Venom
07-20-2004, 04:01 PM
http://www.thelightanddarkseries.com/tlotw/THE%20LIGHT%20OF%20THE%20WORLD.jpg
<font color="red"> Malachi 2:10
10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? </font>
<font color="brown"> A Systematic Refutation of the Racist Paradigm Part 2—Annihilation of Pseudo Biblical Arguments </font>
By: Venom
Opening Statement
Compromising Christians and skeptics alike have conjured up numerous fallacious arguments suggesting the bible actually supports racism. This next section is dedicated to demolishing these arguments, and effectively showing that the bible is consistently against this doctrine from beginning to end.
Hitler
Many atheists make the erroneous claim that Hitler was a Christian, and ask foolish questions about him, searching for new ways to mock God. This, however, could not be farther from the truth. Hitler was an adamant opponent to Christianity, and a racist.
The book “Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944” published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views on Christianity. The book was published in Britain under the title, “Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944”, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler. Note that you will see how Hitler used evolution to support his revolting beliefs. This will be discussed more in a bit:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
[ QUOTE ]
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
[/ QUOTE ]
10th October, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
[/ QUOTE ]
14th October, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
[/ QUOTE ]
19th October, 1941, night:
[ QUOTE ]
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
[/ QUOTE ]
21st October, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of [*%#*%*#].Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into [*%#*%*#].Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
[/ QUOTE ]
13th December, 1941, midnight:
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
[/ QUOTE ]
14th December, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
[/ QUOTE ]
9th April, 1942, dinner:
[ QUOTE ]
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
[/ QUOTE ]
27th February, 1942, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold." (p 278)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:
[ QUOTE ]
The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
[/ QUOTE ]
He also noted that:
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity makes no distinction of race or of colour: it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?
[/ QUOTE ]
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/PrintSeries1-StretchedCanvasGiclees/Mighty_Man_of_God.jpg
Where did Cain get his Wife?
Perhaps the most oft asked question about the validity of the bible is, “Where did Cain get his wife?” It is claimed that by reading scripture, there must have been other “races” on earth, who were not descendents of Adam. And that this is where Cain found his wife. However, this is completely contrary to the teaching of scripture, and leads to several racists ideologies. It is vital that this question be answered, otherwise, we did not all come from one man—Adam. For an elaborate reply to this, read, Where did Cain get his wife?—The most FAQ revealed! (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=753633&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)
The Curse of Ham
Some falsely claim that the curse of Ham was the origin of black people. However, Ham was not even cursed lol! It was his son Canaan that was. Here is the verse where this event transpires:
<font color="red"> Genesis 9: 18 - 27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. </font>
The Mormon Church has also prorogated this lie. Here is a quote from a 1958 Mormon Church document:
[ QUOTE ]
We know the under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) we were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics.
[/ QUOTE ]
In concordance with the above discussion of Cain and Canaan; a proposed theory on the origin of “black” races is that Cain turned black! This was the supposed, “mark” God placed on him. The mormon Church teaches that Cain turned black and this was the origin of races—a curse of God on black people. For example, Dr. Hovind discussed this issue with several Mormons, and was pointing out many of there fallacious beliefs to them such as God producing offspring as men do; having a body like men have; etc. They also believe that if you have a good spirit, you will be born with light skin, and if you have a bad spirit, you will be born with black skin! They told Kent that he was not supposed to know that lol, but yes that is what they teach. Furthermore, they teach that negros are the result of a lack of spiritual valiance in the first estate. Cain, ham, and the whole negro race were cursed with black skin—the “Mark” of Cain.
Peterson, a Mormon apostle states “if there is one drop of Negro blood in my children they have received the curse.” Brigham young states concerning the law of God on the African Race (in loose terms) that if a white man—the seed of Adam—mixes his blood with a black women—the seed of Cain— the immediate penalty from God shall be death on the spot—this will always be so.
Moreover, in 1929, a Jehovah Witness publication stated:
[ QUOTE ]
The curse which Noah pronounced on Canaan was the origin of the black race.
[/ QUOTE ]
This belief system has promoted racism for many ages.
Now let’s analyze this verse. Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. But interestingly enough, only Canaan is mentioned here. That is most likely because this event had only to do with Canaan, and also, Canaan had vial descendents, including the people of Sodom and Gomorrah!
It is postulated that Noah saw the same sin nature in Ham’s son Canaan, and this is why he proclaimed a curse on him rather than Ham. Moreover, it appears that Ham was caught in the act of sexual perversion. And Canaan’s descendents—the Sodomites—certainly picked up this wicked trait.
I sincerely have no idea how these people come up with these fallacious arguments. I see no where in here where skin color is even mentioned. It is truly an absurd claim. The message I would take from this, however, is that you need to teach your children to walk holy lives, and lead by example. Canaan obviously picked up right where his father Ham left off, and his descendents after him did the same. A sad predicament indeed, but a reminder to us all that we must bring our children up with a strong foundation in God’s word.
<font color="red"> Proverbs 22:6
6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. </font>
Lastly, Rahab was a descendent of Ham, and in the line to Christ! This will be discussed further on.
Adam Was White
Many claim that because the word “Adam” in Hebrew is derived from Hebrew words meaning “red” that he must have been able to blush, so he must have been white. This is a classic case of eisegesis. Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most common purpose has been that of discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisegesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).
By using eisegesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.
Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture. There are entire sites dedicated to this attempting to show the bible as "full of contradictions" when really all they have done is show their expertise in eisegesis.
Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.
The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.
The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020719_128.jpg
Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.
As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole."
They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.
Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including
the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),
Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),
Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and
The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).
In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."
Jesus affirmed the Bible's
divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),
its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),
its infallibility (John 10:35),
its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),
its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),
its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and
its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25).
Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020607_120.jpg
For more on this, read the series, How to use the Word of God in our bible studies.
In analysis of this belief. First, getting the meaning of words from their etymology has been known as the “root fallacy” by Hebrew scholars. Furthermore, the word here is just a play of words from dust or clay, which is the important message in this context. Now even if we were to, as King Solomon said, “answer a fool according to his folly” interpret of the term “red” we would logically infer that Adam looked like an Indian! Lastly, all people can blush; this belief assumes that only whites can. It is true, however, that whites blushing is more pronounced. Nevertheless, a black person blushing can be detected.
It is actually postulated by creation scientists that Adam and Eve were dark skinned. This is because medium brown is the optimal color for color diversity among people groups.
It has also been claimed that black people are the beasts of the field referred to in genesis. No comment even needs to be made here; that is just a detestable claim.
Another sad example years ago in Australia, of what Racism can do, is that a bible college student said that missionaries should not waste time preaching to Aborigines because they were not of Adam’s race, and therefore, could not be saved.
Racism has truly been a plague on our society. What a destructive belief system.
What about Compromising Christians; Apartheid, and Slavery?
A fallacy often committed by the heathen is known as, the ad hominem tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy. This happens when the second arguer tries to make the first arguer look hypocritical. In other words, this person cites features in the life or behavior of the other person, and claims that this discredits his argument. It goes like this, “How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself!” An example is, if a mother tells her child not to drink and drive, and the child responds to her mother by saying that her argument is not valid, because she (the mother) has driven under the influence before. However, whether the parent did this or not does not discredit her advice to drink or drive in anyway; the argument presented by the child here is fallacious.
Atheist will often use a tactic such as this to discredit Christianity, “You are a sinner too, so how dare you tell me what to do!” Compromising Christians also misinterpret when Christ said, “Judge not lest ye be judged” For an answer to the later fallacy, read, Judge not lest ye be judged? The most misunderstood scripture in the bible... (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=804883&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)
I have heard unbelievers essentially claim that because Christians have sinned, or that Christians have compromised the bible in the past to support racism, that this somehow discredits Christianity, or teachings in the bible. But the only thing this discredits is the oppositions understanding of logic.
For an answer to this question, and also for more on apartheid, and slavery, read, The Bible vs slavery and apartheid (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6March2001.asp&qt=slavery&col=articles+bks tore+events+media&n=1) Jonathan Sarfati is the man! I highly recommend any article of his.
Pre-Adamic Race
Some Christians such as the Heretic Hugh Fraud claim that there was a Pre-Adamic Race.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially different, a minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately from Adam, and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures. Hence pre-Adamism took the form of polygenism, or multiple creations of different races. Proponents of this idea often thought that non-whites were inferior beings who could be treated as slaves. Pre-Adamism thus became the scientific justification for slavery, and a defense for racism.
Pre-Adamites were also an integral part of the now-discredited gap theory. In this the pre-Adamites were soulless beings which all perished in a catastrophe called ‘Lucifer’s Flood’, which allegedly occurred between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 ‘in the far-distant dateless past.’
Others claim Cain found his wife from pre-adamic people.
However, this doctrine goes completely against the clear teaching of scripture. And is just another man made doctrine used to justify a false religion—such as progressive creationism, or racism. For information on Adam being the first man, read, Part III Creation week (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=613394& Forum=bodybuilder&Words=Word%20of%20God&Match=Enti re%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main =613394&Search=true#Post613394)
Note:
I was listening to Hugh Fraud the other day to hear some of his many heresies. And he actually said “god” made dinosaurs for the very purpose of killing them off and giving us oil to use millions of years later! What a disgusting doctrine. I know for a fact that is not the God of the bible—and certainly not a god I would want to serve. A god who took billions of years of pain death and suffering to finally make man. Read this article for more of his garbage, What's wrong with the progressive creation view of Hugh Fraud? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp&qt=what's+wrong+with+the+progressive+crea tion+view+of+hugh+fraud%3F&col=articles+bkstore+ev ents+media&n=1)
God Segregated People at Babel
This is one of my favorite ones lol! It is claimed that the Lord “segregated” different races at Babel, and that it would be a sin to inter marry, because you would be rebelling against God’s “plan” and develop a one world power like at Babel. This is again, negative theology. Just reading into the text with a racist axiom.
Let’s look at what happened at Babel:
<font color="red"> Genesis 11: 1 - 9
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. </font>
Nowhere in this text does God mention color; interracial marriage; or anything of the sort. If you wanted to claim anything from this, then you could say you should not teach people other languages, since that is what God used to separate people.
However, Christ has sent us on a great commission, commanding us to teach all nations and tongues about the good news. This requires that we learn new languages.
Closing the language barrier definitely would promote world unity.
The point is: this is a complete inference, based on outside information. A Christian marriage—be it “mixed” or “not mixed”—would have the foundation of Gods word, and help produce godly offspring. Interracial marriage is not sinful at all. It is ridiculous to compare it to man’s rebellion at Babel. Lastly, nothing man does is going to influence God’s eternal plan. He laughs on the thrown at mans plans, and will have the heathen in derision (read Psalm Chapter 2). Instead of using eisogesis to support false doctrines, we need to just read Gods word straight forward, and do as he says—nothing in his word is against interracial marriage.
Another point is that at Babel, he separated these people because he knew the power of Unity.
<font color="red"> And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. </font>
With this unity, they would have been able to accomplish much more wickedness than if they were confused with languages.
Now if God knew the power of unity here, and separated them so there evil deeds would not prosper, would he not contrary to this, want his people to be in unity, so that they may prosper? And surely enough, scripture clearly shows that God wants his church to be of one mind, body, and spirit. The bible promotes unity throughout; this racist ideology is a flat out hindrance to his goal, and has done much harm to the Church.
Fallacious arguments against Christ
Some claim Christ made a racist statement in the gospels to a Gentile Syrophoenician woman coming to Jesus and begging Him to heal her daughter, who was possessed by a demon. Here is the verse:
<font color="red"> Mark 7: 24 – 30
24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. 25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed. </font>
First, what needs to be analyzed is the special place Israel has in Gods eyes, “And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Leviticus 26:12). “For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6). “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8). “And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them” (20:23). “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.” (Romans 3:1-2) Israel was God’s chosen nation, and the peoples around them were considered infidels because of their disobedience to God’s commands—not because of their “race”.
Now let’s analyze Christ’s phrase to this women “dog.” It is clear from scripture that this is referred to as a worker of evil, or someone held in contempt against God. Psalms says, “For dogs have compassed me: A company of evildoers has enclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet” (22:16). Notice that in his response to the woman, Jesus said, “Let the children first be filled,” implying that eventually the Gentiles would receive the Gospel, but that His mission was to give God’s chosen people the first chance at redemption under the new covenant. Therefore, Jesus was not being racist toward the Syrophoenician woman; rather pointing out his mission with a figurative understood term. Paul further states, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16).
http://www.thelightanddarkseries.com/INTHEARMYSAMPLEBIG.jpg
Here is a commentary by John Gill on this verse:
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
[ QUOTE ]
Let the children first be filled:
according to this method, our Lord directed his apostles, and they proceeded: as he himself was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he ordered his disciples to go to them, and preach the Gospel to them, and work miracles among them; and not go in the way of the Gentiles, nor into any of the cities of the Samaritans; but when they had gone through the cities of Judea, he ordered them, after his resurrection, to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem: and this order they observed in other places, where there were Jews; they first preached to them, and then to the Gentiles; knowing that it was necessary, that the word of God should be first spoken to them; and it was the power of God to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile: and the expression here used, though it gives the preference to the Jew, does not exclude the Gentile; nay, it supposes, that after the Jews had had the doctrines of Christ, confirmed by his miracles, sufficiently ministered unto them, for the gathering in the chosen ones among them, and to leave the rest inexcusable; and so long as until they should despise it, and put it away from them, judging themselves unworthy of it; that then the Gentiles should have plenty of Gospel provisions set before them, and should eat of them, and be filled; and should have a large number of miracles wrought among them, and a fulness of the blessings of grace bestowed on them. The Jews are meant, who were the children of God by national adoption; who were first to be filled with the doctrines and miracles of Christ, before the Gentiles were to have them among them; as they were, even to a loathing and contempt of them:
For it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs:
as by "the children" are meant the Israelites, who were not only the children of Abraham by natural descent, but the children of God, to whom pertained the adoption, by virtue of the national covenant made with them; so by "the dogs", are meant the Gentiles, who were reckoned as such by the Jews; and by the "bread", which it was not fit and proper should be taken from the one for the present, and cast to the other, is designed the ministry of the Gospel; which is as bread, solid, substantial, wholesome, and nourishing; and the miraculous cures wrought on the bodies of men, which accompanied it: now it was not meet and convenient as yet, that these things should be taken away from the Jewish nation, until they had answered the ends for which they were designed, and the Jews should express their loathing and abhorrence of them: which when they did, they were taken away from them, and were ministered to the nations of the world, they contemptuously called dogs;
[/ QUOTE ]
Interracial Marriage
Question: which one of these couples is involved in a biblically sinful marriage before God?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/CEN213(24)b.jpg
The answer is couple number 3.
<font color="red"> 2 Corinthians 6:14,
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? </font>
Several Christians today claim that interracial marriage violates the bible, and should not be tolerated. However, this is a man-made doctrine. First of, there is no such thing as interracial marriages, as there is only one race.
The bible says that Christians must marry other Christians. From the Old to the New Testament, marrying an unbeliever was strictly forbidden. However, no where in scripture is there a hint that you must be of the same “race” to marry each other. This is completely a man made doctrine, stemmed from the racist paradigm. Inter “racial” marriage is perfectly fine biblically, and in fact, many biblical characters did just this—as will be shown subsequently.
Examples of interracial marriages in the bible
People claim that the Old Testament forbids Jews from marrying outside of their culture. However, this is not the case. The bible was forbidding them from marrying into pagan cultures. Let’s analyze some scripture:
<font color="red"> Deuteronomy 7:1-11
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga****es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. </font>
Now if you stop there, you can support a false doctrine. But even if you did, you could only support not marrying people from other cultures—not just people with different skin ‘colors’ etc. as is propagated today. However, this also is a fallacious doctrine; keep reading!!
<font color="red"> 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. </font>
Without exception, the reason God gives for disallowing marriages is being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. A perfect example is King Solomon.
<font color="red"> 1 Kings 11:1-14
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. 11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. 12 Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. 13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.
14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. </font>
Very sad story.:(
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/PrintSeries1-StretchedCanvasGiclees/Two_United.jpg
Another excellent illustration can be found by studying the Doctrine of Balaam. For more on this, read, Are you Evolutionized? (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=756351&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)
Now it is important to clarify that if a member of that culture turned to the one true God, marrying them was perfectly sound. This is clearly displayed in the case of Ruth, and Rahab.
The Canaanites had an ungodly culture, and were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, who was cursed by God due to his rebellious nature. Incidentally, the harlot Rahab was a Canaanite. She is famous for saving the Israelite spies, and Paul even mentions her in Hebrews chapter 11, under people of God who had great faith. What is important to this is that in the genealogy in Matthew 1, it is traditionally understood that the same Rahab is listed here as being in the line leading to Christ! Therefore, she must have married an Israelite. Since this was in the Holy line of Christ himself, this marriage was obviously approved by God. This demonstrates that what group you come from is irrelevant. All that matters is that you are in Christ. If you marry under this guise, biblically, it is perfectly sound.
Furthermore, Ruth was a Moabitess, married an Israelite, and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that leads to Christ. Prior to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16).
When Rahab and Ruth became children of God, there was no longer any barrier to Israelites marrying them, even though they were from different people groups.
Thus, the only marriage forbidden in the bible is a Christian marrying a non-Christian. It is required that a Christian marry another Christian, and not to be unequally yoked with the non-believer. Whether your partner is of a different “race” is irrelevant.
<font color="red"> Malachi 2:10
10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? </font>
<font color="brown"> A Systematic Refutation of the Racist Paradigm Part 2—Annihilation of Pseudo Biblical Arguments </font>
By: Venom
Opening Statement
Compromising Christians and skeptics alike have conjured up numerous fallacious arguments suggesting the bible actually supports racism. This next section is dedicated to demolishing these arguments, and effectively showing that the bible is consistently against this doctrine from beginning to end.
Hitler
Many atheists make the erroneous claim that Hitler was a Christian, and ask foolish questions about him, searching for new ways to mock God. This, however, could not be farther from the truth. Hitler was an adamant opponent to Christianity, and a racist.
The book “Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944” published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views on Christianity. The book was published in Britain under the title, “Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944”, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler. Note that you will see how Hitler used evolution to support his revolting beliefs. This will be discussed more in a bit:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
[ QUOTE ]
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
[/ QUOTE ]
10th October, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
[/ QUOTE ]
14th October, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
[/ QUOTE ]
19th October, 1941, night:
[ QUOTE ]
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
[/ QUOTE ]
21st October, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of [*%#*%*#].Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into [*%#*%*#].Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
[/ QUOTE ]
13th December, 1941, midnight:
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
[/ QUOTE ]
14th December, 1941, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
[/ QUOTE ]
9th April, 1942, dinner:
[ QUOTE ]
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
[/ QUOTE ]
27th February, 1942, midday:
[ QUOTE ]
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold." (p 278)
[/ QUOTE ]
Sir Arthur Keith was a British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi, but he drew this chilling conclusion:
[ QUOTE ]
The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
[/ QUOTE ]
He also noted that:
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity makes no distinction of race or of colour: it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?
[/ QUOTE ]
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/PrintSeries1-StretchedCanvasGiclees/Mighty_Man_of_God.jpg
Where did Cain get his Wife?
Perhaps the most oft asked question about the validity of the bible is, “Where did Cain get his wife?” It is claimed that by reading scripture, there must have been other “races” on earth, who were not descendents of Adam. And that this is where Cain found his wife. However, this is completely contrary to the teaching of scripture, and leads to several racists ideologies. It is vital that this question be answered, otherwise, we did not all come from one man—Adam. For an elaborate reply to this, read, Where did Cain get his wife?—The most FAQ revealed! (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=753633&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)
The Curse of Ham
Some falsely claim that the curse of Ham was the origin of black people. However, Ham was not even cursed lol! It was his son Canaan that was. Here is the verse where this event transpires:
<font color="red"> Genesis 9: 18 - 27
18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. </font>
The Mormon Church has also prorogated this lie. Here is a quote from a 1958 Mormon Church document:
[ QUOTE ]
We know the under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) we were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics.
[/ QUOTE ]
In concordance with the above discussion of Cain and Canaan; a proposed theory on the origin of “black” races is that Cain turned black! This was the supposed, “mark” God placed on him. The mormon Church teaches that Cain turned black and this was the origin of races—a curse of God on black people. For example, Dr. Hovind discussed this issue with several Mormons, and was pointing out many of there fallacious beliefs to them such as God producing offspring as men do; having a body like men have; etc. They also believe that if you have a good spirit, you will be born with light skin, and if you have a bad spirit, you will be born with black skin! They told Kent that he was not supposed to know that lol, but yes that is what they teach. Furthermore, they teach that negros are the result of a lack of spiritual valiance in the first estate. Cain, ham, and the whole negro race were cursed with black skin—the “Mark” of Cain.
Peterson, a Mormon apostle states “if there is one drop of Negro blood in my children they have received the curse.” Brigham young states concerning the law of God on the African Race (in loose terms) that if a white man—the seed of Adam—mixes his blood with a black women—the seed of Cain— the immediate penalty from God shall be death on the spot—this will always be so.
Moreover, in 1929, a Jehovah Witness publication stated:
[ QUOTE ]
The curse which Noah pronounced on Canaan was the origin of the black race.
[/ QUOTE ]
This belief system has promoted racism for many ages.
Now let’s analyze this verse. Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. But interestingly enough, only Canaan is mentioned here. That is most likely because this event had only to do with Canaan, and also, Canaan had vial descendents, including the people of Sodom and Gomorrah!
It is postulated that Noah saw the same sin nature in Ham’s son Canaan, and this is why he proclaimed a curse on him rather than Ham. Moreover, it appears that Ham was caught in the act of sexual perversion. And Canaan’s descendents—the Sodomites—certainly picked up this wicked trait.
I sincerely have no idea how these people come up with these fallacious arguments. I see no where in here where skin color is even mentioned. It is truly an absurd claim. The message I would take from this, however, is that you need to teach your children to walk holy lives, and lead by example. Canaan obviously picked up right where his father Ham left off, and his descendents after him did the same. A sad predicament indeed, but a reminder to us all that we must bring our children up with a strong foundation in God’s word.
<font color="red"> Proverbs 22:6
6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. </font>
Lastly, Rahab was a descendent of Ham, and in the line to Christ! This will be discussed further on.
Adam Was White
Many claim that because the word “Adam” in Hebrew is derived from Hebrew words meaning “red” that he must have been able to blush, so he must have been white. This is a classic case of eisegesis. Exegesis, or critical interpretation, and hermeneutics, or the science of interpretive principles, of the Bible have been used by both Jews and Christians throughout their histories for various purposes. The most common purpose has been that of discovering the truths and values of the Old and New Testaments by means of various techniques and principles.
Our goal must be exegesis (drawing the meaning out of the text) and not eisegesis (superimposing a meaning onto the text).
By using eisegesis instead of exegesis, a Marxist interpreter could, for example, so skew the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that it came out reading like a socialistic document.
Cultists have done the same type of thing with Holy Scripture. There are entire sites dedicated to this attempting to show the bible as "full of contradictions" when really all they have done is show their expertise in eisegesis.
Every word in the Bible is part of a verse, and every verse is part of a paragraph, and every paragraph is part of a book, and every book is part of the whole of Scripture.
No verse of Scripture can be divorced from the verses around it. Interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze a Rembrandt painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting, or like trying to analyze Handel's "Messiah" by listening to a few short notes.
The context is absolutely critical to properly interpreting Bible verses.
The immediate context of a verse is the paragraph (or paragraphs) of the biblical book in question. The immediate context should always be consulted in interpreting Bible verses.
The broader context is the whole of Scripture.
The entire Holy Scripture is the context and guide for understanding the particular passages of Scripture.
We must keep in mind that the interpretation of a specific passage must not contradict the total teaching of Scripture on a point.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020719_128.jpg
Individual verses do not exist as isolated fragments, but as parts of a whole.
The exposition of these verses, therefore, must involve exhibiting them in right relation both to the whole and to each other. Scripture interprets Scripture.
As J. I. Packer puts it, "if we would understand the parts, our wisest course is to get to know the whole."
They so skew the meaning of the biblical text that it comes out saying something entirely different than what was intended by the author.
Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including
the Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),
Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),
Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),
Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and
The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).
In his book The Savior and the Scriptures, theologian Robert P. Lightner notes - following an exhaustive study - that Jesus' interpretation of Scripture "was always in accord with the grammatical and historical meaning. He understood and appreciated the meaning intended by the writers according to the laws of grammar and rhetoric."
Jesus affirmed the Bible's
divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),
its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),
its infallibility (John 10:35),
its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),
its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),
its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and
its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25).
Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).
Jesus said His words lead to eternal life (John 6:63). But for us to receive eternal life through His words, they must be taken as He intended them to be taken.
A cultic reinterpretation of Scripture that yields another Jesus and another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:3-4; Galatians 1:6-9) will yield only eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/overheads/images/oh20020607_120.jpg
For more on this, read the series, How to use the Word of God in our bible studies.
In analysis of this belief. First, getting the meaning of words from their etymology has been known as the “root fallacy” by Hebrew scholars. Furthermore, the word here is just a play of words from dust or clay, which is the important message in this context. Now even if we were to, as King Solomon said, “answer a fool according to his folly” interpret of the term “red” we would logically infer that Adam looked like an Indian! Lastly, all people can blush; this belief assumes that only whites can. It is true, however, that whites blushing is more pronounced. Nevertheless, a black person blushing can be detected.
It is actually postulated by creation scientists that Adam and Eve were dark skinned. This is because medium brown is the optimal color for color diversity among people groups.
It has also been claimed that black people are the beasts of the field referred to in genesis. No comment even needs to be made here; that is just a detestable claim.
Another sad example years ago in Australia, of what Racism can do, is that a bible college student said that missionaries should not waste time preaching to Aborigines because they were not of Adam’s race, and therefore, could not be saved.
Racism has truly been a plague on our society. What a destructive belief system.
What about Compromising Christians; Apartheid, and Slavery?
A fallacy often committed by the heathen is known as, the ad hominem tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy. This happens when the second arguer tries to make the first arguer look hypocritical. In other words, this person cites features in the life or behavior of the other person, and claims that this discredits his argument. It goes like this, “How dare you argue that I should stop doing X; why, you do (or have done) X yourself!” An example is, if a mother tells her child not to drink and drive, and the child responds to her mother by saying that her argument is not valid, because she (the mother) has driven under the influence before. However, whether the parent did this or not does not discredit her advice to drink or drive in anyway; the argument presented by the child here is fallacious.
Atheist will often use a tactic such as this to discredit Christianity, “You are a sinner too, so how dare you tell me what to do!” Compromising Christians also misinterpret when Christ said, “Judge not lest ye be judged” For an answer to the later fallacy, read, Judge not lest ye be judged? The most misunderstood scripture in the bible... (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=804883&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)
I have heard unbelievers essentially claim that because Christians have sinned, or that Christians have compromised the bible in the past to support racism, that this somehow discredits Christianity, or teachings in the bible. But the only thing this discredits is the oppositions understanding of logic.
For an answer to this question, and also for more on apartheid, and slavery, read, The Bible vs slavery and apartheid (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6March2001.asp&qt=slavery&col=articles+bks tore+events+media&n=1) Jonathan Sarfati is the man! I highly recommend any article of his.
Pre-Adamic Race
Some Christians such as the Heretic Hugh Fraud claim that there was a Pre-Adamic Race.
In the 18th and 19th centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially different, a minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately from Adam, and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures. Hence pre-Adamism took the form of polygenism, or multiple creations of different races. Proponents of this idea often thought that non-whites were inferior beings who could be treated as slaves. Pre-Adamism thus became the scientific justification for slavery, and a defense for racism.
Pre-Adamites were also an integral part of the now-discredited gap theory. In this the pre-Adamites were soulless beings which all perished in a catastrophe called ‘Lucifer’s Flood’, which allegedly occurred between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1 ‘in the far-distant dateless past.’
Others claim Cain found his wife from pre-adamic people.
However, this doctrine goes completely against the clear teaching of scripture. And is just another man made doctrine used to justify a false religion—such as progressive creationism, or racism. For information on Adam being the first man, read, Part III Creation week (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=613394& Forum=bodybuilder&Words=Word%20of%20God&Match=Enti re%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=3months&Main =613394&Search=true#Post613394)
Note:
I was listening to Hugh Fraud the other day to hear some of his many heresies. And he actually said “god” made dinosaurs for the very purpose of killing them off and giving us oil to use millions of years later! What a disgusting doctrine. I know for a fact that is not the God of the bible—and certainly not a god I would want to serve. A god who took billions of years of pain death and suffering to finally make man. Read this article for more of his garbage, What's wrong with the progressive creation view of Hugh Fraud? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4077.asp&qt=what's+wrong+with+the+progressive+crea tion+view+of+hugh+fraud%3F&col=articles+bkstore+ev ents+media&n=1)
God Segregated People at Babel
This is one of my favorite ones lol! It is claimed that the Lord “segregated” different races at Babel, and that it would be a sin to inter marry, because you would be rebelling against God’s “plan” and develop a one world power like at Babel. This is again, negative theology. Just reading into the text with a racist axiom.
Let’s look at what happened at Babel:
<font color="red"> Genesis 11: 1 - 9
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. </font>
Nowhere in this text does God mention color; interracial marriage; or anything of the sort. If you wanted to claim anything from this, then you could say you should not teach people other languages, since that is what God used to separate people.
However, Christ has sent us on a great commission, commanding us to teach all nations and tongues about the good news. This requires that we learn new languages.
Closing the language barrier definitely would promote world unity.
The point is: this is a complete inference, based on outside information. A Christian marriage—be it “mixed” or “not mixed”—would have the foundation of Gods word, and help produce godly offspring. Interracial marriage is not sinful at all. It is ridiculous to compare it to man’s rebellion at Babel. Lastly, nothing man does is going to influence God’s eternal plan. He laughs on the thrown at mans plans, and will have the heathen in derision (read Psalm Chapter 2). Instead of using eisogesis to support false doctrines, we need to just read Gods word straight forward, and do as he says—nothing in his word is against interracial marriage.
Another point is that at Babel, he separated these people because he knew the power of Unity.
<font color="red"> And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. </font>
With this unity, they would have been able to accomplish much more wickedness than if they were confused with languages.
Now if God knew the power of unity here, and separated them so there evil deeds would not prosper, would he not contrary to this, want his people to be in unity, so that they may prosper? And surely enough, scripture clearly shows that God wants his church to be of one mind, body, and spirit. The bible promotes unity throughout; this racist ideology is a flat out hindrance to his goal, and has done much harm to the Church.
Fallacious arguments against Christ
Some claim Christ made a racist statement in the gospels to a Gentile Syrophoenician woman coming to Jesus and begging Him to heal her daughter, who was possessed by a demon. Here is the verse:
<font color="red"> Mark 7: 24 – 30
24 And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. 25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet: 26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. 30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed. </font>
First, what needs to be analyzed is the special place Israel has in Gods eyes, “And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people” (Leviticus 26:12). “For thou art a holy people unto Jehovah thy God: Jehovah thy God hath chosen thee to be a people for his own possession, above all peoples that are upon the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6). “For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8). “And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they did all these things, and therefore I abhorred them” (20:23). “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.” (Romans 3:1-2) Israel was God’s chosen nation, and the peoples around them were considered infidels because of their disobedience to God’s commands—not because of their “race”.
Now let’s analyze Christ’s phrase to this women “dog.” It is clear from scripture that this is referred to as a worker of evil, or someone held in contempt against God. Psalms says, “For dogs have compassed me: A company of evildoers has enclosed me; They pierced my hands and my feet” (22:16). Notice that in his response to the woman, Jesus said, “Let the children first be filled,” implying that eventually the Gentiles would receive the Gospel, but that His mission was to give God’s chosen people the first chance at redemption under the new covenant. Therefore, Jesus was not being racist toward the Syrophoenician woman; rather pointing out his mission with a figurative understood term. Paul further states, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16).
http://www.thelightanddarkseries.com/INTHEARMYSAMPLEBIG.jpg
Here is a commentary by John Gill on this verse:
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
[ QUOTE ]
Let the children first be filled:
according to this method, our Lord directed his apostles, and they proceeded: as he himself was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he ordered his disciples to go to them, and preach the Gospel to them, and work miracles among them; and not go in the way of the Gentiles, nor into any of the cities of the Samaritans; but when they had gone through the cities of Judea, he ordered them, after his resurrection, to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem: and this order they observed in other places, where there were Jews; they first preached to them, and then to the Gentiles; knowing that it was necessary, that the word of God should be first spoken to them; and it was the power of God to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile: and the expression here used, though it gives the preference to the Jew, does not exclude the Gentile; nay, it supposes, that after the Jews had had the doctrines of Christ, confirmed by his miracles, sufficiently ministered unto them, for the gathering in the chosen ones among them, and to leave the rest inexcusable; and so long as until they should despise it, and put it away from them, judging themselves unworthy of it; that then the Gentiles should have plenty of Gospel provisions set before them, and should eat of them, and be filled; and should have a large number of miracles wrought among them, and a fulness of the blessings of grace bestowed on them. The Jews are meant, who were the children of God by national adoption; who were first to be filled with the doctrines and miracles of Christ, before the Gentiles were to have them among them; as they were, even to a loathing and contempt of them:
For it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs:
as by "the children" are meant the Israelites, who were not only the children of Abraham by natural descent, but the children of God, to whom pertained the adoption, by virtue of the national covenant made with them; so by "the dogs", are meant the Gentiles, who were reckoned as such by the Jews; and by the "bread", which it was not fit and proper should be taken from the one for the present, and cast to the other, is designed the ministry of the Gospel; which is as bread, solid, substantial, wholesome, and nourishing; and the miraculous cures wrought on the bodies of men, which accompanied it: now it was not meet and convenient as yet, that these things should be taken away from the Jewish nation, until they had answered the ends for which they were designed, and the Jews should express their loathing and abhorrence of them: which when they did, they were taken away from them, and were ministered to the nations of the world, they contemptuously called dogs;
[/ QUOTE ]
Interracial Marriage
Question: which one of these couples is involved in a biblically sinful marriage before God?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/images/CEN213(24)b.jpg
The answer is couple number 3.
<font color="red"> 2 Corinthians 6:14,
14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? </font>
Several Christians today claim that interracial marriage violates the bible, and should not be tolerated. However, this is a man-made doctrine. First of, there is no such thing as interracial marriages, as there is only one race.
The bible says that Christians must marry other Christians. From the Old to the New Testament, marrying an unbeliever was strictly forbidden. However, no where in scripture is there a hint that you must be of the same “race” to marry each other. This is completely a man made doctrine, stemmed from the racist paradigm. Inter “racial” marriage is perfectly fine biblically, and in fact, many biblical characters did just this—as will be shown subsequently.
Examples of interracial marriages in the bible
People claim that the Old Testament forbids Jews from marrying outside of their culture. However, this is not the case. The bible was forbidding them from marrying into pagan cultures. Let’s analyze some scripture:
<font color="red"> Deuteronomy 7:1-11
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga****es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. </font>
Now if you stop there, you can support a false doctrine. But even if you did, you could only support not marrying people from other cultures—not just people with different skin ‘colors’ etc. as is propagated today. However, this also is a fallacious doctrine; keep reading!!
<font color="red"> 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. </font>
Without exception, the reason God gives for disallowing marriages is being unequally yoked with an unbeliever. A perfect example is King Solomon.
<font color="red"> 1 Kings 11:1-14
1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10 And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. 11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. 12 Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. 13 Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen.
14 And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. </font>
Very sad story.:(
http://bibleverseart.com/albums/PrintSeries1-StretchedCanvasGiclees/Two_United.jpg
Another excellent illustration can be found by studying the Doctrine of Balaam. For more on this, read, Are you Evolutionized? (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=756351&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)
Now it is important to clarify that if a member of that culture turned to the one true God, marrying them was perfectly sound. This is clearly displayed in the case of Ruth, and Rahab.
The Canaanites had an ungodly culture, and were descendants of Canaan, the son of Ham, who was cursed by God due to his rebellious nature. Incidentally, the harlot Rahab was a Canaanite. She is famous for saving the Israelite spies, and Paul even mentions her in Hebrews chapter 11, under people of God who had great faith. What is important to this is that in the genealogy in Matthew 1, it is traditionally understood that the same Rahab is listed here as being in the line leading to Christ! Therefore, she must have married an Israelite. Since this was in the Holy line of Christ himself, this marriage was obviously approved by God. This demonstrates that what group you come from is irrelevant. All that matters is that you are in Christ. If you marry under this guise, biblically, it is perfectly sound.
Furthermore, Ruth was a Moabitess, married an Israelite, and is also listed in the genealogy in Matthew 1 that leads to Christ. Prior to her marriage, she had expressed faith in the true God (Ruth 1:16).
When Rahab and Ruth became children of God, there was no longer any barrier to Israelites marrying them, even though they were from different people groups.
Thus, the only marriage forbidden in the bible is a Christian marrying a non-Christian. It is required that a Christian marry another Christian, and not to be unequally yoked with the non-believer. Whether your partner is of a different “race” is irrelevant.