This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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.

"Ape" men

"Ape" men

Postby Fenwick » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 pm

It has long been evident to me that when you deal with issues of science, geology, genetics and so forth, you have two camps.

One, the atheistic scientists who see every particle and bone fragment as an opportunity to denigrate Christianity.

Two, the obsessive "fundamentalist" Christians that seem prevalent among Baptists and similar churches. These see any discussion of ancient history and genetics as an evil that threatens their limited and incredibly literalist interpretation of the Bible.

It is my belief, that between these two camps lies the truth about racial origins and genetic inheritance. I will state here that I do not for one minute believe in the idea that Adamic man descended from a chimpanzee-like ancestor 3 million years ago.

But I do believe that for Christian Identity, the existence of such “apemen” does not harm our understanding of the Bible as it harms the fundamentalist’s dogma.

For the fundamentalist, all races came from Adam, and any ape creature is merely an unthinking animal, or it is an ancient man with some odd mutation of the skull. The Answers in Genesis people tried hilariously to claim that excessive chewing would drastically change the shape of one’s skull.

Now, even if these apemen are not the ancestors of anyone living today, their existence poses a problem for the mainstream Christian. The later apemen were capable of using tools and maintained some basic form of culture, which would put them on the same level as the more primitive African tribes today. If they were suitably manlike, the mainstream Christian expects that he must attempt to convert them to Christianity, except his problem is that they died out before Christ was born, and so these people are damned despite never having the chance to convert.

As the mainstreamer cannot accept that not all races are saved, he looks instead for ways to ridicule the evolutionary claims of the atheist, and in many ways succeeds.


My problem with this is that however false the theory of evolution is, we have these apemen’s bones, and however they got here, they were here. Their existence bolsters the argument of the evolutionists, but it also assists Christian Identity, because it shows the presence of an animalistic man-race that cannot hope to count itself amongst the chosen. And where there is one such race, there can be many others, including those alive today.

Now, I was reading up about the stories from several centuries back of “Woodwoses”, Wild Men. According to European legends, these are men who dwell in forests, living primitive lives beyond contact with society. Interestingly, they are shown almost as a species separate from Adamic men, animalistic and with bodies covered in hair.

I found this term actually appears in the Wycliffe translation of Isaiah 13:21, on the destruction of Bablyon: “ther shuln dwelle there ostricchis & wodewoosis”
The KJV gives the word as “satyr” and Rotherham as “shaggy creatures” which appears to be the intent of the original Hebrew. I wonder if the satyrs of legend were originally based on these apemen, which are called wildmen in English.

I believe it is possible that these shaggy creatures referred to were Neanderthals, or at least a race heavily mixed with them. Though their population collapsed long before Adamic man’s creation, could isolated populations have survived, long enough to be recorded by the prophets, even passed down in legend to the middle ages?

The discovery on the Island of Flores of a primitive pygmy race similar to the extinct Homo Erectus has shown that some of these apemen populations survived much longer than was previously thought. If some of these Neanderthals survived until recently, then it would bolster our beliefs in the racial exclusivity of salvation.

The present accepted dogma is that all races are equal and one, but the truths of the Bible, and the archaeological history that supports what is only hinted at in the Bible, shows that race is more of a series of differing types of creature.

Whether preadamic races are just primitive men or animalistic savages, the important distinction comes in where only Adamites are capable of understanding God’s blessing.

The survival of animalistic Neanderthals into Biblical times would support that supremacist notion, which may be perhaps why evolutionists balk at the idea of recent survival of apelike races.
Last edited by Fenwick on Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

Re: "Ape" men

Postby Kentucky » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:54 pm

Bigfoot must repent of his sins... no wonder he's been so elusive.


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

Re: "Ape" men

Postby CairinDaithe » Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:13 pm

Very good post. Only CI offers an effective and believable answer for questions of evolution and creation. I like how you summarized this, and may be referring people to this explanation in the future.
User avatar
CairinDaithe
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:09 pm
Location: United States

Re: "Ape" men

Postby wmfinck » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:53 am

Clifton Emahiser has shown that the "satyr" was at one time interpreted to be a sort of tailless ape. The ancient Greeks esteemed the blacks to be little more than animals, as I have quoted Diodorus Siculus in my Race of Genesis 10 paper.

I talked about the ridiculous extremes between creationists and evolutionists on my website, in the Christogenea Overview pages, which admittedly need to be rewritten and redesigned. There is another paper/podcast on those pages, The End of Genesis Heresy, which shows that only the Adamic race was mentioned in the Creation account, and it is the same Adamic race in both Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2.

There is no mention of the creation of non-White "men" in Genesis, and it cannot be assumed that all non-Whites are part of some "beast" creation. Mules were not part of the original creation of Yahweh, and we cannot insist that ingrate or bastard races of hominids were either.

The New Testament teaches this, since there must be a damned good reason why Goats cannot be Sheep, why Tares cannot be Wheat, why good and bad fish are "kinds", bad trees cannot bear good fruit, good trees cannot bear bad fruit, bad fish are destroyed in the fire, and yet ALL Israel shall be saved. The distinctions are always genetically characteristic and not behaviorally characteristic.

Non-Whites feasting among us are all "clouds without water" and "stains on our feasts of charity". There are Whites born of God, "born from above", and everyone else is born of the world - and that which is not born from of God is sin. If the non-White races are not part of the Creation, then they must be part of the Corruption - they must be plants that Yahweh did not plant.

Clifton and I have been denigrated even by certain clowns supposing to be "Christian Identity" for teaching all of this, but I would insist that it is what the Bible teaches. All other theories of the origins of non-Whites are not Biblical.
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: "Ape" men

Postby Fenwick » Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:11 pm

Clifton Emahiser has shown that the "satyr" was at one time interpreted to be a sort of tailless ape. The ancient Greeks esteemed the blacks to be little more than animals, as I have quoted Diodorus Siculus in my Race of Genesis 10 paper.
That's certainly true, I merely wanted to consider whether the ancients were conflating reports of traditionally simian apes with their understanding of the lesser races, whatever the origin of those lesser races. I found Wycliffe's use of woodwose interesting, given the manlike way they are depicted in European folklore, where no simian apes live.

There is another paper/podcast on those pages, The End of Genesis Heresy, which shows that only the Adamic race was mentioned in the Creation account, and it is the same Adamic race in both Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2.
I would tend to agree with that, largely on the basis that the word for man is Adam in both chapters.
There is no mention of the creation of non-White "men" in Genesis, and it cannot be assumed that all non-Whites are part of some "beast" creation.
But some must have been, unless their later comparisons to beasts was merely abuse?
Mules were not part of the original creation of Yahweh, and we cannot insist that ingrate or bastard races of hominids were either.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks of the mixed races as being of God's work.

The New Testament teaches this, since there must be a damned good reason why Goats cannot be Sheep, why Tares cannot be Wheat, why good and bad fish are "kinds", bad trees cannot bear good fruit, good trees cannot bear bad fruit, bad fish are destroyed in the fire, and yet ALL Israel shall be saved. The distinctions are always genetically characteristic and not behaviorally characteristic.
Exactly, which is why I find the arguments between mainstream Christians and evolutionists to be a false dichotomy. Whether the old "apemen" were beast races or simple simian apes or mixed creatures, the end result is still the same, because they are not of Israel.

Non-Whites feasting among us are all "clouds without water" and "stains on our feasts of charity". There are Whites born of God, "born from above", and everyone else is born of the world - and that which is not born from of God is sin.
But those born out of animal creation, as with the fishes of the sea and the fowls of the air, must be born out of the creation of God, even though they are not born from above as the Adamic man is. If that included lesser beast races, then surely they could not be born out of sin, any more than a kestrel or a salmon is?

If the non-White races are not part of the Creation, then they must be part of the Corruption - they must be plants that Yahweh did not plant.
I would hazard, based on the races alive today, that the vast majority of nonwhite races are mixed, and therefore corrupt, but there are some, like the congoid negro, that I would struggle to see any admixture in. Even though they are spiritually empty.

Clifton and I have been denigrated even by certain clowns supposing to be "Christian Identity" for teaching all of this, but I would insist that it is what the Bible teaches. All other theories of the origins of non-Whites are not Biblical.
I think the difficulty comes where we are told "this is the book of the generations of Adam". It has always been a history of the white race, and other races are only mentioned where they come into conflict with us.

It leaves the only options for their coming into existence to be either completely unmentioned in the Bible, yet it mentions things as mundane as fish and birds, or it would have to include them (the pure nonwhites at least) in the creation of the beasts of the earth.
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

Re: "Ape" men

Postby wmfinck » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:39 pm

I have said this often: even if some non-White hominid somewhere is a part of the original beast creation, then it will always be a beast. See the Christogenea Overview page for Genesis Chapter 2. Where I had to split with the so-called "Eli James" is where he tried to call them beasts in the Old Testament, but make them men being judged for their behavior in the New Testament. A typical Canaanite-jew merchant bait & switch tactic that I would not fall for.
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: "Ape" men

Postby Nayto » Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:52 pm

I think many people are confused by words. The jews call us all the "human race"/brotherhood of man, and variations of the same thing. It seems to have caught on...
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: "Ape" men

Postby Filidh » Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:41 pm

Consider you the possibility that the congoid negro is the result not of mixture between different humanoid (but not Man) folks, but the result of mixture between the fallen angels (who are humanoid) and the apes? If I'm wrong, then please state so, that I may correct myself and learn more. But it seems to be a possibility.
real name's trevor :-)
Filidh
 
Posts: 311
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:51 am

Re: "Ape" men

Postby Fenwick » Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:28 pm

wmfinck wrote:I have said this often: even if some non-White hominid somewhere is a part of the original beast creation, then it will always be a beast. See the Christogenea Overview page for Genesis Chapter 2. Where I had to split with the so-called "Eli James" is where he tried to call them beasts in the Old Testament, but make them men being judged for their behavior in the New Testament. A typical Canaanite-jew merchant bait & switch tactic that I would not fall for.

Yeah, claiming some race starts as beasts and then becomes a spiritual man later on is really no different from the idiotic idea that jews were the chosen in the OT but in the NT some magical event occurred to change God's mind.

Only for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". When you have identified them, everyone else sits outside salvation.
User avatar
Fenwick
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:21 am

Re: "Ape" men

Postby MikeTheAdamite » Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:59 am

I just had a thought that Id like to share-I've not read anywhere of any of the fallen angels being female.all the references to them that I know of in the apocryphal books or elsewhere have them only mentioned as male.This might help explain why the fallen angels (cro magnon?)mated with animals because there were no females to breed with.
This might seem a trivial point but I thought it worth mentioning.I might be wrong as I've obviously not read most of the literature right through.
MikeTheAdamite
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:38 am
Location: Lancashire UK

Next

Return to Creationism vs Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron