/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Adam and Eve or two of their descendants.

>>767927

So incest?

>>767928

Yes. What else?

>>767930

<God's perfect plan for man populating the world was incest

I think that says enough honestly

>>767933

>he doesn't understand the genetics

Perfect genes = fewer genetic flaws in incest. That's why incest was originally not outlawed, but the first mention of an actual law against incest was in Exodus.

Even Abraham's wife, Sarah, was his half-sister.

>>767926

What part of myth, don't you understand?

The Bible "falls into" history, it is a seamless transition but it won't really be complete until Joshua comes along, and even then, it's debatable just where myth leaves off and history begins.

>>767948

Is this the Catholic perspective on the Bible?

>>767926

Christian Identity is the only place I've found a satisfying answer to this question.

>>767949

No.

>>767934

>myth

Why are so many winnie the pooh modernists on Christian?

Every human being is descendent from Adam and Eve (and you must believe this if you are a Catholic, Pius XII is pretty clear about it) of course there had to be incest between brothers and sisters.

>>767949

It violates several statements De Fide.

Even the American bibles full of pozzed commentaries thread carefully when treating this matters.

So that anon is either a liberal prot or a freelancer modernist.

>>767948

>The Bible "falls into" history, it is a seamless transition but it won't really be complete until Joshua comes along, and even then, it's debatable just where myth leaves off and history begins.

Man most atheist historians I've read take Abraham and forward as history.

Wtf are you reading? Moses didn't exist?

The Mosaic law came out of the Jews ass?

That it was a non existing man that appeared besides Christ during the Transfiguration?

>>768000

I think someone linked this place to Reddit recently. I say that because we've had a rash of threads asking some honestly dumb questions (while ignoring the QTDDTOT) and breaking some really simple, easy-to-follow rules that only a newfriend could possibly miss.

>>768097

This place gets linked on r/christianity all the time. Fortunately, most of the people from there are hindered by the unfamiliarity of the image board system.

>>768097

This. I've seen guys here saying God is a liberal and coming with all the modernistic crap.

>>768007

You should chill out. Sorry if I've caused you to stumble, it wasn't my intention to refute the existence of Moses or Abraham. I was trying to say that in my view the historical narrative in the Bible isn't completely dominant until God is only accessible through prophets.

>>768253

>Bible isn't completely dominant

What do you mean by this?

>>768277

Read it again.

>>768300

Could you explain the whole post?

Are you trying to say that the Hebrews only got an important place in history after the Hebrews?

>>767926

She was indeed his sister. This was not forbidden by God at the time, obviously, because it was God's holy will.

>>768351

I mean if you think about it, Eve was sort of like Adam’s cloned daughter.

I’m not funposting, I’m just saying “technically”.

Guys, the creation of humans in genesis 1 and the creation of Adam and Eve are separate creation accounts. Cain's wife was one of these pre-Adam people.

>>768351

This is why liberals make fun of us :^(

>>768357

They scoff at the notion of the supernatural. There is no reason to shy away from what the text implies, and incest wasn't forbidden.

>>768356

no

What would the significance of Jesus being the "second adam" be if Adam wasn't the "first adam"?

>>768358

The text doesn’t imply that.

>>768358

Adam was the first Man, the nature of his creation and being is different than the nature of the pre-Adam humans.

>>768360

"no u"

what does it imply then?

>>768361

There is no such distinction in the text

Genesis 1

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:27 KJV)

Man: 0120 אָדָם 'adam

Genesis 2

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

Man: 0120 אָדָם 'adam

First named instance:

and brought them unto Adam (Gen. 2:19 KJV)

Adam is identified as the "man" of Genesis 2:7 (and by relation, Genesis 1)

It is the same word "man" in Genesis 1 and 2.

>>768362

The fact it's the same word isn't a indication at all and by relation isn't an argument. One argument I could make is the fact Cain was marked so he wouldn't be killed by whoever would find him. This suggest there were other people around than those of Adam's lineage.

>>768364

Your claim was that the alleged "pre-Adam humans" weren't "man", but the text of Genesis 1 says "man" just like Adam. Your argument is refuted by the original language. Am I missing something?

>>768365

Man as we would understand man today. What was the author of the text suppose to call man before Adam? Words can apply retroactively.

>>768366

So how did you conclude that they weren't man? Are you just saying that the scripture is wrong to say "man" for Gen 1?

Keep in mind that the Bible self-verifies Genesis 1 and 2 as God's word, God can not lie, and so the creation account is inerrant.

>>768368

They weren't man before Adam, AS WE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE WORD, for that Adam ate the apple of good and evil. God can not lie, but we as humans are limited in our understanding.

>>768373>>768373

*fruit

I know we don't know what type of fruit and that apple is a traditional representation.

>>768356

Gap theory is a fan fiction.

>>768373

How should we understand the word, and how do you know? The definition of "man" is the crux of your argument.

>>768364

He was being cast off into the deep unknown.. the wilds. He could have been afraid of just beasts. Or something even stranger.. his own mother and father conversed with some kind of "pre-belly crawling" serpent.

>>768434

>his own mother and father conversed with some kind of "pre-belly crawling" serpent.

Yeah, some people forget that the serpent wasn't originally crawling. It was some kind of "beast that had the ability to talk." Who can say based on that, where Cain's wife might have come from, or where his children might have gone.

>>768622

All mankind came from Adam, and Eve was “mother of all”, not “mother of some”.

>>768638

>Eve was “mother of all”, not “mother of some”.

It means "mother of all living."

>All mankind came from Adam

Yes I know, but beasts didn't. Let's make that perfectly clear.

>>768622

As far as regular humans go, I'm going to side with this anon. >>768638 He could have just married his sister. As far as enemies and fear of being killed though, I'm just saying he might've been afraid of beasts or some unknown abomination like the serpent.

>>768644

>He could have just married his sister.

I'd like to point out Seth wasn't even born yet when all this happened. I'm of the thought that Genesis 4:7 contains a prophecy for Cain that parallels in some ways that of Genesis 3:16. You can read it for yourself.

>>768434

>"pre-belly crawling" serpent

<reptoids

Pls go and take your heresy with you

>>768362

Isn't there scripture where God creates man and "other living beings". Also, if you read chronologically, it appears God creates Adam, and then he creates "Man" as if they are separate events. Really activated the almonds but haven't done much digging yet.

>>768653

What is a reptoid? And why are you calling me a heretic for some word I didn't even use? Clearly though, crawling on his belly was part of the curse. It wouldn't be much of a curse if he was already that way.

And I'm not even sure why that would be a heresy. I'm simply reading the bible's events in a sequence. Heresy is a doctrinal matter. What does this have to do with doctrine? Or this just some way to toss out high accusations at me for enigmatic reasons? Like it's something you just enjoy for the sake of it? Have fun, I guess.

>>768644

Well the serpent wasn’t created an abomination, it was made “very good”. But the serpent is whole different story.

>>767926

We're all like "ehhhh? waaaaahhhhh??" when it comes to the bible.

But then continue to ignore how much the bible has been tampered with. And how many artifacts have been hidden via the basement of the Vatican.

>>768737

Gnostic are possessed.

>>768739

Possessed by what? Blueberry sherbert and cotton candy?

>>768742

>Lol so randumb XD

>>768737

I'm really good at quoting Bible verses that contradict popular opinions. Unfortunately, instead of addressing them most people dismiss the entire Bible.

They were related. Incest was permissible.

https://carm.org/questions/about-bible/where-did-cain-get-his-wife

In Genesis 1:26 the angels create mankind in their own image

Genesis 1:26

And elohim said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

אֱלֹהִים elohıym

Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense, angels

בָּרָא

bara'

Create from nothing

In Genesis 2:7, Yahweh-Elohim forms Adam from the dust of the ground.

Genesis 2:7

And Yawheh Elohim formed ADAM of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

יָצַר yatsar

to form from something, to squeeze something into shape

TLDR: Mankind is created in Gen 1:26, adamkind is formed in Gen 2:7

“And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And he was like those on high and not like those below. And she said, ‘I have gotten a man from the angel of the LORD.’”

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 4:1

Cain married a woman of the non-Adamic Race

>>778811

>Cain married a woman of the non-Adamic Race

You still pushing that Christian Identity-tier, "it's actually about modern racial politics", anon?

>>778811

This.

>>778816Call them Race, Tribe, Whatever you like.

The Angels created mankind in Gen 1:26

Yawheah Elohim formed Man with the spirit of Yahweh in Gen 2:7

So, obviously the men created in Gen 1:26 didn't haven't the Spirit of Yawheh.

I choose to use the word race, you can use whatever word you like.

>>778838

>Using the literal name of god

Get out.

>>778846

Where does the bible say not to use his name ?

For I shall proclaim the name of Yahweh. Ascribe greatness to our Elohim.

(Deuteronomy 32:3)

May their wickedness recoil on those who lie in wait for me. Yahweh, in your constancy destroy them.

How gladly will I offer you sacrifice, and praise your name, for it is good,

(Psalm 54:5-6)

>>778846

Ok couple things here. First off this isn't supposed to be a secret name society where God's real name has to be scratched out like some talmudic pharisee says to do. There's no such thing as this.

Secondly, he used the false "Mishnaic Hebrew" form of the name, which isn't even a legitimate transliteration of the actual word. He removed the vowel soundings and inserted random ones. Just like all the modernist scholars do. So he didn't even really use the transliterated form of the divine name (LORD) in the first place.

Thirdly, he acts like each of those terms means some different entity and not all referring to the same Godhead. That should have been your cue that he was completely off the deep end in wacky zionist land.

>>778854

>Ok couple things here. First off this isn't supposed to be a secret name society where God's real name has to be scratched out like some talmudic pharisee says to do. There's no such thing as this.

All versions of the scriptures do this.

I'm not defending the other anon, I'm just saying that's crossing a line any educated christian would never cross.

>>778857

>All versions of the scriptures do this.

There are nomina sacra. You are correct there.

But this isn't the same as saying it HAS to be done. Like I said, that's talmudic. You find yiddish pharisees doing it, but not the Bible. The full name with vowel sounds was written in the Hebrew script in the originals. Any with those removed is simply a corrupted version.

This isn't supposed to be hard, but there are all these modernist scholars who posture as great experts who keep leading people astray. Probably due to influence from the same yiddish talmudists.

>>778853

>Where does the bible say not to use his name ?

Thou Shalt not take the Lord's name in vain

Again, there's a reason no version of the scriptures does this that is widely used.

For then I shall turn unto the peoples a clean lip, so that all invoke the name of Yahweh and serve him shoulder to shoulder.

(Zephaniah 3:9)

I shall pass this third through the fire, refine them as silver is refined, test them as gold is tested. He will call on my name and I shall answer him; I shall say, 'He is my people,' and he will say, 'Yahweh is my God!'

(Zechariah 13:9)

שַׁו    שָׁוְאo

shav'    shav

shawv, shav

Vain

From the same as H7722 in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjectively)

I don't think anyone is doing that when they say Yahweh.

Crossing out God's name is a kike thing. The fact so many """""""Christians""""""" are against God's name really shows how infiltrated Christianity is. Wouldn't surprise me if half of professed Christians are sneaky cryptokikes at this point.

>>778867

>>778869

They never wrote out the name of God though outside of Exodus 3:14. It was always YHWH. The addition of vowels was a modern thing.

>>778873

We have ids you know.

>>778874

Sorry, just went in line with the stupidity so well that I didn't notice. :^)

>>778876

XDDDDDDDDDDD

>>778872

So how would they be able to invoke his name if they can't say it ?

>>778882

They would saying when it was absolutely necessary in prayer, but that's it.

It was always a massive deal in Hebrew culture though. That's the reason "When he said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground." happens in the Gospel. Its mere utterance evokes that much fear of the wrath of God.

>>778882

It's funny you bring this up. I see a fulfillment in it.

Jeremiah 44:26

Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth.

>>778890

This too. Not like it's something to treat lightly. I just believe all the superstition about writing G-d and such is a judgement on the false rabbinic talmudist.

Well I am confused by all this. I never even heard this before.

In Judah God is known: his name is great in Israel. Psalm 76:1

Lord isn't a name. God isn't a name.

This is what my Bible says about it

Substituting the Name of יהוה with “LORD” or “Lord,” as has been done in most translations, is against all Scripture:

(1) It is a transgression of the Third Command(ment) which prohibits us from bringing His Name to naught, or falsifying it.

(2) It is a transgression of the command in Deb 4:2 / Deu_4:2, “Do not add to the Word which I command you, and do not take away from it.” This is repeated in Deb 12:32 / Deu_12:32, Mish 30:6 / Pro_30:6, Rev_22:18-19.

(3) יהוה reproves the prophets in Yirm 23:36 / Jer_23:36, “You have changed the Words of the living Elohim . . . ”

(4) “Lord” is not an innocent title. We trace it back to the Roman house-deity, and further back to the name of an Etruscan sovereign, Larth , not forgetting that in those days the sovereigns were deities! So this is a transgression of the clear command of Shem 23:13 / Exo_23:13.

>>778893

G-d is just code for great deceiver since jews are larping cryptosatanists.

>>778896

Either that or it's just a troll dude. god and the lord aren't technically his name, so the only people who usually do this are for the lulz.

>>778900

>kike satanists are just trolling bro

>>778902

>kike satanists are just trolling bro

<implying they're legit in the first place.

I don't like Pharisaic Judaism, but if you sperg out like this you just make yourself look stupid.

>>778895

>Substituting the Name of יהוה with “LORD” or “Lord,” as has been done in most translations, is against all Scripture

No it isn't actually. It's completely within Scripture.

Matthew 22:44 in the original Greek quotes Psalm 110:1.

In the original Psalm 110:1, it says "The LORD (יהוה) said unto my lord…";

In the original Matthew 22:44 it says "The LORD (κυριος) said unto my lord…"

So then κυριος is a valid translation of the tetragrammaton, and what does this word mean in English? Lord.

So using LORD in the Old Testament is completely valid if we want to, since the New Testament gave us its translation. Every time the Greek quotes the Old Testament it translates Jehovah as Lord.

>We trace it back to the Roman house-deity,

All that matters is its current definition which is based on the state of English in 1611 and the Bible and dictionaries produced after that. Also if you insist on tracing back every word to its original etymology like this you will end up with a very confused and incoherent language that doesn't really mean anything.

Again there isn't supposed to be some kind of a mystic word cult that has all these special superstitions about a particular utterance or combination of letters. That's talmudic.

>>778904

I never implied they're legit. Your strawmen are nonsensical.

>>778912

>I never implied they're legit.

You blatantly implied it.

>>778920

No, I called them larping cryptosatanists.

>>778906

My Psalm 110:1 Doesn't say that. It says.

Psa 110:1  יהוה said to my Master, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

In Matthew 22:44 it doesn't translate Lord from Yahweh. It translates Lord from Lord when יְהוָ֨ה׀ Yahweh was used in Isiah. It meaning Lord in that passage is a retelling albeit not exact.

It's all so confusing.

Psalms 68:4

(KJV)  Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.

(NJB)  Sing to God, play music to his name, build a road for the Rider of the Clouds, rejoice in Yahweh, dance before him.

(RSV)  Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides upon the clouds; his name is the LORD, exult before him!

(TS2009)  Sing to Elohim, sing praises to His Name. Raise up a highway for Him Who rides through the deserts, By His Name Yah, And exult before Him.

>>778930

It gets even better when you realize they sometimes truncated names that had the same opening syllables as Jehovah in the Old Testament, like the name Jehoash sometimes permuting into Joash, Jehoram permuting into Joram, and so on. Only happens with names that start "Jeho-". Just more proof that Jehovah starts with those syllables.

Even better when you start investigating the difference between translated versus transliterated names in the New Testament. Fortunately the KJV preserves these, i.e. Jeremias (Matt. 16:14) versus Jeremy (Matt. 2:17,27:9) or Canaan (Matthew 10:4,15:22 etc.) versus Chanaan (Acts 7:11,13:19) or Rabbi (John 1:38) versus Rabboni (John 20:16) and the implications for what language was being spoken.

>>778936

>It gets even better when you realize they sometimes truncated names that had the same opening syllables as Jehovah in the Old Testament, like the name Jehoash sometimes permuting into Joash, Jehoram permuting into Joram, and so on. Only happens with names that start "Jeho-". Just more proof that Jehovah starts with those syllables.

That's the prefix, but some names use it as a suffix too. For example, "iah", like in Isaiah (Hebrew: Yesha-YAHU).

Kind of another reason why the name has disgreement on how it was pronounced, since it comes in both these forms in the prefix and suffix forms (Yeho or Yahu… Yehovah/Yahveh).