Interracial Marriage and the Bible

[Nihilist Virus]

Lol, I understand your argument, and on some level it is actually clever.  

I would say thank you if it were mine. It's just common sense, once you actually stick to the literal narritive and only account for what is and is not said in the bible then, cut all other traditionally held beliefs away. This is what is left. So again not my narrative this is what God left for us thousands and thousands of years before their was any knowledge of the fossil record.

Perhaps the nephilim were evolved humanoids, and only Adam & Steve's descendants had actual souls.  The nephilim, being primitive animals, were evil in God's eyes so he wiped them out and only preserved a selection of Adam's line.

This is exactly my conclusion as well. In that 'monkey men' and angels could have had off spring/nephilim. One could have been named thor or loki or Hercules. that souless monkey man/evolved man was the embodiment of pure evil the worst that this planet has ever seen.. And just maybe Noah and his family was the last of the descendants of Adam that had not been eaten/corrupted by this monkey man evil. And everything that was washed away by the flood preyed and destroyed the descendants of Adam. Which is why a righteous God could and did find justification in the destruction/sterilization of the planet so that Man made in the Image of God was the only thing left to rule this planet. Via the natural choke point provided by the Ark/flood.

But if you want to say that Genesis 1 is talking about the creation of the garden of Eden, can you tell me exactly why it's saying God created all of earth when it means he created just the Garden on an earth that had already been there for billions of years?  Like always your shit makes zero sense.

My narrative does not start in Genesis 1. It starts in Genesis 2. (get to that in a minute)
This narrative can work one of two ways. My preferred belief is God 'seeded' the planet with the precursors/animals from which everything evolved. (per the most literal account of genesis 1) I think the evolution from slime/ooze is too much. but if you want/must believe that, the narrative can be adapted to fit that, in that the 'seeds' God used were protiens/DNA rather than whole very simple very primitive animals.

Also remember the Gen 1 account originally did not use words like birds or whales. the ancient Jews had no such words or classifications. that did not come til thousands of years later. The words we have in the hebrew simply describe creatures. "winged creatures" That is why the same word that is translated in Genesis one and in leviticus as "bird" can also mean bat. It does not follow the genus and philum classifications we now use. They basically had large winged creatures "birds" and they had small winged creatures "insects". So what is being described in Genesis 1 could easily be the precursor/seeds that would eventually evolve into a bird or insect, tree, whale etc...

So why do I believe that the genesis 2 is Garden only? Because Genesis two (which actually should start in verse 4, because the verses prior are still speaking about the 7th day of creation left over from the chapter 1 narrative.)
says so!

If you Read Chapter 2 starting at verse 4 (and only delete the verse notations/which were not there in the original texts)
you get(NKJV):
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

Now, look at what is being described:

"this is a history of what else happened on the day after God made the heaven and earth, but before he seeded the earth, because at that point it had not even rained." Then from there it immediately describes the creation of the man then the garden.

So we look to Genesis 1 to see what day god made the Heavens and Earth (day 2) but before he seeded the earth (Day 3):9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

So in the middle of Day three Everything (between verse 10 and 11) Genesis 2 happened. (the garden, Creation of Man, the charge of care taker, creation of woman, and the freedom to eat anything in the garden except for the tree of knoweledge, this includes the tree of life which we hear about in genesis 3.)

Now what does all of this mean? that everything happening outside the garden was by the official record, was not on the same time table Garden life was on. The planet was a barren waste land (it had not rained yet for the first time no plants. only land and sea) and in the middle of it all was a lush green perfect garden that had 4 rivers flowing from it. This means the completed picture found in Garden life did not reflect the evolutionary process of everything outside the protected Garden. Which then also makes terms like the "circle of the earth" the "dome of the sky" make sense if you can picture the Garden as being placed under a cake dish or big shield that kept everything in that was supposed to be in, and everything else out.

Now if Genesis 2 happens on day three between verse 10 and 11, what makes us think that events in genesis 3 happened the very next day? (this is the YEC assumption)

Again if we speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where the bible is silent, we could indeed have a day 4 fall from grace (before the rest of the world was complete,) but not likly. for one genesis 1 does not support a day 4 fall from grace. So then any timeline man/the church puts on the events of genesis 3 is pure speculation. However, we do have clues and indications that life out side the garden has indeed 'caught up' to garden life. In that genesis 4 and 5 speaks of cities outside the garden and husbands and wives the children of A&E took for themselves. which according to our 'understanding' of the fossil record took millions of bazillions of years to take place.. which is fine. just as 'fine' as this whole thing taking 6000 years to do. Because in the end whatever the real number of days A&E lived in the garden, this particular narrative remains unchanged.

Ok. You want to conform to science the best you can and have your garden. Still missing the evidence that Eden ever existed and the explanation for why humans were created without understanding of sin and then punished for sinning. Also I'm curious about if you have an equally bizarre and ad hoc exegesis of the flood.