[custer]

Originally Posted by Diligent

The problem is, people do not generally use the word race to refer to things like the "race of Adam" as in that definition. And again, the word is not used in the Bible the way we are using it; not once. In fact I do believe we are all "the race of Adam." But that obviously doesn't settle the issue for folks who want to find something about "race mixing" in the Bible. Using the Webster definition you provide, we are all one race anyway.

The concept of race, as it is used commonly, is Darwinian. The idea certainly pre-dates Darwin. That is a side issue. Call it whatever you like; it's not a Biblical concept.

If we were using the word "race" to refer to the various "ites" of the Bible, it still wouldn't change the fact that the Bible shows all sorts of "ite mixing" without condemnation from God. Again, only Isreal under the Law was ever concerned with such things --- and even then it was about specific nations, like the cursed Canaan nation. While there are spiritual applications for we in Christ, there are no commandments for us to follow regarding "mixing" of skin colors.

I agree that what we choose to call the division of peoples IS a side issue; I only brought it up because parts of this thread had degenerated into regionalism - taking God's divisions (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and breaking them into a myriad of regional "races." Making (and keeping) distinction in Caucasian, Asian, and Negroid peoples is a world apart from trying to say French people can't marry Germans or Americans or Canadians or Scots - which is what some were trying to assert here. However, I was a little too narrow with the Bible terminology; in Genesis 10, God refers to tongues, nations, countries, families, AND generations...(This relates well to the Acts 17 verse.)

According to Genesis 43:32, it's not true that "only Israel under the Law was ever concerned with such things." The Bible says, "the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians."

I disagree with most of what has been posted on this thread, but I DON'T want to argue - I would like to try to understand where y'all are coming from!
For instance, Acts 17:26 is about the physical bodies of people, which is what gets married...while Galatians 3:28 is completely spiritual (I know this has been said already...bear with me!) My question is - How can you make one part of the list in that verse ("Jew nor Greek") PHYSICAL and leave the other parts of the same list SPIRITUAL? My point is that if we are not supposed to take any note of "race" now that we're in Christ, why are we to notice any PHYSICAL difference in male and female - the verse DOES say "there is neither male nor female!!!" So I just want to know how you reconcile that...

I also want to say that I appreciate these discussions because they make me THINK and search the scriptures...THANKS!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by custer

Maybe this is too simplistic, but...

How can "race" be a "Darwinian concept," when Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary defines race as
"1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are the race of Abraham and Jacob." ???
According to www.aboutdarwin.com, a website "dedicated to the life and times of Charles Darwin," in 1828 when Webster had already formulated the above definition, Darwin was in school and "did not take his studies very seriously, spending much of his free time collecting beetles, reading Shakespeare, and having dinner parties with his friends." He didn't start publishing scientific diaries until 1836 and the Origin of the Species wasn't until 1859. I'm just saying that the idea of a "race" being a line of people couldn't have originated with him.
Interestingly, the Bible terminology is the "generations of [so-and-so,]" and one of Webster's definitions of a "generation" is a "race."
It seems like this discussion got off course by confusing race with nationality. It is only in a NEW dictionary that "race" has been expanded to include the word "nation." And still, when you are asked on an application to give your race, they're not asking where you're from!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...ionary_thought
Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Hi, Pam.

As far as I can tell, any worldly system of thought develops over time. Ideas percolate through the decades or centuries until the time is right and a suitable "messenger" is in place to deliver the new "truth". I tend to look at human history in terms of what God is doing and what Satan is doing. That's what everything boils down to, anyway, don't you think? The Wiki link below has an explanation of the history of evolutionary thought and it's impact on culture, society and religion. I would add that occultists like Blavatsky, et al, were used as conduits by satanic forces through their demon possession and automatic writing to provide the spiritual, philosophical impetus behind the evolutionary movement. We just need to look around us in modern society to see the devastation that evolutionary thought has brought us.

There is one race of man and that is the race of Adam. Brandon is right, there is no choice but to use the word "race" when speaking about the different nations on this earth because no one would know what you're talking about if you use the word nation. Once society accepts the satanic concept of humanity being divided into different races based on genetic differences, or on how far up the evolutionary ladder one race is compared to another, it becomes easier to dehumanize certain families of mankind. Blavatsky's body of material she received directly from a demon or devil "guide", as well as "scientific" evolutionary thought was incorporated into Hitler's highly occultic belief system.

On a side note, I think there may be some confusion over the term "nation". I could be wrong but I believe that biblically a nation can be defined as the descendants of a particular father which is laid out in Gen 10 in the table of nations. These biblical nations do have boundaries, etc as set out by God. In our modern language we use "nation" to describe a sovereign state which may be made up of people from the same "biblical" nation or family (take Iran or Egypt for instance) or to describe countries like America which is made up of many of the familes or nations of mankind.

One of the ways that I see this lie of different races within the race of man affect the church is that we yet again try to take Israel's role upon our selves. The Savior came through the Jews and that is why God had rules about intermarriage between Israelites and gentiles. Really, the gentile national distinctions aren't very important in the scheme of things, at least not in the context we have been discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...ionary_thought

Jennifer

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by custer

I agree that what we choose to call the division of peoples IS a side issue; I only brought it up because parts of this thread had degenerated into regionalism - taking God's divisions (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and breaking them into a myriad of regional "races."

Now you're cherry-picking. Why stop at the sons of Noah? You have all sorts of "ites" throughout Scripture -- Canaanites, Amelikites, Israelites, and on. Where do you get the doctrine that a Hamite can't marry a Japhethite?

Making (and keeping) distinction in Caucasian, Asian, and Negroid peoples is a world apart from trying to say French people can't marry Germans or Americans or Canadians or Scots - which is what some were trying to assert here.

When someone quotes a verse that says something about nations and boundaries, they are quoting a verse that is taking about nations and boundaries.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This verse was presented as a proof text for disallowing "race mixing." The verse says nations, and doesn't even include a command preventing migration, let along intermarriage between nations. If you (or someone else) is going to hold up this verse as proof that "race mixing" is not allowed, you're going to have to first explain why it's okay for a German to marry a Frenchman, since they have different "bounds of habitation." Then you're going to have to explain why you don't advocate that we white people all move back to Europe (presumably our original "bounds of habitation") and give the Americas back to the American Indians. Maybe after that is all settled, we can figure out what that verse has to do with marriage of people from different nationalities, but only after you tell all those people, like me, with mixed heritages where they can go to get spouses.

However, I was a little too narrow with the Bible terminology; in Genesis 10, God refers to tongues, nations, countries, families, AND generations...(This relates well to the Acts 17 verse.)

According to Genesis 43:32, it's not true that "only Israel under the Law was ever concerned with such things." The Bible says, "the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians."

I am talking about God's commandments, not cultural taboos. That was an abomination to the Egyptians, not God. And, by the way, who did Joseph marry?

For instance, Acts 17:26 is about the physical bodies of people, which is what gets married...while Galatians 3:28 is completely spiritual (I know this has been said already...bear with me!) My question is - How can you make one part of the list in that verse ("Jew nor Greek") PHYSICAL and leave the other parts of the same list SPIRITUAL? My point is that if we are not supposed to take any note of "race" now that we're in Christ, why are we to notice any PHYSICAL difference in male and female - the verse DOES say "there is neither male nor female!!!" So I just want to know how you reconcile that...

Marriage is always between a man and a woman. There should not need to be any discussion of that fact here. The question is, in Christ, do we need to concern ourselves with segregation? Galations 3:28 and Collosians 3:11 teach clearly that there is no reason to consider it in Christ. Marriage, by definition, from the first occurrance, is between a man and a woman. The definition of Marriage from the Bible never includes "race" as a component. Whom did Moses marry? Whom did Joseph marry? Whom did Boaz marry? They all married women, from different "races." This goes beyond marriage, of course. If you're going to ignore Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 and make an issue out of Blacks "staying in Africa" and Whites "staying in Europe" (who knows where everyone in America is supposed to go) you're also going to end up having to segregate your churches, etc.

If someone is going to "forbid" marriage between two people, they had better come up with a solid Scriptural basis for it. The idea that they have to be from the same "ites" (if such a thing can even be determined now) is nothing you can get from Scripture, unless you are Hebrew under the law considering marriage with a Canaanite!

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Really, the gentile national distinctions aren't very important in the scheme of things, at least not in the context we have been discussing.

This is a great point. In the Bible, it really comes down to these three:

1. Jews
2. Dogs (Gentiles like me)
3. the Church (made up of both)

In all of this discussion, nobody has presented any Scripture supporting the forbidding of Gentiles "mixing" with other Gentiles. It almost (almost) surprises me how strained this doctrine of "race mixing" is, since there is just go clear way to prove it from Scripture.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by custer

taking God's divisions (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and breaking them into a myriad of regional "races." Making (and keeping) distinction in Caucasian, Asian, and Negroid peoples is a world apart from trying to say French people can't marry Germans or Americans or Canadians or Scots

A little more on this:

Genesis 10, the word Nations is used four times:

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 10:20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
Genesis 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Note that the word nations refers to the families of the sons of Noah. Applying the distinction of nations (to hold to "bounds of habitation" via Acts 17:26) to just the three (Ham, Japheth, and Shem) is completely arbitrary and insufficient, if you are serious about the non-intermarriage between nations stuff. The Bible goes a lot further than just the top three in defining the nations, so my objection and question about Germans marrying French is in point of fact quite germane.

[George]

Originally Posted by Diligent

A little more on this:

Genesis 10, the word Nations is used four times:

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 10:20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
Genesis 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Note that the word nations refers to the families of the sons of Noah. Applying the distinction of nations (to hold to "bounds of habitation" via Acts 17:26) to just the three (Ham, Japheth, and Shem) is completely arbitrary and insufficient, if you are serious about the non-intermarriage between nations stuff. The Bible goes a lot further than just the top three in defining the nations, so my objection and question about Germans marrying French is in point of fact quite germane.

Aloha Brandon,

I agree with all that you have said regarding this issue. There is a point in this "discussion" that, as far as I know, has not been brought up, but I think is very appropriate to the issue. And that is the "culture" in which each of us (who have commented on the issue) has been raised (or "trained").

I have said it before, but I will say it again: Generally speaking - "CULTURE" will "TRUMP" religion almost all of the time! That is one of the reason's for God giving us His Holy word so that: . . . "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." [John 8:32] And that includes being "free" from ALL "cultural" BIASES and PREJUDICES!

It would be interesting to know what the "cultural" background is of those people who hold to the belief that "mixed" marriages are not Biblical. I would venture to say that these "personal beliefs" stem from the "culture" that these people were brought up in and not from the Bible.

Several of us have pointed out (from the Scriptures) that there is no Biblical prohibition (for Christians) to marry outside of their "race" or "culture". In those past "Threads" on this issue, we repeatedly asked for Scriptural PROOF of such a "prohibition", for Christians, and were never given any - other than the prohibitions given to the Israelites (which we are NOT).

And now, in dealing with the issue in this Thread (Love & Race) we have again asked for Scripture prohibiting Christians marrying outside of their "race and "culture", and all we have gotten (so far) is someone's "personal opinion" as to WHY they don't believe that "mixed" marriages are "right".

When we Christians place "regional customs" or "cultural traditions" above or before clear Biblical teaching, we are in effect "making the word of God of none effect" (in our lives - Mark 7:13).

If someone on this Forum believes that it is Scripturally "wrong" for a Christian (man or woman) to marry outside of their "race" or "culture", I ask them to "show me" (from the Scriptures) - WHY it is "wrong"? And if they cannot demonstrate (from the Scriptures) WHY it is "wrong", I would ask them to examine their hearts and ask themselves WHY do I believe this, IF I CANNOT "prove" (from Scripture) WHAT I believe?

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

[custer]

I spent my computer time tonight reading the other "race" thread...I'm going camping tomorrow and may not be back (on here) until Monday...didn't want you to think I ran! I still have more info and questions (YES, WITH SCRIPTURE!!!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[biblereader]

Don't you agree that God was filled with wrath, when his people intermarried with non-Hebrews? God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith.
It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith.
Same holds true today.
A Christian has very little in common with a non-Christian.

Originally Posted by Renee

2 Corinthians deals with the ministery.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

I see nothing in Chapter 7 of first Chorinthians (where it deals with men and women) that has any forbiding of someone marrying an unbeliever. There is no mention of nationality, culture, or color of skin. Our problem is we always put words in The Lords mouth. (Like Eve did from the very beginning).

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Do you see any condemnation in the verse above?

When we read the Bible with faith and belief in our heart and pray for understanding, The Word comes alive. Knowledge puffet up, we should leave our brains in the top drawer!

Aloha,
Renee

[Jassy]

Originally Posted by Renee

2 Corinthians deals with the ministery.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

I see nothing in Chapter 7 of first Chorinthians (where it deals with men and women) that has any forbiding of someone marrying an unbeliever. There is no mention of nationality, culture, or color of skin. Our problem is we always put words in The Lords mouth. (Like Eve did from the very beginning).

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Do you see any condemnation in the verse above?

When we read the Bible with faith and belief in our heart and pray for understanding, The Word comes alive. Knowledge puffet up, we should leave our brains in the top drawer!

Aloha,
Renee

Sis Renee,

I always thought that Corinthians 7:14 was dealing with people who were ALREADY married. That if you were already married and didn't know this, you should of course stay married and that the children are holy, due to the believing spouse.

I never thought of it as being that anyone could marry an unbeliever. If that is so, from the Bible, I am sure that it would be a much more difficult marriage!

Jassy

[Jassy]

Originally Posted by biblereader

Don't you agree that God was filled with wrath, when his people intermarried with non-Hebrews? God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith.
It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith.
Same holds true today.
A Christian has very little in common with a non-Christian.

Hi Sis,

I understand what you're saying, yet if we go back and depend on what God said to the Hebrews and we are to follow that, then you would have to say that His Church is very messed up today!!! We have intermingled all kinds of faiths and "races" (oh dear this is becoming a very touchy word to use here!).

How is God going to deal with all this intermingling? As I was saying in a previous post, I'm 3/4th German - if I can't marry outside my nationality, then I'm going to have to pack up and move to Germany to marry a German. The problem with that is that I'm already NOT PURE GERMAN stock! America is a really hodgepodge of peoples!

I believe God's warning for the Hebrews was to keep them from worshipping IDOLS, because they were dispersed into many lands of NON-Hebrews. Many around them were idol-worshippers.

It is my belief that we are now in the dispensational time of Paul's preaching on GRACE. The Church is now under GRACE and no longer under Hebrewic LAW. Do you believe that everything in the Bible applies to everyone? Or how do you pick and choose, and decide which Scriptures apply to YOU? For me, that would be very confusing and I admit that I was, in the past, very confused about this very issue. I feel much more secure, in knowing that Paul has brought a new gospel to the Church. Please note that Paul even called it "my gospel" (See Romans 2:16, 16:25 and 2 Timothy 2:8) and said that God would judge people by Jesus Christ, according to his (Paul's) gospel!

You said that "God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith. It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith. Same holds true today."

Where do you get that from, in the Bible, that the "Same holds true today."?

Jassy