrew. And Cain was the son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word “begat” with monotonous regularity in tracing family trees, but the first time the Bible ever says that Adam ever begat anyone is Genesis 5, verse 3 where it says,
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image: and called his name Seth.
But to get back to Genesis 3, verse 15, God said to Satan,
I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed.
The same Hebrew word for seed is used in both cases. Satan was to have just as literal seed — or descendants — as Eve. Because God’s own word being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually happening — and we do. Jesus Christ himself tells us of it. In Matthew 13, verses 38 to 39, in explaining the parable of the tares among the wheat, Jesus says,
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom: but the tares are the children of the wicked one: the enemy that sowed them is the devil.
Again, in John 6, verses 70 and 71, Jesus had been talking with His twelve disciples and we read,
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Escariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the twelve.
And again you should carefully read the eighth chapter of the gospel of John where Jesus told those who hated Him,
Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was not being vulgarly abusive in either of these cases — for He never resorted to name calling for abuse. He did call some of them hypocrites which they truly were. So his statement was precisely accurate. He did call some of them serpents, children of vipers, which again was accurate. Long before this, the children of Satan had adopted the serpent as a symbol or emblem of Satan. And that is why their tradition eventually gave the [Hebrew] word “naw-khash” the secondary meaning of serpent, when its original true meaning is enchanter.
Jesus therefore was telling them that they were of their father the devil — or serpent — if they preferred that word. In this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision and identifying the persons of this ancestry.
Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what modern science has proven true, don’t you believe it. The things many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth — as we all know — but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible.
Go back to the Bible — not to any man-made doctrines and double check it for accuracy of translation. You will find what the Bible really says— in its original languages — is accurate with a precision that our scientists have not yet achieved.
Pre-Adamites —- the Chinese ….
“Answer in Genesis” just put out a video regarding the Chinese. What I found interesting was that they are allowing comments. I have never seen a Video from them with an open comment section.
Anyway ………….. I haven’t had the time yet to watch the video and quite frankly, I’m lacking in “energy” at the moment as I know if I watch this video, my blood pressure will rise.
Thought I’d share if anyone was interested in how they are “deceiving” our peoples —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9moWiR_CR0E
I wish I knew more about Chinese history/anthopology.
There was a guy out here in the forums years ago who went by “Strongs119”. He had cited historical and anthropological data about the Chinese and I lost all of his information. He had proof that the Chinese (Yellow peoples) were most likely the first Pre-adamics — having the longest recorded anthropolgical history.
Anyway ……………….. if anyone is curious, have it a watch and share your thoughts.
I will get around to it later. I think it is the same nonsense —- that Noah’s family contained all the DNA for all the different ‘races’ on the planet. And they probably use “DNA studied” to make their case, which we know is flawed from the beginning.
West, I watched/listened to the “Answers In Genesis” video that you linked to. It’s titled “The Mystery of the Far East with Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson”. Jeanson has authored a number of books where he tries to genetically link every person on earth to Noah and his sons.
Jeanson presumes that one of the languages created in Babel was Chinese — nothing in the Bible makes that claim, but he assumes it because the Chinese people must be traced back to Noah for his universalist doctrine to be true.
And he has to assume that Noah had all the genetics of every person today on earth because every person on earth came from Noah. This is a classic example of circular logic (illogic).
His typical mode of argument (when debating), like all universalists, is to repeat what he already said when it has already been explained how he was wrong.
Jas….
Thanks Jas. Just what I assumed the content would be like. You saved me 30 minutes but I still think I’ll watch it just to know how they “twist” things.
Perfect summary. I appreciate you. Thanks.
What I see here; is a lot of people attempting to fit Scripture to their “private interpretations”. Really; anyone can do that and that’s what most “cult christians” do. No insult intended; Johan is a perfect example of one who “intellectualizes”; relies on human souces such as “lexicons” when the truth is; bible versions; one of them the despicable NASB are totally corrupted; they omit verses from the original manuscripts (Matthew 18:11); and some of them omit as many as 60,000 words. To trust God means that ALL revelations of TRUTH; ALL knowledge of mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and even the one true Gospel comes from the Holy Ghost; who is not mentioned once in any “my opinion” here. Without the Holy Ghost you know nothing and you understand squat; simple as that.
oflia…
What particular point are you disagreeing with? “Pre-Adamics” in general?
If YES — Will you please explain to us how we can have 4 primary groups of people — White, black, yellow and red —- out of ONE homogenous couple?
Can you do that?
Question —- if the United Nations were to replace all White Icelanders with Black Nigerians ……. in 5000 years would Iceland turn back to being “white”? How many years would that take?
Or vice-versa —- remove every Congolese black person and replace them with White Norwegians. Will the White Norwegians eventually turn “black”? How many years would that take?
I have been asking this question now for over 5 years. Not ONE person who thinks “pre-adamics” is not true — can’t answer my simple question.
Can you?
I’m not sure about pre-adamics or not, been thinking about it for a while.
But dogs are bred looking pretty different in just a few generations. Why wouldn’t it apply to humans?
No matter how much selective breeding you do with whites, you can never spontaneously create black offspring, or vice versa. The white genome does not contain black genes for black skin color and wooly hair. The dog breeding analogy is comparing apples to oranges. All dogs are of the same kind, while whites and blacks are not the same kind.
Jay …
Adam and Eve were the same. They shared the same DNA (whatever that is). They were of the same blood.
Have you ever seen a White woman have a baby with a White man and out came something other than “White”???
Anthropologists of the past were all in agreement that there existed 4 Primary Types of people — White, black, red and yellow.
Answer my thought question ………………….. if we removed all of the White Icelanders from Iceland and replaced them with 100,000 Blacks from the Congo ………….. how many years would it take for Iceland to begin to turn “White”???
It is never going to happen. White people can live in the deepest of Africa for a million years and they ain’t turning black.
So what do you believe? It is easy to attack other’s beliefs …………… so let’s hear your belief.
There’s definently Pre-Adamic’s here, and they are modern day Lefty’s, Karen’s, Chads, NPC’s, and the cluster B personality disordered, is how the pre-Adamic’s present themselves they are like part of this game. We are in a real life “the hero’s journey” for each of us and they are our antagonist .
They are the whole control establishment and they are constantly testing those boundaries
If this was true you could prove it with genetic research…
This doesn’t seem like a wise interpretation of the scriptures.
Hebrew doesn’t work the same as English, words can refer to multiple things, and sometimes can be used to describe abstract things for which there is no word because the people had not seen such thing, so the name of something akin to it was used instead.
Also it sets the time-frame for Adam’s creation when it says:
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for יהוה Elohim had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground,
Gen 2:6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.
It’s already said which day man was created, but this passage is bringing us back to the third day to add more detail, and then goes on to elucidate the sixth day.
The word for “touch” doesn’t just infer that, it depends on context.
For instance “uncovering the nakedness” of someone covers a lot of sexual activity from voyeurism to intercourse; the nakedness of a wife/ concubine is also considered the nakedness of their husband, but we know from the context of Canaan being the one who was cursed, that Ham had intercourse with his own mother (whilst she was drunk/ unconscious).
That is how it’s meant to be understood, whether it’s true or not.
The idea of pre-adamic ape-men seems to be based on Evolution as well as the carbon dating they put forward as irrefutable. If God did make a less sapient ‘prototype,’ then why would he make it so that the two species can interbreed?
(Also how does that belief make Identity-Christians any different from the worst of Talmudic Jews?)
I suppose it’s a similar issue with angelic beings, but angelic beings have the innate power to manifest themselves as human and accomplish many things we don’t understand.
If I believed evolution, and thought that made logical sense, why wouldn’t I just be an atheist? OR just any other theistic faith that doesn’t rule out macro evolution as a factor.
Many of the other people who believe the Nephilim are primitive type hominids also believe in a regional flood and do not seem to believe in fallen angelic beings. They want to avoid being seen as creationists, so they say the Bible is mostly allegorical fables (like many Jews also say of the Torah).
Amen
The author leaves out the flood which wiped out everyone which would include these alleged satan people. ?♂️
Enchanter- okay, the rest is quite a stretch!
Ok.
What is your theory as to the origin of the 4 primary groups or tribes of people — White, black, yellow and red?
Were they all on the Ark……………is this your belief?
The pre-adamic’s survived Noah’s flood through hams wife.
The pre adamic’s are who Cain procreated with.
These children of the devil are Tares/ chaff
The the RH- blood incompatibility &
copper based blue bloods versus iron based proves another source.
“If this was true you could prove it with genetic research… This doesn’t seem like a wise interpretation of the scriptures.”
You talk about “wise interpretation” and interpreting Scripture through “genetic research” in the same breath. Complete oxymoron if I ever saw one.
“It’s already said which day man was created, but this passage is bringing us back to the third day to add more detail, and then goes on to elucidate the sixth day.”
Genesis 2:5 is referring to cultivation i.e. plant and herb “of the field”… “for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”
There was no plant or herb “of the field” because there was no man to till the ground. This is obviously not referring to the third day of creation. Creation of Adam in Genesis 1 and 2 are one and the same.
“The idea of pre-adamic ape-men seems to be based on Evolution as well as the carbon dating they put forward as irrefutable. If God did make a less sapient ‘prototype,’ then why would he make it so that the two species can interbreed?”
You’ve baked your own understanding into the question, adding in “sapient”, “prototype” and “species”. The Bible doesn’t mention any of those, so you need to explain out of the Bible why you make those assumptions.
Hence the danger in forming interpretations on the Bible by asking yourself rhetorical questions.
“I suppose it’s a similar issue with angelic beings, but angelic beings have the innate power to manifest themselves as human and accomplish many things we don’t understand.”
Okay, lets hear your Bible argument proving that angels can produce children with people in the first place.
You are absolutely wrong! The Bible is the True Word of God. Why would God created a man from the dust of the ground if there were any pre-adamic people exists? Jesus said God did create them in His image in the beginning as the male and female.
If there were any people before Adam why would God told them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? Because there were none. Genesis 2:5 for there was no man to work the ground…
Why would God say let us make man in our own image and likeness if there were any races just like humans?
As for the city Nod that Cain built was all by his offspring not by the preexisting people.
Cain built it after he had many children because they needed a city instead of a single home to live in. Even in modern days, we have streets, villages with a single-family good enough to populate the area.
The Bible says “And from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth…” Acts 17:26
The Assyrians were compared to the cedar trees. It is a metaphor. Israel was also compared to the vine, cedar, fig, and olive tree. The Bible sometimes uses figurative speech and other times the literal speech.
The scripture you took was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah for the people of Israel not for the pre-adamic creations.
Get your facts right.
I agree, it makes no sense really, and they interpret it from very little.
Just because race, hierarchy, inheritance and genetics is apart of the Bible doesn’t mean that there is suddenly a pre-adamic people.
Their beliefs are more akin to the movie Prometheus and sci-fi type cults who think Europeans are the remnant of Atlantis.
It’s not though – why must the Bible account for everything as you presume? The Bible is about the Creation of Adam and follows through with his posterity. It doesn’t mention other so-called “races” as the book is not for them.
Dan and Josef, your arguments are meaningless, to say that the bible must account for the creations of the other races is naïve at best, and a lie at worst. The Bible does mention “beasts” and particularly in Isaiah 13 references these “satyrs, beasts” etc. As Two legged hominids. They were not White and the Ancient Israelites, Egyptians, Assyrians etc did not even consider other “races” as people. The Bible is for Adamkind alone, end of story.
Who did Cain have kids with then?
Very true
It is easier to get men, women too!, to believe that bacteria evolved into dinosaurs than it is to get them to stop masturbating.
The problem with the Cultural Christians – the Westerners (Pope followers or Protestants, neo-Protestants) is serious and obvious – they (you) read and presume you understand with your mind what is written.
You are not.
Own thinking (mine, too – is hard to not use it…) is made by rationalism, materialism and own imagination – very bad for the spiritual life, dangerous for the mind state of sanity, sorry.
No need to imagine what you can’t find.
You are describing hyper subjectivity–and it’s meaningless and negates its own premise. Word salad. Lost in your own thoughts. It’s your own sanity you should be concerned about. You’ve gone down a rabbit hole that someone set for you–and you’re lost in an intellectual hall of mirrors. Please re-phrase your idea….
“…. It’s your own sanity you should be concerned about. You’ve gone down a rabbit hole that someone set for you….”
Chesterton………………. what a great thought! Not picking on Geo specifically, but I have ran into other people who “think” similar to Geo and I never knew what to say. Your reply is poetic! Perfect.
But is it no wonder?!!! This world is insane if you let it rub off on you. I admire your mind Chesterton! 🙂
““….We are here to gather the sheep, not scatter them over a non sequitur…..”
Fine and agreed. But people holding on to verifiable error greatly damages ‘our’ credibility and ability to evangelise. I personally have known a handful of people that have – wrongly – rejected the entire Bible and Christianity in general over adamant flat earthers and those that hold to the position that all races and all human[oids] emanating from Adam. Neither position is tenable. Whilst throwing the baby out with the bathwater is wrong in any instance – and especially so in this case – it is a common reaction. Being able to back the Biblical position as well as possible with verifiable science and with logic is imperative imnsho. We KNOW God is right. We KNOW His Word does not err. Hence, it seems incumbent upon us to at least know a bit of the natural sciences to show that the more ‘we ‘ learn, the more it verifies the Word. The two are not exclusive.
People look for excuses not to believe the Bible, and over the years I’ve heard many. People who deny God and the Bible usually do so because it interferes with how they want to live their lives–or at least think they want to live it.
I doubt any one reason in particular turns people away, but the following article lists a few of the most common ones–and conflicting with “science” isn’t high on the list:
https://cityonahillstudio.com/9-reasons-people-dont-believe-god/
Youre correct – if they dont WANT to know Truth or ‘believe’, they will find an excuse , definitely. But I believe that the ‘confliction with science’ can easily be under the umbrella of ” intellectual challenges”. At least thats been my experience.
Im not so sure that I would ‘go’ with the list given in the link tho; looks like the ‘politics’ post was purely political in itself! A Christian will have a basic political stance based on Biblical teaching; people may reject Christ due to their pre-existing marxism taught thru the public indoctrination centres or from watching TV, but the notion that any true believer would leave the Faith because Donald Trump was elected is ridiculous. If thats why they left the Church, they werent a Christian in the first place.
— “Being able to back the Biblical position as well as possible with verifiable science and with logic is imperative imnsho.” —
With logic, sure, but with “science”, absolutely not. “Science” is a rigged game. It is the proverbial cheese on the mousetrap. The whole of “science” as it overlaps with the Scriptures is geared to work against what we know to be true about the Scriptures. The word “science” has taken on a nature of its own, even trumping the Scriptures when invoked and supplicated to in conversation. People say Christians are ignorant for ignoring “science”, but I say, “For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” Those who receive a love of truth see the “science” for what it is, but most stumble over “science” and never find the truth.
Those who see “science” for what it is look back on “science” with wonder. We see it as part of the “power and false signs and wonders” (2 Thes 2:9). But we are “the children whom the Lord has given… for signs and wonders in Israel from the Lord of armies” (Isaiah 8:18). Let those who love “science” scoff at us, because “Behold, the Lord God helps Me; Who is he who condemns Me? Behold, they will all wear out like a garment; A moth will eat them.” (Isaiah 50:9)
Thing is, there is a process whereby man can learn about the natural world, and even come to learn more and more over time, by God’s grace coming up with all manner of discoveries and inventions. “Science” is not that process. “Science” is agenda driven. It is specifically directed and managed toward a specific purpose.
Having said that, I think flat earth may just be a straw man set up to discredit the very thing I am saving above…
We have to distinguish between natural science and science theory. The former utilizes the scientific method to discern cause and effect, through natural observation, hypothesis and testing of hypothesis.
The latter is an occult agenda stemming from the renaissance, and was and is a psy op against real science, because real science cannot contradict Yahweh’s creation.
Modern science theory is heavily influenced by kabbalah, which is heavily influenced by ancient Greek sophists who created their own ideas of creation to fit their pagan perspective.
In medieval Christendom, higher learning denoted Godly learning. It wasnt until the carolingian Renaissance that the art of rhetoric (the art of bullshitting) came into Christian Europe. On the heels of that, aristotle, ptolemy and other greek philosophers work came into Europe via trade with the east.
I do not think flat earth is a psyop, i think it is a prompt to investigate our modern cosmological ethos that relies soley on kabbalistic renaissance “science.”
I think “flat earth” is used often as a straw man to shame anyone who investigates the fake science agenda.
It is one reason i was banned from chinagenea, the other being that i stood against those from their that constantly excused false accusers and slanderers.
But try discussing the fake science psyop with many folk within CI and without ever mentioning flat earth, you will be ostracized for it.
That said i do believe the earth is stationary and level. 2nd law of thermodynamics – gas pressure abhors a vacuum.
Also see Genesis 1 and Isaiah 38:8.
Kevin, I saw the whole thing unfold and it was painful to watch. Glad you made it over here…
I suppose the question I have for anyone who wants to advocate level earth is: How is it going to make us more righteous?
I realize the answer is probably quite subjective, depending who you ask. However, I don’t think level earth is necessary at all. If someone wants to hold that in their own view that’s fine, but sometimes people go on like we have to believe it or we are missing out on something.
I don’t understand what I’m missing out on by not believing level earth. Conversely, I don’t know if you’re missing out on anything by not believing in a spherical earth.
On the other hand, people get demoralized and duped by “big bang theory”, somehow trying to rationalize that the creation account happened in a way other than what is described in Genesis 1 (two-seedline does the same thing). I can see how level earth might lead one to questioning that, but by the same token, I came to question that while believing in a spherical earth.
To understand either position (ideally one understands both) enough to come to a satisfactory conclusion takes A LOT of time. Imagine that time was spent reading the Bible, praying and fellowshipping? I often wonder why people don’t put the same amount of time into the Bible as what they put into debates around the shape of the earth…
Ultimately then (straw-men aside), I feel like the whole thing is just a red herring. It’s a time sink. It’s a debate which no one needs to have. Feel free to try to change my mind…
I held that view for years. Everyone advocated not to debate FE because potential for division.
Meanwhile there were close to a dozen threads – sticky threads – supposedly debunking FE without ever really doing so, and referring to that stance as a “psyop for tards.”
Long story short, a brother on the forum had done a lot of research and had become proficient enough to utilize the scientific method to show serious problems with outer space theology, which is kabbalistic, epicurean in origin, regardless if you believe flat or sphere.
So he started a thread on that subject, careful not to broach FE and be ostracized.
But unfortunately when a friendly debate about cavendishes psuedoscientific experiment proved a losing effort for one of the mods, he began slandering us and turned the debate into “these guys are FE tards and liars.”
I would ask you Johan if you have noticed that division on this subject comes from the subject itself or from prideful men who resort to slander and straw manning in order to “win”?
As long as you and I and anyone else agree that the latter is the issue, i dont care what anyone believes about the size and shape.
I would trust that if an honest man learned the scientific method, read scripture, and knew enough history about greek metaphysics and its relation to renaissance kabbalah “science,” he would come to sound foundation as to why God would even describe aspects of His creation to begin with.
Maybe to help us ward of these “theory of everything” doctrines that convince millions of evolution, big bang and subsequently atheism.
and referring to that stance as a “psyop for tards.”
If you want to discuss it, you have to do it in a section which shames you in its name. But don’t dare shame in return, or suffer their yelping (they love to feel offended). Yes, it is hypocrisy in the highest. Although I think it’s important not to be like them in their scoffing. Like Psalm 1 says, blessed is the man who does not sit in the seat of scoffers.
I would ask you Johan if you have noticed that division on this subject comes from the subject itself or from prideful men who resort to slander and straw manning in order to “win”? As long as you and I and anyone else agree that the latter is the issue, i dont care what anyone believes about the size and shape.
Yes, I agree completely. It certainly isn’t limited to the “flat earth” debate, and the pride, straw manning and slander takes many forms as well. The same phenomenon is all over the place in many forms.
Regarding “scientific theories” which make their ways into people’s brains by osmosis, maybe we can agree on one thing: If only real Christians would just stop immersing their brains in Jewish media, television, and even alternate media like YouTube entertainment, etc, then maybe they’d be able to see clearly on what the Bible says on creation, science and the like.
You are right. We can’t become like the enemy and remain with Christ. We can’t use mock laughter and personal derision and think that we are then better than they, even if our arguments are correct.
I also think we can’t remain silent about major transgressions once we and at least another witness have confronted a brother who has sinned against God.
So it is good to alert the congregation and pray a few sheep hear the truth and heed it, even if it is just one that does.
And having done so, that is when the entirety of the matter seems to clear up, because in obedience to God is where we find water, not in joining hands with the unrepentant, hoping to chip away at them half heartedly for all time, which is what some kin seem convinced is the loving path.
Meanwhile the “body count” of kindred scattered to the winds, whose profile names are not their real names, and whose alternative contact info may not be known. We have gathered a few and watched a few get banned before we could reach them.
But if another at that place would stand up and speak, all the better. I pray so.
Kevin, I completely agree. What some as you say call “the loving path” is little more than the sin of partiality.
We tend to take matters deeply personally, despite upholding the delusion in our own minds that we are “truth seekers.” Therefore, if someone makes us “feel bad”, or treads on our self-righteousness, we tend to lash out. So long as everyone else is in line in relation to our own feelings, then we are at peace with them. Even if they are in sin, it’s okay because they aren’t making us “feel bad.”
In doing so, we make the Scripture of none-effect, all so that we can feel good about ourselves in “love.” If one challenges that “love” based on sin or Scripture, one quickly finds out what a farce it is. Beneath its thin veneer is usually a roiling mass of anger and hatred… Quite the opposite of love. Then one realizes that for some, “love” is little more than a weapon to wield against others…
For a true Christian however, nothing can ever be personal… which is true love.
It’s either wholly true or it’s wholly false.
It needs to be interpreted the way it was meant to be interpreted regardless of whether it’s true or not. Nobody has really figured out the entirety of what it actually means because they keep forcing their preconceived notions into interpretations.
There’s so much to go through, but to keep it short, I’ll give a few quick-fire points…
Problems with DSCI theology:
– The flood destroyed all flesh and all living creatures, making it impossible for Satan’s seed to have continued (Genesis 9:15)
– Angels do not sleep with men (Mark 12:25)
– Satan was not in the garden of Eden. Ironically, Comparet removes the only tenuous connection between Satan and the garden in making the serpent, a beast of the earth, to be an enchanter (Revelation 12:9).
Problems with Comparet’s message:
– “Plenish is an obsolete English word meaning to fill. And you cannot replenish what was never plenished — or filled — before.” The Hebrew word doesn’t mean “replenish”, rather it it means to fill, as it states in the NASB: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it”. A quick look in a lexicon would clear this up rather easily.
– “The word mistranslated serpent here is the Hebrew word “naw-khash,”” No, it is correctly translated as “serpent” (again, check a lexicon). Not only that, but the serpent is an “animal of the field”.
– “One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact that science knows human beings…” Adam was not a “human being”. This is a paleontological concept birthed in the satanic religion “scientism” which does not exist in the Scripture. There are no “human beings” or “races” in Scripture. Adam is a man and the rest are animals, kind after kind.
– “Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do.” 1 John 3:10, “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.” This is a spiritual concept, not a genetic one, as we have confirmation by the very same writer.
So what are you saying, that there were no “pre-Adamic” people and that Adam was the first humanoid bi-ped ever to appear on Earth?
I’m saying Adam was the first man. Anything else is an animal, whether biped, “humanoid” or otherwise.
Ah, I see, so you agree with Comparet that there were Pre-Adamites, but you disagree with him that they were “human” or should be called “men”. “Man” can refer only to the Adamic creation and no one else. I have a feeling Comparet might agree with you if you pressed him on it.
What I reckon at this moment in time is that Adam was the first MAN. Pre Adamites wandered around, but Adam was made differently to them. All other creatures that are not Adam man are Beasts. I think that Eve had a liason with one of these other creatures due to serpent Satan’s trickery. Cain was born. He was a child of the Devil. Abel was a child of Adam, thus a child of Man and therefore a child of God.
For me the questions are: do races exsist, or are they all classed as beasts? If Adam is MAN and all are beasts, who were the other “men” mentioned in Genisis made before Adam?
Does that make sense?
Yes, the concept of “race” is rather new historically–and thanks to the Jews it is loaded with negative connotations, probably because they realize that they are not part of the Adamic creation and they resent being excluded from it. But they need to take that up with their ancestors who race mixed not God who has made His feelings about it very clear.
Historically, Christians probably understood “mankind” to refer exclusively to White people up until recently when the churches were subverted by Adam Denialists who refuse to acknowledge basic truths in Genesis–that Adam was a unique creation, that he was White, and that his legitimate descendants were the same.
Leviticus 18:23 says it all, “Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.”
Obviously, certain “people” are referred to as “beasts”, and Adamic people are capable of having sexual intercourse with them–and God strictly forbids it. Why do no Christian ministers ever quote Leviticus 18:23? It’s a can of worms.
Cain being the product of something else has three problems:
1. God gives Adam and Eve the institution of marriage in Gen 1:24, but tells Adam to adulterate to his heart’s content in v16? But then in v18 Adam is said to be alone, despite having had many wives/trees and those trees being people? The view doesn’t make any sense.
2. It’s entirely irrelevant, because the flood killed everything except Noah.
3. Satan wasn’t in the garden. There is no reference to it in the law, histories, prophets, psalms, proverbs, gospels or epistles. There are blatant references to the event without mention of Satan (2 Corinthians 13, 1 Timothy 2).
— “If Adam is MAN and all are beasts, who were the other “men” mentioned in Genisis made before Adam?” —
There are no men before Adam. Genesis 1:27 and 2:7 are the the same creation. Genesis 2:5 simply refers to the fact that there was no cultivated field for food for Adam, so God had to plant a garden for him. I think it’s safe to assume Adam and Eve had many children, but the story follows the key characters. They probably had Cain, then Abel, then sons and daughters, then Seth, then more sons and daughters. The wording in Genesis 5 — and even the timing — makes this clear.
— “Obviously, certain “people” are referred to as “beasts”, and Adamic people are capable of having sexual intercourse with them–and God strictly forbids it.” —
There’s actually a really good example, which is the Rephaim of Deuteronomy 2 and elsewhere. It says in Deuteronomy 7:22, “And the Lord your God will drive away these nations from you little by little; you will not be able to put an end to them quickly, otherwise the wild animals would become too numerous for you.” Yet we have record in Exodus 12:37, “Now the sons of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, aside from children.” If Israel in the wilderness consisted of 600,000 men, then what kind of animal could possibly have been a threat to them? We know of pioneers in far fewer numbers braving wilderness, never being destroyed by lions, bears, elephants, etc. Yet what was the threat to pioneers every time? The so-called “native people”. The Rephaim, by virtue of their vastly different physical appearance and even their early existence and subsequent disdain (Genesis 14:5), are one such a group of beasts.
The sons of Anak and 1 Chronicles 20 are a strong Scriptural precedent that there were half-bloods/mamzers descended from men and giants/Rephaim.
Johan, are you contending that the Flood was worldwide and killed all living beings except Noah’s family? If that were the case, then there would be no one else on earth to taint the Adamic race with–and everybody today would be pure Adamic, no?
— “then there would be no one else on earth to taint the Adamic race with–and everybody today would be pure Adamic, no?” —
This makes three fundamental assumptions:
1. To taint mankind requires someONE (“no one”) as opposed to someTHING.
2. All flora and fauna which populated the planet Earth came from the ark.
3. Bipedal, “humanoid” creatures were not on the ark.
As for the first assumption, Leviticus 18:23 says, “Also you shall not have sexual intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.” That word for “pervesion” or “tebel” is from the root word “balal”. The lexical range of balal is confusion by mixing, or mixing. Therefore mixing can happen by someTHING, or an animal.
As for the second assumption, where could a “fresh olive leaf” (Gen 8:11) come from? What olive tree could survive almost a year of being under water and then yield a fresh leaf? Check Gen 8:6-10. These birds are a test of the level of water specifically. At first the dove found no place to rest, and then it found a fresh olive leaf. What if it was a seed which germinated? There was simply not enough time for a fresh leaf to sprout. The only possible conclusion is that the existence of the olive leaf is a miraculous event.
This sets an interesting precedent for our interpretation of how the planet Earth was repopulated. On the one hand we know ḵāl hā-’ā-reṣ (כָל־ הָאָ֙רֶץ֙) has a definite local context from Genesis 41:57, but waters above mountains has a global context. Therefore it seems like Noah was to save the animals in a local context, but the repopulation of the planet Earth outside of that context must have been a miraculous event. How could certain flowers grow without bees to pollinate? There are all manner of symbiotic relationships in nature which can only be explained by a worldwide, miraculous event.
As for the third assumption, I believe in the context of the above that it is a side note. Nevertheless, we see in the beginning of Genesis 9 that mankind had an altogether different relationship with animals before the flood compared to after. If I had to guess though, it seems more likely they were not on the ark and rather part of aforementioned miraculous event.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by this statement:
“1. To taint mankind requires someONE (“no one”) as opposed to someTHING.”
What survived the Flood that could inter-breed with Adamic people and create bastard/beast offspring?
My apologies for not being clear. I simply mean that an animal is all that is required to interbreed with Adam and create mongrel. Therefore, nothing is needed to survive the flood. When I say that, I mean to say there there is nothing special which was formed before the flood which was necessarily required after the flood for mongrels to be formed. For example, some angel/man hybrid from Eve and Satan, or some man/man (???) hybrid which Eve had with something Satan placed in the garden.
Johan,
Your explanation of how we have black, yellow and red peoples today given the flood was worldwide is rather, well, confusing. You speak in Esoteric language.
Could you be more specific?
We know that Noah’s family was White. If all life ended on the planet except for what was on the Ark, please explain then how we now have the yellow, black and red man/animal.
Thanks.
I suppose it wasn’t really my intention to give my own view, but rather to critique Comparet’s view. Things have escalated since then. No worry though, I’m happy to answer.
These red/black/yellow/whatever are simply animals. However the flora and fauna got there after the flood, they were there along with it. I personally believe the replenishment of flora and fauna to be a miraculous event. This is based on the following which incidentally I have already covered briefly:
– There is precedent for a miraculous replenishment in the fresh olive leaf
– By the wording and context, Noah’s duty in the flood seemed local
– By the physical description of the flood, the flood seemed global
– Leviticus 18:23 explicitly mentions mixing by beastiality
– Israel were threatened by animals when moving into Canaan, which can only be the Rephaim
– Rephaim were known to mix with men
To take it further:
– There is precedent that Israel could be deceived by animals (Gen 3:1, 2 Cor 11:3)
– It is a matter of the law that Israel would be punished by animals (Lev 26:22, Deu 32:24)
– It is a matter of prophecy that Israel would be punished by animals (Eze 14:15, Eze 14:21, Rev 6:8, Eze 34:25, Eze 34:28, Jer 31:27, Dan 7:4-7, Rev 13:1-2)
So, what you’re saying is that God “miraculously” replenished the Earth with non-Adamic beasts with which Adamites would then be able to have sexual intercourse with and produce more beasts? If one of the reasons for the Flood was to rid the world the by-product of Adamic/non-Adamic hybrids, then why would He, on a seeming whim, start the process all over again after the Flood?
There is this common assumption that the flood was all about destroying a mixed antediluvian population (not ascribing this view to you, ipswich, but it’s worth mentioning). Mostly Genesis 6:9 is used to justify it: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation[s]”. At the outset, it’s a bit of a stretch that “generations” refers to a genetic purity, because “dor” (דּוֹר) doesn’t really get used that way elsewhere, the the lexical range doesn’t seem to suggest it either. On the other hand, generations are often used in reference to righteousness (Some examples: Deu 32:5, Deu 32:20, Psa 78:8, Jer 7:29). In the very same verse it says, “Noah walked with God”, as if to qualify his generational perfection.
Genesis 6 does state what conditions were like in those times:
– Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of mankind was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. (v5)
– Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for humanity had corrupted its way upon the earth. (v11-12)
There are a few references in the New Testament:
– For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark (Matt 24:38).
– …people were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, and they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. (Luke 17:27)
– …and did not spare the ancient world, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly… (2 Pet 2:5)
We can also cross-reference this with Sodom and Gomorra (Luke 17:28), but I won’t bring that in as I’m trying to be brief. It will suffice to have mentioned it. To make this all about genetic purity and not righteousness as a whole, seems to be more and more of a stretch, and even misses the lesson entirely. The propensity to “racialize” everything in Scripture, making it out to say other than what it is saying for an agenda, is a dangerous thing I believe.
Not only that, but we can see in 1 Peter 3:19-20 that there seemed to be many who were preached to in the time of Noah, indicating that Noah was not the only genetically pure man around in his day. Genetic purity may not even have been a reason for the flood, as it isn’t mentioned once in relation to the flood.
As for the “why”, as usual, the “why” is found through the truth. The truth cannot be found through the “why”. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?” (Rom 11:35) He must counsel us through the truth.
In any case, from the beginning of creation and even after the flood, why was homosexuality, adultery and rape possible? Why is sin possible in the first place? Can anything happen by accident? Does anything escape His notice or irresistible will? “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” On the contrary, who are you, you foolish person, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does the potter not have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one object for honorable use, and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with great patience objects of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory…” (Rom 9:19-23)
With that in mind, I would simply give one of the first and most profound lessons: “If you do well, will your face not be cheerful? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen 4:7)
Genesis 6:9 introduces Noah’s subsequent genealogy (or generations), but not his previous ancestors as many seem to think. “These are the generations of Noah” refers to his children and so on which follows in 6:10. Genealogies in the Bible establish legitimacy — the absence of bastards.
If Noah’s own ancestry weren’t legitimate, Noah wouldn’t have been deemed “righteous”; after all, God would never refer to a racial bastard as “righteous”. Nor would his children be appropriate to represent and replenish the Adamic creation if they were not legitimate. In that sense, it’s a red herring whether or not the text here explicitly explains that Noah’s ancestry was “perfect”. Why preserve Noah if he’s a bastard?
Right. Unfortunately that kind of theology doesn’t operate very well without red herrings.
Technically to be a “Man” you must have descended from “Mannus” who was supposedly a Germanic progenitor.
Mark 12:25 means that Angelic beings are not given in marriage to other angelic beings, because they have no need for material reproduction in that heavenly realm.
The passage does not contradict the idea of Angels manifesting as material humans, capable of reproduction with non-angelic humans.
(Perhaps I am getting the wrong end of the stick.)
I agree that it does mean “Serpent.” Which is a derogatory term for the Adversary as well as all his fallen followers.
There are races/ subspecies whether you like it or not, Hebrew has words for nations of a different race, and nations of the same race. And yes, there is a degree of observing the world around you, not just keeping your head stuck… where-ever it’s stuck.
No, it’s definitely not just spiritual, he speaks of “Genea” many times when cursing them.
I actually don’t know how it could be interpreted as metaphysical, they even reply “we were not born of fornication.” If they were not Edomite interlopers, they were likely born of Shelah, the son of Bathshua, a Canaanite, therefore they were Canaanites, not legitimate heirs to Judah’s lineage.
There is an aspect of ‘spiritual’ because just look at what Israelites have been recorded doing against God.
People are the products of their ancestors choices & desires, there are going to be noticeable differences between the product of thousands of years of vile, sinful habits vs an attempt to avoid them. That being said… Canaan was the product of incest and evidently his offspring were innately ‘psychopathic’ or without natural affection (no empathy.)
Dan wrote, “Mark 12:25 means that Angelic beings are not given in marriage to other angelic beings, because they have no need for material reproduction in that heavenly realm.”
Well, that’s an interesting theory. Where is it in the Scripture though?
Matthew 22:30 says,
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Genesis 6:2 says,
… the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Okay, Genesis 6 is not Genesis 3, but there is not a lot of leeway here. If someone wants to invent a theology where angels are actually able to procreate with men, I’m happy to hear it, but I hope they have the Scripture to back it up. I’d like to hear more than just “explanations” to connect a bunch of verses in which none of them actually talk about angels procreating with people.
Dan wrote, “There are races/ subspecies whether you like it or not, Hebrew has words for nations of a different race, and nations of the same race.”
I know of many of the Hebrew words you’re probably referring to, but I don’t see “race” anywhere in there. I need you to do better; merely saying something doesn’t make it so. If you are confident in what you believe, than please show it to me in detail.
Dan wrote, “I actually don’t know how it could be interpreted as metaphysical”
1 John 3,
“8 the one who practices sin is of the devil… 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.”
How do you interpret that as anything but spiritual? Please lay it out for me.
Dan wrote,
“they even reply “we were not born of fornication.””
Did you consider that maybe they were indeed not born of fornication, and that the conversation in the Lord’s eyes was about something else? Consider John 3, where even a learned, non-mixed Israelite ruler of the temple couldn’t grasp the concept of being born of the spirit, and insisted on making the conversation about something physical when it obviously wasn’t.
Dan wrote, “People are the products of their ancestors choices & desires”
I would encourage a read of Ezekiel 18.
Dan wrote, “Canaan was the product of incest and evidently his offspring were innately ‘psychopathic’ or without natural affection (no empathy.)”
Where did you see that in the Scripture? Moab and Ammon were the product of incest, and yet God gave them a specific inheritance — along with Esau, incidentally (Deuteronomy 2).
Perhaps trying to coordinate the jewish drivel with the NT is a farce? Thomas Jefferson thought so.
But it DOES give jews the supposed authority. Which is idiotic if you know any jews.
What is the “jewish drivel” that you are referring to? Please explain. Keep in mind that Thomas Paine rejected the Bible and became a “deist” because he rejected the idea that the Jews could possibly be “God’s chosen people.” Instead of rejecting the Bible, Paine should have rejected the false idea that the Jews were “God’s chosen”.
That makes Christ a liar, so there’s not really any point in listening to any of it in that case.
Amen to that. If Christ is being called a liar, then this entire conversation is null and void.
At the time of Jesus Christ there was no complete set of Hebrew scripture. Only the Greek Septuagint (authorized and translated by the Sanhedrin in 250 B.C.) is authoritative. For a millennium after Christ, the Masorete Jews bowdlerized their “Hebrew Bible” to indulge and rationalize their animus against their Messiah. Plain and simply, the “Hebrew Bible” is a fraud.
Few Bible scholars would claim that the Masoretic Bible is “authoritative”, but it can be helpful in understanding certain passages where text isn’t clear, especially in Genesis. Would I rely on it as the last word on anything? No. But it can be a helpful tool in certain situations.
Genesis 1:1-20 is also not describing a spinning Globe with a magic magnet. Where man says space God says water. Man says the Sun is 93 million miles away, God says The Sun, Moon and stars are IN the firmament which would put them about 6 thousand miles away. In Joshua it states God stopped the Sun, but according to man the Sun is already stopped and it is the Earth that is moving. In Psalms it states three times that the Earth is set on its foundation and can’t be moved. Someone is lying and it is not God!!!
Fascinating, Peter! Now, whilst I agree that God is not lying, I just have a bit of trouble with how to explain these truths of scripture with what science is saying. If I may pose the question: How can the Word say one thing, and yet science say something soooooooo different? leaving aside the notion that science is lying… how does the Word and science even attempt to mesh on these topics?
It seems that science does explain the earth rotating, stars, etc, pretty plainly to be as the scientists reckon it. This topic has always left me a bit wonky… coz God speaks truth, but, the world isn’t flat (or is it?). I know that “evolution” is bunkum, but space science has me in knots. Any help here with thoughts, comments, or websites would be greatly helpful. Thanks. God bless.
I would suggest RTB – reasons to believe @ reasons.org- if youre really interested in the ‘science’ part. Not claiming it/they are infallible nor the final word, but the group is extremely knowledgeable and presents reams of fact[s].
NOWHERE does the Word claim the sun is only 6000 miles away – where people get this stuff is amazing. So is the misinformation and outright luna, uh, um, silliness purported above by most posters save Chesterson and Racial Judahite. Daily Im amazed at some of the stuff people claim to believe… IF they actually believe it; “beware the leaven of the pharisees…”
flame away…
Genesis 1:17 read it , It states God set the Sun, Moon and Stars IN the firmament, The Firmament separates the waters from above from the waters below. The Firmament is what God called Heaven. Maybe you should read Genesis 1:1-20 and pray for understanding before you start scoffing, remember you have been brainwashed with “science” falsely called in government indoctrination centers. Ever heard of van allen radiation belts? The excuse used for not going “back” to the moon. It is probably the dome of Heaven that no man can get through. You should really do some honest research before you scoff, because saying Earth is a spinning Globe with a magic magnet is calling God a liar. Beware the lies you believe in…
The shape of the earth is irrelevant to the original article, so please refrain from arguing over this completely unresolvable and contentious issue. We are here to gather the sheep, not scatter them over a non sequitur.
“….We are here to gather the sheep, not scatter them over a non sequitur…..”
Amen!
This contentious topic of the shape of the earth was addressed in the following thread–it was unresolved then, and if history is any indication, it will remain so. If you are interested in the topic, read it, but we are not posting any more comments in that thread either.
https://christiansfortruth.com/the-strange-story-of-the-israeli-flag-that-neil-armstrong-allegedly-took-to-the-moon-and-back/#comment-23577
It certainly doesn’t talk about spinning around it’s own axis and then spinning around the greater luminary at super speed.
I’d say flat earth is a largely pagan concept, and that’s why it was adopted by Jews, but Jesuits are the ones who came up with the Heliocentric model.
Isaiah 40:22
חוּג (chug) doesn’t really mean “Circle” per-say, although it can be used for that, it refers to ’roundness.’
It’s highly unlikely that ancient Hyksos/ Phoenicians had a separate word exactly synonymous with sphere or spherical-ellipsoid. They didn’t exactly have spheres rolling around the place for them to observe and put a name to.
The word Adam (Adawm) means “to show blood in the face.” No other race can blush except for Caucasions. We got our name after we escaped Babaloynian slavery and traveled north turning west through the Caucasas mountain range. That area is still known today as The Pass of Israel.
The Bible is written to Adam and his descendants on our racial history,
Laws
Statutes
Ordinances
And Phrophesies
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=119
Well, it also means “Clay” or “Earth” which is what he was taken from.
There isn’t just the Nordids who migrated across the steppes, the Atlantids came by boat long before and are closely related to Nordids. But yeah, the Germanii came from the Caucasus region and then the Meds placed them alongside the Keltica tribes in the same grouping.
We are named after “Europa” who was a “Phoenician” Princess. Why did we adopt this name?