How is it possible for the pure-blooded black, asian, and white races to have descended from Adam and Eve, Noah and his wife, or any other common ancestor? It isn't. Adam and Eve didn't reproduce and have black, white, and asian children. The black, white, and asian races (in their pure-blooded states...absent any mixing among the races) are of completely different lineage. They were created separately, and are like different species of "humans."

The Bible confirms this fact. There were other people on the earth before Adam was created. That is why Cain feared other people would kill him when he was banished from the garden of Eden, and how Cain was able to find a wife, have his own descendants, and build a city after being banished.

Who are the descendants of Adam then? I believe it is the white races. The word "Adam" in the Hebrew is "aw-dam'", which means "to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy".

See for yourself in Strong's Hebrew Lexicon here:
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=Adam

The "mainstream" Judaized "Christian" churches teach the lie that all humans came from Adam. This is a central basis/foundation for the promotion of race-mixing, and the diversity/multicult melting pot ("one world") propaganda.

8/28/2006 12:34:21 PM

THE MERRY GO ROUND BROKE DOWN

8/28/2006 12:35:56 PM

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:38 PM. Reason : not enough geordi]

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:39 PM. Reason : don't pic bomb.--theDuke866]

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:52 PM. Reason : my bad, pwnt]

8/28/2006 12:37:51 PM

Aw-dam(n)!

8/28/2006 12:38:00 PM

I don't think the Bible is a credible source on this matter.

I prefer to trust the genetic research that says you're an idiot.

Oh, and

8/28/2006 12:38:17 PM

hahahhaha

so are you implying what it seems that you are, that non-whites are inferior or even subhuman?

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:42 PM. Reason : because if you're going to say it, why don't you just come out and say it?]

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:44 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

8/28/2006 12:39:01 PM

wow salisburyboy

you used science to bring up questions with the bible

nobody has done that before

8/28/2006 12:41:16 PM

Bertrand L. Comparet has written many excellent studies on this and other subjects:

http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/Comparet/the_first_man.htm

Quote :

"ADAM WAS NOT THE FIRST MAN By Bertrand L. Comparet Many people have become agnostics because of the supposed conflict between the Bible and science. In truth, there is no conflict at all between a correct translation of the Bible and really proven science, not just unproven theories. One of these supposed conflicts is between the fact science knows human beings have lived on the earth far longer than the few thousand years covered by the Bible and the common belief that the Bible records Adam was the first man. Yes, I know most of the preachers say that, but the Bible doesn't, it merely says Adam was the first white man. Let's look at the record. [...] Genesis chapter 4 records the birth of Cain and Abel. In the Hebrew, the wording suggests that they were twins. No other child of Eve is mentioned until the birth of Seth, when Adam was 130 years old. Certainly this was long after the birth of Cain and Abel, most scholars say this was over 100 years later. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to Yahweh in Genesis 4:14, "Any one that findeth me shall slay me". Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records Cain not only married a wife, but also built a city. You don't build a city for just two people. These were the pre-Adamic races, mentioned in the latter part of Genesis chapter 2."

8/28/2006 12:54:26 PM

[old]

8/28/2006 12:55:15 PM

Quote :

"The Bible confirms this fact. "

WHAT FACTS DOESNT THE BIBLE CONFIRM

NONE

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : anyway LOCK]

8/28/2006 12:56:08 PM

Quote :

"All "humans" did NOT descend from Adam (or Noah)"

well, that's one of the first things salisburyboy has said that I completely 100% agree with

8/28/2006 1:01:33 PM

Also, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0120.asp

Quote :

"The Hebrew word adam is translated either as “man” or “Adam” depending on context and on the presence or lack of the definite article (“the” in English, ha in Hebrew). So “ha-adam” is translated usually as “the man” (referring to either an unspecified man or to mankind as a whole, depending on context), whereas adam (without ha) is translated as “Adam” (referring to the specific man by the name). So all the way through Gen. 1–3 we have ha-adam and our English Bibles usually translate it as “man” or “the man.” Some translations give “Adam” for ha-adam in 2:19 or 2:20. In Gen. 3:17 and 3:21 we have adam (with no ha), which most English Bibles translate as “Adam.”"

8/28/2006 1:04:37 PM

Quote :

"and are like different species of "humans." "

id like to see the day when we can mate members of these species. it could never happen.

8/28/2006 1:07:43 PM

Quote :

"id like to see the day when we can mate members of these species. it could never happen. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Quote :

"Since the advent of the theory of evolution, the conception of species has undergone vast changes in biology; however no consensus on the definition of the word has yet been reached. The most commonly cited definition of "species" was first coined by Ernst Mayr. By this definition, called the biological species concept or isolation species concept, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". However, many other species concepts are also used (see other definitions of species below)."

8/28/2006 1:13:31 PM

8/28/2006 1:14:41 PM

We have already had this exact same discussion on this board.

message_topic.aspx?topic=392028&page=4

8/28/2006 1:14:52 PM

^yeah lots of the same discussions have been had on here over and over and over

8/28/2006 1:20:44 PM

Are you CI?

8/28/2006 1:39:50 PM

so the whole point of this thread is a setup for your rant on jews and racism right?

8/28/2006 1:53:25 PM

Yeah, I would loosely consider myself Christian Identity. But that doesn't mean that I agree with every single doctrine attributed to that category/denomination.

8/28/2006 1:55:40 PM

CI = confidential informant = snitch

8/28/2006 1:56:27 PM

WHERE DO I BUY A HAT

8/28/2006 1:57:02 PM

Does anyone want to argue that all "humans" do indeed descend from Adam or some other common ancestor (ie, evolution based argument)?

Aren't all humans related and "family" just like the Judeo-Media and the Judeo-Christian churches tell us?

8/28/2006 2:01:23 PM

salisburyboy, can you produce any evidence that the story about Adam and Eve was based on actual events and not just made up?

There is much more evidence for things like the Holocaust than there is for anything in the Bible.

8/28/2006 2:01:26 PM

that's not the point that he's arguing, anyway

whether or not Adam and Eve were common ancestors for all white people is secondary to his argument.



so are non-white races now going to be called pEEple, just like you call Jews "j00s", since you don't believe them to be "real" Jews?

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 2:04 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

8/28/2006 2:03:17 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone want to argue that all "humans" do indeed descend from Adam or some other common ancestor (ie, evolution based argument)? "

I would but it wouldn't make much of a difference.

8/28/2006 2:56:21 PM

Quote :

"Does anyone want to argue that all "humans" do indeed descend from Adam or some other common ancestor (ie, evolution based argument)?"

I do, but for that all I can point to is my regular, non-loony Bible, the one that people have been using for centuries before bozos like you came around.

I know you're going to start with your list of ways to discredit conspiracy theorists like you always do, but getting called a loony is what you get. It's what you deserve. You're not just a bigot. You're a fucking screwball. Daffy. Batshit crazy. Around the bend. Off your rocker. Nutty as a fruitcake. Bananas. Unbalanced, gaga, of unsound mind, crackpot, and a dingbat. You are so far departed from sane and rational thought as to be hopeless to even the finest minds in psychiatry. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your mental state is so far separate from ours, that you qualify as your own fucking species. Homo dipshitius, perhaps. I would give you a lesser genus name, but somehow I'm guessing that using "homo" around you in any way, shape, or form will bring about more of the desired effect of bothering your thoroughly lunatic worldview.

8/28/2006 3:05:57 PM

haha

8/28/2006 3:08:00 PM

8/28/2006 3:09:43 PM

Quote :

" do, but for that all I can point to is my regular, non-loony Bible, the one that people have been using for centuries before bozos like you came around. ...You're a fucking screwball. Daffy. Batshit crazy. Around the bend. Off your rocker. Nutty as a fruitcake. Bananas. Unbalanced, gaga, of unsound mind, crackpot, and a dingbat. You are so far departed from sane and rational thought as to be hopeless to even the finest minds in psychiatry."

So, in other words, your argument for saying all humans descended from Adam is to accuse me of using a "loony bible", and then call me all sorts of names. Impressive.

8/28/2006 3:13:01 PM

most people agree with you salisburyboy, i think, that the bible is not absolute fact

so just cash out your chips while you're still ahead sort of

8/28/2006 3:14:22 PM

salisburyboy, can you produce any evidence that the story about Adam and Eve was based on actual events and not just made up?

There is much more evidence for things like the Holocaust than there is for anything in the Bible.

8/28/2006 3:14:24 PM

Salisburyboy, you have a handful of guys who make a vague reference to some "correct translation" that's just now come about, and I have 2000 years of respected Christian scholars and a couple millenia more of Jewish ones to back me up. I don't need an argument.

[Edited on August 28, 2006 at 3:16 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2006 3:16:36 PM

AND WE WENT ROUND AND ROUND
EACH TIME T'WOULD MISS
WE'D STEAL A KISS
AND THE MERRY GO ROUND WENT

OOM PA PA, OOM PA PA, OOM PA OOM PA OOM PA PA PA

8/28/2006 3:17:27 PM

were there dinosaurs in the bible.???




weird

8/28/2006 3:19:31 PM

Seriously, salisburyboy, why don't you put the same burden of proof on the Bible as you do with everything else?

8/28/2006 3:19:32 PM

because that wouldn't support whatever lunatic argument he's presenting

8/28/2006 3:20:39 PM

tell me about the dinosaurs damnit

8/28/2006 3:23:29 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_perspectives_on_dinosaurs

8/28/2006 3:25:44 PM

surprised nobody's mentioned the daniel quinn theory yet.

8/28/2006 3:26:24 PM

^^ so many vague and half-assed arguments.... My mom is very religious and I obviously am not. I asked that question because whenever she would start preaching God to me- I would just say : "were there dinosaurs in the bible?" and she would turn all apeshit on me

8/28/2006 3:30:22 PM

8/28/2006 3:30:31 PM

Quote :

"most people agree with you salisburyboy, i think, that the bible is not absolute fact "

My point, with respect to Genesis specifically, is not that the original text is incorrect, but rather that the original text has been wrongly translated and wrongly interpreted.

Quote :

"Salisburyboy, you have a handful of guys who make a vague reference to some "correct translation" that's just now come about, and I have 2000 years of respected Christian scholars and a couple millenia more of Jewish ones to back me up. I don't need an argument."

So whatever is the most "mainstream"/popular or has the most "experts" supporting it is correct? Interesting. Never heard that before.

8/28/2006 3:40:38 PM

salisburyboy, can you produce any evidence that the story about Adam and Eve was based on actual events and not just made up?

There is much more evidence for things like the Holocaust than there is for anything in the Bible.

Seriously, why don't you put the same burden of proof on the Bible as you do with everything else?

8/28/2006 3:42:00 PM

so whatever is mainstream is incorrect??

that seems to be the approach you take just about every time

8/28/2006 3:48:06 PM

Man, why do you even try to argue this stuff

8/28/2006 3:55:19 PM

^^

8/28/2006 4:03:08 PM

Quote :

"so whatever is mainstream is incorrect?? that seems to be the approach you take just about every time"

The "mainstream" or popular view on many subjects is incorrect. But, if you care to notice, I am not making that general statement the support for my argument. I have actually provided evidence and logic to support my position (eg, the Hebrew meaning of "Adam", the fact that a common pair of ancestors cannot produce the various races). My opposition, however, has offered no logic or evidence. Rather, all they offer is that the "mainstream"/popular view must be correct.

8/28/2006 4:22:19 PM

What evidence do you have to prove that Adam and Eve even existed aside from a really old book?

8/28/2006 4:23:30 PM

Quote :

"aside from a really old book? "

So old books cannot be used as evidence? What about all those old Greek, Roman, and Egyptian writings? Throw them out too? Or just the Bible?

8/28/2006 4:25:26 PM