And Also Afterwards…

Palehorse

Well-Known Member
I thought I saw a tint of racism as I was reading it. When the author speaks of "...not only did He divide up the world by language and genetics..." There is actually more genetic differences within "races" than there are between so-called, races. That notion that the "races" are divided up genetically, is, in itself, a racist trope that has been used in the past, in order to view others as "inferior" and, along with Evolutionism, has been used to justify the eugenics movement (championed by Margaret Sanger--the founder of Planned Parenthood) and abortion as means of ridding us of "human weeds".

The dominant group in China today (known as "the Han") think of themselves as "genetically superior" to all others. It is rumoured that the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) actually use it among themselves to justify their treatment of the Uyghurs (some of whom have blue eyes, by the way). We are ALL descendants of Adam and Eve and, in turn, descendants of Noah and his wife and descendants. Satan apparently approves when we divide ourselves along racial, ethnic, etc. boundaries. If he can then get us to hate each other, he is one step closer to causing the thievery and murder that he desires for humankind--because all humans are made in the image of God, whom Satan hates.
Not sure which author you were referring to regarding reading a “tint of racism.” Please specify/clarify “who,” thanks.
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
A really great article by Pete. I'm a long time fan of Tim Chaffee's book on the subject, he did a lot of good research that is backed up by evidence in the Bible as well as ancient writings.

I enjoyed it thoroughly. I particularly enjoyed the link to the pdf on Nimrod. That lines up nicely in history. And the ancient ode to Enlil to restore the One Language is really eye opening.

The division of the nations was necessary to keep people from forming the One World Govt system too early.

Babel, reaches down thru the ages, influencing religion and government and is rising again in time for it's moment on the world stage as permitted by God. The dream of a united planet under 1 government is always there. Along with the idea that we can achieve salvation thru our efforts.

As people spread out across the earth, the divisions of language kept them apart and the natural unsaved, unregenerate human tendency to want to kill each other helped keep them apart.

As for the fallen ones, the offspring of the fallen angels and human women, it's a definite fit with the descriptions of the ancient myths.

When almost every culture across the planet has a creation account, a flood account and talks of 2 things we don't see now-- dragons and giants it's wise to consider that the common elements of all these accounts relate back to the Biblical accounts.

Just because we don't see a T Rex strolling along hunting for lunch nowadays, doesn't mean they didn't exist previously.

There is a very common tendency to discount things as legends once the original giants and fire breathing flying serpents died out. It goes along with the idea of uniformitarianism which is the belief that all the geologic stuff we see took many years. Peter talks about it in 2Peter 3.

In reality, it was a short period of time, the flood and afterwards where a lot of stuff happened to account for the geology we see.

For example the Grand Canyon was considered to be the product of millions of years. Till Mt St Helens blew, and deposited layers that were almost immediately eroded into a mini Grand Canyon.
 

Palehorse

Well-Known Member
I quoted from the article--not sure if it was the original article on that website referenced by Pete Garcia or Pete Garcia himself.
I wrote the article, so naturally, I would want to make sure you were referring to me, or to Hislop.

I don't think it's racist to make note that God separated people genetically. I've stated in previous articles, that Noah, along with his sons, all likely looked the same. I don't think Shem was brown, Japeth, white, and Ham, black. I think they all looked "Middle Eastern." Also, I don't think it's racist to note Genesis 10 has what we refer to as the "table of nations," (70 future nations that is) who would come from Noah's sons. I wrote quite alot about this in my "The Noah Chronicles-Volume 4." For the record- every son (Shem, Ham, Japeth) had dark-skinned 'clans' in their lineage if you follow all the family trees down.

Again, acknowledging this is not racist.

Now, have people abused and misused these passages, yes, especially for racist purposes. However, I think it's ill-form to ascribe motives and ideologies to me because I talk about where the different races came from. The fact we have different ethnic races today, is proof, at some point, God separated people genetically....or everyone would still look all the same.
 

cshere

Well-Known Member
I love your articles so much....it is as if you put down topics that I'm thinking about, but really making them more on target in my mind. This topic, however, I've never really gone into much, but the things you are writing about really got me thinking and loving that God so OFTEN brings everything around to the very beginning and, like a spiral, uses our own life, or point in time, as a pin-point (or as a focal point) to start with, but, certainly not be limited by. If we look up and open up to more of the whole Scripture, it's like the vortex is whirling over us...everything from the beginning, with His Spirit showing us with every turn how overwhelmingly wise and wonderful the Lord is. This article has made me more at ease with what is happening and understanding the Lord is buttoning up the evil that has existed since before we can even think about. But, his plan was in place and because the future deals with the same evil, I seem to be able to rest more that He has, indeed, got a handle on this from the beginning. I have known this, but, this article makes it plainer to me, or, maybe I'm just gaining a bit more understanding of His word. I don't know, but, THANK YOU for your faithfulness in your writings and sharing. I love your website, also.

The above paragraph may be a jumble to understand, but, please just accept it as a thank you....:)
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
I wrote the article, so naturally, I would want to make sure you were referring to me, or to Hislop.

I don't think it's racist to make note that God separated people genetically. I've stated in previous articles, that Noah, along with his sons, all likely looked the same. I don't think Shem was brown, Japeth, white, and Ham, black. I think they all looked "Middle Eastern." Also, I don't think it's racist to note Genesis 10 has what we refer to as the "table of nations," (70 future nations that is) who would come from Noah's sons. I wrote quite alot about this in my "The Noah Chronicles-Volume 4." For the record- every son (Shem, Ham, Japeth) had dark-skinned 'clans' in their lineage if you follow all the family trees down.

Again, acknowledging this is not racist.

Now, have people abused and misused these passages, yes, especially for racist purposes. However, I think it's ill-form to ascribe motives and ideologies to me because I talk about where the different races came from. The fact we have different ethnic races today, is proof, at some point, God separated people genetically....or everyone would still look all the same.

I agree Pete. I have been posting your articles for years and have never seen a hint of racism anywhere. Sometimes it is difficult to acknowledge things that we must. For example, if people would acknowledge the "inconvenient truths" in the culture wars and end times politics we would be better off than we are than swallowing the lies that are deceiving so many. :doh

I don't think it is racist as you said to note that God did separate people genetically. It's the only way to logically explain the differences in people from one major region of the world to another (Asia, Africa, Europe, etc.). This "God did it" is not an excuse to justify racism or anything like that, but we all have to remember that God's ways are not our ways, His thoughts are not our thoughts. He knows alot better than we do. So, I'm like of the opinion as who am I (the clay) to question the God (the potter)? :idunno

Anyway, great article as usual! :thumbup
 

Amethyst

Angie ... †
When almost every culture across the planet has a creation account, a flood account and talks of 2 things we don't see now-- dragons and giants it's wise to consider that the common elements of all these accounts relate back to the Biblical accounts.
Good point. It seems that some things are so overwhelmingly historically accurate that pagan religions have to come up with their own version to detract from the authentic and the true God. Such as the Flood.
 
Last edited:

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
I wrote the article, so naturally, I would want to make sure you were referring to me, or to Hislop.

I don't think it's racist to make note that God separated people genetically. I've stated in previous articles, that Noah, along with his sons, all likely looked the same. I don't think Shem was brown, Japeth, white, and Ham, black. I think they all looked "Middle Eastern." Also, I don't think it's racist to note Genesis 10 has what we refer to as the "table of nations," (70 future nations that is) who would come from Noah's sons. I wrote quite alot about this in my "The Noah Chronicles-Volume 4." For the record- every son (Shem, Ham, Japeth) had dark-skinned 'clans' in their lineage if you follow all the family trees down.

Again, acknowledging this is not racist.

Now, have people abused and misused these passages, yes, especially for racist purposes. However, I think it's ill-form to ascribe motives and ideologies to me because I talk about where the different races came from. The fact we have different ethnic races today, is proof, at some point, God separated people genetically....or everyone would still look all the same.
Didn't mean to offend you--I apologize if anything I said, did offend you. However, if you will note, I gave my reasons for rejecting the notion that God separated humans genetically, since there are vanishingly small genetic differences between ANY groups of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens). For example, the "Caucasian race" includes people who, yes, tend to have very light skin, blond hair/blue eyes (in northern Europe) but there are millions upon millions of "Caucasians" with dark skin, black hair and very dark eyes (those from southern India). There are more genetic differences between men and women than there are between one "racial" group or another. We are all intertwined.

It's just my opinion, but it is probably best to say that God separated us by confusing our languages and then people just naturally drifted away from each other geographically. I don't think genetics had much to do with it. When one reads the text, it very much sounds like God's purpose was not to separate us physically, due to any physical characteristics. Rather, it seems that it was to separate us linguistically/culturally/intellectually so that unredeemed humanity could not accomplish the evil what we see today under the aegis of English as, more-or-less, the universal language of science, technology and business. Again, this is just my opinion and I hope you don't think I am nit-picking but I think it is important to avoid any appearance of evil. Those who belong to this world are not above using anything to smear Christians. Truly sorry if I hurt your feelings.
 

Batfan7

Well-Known Member
Hola! Just for the sake of the general conversation, the book I reference at the bottom in the Author's note (which is not captured in this forum) is from Tim Chaffey's recent book (Answer's in Genesis/Risen Ministries). This was his academic thesis which he had to defend for his MA. The book is bursting at the seams with historical/archeological/biblical sources, citations, and documentation. I plug his book in the article, not on here, just to say that it is by far, the best book I've ever read on the subject. Very exhaustive research.

A lot of his main points that he arrives at in the book are points I've already held long before I read his book (like who the Sons of God were or whether giants actually existed). But he deep dives into so many other things and ties them together in a way I am unable to do in an article (without it being 50K words long). So if I included it in the article, it is not sheer speculation, but there is also some strong evidence to tie things together. Thanks for reading and always enjoy reading the feedback on here (both good and bad!)
I appreciate the response!
 

Palehorse

Well-Known Member
Didn't mean to offend you--I apologize if anything I said, did offend you. However, if you will note, I gave my reasons for rejecting the notion that God separated humans genetically, since there are vanishingly small genetic differences between ANY groups of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens). For example, the "Caucasian race" includes people who, yes, tend to have very light skin, blond hair/blue eyes (in northern Europe) but there are millions upon millions of "Caucasians" with dark skin, black hair and very dark eyes (those from southern India). There are more genetic differences between men and women than there are between one "racial" group or another. We are all intertwined.

It's just my opinion, but it is probably best to say that God separated us by confusing our languages and then people just naturally drifted away from each other geographically. I don't think genetics had much to do with it. When one reads the text, it very much sounds like God's purpose was not to separate us physically, due to any physical characteristics. Rather, it seems that it was to separate us linguistically/culturally/intellectually so that unredeemed humanity could not accomplish the evil what we see today under the aegis of English as, more-or-less, the universal language of science, technology and business. Again, this is just my opinion and I hope you don't think I am nit-picking but I think it is important to avoid any appearance of evil. Those who belong to this world are not above using anything to smear Christians. Truly sorry if I hurt your feelings.
My feelings are intact, and I welcome differing opinions (iron sharpening iron and all). However, ascribing something as odious as racism to me (as implied) because of the theological conclusions I arrive at, is uncalled for and unChristian. I do not subscribe to Critical Race Theory tactics, but it would be like me counter-accusing you of promoting that (equally odious).

My conclusions are based on

a) what the bible says (man refused to scatter and fill the earth- so God scattered them)

So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Genesis 11:8

b) the reality that God is omniscient and knew who carried what genes and what those combinations of people groups would look like hundreds to thousands of years later

and He made from one man every nation (ethnos) of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, Acts 17:26

c) the fact that we have a cornucopia of vastly different people groups today, who biologically might be virtually identical, but look vastly different, is a reality

However, let us consider your perspective for a second from a logic-based point of view. Let's set aside WHY God separated mankind (we agree there) and say God only separated people linguistically and people, either slowly or quickly, "drifted away" away from Babel. How did they drift away? Presumably, they left with people who spoke dialects or languages, they could understand.

Is it possible that God separated people linguistically, who carried particular sets of DNA that would later form the 70 nations as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 10?

I say yes.

Clearly, two later passages allude to both the reality of this separation (Acts 17:26) and the issues that would come along with God knowingly separating mankind by not only language but by physical appearance and cultural differences (Matt. 24:7- ethnos against ethnos)

But to your specific point, how does language physically change our biological makeup? Or does it? I think science and common sense would answer a resounding no.

For example, if I became fluent in Mandarin Chinese, and I taught it to my children, and they, their children and we did that for generations....would we begin to look Asian?

No. That is ridiculous.

I know German Mennonites who have lived deep in the mountains of northern Mexico many generations and are as blonde-haired and blue-eyed as their great, great grandparents were. And their Spanish is flawless.

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but you are absolutely missing mine.

God absolutely knew what He was doing at Babel, and He was ensuring that there were enough differences in the human race (I presume everyone looked a lot alike at Babel) and both the physical and linguistic scattering, would take millennia for mankind and Satan to undo.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
My feelings are intact, and I welcome differing opinions (iron sharpening iron and all). However, ascribing something as odious as racism to me (as implied) because of the theological conclusions I arrive at, is uncalled for and unChristian. I do not subscribe to Critical Race Theory tactics, but it would be like me counter-accusing you of promoting that (equally odious).

My conclusions are based on

a) what the bible says (man refused to scatter and fill the earth- so God scattered them)

So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Genesis 11:8

b) the reality that God is omniscient and knew who carried what genes and what those combinations of people groups would look like hundreds to thousands of years later

and He made from one man every nation (ethnos) of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, Acts 17:26

c) the fact that we have a cornucopia of vastly different people groups today, who biologically might be virtually identical, but look vastly different, is a reality

However, let us consider your perspective for a second from a logic-based point of view. Let's set aside WHY God separated mankind (we agree there) and say God only separated people linguistically and people, either slowly or quickly, "drifted away" away from Babel. How did they drift away? Presumably, they left with people who spoke dialects or languages, they could understand.

Is it possible that God separated people linguistically, who carried particular sets of DNA that would later form the 70 nations as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 10?

I say yes.

Clearly, two later passages allude to both the reality of this separation (Acts 17:26) and the issues that would come along with God knowingly separating mankind by not only language but by physical appearance and cultural differences (Matt. 24:7- ethnos against ethnos)

But to your specific point, how does language physically change our biological makeup? Or does it? I think science and common sense would answer a resounding no.

For example, if I became fluent in Mandarin Chinese, and I taught it to my children, and they, their children and we did that for generations....would we begin to look Asian?

No. That is ridiculous.

I know German Mennonites who have lived deep in the mountains of northern Mexico many generations and are as blonde-haired and blue-eyed as their great, great grandparents were. And their Spanish is flawless.

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but you are absolutely missing mine.

God absolutely knew what He was doing at Babel, and He was ensuring that there were enough differences in the human race (I presume everyone looked a lot alike at Babel) and both the physical and linguistic scattering, would take millennia for mankind and Satan to undo.
I never ascribed racism to you--I don't know you nor do I know your motives. I was commenting on the text alone and how it could possibly be misinterpreted. I was not accusing the writer of racism at all--at least that was not my intention, even though you apparently took it that way. I was merely pointing out that we give ammunition to those who would malign "white Christians" when we cite genetic differences as a way that God separates people groups. I don't actually think He does--I would disagree with you on that point.

Why would He use genetic diversity as the basis for dividing people groups? His pattern, in the Old Testament, is clearly religious (heathen/pagan vs. the true faith of His children) and linguistic/cultural in the Old Testament. Interestingly, He followed that pattern in the New Testament as well--Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc. The pouring out of His Holy Spirit on the Church at Pentecost, which I take as a partial removal of the actions (for the Church only) that God took at Babel--was linguistic, not genetic. Racism is really just a construct that has only come about in modern times. Much too much has been made of genetic differences because of it--and we do not help our cause by citing genetic differences and God in the same sentence. That is my firm opinion on the subject. From the tone of your response, it seems that you were offended--again, sorry if anything I wrote offended you. By the way, saying that you could accuse me of Critical Race Theory, even though you consider the action would be "odious" is tantamount to doing so. Critical Race Theory is the worst sort of racism.
 

Palehorse

Well-Known Member

SFLC "End Times" Wed. night series: pt.3 - Dr. George W. Westlake, Jr., PhD - 06/26/13​


Dr Westlake Jr spoke on Nephilim

Pete it's Tim Cameron, If you can listen from listen the 36-minute mark forward I'd love to hear your thoughts


****hope I'm not violating forum rule
I think he is wrong on almost every one of those points (except the part about Nephilim being aliens) I agree there. However, all of the points Dr. Westlake makes are addressed almost verbatim in Chaffey's book exhaustively and debunked.

Summary:

1. The Sons of God could only be the Fallen Angels because the Sethite/Cainite/Royalty views are full of major plotholes that make their own positions invalid. For example- human plus human does not equal Nephilim (this means giant, not fallen one). If this view were true, human history up to and including our own day, would be full of giants. And the bible does distinguish between tall people, and Nephilim (giants).

2. The fact that the Fallen Angels (not the angels in heaven) could marry and procreate, does not mean they are creating life any more than we are "creating life" (ex nihilo- out of nothing) when we procreate. Jesus didn't say the angels couldn't procreate, He stated the angels in heaven do not marry. Again, this is exhaustively presented in the book.

3. The Sons of God (bene al elohim) (I might have misspelled that) is also proven throughout the Old Testament as applying to these spiritual beings. Even demons were called elohim (god(s)) (Deut. 32:17). The fact they were sons of God, as I understand it, means they were direct creations of God. This is why this term is applied to the born-again believer in the New Testament. We are direct creations of God by salvation. Adam was the only human that was a direct creation of God. The only other times in the OT were we see that phrase (sons of God) are in Job when speaking of the angels.

4. Why would the godly line of Seth, still be Godly, if they were marrying the ungodly lines of Cain? And where in the passage does it say "the daughters of Cain?" It says the daughters of men.

5. The 120 years was not a countdown to the flood. It was an inclusio (bracket or bookend) that God began curbing the lifespan of man; Adam was immortal until he sinned, his life span was then reduced down to under a thousand years. Wickedness filled the earth and God again, curbs mankind's lifespan down to 120 years. Moses wrote Genesis long before he himself died at the age of 120 (the other bookend). Moses wrote that the average would be 70-80 years, but the uttermost top age, would not exceed 120 years.

6. Dr. Westlake states that Noah was a Nephilim (a spiritual giant). Someone speaks from the background that we (Christians) are also Nephilim. I think that view is severely flawed given the other passages about Nephilim (Joshua and Caleb's report in Numbers 13:33) about the Nephilim in the land.

I'm sure I would agree with Dr. Westlake on other issues, but he's got some strange views on Genesis 6.
 

Palehorse

Well-Known Member
I never ascribed racism to you--I don't know you nor do I know your motives. I was commenting on the text alone and how it could possibly be misinterpreted. I was not accusing the writer of racism at all--at least that was not my intention, even though you apparently took it that way. I was merely pointing out that we give ammunition to those who would malign "white Christians" when we cite genetic differences as a way that God separates people groups. I don't actually think He does--I would disagree with you on that point.

Why would He use genetic diversity as the basis for dividing people groups? His pattern, in the Old Testament, is clearly religious (heathen/pagan vs. the true faith of His children) and linguistic/cultural in the Old Testament. Interestingly, He followed that pattern in the New Testament as well--Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc. The pouring out of His Holy Spirit on the Church at Pentecost, which I take as a partial removal of the actions (for the Church only) that God took at Babel--was linguistic, not genetic. Racism is really just a construct that has only come about in modern times. Much too much has been made of genetic differences because of it--and we do not help our cause by citing genetic differences and God in the same sentence. That is my firm opinion on the subject. From the tone of your response, it seems that you were offended--again, sorry if anything I wrote offended you. By the way, saying that you could accuse me of Critical Race Theory, even though you consider the action would be "odious" is tantamount to doing so. Critical Race Theory is the worst sort of racism.
"I thought I saw a tint of racism as I was reading it. When the author speaks of "...not only did He divide up the world by language and genetics..." There is actually more genetic differences within "races" than there are between so-called, races. That notion that the "races" are divided up genetically, is, in itself, a racist trope that has been used in the past, in order to view others as "inferior" and, along with Evolutionism, has been used to justify the eugenics movement (championed by Margaret Sanger--the founder of Planned Parenthood) and abortion as means of ridding us of "human weeds"."

Your words. This is why I wanted to clarify who you were ascribing this to first before I responded.

Since I wrote those words, and you saw a "tint of racism" when reading it, you're implying that I was regurgitating a racist trope.

Again, I'm not offended, because I'm not a racist. It would be like if someone accused me of being a kleptomaniac. I would only take offense at that if there were truth to it.

Me using CRT as an example, even calling it equally odious, is not tantamount to calling you that. I don't know you, and I would never call you (or anyone that) unless they were actually promoting it. My point then, and now, is that it is odious because it promotes racism and division in the body of Christ. Implying my view is a form of racism (even a tint) is very divisive language. I've gone to great lengths in many articles to show how and why I think genetically, God knew what He was doing dividing mankind up the way He did.

Again, not arguing, and I'm disengaging at this point.
 

cheeky200386

Well-Known Member
I never ascribed racism to you--I don't know you nor do I know your motives. I was commenting on the text alone and how it could possibly be misinterpreted. I was not accusing the writer of racism at all--at least that was not my intention, even though you apparently took it that way. I was merely pointing out that we give ammunition to those who would malign "white Christians" when we cite genetic differences as a way that God separates people groups. I don't actually think He does--I would disagree with you on that point.

Why would He use genetic diversity as the basis for dividing people groups? His pattern, in the Old Testament, is clearly religious (heathen/pagan vs. the true faith of His children) and linguistic/cultural in the Old Testament. Interestingly, He followed that pattern in the New Testament as well--Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, etc. The pouring out of His Holy Spirit on the Church at Pentecost, which I take as a partial removal of the actions (for the Church only) that God took at Babel--was linguistic, not genetic. Racism is really just a construct that has only come about in modern times. Much too much has been made of genetic differences because of it--and we do not help our cause by citing genetic differences and God in the same sentence. That is my firm opinion on the subject. From the tone of your response, it seems that you were offended--again, sorry if anything I wrote offended you. By the way, saying that you could accuse me of Critical Race Theory, even though you consider the action would be "odious" is tantamount to doing so. Critical Race Theory is the worst sort of racism.
It seemed clear to me you were attributing racism to the author. Maybe you didn't mean to but that is what was conveyed.
 

cheeky200386

Well-Known Member
"I thought I saw a tint of racism as I was reading it. When the author speaks of "...not only did He divide up the world by language and genetics..." There is actually more genetic differences within "races" than there are between so-called, races. That notion that the "races" are divided up genetically, is, in itself, a racist trope that has been used in the past, in order to view others as "inferior" and, along with Evolutionism, has been used to justify the eugenics movement (championed by Margaret Sanger--the founder of Planned Parenthood) and abortion as means of ridding us of "human weeds"."

Your words. This is why I wanted to clarify who you were ascribing this to first before I responded.

Since I wrote those words, and you saw a "tint of racism" when reading it, you're implying that I was regurgitating a racist trope.

Again, I'm not offended, because I'm not a racist. It would be like if someone accused me of being a kleptomaniac. I would only take offense at that if there were truth to it.

Me using CRT as an example, even calling it equally odious, is not tantamount to calling you that. I don't know you, and I would never call you (or anyone that) unless they were actually promoting it. My point then, and now, is that it is odious because it promotes racism and division in the body of Christ. Implying my view is a form of racism (even a tint) is very divisive language. I've gone to great lengths in many articles to show how and why I think genetically, God knew what He was doing dividing mankind up the way He did.

Again, not arguing, and I'm disengaging at this point.
Thank you for writing this article. I have never seen racism in any of your posts and appreciate the great lengths you have gone to explain your case for why God would separate people by genetics. It makes sense logically when we see how various people groups have similar characteristics but differ from others. I have always wondered what Adam and Eve looked like and Noah and his sons too.

I am curious to know if we'll see how things play out on Earth whil we're in heaven. Whether the Mark changes people's DNA or if Nephilim DNA play some role in the last 7 years.
 

Reason & Hope

Well-Known Member
Hola! Just for the sake of the general conversation, the book I reference at the bottom in the Author's note (which is not captured in this forum) is from Tim Chaffey's recent book (Answer's in Genesis/Risen Ministries). This was his academic thesis which he had to defend for his MA. The book is bursting at the seams with historical/archeological/biblical sources, citations, and documentation. I plug his book in the article, not on here, just to say that it is by far, the best book I've ever read on the subject. Very exhaustive research.

A lot of his main points that he arrives at in the book are points I've already held long before I read his book (like who the Sons of God were or whether giants actually existed). But he deep dives into so many other things and ties them together in a way I am unable to do in an article (without it being 50K words long). So if I included it in the article, it is not sheer speculation, but there is also some strong evidence to tie things together. Thanks for reading and always enjoy reading the feedback on here (both good and bad!)
I just ordered his book, based on your article and recommendation.
 

Lynn

Longing for Home
Creation Ministries International
Creation.com
A video on the historical character of Adam is available at this website.

"Adam is an incredibly important figure in the Bible, but if Adam was a real, historical person, we should see evidence for him in the genetics of modern humans. Dr Carter outlines the theology of Adam and showcases the evidence. He answers many questions about human races and human history. He also discusses the Table of Nations in Genesis 11 and compares it to what we see in human genetics worldwide."
 
Top