Xythe

I see you are a night owl, as am I. One of the reasons things I write are not always structured well. I do not approach the computer until everyone else has retired for the night.
I do not live at the keyboard as some of the people here on J.U. I sacrifice sleep to come here and after awhile, it makes Jack a dull boy.
Great topic, in fact this was to be another article. Threads all too often go far afield and I end up writing articles in bits and pieces.
No Human was ever an ape. The reason so many species are closely linked as to DNA is because we are all flesh.....at least we are here and now in this earth age.
All animal life shares a great deal of commonality, for it is all based on a system that works everywhere on the planet. All the basic building blocks are there.
Everthing must metabolize food, take in oxygen. We are suited for the climates we live in. We have skeletal structures and muscle groups to retain shape and allow movement. We share the five senses. We all have organs that serve the same functions. We reproduce through egg and sperm. Living things can mutate, but they do not "evolve". We have not evolved away from death and diseases. When people spend too much time in the sun, we sunburn......that has happened since day one, the sunburn turns to tan and gets darker as we spend more time in the sun. Then in the fall, the skin turns lighter, back to its original color. You can take a black person and set him in Iceland for generations, and providing that they do not mix with other races, they will remain black, for that is what the instruction of the seed is. Kind after kind. Same goes for any other race. You can move them, but they will not change.
White people have lived in cold climates for thousands of years, yet they do not grow fur for protection against the cold.

I will get to the flood part in my next article.

Klaatu, Barrada, Nikto

77.......................Out

Only 'that place' was flooded, not the entire globe. That is, if one believes the story at all.

What the crap happened to the insightful buttons on the forums? You should get cookie for that one.

LITTLE WHIP

Right you are and you get a gold star on your chart for today. The word for earth in Hebrew is 'erets. Just that land or country.

Where the races present at that time on the ark? Or were they made after from the decendents of those on the ark.

In a way I'd say yes but thru Noah and his family only. The three sons have been traced by bible scholars to represent all the poeples of the earth. From Shem came the Jews, from Ham came the African Nations and from Japeth came the Europeans. I take the bible literally so I believe only 8 souls made it through the flood and from there they populated the earth.

Does "two of every kind" mean 2 of every race? Or did just Noah and his family make the races from their progeny?

No, and in fact some "sevens" were involved here. Only eight people were saved but two and sevens of the animals were saved.

"You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens; a male and his female and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky by sevens, male and female to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth." Gen 7:2-3.

I think it interesting that the word "kapher" is used in the sealing of the ark with pitch. It was to be pitched within and without. That word means and is the same word "atonement."

If the flood was only local as some believe, then why didn't Noah and his family just move to higher ground? They had 100 years in the building of this ark. They could have gone quite far in that amount of time.

Also, why does every ancient civilization in their history have a flood story?

We know the dinos died in some catastrophic event. It makes sense that a world wide flood of this magnitude could be the cause. Otherwise they would have fled to higher ground and be among us today.

Another thought. When was the last time you saw a flood in the area of Israel and Iraq? Doeen't it seem a bit strange to think of a flood of such enormity to be in the desert of Iraq (only) especially since famine due to lack of rain is more the norm given their history?

Another thought. When was the last time you saw a flood in the area of Israel and Iraq? Doeen't it seem a bit strange to think of a flood of such enormity to be in the desert of Iraq (only) especially since famine due to lack of rain is more the norm given their history?

Who says that's where the antediluvian people lived, if the world was truly covered with water all the way? They could've been just about . . . anywhere.

So no, Adam and Eve did not populate the entire world, there were plenty of humans already, although whether or not they were imbued with a soul (or were more animal-like, and not knowing the difference between good and evil) is another question.

Great. Another ugly belief from the Judaeo Christian tradition. If you don't have Jewish blood you might not have a soul - fantastic. The more I read about Christianity the less convinced I am that it's a faith of any redeeming virtue save in the actions of some of its practitioners.

In a way I'd say yes but thru Noah and his family only. The three sons have been traced by bible scholars to represent all the poeples of the earth. From Shem came the Jews, from Ham came the African Nations and from Japeth came the Europeans. I take the bible literally so I believe only 8 souls made it through the flood and from there they populated the earth.

Wonderful. Yet another person who believes Asians aren't people. What are they then? Do they have souls or are they clean/unclean animals?

LW

Its my understanding that all humans have souls, and if you do not have a soul, you are not human. >

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

"and man became a living soul"

This tells me that although all flesh is of the earth, God chose to make man (humans) living souls with His breath of life.

So no, Adam and Eve did not populate the entire world, there were plenty of humans already, although whether or not they were imbued with a soul (or were more animal-like, and not knowing the difference between good and evil) is another question.

So the premis is that Adam and Eve did not populate the world because there were "plenty of humans already". You say there are these humans, but mention "not all" of them may or not have souls. If you are a human, then you have a soul, otherwise you are some other living thing.

Likewise, Noahs family did not repopulate the earth by engaging in incestuous practices because the entire earth was not inundated.

This may be true, but inundated or otherwise God did say not one living thing other than those on the ark would remain alive after the flood.

So given that no other living thing remained after the flood, but those on the ark, where did these other people come from?

Reply By: cactoblastaPosted: Tuesday, September 26, 2006So no, Adam and Eve did not populate the entire world, there were plenty of humans already, although whether or not they were imbued with a soul (or were more animal-like, and not knowing the difference between good and evil) is another question.Great. Another ugly belief from the Judaeo Christian tradition. If you don't have Jewish blood you might not have a soul - fantastic. The more I read about Christianity the less convinced I am that it's a faith of any redeeming virtue save in the actions of some of its practitioners.

I wouldnt look at this as "Another ugly belief from the Judaeo Christian tradition." It comes off to me as the opinion of a person whos opinion is welcome; hardly representatinve of any organized tradition. Besides, I did not hear the author mention if she was either Jewish nor Christian. No matter what faith a person is of, she/he has the right to a personal opinion, at least in the united states.

Wonderful. Yet another person who believes Asians aren't people. What are they then? Do they have souls or are they clean/unclean animals?

Well I wont comment of the "asians being humans" gig, I'll leave that to the author of the post. However with respect to asians being human, there can be little doubt. If asians are human, they have souls.

I would be interested in your opinion of the actual topic of this article. Do you have one?

I draw no conclusions from the facts I just pointed out, cacto, simply reminded all these 'good Christians' here that Adam was NOT the first man created, but if one takes the Bible literally, he WAS the first man given a soul.

Maybe not, but it's a conclusion I'm prepared to jump to. Sometimes you've just got to make that leap of faith, yanno?

I'm not sure what book ya'll are reading but Adam was both the first man created and the first man given a soul. It's the same thing. The first chapter of Genesis is chronological and the second is topical. 2:4 is the key verse. This is not unusual in scripture.

And besides, KFC, God can do anything, right?

yes. That's MY point.

You find it easier to believe that the entire earth was inundated rather than just a small portion of it? Haha, ok.

yes, because that's what IT says. So both scripture and history back this fact up. What is your source?

Who says that's where the antediluvian people lived, if the world was truly covered with water all the way? They could've been just about . . . anywhere.

Because in Genesis it says the Garden of Eden had 4 rivers running through it. Two are the Euphrates and Tigris. We all know where those two rivers can be found....Iraq. Iraq has always been called the "cradle of civilization". Later in scripture we see Abraham was called out of UR which is Mesopotomia which again is in Iraq.

Actually National Geographic did a huge article on this whole thing years ago. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will them?

Actually, the first time the word 'soul' is mentioned in the bible was in the creation of Adam, who was not the first human. Read Genesis 1 before you read Genesis 2!

I'm not sure what book ya'll are reading but Adam was both the first man created and the first man given a soul. It's the same thing. The first chapter of Genesis is chronological and the second is topical. 2:4 is the key verse. This is not unusual in scripture.

If there should be any doubt as to Adam as being the first human, please refer to:

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Further:

Regarding the creation of the first couple, Genesis 2: 7, 18-25 does not contradict Genesis 1: 26, 27 but only supplies detail. Adam and Eve were "made…at the beginning" (Matt. 19: 4). It must be realized that the account in chapter one does not say or assert that Adam and Eve were created together or at the exact same moment. However, both Adam and Eve were created on day six (Gen. 1: 24-31). Chapter two supplies the detail that Adam was made from the dust and Eve from a "rib" of Adam (Gen. 2: 7; 21, 22). Chapter two also presents information as to Adam's loneliness that "precipitated" God forming Eve (Gen. 2: 20 ff.). As seen, Genesis two stresses the earthly origin of the body of man (vs. 7). We are told that there are about fourteen chemical elements that are the chief components of living flesh, among them hydrogen, carbon and oxygen. It happens that these are the same elements of the earth itself (cp. I Cor. 15: 47).

Some contend that the event of chapter two could not have all happened in the period of one twenty-four hour day (vs. 7-25). Again, I remind all that Jesus said Adam and Eve were made at the beginning and Genesis one states Adam and Eve were formed on the sixth day.

Alleged disharmony. Rather than appreciating the additional information found in chapter two about God forming man from the dust and animating Adam by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life and man thus becoming a living soul, some think rather they have discovered a contradiction. Adam's body was formed from the dust; whereas Adam's spirit is in the image of God (Gen. 2: 7; 1: 26, 27). The added fact that Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden to keep it is not in opposition to the fact Adam was placed over all the lower creation (Gen. 2: 15; 1: 26). Chapter two affirms that the progenitor of all men was as the inferior animals in that he had life or breath (Gen. 2: 7 cp. 1: 30). Chapter two, however, reveals to us that Adam was created differently than the animals, God himself breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen. 2: 7). The act of chapter two, verse seven is tantamount to man being made in the image of God (Gen. 1: 26, 27)(bibletruths.net)

Your mistake lies in taking the story of Noah literally, based on a bad translation of a hebrew word pronounced (due to my not having hebrew fonts, lol) as 'eh-rehts.'

àøõ
'erets
eh'-rets
From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

Now I can see where an argument might be to use the meaning of say "field" or "ground" vs "earth (at large)".

But when I see Gods description of what is to take place, I find that He certainly does mean to flood the globe, or at least cover wherever any living substance abodes:

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off, the face of the earth.

Certainly this looks to me as the entire earth is inundated by the flood. Though if not, without a doubt no humans survived except of those present on the ark with Noah and his family.

Who says that's where the antediluvian people lived, if the world was truly covered with water all the way? They could've been just about . . . anywhere.

Where the ark was built? I cant really say. In any event, its postulated that the Garden of Eden is in eastern Turkey because the Tigris and Euphrates rise in the mountains there.

However, there is no doubt of where the ark landed:

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth, day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

אררט
'ărâraṭ
ar-aw-rat'
Of foreign origin; Ararat (or rather Armenia): - Ararat, Armenia.