Posted on 10/23/2001 8:39:39 AM PDT by spycatcher
Pre-Islamic Arabia's religion was one of superstition. Belief in jinns (genies), curse casting, magic stones, totems was the norm - and it was against this background that Allah arose. Although the Quran is claimed to be a heavenly writing with no earthly source, evidence of these very sorts of cultural influence is found in such places as Suras 55, 72, 113 and 114.
Animism, the belief that spirits inhabit rocks, trees and other elements was also very commonplace. Some of these stones were venerated and used as a focal point for the worship of a particular tribal god. No surprise, Muhammad's family had just such a stone for their own tribe - a black stone, in fact, that they kept at the Kabah (where the tribal idols were set up). The pagan rites of bowing toward Mecca, making a pilgrimage to the Kabah, running around it seven times, kissing it, then running to the river to throw stones at the devil all found there way into Islamic practice.
The final piece of the puzzle was in found in the religion of the Sabeans, an astral religion that worshipped the moon god and planned their religious rites around the lunar calendar. One such rite was fasting from crescent moon to crescent moon, a practice which would also be adopted by Muhammad.
If these things were not present before Muhammad received them from Allah (who himself is the moon god of Muhammad's tribe), why did Muhammad not have to explain what those words meant in the Quran? How would people have known who Allah was? ( or: what a jinn was? what the Kabah was? what the word Islam meant? etc.). Even the word "Islam" which many believe to mean "submission" was not an original word. In Arabic it was a secular term that denoted the strength and bravery of a desert warrior (a definition that accurately reflects the war-like tribes that founded Islam with bloodshed).
The Moon God
"Allah" is from the compound Arabic word "al-ilah" or in english "the god". Allah was known before Muhammad's time without a doubt. His name has been found in pre-islamic writings and other archeological finds. At the Kabah in Mecca over 350 gods were worshipped, but it was built especially for the chief deity - the moon god. Allah was the personal title of the moon god. Allah was married to the sun goddess. They produced three daughters, whose worship Muhammad would later make the mistake of condoning. The crescent moon symbol of Arabia came from this god.
Muhammad's family revered this particular god, and it is this idol that Muhammad declared to be the only true god. So, Allah - far from being the revealed God of the Bible as Muhammad would have us believe - is nothing more than an amplified pagan idol. Muhammad did not re-make the pagan god, he simply removed the lower deities from the rites of worship. That is why he never had to explain who Allah was. By definition, an idol converted in the 7th century into a new god cannot be the sama God revealed thousands of years earlier to Biblical prophets!
I find the notion of supernatural demons to be utterly ridiculous.
I find the notion that you believe every single Muslim to be under the influence of these supernatural boogie-men, to be even more ridiculous.
I know and I keep hoping.
Observation.
Trait swapping is something one can observe with one's own eyes. One mistake you seem to be making is that the dominate gene will always win out.
No I didn't. I said that due to the fact that almost all of the individuals mentioned as Adam's seed were ruddy and the fact that the root word for Adam means ruddy, we can conclude that Adam was ruddy.
This isn't the case. The dominate gene might mix with the recessive to 'dilute' the gene, or the recessive gene might show up in the offspring.
Yes, but the fact that the root word for Adam means ruddy is a good indication that he was ruddy. When we discovered new lands such as Africa and Australia in the age of discovery, there wasn't a caucasion scattered here and there in the ethnic tribes, the seed of the progeny resembles the fathers. The genes of the fathers were dominant and no single person in the tribe resembled a caucasion. There may have been scattered outposts from the "phoenician" era, but there just didn't all of a sudden pop up a caucasion looking person in an ethnic tribe such as in Africa or Australia.
An example of this is children from a white mother and a black father. The children can be black, like their father, white like their mother, or somewhere in between (depending on what genes get mixed. With white and black people, both people have the dark pigments, just in different quantities, and so those can get mixed at times). (I know someone who's mother is white, and who's father is black...really black. He's definitely black, but certainally not as black as his father. He also has certain traits of his mother as well (such as certain facial features, and I think he has his mother's eyes.) Also, because both dominate and recessive genes can make it through to offspring, one person could have genes for, say, three different eye colors, and if he had three children (and the odds were for him), it's possible that each child could have a different eye color. And, in fact, people do have children with different eye colors.
But the bible says an entire population of Adamites were ruddy (the Nazerites), that would suggest that Adam was ruddy.
You also claim that all races should look alike by now if trait swapping could happen rapidly.
No, I said that if you were right that the environment changes races in 33 generations that all the races should already be looking alike in places where two or more different races occupied the same environment for a significant fraction of those 33 generations. This is not the case.
This would happen if humans were indiscriminate about who they took as mates and if there was constant mixing of races for the majority of people, independent of location. However, this isn't true with humans. Most are rather picky about who they take as mates, and most stick with their own races, thus providing a way for the genes and races to stay well defined.
Not at all. A particular person is picky, but most members of a human population will have progeny. In your example of animals, the owner of animal will breed only the ones that he wants furthered, which can be a very small percentage of the population. In a human population, a very high percentage of the population has descendents that further the population.
Note however, there are many people without a well defined race. Their traits may come from two or more other races. This can happen within a few (literally) generations of race mixing.
Again your speaking of race mixing. Your original claim was that environment was the enough of an agent of change to change a race in 33 generations.
Sometimes it's seen within one generation (such as when an American desides to take a Chinese as his wife. Their children may have traits of both Americans, such as skin tone, and Chinese, such as the Chinese eye trait). Other traits, like eye color, height, hair color, etc. are also like this. This isn't something assumed or speculated. This is something observed. Walk around and try to figure out the race of different people. Depending on where you live, you might supprise yourself. Trait swapping can happen rapidly. But at the same time, because humans, not unlike many animals, are picky about who they mate with, certain races remain well defined. This isn't even Micro Evolution we're talking about (which even that can happen rather rapidly under certain situations. Far more rapidly then scientists used to think it could). This isn't speculation or assumption. This is something observed, sometimes as soon as children are born.
Again, you've changed this discussion to race mixing when your original position was that Adam and Eve's progeny scattered and were changed by the environment in 33 generations. There's no doubt that race mixing can change the look for a minority of a population in a few generations. But the environment alone can't change a population significantly in 33 generations as would have had to happen if Adam was the father of all the human race.
Given the above information, if Adam had a number of gene traits, he could have passed them onto his children, and by the time we were born, the gene traits could have gotton isolated enough to give us the different races we have today.
But that is not observed in society. As we can see in America, when two races live in close proximity to one another they gradually intermarry, they don't run off each with only those that he looks alike with.
If Adam was, as you claim, made different from anyone else, then his offspring could have mixed with other races,...
So you're admitting that there were different races other than Adam?
...and David's ruddy skin could have come from another race.
But why claim it was another race when the word "Adam" means ruddy.
David's skin color, therefore, is inconclusive to Adam's skin color, especially when they're 33 generations apart.
I would conclude that since the word "Adam" means ruddy complected and since David, Jesus, and the Nazerites were ruddy, and that the ruddy "gene" isn't dominant that Adam was ruddy complected.
It only takes one generation of race mixing for offspring to show another trait.
Yes, but your original claim was that the environment made all the races in 33 generations when Adam's seed spread out across the world. The environment doesn't change a human race significantly in 33 generations.
33 generations is plenty for this.
There's no evidence today that the environment is changing human races significantly in 33 generations.
Therefore, Adam's skin color can't be determined from David's skin color (without alot of assumptions).
The word "Adam" means "ruddy complected". That's no assumption.
Also, there's another theory I've found, assuming Adam's name does infer 'ruddy', is that the word for 'ground' {adamah - Strong's [0127]}, which also comes from 0119, might have been the reason Adam was named as he was, given that he was made from the ground.
The ground isn't ruddy (rosy).
This is an odd quote from you. First you say 6000 years isn't enough time for races to develope or converge, then you make this statement, which says some races did develope.
The mix of a Semite with an Egyptian produced the Arabs. I didn't claim that "all" of Adam's seed would be ruddy, but that if most of Adam's seed mentioned is ruddy and that since Adam's name means "ruddy complected", Adam was ruddy.
You're contradicting yourself here. Also, dominate genes aren't the ones that always come through.
Not at all. I never claimed that "all" of Adam's seed was ruddy. I claimed that since Adam's name means ruddy and that most people and races descended from Adam in the bible are ruddy that Adam was ruddy.
Let's first look at why Jesus came to earth. Jesus came to earth because of sin. He came down to die for mankind's sin. Where did this sin come from? We learn, from the Bible, that sin came when Adam and Even of Eden ate from the Tree of Good and Evil. Sin didn't exist before then.
Sin didn't exist for the family of Adam until then. The bible is a history of one man's family and those who interact with Adam's family. Eve commited the first sin, Cain commited the first murder, etc.
In Gen 3:6, Adam and Eve ate of the Tree. Gen 3:17-18 describes earth being cursed (why would God curse it if it was already cursed before Adam was created?)
Look up the word "earth" in your concordance and you'll see that it could be as small as a field. God cursed Adam's land. Look at the Grand Canyon and you'll see it's been raining on the earth for millions of years. Adam and Eve lived in a "garden". Look up "garden" in your concordance and you'll see that it was an "enclosure". The Garden of Eden was a special land that was separated from the rest of the earth.
The timeline was then: Adam was created. Adam sinned. Because of sin, Jesus came down to earth to give man a way to forgive his sins.
Actually to pay the price of man's sins.
Therefore, claiming Adam was created (before sin) because Jesus had to come down (because of sin) would be illogical.
God had a plan to save his children that would believe in him and follow his ways. This plan was necessary because of Satan's rebellion before Adam. One third of God's children rebelled with Satan. This plan involved the creation of a family to lay the foundation for his own earthly existence to pay the price for sin for all that would believe and follow. There has been sin long before Adam.
Why would Jesus need to come down (and Adam required to be created) before sin was in the seed of mankind? This is the question that needs to be answered.
Because of Satan's rebellion and non-Adamite sin that existed before Adam.
You claim there's been people in Chile for 40,000 years. Show me evidence.
The Monte Verde site is 14,000 instead of 40,000, still doubling Adam's origin. But that's all right. Let's go for 200,000 years for the Neandethals and their clash with modern humans 40,000 years ago. Here.
The explination of the Parable is correct. The linking it to Adam is not. Why should there be a tiller of men because of sin, when sin didn't exist for mankind before Adam came?
Sin has existed since at least Satan's rebellion.
There's no reason Adam had to be created.
Adam was created to save God's children that would follow him and believe and not support Satan.
Also, all parts of the Bible to match up with the rest...as a whole. But individual verses can't be matched up with any other verse without making sure the verses are in context. That's true for any work of literature.
The bible isn't a normal piece of literature. The fact that the whole book is interlinked with the rest of it proves that it took supreme intelligence to write it.
You have to include context to determine what the passage says.
Jesus fully explains the parable. He is the farmer. God said Adam was created to bring about a farmer.
The phrase These are the generations... is an important phrase in the Bible, and very specific on its intent. There are 17 verses total with this particular phrase in it (including Gen 2:4). If we ignore Gen 2:4 for the moment, we see that most of the passages which use this phrase speak of people's family trees. In every instance, the phrase starts (not ends) a segment of the passage. In every instance the phrase denotes the end of the previous passage and the beginning of the following. And in every instance, the phrase denotes a general history of something that has been or has happend. You can see this for yourself here. This phrase does one thing, and one thing only. This phrase starts a brief history of what was. It should be no different in Gen 2:4. There's nothing in Gen 2:4 to claim this is any different. In fact, if you look at Gen 2:4, it says These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,. The context and wording of the verse claims that the generations listed after will be the generations of that which was when God created the heavens and the earth. In other words, like every other phrase of These are the generations..., it starts a rough overview of something; in this case, the days of creation. Nothing in the context of the verse says the generations it's talking about has anything to do with other humans. In fact, without Gen 2:4, 100% of the verses containing These are the generations... are an overview. This is very strong evidence that Gen 2:4 starts an overview of the creation period. Also, there is no and between Gen 2:3 and 2:4. All indications point that Gen 2:4 is not a continuation of the days of creation from Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3. Therefore, not evidence Adam was created on the 8th day.
It looks simple to me. Gen 1.1 to 2.3 outlines to generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. Gen. 2.4 confirms this. Gen. 2.5 continues on with the word "And" to get into the story of Adam.
As for USA being Israel, it is not.
Then explain this:
Gen 48:14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid [it] upon Ephraim's head, who [was] the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh [was] the firstborn.
Gen 48:15 And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
Gen 48:16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Gen 48:17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
Gen 48:18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this [is] the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
Gen 48:19 And his father refused, and said, I know [it], my son, I know [it]: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
It clearly says that Ephraim and Manasseh inherited Jacob/Israel's name "Israel".
Since this is a new thing that just came up for this debate, I'll try to find some references on this. As for the word 'adam [0120] being different, your link doesn't prove anything, since it talks about certain letters of the alphabet, by themselves, and not attached to any word.
It proves it's not the difference between singular and plural though and shows that Strong should have differentiated between the two since they are two different words.
Note that almost all letters have meanings by themselves on that page. That doesn't mean anything when they're attached to other letters/words. The letters' individual meanings simply can not be transfered to the words' meanings which their in. Nothing would make sense in the Bible otherwise. Do you really think every word that has vav in it denotes a holy meaning? The terms used is 'adam (man or Adam) with a modifier.
But you said that the difference was singular and plural, which is not the case. They are two different words and Strong should've gave it it's own number.
Also, Jesus, the Messiah, was not man. If vav did give the 'adam word a modification of 'holy', it couldn't have met the Messiah anyways, because Jesus isn't part of mankind.
Jesus was "Son of Man" during the time he was on the earth.
He is God. As for what the modifiers mean on 'adam, the context of the verses should point it out rather clearly. But I'm still looking for specifics on it for you, though.
They are two different words. They are spelled different. Strong should have differentiated between the two.
So you're admitting that there are no cases where environment has changed a race in 33 generations? If it were possible for the environment to change a population's race in 33 generations, we would have seen it since we are surrounded by case studies.
Yes I'm speaking of race mixing. That's what mixes traits (such as skin, eye and hair color). Why shouldn't I be? And no, I made no original claim that environment was enough to change races in 33 generations. This is what I said, and I quote: ...and environment has a hand in altering complexion at times.
But it can't change a race in 33 generations.
Some do, some don't. Many do, in fact, depending on the area. That's what makes the difference. Sometimes the split between the races and who intermarries is quite stark, such as in certain places down in South Carolina (how do I know? I've been there, and know someone who lives there. That's how things are. Big ethnic splits with one split being racial).
But there is gradual interchanging of DNA.
The reason we still see definable races, and the reason many people arn't of pure race, is because intermingling between races is a very gray issue, and not black and white as you seem to think. This depends on many different variables, many of them locational and based on society. Not everywhere is the same. Small society groups can range from extream splits (where whites arn't allowed to marry blacks) to inter-racial marriages, where they're not even thought of twice (though people still tend to be picky.
But even when there were these strict rules there was still interchanging of DNA. The urge won't be denied. :^)
That's just human nature). Racism (unfortunately) still exists in many forms, and this is one effect of it. To claim everyone doesn't give a hoo-ha about intermarriage is to ignore whole sections of society (one which I've seen for myself). I'm curious: where are you getting your black and white ideas of how things are?
Observation. Nothing has changed since ancient times. Read the bible and you'll see that in ancient times also the authority figures didn't wan't the races to mix, but they did anyway.
(And don't tell me 'observation'. Your's is the negative statement "It doesn't happen". Observation runs logically contrary to that.)
If it would happen, we would see it. There are plenty of examples to study.
Will you please read what I write? I said "If Adam was, as you claim,..." I'm not making any claim myself. I'm simply giving an 'IF you were right' situation.
But the ruddy gene isn't dominant. Whole populations would not be ruddy if Adamites mixed heavily with other races. Conclusion: Adamites did not mix heavily with other races and Adam was ruddy.
You've just contradicted yourself. With Adam, you basically said "Since the word adam [0120] comes from ruddy [0119], Adam must have been red toned." But with the ground, you basically said "The word ground (adamah) [0127] comes from ruddy [0119], but the ground isn't red toned."
The ground is red not ruddy. Adam means ruddy. All the others mean red.
To remain logically consistent, you must stick with one of the two logical forms: If a word comes from ruddy [0119], then it must mean the object of the word is red toned, OR If a word comes from ruddy [0119], it doesn't necassarily mean it's red toned. Those are you only two options if you wish to remain logically consistent. Either both Adam and ground are ruddy because they come from [0119], or they're not necassarily ruddy. (This is a logical problem. It has nothing to do with David's skin being ruddy. This is a seperate problem in and of itself. You can use David's skin to try to validate Adam's skin was ruddy, but you can't use the 'it comes from [0119]' to do it, because your argument is inconsistent, unless you chose the former of the two logical forms, in which case, you must agree that the ground was ruddy toned). If you try to claim Adam was ruddy because of [0119], you must claim the ground was also, otherwise you run into a logical fallacy. Working out this logical fallacy won't effect the "David's skin is ruddy" theory. We can work on that one later.
There were ruddy and brown people in the areas of the Adamites. There were no red people. If there were red people there and if there were red descendants and if the red gene weren't dominant, then it would be possible that Adam was red, but none of these conditions exist and so Adam was the ruddy part of 0119, the ground was the red part of 0119.
Can't use the [0119] argument until we've worked out the logical inconsistency with it. Unless you're using [0119] to validate your argument. Then you might be able to use it (but you can't prove anything off of it. You can only validate it a bit more. It's just one more piece of the puzzle.
It's no puzzle to me. Everything fits together very well, including scientific observation which you continue to ignore.
But it could also be a simple coincidence (such as ground [0127] and it comming from ruddy [0119] doesn't mean the ground is ruddy.
0119 also means red. Simple.
Though if you think about it, clay {ground} has a reddish tint at times. We could claim that Adam was made from red clay {the Bible doesn't specify what kind of ground}, and therefore Adam got his name from that.
0119 means to rub red, that's a blushing look.
But that's also assumption based on coincidence. You yourself agreed that not all of Adam's seed was ruddy: It's an interesting theory..however it's not proven. Only supported {and the support is fairly assumptuous}.)
Not at all. The 4 pieces of evidence is conclusive for me.
Give me the Biblical reference that says sin existed before Adam.
1Jo 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
Satan sinned in the beginning. One third of the stars (we and the angels) supported Satan. Mankind came 6 time periods later. Adam came 8 time periods later from the beginning. The fact that the verse says Satan was ready to devour Jesus proves it predates the present.
Also, about the Grand Canyon: Look at it and you'll also see sheer walls. This type of formation is a big indication of the canyon walls being cut very quickly (like in a flood situation). The curving aspect of the river is what gives it the theory that it's old. We're not talking about Evolution. We're talking about the Bible. I don't want to know what Evolution says (I don't agree the theory's very valid), I want to know what the Bible says. You're taking a theory and trying to apply it to the Bible, then trying to use that to claim what the Bible says.
The bible and science don't disagree. Genesis is clear: There were 7 time periods from the beginning before spiritual man. Genesis mentions the dinosaurs. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. The bible doesn't disagree with that.
That doesn't make a strong argument at all. The Bible should be able to stand up on it's own. Let's stick with that route.
Yes, it's much better if we throw out the evidence that modern man had a clash with Neanderthals 40,000 years ago. It stands on it's own, it mentions dinosaurs.
If you have to use external theories like Evolution to back up your interpretation of the Bible, then you're argument is weak.
It's observation. God expects us to use our brains, that's why we have them.
If you do have good archeoligical or historical evidence (historical: from society, not from a theory like Evolution), please show me!
My link from my last post that you ignored.
The timeline was then: Adam was created. Adam sinned. Because of sin, Jesus came down to earth to give man a way to forgive his sins.
And there was sin in the beginning in which at least one third of the sons of God followed Satan making necessary this existence in this dimension.
Actually to give man a way to forgive his sins, by paying the price of man's sins, if you want to be technical about it ;)
Actually to pay the price of man's sins for those that would believe and follow His ways.
Actually, the passage is in Rev 12:4. Remember that Revelations is highly allegorical. This particular verse (specifically, the 'stars' in the verse) is generally understood to mean angels. This is backed up in verse 9, where it says that the Devil and his angels were cast out of heaven. Another interpreation of 'stars' seems to be the church (which existed after Jesus was born). This would place this passage in the End Days, instead of when the Devil first rebelled. Either way, it's not talking about humans before Adam (especially considering the 'stars' were cast out of heaven, which would mean either people who are going to heaven {Christians, which existed only after Jesus} or angels).
No it's not talking of humans before Adam. It's talking of stars of heaven before this existence. Right now we are man, then we were the stars of heaven.
Show me the Biblical reference for this.
1John 3.8
Not in mankind. That started at Adam.
The souls that inhabit man existed before the events in the Garden of Eden:
Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
God was speaking to Jeremiah. Apparently Jeremiah stood with God strongly during Satan's rebellion.
You still have to use logic on it to see what it means, and context is a piece of that logic. You must use context when determining meaning of anything, or else you can (and many do) come up with any interpretation they want.
Yes there are many interpretations, but all but one fall apart when more wisdom is gained. The only way to gain wisdom is to study all of the Word.
Sorry dude, but even in the Bible, logic rules.
Yes, and logically the races can't form from two people in 33 generations.
Without it, the Bible can't make any sense. Why would a logical God write an illogical book for people who use logic to determine meaning? This is a silly argument for ignoring context.
Name anything I've said that isn't logical. It's not logical to say that all the races of the earth can form from two people in 33 generations. It's not logical to say that the geologic structures of the earth all formed in a few thousand years. It's not logical to ignore evidence of Neanderthals and their struggle with modern humans 40,000 years ago.
Doesn't say that in my Bible.
Speaking of quoting out of context, you just did it to me. I plainly said that Adam was formed to lay the foundation for the farmer of men, the Messiah.
Not in the parable. Not in Adam's creation. And not in the verse that says and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
Jesus explains the parable very clearly. The good men will go with him to the barn, the wicked will be burned as tares.
Note: There's a big difference between the phrase "there's no one to do this" and the phrase "I need someone to do this".
Jesus was a descendant of Adam. The family of Adam was tended to to bring about a saviour. It's God's plan. In the beginning was the Word. If Adam was the ancestor of Jesus, that means his human body was meant to be the ancestor of Jesus' human body.
What if I said "there's no one to clean my house"? According to you, you claim I need someone to clean my house. However, the fact is, my house is already clean, and that's why there's no one to clean my house. Trying to claim God is saying he needs someone to till the ground from that verse is logically indeterminate, because God could just as easily (and just as validly) be saying that He doesn't need anyone to till the ground.
In the beginning was the Word. The human body of Adam was meant to be an ancestor of the human body of Jesus.
The "And" doesn't follow the creation story, but rather the phrase "These [are] the generations..." which denote a new passage of scripture, and denotes a historical overview of something.
Irreconcilable differences. To me it's obvious that God is summing up that these are the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens because that's what the first verses of Genesis is talking about, the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. If what followed would have been the generations of Adam, God would have said so but he didn't, he said it was the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. Look up generations in this verse in the Strong's and you'll see that it can mean "proceedings".
One Israel (talked about here) is a man. The one we were previously talking about is a nation. There's a big difference between a man (or men) named Israel and a nation named Israel you know. What are you claiming here? That the man and nation are the same? I don't get it.
When Jacob/Israel was on his deathbed, he was prophesying to his sons what would become of their seed.
It does not. Haven't you read the page you yourself linked to? It says Note that almost all letters have meanings by themselves on that page. This doesn't mean these letters mean this when concatonated with another word, it means they mean something when they're by themselves. You do see the difference between together with another word, and alone, don't you? Your's is a silly argument.
The singular and plural argument is sillier. If the vav denotes singular and plural, you need to prove it, otherwise they're two different words. So far the only evidence we had is the the vav denotes connection and grace.
You can't claim they are different words, because our debate is trying to determine that.
If they are spelled different, they are different.
To claim they are is to either 1) be presumptuous, or 2) lead into a circular argument. We don't want to do either of those, so let's not claim unproven things as fact.
Just being logical.
This was because His mother was Mary (a member of mankind). Jesus was also the Son of God on earth. Jesus was not a true member of man. He was God in a human body. Jesus didn't sin. Jesus was holy, even on earth.
Jesus lived his life on the earth just as we're doing right now.
(If you want to know, I'm quite enjoying myself with this debate {even though it's getting longer then the Nile ;>}. It's quite interesting, and please note I hold nothing against you on this. I enjoy debates like this, and hope you're also enjoying it. I'd like to keep debating on this, if you don't mind :)
It's my favorite subject. It's very interesting to know that there was an existence before the human existence and that there was a struggle and that struggle continues with the human existence being a necessary step in resolving that struggle. It's also very interesting to know that America and Britain are throughout prophesy and will play a major role in the end time. It's a lot more interesting to gain wisdom to the point to where you don't have to get in arguments about evolution, or deny the dinosaurs, or deny Neanderthals, or try to jam everything into 6000 years. It's interesting to know that I existed before I was born into this body. I hope I was on the right side of the struggle.
Today is the first Halloween with a full moon in 46 years. There has been a terrorist warning and people are on edge. Has anything of importance happened on October 31, 1955?
Did you see that thread about the new moon, and there's one about the blue moon. I'm not sure what significance that has to Moslems though or what happened in 1955. Let me see if I at least find the links and post them here.
"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea, With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me: As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free, While God is marching on."
The time is near when the Lord will return... be ready my friends.
Confirmed it here: Archive of Astronomy Questions and Answers What do you make of that? Either a stupid journalist or a sensationalist?
We do see it happening today. I give you the person I know who's mother is white, father is really black, and he has characteristics of both. DNA gets interchanged from parents to children in one generation. Also, some people do mix, while others don't. This is what keeps things balanced, and keeps them from going over toward pure defined races, or mixing of them into less definable races: The fact that many people don't mix (like the Adamites, which you claim).
I didn't say they don't mix, I said their characteristics aren't dominant. You can't get a white race out of a non-white race in 33 generations.
They could if a ruddy gene showed up in a population and ruddy people desided to go with ruddy people (depending on how much of a contrast the gene was).
That's illogical.
Many people do tend toward others that look like them. For example, the person I know (who's black..but not as black as his dad.
Go to Africa and see if you can find a white race there descended from a non-white race in 33 generations because of a mutation.
His dad's really black) may deside to marry a lady who's black. His children may all be black. Or some might be black, and some white. Or all of them might be white. If they're all white (recessive gene I believe), then his entire family line will be white if his offspring down the generations marry only whites (even though he's black).
That's not true. Both parents pigment genes will be there even if one wins out temporarily.
In other words: It's possible. It's even easy to come up with a senerio in which it's possible. Also, according to you're line of thinking, if a dominate gene and a recessive gene intermix, the dominate gene should win out. If the Adamites did any mixing, why didn't they have groups of another gene mixed in with them?
Most Adamites didn't. That's why Jesus and David were ruddy. In cases where Adamites mixed with other races, the mix is clearly seen in their descendents, like the Arabs.
Show me why you think this is. (You might also note that ruddy is red.
Ruddy is rosy.
Red/being reddish is the very definition of ruddy.
If Adam were a red man, then his name would've clearly meant red, Adam means ruddy. Besides there were no American Indians in this area 6000 years ago.
So, by definition, calling one ruddy and another red is basically the same thing.
No, there are better names for red. Adam means ruddy.
In fact red is a synonym of ruddy. If someone is ruddy skinned, they're reddish-tinted, or a reddish-brownish, in skin tone.
No, they're rosy. There are better names for red, and one of those would've been used if Adam was an American Indian.
Either way, red tinted comes into it.) Another interesting point I'd like to bring out is that David's grandmother, Ruth, was apparently dark skinned (she was a Moabite, which were apparently a dark skinned race).
Where do you get that? Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was Abraham's nephew.
So, if the dark skin gene is dominate, why wasn't David dark skinned?
Because the Moabites were ruddy Adamites.
Perhaps it's easily possible that not all of David's ancestors were ruddy. (This is simply to show that race A {ruddy} could have mixed with some of race B {dark skinned} and still remain ruddy.
Not with the ruddy gene not being dominant.
Now this allows Adam to be either race A or race B, ruddy or dark, and David still remains ruddy {assuming for a moment that Adam was of a seperate race}.)
Adam's name means ruddy, Adam was ruddy. Then his descendants should be ruddy. They were.
Your explination is complex.
My explanation is complex? I'm not the one making the illogical leap to say a ruddy race evolved from a non-ruddy race in 33 generations.
Everything fits in very well with Adam being the first man (the true first man), and the explination is more simplistic.
If all the races can come from one race in 33 generations, why don't we have all the races accounted for in the isolated tribes of Africa?
Occam's razor in action. Also, I don't ignore scientific observation. If you want to build a time machine and go back in time and take pictures, go right ahead and show me, and we'll have observation.
So these Neanderthal bones aren't Neanderthals?
Otherwise, history is infered, interpreted, by evidence it left behind, and that interpretation (not being directly observed without a time machine) might be wrong.
So you don't believe Neanderthals ever existed?
I find the Theory of Evolution (the historical side of it) isn't valid enough for me to take it as an acceptable scientific theory. There's a difference between a theory, and the evidence that theory is based off of. Let's try to stick with the evidence.
Neanderthal bones are evidence. Hard evidence.
(I'll gladly accept archeological and literature evidence though). Let's keep the theories out of it for the moment.
So you want to look at only the evidence that agrees with your belief that man didn't exist before 6000 years ago and ignore anything that proves otherwise? What about the earth? Do you believe the earth existed before 6000 years ago?
The Bible should be able to stand up on under it's own interpretation. If you'd like to toss in actual observed evidence (like historical ruins or writings), feel free. That's certainally allowable (and I encourage it).
I toss in Neanderthal bones to prove that man existed before 6000 years ago.
Red is ruddy is red. Don't believe me? Look here!
There's were no American Indians in that area, therefore Adam means ruddy.
Yes, it is a 'blushing' look. In fact, 0119 is a verb. I've seen arguments that Adam was white because of this. (Why? Because, 'only white people can blush', or some such argument).
Maybe so.
It can't be conclusive because there are other options.
It's conclusive to me.
Give Biblical evidence for the stars including 'we'. (Not Evolution theory. Not the theory that the 6th day man was before Adam {because that theory seems to be built off the Evolution theory, and not Biblical evidence}.
90% of what I've given you is biblical evidence. Genesis says man was created on the sixth day, then God rested, saw he needed a tiller of the ground and then created Adam.
Biblical evidence only {since we have no observable historical evidence for it}.)
It takes wisdom. He who has ears to hear will hear. We and the angels are the stars of heaven. This is proven in Revelation. Revelation 12.4 says a third of the stars are going fall to the earth. If even one physical star fell to earth, we'd all be dead. LOL It's not physical stars.
The 7 time periods were days. Morning and evening.
Mornings were beginnings of the time periods, evenings were the ends of time periods. This is specifying that there were beginnings and ends to these time periods. Simple. He who has ears will hear. Are you saying the earth is not more than 6000 years old?
Very specific. Gen 1:8 - And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.. "And the evening and the morning were the nth day" is the phrase used over and over again. Evening ([06153] - `ereb) is a literal period of moving from daylight to darkness. We know it as when the sun sets. Morning ([01242] - boqer) is a literal period of moving from darkness to light. We know it when the sun rises. Sunset and sunrise, basically. Day ([03117] - yowm) can mean several things: Time of light (when the sun's up), a 24 hour period (recognized by a circle of morning to morning), a year (oddly enough), or an undefined time period. By itself it might mean any of these things. However, in each of the 6 days of creation it's very carefully, and very specifically, combined with a literal evening and morning, denoting an actual 'day' (as in time of daylight or a 24 hour period). Seeing how each time statement is specified with a "evening and the morning", we can safely assume the 'day' means an actual 24 hour period. There's no room for making it anything else (unless you ignore the evening and morning. And in the Hebrew, there's no room for shifting the definitions on these two words).
LOL A long explanation for a simple point. God likes to relay his word in parables. Mornings are beginnings, evenings are ends.
As for the order of Creation vs. Evolution, they don't match up. For example Genesis gives account that the plants were made on the third day (Gen 1:11), then the sun was made on the fourth day (Gen 1:16). Evolution says the sun was here possibly even before the earth.
Light was created on the first day.
As for the dinosaur, Job 40:15-24 describes the behemoth, which is interpreted as a dinosaur. This was after Adam was born.
There may have been survivors ala Loch Ness. Most were created in the fifth time period.
Neanderthals: Evidence, yes. Observable fact, no. The Bible does mention dinosaurs...after Adam was born.
Their bones make it an observable fact.
God also gave us brains to recognize logic and context, too :)
Exactly. And it's not logical to claim Neanderthals didn't exist, that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that all races can evolve in 33 generations.
I find no evidence for that (beyond speculation). Please provide Biblical evidence.
Genesis 1:2. Look at the Hebrew and you'll see that it says that the earth became without form. Do a search on "became" and you'll see that it matches with Genesis 1:2. Why did the earth become without form? Because of Satan's downfall.
It paid the price for all man's sins.
Nope. Only for those that believe and will try to follow His ways.
It covers those who accept it. (Just how much more technical do you think we'll be able to get here? ;)
There, you got it right.
Show Biblical evidence.
Those with ears will hear. It's not logical to think that a billion physical stars are going to hit the earth.
1 John 3:8 says He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
Right. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. John 3:8 says Satan sinned in the beginning. Genesis 1:2 says that the earth became without form. Conclusion: Satan's rebellion caused the earth to become without form. Adam came after the six days of creation and the day of rest to provide a way to save whomsoever will.
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. It basically says "Those that sin belong to the Devil. Jesus therefore came down to fix this." It says nothing of the fallen 'stars' with the Devil, or of mankind.
If you want to believe that a billion physical stars are going to collide with the earth, go ahead. I say that the stars are God's children including us. Revelation says that a third of the stars joined Satan.
Jer 1:5 doesn't say anything about pre-existance. Let me give you an example: King George declared his son, before he came out of his mother's womb, a prince.
But King George didn't claim to know his son.
In other words, it's not talking about pre-existance of Jeremiah, but rather God's pre-ordained status to Jeremiah as a prophet when he will walk the earth. Pre-destination (basically), not pre-existance. Try again :)
That's illogical. If God says He knew Jeremiah before he was born, then that's good enough for me.
And use context and logic with it, too. I've studied much of the Word off and on.
It's not logical to think that a billion stars are going to collide with the earth. :^)
This has little to do with logic, and alot to do with probability. It's possible for that to happen. Whether or not it's probable is another matter.
It's illogical to think that 2 people can evolve into all the races we see in 33 generations.
Never heard of the Flood? This has more to do with probability then logic.
This is funny. Suddenly you want to not rely on logic. Instead you want to rely on prbability. Since all things are possible with God, it's an argument you can make. Any claim in the universe can be made then. I could claim that, in the beginning, monkeys flew out of people's butts and nobody could prove me wrong because with God all things are possible, but I'm not going to make these nonsensical, outrageous claims that aren't supported by biblical evidence. The bible supports everything I've said, it makes sense, it's the most probable explanation, and therefore the most logical. I believe the bible was written to give us enough evidence to combine with common sense and observation to know exactly what went on and what's going to happen in the future. If you want to believe illogical things just because they were possible, go ahead but I'm going to use the common sense and logic that God gave me to know what's going on instead of take the attitude of "we can't know".
It's possible for a book tied to the end of a string hanging from a ceiling to jump up and down apparently on it's own (caused Brownian movement). It's not very probable though (though it can happen if given a long enough time, theoretically). This has nothing to do with logic.
You, who lectured me on logic, are now running away from it and saying we shoudn't consider it. Funny.
Not to ignore the evidence, no. But to ignore the interpretation of the evidence (if it doesn't seem valid), yes.
What's not valid? Are you saying that Neanderthal bones aren't Neanderthal bones?
What you state has little to do with logic. The logic is in how you use the statements, not if something is possible or probable, or a theory (though logic has a big hand in helping to interpret evidence for or against a theory to validate it). It's not your evidence that's illogical...it's your interpretations of that evidence. And I've been trying to show you where your logic is weak. Logic and evidence arn't the same thing.
It's your logic that's weak. You want to think that the earth is only 6000 years old. You want to think that all the races of the earth can evolve in 33 generations. You want to think that dinosaurs were created at the same time as man. You want to think that Neanderthal bones aren't real.
No I didn't. I didn't claim you didn't claim that Adam was formed to lay the foundation for the Massiah. What I said was it doesn't say that in my Bible. In other words, I'm differentiating between your interpretation and my interpretation of the Bible (what you say and what the Bible says). You claim the Bible means that. The Bible doesn't say that outright. And I don't see how it can be interpreted to say such. Thus, my statement about it 'not showing up in my Bible'.
Those with ears will hear.
Who claims Jesus' explination isn't correct? I didn't. However, it still doesn't mean it's linked to Adam's creation. Two different things there.
The whole bible is linked with the rest of it. That's the main difference between you and me. When you read that a third of the stars will fall to earth, you assume that the earth will collide with a billion physical stars. When I read that a third of the stars will fall to earth, I remember other parts of the bible and realize that Satan and his angels are going to cause confusion on the earth.
I don't see the interpretation of Adam's existance being specifically so Jesus could come down to earth to be valid. But that aside, I agree with the rest of your statement.
Adam was created because God needed a tiller. The Messiah is the tiller.
I don't see how what you just said contradicts with what I said. It was the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens (in other words, an overview of what came before, or 'proceedings'). Why should this passage be any different the all the other passages of the Bible that start with "These [are] the generations..."? That's what you seem to be claiming; that for some reason it is different.
It's different because the Strong's allow for a difference. God given logic and common sense gives the answer. He who has ears will hear.
The question is: Why? (You can't use 'because man existed before and Adam was created after' to validate the Why, because you must use the Why to validate that Adam was created on the 8th day {after}. That would lead into circular reasoning. Must give another reason.) {Personally, even if you think it's irreconcilable, it's still fun to bump ideas around. That's how we learn.}
Why what? Satan rebelled. God did not want to kill all the children that joined Satan without giving them a chance in this dimension under these circumstances. God destroyed the earth that was (asteroid belt, perhaps), created this one, sent the messiah, and is now taking names.
Alright, so here we have a nation of Israel. What does this have to do with the USA?
Read Jacob's prophesy. Ephraim (a company of nations - the U.K.) and Manasseh (a great nation - America) inherited Jacob/Israel's name. America and the U.K. are the Israel mentioned in all the end-time prophesies. Why wouldn't America be in the prophesies, America is the most Christian nation on earth. It would be illogical for it not to be mentioned.
Yes, I need to prove it. Still trying to look for some information. I may be going to the library for it, for you. Actually, we have no evidence vav, when combined with a word, denotes connection and grace for the meaning of that word. The only source we have gives the meaning of vav all by itself. We both need to find something that gives the meaning of vav with a word.
There's no doubt that the Adam of the sixth day is spelled different than my Adam of the eigth day. If it's not something simple, you're in deep kaka. :^)
Like 'car' and 'cars'?
Like I said, prove it. I've proven that the vav means connection and grace, if you can't prove that the vav is essentially an "s", then you've got big problems. I would venture to say that the Hebrew isn't like English in it's logic. I would go as far to say You're not going to find a magic bullet of a letter that has the same use as an English "s". What's great about this is that as we get deeper and deeper in this and new evidence is found, the evidence always support my theories. Such as the vav, the "became", the Adam difference. When I've looked for something, I've found it, when you've looked for something, you haven't found it.
You claim as fact that the words Adam are different. This is what's being presumptuous (since we have nothing to show what vav means with the word adam).
I have proven that the vav means connection and grace. If you can't prove your theory, then mine stands.
If you'd like to claim it as a theory, that's fine. However, don't claim something as fact that isn't (and then try to use that to prove your other points).
I set out to prove that the Adam of the sixth day was different from the Adam of the eigth day and by golly if it didn't prove to be true. They are spelled different. Words that are spelled different are different. The vav does not denote plurality, if it did the Hebrew study I linked would have said so.
Wait until we have enough evidence to show either way, then we can use them to validate other points.
I did. I said they were different, they were different.
The adam with vav is undetermined at the moment, so it's invalid to use to try to claim an invalid premise.
It's spelled different, it is different.
I'll try to get to the college library. They should have some textbooks on Hebrew (I hope). I'll let you know what I find. A question I'd like to ask you is this: How does your definition of adam with vav fit in with the verse it's in?
The vav denotes connection and grace. vavadam became a spiritual being.
One of my favorite subjects is debating ;)
Obviously. To the point of being illogical. Read Romans 1:29. It's possible to debate to a fault. I would've let you go your way a long time ago if this wasn't a forum read by the public. I think it's important for the common sense truth to get out to refute some of these illogical claims that the earth is only 6000 years old, Adam was the father of all races, etc. There are so many who won't read the Word because they've been told that the bible makes these illogical claims that go so far against observation. I know I'm not going to change your mind but hopefully there might be some who will see that there's much more to the Word than what they've been told.
Your theories are interesting. However, Historical Evolution is an unproven theory, and I don't deny dinosaurs (and I don't deny Neanderthal fossils, either. I just don't think they were pre-homo-sapien). Historical Evolution could be wrong.
So you believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
Me: It's not logical to say that the geologic structures of the earth all formed in a few thousand years.
You: Never heard of the Flood? This has more to do with probability then logic. It's possible for a book tied to the end of a string hanging from a ceiling to jump up and down apparently on it's own (caused Brownian movement). It's not very probable though (though it can happen if given a long enough time, theoretically). This has nothing to do with logic.
What about the Hawaiian Islands? These islands extend halfway across the Pacific Ocean underwater. They are formed over a geologic hotspot as the Pacific plate moves across this hotspot. As they move away from the hotspot, they lose their volcanic characteristics and begin to be worn down by the waves since they haven't a way to overcome this wearing down. The rate of movement over the hotspot hasn't changed in millions of years for these islands. The new island being formed underwater right now is spaced about the same as all the others before it. It takes millions of years for these islands to be worn down to where they're under the water again. Are you going to try to cram the formation and the life and then the wearing down of these islands into 6000 years?
The white cliffs of Dover are deposits of limestone made when the island of Britain was a seabed. It took millions of years for tiny creatures to deposit this limestone and then for the limestone to rise above the waves. Are you going to cram this into 6000 years?
The salt bubbles of America exist under the American continent. As the huge salt layers changes shape (which salt does) huge bubbles (tens of miles wide) form and make their way to the surface. It takes millions of years for these bubbles to move up as far as they have. Are you going to cram this into 6000 years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.