Celt

I guess this means then, most of you are totally against the idea of the royal families who must show their geneaology? I once asked a rabbi if the kingline of Israel couldn't come from the Zarah line also, since Zarah was another son of Judah, and God ordained that the "chief ruler" will be of Judah. He said no, it must continue through the house of David. It appears many think a certain country is always synonomous with a certain race. Ethiopia in ancient times referred to a much larger portion of land than today. And from the earliest times, Abyssinia was controlled by Caucasian rulers. Not all ancient Ethiopians were of the Black race. Even lower Egypt in ancient times for five hundred years was controlled by a Hyksos dynasty of Hebrew people, a Semitic people. So there's my answer concerning the wife of Moses being called an Ethiopian, and the wife of Joseph being an Egyptian. It's just as probable they were of Semitic origin. And in the case of Num.12:1, it's also just as likely that Aaron and Miriam spoke out because of thinking Moses' wife had a different religion. There's at least 3 verses to show she was a daughter of a Midianite priest (Jethro), so sorry, one cannot just try to throw that evidence out of the Bible in favor of a Num.12:1 reading only. Nor am I "anti-Semitic", anti-Black, anti-Indian, anti-Oriental, or whatever some of you think to use as propaganda smear terms. It's those who are against God's creation of all the races as they appear that reveal ideas leading to racism, because of belief on man's theories of evolution. If we think that God created one race, and that all other races 'evolved' from that one race, that is saying there must be a superior race that all others came from. But understanding that God created all the races the way He wanted them to appear is just the opposite of that idea. It shows respect for God's creation and all races as His children. It destroys the many curse myths of doctrines of men for the origin of races. Afterall, some still believe that the snake in the Garden of Eden was a real snake, even though our Lord Jesus told us that was but another title for Satan in Rev.12:9 and 20:2. Concerning Tamar and Rahab in our Lord's lineage, it's not specifically written if they were Semitic or not. It's still possible they were, so merely assigning them as Gentiles is not really correct. The same mistake is done with the wife of Joseph merely because her father was a priest in Egypt. Biblically, we're not told their genealogy. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source for this type of info.

I shouldn't have to defend God's Promises to His chosen Israel, but it's obvious today's doctrines of men taught in many Churches today means someone has to. Rev 7:1-4 1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, 3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. 4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (KJV) Rev.9 tells us what that sealing is about. It is God's sealing for the endtime, in the foreheads of His servants, the spiritual opposite of the 'mark of the beast'. Each tribe of Israel is specifically named. Both the "house of Judah" (Judah, Benjamin, Levi) and the "house of Israel" (ten tribes) are included. The only two names not mentioned are Dan and Ephraim (which are put back in, in final per Ezekiel 48). And per Bible history, the Jews are only represented by the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (see 1 Kings 11 forward). The rest of the tribes exist somewhere else in the world, scattered among the nations. Also, per 1 Kings 11:28-36, God said He would always leave one tribe in Jerusalem, for the sake of His servant David, and for Jerusalem's sake. That tribe was Judah. And a remnant of Judah has remained there, even to today, and will forever. One does not have to be an orthodox Jew to realize that, nor many other of God's Promises that were specific to Israelites only. AND AFTER THAT, THEN GENTILES ARE MENTIONED: Rev 7:9-10 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; 10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God Which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. (KJV) Some may want to lie to theirself and deny that distinction exists between Israelites and Gentiles even in the New Testament Book of Revelation, the Revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they'd just be lying to theirself about that distinction of genealogy there. Rom 3:1-2 1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (KJV) Rom 3:9-12 9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (KJV) Even the apostle Paul showed an ordained mission God has for Israelites. That's per God's choosing; it has nothing to do with the kind of sinner they are, for it's well proven we are all sinners. The importance is that God gave them a specific 'calling' that no man can change. And that calling for the literal seed of Israel is still... in effect for today, even as shown with the Revelation 7 distinction. And just because The Gospel has gone to us Gentiles, and we received It, still does not make us better than them, because they still..., even today, have that calling God gave them, and many of the promises, even though many of Israel have still refused Christ today. Gen 49:10 10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be. (KJV) Here's a prophecy Jacob gave for his son Judah, meant for "in the last days" (Gen.49:1). That means even for today. What does that show? It reveals part of what the apostle Paul was saying about the importance of God's calling for Israel. So how would Israel mixing up its genealogy go against that? And if one doesn't think it would interfere, then that shows who the truly decieved are. Even though, I doubt one who is deceived knows what that verse means. So to make sure, I'll outline its meaning. God has a birthright blessing He gave to His chosen Israel. It began with Abraham, and then went to Isaac, then to Jacob, then to Joseph, and then to Ephraim and Manasseh (1 Chronicles 5). And it is a promise involving the 'literal' seed of Israel. Per the 1 Chronicles 5 Scripture, it is in two parts. One part is about the royal sceptre of rule and caretaker of God's law; the other is about the blessings of wealth, blessings of resources, and blessings of the womb (meaning great number of seed, 'literal' seed), as outlined in the promises God gave to Israel (Jacob) in Genesis 27. Of the tribe of Judah was to come the "chief ruler" per 1 Chron.5. That means the royal sceptre, AND caretaker of God's law. That specific Gen.49:10 verse says neither the royal sceptre, nor the position of lawgiver, is to part from Judah's responsibility, ALL THE WAY UP TO SHILOH'S COMING, AND THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE TO HIM. The name "Shiloh" in that verse is put as a symbolic name for our Lord Jesus Christ.

I will be blunt also then. For Moses' father-in-law to be a Midianite priest, as God's Word says, and in more than one Scripture, he would have had to been a Midianite first, and not Ethiopian. But maybe some think Midianites and Ethiopians then were the same peoples? Well, they were not. There's a reason why God gave these geneaology links in His Word. One example was with the Levitical priesthood, because He commanded that only Levites and the sons of Aaron were to hold the priest office to Israel. And in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, some of the Levites had mixed their lineages, and Nethinims (given to Temple service) that had returned from Babylon with Judah were considered "polluted" from the priesthood because their genealogy could not be found of Israel: Ezra 2:58-62 58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two. 59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: 60 The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. 61 And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: 62 These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. (KJV) If Nethinim priests who were foreign born, were put from the priesthood EVEN THOUGH IT SHOWS THEY LIVED AMONG ISRAEL AS ISRAELITE PRIESTS, then why were they considered "as polluted", if it was ONLY about religion? It was because of God's Commandments for Israel to remain separate, and for the priesthood especially! So don't try and tell me that one's genealogy was not important to God per the Old Covenant times, especially within the Levitical priesthood. God even separated the tribe of Levi only, to carry the ark of the Covenant. Anyone else would suffer for carrying it. Judg 1:16 16 And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father in law, went up out of the city of palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which lieth in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt among the people. (KJV) In that verse, it's alluding to Jethro being of the Kenites, which was a nation of the land of Canaan, a people which God told Israel not to marry into. So what was Jethro, a Kenite, a Midianite, or an Ethiopian? Maybe some of you might want to try and go pay some prophet of Baalam to try and put a curse on me for saying all this. You can try, but God will reverse it back to you, because I'm staying in His Word on this matter of genealogy, because God is Who ordained the separation of peoples per the Old Covenant times. Here's a question within New Covenant timing: In Revelation 7 is mentioned 144,000, twelve thousand from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, being SEALED WITH GOD'S SEALING FOR THE ENDTIMES AGAINST DECEPTION. Does that mean 144,000 of ALL nations, or just Israelites? If the matter of geneaology is no longer important to God, then why does that still show a separation, even in the New Testament?

Per Exodus 2 & 3 & 18, Moses' father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Midian, and that would mean of the people of Midian. Midian was a son of Abraham by his later wife Keturah.

Someone who believes the races came from some curse, or by various theories of evolution are actually the 'racists'. Neither of those corrupt views give all races an equal standing in God's creation.

So does that mean not to expect a particular antichrist coming to sit in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God, which will work great signs and wonders on the earth to deceive with? We cannot exchange workings of believers falling away to things of this world for the specific warnings our Lord Jesus and His apostle Paul and John gave about a particular false one that is coming to direct all worship, and anything that is worshipped, to himself or an idol of himself. Rev 13:11-15 11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. (KJV) Except for the "great wonders" and "miracles" that coming false one is to personally do, those type of events happenned once before, in the days of Daniel. The false prophets that were jealous of Daniel being exalted above them coerced Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon into making a golden image of idol of himself, and commanding all to bow to it at the sound of the psalter. And those who refused to bow in worship to it were to be killed. That's the type of event the apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus was talking about in 2 Thess.2 and Matthew 24. Deeper... That false idol image is about the "image of jealousy" like in Ezekiel 8. Hearken to Ezekiel's vision, because it reveals just how far Judah had fallen away to bring their Babylon captivity, and how it relates to events of Rev.13 in final. Ezek 8:1-5 1 And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. 2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber. 3 And He put forth the form of an hand, and took me by a lock of mine head; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem, to the door of the inner gate that looketh toward the north; where was the seat of the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy. 4 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there, according to the vision that I saw in the plain. 5 Then said He unto me, Son of man, lift up thine eyes now the way toward the north. So I lifted up mine eyes the way toward the north, and behold northward at the gate of the altar this image of jealousy in the entry. (KJV) Don't forget this, for it is a parallel to the events coming, and relates to that false image of Rev.13. It's an "image of jealousy", and it's oriented towards the north, symbolic of God's Place. Our Heavenly Father said He is a jealous God; doesn't like it when His people fall to worship something else, especially a false idol. Ezek 8:6-11 6 He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from My sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations. 7 And He brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. 8 Then said He unto me, Son of man, dig now in the wall: and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door. 9 And He said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here. 10 So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and abominable beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about. 11 And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up. (KJV) Here the supposed leaders of the house of Israel are, bowing to anything and everything except God. And to make it look holy and religious they paint the images of them upon the walls. Do you think this is going on today? Ezek 8:12-14 12 Then said He unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth. 13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. 14 Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. (KJV) These things are taking place inside a Temple, in secret, behind closed doors. But God is showing Ezekiel, and us, what's really being done there. All this is by vision to Ezekiel. It serves as a blueprint for the falling away in the end times. Tammuz worship originated in ancient Babylon. Ezek 8:15-18 15 Then said He unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. 16 And He brought me into the inner court of the LORD's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. 17 Then He said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke Me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. 18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: Mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in Mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them. (KJV) In Ezekiel 9 God tells angels with an inkhorn to go into Jerusalem and put a mark upon the foreheads of the righteous that sigh and cry because of the abominations. All others He tells the angels to smite with a slaughter weapon, and to not spare, nor have pity, and to begin at His sanctuary (see what Apostle Peter said in 1 Peter 4:17 about where judgment will start).

Now then, for those who read my last posts. Later Assyriologists began to deny the early 3790 B.C. dating for Sargon, and inserted a later history timeline based on other names in the tablets that had no event-history correlation. They became divided into two main schools about the origin of the sudden higher culture among the Sumerians. But most all agreed on the existence of the Black race as Sumerians and a Semitic race of rulers. Some of the ancient Babylon brick tablet carved images of two races in the British Museum even support that. For those who want to disregard that, you can simply opt out, for I won't answer you, and that because what that evidence shows supports God's creation per The Bible, and the accounts of Genesis 2 through 4 also. Jer 13:23 23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. (KJV) There's no Biblical evidence that the races of man sprang from any curse. And that Jeremiah 13 verse is yet another example in favour of the argument of God's creation of all races in the beginning. Nor is there evidence that moving from one location on earth to another produced changes in race. So just HOW did the races of today come about? And per the documentation about the ancient Sumerian Black race before the flood, how did they come to exist after the flood? For those who really consider this, they'll discover that God creating all the races in the begininng is closer to His Word than the many doctrines of men we've been taught, like curses, and evolution theories.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 10 "When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her. The Lord did not forbid the Israelites from marrying people of other nations. Nor is there ever a mention of race involved. The problem was when they took wives who still followed and worshiped their old gods. That was the issue, not genetics. That's not Darwinian! Darwinian claims the human race came out of a population of evolved "ape ancestors". Darwinian claims populations of people moved to other regions and that population evolved traits to adapt to the region. Darwinian mocks the idea of the entire human race being started with one man and one woman. Nobody knows where the Garden of Eden was located, nor where Adam and Eve went to after being cast out of the Garden, nor how the earth looked before the Great Flood. But as for preachers believing in evolution and the like, this theory of yours isn't the counter to that. Your arguments cannot be supported Biblically either, as you have been shown. That Deut.21 Scripture must be read in context of the previous Deut.20 chapter, where God told Israel to literally wipe out the peoples in the land of inheritance He gave to Israel. Like I've already shown with children of Lot, many of the nations outside Canaan had a link with Abraham's family. That's who the Deut.21 Scripture applies to, and not to the nations of Canaan. When Esau married a daughter of Canaan, Isaac and Rebekah showed concern, but not when he also married a daughter of Ishmael. Yet what did his brother Jacob do? He married within his own family of Hebrews like he was told. The theories of evolution covers small theoretical changes within a specie also, like that of skin pigment color. If that is according to God's creation, then it would mean a working He set forth in nature, and it should still be happenning today. Yet there's no evidence for it today creating new races, nor in His Word. Instead, evidence in His Word is against such an idea of evolving skin colors (Jer.13:23). Here's an inscription quote by an Assyriologist about Sargon who came to ancient Babylonia-Sumer: "For forty-five years [the number of years is admittedly undecipherable] the kingdom I have ruled, and the black heads (or black) race I have governed. In multitudes of bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands. I governed the upper countries (Assyria, etc.). Three times to the sea I have advanced." (Ragozin's Chaldea, pp. 205-207.) Early Assyriologists (like Sayce and Hilprecht) documented Sargon's reign back to 3790 B.C. Sargon suddenly appears in the Sumerians early history, building the first city, giving them knowledge of agriculture and the sciences, etc. Something to note is that 3790 B.C. was long before the date for the flood of Noah. Also something to note; per bishop Ussher's Bible chronology (17th century) of going back from the time of Christ to the man Adam, the date of the man Adam in God's Garden was around 4004 B.C. The Assyriologists discovered Sargon's facial mask also, which is still in the British Museum. Sargon had what the Assyriologists called Semitic features, yet Shem wasn't even born in Sargon's time. The main point is, there's archeological evidence to show that the Black race existed back to Sargon's time, around 3790 B.C., long before Noah's flood, and quite close to the time of the man Adam (a mere 200 or so years difference). And, a man of Semitic features came among them (Sargon), advanced their culture, built their first city, and ruled over the ancient Sumerians (before it was Babylonia or Assyria-Babylon). And out of that also came another account of the creation, a version which more and more pastors subscribe to, simply because its archaeological record is older than the oldest Old Testament manuscripts (I personally do not subscribe to the Assyrian Tablet creation account, but the Biblical account instead.) Along with that, Sargon started the ancient pagan ideologies and religion which transferred to ancient Egypt and the Far East. So the archeological record does reveal the existence of the Black race even before the flood of Noah.

Gen 1:26-27 26 And God said, Let Us make man (aadam) 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. 27 So God created man (eth ha aadam) in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. (KJV) When aadam appears without the eth and ha, it means mankind in general. But with the eth and ha, it means a specific man. The Our likeness refers to the outer form shape or appearance, i.e. the image of man which God and the angels have. With the eth ha aadam, a greater specific is given with, "in His own image". The KJV translators did not bring forth the different Hebrew rendering of the word aadam in those verses. I'll lead you to it, but because of your attitude against me this is all I'll say on that... In Genesis 2 with the river that comes out of God's Garden of Eden to feed four other rivers on the earth, where are those other four rivers located? That's all I'll say on that point. Hey, you're only making that case against today's orthodox Jews who still hold to the Old Covenant ways of staying separate from the nations. That's where they got that tradition from, per the Old Covenant commandments. But me personally, it still doesn't mean I'm going to go out and seek to marry someone of another race. If others want to do that, that's between them and The LORD. I won't treat those who do differently either. I'm not a racist. How can I be, being also part Cherokee? But don't try and push popular socialist ideas of today into God's Own commandments per the Old Covenant for Israel to stay separate from the nations. You're only arguing against His order He setup then for Israel, and not against me.

Converts to Judaism were always allowed into their congregation. In the OT Law, the Lord also gave instructions for how they were to take wives for themselves among the people they conquored, if they chose to do so. You are failing to produce evidence that the Bible speaks of race - anywhere. Celt - you just lost your argument right here. The Scriptures are quite clear that Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives were the only human beings to have entered the ark. Read Gen. 7 No it is not. You have inserted your own interpretation of the word mamzer. If you want to convince anyone that this word means "mixed race" and not "illigitimate", you need to offer actual evidence. What you are proposing actually results in a problem called inbreeding. Cultures where no "new blood' is added to the mix always result in a high percentage of people born with physical deformities. What you are missing is that Scripture does not state from which nation Moab obtained his wife. And your evidence for such a claim is . . . ? I have not found anywhere in the Old Testament commandments where God said it was OK for Israel to marry among the nations. There are plenty of Scriptures which give His direct command to not take wives of other nations, and that He made Israel a separate people, even severed them from other nations (Lev.20:26). Even when speaking of allowing the stranger to come in among Israel, and be treated as one of them, the idea of marriage is not specifically covered; it is assumed only by many (like end of Lev.19). See Ezra 9-10 after the return of a small remnant of Israel for what many of Israel had done while in the Babylon captivity. Even the children of those mixed marriages were separated per the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Even the Nethinim foreigner priests that returned with a remnant of Israel from Babylon could not show their genealogy in Israel, and were thus deemed polluted from the priesthood (Ezra 2). That was per the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. I realize the word mamzer is considered to mainly mean an offspring out of wedlock, see also Zech.9:6 for its usage. "Judaism" is about the religion of the Jews, an oral based tradition system which groups like the Pharisees came up with after the return from the Babylon captivity. Christ and His Apostle Paul had many things to say against the religion of the Jews. The idea about "new blood", so that's why my corrupt college Biology text taught why the royal families of Europe are messed up, because they didn't mix with other races also, but kept to marriages in their own families? Abraham and Sarah were half-sister and half-brother, yet we didn't see the "new blood" idea making a difference with them. A lot of that is just hype by the same ones that want us to believe the false human embyro drawing in Biology texts that looks the same as other animals too. Concerning Ruth the Moabitess; there's no evidence she was of a different race. The main argument God had against the Moabites was because how they tried to curse Israel, and had fallen into false worship. Even the other son by Lot's daughter was named 'Benammi', which means "son of my people", referring to Lot's people, who was nephew to Abraham a Hebrew. Benammi became the people of Ammon. We are not told specifically where Lot's wife was from, so it's not enough to say she was of a different people. The evidence that the races did not come out of the man Adam and Eve exists in the Hebrew of Gen.1:26-27, with the difference between the article and particle before the word 'aadam', and also another 'aadam' without which points to mankind in general per the Hebrew. One reads this man Adam, and the other reads 'man'. This is why I believe God created a specific man in His Garden to till the soil, which would represent the seed of the woman from which Christ would come, and He also created all the races and placed them outside His Garden, which is represented by the "land of Nod" from which Cain took his wife from. It points to God creating the man Adam, and all the races on His sixth day, and then He said it was good. Adam and Eve having other sons and daughters is not even mentioned until Genesis 5.

Where do many get the false idea that this matter is about hatred of races? Those who began that idea long ago were merely dishing out disinformation to fit their personal political correctness. This idea I'm speaking of from God's Word is in SUPPORT of His creation and in SUPPORT of all the races He created, and God said it was good! I've had Black people come up to me almost crying with tears because they knew very well their race did NOT spring from some curse because of Ham's sin, and I showed Biblically how they are right, they didn't come from some curse. So this matter is not about racial bigotry like some have been falsely fed that it is. Can you imagine how many Black people feel when some illiterate preacher teaches their race came from a curse, especially when that is not Biblical? I also am part Cherokee Indian, my great-grandmother was half. My grandmother was the last to have any of the Cherokee features and ways, yet she was a very strong Christian woman. So I'm not preaching "racial separation"; I'm showing how God is The Creator, and how He originally created the races the way He wanted them. That makes us all equal racially, and gets rid of any curse superstitious ideas that have crept in over the centuries from men's doctrines. And like I said, this is not a Salvation issue since the New Covenant came. But under the Old Covenant, Israel was to remain a separate people per God's Word, and it was not only about marrying into the other nations because of pagan religion, though that was a major part of the reason. What's really sad, is that a lot of preachers today have gone over to side of Darwinism because of believing the races came out of one man and one woman, some even believing their theories that all peoples came out of Africa. That cannot be supported Biblically.

Wow, some here are actually going to try and infer that the Jewish people have not tried to keep their race? When did the Jewish people ever teach that it's OK for them to mix up their own race? God's Word covers the possibility of two of each race on board the ark, because God told Noah to take two of ALL flesh on board in Gen.6. The eight souls mentioned by Peter were from Noah's family. If we're going to try to do absolutism here, then this must be considered too... Gen 6:19 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. (KJV) Further, in Gen.7 God told Noah to take aboard of every 'clean beast' and clean fowl by sevens. And personally, I believe the flood covered the whole earth. The Deut.23:2 verse is proof that God does not want us to mix our race. It is about one of mixed race not being allowed to enter the congregation of The LORD to the tenth generation, and that applied to Israel in Old Covenant times. It is not a Salvation issue today, but it still shows God created all peoples the way He wanted us to appear. Why else would He declare that for Israel? Because like He said, Israel was to be a holy people to Himself. What happens after the offspring of a mixed race continues to marry only in one side? The mixed racial characteristics begin to be purged out, which shows a natural going back to the way God created, and is the opposite of the idea of evolution of species. It stands as Biblical proof that the races did not spring from evolution. About Ruth: Moab was one of the sons of Lot, and Lot was a son of Abraham's brother Haran (Gen.11). There's no reason to try and create a new race from what Lot's two daughters did unto their father. Trying to say that event created a new race is no different than those who try to say the Black race came out of Ham's sin he did unto his father Noah, to produce Canaan. Because God allowed Ruth, a Moabitess, to be a part of Christ's lineage, likewise with Tamar, Bathsheba and Rahab, it's still not reason enough to assume they were different races simply because of coming from different nations. No, I do not believe that all peoples came out of Adam and Eve, for that's the idea of evolution of species. God is not an evolutionist. Eve is not the mother of all peoples simply because of the phrase "mother of all living". She represents the mother of all living in the spiritual sense, because Christ would be born through her seed, as shown in Genesis 3:15.

Acts 17:25-26 25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed any thing, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; (KJV) So how do we, as Christians that believe in God's creation, understand that Acts verse about God having made of one blood all nations of men? It's time to check what you believe folks. Is it God's creation, or is it men's doctrines of evolution? Are peoples from different races able to share like blood types in a hospital? Yes. Does that mean all races evolved too? No. It's either God's creation, or man's evolution, there's no middle ground on that in God's Word.

Can't buy that. What you are appear to be saying is that Noah also brought to of each race of Humans on the Ark and the Bible doesn't support that. 1 Peter 3:20 says that there were only eight people aboard the ark. Wrong. The word for "perfect" as used here is a moral term, not a physical one. The whole verse is talking about Noah being an just and blameless man. The word for "perfect" means blameless. The verse goes on to say that Noah walked with God. No, it says one born of a forbidden union. It refers to a child born out of harlotry, or out adultery or other forbidden union. God only forbade intermarriage as it pertained to those who worshipped other gods. In that manner the commandment would keep them pure. It was not with a view of racial "purity" of spiritual purity to keep idolatry out of the Land of Israel. Moses married a black woman and we have record of other interracial marriages in the Bible. If you want to really get technical, even Jesus had a mixed lineage. You don't subscribe to the racist "British Israelism" garbage that holds that the white/caucasians are the "ten lost tribes" do you? I'm aware of the 1 Peter 3:20 verse which says "eight souls" were saved by water. I'm also aware that somehow... the races survived the flood. And there's not one bit of evidence to support that today's races came about from some curse, or evolution. If there was such evidence, there'd be more races springing up than what there are today. Yet we cannot find a single shred of evidence to suggest that two parents of one race produce a totally different race. The reason no such evidence can be found is because God already created the races long ago, before the flood, and they are still with us today. That leaves only 2 possibilities for their survival through the flood of Noah. 1) either two of each race were also brought on the ark, along with the eight souls of Noah's family, or 2) the flood was only to a local area on earth, and not over the entire earth. The word translated to "earth" can also be translated to "land". The word "perfect" in Noah being "perfect in his generations" of Gen.6:9 is the Hebrew word tamiym, a word ALSO used to describe a perfect unblemished animal for sacrifice (like Exo.12:5). Noah was both morally pure and also geneologically pure. In that Gen.6 chapter we are told the "sons of God" looked upon flesh daughters, and took WIVES, and begat children, the Nephilim (fallen ones), called "giants" there. So that Genesis 6 chapter has very much to do with the subject of geneaology. It is not simply a morality description. In Jude 1 we are told those angels didn't keep their first estate but left their own habitation. It was about co-habitating with flesh woman to produce offspring. Excuse me, I mean Deut.23:2, which states that a "bastard" is not to enter into the congregation of The LORD to his tenth generation. That most definitely is about geneology. The Hebrew word is 'mamzer', which is pointing to one of mixed race. Concerning the wife of Moses, many get that wrong too, for his father-in-law was a Midianite priest. Midian was one of the sons of Abraham and his later wife Keturah (Gen.25; Exo.2). So the wife of Moses was not of the Black race. That's a myth some try and use in support of racial intermarriage. I see you're more concerned with an idea like "British-Israel" which I never mentioned, instead of checking out what I stated about the Behistun Rock carving in northern Iraq. Strange there's so much junk being pushed to support inter-racial marriages today by certain ones, when God's Word does not support it. In Leviticus 19:19 God showed that we aren't even to mix animals to make hybrids, so what makes some think it's OK to mix the races He originally created the way He wanted them to appear? It's really not that difficult to distinguish even here on this Forum those who are set on supporting theories of evolution instead of God's creation per His Word.

God created ALL the races the way He wanted them to appear. Anything else is not the concept of His creation, but the theory of evolution. Think about it. Isn't it possible that many have missed something in His Word that supports His creation, and not the idea that all races 'evolved'? I think so. In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:26-27, there's a distinction between the word 'aadam' with the article and particle, and 'aadam' without the article and particle. With the article and particle (eth Ha aadam) means a specific man Adam, but 'aadam' by itself means mankind (i.e., the races). It's the same idea in the grammar of all languages. If we speak of 'this man' doing something, we know it means singular, a certain man. But if we speak of 'man' doing something, it means mankind in general. Gen.1:26-27 reveals God created a specific man Adam, and adam (mankind) on His 6th day. In Deut.7:6, God said He created Israel to be a special people separate from all the nations; that He created Israel to be a holy people unto Himself. He wasn't knocking the nations of Gentiles with that, because Israel was to be caretaker of His Truth for the benefit of ALL peoples. That purpose is also shown in Gen.2 with the man Adam, since it's eth Ha aadam there again in Gen.2. Canaan: In Gen.6, we are told that Noah was "perfect in his generations". That means from the Hebrew he was not mixed with other races, so his specific race was pure. It is an important matter, because God showed in Deut.24 that one of mixed race was not to enter into the congregation of Israel to his tenth generation. What does that mean for Noah's three sons, Ham, Japheth, and Shem? It means they also had to be the same race as Noah. Can't say Jewish, nor Hebrew, for the ones born where those titles came from weren't born yet. The sin Ham did unto his father Noah was about incest, because the expression 'thy father's nakedness' means the nakedness of one's wife per Leviticus 18 & 20. Ham got his father Noah drunk, and then slept with his own mother, and the offspring result was Canaan. And again, Canaan had to have been of the same race as Ham, and thus Noah. The Biblically illiterate started the false idea that the Black race came out of Ham's sin long ago, but it's always been a very un-Biblical idea. Also, it was Noah that said 'cursed be Canaan', not God. That's why Canaan was Ham's son. In today's northern Iraq, the Behistun Rock mountain carving still exists, showing the features of tribal chieftans bound together of the ten tribes of Israel after they were taken captive by the king of Assyria. Their features are Indo-European or Caucasian per that carving. Even the Assyrian Tablets show racial feature distinctions between Sargon the first and the race of people in ancient Sumer (later Assyria, Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Iraq) which called theirselves the "blackheads". A metal mask of Sargon's facial features still exists in the British Museum, and he had what's called Semitic features. Many scholars assume Ham was of the Black race when that's unBiblical too. Ham's name means 'hot', so no doubt that helped such interpretations, and also the fact that Ham became the father of the Cushites, Mizraim, Phut (Put). How strange is it that the Canaanite peoples were not necessarily Black, but the other nations of Ham generally were? I believe the matter becomes easier once we realize the possibility that since God told Noah to bring two of all flesh on board the ark, that it meant two of each race of those God created on the sixth day also. Anything else would be the theory of evolution. It would explain how Ham and Japheth mixed with the other races to produce the races in the areas where they migrated to, with Shem only staying pure all the way back to the man Adam. Naturally, the evolutionists are going to be against this, along with those who have 'bought in' to the evolution concept.