Adam Was Not The Forst Man

Adam Was Not The Forst Man

ReallyOrnery
ReallyOrnery

June 19th, 2012, 6:11 am #1

Adam was not the First Man

By Pastor 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 that science knows that 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 says that Adam was the first man. Yes, I know that most of the preachers say that, but the Bible doesn't! It merely says that Adam was the first WHITE man. Let's look at the record.

The many mistranslations in the King James versions obscure much of the truth. For example, Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." In the Hebrew it says, "Now the earth had become chaotic and empty."

(See Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) That is, some early catastrophe had wrecked the earth, which was not "without form and void" before that. This was a judgment of God on earlier civilizations, for their wickedness. Jeremiah 4:23-27 gives a vision of it. "I beheld the earth and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens and they had no light. I beheld the mountains and lo, they trembled and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld and lo, there was no man and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord and by His fierce anger. For thus hath the Lord said, 'The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.'" Therefore we do find buried ruins of cities older than Adam and skeletons which can be dated by the carbon 14 process as many as thousands of years older. But, the Bible itself tells us about this.

Next the Bible tells us about the creation of men, in the plural, in Genesis 1:26-28, saying, "Male and female created He THEM" (1:27), and God told these people, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (1:28). "Plenish" is an obsolete English word meaning "to fill"; and you cannot replenish what was never plenished, or filled, before. In the next chapter, Genesis 2 we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created. The Hebrew word, "aw-dawm" (rendered "Adam" in English) is from a root word meaning "to show blood in the face" or "of a ruddy complexion", a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the White Race.

Bible scholars know that Genesis 3:20 - "And Adam called his wife's name 'Eve': because she was the mother of all living" - is a later interpolation, which was not in the earlier manuscripts. (See Moffatt's translation.)

The Fourth chapter of Genesis 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 long after the birth of Cain and Abel, which most scholars say was over 100 years earlier. Yet, when Cain killed Abel, and in punishment was driven out of the land, he complained to God that "any one that findeth me shall slay me." Genesis 4:14. Upon being sent away, Cain found many other people, for Genesis 4:17 records that Cain not only married a wife, but built a city. You don't build a city for just two people. These were the pre-Adamite races, mentioned in the latter part of Genesis 1.

The "Garden of Eden" was not a plantation of ordinary trees and shrubs. God did nothing so foolish as to make a special creation, just to have a man to wield shovel and pruning shears, when He already had millions of pre Adamites available for that type of work. We are told that the "Garden of Eden" contained "the tree of the knowledge (or experience) of good and evil". No tree of the forest has any knowledge or experience of either good or evil. Ezekiel 31, says "Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon, with fair branches and a shadowing bough and of an high stature; Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field and his boughs were multiplied and his branches became long; all the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. THE CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; NOR ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD WAS LIKE UNTO HIM IN HIS BEAUTY. I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: SO THAT ALL THE TREES OF EDEN THAT WERE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD ENVIED HIM". Obviously, the trees in the Garden of God in Eden were "family trees" of races and nations who admired and envied the early Assyrian Empire. These made up the "garden" that Adam was to cultivate. That is, Satan had been what we might call the Super- intendant of this planet, to rule it in obedience to God's will, until he forfeited that position by rebellion against God. Adam was sent to take his place. It was Adam's job to rule the various nations and races of the earth as God's representative here, educating them in God's laws and enforcing obedience to those laws. These other races and nations had been here long before Adam.

Therefore the Bible makes it unmistakably clear that we are not all descended from Adam and Eve, for there were other races on earth, already old, already numerous, when Adam was created. Among these other races there are the several who are simply pre-Adamic and one at least, which is Satanic. If you will read the third chapter of Genesis, you will notice that, immediately after the fall of Adam, when God required them to answer what they had done, God condemned Satan. The word mistranslated "serpent" is the Hebrew word "naw-khash", which literally means "enchanter" or "magician" and, no doubt Satan still possessing angelic powers, was able to be an enchanter or magician. It is certain that the one who seduced Eve was no mere scaly snake wriggling along on the ground. Yes, I said "seduced" Eve, for that is what she admitted in the original Hebrew. Cain was the son of that seduction. The Bible uses the word "begat" with monotonous regularity but, the first time the Bible ever says that Adam ever "begat" anyone is Genesis 5:3 where it says, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image: and called his name Seth. But to get back to Genesis 3:15, God said to Satan, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between THY SEED and HER SEED." The same Hebrew word for "seed" is used in both cases. Satan was to have just as literal "seed", or descendants as Eve. God's own word being pledged to this, we must expect to find it actually happening and we do. Jesus Christ, Himself, tells us of it.

In Matthew 13:38-39, explaining the Parable of the Tares Among the Wheat, Jesus says, "The field is the world; the good seed are the children OF THE KINGDOM: but THE TARES ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE WICKED ONE: THE ENEMY THAT SOWED THEM IS THE DEVIL." Again, in John 6:70-71, Jesus had been talking with His twelve deciples and we read: "Jesus answered them, 'Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?' He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray Him being one of the twelve." And again you should read carefully the eighth chapter of John, where Jesus told those who hated Him, "Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do." He was not being vulgarly abusive in either of these cases, for He never resorted to name calling so His statement was precisely accurate. He did call some of them "serpents, children of vipers" which again, was accurate. Long before this, they had adopted the serpent as a symbol of Satan. That is why their tradition had given the word naw-khash" the translation "serpent", when it really means "enchanter". Jesus therefore was telling them that they were of their father the devil (or serpent, if they preferred that word). In this He was simply stating a biological fact with scientific precision and identifying the persons of this ancestry.

Whenever someone tells you that the Bible is in conflict with what modern science has proved true, don't you believe it. The things that many preachers teach are in conflict with scientific truth, as we all know, but these preachers are equally in conflict with the Bible. Go back to the Bible, not to any man made doctrines and double check it for accuracy of translation. You will find that what the Bible really says, in its original languages, is accurate with a precision our scientist have not yet achieved

Quote
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2010, 1:30 pm

June 19th, 2012, 10:04 am #2

He appears to be a white supremacist. I'm not a white supremacist.

http://yahuwahchristianidentity.weebly. ... paret.html

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says,~~~~Jesus Christ"
Quote
Like
Share

hop
hop

June 19th, 2012, 6:48 pm #3

I myself am somewhat a white supremest. I don't belong to any organization but I do think that whites are much superior to the Negro race. [grin] History supports that thinking. [grin]
hop
Quote
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

June 19th, 2012, 9:03 pm #4

God cooked as few of us longer, thats all.
Quote
Share

hop
hop

June 19th, 2012, 10:49 pm #5

So you got cooked longer than the white people Art. I hate to hear that about you. Sad man. [grin]
hop
Quote
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

June 20th, 2012, 2:28 am #6

You came out of Africa too, as much as Bill Cosby.

Maybe a bit earlier, thats all.
Quote
Share

ReallyOrnery
ReallyOrnery

June 20th, 2012, 3:23 am #7

He appears to be a white supremacist. I'm not a white supremacist.

http://yahuwahchristianidentity.weebly. ... paret.html

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says,~~~~Jesus Christ"
Russian geneticists disprove “Out of Africa” claim

Recent fossil discoveries in central Asia have turned the “out of Africa” theory of human evolution upside down. Now two Russian geneticists show that DNA disproves the theory. There findings were published in Advances in Anthropology. The entire article can be read online. Click Here.

From Advances in Anthropology…

There are, however, four distinct SNPs which present in both Africans and Europeans of haplogroup R1a1, taken the latter as an example. They seem to be the most ancient SNPs, which are defined the alpha-haplogroup (see Figure 3). Tables 1 and 2 illustrate this statement.

The ancestral alleles of the above four SNPs should correspond to the alpha haplogroup. All four are mutated in haplogroup R1a1, and the WTY data show. All four are still ancestral in the A1 subclade. All other subclades of haplogroup A show various combinations of the SNPs which do not match those in haplogroup R1a1 (see also Table 2). logroup R1a1, it maintains their ancestral state.

Table 2 shows SNPs of five subclades of “African” haplogroup A. None of those SNPs have been observed in hap- These data, based on the SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymor- phism), along with the data based on the STRs (Short Tandem Repeats), described in this study, are compatible with each other and undeniably indicate that non-African people, bearers of haplogroups from C to T, did not descend from the “African” haplogroups A or B. Their origin is likely not in Africa. A higher variance of the DNA in Africa, which was a cornerstone of the “Out of Africa” theory, is explained by Figure 3, in which haplogroup A has been evolving (mutation-wise) for 132,000 years, while the non-European haplogroups are much younger. Hence, there is a lower variability in the latter. The same is related to language variability, which has also been used as an argument of the African origin of non-Africans. We believe that those arguments upon which the “Out of Africa” theory was based were, in fact, conjectural, incomplete and not actually data-driven. Therefore, we are left holding the question of the origin of Homo sapiens.

Based on palaeoarchaeological evidence, the region, where anatomically modern humans have likely originated, is comprised of a vast territory from Central Europe in the west to the Russian Plain in the east to Levant in the south. Each of these regions is renowned for discoveries of the oldest skeletal re- mains of modern humans dating back to 42,000 – 44,000 ybp. To date, none of these sub-regions has clear and unequivocal advances in this regard.
----------

URL Source:http://cofcc.org/2012/06/russian-ge ... -disprove-out-of-africa-claim/
Published: Jun 4, 2012

Quote
Share

ReallyOrnery
ReallyOrnery

June 20th, 2012, 3:41 am #8

I myself am somewhat a white supremest. I don't belong to any organization but I do think that whites are much superior to the Negro race. [grin] History supports that thinking. [grin]
hop
Hop:

I classify myself as a White Separatist. After living in California for 35 years, I got sick of its so-called "diversity' and found an area in northwest Arkansas that is 99.9 percent White, which suits me just fine. Other races do come here in the summer because of our proximity to the Buffalo National River, which is 10 miles north of us. They are on their best behavior, however, because the county in which I reside has a reputation for armed-to-the-teeth hillbillies whose ancestors fought for God, country and the Confederacy during the War of Northern Aggression.

RO
Quote
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

June 20th, 2012, 6:41 am #9

The odds arent good though. Stupidity wasnt a survival trait then and get what now?

Quote
Share

Arthur Dent
Arthur Dent

June 20th, 2012, 6:46 am #10

Russian geneticists disprove “Out of Africa” claim

Recent fossil discoveries in central Asia have turned the “out of Africa” theory of human evolution upside down. Now two Russian geneticists show that DNA disproves the theory. There findings were published in Advances in Anthropology. The entire article can be read online. Click Here.

From Advances in Anthropology…

There are, however, four distinct SNPs which present in both Africans and Europeans of haplogroup R1a1, taken the latter as an example. They seem to be the most ancient SNPs, which are defined the alpha-haplogroup (see Figure 3). Tables 1 and 2 illustrate this statement.

The ancestral alleles of the above four SNPs should correspond to the alpha haplogroup. All four are mutated in haplogroup R1a1, and the WTY data show. All four are still ancestral in the A1 subclade. All other subclades of haplogroup A show various combinations of the SNPs which do not match those in haplogroup R1a1 (see also Table 2). logroup R1a1, it maintains their ancestral state.

Table 2 shows SNPs of five subclades of “African” haplogroup A. None of those SNPs have been observed in hap- These data, based on the SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymor- phism), along with the data based on the STRs (Short Tandem Repeats), described in this study, are compatible with each other and undeniably indicate that non-African people, bearers of haplogroups from C to T, did not descend from the “African” haplogroups A or B. Their origin is likely not in Africa. A higher variance of the DNA in Africa, which was a cornerstone of the “Out of Africa” theory, is explained by Figure 3, in which haplogroup A has been evolving (mutation-wise) for 132,000 years, while the non-European haplogroups are much younger. Hence, there is a lower variability in the latter. The same is related to language variability, which has also been used as an argument of the African origin of non-Africans. We believe that those arguments upon which the “Out of Africa” theory was based were, in fact, conjectural, incomplete and not actually data-driven. Therefore, we are left holding the question of the origin of Homo sapiens.

Based on palaeoarchaeological evidence, the region, where anatomically modern humans have likely originated, is comprised of a vast territory from Central Europe in the west to the Russian Plain in the east to Levant in the south. Each of these regions is renowned for discoveries of the oldest skeletal re- mains of modern humans dating back to 42,000 – 44,000 ybp. To date, none of these sub-regions has clear and unequivocal advances in this regard.
----------

URL Source:http://cofcc.org/2012/06/russian-ge ... -disprove-out-of-africa-claim/
Published: Jun 4, 2012
I dont see any references, I'll look for them myself. It could be just another crackpot right wing cut of crap.

So, you think the darkies came out of europe then?

Quote
Share