Adam and Eve in Relation to Modern Races

I've always found the placement of Adam, Eve and their progeny to be a point of contention among some in my family. Both sets of my grandparents are southern baptists who have a very literal understanding of the text. Despite this one set will continue to act as though other races are no kin of theirs or deserve subpar treatment, while the other tries their best to understand yet reverts to ideas such as the curse of Ham as an explanation for various phenomena, such as strange human fossils. Are we all of one blood (including fossil people), or do antiquated notions of "pre-adamites" still hold water today?

Attached: Iblock_bordercave4_xgaplus.jpg (593x864, 82.38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

aschmann.net/BibleChronology/Genesis10.pdf
godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm
livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes, user. Only some humans are descended from Adam.

Attached: 4dbe602bb29022d7d42c97677dbdcc143e5a6a4f697b9bf0f59fb7759a842793.png (847x1200, 712.11K)

So humans existed before Adam?

Attached: Disgusted_cat.jpg (453x453, 27.59K)

If we're using the commonly accepted definition of human, yes.

My view ( I don't know how common )

Adam and Eve, are the first Creations to know of God, they were created to be in his image; the first ones with a spiritual life and knowledge of him.
Those before had no such likeness to God, and those after are they but regressed into a state of before.

I think it's more important to emphasize that we share a common ancienter with Noah more than Adam, especially those who likes to shoehorn 'intellect design' into Genesis.

No, not possible if scripture is inerrant

If scripture's inerrant then what the Bible refers to as human came into existence 6000 years ago and couldn't be every modern people.

The same people who follow that school of thought also suggest the earth itself is just a few days older than them.

My view stays in line with them being the first humans

So they produced all races of the world, both past and present?

Attached: 9f23b77274390dfec9a528a3474d004bba1cdc14.jpg (541x467, 58.33K)

Of course not. They were only around 6000 years ago. Human fossils are much older.

This is based on extrapolation from Genesis genealogies. 6000 is the lower bound, not an exact known number.
No. There was no sin or death until Adam and Eve.

k

Wasn't there something about the genealogies skipping over certain people? I recall my Bible teacher bringing something like that up

Human is a state of being, it's not an evolutionary trait.

I doubt it, doubly so if a Bible teacher said it.

So there's no concrete way to say what's human and what isn't?


You misunderstand, I went to a overtly Christian high school, and he was a believer just as you or I.

So did I. I learned most of what they taught were lies.

Those that were born after the flood of Noah are all human.

And how would you go about determining what's pre or post-flood exactly?

The flood was local.

Not a Biblical standard.

You asked for a concrete way, I was providing you with a concrete way.
Before the flood of Noah, the only Truthful way is the genealogy that is found of Noah and his family, other than that we would be geussing

...

Attached: 1529086335150.jpg (1000x730, 161.85K)

Psalm 104 says it was local.

Timelines user. I don't believe physical things define humans

It doesn't.

Even Jesus knew Adam was real.

I assume the man who left his flock to find the one sheep was too, all of those were historical because He talked about them right?

Don't forget that Jesus is really a door.

The language Christ used when referring adam cannot read as a metaphor and those who have a brain & gained salvation knows this.

And I guess you're one of those blessed saints of illumination so far higher above us, aye?

what a strange stylistic decision

The stranger part is how people had written geneologies before there was even writing.

Don't see how, cultures with oral traditions love genealogies.

No. I, along with most Christians, are just not illiterate enough to disagree the Son of God words.

I bet you are and/or are not.

There were never pre adamites. Genesis is quite clear. Adam and Eve were the very first human beings ever and everyone including tiggers came from them. This is a Catholic Dogma. To accept the strict Darwinist position is heresy.
and let's lot forget that science is subjective and experimental results need to be interpreted by humans thus subject to the ideals of that person
t.almost a scientist.

Actually one can assume the flood was local, since the word used is "all the land" which might mean a limited area.
But what must be believed is that all humans perished besides Noah's family.

Then there's no mortal sin and therefore no need for Christ.
You are rejecting a Catholic Dogma btw if you are one. Even the Vatican II affirms that same thing.

Yes they can, because the whole Earth is younger than believed by mainstream science.nall human beings are descended from Adam and Eve.
aschmann.net/BibleChronology/Genesis10.pdf


Yes, but the image you posted is an ape, either Australopithecus or "Homo" habilis.p, the false god of the materialists.
I recognize you, OP. You always make this thread with the exact same images. It's been a while, I suppose I should have been worried about you.

Genesis doesn't imply a young earth tbh.
One day to God is like 1000 years and 1000 years are like a day to God. So the current big bang theory is almost a proof for creationism like pope Pius XII even believed, although he was discouraged by Laîmatre because like all scientific theories one day we might find it was wrong.
The main points in genesis are. God alone created to whole Universe and God created man, not by evolution or other shit. He created man in a definite point in time, he is a new creature created by God, different from all living beings, endowed with a soul and that creature was imortal until the day Adam and Eve (real and historical characters) sinned against God and death was the punishment for what they did.
What happened before about how the solar system evolved or other stuff that's up to the imagination of men since the bible doesn't teach us astrophysics.
But if there are something in natural sciences that are against the sacred science than they are false.
The Truth cannot be against the Truth. And personally I prefer to believe in the Holy Spirit than a bunch of radical Darwinists like black "science" fraud man.

Don't say the T-Word

Attached: ....jpg (950x931, 110.02K)

...

I could not care less about your interpretation of doctrine.
Also, either or Adam and Eve were real, it does not remove mortal sin.

God have mercy for me if I ever beat some sense into morons like this.

because his grammar makes him incoherent?

Why would you value the wisdom of man over the wisdom of God? The Bible keeps turning out to be correct anyway, like the city of Ur being real, and the the Bible saying that the ocean has deep valleys and mountains even though nobody had built a submarine.

No? Then who sinned? How come is everyone affected by the original sin? Did the homo erectus decided all of them to disobey God?
And what about Seth? Did he exist? Or Enoch? Who were their parents?
Says who? The schismatics sedevacants? They are at on with you rejecting church authority.

God have mercy on retards like you who probably don't even know how to solve a simple differential equation, yet believe tha science can't be wrong or that science is objective.

It does.

...

The creation part isn't an issue, but claiming that all humans come from Adam/Noah gets a little hard.

I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it wasn't a monkey or a very special guy from 6k years ago.

God have mercy on us all, user.

Attached: 1385922-marshall.jpg (421x640, 24.4K)

I take it you're thinking of someone more like one of these then?

Attached: DrkxBBwXcAEtBGz.jpg (1024x768, 69.43K)

Why?

Because it’s winnie the pooh stupid.

Why is that? Do you think they were created with bad recessive genes? Inbreeding wouldn’t be a problem with a perfect genome.

You think they started as Super Saiyans and devolved into tiggers?

No, they started as biologically perfect humans.
Do you believe different types of humans evolved separately, with a male and female of that type appearing at the exact same time, and yet able to interbreed and produce viable offspring with other types?
All humans are descended from the same two ancestors.

Begs the question of what they'd look like.

Attached: 99623376.jpg (532x600, 68.74K)

Adam looked like Christ.

A&E would seem ok if it was just the caucasion/mid-east/north-african/asian world… but then there's sub-saharan blacks, australoid aborigines etc which must be some serious mutation levels to change that quick (or is it curse of ham?) Or was it the Tower of Babel dispersal that mutated different peoples?

I mean you need some reasonable explanations here so you don't come off like a quack prot.

You seen the lengths these people go to for this stuff? It's nothing but crackpots

Attached: 10414577_10202541405832203_6982628491578241910_n.jpg (620x668, 58.03K)

You're stupid if you're challenging the Bible

Attached: Screenshot_20190105-202109_BLB.jpg (1080x259, 46.67K)

Sub-Saharan blacks and Australian Aboriginal y-chromosomal origins can still be traced back to a common origin.
still more similar than pugs and borzois, which are still the same species with fairly recent divergence.
You realize the Catholic Church recognizes all men as being descended from Adam, right?

Attached: image.jpg (320x240 86.09 KB, 18.12K)

Look I also 'believe' in adamic descent but two icelandic people aren't gonna give birth to a lebron james within 1, 2 or 10 generations.
Their looks don't bother me.
It's that you're telling people something that isn't backed by observable logic.

Not even Prot.. but even Anderson isn't retard-tier like other Baptists.

Sub-Saharan Africans exist today, but we do NOT have record of jet-black wool-headed Africans only two generations after Noah. Negroid-type Africans origins could probably be traced back to the people of the Land of Punt, the ancient Libyans, descended from Phut, son of Ham. But they weren't quite as delineated as the blacks of more recent history. There were many, many generations between Ham and the ancient Libyans, and many more between the ancient Libyans and the people of equatorial Africa. I'm not saying that it was only a couple generations.

Which Baptists are you referring to?

Attached: Human variation since Noah.jpg (960x720, 77.05K)

As i said, it's the negroid that destroys most people's belief in it. And isn't the african different to the australoid negro? The curse of ham must be color or else it's a big stretch to say natural mutation.

The irony now though is that the modern left is trying to say 'one human race' which agrees with christianity, but goes against the old eugenic left.

I assume the verse you are referring to is 104:9, in which ESV states that there were "boundaries" set that the waters could not pass. If so please do not pull pieces out of context like that the verses 6,7,8 all talk about the water "sinking down" into the earth. Canopy theory. The boundaries that were placed were so that the waters could not come back "up" out of the earth already after it had receded.

Attached: DQK6836UQAA6WGc.jpg (640x640, 53.76K)

This is a fanfic.

The verse says the waters may not cover "the earth" again in ESV and KJV so the boundaries referred to are after the flood waters receded.

Attached: canopy_theory.jpg (412x309, 22.69K)

No it's referring to Noah's flood.

Literally a heliocentric rehash of this

Attached: OTcosmos.jpg (1425x952, 209.79K)

That's interesting I didn't consider the "first covering" of the earth to be at creation in this Psalm (?). The earlier verses certainly allude to setting the pillars of the earth. What is your citation? The other counter-point to a local flood would be God's covenant with Noah to never again destroy "all flesh."

godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

Cool article, but I feel it is splitting hairs some here. I mean, planet earth is still covered some 70%-ish with water today. If there were some elevated places poking out during the deluge that's kind of moot. The point being that "all flesh" was destroyed. The argument stated about Noah being righteous/blameless contradicting this is a stretch, as all are sinful and fall short.

Good article on the Flood
newadvent.org/cathen/04702a.htm

So will we be seeing Neanderthals in heaven or no?

Attached: ferrassie4191_4193pansm (1).jpg (1000x318, 119K)

Yes. Descended from Adam, interbred with your ancestors probably, unless you're one of the rare Africans who's ancestors were never bleached.

What the hell are you talking about? The Christian Identity idea that blacks were created as beasts before Adam is strictly a modern idea

That a person or a people in this scenario?

Attached: Adam(s) and Eve(s).jpg (1746x403, 456.65K)

Adam was a single man as the Holy Writ attests and the Church confirms.

You're going to get the exact same answers as you have every last time you've made this exact same thread.

So what was he exactly? Did he look something like this, or was he a more robust odd-looking fellow?

Attached: GL_GM_PC_95.jpg (555x685, 79.22K)

I'm more curious what you think he looked like, or rather what he was.

Attached: 27042775_1701080939952575_579233302_n.jpg (528x800, 71.37K)

It isn't. the belief that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God is idolatry. It's also ridiculous "your eternal God has already said everything that he's ever going to say and it's in this book here!" That was a con to control the Christian religion, and it worked. One of the tragedies that arose from that idolatrous belief is that most Christians have never read the Book of Enoch. The book of Enoch is quoted, paraphrased, and referred to hundreds of times in the bible. The children of Israel had the book of Enoch at the time Moses wrote the torah. The Roman church excluded the book of Enoch from the bible because the book of Enoch described the fall of the angels in detail and that description alerts us to the plans of Satan all throughout history and they didn't want Christians to be aware of that.

Depends on where you draw the line on humanity. To me it isn't in a look, so a son of Adam could have a nose flat upon his face or even a crest upon his head. I don't use fleshy reconstructions either, I prefer to let people develop their own mental image based upon what they are shown. Am I the norm? Not really, but it's not gonna stop me.

Attached: Children of Adam.jpg (1876x1730, 1.65M)

< … still being alive today …
HERESY

>Not necessarily heresy
Who else did Cain and Seth draw wives from? Though, they were merely human in appearance, not human in the sense of being Adam's progeny.

But EVERY one of those progeny, indeed EVERY human being alive today is descended from one man … Noah. And we know Noah descended from Adam for we have his genealogy.

So, all this shit about "muh sub-humans" is heretical nonsense and belongs you know where

Attached: into-lake-of-fire-trash-it-goes.jpg (500x500, 42.65K)

I've seen incest suggested, but we both know that's bullshit

This using the global flood, or a local one? If local, we already have people in the Americas long before and present after it…unless you don't consider them people.

Attached: 20190113_022535.jpg (1835x753, 879.19K)

It isn't idolatry, it's dogma.

livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

All humanity is descended from one set of parents (Adam/Eve).

However, God scattered the races/peoples after the Tower of Babel. I would guess that this was the time that the races became different.

I'm a Catholic so there goes your argument.
That Adam and Eve existed and all the mankind came from them only is a dogma of Faith.

What do you guys think about this post? I posted it in a "le Christcuck" thread.

Attached: Capture.PNG (772x506, 187.47K)

The most retarded shit I've read in my life.
Yes Jesus wasn't a blond haired Aryan, He on account of his human natura was a semite with brown skin similar to the people that live in the ME today. Nor were the apostles and most of the early Saint. Yep. St. Moses the Black was a tigger and he is in heaven unlike Hitler that is very very likely in hell, unless he had a perfect contrition while the bullet was winnie the pooh his winnie the pooh. St. Augustine was a berber from northern Africa.
Only after the 11th century is that most saints are Europeans.
Christianity is a world religious and tiggers and the chinks and even abbos are human beings endowed with a rational soul and thus if they follow Christ co-heirs with us of the Heavenly Kingdom.

Are you okay user? you sound confused.
Revelation 1:14
Aboriginals, Mongoloids, and Negroes literally have no knowledge of good and evil it is obvious if you observe their indigenous customs. You probably didn't even look at the verses quoted.
Pic related is what Jesus looked like.