-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not much old-fashioned fear of God left in this world, is there? People just shoot off their mouths about their own opinions, even when they are completely contradictory to what God's Word says. Some think it is ok to do so. We will find out soon. Andre Crouch wrote a song that goes; "Soon and very soon, we are going to see the King..." No more lies will be told then. No excuses. No place to hide. I'm glad I am on His side.
Tintin, A damn sight better than me? I haven't found those quoted words of yours in Genesis or any part of Gods word. What kind of bible do you learn from? Maybe you should take a time out and reread Genesis and ponder on it.
There is no reason for your attitude on this site. If your having personal problems maybe we should pray about it.
There is no reason for your attitude on this site. If your having personal problems maybe we should pray about it.
So, what about the Human race?
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Noun[/TD]
[TD]1.[/TD]
[TD]
human race - all of the living human inhabitants of the earth; "all the world loves a lover";"she always used `humankind' because `mankind' seemed to slight the women"human beings, humankind, humans, mankind, humanity, world, man
group, grouping - any number of entities (members) considered as a unit
human, human being, homo, man - any living or extinct member of the familyHominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
people - (plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively; "old people"; "there wereat least 200 people in the audience"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Noun[/TD]
[TD]1.[/TD]
[TD]
group, grouping - any number of entities (members) considered as a unit
human, human being, homo, man - any living or extinct member of the familyHominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
people - (plural) any group of human beings (men or women or children) collectively; "old people"; "there wereat least 200 people in the audience"
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Most here will follow the traditional line that all the races of mankind originated after the flood with Noah's 3 sons. They will quote Scripture like Acts 17:26 about God making all nations of one blood also. I don't hold to that tradition, though I don't believe in the theory of evolution either.
Problems:
To believe that the races came from Noah's 3 sons actually is... a theory like evolution. It goes against the concept of God's creation, as there are more factors involved between the races of man than just color of skin (i.e., like bone structure).
Per Genesis 6 about Noah himself, we are told that he was perfect in his generations, which per the Hebrew is especially about bloodline purity, pointing back to Adam. That must mean Noah's 3 sons were also.
The idea from Genesis 9 about Ham's sin against Noah being the cause of Ham's son Canaan being cursed, with many believing that's how the Black race came into existence, and since Ham's name means 'hot', all goes totally against how God's creation of bloodlines work for this present world. For example, in Deut.23:2, God showed an illegit child of mixed race was not to be allowed into the congregation of Israel to his 10th generation. The meaning is after 10 generations of remaining only in Israel's genealogy, the mix would be purged out. This is still how it is today; a child born of two different races will only keep the features of one race as they continue to only marry into that one race. Per God's creation, racial changes only happen from mixing, not evolution. That's the actual evidence. And per OT law, God was against the idea of mixing seed, and told Israel to not marry outside their family.
Answers:
In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26-27, the word for man appears 2 different ways. In one case it is the word 'aadam' only which points to 'mankind' in general, no article, no particle before it. In other words, it can represent the idea of the races of mankind, peoples.
In the other case it is the word eth'ha aadam, which includes a specific article and particle which means like, 'this man Adam', meaning a specific man Adam. This represents the man Adam which God said He formed in Gen.2 to till the soil.
So there is a distinction, in the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27, about a 6th day creation of the races, AND the creation of the man Adam. This would explain also where the people of the land of Nod came from, which Cain went to when he was cast out from the family of Adam. (In the ancient Assyrian cuneiform tablets, Assyriologist Sayce translated passages about a Sargon that suddenly appeared among the Sumerians around 3800 B.C., and he gave them knowledge of agriculture, and the sciences. His death mask is still in the British museum, showing that Sargon was Semitic. And 3800 B.C. is how far from the time of the man Adam which scholars put his being formed at 4000 B.C.?)
Problems:
To believe that the races came from Noah's 3 sons actually is... a theory like evolution. It goes against the concept of God's creation, as there are more factors involved between the races of man than just color of skin (i.e., like bone structure).
Per Genesis 6 about Noah himself, we are told that he was perfect in his generations, which per the Hebrew is especially about bloodline purity, pointing back to Adam. That must mean Noah's 3 sons were also.
The idea from Genesis 9 about Ham's sin against Noah being the cause of Ham's son Canaan being cursed, with many believing that's how the Black race came into existence, and since Ham's name means 'hot', all goes totally against how God's creation of bloodlines work for this present world. For example, in Deut.23:2, God showed an illegit child of mixed race was not to be allowed into the congregation of Israel to his 10th generation. The meaning is after 10 generations of remaining only in Israel's genealogy, the mix would be purged out. This is still how it is today; a child born of two different races will only keep the features of one race as they continue to only marry into that one race. Per God's creation, racial changes only happen from mixing, not evolution. That's the actual evidence. And per OT law, God was against the idea of mixing seed, and told Israel to not marry outside their family.
Answers:
In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26-27, the word for man appears 2 different ways. In one case it is the word 'aadam' only which points to 'mankind' in general, no article, no particle before it. In other words, it can represent the idea of the races of mankind, peoples.
In the other case it is the word eth'ha aadam, which includes a specific article and particle which means like, 'this man Adam', meaning a specific man Adam. This represents the man Adam which God said He formed in Gen.2 to till the soil.
So there is a distinction, in the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27, about a 6th day creation of the races, AND the creation of the man Adam. This would explain also where the people of the land of Nod came from, which Cain went to when he was cast out from the family of Adam. (In the ancient Assyrian cuneiform tablets, Assyriologist Sayce translated passages about a Sargon that suddenly appeared among the Sumerians around 3800 B.C., and he gave them knowledge of agriculture, and the sciences. His death mask is still in the British museum, showing that Sargon was Semitic. And 3800 B.C. is how far from the time of the man Adam which scholars put his being formed at 4000 B.C.?)
SkepticalCynic,
As an atheist your question is understandable for it has been asked as a means to refute original Adam & Eve as found in Genesis. What fascinated me was the responses to your question from christians that seemed to embrace an acceptance of evolutionary thought.
Regarding your question - i would refer you to this link:
Blond Baby from Black Parents a Genetic Mystery | The Institute for Creation Research
Most simplistically, SkepticalCynic, the possibility of any parent giving birth to any child who does not reflect their immediate lineage is always there.
A chihuahua can breed with a great dane and produce fecund offspring.
Not a pretty sight I'll grant you but since the origin of all dogs was from a ~kind~ they have that ability.
Might I suggest, SkepticalCynic, a basic refresher on genetics. A good one can be found here:
Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics
Be Well
cavil
As an atheist your question is understandable for it has been asked as a means to refute original Adam & Eve as found in Genesis. What fascinated me was the responses to your question from christians that seemed to embrace an acceptance of evolutionary thought.
Regarding your question - i would refer you to this link:
Blond Baby from Black Parents a Genetic Mystery | The Institute for Creation Research
Most simplistically, SkepticalCynic, the possibility of any parent giving birth to any child who does not reflect their immediate lineage is always there.
A chihuahua can breed with a great dane and produce fecund offspring.
Not a pretty sight I'll grant you but since the origin of all dogs was from a ~kind~ they have that ability.
Might I suggest, SkepticalCynic, a basic refresher on genetics. A good one can be found here:
Basic Principles of Genetics: Mendel's Genetics
Be Well
cavil
While I use the triangulation method in evaluating the translating the meaning of words and terms which infers using other points in which the term is use to see if they align or whether they vary. When it varies it indicates a skewed use of the term unless it can also be triangulated. When a term is defined to have a meaning contrary to what is found from the triangulation method it is said to be carnal, being a secular view which is contrary to the law, or principle of truth.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Cor 2:13
Noah's sons were his generations, in fact the verse that refers unto Noah being perfect in his generations is prefixed with the statement to that fact "These are the generations (procreation as in offspring/ descendant) of Noah:
This is the book of the generations of Adam.
Genesis 5:1
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
Genesis 17:12
And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commandeth, Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt.
Exodus 16:32
'With many' you mean white people right?
According to one earlier post which asserted that the law of truth did not exist until the law of Moses thereby allowing for the validity of the incest theory as a plausible explaination for Cain's wife. I would ask you if there was no law of truth prior to the law of Moses then how could Ham have sinned? (Since sin is transgression of the law of the God of Truth.)
Interesting to note is the passage in Genesis 9:18 is the reference to Canaan.
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
Why would the passage include the notation of Ham being the father of Canaan when they existed the Ark since Genesis 10:1 notes that the sons born unto Noah's generations were born after the flood.
Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Moreover, it is also interesting to note that Abram given the prefix of 'ham' when he was circumcised on the same day he circumcised his 13 year old son born of an Egyptian mother.
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. Numbers 12:1
9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. Numbers 12:9
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Cor 2:13
Noah's sons were his generations, in fact the verse that refers unto Noah being perfect in his generations is prefixed with the statement to that fact "These are the generations (procreation as in offspring/ descendant) of Noah:
This is the book of the generations of Adam.
Genesis 5:1
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
Genesis 17:12
And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commandeth, Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt.
Exodus 16:32
'With many' you mean white people right?
According to one earlier post which asserted that the law of truth did not exist until the law of Moses thereby allowing for the validity of the incest theory as a plausible explaination for Cain's wife. I would ask you if there was no law of truth prior to the law of Moses then how could Ham have sinned? (Since sin is transgression of the law of the God of Truth.)
Interesting to note is the passage in Genesis 9:18 is the reference to Canaan.
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
Why would the passage include the notation of Ham being the father of Canaan when they existed the Ark since Genesis 10:1 notes that the sons born unto Noah's generations were born after the flood.
Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Moreover, it is also interesting to note that Abram given the prefix of 'ham' when he was circumcised on the same day he circumcised his 13 year old son born of an Egyptian mother.
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. Numbers 12:1
9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. Numbers 12:9
Last edited:
Gen 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
KJV
The Hebrew word there for "perfect" is tamiym, the same Hebrew word used in the OT for the sacrificial purity requirement of animals, meaning, it's about... bloodline purity. It does not say 'perfect in character' there, it's pointing to being unblemished in one's genealogy from birth to maturity, which is how Hebrew dor ("generations" above) is used in cases like Exodus 20:5.
Yes, of course. Having such a theory that Ham's sin caused the Black race is bad enough, without it being supported by a Black person also.
Your question needs to be reworded, although I pretty much understand what you're driving at. Apostle Paul did show that until the law came sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law (Romans 5:12-14). Yet 1 John 3:8 reveals that the devil sinned from the beginning, and we know death came upon all born in this world because of Adam and Eve's sin. So a better question would be, why did God impute sin to what Satan did at his original rebellion against Him which was before Adam and Eve in God's Garden? and why did God impute sin to Adam and Eve which caused death to be assigned to all born flesh, all before the law was given?
But your question actually doesn't address the case of Ham, because Noah certainly considered what his son Ham had done unto him as a sin, just as with Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 regarding the believer in the congregation having intercourse with his own mother was still considered a sin then, and still is today. The only difference I could maintain within the boundary of your question about Ham, is that since sin is not imputed when there is no law, for this reason Ham was cast out from among them instead of suffering greater punishment like the death penalty. Same would have applied to Cain when he was cast out for doing murder, instead of suffering the death penalty as required per God's laws given later.
Apparently, you are not aware of what Ham's sin against Noah actually was about...
Gen 9:22
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
KJV
Lev 18:7-8
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
KJV
Further defined in Lev.20...
Lev 20:11
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
KJV
What Ham did was lay with his own mother while Noah was drunken. That is what the idea of Noah's nakedness being uncovered is suggesting. But with a verse like Gen.9:18 where we are told point blank PRIOR to the event that, "Ham is the father of Canaan", we know the event was actually about Ham's incest with his own mother, and Canaan was the resultant offspring.
Hen 6:9
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
KJV
The Hebrew word there for "perfect" is tamiym, the same Hebrew word used in the OT for the sacrificial purity requirement of animals, meaning, it's about... bloodline purity. It does not say 'perfect in character' there, it's pointing to being unblemished in one's genealogy from birth to maturity, which is how Hebrew dor ("generations" above) is used in cases like Exodus 20:5.[/quote]
While in Genesis 1:28 the male and female are told to be fruitful and multiple yet in herein one will find that Noah's generations, being three, was deemed as being perfect before the LORD.
I won't speculate on how you will interpret the command given in Matthew 5:48 wherein it is written.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Seeing the Holy Ghost is the Son made in the image of the invisible God, I doubt seriously Jesus was making a reference to the LORD in the sense of a sacrificial purity requirement.
However, the reason is noted why there is such a concerted effort to sway the interpretation off of Noah being perfect in his offspring since that closes the door on the issue for which it has been misinterpreted for so long but as the Thomas Paine quote, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
I think that is why I commented that it was interesting to note Canaan since for years I have heard how Ham had seen Noah naked in the literal since of see Noah naked. In fact your the first person who didn't call me a heretic or make some other derogatory comment about me for suggesting that Noah's nakedness didn't necessary imply him, personally ,being naked. However, Ham didn't sleep with his mother, so before we go extracting the justice of the LORD God Almighty upon them
(2 Tim 3:16) it wouldn't hurt to review the provision of the token covenant which was was given to Noah.
But I need to be signing off so I will conclude that even though the Covenant hadn't been given to man, just a token at the time, the principles of the LORD are from everlasting to everlasting, including mercy and equity.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
KJV
The Hebrew word there for "perfect" is tamiym, the same Hebrew word used in the OT for the sacrificial purity requirement of animals, meaning, it's about... bloodline purity. It does not say 'perfect in character' there, it's pointing to being unblemished in one's genealogy from birth to maturity, which is how Hebrew dor ("generations" above) is used in cases like Exodus 20:5.[/quote]
While in Genesis 1:28 the male and female are told to be fruitful and multiple yet in herein one will find that Noah's generations, being three, was deemed as being perfect before the LORD.
I won't speculate on how you will interpret the command given in Matthew 5:48 wherein it is written.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Seeing the Holy Ghost is the Son made in the image of the invisible God, I doubt seriously Jesus was making a reference to the LORD in the sense of a sacrificial purity requirement.
However, the reason is noted why there is such a concerted effort to sway the interpretation off of Noah being perfect in his offspring since that closes the door on the issue for which it has been misinterpreted for so long but as the Thomas Paine quote, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”
I think that is why I commented that it was interesting to note Canaan since for years I have heard how Ham had seen Noah naked in the literal since of see Noah naked. In fact your the first person who didn't call me a heretic or make some other derogatory comment about me for suggesting that Noah's nakedness didn't necessary imply him, personally ,being naked. However, Ham didn't sleep with his mother, so before we go extracting the justice of the LORD God Almighty upon them
(2 Tim 3:16) it wouldn't hurt to review the provision of the token covenant which was was given to Noah. But I need to be signing off so I will conclude that even though the Covenant hadn't been given to man, just a token at the time, the principles of the LORD are from everlasting to everlasting, including mercy and equity.
Japheth's blessing consists of three parts.
(1) "God give spreading out to the spreader out" (Gen.: 9:27), or "God make it wide to the wide."
The play on the words "He makes wide" (Heb. japht) and the name Japheth should be reproduced in the translation.
Japheth was the father of the Medes (Heb. Madai, Gen. 10:2), and the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Indians (Aryans), Germans, Persians, Italians, French, Spaniards, Slavs and many others.
Taken together they are all styled "Indo-Germanic" (Aryans).
(2) "Let him dwell in the tents of Shem" (Gen 9: 27).
- dwelling in his tents can signify nothing else than partaking in his faith and the reception of the Japhethites into the fellowship of his spiritual salvation.
- in fact the blessing promised to Shem has reached less to Hamitic and principally to Japhetic peoples (Gal. 3:14)
- Thus already Jerome, Calvin, Luther, almost all the church fathers, Lange, Keil, Delitzsch, and others.
- historically carried out in the person of the Roman Cornelius; and thus, as regards the fulness of salvation, by this means a Japhethite the first from among the nations, was allowed to enter the tents of Shem without joining the nation of Israel
- then a further turning-point in the same direction was that other vision of Paul, when in Troas he saw a man of Macedonia who called to him: "Come over, and help us" (Acts 16: 9, 10)
- bringing of the message of salvation over to Europe
(3) "And let Canann be his servant" (Gen. 9: 27).
- well, you know the history
The descendants of Ham (= heat) inhabited the hot lands; the sons of Japheth (extension) spread themselves out over the earth, and the generations of Canaan (the subdued) had to submit themselves to Japheth and Shem.
Dawn of World Redemption-Part II Chap.6
(1) "God give spreading out to the spreader out" (Gen.: 9:27), or "God make it wide to the wide."
The play on the words "He makes wide" (Heb. japht) and the name Japheth should be reproduced in the translation.
Japheth was the father of the Medes (Heb. Madai, Gen. 10:2), and the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Indians (Aryans), Germans, Persians, Italians, French, Spaniards, Slavs and many others.
Taken together they are all styled "Indo-Germanic" (Aryans).
(2) "Let him dwell in the tents of Shem" (Gen 9: 27).
- dwelling in his tents can signify nothing else than partaking in his faith and the reception of the Japhethites into the fellowship of his spiritual salvation.
- in fact the blessing promised to Shem has reached less to Hamitic and principally to Japhetic peoples (Gal. 3:14)
- Thus already Jerome, Calvin, Luther, almost all the church fathers, Lange, Keil, Delitzsch, and others.
- historically carried out in the person of the Roman Cornelius; and thus, as regards the fulness of salvation, by this means a Japhethite the first from among the nations, was allowed to enter the tents of Shem without joining the nation of Israel
- then a further turning-point in the same direction was that other vision of Paul, when in Troas he saw a man of Macedonia who called to him: "Come over, and help us" (Acts 16: 9, 10)
- bringing of the message of salvation over to Europe
(3) "And let Canann be his servant" (Gen. 9: 27).
- well, you know the history
The descendants of Ham (= heat) inhabited the hot lands; the sons of Japheth (extension) spread themselves out over the earth, and the generations of Canaan (the subdued) had to submit themselves to Japheth and Shem.
Dawn of World Redemption-Part II Chap.6
Last edited:
The problem with most evolutionists is that they assume that creationists do not believe in adaptation.
Here is the thing though...
Scientists have proven that adaptive changes were already programmed into the DNA before it occurred. Evolutionists accept this fact.
So generations of people that have lived in hot climates have adapted darker skin while people in colder climates have paler skin. This is not a mystery and Matt Searies should be completely aware of that. So here is the question to people that believe that people just evolved that way.
How is it possible for the DNA to have precognitive information stored in it that tells the body to adapt without it being a product of intelligent design?
I have asked this. They will tell you that it is not possible and explain "it just is" "it just evolved that way" etc... All because they stubbornly refuse to accept any evidence of a creator, even when presented with undeniable facts such as these.
Here is the thing though...
Scientists have proven that adaptive changes were already programmed into the DNA before it occurred. Evolutionists accept this fact.
So generations of people that have lived in hot climates have adapted darker skin while people in colder climates have paler skin. This is not a mystery and Matt Searies should be completely aware of that. So here is the question to people that believe that people just evolved that way.
How is it possible for the DNA to have precognitive information stored in it that tells the body to adapt without it being a product of intelligent design?
I have asked this. They will tell you that it is not possible and explain "it just is" "it just evolved that way" etc... All because they stubbornly refuse to accept any evidence of a creator, even when presented with undeniable facts such as these.