Could you guys possibly start a different thread for this discussion?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Dealing with a Racist Childhood Friend
- Thread starter phaedrus
- Start date
Yeah if he wants to. To be clear, I don't care for the conversation much either. Haha. Just want to get to the bottom of things.
Go easy on the generalizations, they are dearly beloved.
Besides, there are people across the spectrum that are still learning to articulate effectively in an online forum.
@PatrickJ You are incorrect. Its a very common error.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [Jhn 8:31-32 KJV]
It is continuing in the words of YAHushuWaH aka Jesus that makes us free.
I will agree to move this to a new thread.
I started reading the first article you linked. It contains some absurd ideas. I don't want to waste my time reading the articles
Notably, the author suggests that Mary the mother of Jesus Christ isn't actually His real mother, but just a surrogate who carried Him but provided no egg and therefore no genetic input.
That would indicate that Christ isn't really human. This foolish argument denies that the seed of the woman exists (which God promised to send way back in Genesis).
Answers in Genesis/Ken Ham donot teach evolution. They seem to accurately teach what Genesis says about creation.
Also, the author really does seem to be racist, and more importantly not following what Genesis teaches.
@PatrickJ did you read the articles in the links you gave? The material in those articles contradicts the Bible. Here is a quote from the first article, "On page 51, in their infamous book, One Blood, they state the following: “According to the Bible, all people on earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives and before that from Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-11).” This statement “Answers In Genesis” denies any people being BEFORE Adam or being BESIDES Adam. This also exposes their false doctrine of Noah’s flood being world-wide."
According to the biblical record the Flood covered the whole earth. Gen. 7:19-20 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. Also, according to the Bible only eight people survived the Flood (cf. 1 Peter 3:20).
As @Bartato has already said,
I wouldn't recommend this material at all. Shalom
@Bartato - The author suggests no such thing, nor does he state that Yahshua wasn't a man (human is not the correct term). I guess that happens when you don't read the full article. He states that Yahshua was born of a woman (Mary) but begotten of Yah. Joseph was Yahshua's legal father and provided him legal right to the crown. Genealogies in scripture are reckoned through the MALE side.
I've been down this road of "one-blood", "world-wide flood", "multiculturalism", etc. and it doesn't pan out with Yah's word. I pray that Yah will give you eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand. You don't agree with me, that's fine... It's not about that, it's about seeking first His kingdom and righteousness, as well as, studying to show thyself approved.
Ken Ham certainly does teach evolution (a faster one, and somewhat disguised). So, I would say, dig deeper. Allow the truth to change you, not change the truth to fit your paradigm. If the blind are lead by the blind, they all end up in the ditch.
Ken Ham and the Answers In Genesis ministry teach a young earth, six literal day creation, as set out in Genesis. The claims you are making are not correct.
I can define race
A clustering of alleles
I can define racism as well
A means of manipulation originally employed by soviets on Americans.
A clustering of alleles
I can define racism as well
A means of manipulation originally employed by soviets on Americans.
@frederick - There is a lot of controversy and debate on the issue of a "world-wide" flood which surrounds the scope and reality of this account in the Bible. Much supported by the "Judeo-Christian" theology (a mixture of Bible and thinking of man).
Genesis uses the word "earth", which is "erets" in Hebrew (#776) and it doesn't carry a connotation of a global, spherical planet in it's meaning. Most often, it refers to a limited land area. Usually, the geographic land that was known to exist.
For example, in Gen. 4:14, Cain stated that Yah had "driven me out this day from the face of the earth." Yet, Cain remained on the earth and didn't leave the planet. He was driven out of a limited land area. Also, see Gen. 12:1 where Yah calls Abram out of his fathers land, Gen. 19:31 relating to Sodom and Gomorrha, and Exodus 9:33 during the plagues upon Egypt.
Look up the original meaning of the words and study them in context. The flood was a local one, although a large area, and there were other kinds of men living when the flood occured and when the flood waters waned off the land. There is plenty of evidence from science and archeology.
When the flood happened in New Orleans due to Katrina, the whole nation knew about it, but it only affected that land area. To those people, it would seem as the whole earth was flooded. Similar with floods, and disasters down through time.
As I've said to @Bartato, dig deeper, study to show thyself approved. Or, stand on tradition and refuse the truth.
We can criticize Ken Ham and AIG for not properly getting/teaching Biblical polygamy.
We can not criticize him for teaching "evolution", or wrongly understanding the world wide flood, or the fact that we are all descended from Adam and Eve (and later.on Noah). They are right about those topics.
The author did say that Mary did not provide the egg. That would make her the surrogate (not genetic mother of Christ). That would mean that Yeshua was created (like Adam). That would mean that He was not be the Offspring of Eve (as promised), not the biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, or any man or woman. He wouldn't even be the "Son of Man".
Let's stick with the Bible
Except that the word study in the 1611 KJV did not mean what you think it means, such as cracking open your Bible and intently going through it.
The word study has completely changed it's meaning since 1611, as have many other words.
There's a reason that other translations use significantly different words than study in their translations. It's because in 1611 the word study meant something totally different than it means today.
CSB Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved,
ESV Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,
NIV Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved
NASB Be diligent to present yourself approved to God
And no, these versions are not watering down the Bible. In 1611, the word for "study" meant a more generic "be diligent about", not "study your books" like we would use it today. See these videos for further explanations.
If you're going to quote the KJV, recommend you find out if words in 1611 mean the same thing as you assume they mean today.
Yes.We can criticize Ken Ham and AIG for not properly getting/teaching Biblical polygamy.
We can not criticize him for teaching "evolution", or wrongly understanding the world wide flood, or the fact that we are all descended from Adam and Eve (and later.on Noah). They are right about those topics.
It would be in you best interests to read and study the Bible and understand what is actually written. The evidence from science and archaeology agrees with the biblical record.
Originally wasn't going to reply but honestly this is so absurd I had to say something. I don't even know where to start with it. Read literally anything Ken Ham has written or listen to literally any of his talks or look at literally any of the textbooks he and his organization publish. Nothing you have said here is remotely reflected and is in almost every case exactly the opposite. Might want to actually look into the person before you malign them.