This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Adam vs Kennewick Man

This forum is for discussions and questions concerning Christian Identity direction, doctrine and debate.

Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby mchawe » Sun Jul 05, 2015 4:06 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhr8TaMmE90
This is a 7 part series of videos about Kennewick Man. Ignore the first 5 minutes of that idiot Paul Fromm. The main man is a scientist called Stephen McNallen. Apologies if this subject has already been covered here.
What I am faced with is a Biblical story of the creation of Adam about 5,500 BC.
God (Yahweh) goes "Poof" and a man called Adam suddenly appears. Then Eve is created from his rib.
However here in the Kennewick Man case, you have a discovery of a man who is immediately identified firstly by the Coroner and other scientists as "Male, Caucasian." Basically a white man. The early examiners thought it was a recent skeleton of maybe an early white pioneer, and they saw what was familiar to them of a white Caucasian Male skull and skeleton. Later with sophisticated scientific carbon dating it was dated about 10,000 years.
My father was a cattle breeder. He had a herd of Jersey dairy cattle that won him a lot of prizes at shows. He was always looking for pedigree bulls. If you kept the same bull on the herd, the herd would degenerate in time. I know of a village near the Welsh border with England where there used to be a number of village idiots. That was because that village before modern transport arrived on the scene, was inter-bred. No new blood came in. Yet starting off you have no new blood in the Biblical story. You have initially brothers marrying sisters and cousins marrying cousins, and things do not work that way.
These are problems with the Adam was the first white man idea. If you were in a debate arguing that Adam was the first white man, you could be on a loser!
User avatar
mchawe
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Kilifi Kenya

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby bahr » Sun Jul 05, 2015 6:20 pm

These are problems with the Adam was the first white man idea. If you were in a debate arguing that Adam was the first white man, you could be on a loser!


We are not here on earth to "debate" with humanists/unbelievers.

1 Chron. 1:1, Luke 3:38, I Cor. 15:22, I Cor. 15:45, I Tim. 2:13, Jude 14, etc...

Surely YOU have a problem arguing with the Word of Yahweh-Christ and since Yahweh-Christ is the winner, who could be the loser here?
User avatar
bahr
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:44 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby Rogue » Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:29 pm

Abraham and Sarah were half siblings, I often wonder how this was reconciled in terms of the law?
One King, One Faith, One Law.
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby Joe » Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:39 pm

Bill has already spoken about Kennewick man in the Pragmatic Genesis series. If we believe the Bible we should know that all those 'men' who had an origin outside of or before Adam were part of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil who were already in the garden when Adam was created.

They may be part of the fallen angels, either way they are not Adamic and have no hope.

The Law was not given at that time and this aspect was discussed in Pragmatic Genesis too. I wouldn't accept that Isaac was 'inbred', that God would accept a blemish. Obviously there are things that are difficult to discuss but should be considered properly.
...and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
User avatar
Joe
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:23 pm

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby Kentucky » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:14 pm

Rogue wrote:Abraham and Sarah were half siblings, I often wonder how this was reconciled in terms of the law?

Most Christians do not think of God as the Master of eugenics. The science of man has to revolve around their finite understanding of His Creation, not the science of God or His infinite omniscience. Divine Law and thus sin were only applicable when God commanded it. If you recall, Sarah was beyond the years of fertility and yet it was by divine intervention that she conceived. I know it's rather cliché, but God is always in control.

The dating of the Kennewick man and the creation of Adam are not chronologically compatible and therefore makes me wonder if these learned scientist have a theological agenda, not unlike so many other ruses, hoaxes and carbon14 charades to undermine Christianity.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby Staropramen » Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:45 am

Adam was created approx. 7,500 years ago according to Septuagint chronology. Bill has postulated that the fallen angels that took on human form were most likely White since they were created by Yahweh. This sounds reasonable and could account for the existence of White people before Adam. While they may have been White they were nonetheless not Adamites.

Eve was made directly from Adam's own DNA. Isn't that an even closer relationship than any perceived "inbreeding" that may have occurred afterwards?

I'm not an expert on this but it's my understanding that brother-sister marriages would have been less genetically problematic at the beginning due to the less-degenerated state of creation as a whole.
"If God is a Jew then the only thing left for us to do is commit suicide"
-Dr. Wesley A. Swift
Historical Recordings of interest to Christians;
http://historicalrecordings.net/
User avatar
Staropramen
 
Posts: 2026
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:58 pm

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby EzraLB » Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:51 am

mchawe,
I, too, have struggled over this issue of inbreeding among Adam, Eve, and their children, especially Seth. Who, after all, was Seth's Adamic wife? When we promote CI to non-believers, we have to have real, logical answers to such questions. To simply say that we must ignore nay-sayers isn't good enough if we are going to sound credible. That's what Judeo-Christian pastors do--they simply say, "God works in mysterious ways." That's the kind of rhetoric of ignorance that always turned me off to religion when I was younger.

I recall Bill once addressing this issue, and if I am misrepresenting what he said, please correct me if I am wrong. I think he said that the story of Adam and Eve is better understood as a parable against race-mixing rather than a literal historical account, which is not to say that it really didn't happen. We know only of Adam and Eve, but we don't know if they were the only Adamic people at the time.

I agree with Mark Downey in that we should always be skeptical of how these archeologists and paleontologists date their findings. That said, there is overwhelming evidence that White Adamic Man had discovered North America long before the court historians have claimed.

Ancient Celtic carvings and coins have been found all across the continent. This evidence has been ignored because it conflicts with the official story of the Whites committing "genocide" against the supposed "indigenous" Indians. The truth seems to be that it was the Indians who committed "genocide" against the ancient White explorers, absorbing them or wiping them out.
"No Rothschild is English. No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians." -- Ezra Pound
User avatar
EzraLB
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:32 am

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby wmfinck » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:06 am

EzraLB wrote:I recall Bill once addressing this issue, and if I am misrepresenting what he said, please correct me if I am wrong. I think he said that the story of Adam and Eve is better understood as a parable against race-mixing rather than a literal historical account, which is not to say that it really didn't happen. We know only of Adam and Eve, but we don't know if they were the only Adamic people at the time.


EzraLB, that is fine, as when Yahweh placed Adam in the garden, then He had also made other trees in the garden which were "good for food". Genesis is rich in parallelisms and allegory.

The insistences that Genesis chapters 1 through 3 must be taken literally are made by fools who cannot understand allegory, and who would limit the mind of our God as well as the cognitive ability of we His Creation to the level of the 5th grade Science teacher. But when you get to the 10th grade, you realize something is wrong. These insistences have caused many of the Faith to stumble unnecessarily.

What we must understand, as I did my best to convey in Pragmatic Genesis and perhaps next year (or the year after) will be able to put into writing, is that Genesis contains parables, and the parable of the creation of Adam contains an episode of race-mixing which causes the fall of Man from the grace of God. Clinging to the "Tree of Life", which also means keeping God's law of "kind after kind", man shall have redemption and reconciliation.

http://christogenea.org/podcasts/two-seedline

EzraLB wrote:I agree with Mark Downey in that we should always be skeptical of how these archeologists and paleontologists date their findings. That said, there is overwhelming evidence that White Adamic Man had discovered North America long before the court historians have claimed.


We should indeed always be dubious about "carbon dating" and other forms of scientific dating methods. Carbon dating is based on assumptions about carbon composition which are not necessarily true, and which are admittedly more inaccurate with the greater age of the subject material.

But even if apparent Whites over 7,500 years old are found, it should not disturb our Faith. There were "fallen angels" on earth before Adam, as the Bible informs us is certainly the case since the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" was in the Garden as soon as Adam was placed there. If they were "fallen angels", then ostensibly they were pre-Adamic Whites.

EzraLB wrote:Ancient Celtic carvings and coins have been found all across the continent. This evidence has been ignored because it conflicts with the official story of the Whites committing "genocide" against the supposed "indigenous" Indians. The truth seems to be that it was the Indians who committed "genocide" against the ancient White explorers, absorbing them or wiping them out.


Right, and there were probably other Whites here even long before them. Academic science and history are biased to please a small group who are adept at ridiculing anyone that goes against their own particular political and social agenda.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby Gaius » Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:57 am

wmfinck wrote: Academic science and history are biased to please a small group who are adept at ridiculing anyone that goes against their own particular political and social agenda.


As in a recent podcast the politicised blather of certain "scientists", especially in the speculative and highly imaginative field of evolution, reaches new levels of fantasy. This branch of "science" is a truly rotten fruit, ready and ripe to fall to the ground, expire and further decompose.
Future generations of our people will regard such "scientists", and their followers, with open contempt and disbelief that such a farrago of lies could even be given a public hearing among sane men.

More strength to your arm, Bill, also Sven, in exposing these hucksters. Science by its very nature is a search for Truth. Where are the true scientists among our people who will carry this battle forward ?
The same question may be asked about historians.
As Bill says, this is a small group. Their credibility and numbers crumble as marxism is increasingly seen for the lie it is simply by its fruits of war, conflict and chaos we see all around ....
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
(Romans 8 v 31)
User avatar
Gaius
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:27 am
Location: Ulster

Re: Adam vs Kennewick Man

Postby Kentucky » Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:17 pm

EzraLB wrote:When we promote CI to non-believers, we have to have real, logical answers to such questions. To simply say that we must ignore nay-sayers isn't good enough if we are going to sound credible. That's what Judeo-Christian pastors do--they simply say, "God works in mysterious ways." That's the kind of rhetoric of ignorance that always turned me off to religion when I was younger.

That's a fair assessment. We should "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you" (I Peter 3:15). However, we all have to "study to show ourselves approved... rightly dividing the word of truth" II Tim. 2:15. I don't have a problem with speculation about tough questions as long as it is in harmony with the rest of Scripture. Too many times the speculation turns into dogma and the dogma turns into the traditions of man. Many of the "origin" questions in CI have devolved into a 'take no prisoners' mentality, which does more harm than good, and surreptitiously divides and conquers our mission. Especially since the conclusions drawn from limited resources morphs from theory to fact without the required witnesses/exhibits/proofs to establish the matter. I see nothing wrong in telling newcomers or non-believers that "I don't know" the answer to their question, but that I will try and find it for them or that we're still in the discovery stage for God to reveal it to us. But, everything in the Bible has a principle or a reality that we can relate to... logically, because our God is not illogical.

"God works in mysterious ways" has about as much credibility as "Hate the sin, but love the sinner," neither of which can be found anywhere in the Word. That is what I call 'the energy of error' or the slippery slope of interpolations and interpretations gone astray. We should be on guard in Christian Identity towards anyone who has no love for the truth and actually embraces lies and promulgates them. Our community is so blessed to have men and women who can identify good from evil. We are still learning how to discern the spirit of wolves in sheep's clothing as they pretend to represent what God is bringing forward for this generation, which is the racial message of the Gospels. We cannot ignore or afford to be glib about complex issues. By the same token, we should not let pride obfuscate our responsibilities to God and our fellow man, pursuing endless rabbit trails. Let the "Bible Answer Man(s)" of judeo-churchianity fall into that ditch.

"The secret things belong to the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" Deut. 29:29.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Next

Return to Christian Identity Directions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron