This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum.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.
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.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 would tend to agree with that, largely on the basis that the word for man is Adam in both chapters.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.
But some must have been, unless their later comparisons to beasts was merely abuse?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.
I don't think anyone seriously thinks of the mixed races as being of God's work.Mules were not part of the original creation of Yahweh, and we cannot insist that ingrate or bastard races of hominids were either.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
Return to Creationism vs Evolution
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests