Most Christians today have been indoctrinated by their pastors to cite Revelation 7:9 in order to justify their universal, unqualified scope of salvation offered by Jesus Christ:
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all the tribes, peoples, and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
If we superficially read and take this verse at face value, we will wrongly assume that everything we consider to be a tribe, or people or nation — and everyone who speaks any language at all — will be included in the Lord’s plan for salvation. As we will show here, if we thoughtlessly apply such modern concepts to the Scripture, we can unwittingly contribute to the confusion of the end times deception of Mystery Babylon.
A great confusion in Christian circles always arises over the question of who “the nations, tribes and peoples” are in Scripture. To clear up this confusion, we need to look at the modern usage of the words and compare them with how someone writing the Scripture would have used the words.
QUICK RECAP ON NATIONS AND COUNTRIES
Today, when we hear the word “nation,” we are likely to immediately think of a “country” — as the two words have become virtually synonymous.
A country is a modern geo-political entity with set geographical borders that is managed, administered and even defined by a governing body, such as a parliament or congress. The people living within a country’s borders are connected to each other only by their common citizenship in that country — not necessarily by any common ethnic identity, culture, or religion. This is the modern “nation-state.”
On the other hand, a true nation is a community of people with a common ancestry, language or culture — with a rulership that reflects and acts to preserve that ancestry and its values and heritage.
“COUNTRY” VS “NATION” IN SCRIPTURE
Because we moderns often use “country” and “nation” interchangeably, we’d like to look at how the term “country” is used in the Old and New Testaments — in order to demonstrate that it does not mean what we understand it to mean today — as a geo-political entity with borders.
Zechariah 6:6-8 says,
6 with one of which the black horses are going out to the north country; and the white ones are to go out after them, while the spotted ones are to go out to the south country.” 7 When the strong ones went out, they were eager to go to patrol the earth. And He said, “Go, patrol the earth.” So they patrolled the earth. 8 Then He called out to me and spoke to me, saying, “See, those who are going to the land of the north have appeased My wrath in the land of the north.”
Here all three bolded words — country, earth, and land — have been translated from the same Hebrew word — “erets” (Strong’s H776) — which generally refers to physical land — similar to how we would use “land” in English — especially land outside of town, which we call “the country” or “countryside.”
Genesis 32:3 says,
Then Jacob sent messengers ahead of himself to his brother Esau in the land of Seir, the country of Edom.
“Country” in this passage has been translated from a different Hebrew word — “sadeh” (Strong’s H7704) — which, like erets, seems to connote physical land as well, but with some kind of intentional use, such as farming. For example, the first time sadeh is used in the whole of Scripture is Genesis 2:5:
Now no shrub of the field [sadeh] was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field [sadeh] had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.
Another example of “sadeh” is Ruth 1:6,
Then she arose with her daughters-in-law to return from the land of Moab, because she had heard in the land of Moab that the Lord had visited His people by giving them food.
By using sadeh here instead of erets, the writer of Ruth is clearly trying to convey to the reader that this “land of Moab” had a specific purpose — fields for farming. So here “land of Moab” means the farm fields of Moab, as opposed to the general physical land — or erets — occupied by the Moabites.
Then we have Leviticus 25:31 which says,
The houses of the villages, however, which have no surrounding wall, shall be regarded as open fields; they have redemption rights and revert in the jubilee.
Here the phrase “open fields” is translated from both Hebrew words — “sadeh” and “erets” — together, which could be literally translated as “field of the land.” We chose this verse as an example not because it is necessarily related to farming or cultivation, but rather because it refers to the land which surrounds the houses of the villages — what we would call the “countryside” in English.
Now let us move over to the New Testament and take a look at John 4:44,
For Jesus Himself testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.
Here “country” is translated from the Greek word “patris” (Strong’s G3968) which comes from the root word “patér” (Strong’s G3962) — meaning “father” — from which we get the word “paternal” in English. So in relation to land, “patris” then refers to one’s “fatherland” — or the general land of one’s origin without any geopolitical connotations.
Another good example that uses “country” is Luke 15:15,
So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed pigs.
While at first glance this translation may sound geopolitical, it’s really not at all. Here “country” has been translated from the Greek word “chóra” (Strong’s G5561) — which refers to a generic expanse or tract of land. But “citizen” here comes from the Greek word “polités” (Strong’s G4177) — which means “inhabitant” — so this verse would have been more accurately translated, “So he went and hired himself out to one of the inhabitants of the land…”
Hopefully, these examples of how “country” is used and misused in English translations show us just how hasty and ill-advised it would be to impose our superficial, modern understanding of the word “country” on to these verses.
ORIGIN AND MEANING OF THE WORD NATION IN SCRIPTURE
The term “nation” is used widely in the Scripture — but its meaning is nothing like how we understand it today. In the Hebrew version of the Old Testament — the Masoretic text — the word used for nation is “goy” — from Strong’s Concordance H1471. This term first appears in the Old Testament in Genesis 10, which begins,
Now these are the records of the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and sons were born to them after the flood.
Genesis 10 proceeds with a genealogical account of Noah’s children — the families which were derived from Noah’s descendants up to six generations down. We are shown how each son of Noah gave rise to a “family” or “nation,” translated from the Hebrew word “goy.” The chapter is divided into three sections — Japheth, then Ham and then Shem — according to their language, families and nations (Genesis 10:4,20,31).
In this context, the words for “nation” and “family” are used interchangeably given that it was a literal family — kindred connected by blood with a common patriarch — who gave rise to these nations. The first time the Abrahamic covenant is given in Genesis 12:3, it is these “families” or nations of Noah who will receive the blessings,
And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
The blessing is mentioned a second time in Genesis 18:18,
…since Abraham will certainly become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?
A third time in Genesis 22:18,
And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.
A fourth time it is spoken to Isaac in Genesis 26:4,
I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
The fifth time it is spoken to Jacob by Isaac in Genesis 27:29,
Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
And the sixth time it is spoken to Jacob in Genesis 28:14,
Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
We can see that family is used three times and nations is used three times — clearly, for all intents and purposes, they are all referring specifically to the Genesis 10 nations. Genesis 10:32 ends off by saying,
These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their descendants, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.
This verse is crucial to our correct understanding of how “the nations” were separated — in light of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11, verse 9,
Therefore it was named Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
We can see here in Genesis 11 that language was the mechanism used to split them by their families into nations — or “goy” as specified in Genesis 10 — with a common ancestry.
EXAMPLES OF NATIONS IN SCRIPTURE
Now let us look at some examples of these nations — starting with Mizraim, mentioned in Genesis 10:6:
The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.
Mizraim was Ham’s son — and note that literally every single time the word “Egypt” appears the Scripture, it is translated from the original Hebrew word for “Mizraim.” The modern word “Egypt” doesn’t exist at all in the original Hebrew Scriptures — and its inappropriate usage serves only to create confusion.
The modern country of Egypt, of course, a geo-political country whose inhabitants are in no way the same people as the original Tribe of Mizraim. Therefore, whenever we read “Egypt” in the Scriptures, we must make a mental note that it is referring to the nation of people who have Mizraim as a common ancestor — not the modern arabic peoples who now occupy the former land of Mizraim.
As it is used in the Scriptures, Mizraim is a nation in the purest sense of the word — it is not a country at all — and it has absolutely nothing to do with the geographical location they inhabited, but rather it has everything to do with their family and descent.
As an interesting side note, Genesis 10:13 tells us that the Philistines — whose father’s name was “Casluhim” — were actually descendants of Mizraim.
Another prime example of a biblical nation is Asshur, of whom Genesis 10:22 says,
The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram.
Asshur was Shem’s son — and you will note that literally every single time the word “Assyria” is used in the Scripture, it is translated from the original Hebrew word for “Asshur.” As with the word “Egypt,” the word “Assyria” does not exist at all in the original Hebrew Scriptures — because it is a people with a common ancestor, not a country.
INHERITANCES OF THE NATIONS
At face value, the only connection between the Scriptural nation of Mizraim and the modern country of Egypt is that today’s Egypt occupies the same general location that the ancient people of Mizraim spent most of their time. In fact, these biblical nations like Mizraim rarely moved from the lands where they traditionally dwelt — which is why these lands became synonymous with those nations.
Genesis 12:10 tells us,
Now there was a famine in the land; so Abram went down to Egypt [Mizraim] to live there for a time, because the famine was severe in the land.
To state that Abraham was simply going to a geographical location would not do justice to the accounts given in Genesis 10 and 11. However, the Scripture is clear that these nations have been given heritages — which explains why they were so static in practice.
These apportionments of the nations’ lands were predetermined, as Paul says to the Athenians in Acts 17:26,
…and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation
Deuteronomy 32:8 says,
When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of mankind, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.
It is important to understand that it is the nation — the people — which defines the land — and not the land which defines the nation. Just because a nation has been given a certain land an inheritance does not mean that the land itself is forever associated with the nation. Job 12:23 says,
He makes the nations great, then destroys them; He enlarges the nations, then leads them away.
Here we see how a nation of people can be led away from the physical land of its inheritance — yet they remain a nation. Being removed from their land doesn’t change what made them a nation in the first place — which is having a common ancestor.
Probably the most sure example of this concept in the whole of Scripture is Israel itself — a family of Jacob’s children — who was called Israel (Genesis 32:28). The nation of Israel is named after its father just as the nation of Mizraim is named after its father.
Therefore, Israel is not a physical place — but rather, it is a people — and no matter where they are, they remain Israelites — independent of their geographical location.
We know that Israel was indeed removed from the land of its own inheritance — and in spite of being in other nations’ lands, they are still called Israel. Similarly, in Jeremiah 38 when Ebed-melech the Cushite — son of Ham (Genesis 10:6) — was among the nation of Israel in their own land, he is still referred to as a Cushite. Likewise, when Uriah the Hittite — son of Canaan, son of Ham (Genesis 10:15) — was among the nation of Israel in their own land, he is still referred to as a Hittite. There are many such examples in the Scripture.
THE NATIONS AND SALVATION
What becomes yet more obvious — given the Abrahamic covenant with the nations cited above — is that only these Genesis 10 nations are eligible to benefit from the Abrahamic covenant, which was fulfilled in the Lord Jesus. The salvation of the Lord Jesus is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant, as Paul states in Galatians 3:16,
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as one would in referring to many, but rather as in referring to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
In other words, one may attain to eternal salvation through Jesus Christ only if one is a descendant of Noah — because the promise to Noah fulfilled in the Lord Jesus was promised only to the Genesis 10 nations. Noah and those who came with him were also the only descendants of Adam and Eve, who was the mother of all Adam’s descendants as Genesis 3:20 says,
Now the man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
Therefore, if all of Noah’s descendants are from Adam — and if all of Adam’s surviving descendants are found in Noah and his family — and if salvation is promised only to the Genesis 10 nations — then it stands to reason that salvation is also eligible only to the descendants of Adam.
As we showed in our essay on Deuteronomy 23, one must also be a pure descendant of Noah and Adam — without any ancestors who were not descendants of Adam through Noah.
Revelation 5:9 says of the Lord’s salvation,
Worthy are You to take the scroll and to break its seals; for You were slaughtered, and You purchased people for God with Your blood from every tribe, language, people, and nation.
Revelation 7:9 says the same thing,
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all the tribes, peoples, and languages…
Let us consider each of the words which have been used in these two oft-cited — and almost universally misunderstood — verses. The word for “tribe” is the Greek word “phulé” (Strong’s G5443), which refers to a group of people who have a common ancestor. It is also the word which is used to refer to the tribes of Israel in the New Testament. This makes a lot of sense, because the tribes of Israel are exactly that — groups of people sharing a common ancestor — Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, etc.
The word for “nation” is the Greek word “ethnos” (Strong’s G1484). The meaning of the word is a community based on a common ethnos — the word we get “ethnicity” from. Therefore, the word for nation is referring to a nation in the truest sense — and not a country. It is also the word that the Greek Septuagint uses to translate the Hebrew word for nation (goy).
“Ethnos” is often also wrongly translated into the word “gentile” — which comes from the Latin word “gentillis,” which refers to someone who is not of one’s own nation. This is a very subjective term, and so it doesn’t accurately fit the word for ethnos, which refers to nations in the objective sense. The Romans used “gentile” to refer to non-Romans — so clearly they did not understand it to mean “non-Jew” as most Christians mistakenly understand it today.
Literally every time one sees the word “gentile” in the Scripture, it is either translated from “ethnos” in the Greek, or from “goy” in the Hebrew. Unfortunately the translators have retroactively fitted a modern concept to a word which in the Greek which fundamentally does not mean the same thing.
The word for “people” is the Greek word “laos” (Strong’s G2992), which is used for a specific people usually unified by some commonality — a generic term which needs context to give it specific meaning. The Greeks fundamentally would not use it to refer to all people everywhere, as we do today — rather, they would use the word “laos” to refer to a population within a national context.
“Laos” is the very same word used in the Greek version of the Old Testament and the New Testament when referring to the people of Israel. It refers to the population of Israel as a nation — children of Jacob/Israel. That is not to say that “people” in Revelation 5:9 and Revelation 7:9 refers only to Israelites — but rather that it refers to specific peoples tied together by a particular commonality — depending on the context.
The word for “languages” is the Greek word “glóssa” (Strong’s G1100), which refers either to literal tongues or the language which one speaks.
So far when we compare these four concepts — tribe, nation, people and language — we can conclude that these passages are actually quoting Genesis 10, which says that the descendants of Noah were divided into family, nation and language. Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 and Genesis 10 are literally referring to the same thing. These passages in the Revelation are stating that the Lord Jesus has the power to save all of Noah’s descendants.
THE NATIONS OF “ALL THE EARTH”
While Genesis 11:9 states that the nations were “scattered… abroad over the face of all the earth,” Genesis 41:56-57 tells us,
56 When the famine was spread over the entire face of the earth, then Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold grain to the Egyptians; and the famine was severe in the land of Egypt. 57 Then all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.
When we read, “all the earth came to Egypt,” we should not presume that it means literally everything in the earth — including, say, koalas and jaguars — came to buy grain in Egypt. Obviously this verse means to say that all of the nations who were scattered over the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from them.
Therefore, all of the nations must have been within reasonable distance from Egypt in order to have bought from them. We know that the reach of such endeavor’s was quite far, as the Hittite nation in Anatolia — modern day Turkey — not the Canaanites — were able to buy grain from Egypt and have it shipped over. This is commonly known and not controversial in the slightest.
However, it is unreasonable to assume that in such a short time one could ship grain to Australia or South America. Similarly, Acts 2:5 says,
Now there were Judeans residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.
This passage refers to the dispersions of Israelites who had been living with other nations. Because of this, they had come to adopt the cultures and languages of those nations — hence the need for the Spiritual gift of speaking in diverse languages, which was seen in Acts 2.
If the Israelites came from every nation to be present at the Pentecost, it is reasonable to assume that “every nation” must be within reasonable distance from Jerusalem to have made the journey. Again, the travel routes of those times were actually quite far — as one could even have traveled to the British Isles during the Lord’s time on earth. This is also commonly known and not controversial.
However, again it is unreasonable to assume that in such a short time one could travel from somewhere like Australia or South America to be present at the Pentecost. It is even unreasonable to assume that one could travel to those places at all during that time — considering they had no idea these places even existed.
With the examples of Genesis 41 and Acts 2 given above, we can safely conclude that whatever the Genesis 10 nations were, they must have been within normal traveling distance of Egypt and Jerusalem in ancient times.
Flavius Josephus — the Judean historian — wrote in the work Antiquities of the Jews his own full account of the Bible histories for a Greek audience just before the end of the first century AD. It seems little known or oft-ignored that within this account, Josephus specifically covers the topic of Genesis 10 — and attempts to take account of every nation in Genesis 10, and specifies to which contemporary nations these Genesis 10 nations were associated (Antiquities 1, 6).
Josephus attempted to identify all of Noah’s second generation children as well is most of his third generation children. The import of this history shouldn’t be underestimated — Josephus took account of every great nation which existed on the planet according to Noah’s second and third generation children.
It is worth noting the eminence Josephus has to this day as a historian. His work is in all likelihood the primary source for our knowledge of Biblical-related history — it is still used in scholarly Christian works worldwide. That being said, we shouldn’t presume that Josephus’s work in this regard was completely perfect; however, it would be foolish to discard his work outright.
That said, does Josephus’s account line up with Scripture? Every single nation identified by Josephus was within the Roman Empire or on its outskirts. We would propose that this lines up exactly with Acts 2:5 which we discussed above — and therefore Josephus’s account of the Genesis 10 nations does in fact line up with the Scripture.
That is, Josephus made the fundamental assumption that all of the Genesis 10 nations could be known — and should be known — as opposed to living in tents or huts on the other side of the planet.
THE PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NATIONS
Elsewhere in Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus relates the appearances of the Judeans in relation to the Greeks. When the Greek Seleucid Empire took Jerusalem around 170BC, the Judeans were facing pressure and temptation to follow the Greek way of living. Josephus relates a peculiar practice among the Judeans,
…they were desirous to leave the laws of their countrey, and the Jewish way of living according to them; and to follow the King’s laws, and the Grecian way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals; that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly they left off all the customs that belonged to their own countrey, and imitated the practices of the other nations.
Antiquities of the Jews, chapter 12, book 5, section 1
Josephus has stated that the Judeans looked so alike to the Greeks, that the only defining physical characteristic which could separate them was their circumcision. Bear in mind that Greeks are sons of Javan, son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2). This is most clear in Daniel 8:20-21, where Daniel is prophesying how Media and Persia will be replaced by Greece,
20 The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
The word for “Media” — the Medes — in the original Hebrew is “Madai” (Strong’s H4074). Madai was also a son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2). The word for “Persia” is strangely a geographical term in the original Hebrew — “Paras” (Strong’s H6539). However, Isaiah 21:2 prophesies of the destruction of ancient Babylon,
A harsh vision has been shown to me; The treacherous one still deals treacherously, and the destroyer still destroys. Go up, Elam, lay siege, Media; I have put an end to all the groaning she has caused.
Media again is “Madai”, while “Elam” (Strong’s H5867) is the son of Shem (Genesis 10:22). We know from Daniel’s prophecies — and from history — that it was the Medes and Persians who took Babylon — and therefore we can conclude that Persia were the sons of Elam.
Going back to Daniel 8:21, we know from history that it was the Greeks under Alexander the Great who overcame the Medes and the Persians — and that is why in Daniel 8:21 the word for “Greece” in the original Hebrew is actually “Javan” (Strong’s H3120), who was the son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2).
Consider these facts when reading Josephus’s account of the Judeans hiding their circumcision so that they could look like Greeks. The Greeks were Javanites and by extension children of Japheth — while the Judeans were children of Shem.
By comparing this information with Josephus’s account, we can conclude that children of Japheth and children of Shem looked exactly the same — to the point where if only the Judeans weren’t circumcised, they could pass as Greeks.
Another witness of the sameness of the physical appearances between Japhethites and Shemites is found in the first book of the Maccabees — which is more or less an historical account of the Maccabean revolts found in the Apocrypha.
During these revolts, the high priest Jonathan sent a letter to the Lacedemonians — the Spartans — reaffirming their bonds as brethren, even sending proof of their kinship. A copy of the Spartans’ reply in 1 Maccabees 12:21-23 says something rather interesting,
21 It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judeans are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham: 22 Now therefore, since this is come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity. 23 We do write back again to you, that your cattle and goods are our’s, and our’s are your’s We do command therefore our ambassadors to make report unto you on this wise.
The Spartans literally confirm that they are sons of Abraham. In all likelihood, the Spartans are actually confirming that they are Israelites — which should come as no surprise since many Israelites were deported and dispersed when the Assyrians conquered the northern house of Israel.
The Spartans are even using the same idiom — “mine are yours” — which Jehoshaphat — king of the southern house of Judah — was wont to say to the king of the house of Israel in 1 Kings 22:4 and 2 Kings 3:7. Except this time it is Sparta — a kingdom of the deported house of Israel — which is saying it to the house of Judah. We are sure that the thoughtfulness of this gesture would not be lost on anyone who was familiar with their common history.
Incidentally, Josephus records a copy of the same letter which the Spartans sent to the Judeans,
We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered, that both the Judeans and the Lacedemonians are of one stock; and are derived from the kindred of Abraham: It is but just therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing; and esteem your concerns as our own: and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demoteles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare: and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws.
Antiquities of the Jews, book 13, chapter 4, section 10
Modern scholars reel over these letters — because they cannot fathom that Spartans may be Israelites. They continually look for reasons to doubt this account in the Maccabees and in Josephus’s own writing. Yet we have two historical witnesses which confirm that the Judeans own records and the Spartan’s own records affirmed their common heritage.
In other words, upon receiving the Judean’s proof that they were of common heritage, the Spartans consulted their own records and discovered the very same connection.
The point is that the Spartans were Shemites — and yet no one would even think to question whether or not the Spartans looked different from the Greeks who surrounded them. This again shows that Shemites and Japhethites looked the same — and also shows that some nations in those times were not Genesis 10 nations, but rather were offshoots from the Israelites themselves.
In this regard, some will immediately be tempted to quote Colossians 3:11 — a go-to verse for dispensationalist Christians everywhere,
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Christians have been taught to believe that this verse is all-inclusive; however just the opposite is true. Paul is literally affirming everything we have been saying thus far — that regardless of where — or under what circumstances — members of those original Genesis 10 nations may find themselves, they are potential members of the body of Christ.
A simple word study of Colossians 3:11 bears this identity out. The word for “Greek” is “hellén” (Strong’s G1672), which refers broadly to any of the nations who had learned to speak the Greek language. While “Jew” here comes from “Ioudiaos” (Strong’s 2453), which refers to those living in Judea — or showing Judean cultural norms (as opposed to Greece). And we know that “Ioudiaos” does not necessarily mean just Israelites in Judea because Josephus uses this term to describe Idumean converts who lived in Judea.
When we read the word “barbarian,” which comes from the Greek “barbaros” (Strong’s G915), we tend to take a modern conception of the word “barbarian” — such as a “savage” or someone without manners — and retroactively apply it to Paul’s words. However, “barbaros” is a Greco-centric term that simply refers to anyone who could not speak Greek — and did not necessarily adopt Greek customs.
Paul says in Romans 1:14,
I am under obligation both to Greeks [hellén] and to the uncultured [barbaros], both to the wise and to the foolish.
Paul states that he is under obligation to the barbarians, and we expect that he would have ministered to them in his lifetime. Yet we know the scope of Paul’s ministry over his life was from Palestine, through Asia Minor, all the way along the northern coast of the Mediterranean and into Spain. Did Paul meet “barbarians” along the way? Acts 28:2 says,
The natives [barbaros] showed us extraordinary kindness, for they kindled a fire and took us all in because of the rain that had started and because of the cold.
As we have stated, the “barbarians” are not “barbaric” in the modern sense of the word — rather, these “barbarians” on the island of Malta were mild-mannered people who simply didn’t speak Greek.
As for the Scythians whom Paul mentions in Colossians 3:11, Josephus identifies them as the children of Magog (Antiquities, 1, 6, 1) — the son of Japheth.
The fact that all of these peoples looked the same may be surprising to many today. The world has been deluded into looking at the current population of a country and assuming that the people who lived there in ancient times looked the same as those who live there now.
Remember Job 12:23: “He enlarges the nations, then leads them away.”
Just because people who live in certain countries today look a certain way now — such as the Egyptians or Persians — does not mean that they always looked that way. In the same way, modern countries do not represent the nations spoken of in the Scripture.
THE CONFUSION OF THE NATIONS
Given all these historical facts about the Genesis 10 nations, why is it so common for Christians to use Revelation 7:9 to apply salvation to those for whom the Scripture never intended it?
Clearly, we cannot take our modern concepts of “tribes, nations, peoples and tongues” — or even Greeks, barbarians and Scythians — and retroactively apply them to the Scripture without creating confusion. The Scripture must explain to us what its meaning is — and we cannot explain to the Scripture what its meaning is. If we do not allow the Scripture tell us whom the Lord Jesus has saved, then we are presuming the Lord Jesus has saved those whom the Scripture does not say that He saved. And by doing this, we follow and promote a “false Jesus” (Mark 13:22, Matthew 24:24)
To apply our own contemporary and biased understanding to these words — as the vast majority of Christians today are wont to do — without the understanding the historical and biblical context which the Scripture requires throws the whole matter into utter confusion. Genesis 11:9 says,
Therefore it was named Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
The Scripture has stated that the word for “Babel” (Strong’s H894) is associated with confusion — which likely comes from the Hebrew word “balal” (Strong’s H1101), which can also refer to confusion. Even though according to the Babylonians, “Babylon” meant “Gate Of God,” it is almost the same as the Hebrew word for confusion.
Revelation 17:5 refers to the great end time system of evil,
…and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery: “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
If Babylon refers to confusion, then Mystery Babylon is a mystery of confusion. People have become confused because they are applying their own subjective and modern concepts of these essential terms to the Scripture, yet they have no idea that they are confused — and the “abominations of the Earth” are the result of this confusion.
Paul refers to this same system as a “mystery of lawlessness” in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 — confusion necessarily leads to lawlessness. Paul concludes in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12,
10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
Paul states that they will be confused because they did not have a love of truth — and because of this, they are made to suffer a delusion of confusion which they are not even aware of — that they may believe that which is false. The truth is in the Scripture — which is in Genesis 10, but it is ignored outright.
Judeo-Christians have been brainwashed into believing that only those people who do not believe as they do are part of the “confusion” of “Mystery Babylon” — never themselves.
In the law of Moses, there are two particular sins which lead specifically to confusion, and they are both related to the progeny of sexual sin. 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.
Leviticus 20:12 says,
If there is a man who sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed incest, and have brought their own deaths upon themselves.
The word for “perversion” in Leviticus 18:23 and the word for “incest” in Leviticus 20:12 are both “tebel” (Strong’s H8937) in the Hebrew. The Brown-Driver-Briggs definition is,
confusion, violation of nature, or the divine order
The Strong’s Concordance and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance agree that the root word of “tebel” is “balal,” which as we have already discussed means “confusion” — and the reason why “Babylon” means confusion.
Why would the Scripture call a man sleeping with his daughter-in-law “confusion?” The answer is simple: because whose child would the offspring be? Would the father be the wife’s husband, or would it be the wife’s husband’s father? It is confusion.
Likewise, if a woman had to produce children from an animal, what is the resulting offspring? Is it a person or an animal? As we have shown in our article Ruth Was A Moabite — But Does It Even Matter, there were giants known as “Rephaim” who had offspring with some of the Canaanites in Hebron. Goliath whom David slew was the product of such a union.
This is proof and precedent that something which is not a man from Adam — the giants — can produce hybridized offspring with people. Despite this precedent, some Christians, however, will try to argue that if a sexual union can produce children, then it necessarily means that both parents are people — pure descendants of Adam.
The children produced between the Canaanites and the giants are proof that such an assumption is not true.
The Israelites were commanded in Deuteronomy 23 that those who had such mixed ancestry were not allowed into the assembly of the Lord. Thankfully those ancient Israelites took special note of the different physical characteristics which the giant/people hybrids had, such as in 1 Chronicles 20.
They also drove these hybrids out of the land of the Israelite inheritance before they could breed back in with people to the point where someone with Rephaim ancestry would become indistinguishable from someone with pure Adamic ancestry. That would be very confusing indeed.
We don’t imagine that it was the Lord’s intention to save the giants or their hybridized children, do we? Therefore, we can see that this confusion comes from sexual sin, and the misidentification of who — or what — it is that the Lord Jesus came to save.
THE EMPIRE OF THE LATTER DAYS
In these modern times, there is a taboo surrounding the existence of nations — especially when white Western nations begin to mobilize around their common ancestry. But when we read the Scripture, we can clearly see that nations and nationalism is ordained by God Himself.
Yet Christians applaud countries and patriotism — which is rulership for its own sake — and condemn nations and nationalism — which is a basis for rulership ordained by God. Given a basic understanding of contemporary history, we would argue that any Bible-believing Christian ought to see the evil shift in the governance of the nations for what it is.
Yet this evil goes entirely unnoticed. As we mentioned, it is a mystery of confusion. As time goes by, Western nations are turning more and more into countries as their common ancestry becomes confused and mixed with peoples imported specifically from the Third World.
Remember how earlier we referred to another category of rulership — the empire. In these modern times it seems that not only are more nations becoming countries, but we have had an empire foisted upon us seemingly without us even knowing about it.
The rule, authority and geographical bounds of modern countries is recognized by the “international community.” If any country presumes to act outside of those bounds, the “community” will step in and restore the rulership to a country which is approved of by that “community”. The “community” actively enforces the existence of countries which suit the interests of that “community” — to the exclusion and vilification of true nations.
That “community” is ruled and controlled by none other than the United Nations — a paradox if there ever was one. At the time of writing of this essay, almost every single country in the entire world is a member of the United Nations — including Russia and China. This explains why so many nations have become countries — rulership for its own sake. They must necessarily become countries so that they may serve the interests of the United Nations. They are proxy governments which serve international interests instead of the interests of whichever nations may be within their borders.
This fits the exact pattern of an empire. When the ancient Israelites were under the rulership of the Roman empire, the Romans would set up and allow leaders within Judea only so long as those leaders suited the interests of the Romans. Likewise, governments today are allowed to rule their countries only so long as they suit the interests of the United Nations.
International interests are naturally antithetical to national interests, as international interests must necessarily amalgamate everyone’s interests toward something which is fundamentally not national. If it is antithetical to national interests, then it is antithetical to the Scriptural, ordained rulership of God. Yet Christians welcome this system and even pursue it in their confusion.
Daniel 2:41-42 says of the Roman Empire,
42 And just as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of pottery, so some of the kingdom will be strong, and part of it will be fragile. 43 In that you saw the iron mixed with common clay, they will combine with one another with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not combine with pottery.
The prophecy shows how this Empire of Rome was doomed to fail — as the nations under the purview of empires cannot adhere together — just as clay does not adhere to iron. Over the course of hundreds of years the Roman Empire did indeed fragment and divide until there was no empire left to speak of.
Yet the empire under which we find ourselves in the present day adheres to itself by means of its whoredoms and international commerce, as is related in Revelation 18. Verse 3 says,
For all the nations have fallen because of the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed acts of sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich from the excessive wealth of her luxury.
All the nations have fallen indeed, as today there are no nations to speak of. There are only countries ruled by international interests. This is no surprise, as Revelation 12:9 says that Satan “deceives the whole world.” It is a wonder that the Christian world somehow imagines itself not to be deceived, even though the Scripture has stated in no uncertain terms that the whole world would indeed be deceived.
As we stated, it is a mystery of confusion.
Yet we understand that the current state of our confusion and the state of the world is the chastisement of our Lord, as Jeremiah 31:27 reveals to us,
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of mankind and the seed of animals.”
This short vision of a few verses in Jeremiah 31 shows that being sown among men and beasts will be a step on the path of Israel’s punishment and ultimate restoration. This sowing is the fulfillment of a great and terrible world empire which we see before us today. As we have shown before, this mass confusion — and being desolated by animals per Leviticus 18:23 — was always in the prophetic plan for a disobedient Israel.
Revelation 13:7 attests to the terrible power which this beast has over the Earth,
It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority was given to him over every tribe, people, language, and nation.
The empire under which we find ourselves today certainly does exercise this authority, and it bears all the signs:
- No nations or national authority
- International commerce
- The scattering of the seed of men and animals among one another
- An overarching authority which none dare challenge
With this state of oppression and confusion, when Christians try to apply Revelation 7:9 to fit a scope which has been forced upon them, all they are doing is trying to fit Mystery Babylon into their Bibles. They are trying to trace the empire of the United Nations back through the Scriptures. And by doing so, they ultimately come to believe that the “beasts” of Mystery Babylon are part of the Lord’s plan of salvation.
It is confusion, and it is sin.
My apologies, my apologies. I realise that you are making a distinction between those who are Genesis 10 nations, and those who are not, as required for salvations.
I still call BS.
a) it creates doubt in the mind of the missionary as to whether he is doing the right thing – and the arrogance of pretending you can know which ones are the right ones.
b) as Ive previously said, I know about their credentials in the Spirit, I ve met many such converts, I know them, I know who they and how real their salvation is – I don’t know about yours.
c) Your arguments from scripture simply aren’t good enough. I’ve gone through a number of your articles. While I agree with a lot of what you’ve said about Romans 11, and I always suspected a similar interpretation, however it’s the Genesis 10 nations, who they are who they aren’t, this is the weak part (seems like black people are never the right option) and it is not right.
Those blacks can’t get a break. Not even with Jesus.
Christians! – dont stop evangelism. Black people are going to be up there. Aboriginals who couldn’t make it back to Egypt because they were out here in Australia or Africa – Jesus has not forgotten them either. They can be saved – i’ve seen it. And no it is not just because they like to sing and dance, this is such total nonsense from the worst kind of supremacist dingbat. I encourage the author of the site, who I think is probably smarter than the author of that document to seek more experience about the church in such places and their experiences in the Holy Spirit.
“one may attain to eternal salvation through Jesus Christ only if one is a descendant of Noah”
How does one know today that they are a descendant of Noah? Even if one presumes to be a descendant of Noah how can they know that at some point in their ancestry there wasn’t mixing with a non-Adamic/non-gen 10 nation?
If you are white with no known admixture, you are probably a legitimate descendant of Noah. Noah was preserved because he was “perfect in his generations” or genealogy. (Genesis 6:9)
He followed the first law of the Bible: “kind after kind”.
We know Adamic people are white because the name Adam comes from the Hebrew words “Aw Dam” which means to blush or show blood in the face.
And the Bible is only about the race of Adam:
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”
So if you. are not Adamic, the Bible, and, by extension, salvation does not apply to you, though non-Adamics can benefit by following its moral precepts.
David ……
Why do you ask, would be my first thought/question?
Second — unless it’s obvious that a person has non-white admixture — I think your question is Rhetorical, right?
I think the problem I have with Mark’s answer is that if a non-white person who believes themselves to be following the commandments of Jesus Christ stumbles across his answer he may flip out and do the opposite i.e., live a life of sin, debauchery and maybe even cause harm to White peoples.
Who is to say whom God will reward in the Afterlife???
I will be the last person to tell a non-white person that they have no business believing themselves to be “Christian”.
I have 3 dogs that are dead now and I would like nothing more than to see them again in Eternity.
I don’t see why God would not wish that for me as well.
No one knows what Eternity will look like. If you have doubts as to your ancestry but you love God with all your heart, soul and mind ….. have Faith.
It’s certainly not anyone’s fault what their great, great, great grandfather did or didn’t do.
West, many people who don’t believe in God lead a life of sin and debauchery anyway, don’t you think? If people use the idea of Adamic exclusivity in the Bible as a excuse to harm white people, then they truly don’t follow God anyway.
I believe that the resurrected Kingdom will be here on earth, and if the Kingdom is going to be multi-racial, we’ll probably end up back at square one with all the same problems we have today, no?
I think there’s a verse in the Bible about how after a certain number of generations, a mixed person is considered an Israelite. Not sure what exactly that means, but it seems that there may be a dispensation for that distant relative who may not be exactly Adamic….
Hi Mark,
“…many people who don’t believe in God lead a life of sin and debauchery anyway, don’t you think? ….”
Of course. Not sure your point.
“….If people use the idea of Adamic exclusivity in the Bible as a excuse to harm white people, then they truly don’t follow God anyway…..”
Again ……….. not sure your point. I think my point was lost as well.
I hope David comes back and shares a little more. I’ll never forget, 10 years ago or more, I was listening to Bill Finck. He said that he if discovered that he had ONE DROP of non-Israelite blood he’d commit suicide. Knowing what I know about him today, I realize he was bluffing.
But, if Bill caused anyone to kill themselves who heard him say that because that person heard through the family grapevine that their great, great grandfather was 1/10 American Indian ……………..
You see my point?
In private, I tend to agree with you re: Adamic Exclusivity. But I just don’t know how it’s all going to play out in the end. I have much more to say about this if you ever wanted to talk about it.
“….I believe that the resurrected Kingdom will be here on earth, and if the Kingdom is going to be multi-racial, we’ll probably end up back at square one with all the same problems we have today, no?…”
Luke 18:8 weighs heavily on my soul. I am a Partial Preterist. I have a hard time seeing some kind of Kingdom here on Earth prior to any Intervention on the part of God. So ….. a Kingdom here on Earth AFTER Christ’s return would not be multi-racial. It wouldn’t even be sexual. Matthew 22:29-32.
If I had to guess, I’d say right now on this Earth there are less than 1,000 people who have the Holy Spirit. The “Falling Away” in my opinion is complete.
If there is a Kingdom here on Earth, it will be AFTER Jesus returns.
“….I think there’s a verse in the Bible about how after a certain number of generations, a mixed person is considered an Israelite. Not sure what exactly that means, but it seems that there may be a dispensation for that distant relative who may not be exactly Adamic….”
That would be nice. It would be a shame to judge a person who had no choice as to what his great, great grandfather or mother did. My dad is unbiblically married, making me a “bastard” if you accept that translation. We now know that it is better understood as “mamzer” or “mongrel”. But 15 years ago, I was very depressed and considered suicide because I realized I was a “bastard” and was not allowed into God’s Kingdom (Sanctuary). You see? It’s a tricky game of judgment.
For me ……………… Obedience is EVERYTHING. And sadly, I just don’t know anyone who is Obedient to Jesus Christ. I know they are out there, but I just don’t know any personally. I know about 3 people who I trust as a True Follower of Christ personally who I have met face to face.
I believe Luke 18:8 is almost fulfilled.
Back to David ……………………… I’m just not comfortable judging any person who believes themselves to be a Follower of Jesus Christ. Who am I? I will judge and rebuke a person for their behavior, however.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Mr West
I was just linking backwards and rereading some articles when I came to this one. I read it a couple of times and then went thru the comments.
It’s a tricky and complex question/subject/concept.
I will say here that I agree with most of what you say. We certainly ARE to ‘judge rightly’ those things that are clearly black/White, right/wrong. I cannot judge a man’s heart, tho I can look upon his ‘fruits’. Still, that judgement of the individual is ultimately reserved for God.
I would like to posit one thought tho that will not make me particularly popular with some here…
I understand completely that Jesus said “He was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel’. I get that. I agree with that. [like God cares if I agree with Him!!! 🙂 ] BUT… remember too that God gave provision for ‘foreigners’ to be joined to Israel early in His Word. Given that, it seems to follow that if a non-Israelite such as the gentleman from Mexico or a technically ‘mixed’ Israelite, such as one whose great grandfather boinked an indian, chooses to follow Christ ‘in Spirit and in Truth’, that he would be ‘accepted’ by the Father. I am in NO way proposing or agreeing with ‘universalism’, make no mistake. I am simply opining that it is possible, and , assuming the individual in question is ‘human’ and possesses a soul, that his soul can find Salvation in Jesus. I know it does not and will not happen very often, and I am CERTAINLY not advocating wasting billions of dollars and man hours on proselytising/sending missionaries to/pandering to non Israelites, but I am also not saying that a non Israelite simply cannot be saved. He cannot be ‘REDEEMED’ , as only Israel was ‘sold for nothing and redeemed without money’, but – again assuming the individual has a soul – he can, I believe, find salvation in Christianity.
Certainly, even if one does not agree, surely we can agree that encouraging those among us – even tho they should not be ‘among us’ – who are not Adamic/True Israel, to adopt Christianity and it’s attendant lifestyle is profitable, if not only for them but for Our Societies.
Luke …………………..
I have many of the same thoughts as you. It is a fascinating conversation.
I think, ultimately for me, the deciding factor comes down to ONE question —
What has the Adamic Race gained for coming into contact with non-adamics? “Collectively” of course.
I hate to admit it — but I believe the answer is nothing. Only misery. Of course not at the level that we are witnessing today.
My “empathy” will kick in and I do get sad thinking about it. I have known maybe just a few non-adamics that I truly enjoyed. Good people. But ………. it’s always only “just a few”.
And I think everyone has that same experience — “Just a few”.
The Interesting Test will be to see what happens when White People lose political and financial power and become a powerless Minority. What will happen then?
Will non-adamics “fight for us” as we have fought for them???
Honestly, I hope I’m dead when that day comes. But I wouldn’t mind being a fly on the wall, watching to see what happens.
Thanks for the dialogue!
luke2236
Brother, Deutoronomy 23:2 says ” bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”
Being a hybrid automatically means you don’t have a pure Adamic Spirit. The “foreigners” you mentioned are other Genesis 10 Nations, not non-Adamics. It should be clear that the Bible is written only for Adam and his posterity.
By suggesting that Hybrids can achieve salvation you reject the Bible. You said ” I am in NO way proposing or agreeing with ‘universalism’, make no mistake. I am simply opining that it is possible, and , assuming the individual in question is ‘human’ and possesses a soul, that his soul can find Salvation in Jesus.”
So which one is it? You claim you reject Universalism yet in the next sentence claim others can find salvation. It can’t be both ways, brother. The Bible is for the Generations of Adam, not non-adamics. End of story.
Indications are that Noahs flood was global and not regional. Therefore everybody is a descendent of Noahs 3 sons. To those that questioned my salvation as a Mexican male there is no basis for that in the scriptures. I am glad that I had an encounter with your site and the exchange with others on this forum. It is for yourselves to examine whether you are being obedient to Jesus command to love your neighbor as yourself. I don’t see how you can if you look down at Asians, Blacks and Hispanics, but hey we have an imbecile who suffers from late stage dementia sitting in the oval office so I guess anything is possible.
If Noah’s flood was global and not local, explain where the cursed races that were the enemies of Israel came from?
Going from your POV, if the entire planet was genocided, except for Noah and his 3 sons… Please explain where Giants and other mixed-races come from?
Of course, you can not give an explanation as yourself are a mixed raced person. An enemy of God.
You should question your salvation, you have none.
Enjoy the Lake…
JOHN, did you read the article? Serious question, because it obviously disagrees with your views on “accursed races”. Would you give us your commentary?
I read this article and found it interesting. I had never heard this line of thinking before. As what I perceive is a rebuttal to the thesis, I am 100% Mexican who immigrated to US in 1968, and became a Christian in 1984. During the last 12+ years I began to question the eschatology of Dispensationalism that I felt was left wanting. God has blessed me with finding truths and Bible teachers that add clarity to the Bible narrative.
My parents were both from the state of Jalisco Mexico which is far removed from any probable genetic contact with either the Northern Kingdom or the Tribe of Judah and yet I know that the spirit of God flows through my soul, and am confident of my eternal security,
Again I found the article interesting, but lest we forget Hebrews 8 tells us there is a new covenant the old one is discarded and the new sheriff is Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant Galatians 3:16 and the fulfillment of the 70 weeks prophecy of cousin Daniel 9: 24-27.
Rodolfo, you say you know that the spirit of God flows through your soul, but how do you know it’s not one of your ancestral gods from Mexico? Have you not studied those gods whom your ancestors worshiped for millennia long before contact with the white man and his God? Why do you think the white man’s God is superior to your own? Just because the white man has a book about his God and yours does not?
https://www.thoughtco.com/deities-of-mexica-mythology-170042
Are you aware that your ancestors worshiped Aryan white men who visited Latin America thousands of years ago and built your pyramids?
https://christiansfortruth.com/divine-blonde-haired-blue-eyed-cloud-people-built-the-pyramids-of-south-america/
No interest in cults, or the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe you don’t know the scriptures as well as you think. I say that I am a Christian and that I feel the presence and the blessings of God by faith in Christ. Are you not aware that the man created in the image and likeness of God was Christ at his resurrection on the 6th day? The Adam in the garden was created on the 3rd day before the animals. Paul talks about that in 1 Corinthians 15.
Therefore I am being transformed into the image and likeness of God by a renewing of my mind. You are welcome to doubt it. I am interested in what Christ thinks on the last day of this creation when he comes and raises the dead, raptures the church, and Judges the wicked. 4 times Christ mentions it in John Chapter 6.
Yes Rodolfo, those may well be your opinions, but you haven’t offered much in the way of proof… Nor any actual criticism of the arguments contained in the article you’re commenting on.
Jonathan Edwards, the famous 18th century American minister, gave a sermon in which he explained how many people who think they’ve had a subjective mystical experience with Christ are, in fact, mistaken. Very fascinating and well worth listening to or reading…..
True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WHWnUj5YZY
Read:
http://prayermeetings.org/files/Jonathan_Edwards/JE_True_Grace_Distinguished_From_The_Experience_Of_Devils.pdf
Proofs….. In the several posts I have cited Bible verses which are not opinions but biblical facts.
J Vernon MaGees Through the Bible ministry is translated into many foreign languages where people of all colors and ethnicities claim and demonstrate faith in Christ. The same can be said for GFA …Gospel for Asia which spreads the gospel message in those distant lands. In Touch ministries with Charles Stanley are an international ministry that does the same. These and others I support financially.
Micah 6:8 Gods was looking for justice and mercy from the ancient Hebrews, Isaiah 5 the same, in Matthew 23:23 Jesus challenged the Pharisees for failing to observe these same weightier matters of the law. So these are the components of the Golden rule to love your neighbor as yourself. These go against human nature, but with God all things are possible and those that love God and Christ will manifest what God seeks.
I have never come across this thought that only whites from certain Old Testament nations are entitled to biblical salvation in all my research and study. You are welcome to your interpretations but be wary of a certain arrogance and cultish fervor. These fail the Golden Rule and it’s components cited above. And more specifically, the great joy in my heart when I study the word of God confirms my relationship and eternal salvation.
Sorry Rodolfo, I don’t see any proof in anything you’ve said. Neither have you offered any kind of criticism of the article we’re commenting on. You did say something interesting though…
“And more specifically, the great joy in my heart when I study the word of God confirms my relationship and eternal salvation.”
I’m afraid this is all your religion will ever amount to… Feeling joy within your flesh. But Christ said, “the flesh is no help at all” (John 6:63).
Interesting how similar the religion can look between a “100% Mexican” and many white people. No wonder they believe non-whites share a religion with them…
Rodolfo, you honestly think that when the Israelites wrote “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” they meant that to refer to Blacks in Africa? That they should love Black Africans the same way they love their fellow Israelites? Really? That’s absurd, and you know it. That’s wishful thinking on your part, and those evangelists you give your money to. No, you didn’t provide any “proofs” of your position….you just threw out some verses that in no way disprove what this essay proves and called anyone who believes otherwise to be in a “cult” — name calling is the last refuge of those who can’t defend their position.
Wow, Rodolfo, you’ve confirmed your own eternal salvation based on your subjective experience merely reading the Bible? Do you not realize just how heretical that claim is? Your salvation is ensured by God because of that “tingly” feeling you get when read the Bible? Recall the warning of James (2:19), “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
At the present I’m reading Not Of This World by Peter Kolosimo. It’s very interesting. It’s truely fascinating just how many cultures of the world worshipped “White men who came from over the sea” or “White men from the stars” in the olden days.
Rodolfo, I’ve read what you’ve written with interest, and without meaning to be rude, you write like a fellow who is well meaning but really doesn’t have a grasp on what’s actually going on. For example, you sound like a very passionate fan of, say, soccer; you know all the rules, and the players by name, and their historys, and their stats, and you have followed soccer for years… but you have no idea of which team is which.
The only proof is the way you live your life. Jesus said in Matthew 7 that by their fruits you can judge who is good because good trees give good fruit and bad trees don’t. Elsewhere in the Bible it is said that men love darkness and avoid the light. In the above post I used Micah 6:8 and other verses to show what God requires of his people. These are the components of Love your neighbor as yourself. It is not easy to give a rats tail about some of the people in society, and yet when you do it is because of the spirit of God, just like Paul said we believers are the temple of God.
I read Genesis 10, I listened to a commentary, I read several commentaries on Bible hub and want able to discern any basis for the selection exclusively of whites over others for Gods plan of salvation.
Rodolfo ….
Where do the black, yellow and red man come from?
I read that the explorers to Mexico were shocked at the similarity of Aztec’s, Mayan’s or whatever one wants to call the inhabitants , to Chritstian’s practices and beliefs that they did all they could to destroy it.
And also others have shown that the Christian god is modifications of ancient gods over the ages. Just changes of names and practices of how each age worships their version of god.
Hello Rodolfo, if your family had moved to India instead of the USA in 1968, would you be a Hindu today instead and be firmly convinced that the Hindu gods, like Deva and Bhagavati flowed through your body? Or if your family had moved to Lebanon, would you be a Muslim with Allah flowing through your body? I’m genuinely curious.
If you loved God you would rejoice in my faith. I am curious if you know what Paul said in Galatians 3:28? Or what Paul said in Romans 11:22 when he tells gentile believers that they were grafted into spiritual Israel (Jesus Christ) because of faith.
And what about the Ethiopian eunuchs? He was not white and yet he was saved.
No, the Ethiopian eunuch was white, and he was from Kush, one of the early Adamic Genesis 10 nations. Please read:
https://christiansfortruth.com/pyramids-of-the-ancient-aryan-kingdom-of-kush-ethiopia-and-sudan/
Rodolfo, did you read the article you’re commenting on? Or did you just enter and start giving your opinions?
Look at the section of the article on Colossians 3:11 and apply that to Galatians 3:28 and Romans 11:22. And reread the section titled “The Nations and Salvation”
Ah, yes, Galatians 3:28 was a favorite of the Catholic Church as it used that verse to justify proselytizing the Third World. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Who is being addressed in this verse? Blacks, Aztecs, Chinamen? Do you seriously believe that Paul meant to include all these people when he wrote that verse? Certainly not!
https://christiansfortruth.com/why-the-apostle-paul-did-not-write-an-epistle-to-the-bantus/
Paul was the “apostle” to the “gentiles”, but who were the “gentiles”? It doesn’t mean “any non-Jew”, but rather it is translated from the greek “ethnos” which means “nation”, and it refers to people of the original Genesis 10 nations, which this article defines. Please read:
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-gentiles-in-the-bible-and-who-they-are-not/
Among those Genesis 10 nations there is neither Judean nor Greek, slaves or free men, male or female…..they are all of the generations of Adam and therefore eligible to be part of the salvation. This same people Paul addresses in Romans.
https://christiansfortruth.com/man-and-beast-in-the-bible-who-they-are-and-who-they-are-not/
There is new research….that the center of mankind before the first global flood, before Genesis began…..was in the Americas, mainly central and South America. There were about 8 pyramids constructed in these regions….many large cities, with millions of people had been pulled down to the bottom of the oceans across the planet during this global wipe out. There is evidence, it does exist in the oceans, entire cities. After this global flood, massive migration around the globe took place, and this when many from the Americas migrated into the Middle East and they took their advanced technologies with them. These people from the Americas were massive in size and wore big beards. When they arrived 8. The Middle East, the men there were smaller, with no body hair. They called themselves the black heads. The middle eastern nations thought these people from the Americas were Gods in their stature and advanced technologies. So…being that your family is from the Americas, is why you have that ancestral knowledge written across your heart or soul. Do some research. The Annunaki, were these advanced peoples from Americas, they were no aliens, just mere mortal men, which advanced technologies.
There are books published by others telling or describing who the lost tribes are and what happened to them. I once saw the title of such a book and wrote to the publisher about buying a copy, but they wanted $75.00 for it which at that time ,I didn’t even make in a week , so I was unable to buy it. It may, have been published by Putnam’s or another publisher that I can’t think of now. Look up in “Internet Archives” for such books.
Therefore if a universal global flood is accepted there were Giant hybrids and biped animals on the ark?
To Johan, Westwin and Ottify I appreciate your previous observations but remain confounded and confess. In these matters I am agnostic and search for a complete faith.
I would whoever like to say I find this article challenging and insightful. The idea of Romans calling gentilis gentiles non citizens is a revelation to me. Given that it was always presented from an Israelite standpoint for Judahites are the laos people and the gentiles goy the rest of mankind. I think you make compelling reasoning’s that I would like to study some more. I shall sojourn on your site with gratitude.
I really wish you could offer more on the nations, ethnicity, tribal leaders, family heads. This is not to say it was not a great job you have done. Rather we are in Babel confusion and need to reexamine these principal scriptures. Well done to all concerned.
Birnie wrote, “Therefore if a universal global flood is accepted there were Giant hybrids and biped animals on the ark?”
There is a common assumption you’ve made here: The Earth was repopulated only by that which was aboard the ark. If the flood was global, then it was the animals on the ark which repopulated the whole earth. If the flood was local, then only the local area was repopulated with animals.
I don’t hold that assumption. Let me explain…
Even if the flood was local, the flora and fauna must have needed supernatural help in order to regrow. There are symbiotic relationships in nature which we observe today, where certain creatures cannot live without one another. Bees cannot exist without flowers. Fruit bats need fruit to eat. Spiders need places to build their webs. There are many examples.
Where did the olive leaf of Genesis 8 come from? The land was drowned for a year and not to mention all the sediment which must have covered the ground as a result of the moving waters. These are not conditions for olive trees to grow. Never mind that they take around 40 days just to germinate. The olive leaf could only have been created supernaturally, along with all the other creatures which depend on other creatures to survive.
The point I’m making is this: If there was a global flood, there is no need to assume that everything which repopulated the earth was on the ark itself. There must have been an act of creation to repopulate the earth over and above the animals which Noah brought with him — whether the flood was global or local. There’s nothing in the Scriptural account of the flood which states that the whole planet’s flora and fauna was repopulated by everything which was on the ark.
Birnie,
You didn’t provide an answer for what you believe currently. Or perhaps just a few days ago. It’s just a curious thing to me. “Why do we believe what we believe?”
I told you that I “think” I believed in the Tower of Babel theory ONLY because everyone around me believed this. But then again, we never talked about it and no one ever “challenged” me to really think about this. I really don’t recall any pastor I learned from ever dissect this issue.
So, I am simply asking you what you believe. Where do the 4 Primary Tribes of peoples come from? (White, yellow, red and black)
What did you believe just a few weeks ago?
Do you believe in “micro-evolution”? That peoples changed color because of their environment.
Or are you going with the “Babylon” theory?
The “Ham was cursed” theory.
Or the Serpent Seedline theory?
No big deal. Just curious what you believe.
After reading the flood account for the umpteeth time (KJV), I finally read it without any preconceived notions, and I cannot see where my theory “holds water”. I also don’t see any evidence where the flood could possibly have been local, especially when it’s not just the word “earth” being used, and not “world”, but “upon the face of the ground”, “all that was in the dry ground”, “in the earth”, “upon the earth”, and “under the whole heaven”. IMHO that language leaves no room for a localized flood. With that being said, there is still way too much that is ‘open to interpretation’, but it can still be easily assumed that bipedal animals were included on the ark, but NOT hybrids, for only God’s creations made it onto the ark.
It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judeans are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham
Were the Lacedemonians and the Athenian foes also brethren, were they both of the stock of Abraham?
The Athenians (Ionian Greeks) were Javanites — Genesis 10:2, which means that they were not of the stock of Abraham.
The stock of Abraham are those that believe in Christ not a race, but different nations race was invented by the Jews like anything else that’s not Godly
It does not matter if you were descendants of Abraham if you didn’t believe in Christ.
The lost Tribes are just that lost. John 8: 14 through 59 KJV
By insisting that the lost Tribes are lost, then you make Jesus Christ into a liar. He said, “I come not but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24
Paul confirms that the promises are to Israel according to the flesh….but not all of Israel will become children of the promise, that is, true Israel….
3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. 6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel
Romans 9:3
https://christiansfortruth.com/israel-the-true-identity-of-the-christian-church/
“Indeed a great multitude *shall* be saved. But compared to the multitude that is damned they will seem to be only a few.” – St. Augustine
I am fascinated and enlightened to understand your view. Thank you surely you are no intellectual slouch.
Sometimes I see articles here that confess a universal flood. If all beast humans were destroyed how do you reconcile this obvious discrepancy. Again thank you for revealing your thoughts. I look forward to a more concise appraisal of your view. Well done.
I’m curious… What’s the discrepancy?
Wherever the rest of the animals came from is the same place where the bipedal animals came from, no?
I’m not sure why there needs to be a special explanation of where bipeds come from which is somehow apart from the rest of the animals.
How did aborigines end up in Australia? How did the platypus end up there? The answer for both of those questions is the same, in my opinion.
Thanks Johan,
If Bipeds as you refer to them were part of the beasts brought into the ark. I ask what on earth for! -given that they are a thorn in the flesh for the aforementioned proposal?
How is it that they are the only beasts that can produce offspring with man (Adamites). I know of no other union of man and any other beast that can accomplish this surprising feat. Unlike a donkey and a horse that mate to form an ass or hinny but cannot procreate. The donkey and the horse are near relatives of a similar species of ancestor. Yet, these human bipeds (sic) breed on to form offspring of their own. This seems to suggest a closer proximity to Adam than a donkey to a horse.
Copied from animal how.com
Horses and donkeys stem from the same ancestors but that doesn’t mean they are the same species today.
In recent years we have become much better at studying the chromosomes and gene pools of specific animals. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes and horses have 64. This is a very basic difference and it’s something that courses them to have problems with interbreeding.
The two branches of breeds have separated quite a lot to the extent that they are not able to produce a meaningful outcome today. Meaningful in the sense that the outcome can reproduce itself.
Horse 64 Chromosomes.
Donkey 62 Chromosomes.
Mule and Hinny 63 Chromosomes
Now take a guess how many chromosomes a mixed race or black man has? the same as Adamites.
They are closer to us than a donkey to a horse, for sure.
I thank you once again and ask how is it that God would not have remove such an obvious and inferential stumbling block at the flood.
As the article above shows, the people in Canaan were able to reproduce with the giants/Rephaim, and the children who were the product of that abomination were also able to reproduce.
Using examples of chromosomes and genetics and quadrupedal animals is irrelevant, because we have proof in the Scripture that it is possible.
Birnie wrote, “I thank you once again and ask how is it that God would not have remove such an obvious and inferential stumbling block at the flood.”
I think the question you’ve asked shows that you wish that God did remove them, which I understand. However, the answer to the question isn’t necessary to justify that they are just animals.
There are many stumbling blocks which God didn’t remove with the flood. Homosexuality, murder, rape, theft, envy, hatred, etc. What makes beastiality so special that God needed to remove it over and above everything else?
With a humanist understanding of righteousness, we always assume that God needed to make things nice and cushy and easy for us on earth. The opposite is true. Our fleshly senses lie to us. Deuteronomy 8,
3 And He humbled you and let you go hungry, and fed you with the manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, in order to make you understand that man shall not live on bread alone, but man shall live on everything that comes out of the mouth of the Lord. 4 Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years. 5 So you are to know in your heart that the Lord your God was disciplining you just as a man disciplines his son. 6 Therefore, you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to fear Him. 7 For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land…
The writer of Hebrews makes it clear in chapters 3 and 4 that the “good land” which the Lord was bringing Israel into was a metaphor for eternal life. The Lord disciplined Israel to see their hearts, whether they were worthy to enter the land. They died in disobedience, because they were unable to control their fleshly urges. The Lord Himself gave them those fleshly urges, so that they would resist them and obey Him. Should we not expect to be tested similarly, that we can attain to eternal life — the promised land?
I would go as far as to say that the stumbling block of beasts was specifically added, given that when Noah got off the ark, mankind’s relationship with animals changed. Before the ark, men were vegetarians and had control of animals. This was changed in Genesis 9:2-3 i.e. the relationship between men and animals was changed after Noah got off the ark.
It is a matter of prophecy that animals would be used against men. Leviticus 26:22,
I will also let loose among you the animals of the field, which will deprive you of your children and eliminate your cattle, and reduce your number so that your roads become deserted.
Have you ever seen an animal cause roads to be deserted, or reduce our number so drastically, or bereave us of children? If this is applied to non-whites, it accounts for the Scripture, and it accounts for the actual events we see around us. If this isn’t applied to non-whites, the prophecy has never been fulfilled, even though it’s even quoted in Revelation 6:8.
Why then did the Lord place this stumbling block? Because the way is narrow that leads to life, and that is by the Lord’s design. He never intended for it to be easy, but to those who conquer, He will allow them to be with Him forever. Psalm 15,
1 Lord, who may reside in Your tent? Who may settle on Your holy hill? 2 One who walks with integrity, practices righteousness, And speaks truth in his heart.
He isn’t interested in giving those who complain and murmur eternal life, but rather those who cleave to Him in the midst of their trials, just as He cleaved to His Father in the midst of His own trials. And didn’t His Father destine Him to undergo those trials? Shouldn’t we drink the cup that He drank?
Remember when Cain murmured in Genesis 4,
6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why is your face gloomy? 7 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.”
Kindly Johan, I have seen animals cause havoc with civilization. 2 Kings 2:2 two bears killed all those children who mocked Elisha. Fiery Serpents came upon Israel in the wilderness. These by biblical example, also farmers have birds of prey, Jackals, kyodies steal turkeys, chicken and piglets. In Africa I have seen farm roads deserted till men arrive with guns to put down wild boar. Locals are terrified of passing on foot. There was a movie about the man eating lions of Kenya who slowed progress on the North South railway line. In India babies have been snatched by monkeys. In South Africa the baboons break into your house and eat directly from the refrigerator.
So I reason this passage may not have any substantial claim to a bipedal ancestry as such.
If you agree with the idea of a local flood and some sort of biped was on board then how do you propose that the Aborigines got to Australia. You have the same problem as the universalist. If you choose a local flood then God did not wipe out every living animal on dry land.
I value you insight and offer this only for your respectful consideration.
birnie wrote, “2 Kings 2:2 two bears killed all those children who mocked Elisha. Fiery Serpents came upon Israel in the wilderness.”
I’m curious why you’d use examples where the animals were literally acting at the behest of supernatural power? Do you think it’s normal for two bears to kill 42 children, or for snakes to invade a camp of over one million people?
birnie wrote, “So I reason this passage may not have any substantial claim to a bipedal ancestry as such.”
Leviticus 26:22,
I will also let loose among you the animals of the field, which will deprive you of your children and eliminate your cattle, and reduce your number so that your roads become deserted.
Or Ezekiel 14:15,
If I were to cause vicious animals to pass through the land and they depopulated it, and it became desolate so that no one would pass through it because of the animals
Ezekiel 34:28,
They will no longer be plunder to the nations, and the animals of the earth will not devour them; but they will live securely, and no one will make them afraid.
If you are seriously comparing this to a warthog, jackals and baboons, then I guess I’ll just agree to disagree. I just can’t take that argument as seriously as you do.
Birnie wrote, “If you agree with the idea of a local flood and some sort of biped was on board then how do you propose that the Aborigines got to Australia. You have the same problem as the universalist. If you choose a local flood then God did not wipe out every living animal on dry land.”
I’m not saying anything either way. All I’m saying is the platypus and the aborigine each got there. You yourself have to explain how the platypus got there, and when you have done that, you can apply the same logic to the aborigine. For the moment, I’m fine with that.
So you proposed the bipeds were on the ark. Try not to focus upon my thought but yours and yours alone. Bipeds were on the ark and yet you are universalist. Tell me please how did a biped and platypus get to Australia? This is your assertion not mine. I truly enjoy your insights just help me understand. Kindly note my view is not fixed in stone. If the platypus was on the ark are you saying it is local or universal? I just want an answer not a confusion. Now it was not me but you who proposed your idea and I mean no harm or frustration. Did the platypus and the beast (no Adamite),enter the ark? If they did and it was universal you have the burden of proof to offer! I know you are a good man and will concede to my inquiry if wrong as I would do for you in similar events of evidence. God bless you as truth sets us free. Please this is not a fight but an inquiry! You are reasonable or I would not bother.
Birnie,
This topic is fascinating to me.
Would you mind explaining what you believe about how we got the 4 Primary Races (Tribes) of peoples — White, black, yellow and red?
I always very curious what people “think” about this.
Thanks.
Birnie wrote, “If they did and it was universal you have the burden of proof to offer!”
If you want to discuss how the flood and restoration of the flora and fauna of the earth happened, then that is one thing to discuss and I don’t mind discussing it. I just don’t see how it’s relevant.
The first comment you made said, “If all beast humans were destroyed how do you reconcile this obvious discrepancy.”
I don’t see why there is a discrepancy at all, and it’s not clear from what you’ve said why you believe there is a discrepancy. What you call “beast humans” I call animals according to how they are described in the Scriptures. We can all acknowledge that somehow animals were repopulated in the earth.
It seems that you believe that bipedal animals need some “special explanation” over and above the rest of the animals. I think that’s where we are misunderstanding one another. I don’t think bipedal animals need to be specifically accounted for in the flood story, but you do.
To believe that they need some special account assumes that they are something more than animals in the Scriptures. I think it would be helpful if you could answer the following for me, if you don’t mind:
1. Assuming you are able to agree that bipedal animals are just animals like the rest, then why do they need some special explanation over and above the rest of the animals?
2. Assuming you do not agree that these non-whites are just animals, tell me why you believe that?
I feel it’s important for us to clear this up before we move on to the ark.
birnie, please see my comment further down:
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/#comment-49121
It is my proposed theory on the flood, and it should answer your question(s) in its (their) entirety – not that I’m claiming it to be the absolute truth, but it honestly is the best explanation so far that covers ALL the ‘bases’ you seem to be questioning. It is a good place to start, anyway…
The only ones mating with animals were devil’s not man smh like God said two of every kind, dogs can only produce offspring of the same kind like the Bible says.
Titanium born, I’m not sure how God’s command for Noah to take two of every kind supports your argument. It’s not self-evident in the Bible and it’s not self-evident in your comment.
In any case, Adam wasn’t a part of the creation of “kind after kind”, so the argument can never actually apply in the first place. Yet there are two things we can say for sure:
1. Adam and Eve were white. The very word for “Adam” means to be red or ruddy, which is a trait common only to white people. My own face lights up red as a traffic light under certain circumstances, and my brother’s face is red permanently. Literally only white people (or mixes with white ancestry) can make this claim.
2. Adam was made according to the image of God, so Adam is first and foremost a “God kind”.
But Romans 8:29, Colossians 3:10, 1 Corinthians 15:49 and Philippians 3:21 show that we have yet to attain to Their image, despite the intention in creation for us to conform to Their image. Like Peter said, those who do not conform to that image are “like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed.” (2 Peter 2:12) Psalm 49:12 says sinners are “like the beasts that perish.” They do not conform to the image meant for them in their creation, so they die like animals.
At the end of the day one fact remains: Only Adam and Eve’s descendants can attain to the image of the Creator. The obvious differences between the so-called “races” attest to the difference of creation, but there are no “rules” in the Bible saying pure descendants of Adam and Eve (who are the first white people) cannot procreate with the animals most similar to them. To make up such rules is an attempt to read the scientism of “race” into the Bible.
At the same time, the “image of God” has nothing to do with what one is biologically… As if “the image of God” could be represented in something as corrupt as earthly flesh. We come from below, but Christ and His Father come from above. Biology simply decides who is eligible to attain to Their image in the first place…
He makes the nations great, then destroys them; He enlarges the nations, then leads them away.
Jeremiah 31:36 says Israel will always be a nation.
The Job verse quoted in this article says God destroys nations.
I honestly cannot find the verses saying that the Genesis 10 nations are the ones to always exist.
Ephraim is said to be a full hand of nations.
Could these be the nations and not Genesis 10 nations.
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all the tribes, peoples, and languages
This verse could be rendered
Out from all the nation, namely the tribes, the Lords people namely the tongue (inspired by God)
All Israel (those who can hear and speak) will be saved and he will turn ungodliness from Jacob.
I’m intrigued by this Genesis 10 doctrine
Liam wrote, “Jeremiah 31:36 says Israel will always be a nation. The Job verse quoted in this article says God destroys nations. I honestly cannot find the verses saying that the Genesis 10 nations are the ones to always exist.”
No doubt Israel will be the only nation to remain and all of the other nations will be destroyed. When the Genesis 10 nations are saved, they will join onto the nation that is Israel. CFT recently did an article on this: https://christiansfortruth.com/a-closer-look-at-deuteronomy-23-prophetic-fulfillment-of-the-assembly-of-the-lord/
There are other articles linked within that article, which also expand at length on this topic.
As for the Job quote, I don’t think the entirety of Job 12:23 is stating what is going to happen to every single nation including Israel. That is impossible, as you pointed out. The intent of the verse is to describe the control which the Lord has over the nations, and that He has the power and the inclination to do these things as He sees fit. The implication is that nations may be moved away from their inheritance.
Liam wrote, “Ephraim is said to be a full hand of nations. Could these be the nations and not Genesis 10 nations.”
That’s an interesting point in light of what the article mentions. Given a corrupted and modern understanding of the word “nation”, we expect that Ephraim must become a multitude or fullness of countries. Is that really what the prophecy means?
CFT, this was a great read and it was very informative.
It is very well timed too as recently I have tried to mention race to some of my fellow Christian Boomers. Their response always comes down to “If only those on Noah’s Ark survived then logically the yellows/browns/reds/blacks must have come from Noah’s descendants; the Curse of Ham.” Because of this mistaken belief that the non-Whites are actually descendants of Noah, they are stuck on universalism.
I have seen some theories mentioned around here to offer a better explanation than the old Curses, such as: the Flood did not cover the entire earth, or that Noah loaded up blacks/browns/reds/yellows onto the Ark. However, I do not know the viability/veracity of these theories.
Since the origin of the non-White races seems to be such a stumbling block, would you kindly point me to more information to hurdle it?
Yes, it’s a stumbling block, for people alright. I look at it like this: Adam and Eve were white and are called Mankind AKA Adamkind. Everyone else is is not a Man as they’re not from Adam… so therefore they must’ve come from somewhere; God made Man/Adam in His image, and made all the other creatures of the world BEFORE Adam. The blacks and Chinese have historys far longer than white man… coz they’re not MAN. God classes them as animals. All over Africa and Asia and Australia artifacts get dug up from thousands of years BEFORE white man even existed. They were made with the other beasts and animals.
We’ve been convinced and conditioned that all that can talk must be men… a parrot can talk so is it a man? Should a man mate with a parrot?
I believe in a local flood. I think the “world” was the world that white man knew… not the entire globe… i reckon it killed all the non pure of a certain region AKA the world that was known at the time AKA the world. Otherwise the blacks, browns, and yellows, koalas, giraffes, kiwis, etc would have died too. The only other thing i can think of of how to explain an all encompasing earth flood would be if God made all the other “peoples” and animals AFTER the flood. But im not so sure on that theory as I cannot see anything to say that God did such a thing in the Good Book.
I generally agree with your conclusions here, but would add that IF the flood were worldwide, then God must have created non-Adamics after the Flood, because they surely were not on the Ark. There is no mention of a post-Flood creation however. It is a mystery, and I don’t have a problem leaving it as such — the answer will be revealed, I hope, in the Kingdom.
That said, I don’t believe the purpose of the Flood was to destroy all the racial mamzers, and to preserve only the last pure Adamic Man, Noah, as two seedliners contend. That is preposterous, and is an invention of a carnal mind who thinks God values racial purity over righteousness. The righteous won’t race mix — Adam will not be preserved merely for the sake of his DNA. God used the Flood to destroy sin and preserve righteousness among His creation — and to show Man the lengths that God is willing go to to punish sin and disobedience, even destroying the racially pure and “innocent”.
Thanks Chesterton. Yes, I agree with you: I’m pretty happy for some things to remain as mysterys too. Life wouldn’t be much fun if we could know everything I reckon. Like a magick show; you know it’s trickery, but you don’t wana know how it’s done, as the mystery is the attraction.
Yes, sorry, by “pure” I meant that as lily white and spotless and free from sin, rather than in a “mixed race” type of way. Non pure I mean as more of a sinful grotty lifestyle. I should’ve been more clear.
While I believe in an ‘earthwide’ flood’ (not to mention a ‘flat earth’ according to Scripture), I believe that the floodwater did not completely cover ALL mountains across the earth, but all the ones in the world of Adamkind – who were the specific subject God meant to destroy. And since He specifically meant to destroy MEN, the utter destruction of the rest of His creations and any hybrids was NOT part of that plan.
With that being said, since hybrids are NOT part of creation, they were NOT on the ark – but the bipedal beasts that inhabited areas of the white world were (whoever they may have been – quite likely blacks and yellows).
The main reason I believe the flood was ‘earthwide’ are the existence of the oceans. They are not described in the creation account. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that the earth was originally mostly land, and the flood account never elucidates the flood waters receding back to their original levels. This also explains how certain other cultures never recorded a ‘flood’, as their own – much more limited – world was not affected. I held this belief even as a 2 seedliner, and it was never received well. Eliminating that baggage makes my theory ring even more true…
I tend to agree with you. The chronology of the Egyptian dynasties show no disruption during the time of the flood. Gen 7:20 says the waters stood 60 ft above the mountain tops and some are over 6 miles high. The flood if universal would have covered Egypt 6 miles deep. Not enough water/moisture in existence on all the earth to accomplish that. If if did it would have taken Egypt & other countries centuries to recover from such a catastrophe. Fundamentalists get vexed on this point & point to the verse that says the earth was covered and all flesh died. The Word also says in Luke 2 “that all the world should be taxed”. I think we all know that meant all the world under Roman rule, not the literal entire ‘flat planet’. Just my 2 cents
Those are some great ideas Ottify and WaffenSSman, thanks for shareing! I haven’t found any other site so far where people can discuss this sort of thing without it turning nasty. Everyone is entitleted to their ideas and no one knows everything, and sometimes we are right, and sometimes we are wrong; and being able to share thought provoking ideas without being shouted down, flamed, called a Nazi, racist, jew, conspiricy theorist, tin hat wearer, etc, is why CFT is great. Long may it continue. 🙂
Everyone is entitled to their ideas and no one knows everything, and sometimes we are right, and sometimes we are wrong; and being able to share thought provoking ideas without being shouted down, flamed, called a Nazi, racist, jew, conspiracy theorist, tin hat wearer, etc, is why CFT is great. Long may it continue. ?
Amen! Especially considering it is not really a “Salvation” issue.
Although ………… I’d have to conclude that if such a person were confronted with these thoughts/topics and they continued to believe in Universalism ….. I’d have to conclude that such a person just doesn’t have the Spirit of Truth i.e., the Holy Spirit.
I share your thoughts CIK!
Christ Is King, you are correct. We do not censor or ban people from commenting simply because of their opinions or views.
What will get you banned is if you name call, belittle, smear, condemn, or attack someone who disagrees with you. If you cannot discuss a topic without resorting to name calling, you probably don’t understand your own ideas to begin with.
There are “Christian” websites and forums that encourage this kind of sophomoric and hateful behavior toward their brethren — and many of these refugees who are new to CFT are “shocked” to find out they are not allowed to engage in these kinds of ad hominem attacks here.
According to the Septuagint timeline, the flood happened well before the pyramids were built. Have a look at this article: https://christiansfortruth.com/how-jews-changed-the-timeline-of-the-bible-in-order-to-deny-the-divinity-of-christ/
As for Luke 2:1, yes the Greek word for world is oikoumené which is specific to Greco-Roman civilization. There’s no other way to interpret it. Curious that Luke would use oikoumené in Luke 2:1, but then say “all nations under heaven” in Acts 2.
What a wonderfully conclusive article – and much more could be written on the topic.
Can there possibly be any more question as to the fact that the Scriptures were explicitly written by, for, and about the white man? Of course there can be – by those who are CONFUSED!